If said player wants to improve then more power to him or her. However that doesn't give them license to impose their will on the playgroup: if they feel the group is holding them back they are free to leave and find a group focused on competitive play
Pretty basic stuff and these threads are a great reminder of how many a Magic player does not understand the most basic kind of social interaction.
I'm not trying to argue, but I again don't follow this logic. So if a player realizes a good card interaction and they put it in their deck, you feel that is fine, but they are then not allowed to impose this deck on their playgroup? Do you honestly feel that contamination equals competitive play? While you say this seems basic, I find your comments confusing for the OP's scenario.
This person's table is having an issue with a single enchantment. Mono-black does not have easy recursion for this once it is destroyed (yawgmoth's will comes to mind, but I doubt this card is seeing play at this table when the OP's last comment stated that Alesha + target LD or master of cruelties as considered mean).
I'm not wanting to sound rude with the following, but it is my opinion. The table may be unhappy with this one player, but this player did NOT do anything wrong. This is a very rudimentary interaction that has many, many ways to be defeated, or completely ignored while in play. The table should be (hopefully) willing to learn from this and figure out what they themselves can do that doesn't involve telling someone not to play a card that they themselves can easily answer with very generic answers (answers that can be used against much worse threats). Expecting this one player to change their design, (most likely weaken their deck), is IMO more unfair that running contamination.
If the table is unwilling to change, then games will continue till people stop playing with him, and the players at this table will be choosing to not become better players by neglecting to learn about this type of threat assessment and running generic removal.
If that is what they want to do, that is fine, but again their choice is not the contamination players fault.
As far as we know the contamination player isn't even aware that running this card is an issue with his table. Why would we tell this OP to have the contamination player leave their table? Does this really help the rest of the table in the long run? Will they never run into another player that runs a card like this?
If the group isn't interested in shelling out rather important sums of money of Commander (I just spent $250 finishing up my Meren deck) then it is ridiculous to claim that the problem is the group dragging down the player who has improved.
I didn't mention finances. This comment doesn't make much sense. The average price of a Contamination is currently $7, which is not what I would consider an "investment" in terms shelling out money.
The most expensive enabler is Bitterblossom, which is down to $25ish thanks to another printing. The original poster didn't specifically say his friend ran Bitterblossom, but said he ran effects like it. Being that there are multiple enablers to work with contamination then financial strain should not be an issue at all for this topic.
If his friend did purchase a bitterblossom then it is a good investment anyways - the card will always be good for other formats and I doubt it will be reprinted again.
Now if you want to dispute this then please check out the price of blood moon or the abyss in terms of "mean cards" vs prices.
If the player who has improved does not fit in with his current meta then he or she has two choices: adapt to the meta or find a new one.
You all do realize that if his friend was the one posting here saying that his meta is giving him grief for running a strong interaction, there would most likely be many comments telling him to find a more appropriate meta that matches their power level? The alternative would be to tell him to dumb down their deck or hold back in games. Who gets better at a game by doing that? It would be easier just to run multiple decks of different powerlevel.
There is a difference from your friend playing a mean deck that your table doesn't like, and your friend evolving into a player that builds stronger decks. It is best for everyone to become better players instead of rejecting a friends strong deck because of a few card interactions.
To be honest contamination isn't all that bad in a multi-player format. Once everyone is aware that an opponent runs that sort of thing, most typically include answers to the threat, and it becomes very easy to politic the game into the contamination player being the ArchEnemy.
Perhaps it is time for your table to also build a few "mean" decks to compete with his mono-black thing. Keep what decks you all have, and build yourself a mean one to play with on occasions. Explain that to your friend so he can also build a deck that is comparable to everyones current decks, so he doesnt always play the mono-black one.
Hello again. I just wanted to poke back in here and shout out an idea that I was considering while brewing up another Akroma devotion / artifactless variant.
Thinking more on your current list, all she really needs to secure a win seems to typically be just her surviving for a turn.
Have you ever considered Final Fortune? There are other variants too (Last Chance/Warrior's Oath). I don't think sundial combo's are worth running here, and I wouldn't run more than 2 of these effects max, but final fortune could be such a blow-out (for either you or the opponent).
This may be a suicide mission, but I suppose that depends on your opponents ability to answer Akroma (if they even can on the turn you cast her + this). If they can't, or were hoping to untap and use sorcery speed wipes, then this may be another window for 1-shot. If they are in the colors or known to have instant speed answers, then this could just be a dead card in hand.
I'm going to stick a single Final Fortune in the brew I'm tinkering with and see how it plays out. The issue for me although is that I still play mutiplayer and my decks are all tuned for such
I finally got around to physically constructing this thematic idea after obtaining the family's hard-to-find celebrity. While the creature package is complete, I'm now trying to help make the deck function better.
Below is the original decklist I started with when collecting cards, although I found after sleeving that I didn't have a patriarch's biddings to add. I have an outdated video of the original list here (apologies in advance for my horrendous Appalachian accent, I'm currently sick and couldn't mask it very well).
The deck has been in storage for some time since I had pillaged the original "good" grixis lands out of it to rebuild sedris, the traitor king again. I've assembled a highly budget manabase to keep the deck playable.
Since the original decklist the following cards have also been removed, replaced, or relocated to other decks;
The deck is abysmally slow. As a thematic deck I don't really have any goal to race towards. Most of the draw effects here are designed to help dump excess into the graveyard for a possible patriarch's bidding/rise of the dark realms push. This deck plays out like a bad midrange aggro design, tossing out the Djinn to the red zone as fast as possible.
Functionality vs theme is the hardship this deck faces. I had originally considered adaptive automaton/brass herald/mutavault/mistform ultimus/changlings, but in the end these inclusions felt like breaking theme. I was about to put in a eldrazi monument, since I don't mind sac'ing some of my Djinn, but the creature production is too limited to rely on it. Coat of Arms is another idea, but I have yet to get more than 8 Djinn out, and in those games the board is usually equally flooded with the opponents creatures.
I know that this deck really needs some acceleration. I've been thinking about the diamond cycle (sky diamond/charcoal diamond/fire diamond), as a good flavor fit as these are average acceleration and the "gem/treasure" aspect of them might be thematic enough for a Djinn/genie to give.
Your post is just as unhelpful. Carthage was just pointing out the ridiculousness of the statement that if a player plays with banned cards, they might start putting multiples in their decks as well. Would they also play with more or less than 100 cards? Maybe more than one Commander? This, of course, all hinges on their inability to build a strong deck. All of this is, of course, ridiculous, especially given that this a casual format whose ban list is NOT set in stone.
ON TOPIC:
Like many others have said, talk to all involved and try and find a middle ground. If neither side wants to compromise then some things might have to change for your group.
My initial post injected an opinion and worry based off the OP's issue, and then asked a theoretical question (which you are partially answering) that continues the discussion for the OP. Somehow Carthage interpenetrated my theoretical question as a "statement" and my opinion based off of the OP's comments as a "conclusion," and then decided that I was somehow arguing.
I don't understand how you are interpreting anything that I said as a claim for his friends inability to build strong decks.
Let's stay on topic. If you have an issue or question about interpreting anything just PM me instead of spamming.
My very first comment is a worry of reliance on bending rules, and using that as a crutch to compete within their meta. This is a legitimate issue that I've seen before, and if the players are not stopped then this is typically used as a base excuse to bend more rules. This can warp his entire meta.
Even the OP said that they are building strong decks and the inclusion of the banned cards isn't necessary. It is good that strong decks warrant stronger deck creation, but if some of his players feel that relying on banned cards to compete is their only out, then it has clearly gone far enough for the poster to go online and ask for help and opinions.
Reiterating what many have said before, talking with the players is the answer. The best recommendation here is to talk to the group all at once so no one feels singled out.
In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion.
Statements: If they don't care about the rules of the format in relation to the banlist, do they care about the rest of the restrictions this format has? Will they sleeve up a second or third sol ring in their deck, just because the other players at the table play "stronger" decks than they are capable of designing themselves?
Conclusion: They will use this action as a crutch and if they can not improve their own decks to function without the banned cards, then they will continue to push the boundary.
I think it is ridiculous, especially given the overall tone of "they are bad deckbuilders so they will include banned cards to compete with good deckbuilders", when going online will give you a better decklist than any individual will come up with.
So you completely invert my path of logic and twist it to sound like I'm insulting his friends?
Nice effort, especially with the dictionary spam, but your words and statements are very wrong. Your post does nothing to help the OP's issue.
I would recommend actually reading this entire thread first. Specifically post #5 where the OP mentioned his friends struggles to make compatible decks for his meta. Perhaps if you had seen this then you might understand where my opinion was coming from.
You might need to elaborate exactly what you are seeing as an "argument" in my above opinion, otherwise your post doesn't make much sense.
As mentioned in this thread - it is not the OP's entire playgroup, but just a select few players out of the group that are bending rules. The point of his/her thread is regarding this issue.
My worry of seeing casual players manipulate the format rules for their playgroup is not what they are currently doing, but the potential outcome if they are not stopped. They will use this action as a crutch and if they can not improve their own decks to function without the banned cards, then they will continue to push the boundary.
If they don't care about the rules of the format in relation to the banlist, do they care about the rest of the restrictions this format has? Will they sleeve up a second or third sol ring in their deck, just because the other players at the table play "stronger" decks than they are capable of designing themselves?
Edit: Nevermind, I figured it out. You played the untap part before tapping them in the first place. I was confused but now I got it.
Yep you got it. Typically when out at my lgs or in a few more casual tables all I would normally have to do is reveal the card and ask if anyone can stop me, but at my primary table doing this will imply that I'm casting it, and doing this before tapping my attackers isn't forgivable. They all want to win just as much as I do
Most of my terrible plays are associated with being half awake or sober while playing.
I have a history of incidents of attacking all out but leaving that one faithful chump-blocker back that would have actually been lethal damage (this happened less than 14 hours ago actually), because I was too lazy count potential combat damage & keep up with life totals in multiplayer vs on-board power.
Many of my terrible plays are something that I see most tables state being "forgivable" but due to the strictness of my meta they are not. Like stating that I'm entering the combat step and entwining savage beating before declaring my creatures as attackers. Granted I was pretty much wasted that night, but the misplay did cost me the game and the people I play with don't allow for a mistake like this to be undone.
In the long run that strictness does make us better players, but it also makes it hard for newer players to join our tables and consistently have fun.
Per my opponents' misplays, i don't really remember too many exact ones. Most that spring to mind are related to some salty retaliation or poor threat assessment, where they decide who will win the game. Not quite "king maker" since they themselves could potentially still win, but instances of someone wasting important cards that could have answered the obvious threat. Like wasting removal on someone who is already dead-on-board because they did something clever in a previous turn, instead of the guy who's army is slowly growing and is clearly about to take over the game.
I uploaded a new bladewing video. Not too many new cards other than adjusting the lands. I had earlier purged a few excess decks to pay off some bills and saved half of the currency to pour into this deck. The lands were traded/purchased with the intention of a different deck and are heavily swamp>mountain, which needs to change.
The badlands is sort of embarrassing. I hate whiteboarder with a passion, but can't afford a blackboarder beta badland.
When I borrow a card from one deck to another I use a placeholder of a backwards magic card in the original deck to maintain the correct # of cards.
Since I do this so rarely, usually with the intention of replacing the temp-card with a soon-to-purchase or after testing, I typically don't bother writing anything on the back of the card to remind me what it is.
Then I'll forget about it completely, set the original deck aside, come back and have absolutely no clue what said blank card represented.
To be honest after going over this thread so far, there isn't really any strong synergy between what Zada is offering and what he is capable of providing as a commander.
I see the potential to draw lots of cards with the cantrip spells, but you are now mixing token creation or mass creatures with cantrip spells. What is the end-game goal for all of this?
I think it would be a nice inclusion in the 99 of another deck that deploys combat trick spells. As a commander he seems to only represent any sort of impact by making seize the day/fatal frenzy/rush of blood and other combat boosting spells useful for an entire army. This seems to be possible around turn--4 to turn-6(ish) for any meaningful offense to take place.
Since he is coming out at 4cmc he is too slow for most aggressive strategies. An average Krenko design would be able to consistently create a more meaningful board presence with little build-around-me cards filling out the deck. So that makes Zada as a commander what, mid-range agro with combat tricks? This is where I would prefer to see Urabrask as a commander.
Too underwhelming. Not worth the effort to brew, unless there is some unrealized combo potential that is reliable for mono-red that I'm missing.
I'm not trying to argue, but I again don't follow this logic. So if a player realizes a good card interaction and they put it in their deck, you feel that is fine, but they are then not allowed to impose this deck on their playgroup? Do you honestly feel that contamination equals competitive play? While you say this seems basic, I find your comments confusing for the OP's scenario.
This person's table is having an issue with a single enchantment. Mono-black does not have easy recursion for this once it is destroyed (yawgmoth's will comes to mind, but I doubt this card is seeing play at this table when the OP's last comment stated that Alesha + target LD or master of cruelties as considered mean).
I'm not wanting to sound rude with the following, but it is my opinion. The table may be unhappy with this one player, but this player did NOT do anything wrong. This is a very rudimentary interaction that has many, many ways to be defeated, or completely ignored while in play. The table should be (hopefully) willing to learn from this and figure out what they themselves can do that doesn't involve telling someone not to play a card that they themselves can easily answer with very generic answers (answers that can be used against much worse threats). Expecting this one player to change their design, (most likely weaken their deck), is IMO more unfair that running contamination.
If the table is unwilling to change, then games will continue till people stop playing with him, and the players at this table will be choosing to not become better players by neglecting to learn about this type of threat assessment and running generic removal.
If that is what they want to do, that is fine, but again their choice is not the contamination players fault.
As far as we know the contamination player isn't even aware that running this card is an issue with his table. Why would we tell this OP to have the contamination player leave their table? Does this really help the rest of the table in the long run? Will they never run into another player that runs a card like this?
I didn't mention finances. This comment doesn't make much sense. The average price of a Contamination is currently $7, which is not what I would consider an "investment" in terms shelling out money.
The most expensive enabler is Bitterblossom, which is down to $25ish thanks to another printing. The original poster didn't specifically say his friend ran Bitterblossom, but said he ran effects like it. Being that there are multiple enablers to work with contamination then financial strain should not be an issue at all for this topic.
If his friend did purchase a bitterblossom then it is a good investment anyways - the card will always be good for other formats and I doubt it will be reprinted again.
Now if you want to dispute this then please check out the price of blood moon or the abyss in terms of "mean cards" vs prices.
You all do realize that if his friend was the one posting here saying that his meta is giving him grief for running a strong interaction, there would most likely be many comments telling him to find a more appropriate meta that matches their power level? The alternative would be to tell him to dumb down their deck or hold back in games. Who gets better at a game by doing that? It would be easier just to run multiple decks of different powerlevel.
To be honest contamination isn't all that bad in a multi-player format. Once everyone is aware that an opponent runs that sort of thing, most typically include answers to the threat, and it becomes very easy to politic the game into the contamination player being the ArchEnemy.
Perhaps it is time for your table to also build a few "mean" decks to compete with his mono-black thing. Keep what decks you all have, and build yourself a mean one to play with on occasions. Explain that to your friend so he can also build a deck that is comparable to everyones current decks, so he doesnt always play the mono-black one.
Thinking more on your current list, all she really needs to secure a win seems to typically be just her surviving for a turn.
Have you ever considered Final Fortune? There are other variants too (Last Chance/Warrior's Oath). I don't think sundial combo's are worth running here, and I wouldn't run more than 2 of these effects max, but final fortune could be such a blow-out (for either you or the opponent).
This may be a suicide mission, but I suppose that depends on your opponents ability to answer Akroma (if they even can on the turn you cast her + this). If they can't, or were hoping to untap and use sorcery speed wipes, then this may be another window for 1-shot. If they are in the colors or known to have instant speed answers, then this could just be a dead card in hand.
I'm going to stick a single Final Fortune in the brew I'm tinkering with and see how it plays out. The issue for me although is that I still play mutiplayer and my decks are all tuned for such
Below is the original decklist I started with when collecting cards, although I found after sleeving that I didn't have a patriarch's biddings to add. I have an outdated video of the original list here (apologies in advance for my horrendous Appalachian accent, I'm currently sick and couldn't mask it very well).
1x Gwendlyn Di Corci
Creature (36)
1x Aku Djinn
1x Benthic Djinn
1x Breezekeeper
1x Cloud Djinn
1x Djinn Illuminatus
1x Djinn of Infinite Deceits
1x Djinn of the Lamp
1x Djinn of Wishes
1x Drifting Djinn
1x Emberwilde Caliph
1x Emberwilde Djinn
1x Fledgling Djinn
1x Goham Djinn
1x Halam Djinn
1x Indentured Djinn
1x Juzám Djinn
1x Kookus
1x Lotus Path Djinn
1x Maelstrom Djinn
1x Mahamoti Djinn
1x Mijae Djinn
1x Mistfire Weaver
1x Monastery Loremaster
1x Old Man of the Sea
1x Riverwheel Aerialists
1x Sage-Eye Avengers
1x Serendib Djinn
1x Silumgar Butcher
1x Soulblade Djinn
1x Stormcloud Djinn
1x Stratus Dancer
1x Tidespout Tyrant
1x Vaporous Djinn
1x Waterspout Djinn
1x Whirlwind Adept
1x Zanam Djinn
1x Cunning Wish
1x Cyclonic Rift
1x Epiphany at the Drownyard
1x Fact or Fiction
1x Forbidden Alchemy
1x Fortune's Favor
1x Frantic Search
1x Steam Augury
1x Three Wishes
Sorcery (8)
1x Bribery
1x Burning Wish
1x Death Wish
1x Decree of Pain
1x Patriarch's Bidding
1x Recurring Insight
1x Rise of the Dark Realms
1x Rite of Replication
Artifact (8)
1x Akroma's Memorial
1x Bottle of Suleiman
1x Door of Destinies
1x Obelisk of Urd
1x Ring of Three Wishes
1x Sol Ring
1x Wayfarer's Bauble
1x Whip of Erebos
Land (38)
1x Bad River
1x City of Brass
1x Command Tower
1x Crosis's Catacombs
1x Crumbling Necropolis
1x Evolving Wilds
1x Grand Coliseum
1x Grixis Panorama
10x Island
1x Mana Confluence
1x Miren, the Moaning Well
4x Mountain
1x Myriad Landscape
1x Reflecting Pool
1x Rocky Tar Pit
1x Rupture Spire
6x Swamp
1x Tarnished Citadel
1x Temple of the False God
1x Terramorphic Expanse
1x Transguild Promenade
Per the 3x wish cards, the meta that I play this at allows me to use them as in-deck tutors. For example death wish is just a grim tutor that takes half of my life, while burning wish and cunning wish act as a variant merchant scroll.
The deck has been in storage for some time since I had pillaged the original "good" grixis lands out of it to rebuild sedris, the traitor king again. I've assembled a highly budget manabase to keep the deck playable.
Since the original decklist the following cards have also been removed, replaced, or relocated to other decks;
1x Evacuation
1x Grixis Charm
1x Ancestral Vision
1x Ojutai's Summons
1x Toxic Deluge
1x Phyrexian Arena
1x Skywise Teachings
1x Elixir of Immortality
1x Spectral Searchlight
And replaced with;
1x Forbidden Alchemy
1x Fortune's Favor
1x Frantic Search
1x Decree of Pain
1x Burning Wish
1x Cunning Wish
1x Death Wish
1x Ring of Three Wishes
1x Door of Destinies
The deck is abysmally slow. As a thematic deck I don't really have any goal to race towards. Most of the draw effects here are designed to help dump excess into the graveyard for a possible patriarch's bidding/rise of the dark realms push. This deck plays out like a bad midrange aggro design, tossing out the Djinn to the red zone as fast as possible.
Functionality vs theme is the hardship this deck faces. I had originally considered adaptive automaton/brass herald/mutavault/mistform ultimus/changlings, but in the end these inclusions felt like breaking theme. I was about to put in a eldrazi monument, since I don't mind sac'ing some of my Djinn, but the creature production is too limited to rely on it. Coat of Arms is another idea, but I have yet to get more than 8 Djinn out, and in those games the board is usually equally flooded with the opponents creatures.
I know that this deck really needs some acceleration. I've been thinking about the diamond cycle (sky diamond/charcoal diamond/fire diamond), as a good flavor fit as these are average acceleration and the "gem/treasure" aspect of them might be thematic enough for a Djinn/genie to give.
My initial post injected an opinion and worry based off the OP's issue, and then asked a theoretical question (which you are partially answering) that continues the discussion for the OP. Somehow Carthage interpenetrated my theoretical question as a "statement" and my opinion based off of the OP's comments as a "conclusion," and then decided that I was somehow arguing.
I don't understand how you are interpreting anything that I said as a claim for his friends inability to build strong decks.
Let's stay on topic. If you have an issue or question about interpreting anything just PM me instead of spamming.
My very first comment is a worry of reliance on bending rules, and using that as a crutch to compete within their meta. This is a legitimate issue that I've seen before, and if the players are not stopped then this is typically used as a base excuse to bend more rules. This can warp his entire meta.
Even the OP said that they are building strong decks and the inclusion of the banned cards isn't necessary. It is good that strong decks warrant stronger deck creation, but if some of his players feel that relying on banned cards to compete is their only out, then it has clearly gone far enough for the poster to go online and ask for help and opinions.
Reiterating what many have said before, talking with the players is the answer. The best recommendation here is to talk to the group all at once so no one feels singled out.
So you completely invert my path of logic and twist it to sound like I'm insulting his friends?
Nice effort, especially with the dictionary spam, but your words and statements are very wrong. Your post does nothing to help the OP's issue.
I would recommend actually reading this entire thread first. Specifically post #5 where the OP mentioned his friends struggles to make compatible decks for his meta. Perhaps if you had seen this then you might understand where my opinion was coming from.
You might need to elaborate exactly what you are seeing as an "argument" in my above opinion, otherwise your post doesn't make much sense.
As mentioned in this thread - it is not the OP's entire playgroup, but just a select few players out of the group that are bending rules. The point of his/her thread is regarding this issue.
If they don't care about the rules of the format in relation to the banlist, do they care about the rest of the restrictions this format has? Will they sleeve up a second or third sol ring in their deck, just because the other players at the table play "stronger" decks than they are capable of designing themselves?
Yep you got it. Typically when out at my lgs or in a few more casual tables all I would normally have to do is reveal the card and ask if anyone can stop me, but at my primary table doing this will imply that I'm casting it, and doing this before tapping my attackers isn't forgivable. They all want to win just as much as I do
Per your colors although I think Animar is the stronger general as his combo potential in early game is enormous.
I have a history of incidents of attacking all out but leaving that one faithful chump-blocker back that would have actually been lethal damage (this happened less than 14 hours ago actually), because I was too lazy count potential combat damage & keep up with life totals in multiplayer vs on-board power.
Many of my terrible plays are something that I see most tables state being "forgivable" but due to the strictness of my meta they are not. Like stating that I'm entering the combat step and entwining savage beating before declaring my creatures as attackers. Granted I was pretty much wasted that night, but the misplay did cost me the game and the people I play with don't allow for a mistake like this to be undone.
In the long run that strictness does make us better players, but it also makes it hard for newer players to join our tables and consistently have fun.
Per my opponents' misplays, i don't really remember too many exact ones. Most that spring to mind are related to some salty retaliation or poor threat assessment, where they decide who will win the game. Not quite "king maker" since they themselves could potentially still win, but instances of someone wasting important cards that could have answered the obvious threat. Like wasting removal on someone who is already dead-on-board because they did something clever in a previous turn, instead of the guy who's army is slowly growing and is clearly about to take over the game.
The badlands is sort of embarrassing. I hate whiteboarder with a passion, but can't afford a blackboarder beta badland.
Since I do this so rarely, usually with the intention of replacing the temp-card with a soon-to-purchase or after testing, I typically don't bother writing anything on the back of the card to remind me what it is.
Then I'll forget about it completely, set the original deck aside, come back and have absolutely no clue what said blank card represented.
I see the potential to draw lots of cards with the cantrip spells, but you are now mixing token creation or mass creatures with cantrip spells. What is the end-game goal for all of this?
I think it would be a nice inclusion in the 99 of another deck that deploys combat trick spells. As a commander he seems to only represent any sort of impact by making seize the day/fatal frenzy/rush of blood and other combat boosting spells useful for an entire army. This seems to be possible around turn--4 to turn-6(ish) for any meaningful offense to take place.
Since he is coming out at 4cmc he is too slow for most aggressive strategies. An average Krenko design would be able to consistently create a more meaningful board presence with little build-around-me cards filling out the deck. So that makes Zada as a commander what, mid-range agro with combat tricks? This is where I would prefer to see Urabrask as a commander.
Too underwhelming. Not worth the effort to brew, unless there is some unrealized combo potential that is reliable for mono-red that I'm missing.