i agree with an unban being more likely to coincide with a reprint. what i dont agree with is framing it in the context of just being for the sake of corporate greed. sure they want to make money, but a reprint has benefits to the players as well.
if you are assuming that stoneforge isnt going to do anything; then an unban is only serving a very niche crowd that just happen to like stoneforge a lot. for everyone else they have some expectation of an impact on the format, or in other words for it to become a feature. if it DOES become a feature as many people hope then that puts a heavy strain on a very small and finite supply.
so the outcomes are:
1)sfm does nothing, wizards makes no money
2)sfm does something, wizards makes no money
3)sfm does nothing, wizards makes money
4)sfm does something, wizards makes money
for 1 and 2, unless you own stoneforges already, nobody gains. with a reprint both the average and best cases are preferable.
as for stoneforge actually breaking something, and seeing so much play that it needs a ban. well i dont even consider that a plausible outcome.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Yeah I don't really have an issue with WOTC linking them they are a business but then again I am fan of more aggressive reprints and cost cutting in general so...
@13055: Fair, though I would argue that it'd be much more productive than throwing conjecture back and forth on a forum. If all the people who contribute to discussions like this were to instead be testing with eachother on Cockatrice and documenting results, we would all be much more productive and closer to knowing was is true rather than believing what we wish to be true.
No, you would not 'know' it to be true. You would simply think you know.
Just like Modern Nexus thought they 'knew' Jace would be too good, and pro's 'knew' Jace was an auto 4 of.
It would take dozens of tournaments, for cash/prizes, with limited number of potential unbans being legal, to even begin to understand if things were 'known' or not. Even NBL Modern events are not good enough, because that meta only exists at that single time and place.
lol no I must have missed it, but thats my issue with all the 'well then go test it' type comments, not specifically from you, but anyone.
We as players simply do not have the resources needed, to 'confirm' if cards are fine or not, outside the most busted of those on the ban list.
Not 1 of us can say SFM is 100% fine. Many of us may say its even more a do nothing than Jace, in the wider scheme of things, but none of us can 'know' that, and it bothers me that we are essentially forced to defend a position that we have no means to defend.
@13055: Fair, though I would argue that it'd be much more productive than throwing conjecture back and forth on a forum. If all the people who contribute to discussions like this were to instead be testing with eachother on Cockatrice and documenting results, we would all be much more productive and closer to knowing was is true rather than believing what we wish to be true.
No, you would not 'know' it to be true. You would simply think you know.
Just like Modern Nexus thought they 'knew' Jace would be too good, and pro's 'knew' Jace was an auto 4 of.
It would take dozens of tournaments, for cash/prizes, with limited number of potential unbans being legal, to even begin to understand if things were 'known' or not. Even NBL Modern events are not good enough, because that meta only exists at that single time and place.
This is the truth right here.
Even if somebody had the resources and time to do all this "testing," it wouldn't make everything known. Wizards doesn't have time to do it. Most players don't have time to do it. Who would do it? And then the problem becomes somebody actually trusting your testing. I know that most people here don't trust my testing when I say that Twin had a bad matchup vs. BGx. They like to believe that it was close to 50/50 and that's fine. It's another example of someone trusting their own testing (me trusting mine) than believing 5-15 people here. The bottom line: nobody's going to believe you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Testing is irrelevant to any ban or unban. WOTC does not test for bans or unbans. They have told us this for years.
That's a good point too. It is kind of sad that this is the case though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
@idSurge, I disagree that we don't have the resources needed to test. We just don't have the collective coordination and motivation to test. Our ability to communicate with ease, have free resources to collectively track data, time to test (rather than argue semantics and conjectured opinions on forums), and a free program to test on provides us all the resources we need.
@FoodChainGoblins, That's the purpose of peer review, to verify eachothers' data, so we can find it trustworthy. I understand that even then there will be some naysayers, but the plain alternative is to just keep posting our opinions here and trust those who share similar assumptions and opinions and disagree with those who have different assumptions and opinions.
@cfusionpm, We don't know those things for sure. We do know that WOTC tracks data, which is useful for bans, and they have even shared this data to explain bans and unbans. MTGO players are doing the testing for them, and they're just tracking the data. Now, if we tracked additional data points that maybe they are not or can not, then that actually gives players a rational leg to stand on when making claims about what should or should not be banned.
@cfusionpm, We don't know those things for sure. We do know that WOTC tracks data, which is useful for bans, and they have even shared this data to explain bans and unbans. MTGO players are doing the testing for them, and they're just tracking the data. Now, if we tracked additional data points that maybe they are not or can not, then that actually gives players a rational leg to stand on when making claims about what should or should not be banned.
Kind of hard to pull data from MTGO about unbans when those cards are... banned... from anyone playing them in those formats... Meaning there is zero data that can help facilitate unbans. They make decisions like this on the backs of gut feelings, internal discussions, and pro opinions (among other financial reasons/reprints/hype/etc).
We do know that WOTC tracks data, which is useful for bans...
Misread. But it also doesn't happen through actual internal testing. It comes from analyzing aggregate data and then drawing conclusions through gut feelings, internal discussions, and pro opinions. WOTC staff are historically terrible at evaluating formats.
We can assume that it's through gut feelings and pro opinions (though that's still just us using conjecture to support an opinion motivated by the hubris of thinking we know what is true without really trying to find out). I would be disappointed if there wasn't internal discussion about the aggregate data. I would also disagree that we can honestly presume to say that they are historically terrible at evaluating formats. They may have made serious mistakes in design and development, but when it comes to formats, it appears that they've got a decent handle on how to gather and analyze data.
I would be disappointed if there wasn't internal discussion about the aggregate data.
I use that term with a negative connotation because these discussions HAVE to happen internally for secrecy reasons. And most internal discussions create an echo chamber which may or may not reflect the views, opinions, or ideas of actual players of the format. They can analyze data for days, but seem totally inept or incapable of predicting and understanding the impact many of these decisions will have on the format. And figuring out those ramifications is much harder when you don't have the collective knowledge of thousands of players to pull from, and instead need to make those calls with a dozen people in a single room, many of which don't even play the format. If the format smooths out, it seems to be luck more than anything else. Because it was hot garbage for quite a while; requiring multiple successive bans as a result of their own B&R choices and design teams.
They clearly use data to justify both bans and unbans. They’ve said as much over and over again. But we also know that they don’t test them, because they told us that also. But they still have an ever changing goal post as how to apply that data.
I just want SFM. It is embarrassing for it to still be banned, but I actually think the most glaring “problem” right now is the inconsistency between stirrings and preordain. With the recent successes of UW though I highly doubt we get preordain back. Or SFM for that matter.
That may be true, but again that requires us to assume that WOTC is content with their own assumptions about the data, rather than being willing to question their bias' against eachother.
I suppose, in the long run, it doesn't matter if I keep suggesting that we actually do something, collectively, rather than talk past eachother, if I don't actually work to get us all to coordinate. How would everyone feel if we collectively tracked data on a Google Sheets spreadsheet? We all seem to presume that we are competent players. It took me years to track thousands of games of data, but with each of us tracking data together, we might actually be able to start making statements based off of discussion with actual evidence. We could even post screenshots for evidence, if need be. We could talk about possible misplays, and compare matchup analysis'.
We could keep the spreadsheet locked to only select members on here and track all sorts of statistics (play/draw, win/lose, matchups, mulligans, etc.). How would everyone feel about that? Working together and peer-reviewing eachothers' data? I feel that would give us much more to really discuss, rather than just reiterate our assumptions that have already been posted ad nauseum in previous threads like this and on sites like reddit. We could also suggest possible ways to account for sample sizes and skewed data.
@idSurge, I disagree that we don't have the resources needed to test. We just don't have the collective coordination and motivation to test. Our ability to communicate with ease, have free resources to collectively track data, time to test (rather than argue semantics and conjectured opinions on forums), and a free program to test on provides us all the resources we need.
@FoodChainGoblins, That's the purpose of peer review, to verify eachothers' data, so we can find it trustworthy. I understand that even then there will be some naysayers, but the plain alternative is to just keep posting our opinions here and trust those who share similar assumptions and opinions and disagree with those who have different assumptions and opinions.
@cfusionpm, We don't know those things for sure. We do know that WOTC tracks data, which is useful for bans, and they have even shared this data to explain bans and unbans. MTGO players are doing the testing for them, and they're just tracking the data. Now, if we tracked additional data points that maybe they are not or can not, then that actually gives players a rational leg to stand on when making claims about what should or should not be banned.
There was, as of yesterday, people talking about Snap's needing a ban.
When you say 'we have the resources' its this pie in the sky kind of 'we'. The community doesnt have the resources. You would need, quite seriously, a series of events worth money, to entice the grinders to play and do testing, which would all be gathered automatically, to prove anything. We do not have the resources.
@idSurge, You mean you would not be interested in testing, given the resources you have? Do you not test at all before big events, only "testing" at the event?
I would be interested in testing, I test on MTGO all the time, but thats not the same as testing to 'prove an unban is fine'. It doesnt work that way.
Modern Nexus folks were interested in testing, and said Jace was too much.
I, Nexus, you, we are not sufficient, is what I am saying. The community that you could reach across this site, twitter, and reddit for example, would not be sufficient. Who's going to trust that data? Even if 'we' as a community trusted that data, who's to say Wizards would even care?
The only testing that is going to pass (and even then its going to have detractors) would be some kind of Trial Tournament, held by Wizards, over a number of weekends (increased sample, ability to counter the evolution/meta) on MTGO.
I've had discussions, and people SWORE that Eye of Ugin was fine in Modern, and it was Temple that was the offender.
We saw just yesterday, someone saying SNAPS needs a ban.
You cannot trust this community, its opinions, its testing, its bias (Tron sucks!) and so on.
Then why even participate in the discussion if we aren't going to 1) Trust data, let alone an opinion we may not agree with, or 2) Put in any actual work?
To see what the general 'feel' or community majority consensus is. You can make reasonable predictions this way, get an idea (since wizards hides the data) of the evolution of the meta, and come to a general understanding of if your position is lining up with the majority.
Putting in work, is what we do on our own, in our own testing for our pet decks.
Trusting data? Thats a lot harder for me to get on board with. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Heck, people downplayed the data I provided over the verifiable history of Modern GP Top 8's.
Feel free to provide your own data though, just dont expect many around here to accept it.
The short version is that any of the data or "testing" that WOTC actually cares about, we have zero access to. And any data or testing that we do is wholly irrelevant to their actions. We can feel better about doing it, feel like we know what we're doing, but ultimately it changes nothing.
Mostly, I suppose that is correct. When you ask around, and (weeks ago at this point) it looked like events were starting to form around Human's as the primary deck, that was a meaningful data point. I took that, and my own MTGO experiences, and what I saw coming out of the grinder MTGO Modern events, and I then tuned my deck to fit that.
We do not have a 'data model' that we can leverage. Our data sets are incomplete at best, and so yes. You get an opinion, and start bouncing that off the community. Based on the feedback, you act on it, or disregard.
We do not have the data, so all we really, truly, have are opinion's on the general shape of the meta, and its direction.
I have not been too far wrong, though I felt that the UW spike we saw in last weekends GP, would have taken place at Vegas instead.
im all for testing since its the most surefire way to observe a likely outcome; however that doesnt mean that a rational evaluation of cards isnt useful or meaningful to these discussions.
for instance we can look at things like a cards cost, type, and effect. then consider what it could provide to currently existing strategies. look at what cards or strategies exist, including their properties, that could counter it. then look at similar cards or effects, and how much they see play within the format. you could even use historical data of when that card saw play previously.
it may end up being conjecture, because we cant account for everything, however not all conjecture is equal. based on this we can can make assumptions that are more likely than another, or at least convince someone of such. just because we lack information doesnt mean we dont have any at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
if you are assuming that stoneforge isnt going to do anything; then an unban is only serving a very niche crowd that just happen to like stoneforge a lot. for everyone else they have some expectation of an impact on the format, or in other words for it to become a feature. if it DOES become a feature as many people hope then that puts a heavy strain on a very small and finite supply.
so the outcomes are:
1)sfm does nothing, wizards makes no money
2)sfm does something, wizards makes no money
3)sfm does nothing, wizards makes money
4)sfm does something, wizards makes money
for 1 and 2, unless you own stoneforges already, nobody gains. with a reprint both the average and best cases are preferable.
as for stoneforge actually breaking something, and seeing so much play that it needs a ban. well i dont even consider that a plausible outcome.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)No, you would not 'know' it to be true. You would simply think you know.
Just like Modern Nexus thought they 'knew' Jace would be too good, and pro's 'knew' Jace was an auto 4 of.
It would take dozens of tournaments, for cash/prizes, with limited number of potential unbans being legal, to even begin to understand if things were 'known' or not. Even NBL Modern events are not good enough, because that meta only exists at that single time and place.
Spirits
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
We as players simply do not have the resources needed, to 'confirm' if cards are fine or not, outside the most busted of those on the ban list.
Not 1 of us can say SFM is 100% fine. Many of us may say its even more a do nothing than Jace, in the wider scheme of things, but none of us can 'know' that, and it bothers me that we are essentially forced to defend a position that we have no means to defend.
Spirits
This is the truth right here.
Even if somebody had the resources and time to do all this "testing," it wouldn't make everything known. Wizards doesn't have time to do it. Most players don't have time to do it. Who would do it? And then the problem becomes somebody actually trusting your testing. I know that most people here don't trust my testing when I say that Twin had a bad matchup vs. BGx. They like to believe that it was close to 50/50 and that's fine. It's another example of someone trusting their own testing (me trusting mine) than believing 5-15 people here. The bottom line: nobody's going to believe you.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
That's a good point too. It is kind of sad that this is the case though.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)@FoodChainGoblins, That's the purpose of peer review, to verify eachothers' data, so we can find it trustworthy. I understand that even then there will be some naysayers, but the plain alternative is to just keep posting our opinions here and trust those who share similar assumptions and opinions and disagree with those who have different assumptions and opinions.
@cfusionpm, We don't know those things for sure. We do know that WOTC tracks data, which is useful for bans, and they have even shared this data to explain bans and unbans. MTGO players are doing the testing for them, and they're just tracking the data. Now, if we tracked additional data points that maybe they are not or can not, then that actually gives players a rational leg to stand on when making claims about what should or should not be banned.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Kind of hard to pull data from MTGO about unbans when those cards are... banned... from anyone playing them in those formats... Meaning there is zero data that can help facilitate unbans. They make decisions like this on the backs of gut feelings, internal discussions, and pro opinions (among other financial reasons/reprints/hype/etc).
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Misread. But it also doesn't happen through actual internal testing. It comes from analyzing aggregate data and then drawing conclusions through gut feelings, internal discussions, and pro opinions. WOTC staff are historically terrible at evaluating formats.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
I use that term with a negative connotation because these discussions HAVE to happen internally for secrecy reasons. And most internal discussions create an echo chamber which may or may not reflect the views, opinions, or ideas of actual players of the format. They can analyze data for days, but seem totally inept or incapable of predicting and understanding the impact many of these decisions will have on the format. And figuring out those ramifications is much harder when you don't have the collective knowledge of thousands of players to pull from, and instead need to make those calls with a dozen people in a single room, many of which don't even play the format. If the format smooths out, it seems to be luck more than anything else. Because it was hot garbage for quite a while; requiring multiple successive bans as a result of their own B&R choices and design teams.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I just want SFM. It is embarrassing for it to still be banned, but I actually think the most glaring “problem” right now is the inconsistency between stirrings and preordain. With the recent successes of UW though I highly doubt we get preordain back. Or SFM for that matter.
I suppose, in the long run, it doesn't matter if I keep suggesting that we actually do something, collectively, rather than talk past eachother, if I don't actually work to get us all to coordinate. How would everyone feel if we collectively tracked data on a Google Sheets spreadsheet? We all seem to presume that we are competent players. It took me years to track thousands of games of data, but with each of us tracking data together, we might actually be able to start making statements based off of discussion with actual evidence. We could even post screenshots for evidence, if need be. We could talk about possible misplays, and compare matchup analysis'.
We could keep the spreadsheet locked to only select members on here and track all sorts of statistics (play/draw, win/lose, matchups, mulligans, etc.). How would everyone feel about that? Working together and peer-reviewing eachothers' data? I feel that would give us much more to really discuss, rather than just reiterate our assumptions that have already been posted ad nauseum in previous threads like this and on sites like reddit. We could also suggest possible ways to account for sample sizes and skewed data.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
There was, as of yesterday, people talking about Snap's needing a ban.
When you say 'we have the resources' its this pie in the sky kind of 'we'. The community doesnt have the resources. You would need, quite seriously, a series of events worth money, to entice the grinders to play and do testing, which would all be gathered automatically, to prove anything. We do not have the resources.
Wizards does, and its MTGO.
Spirits
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Modern Nexus folks were interested in testing, and said Jace was too much.
I, Nexus, you, we are not sufficient, is what I am saying. The community that you could reach across this site, twitter, and reddit for example, would not be sufficient. Who's going to trust that data? Even if 'we' as a community trusted that data, who's to say Wizards would even care?
The only testing that is going to pass (and even then its going to have detractors) would be some kind of Trial Tournament, held by Wizards, over a number of weekends (increased sample, ability to counter the evolution/meta) on MTGO.
I've had discussions, and people SWORE that Eye of Ugin was fine in Modern, and it was Temple that was the offender.
We saw just yesterday, someone saying SNAPS needs a ban.
You cannot trust this community, its opinions, its testing, its bias (Tron sucks!) and so on.
Spirits
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
Putting in work, is what we do on our own, in our own testing for our pet decks.
Trusting data? Thats a lot harder for me to get on board with. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Heck, people downplayed the data I provided over the verifiable history of Modern GP Top 8's.
Feel free to provide your own data though, just dont expect many around here to accept it.
Spirits
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
We do not have a 'data model' that we can leverage. Our data sets are incomplete at best, and so yes. You get an opinion, and start bouncing that off the community. Based on the feedback, you act on it, or disregard.
We do not have the data, so all we really, truly, have are opinion's on the general shape of the meta, and its direction.
I have not been too far wrong, though I felt that the UW spike we saw in last weekends GP, would have taken place at Vegas instead.
Spirits
for instance we can look at things like a cards cost, type, and effect. then consider what it could provide to currently existing strategies. look at what cards or strategies exist, including their properties, that could counter it. then look at similar cards or effects, and how much they see play within the format. you could even use historical data of when that card saw play previously.
it may end up being conjecture, because we cant account for everything, however not all conjecture is equal. based on this we can can make assumptions that are more likely than another, or at least convince someone of such. just because we lack information doesnt mean we dont have any at all.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)