excellent write-up, presents the ideas in it in a effective way.

but as an analysis, I think it has some major flaws :

• It ignores (roughly) 98% of all creative work that's been done in ccg design for the last 20 years. Uses Garfield as a reference regarding MTG with (seemingly) no knowledge of what he's done *since* MTG.
• it confuses mana as a free commodity with automatic mana curve starting at 1
• that is the biggest flaw : it ignores the relationship between this former mana curve and the initiative/tempo given to the active player as in Hearthstone. the 'inevitable doom necessary bundled with every large drop' effect is clearly related to that part.
• The face value of creature, and availability of removal is also relevant there.

Limiting to the games I know of, I strongly suggest considering Faeria for a twist at mana management (separating curve building with a mana with almost fixed income and no maximum, similar tempo problem) without solving the problem by the least bit, L5R CCG and LCG which highlight how the tempo aspect is huge (between both games it changes completely, because tempo isn't managed the same). But with very different attacking rules and completely alien ressource management, compared to TESL/HS, the question is asked differently.

Game of Thrones (CCG, LCG, LCG v2 ... doesn't matter) is also amazing, here, showing how initiative/tempo can be put front and center in the struggle between both players.

But the obvious thing is Artifact : mana curve is completely the same, initiative/tempo is completely different, and the point you make is absolutely moot.

Old Duelyst was also interesting, to see how bad that can get (the ability to draw/mulligan > 1 card/turn with very, very strong synergistic cards, made this looming threat into at best "i defuse your lethal and set-up a lethal" every turn until one player can't follow, or simply draw the otk)

But all these are much much, much more complicated games, I am afraid none are casual enough to reach the critical mass allowing them to be economically viable.

to sum-up my point : this isn't as much related to the mana curve (even though I think this 'linear starting at 1' is crude and pretty flawed) as to that + the tempo/initiative given to the active player. This cannot be a mistake made by accident, it's a voluntary choice, to favor simplicity over strategic possibilities and game (design) space. I don't think it kills the game, but it is inherent, and cannot be mitigated : you have to roll with it, and it's best managed by focussing on midgame military match-up with very strong focus given to turn 3 to 6.

I would love to try other game possibilities over initiative management, but I think the complexity cost cannot be underestimated