I don't understand why they can't just print Pithing Needle. The card's not tied to any specific flavor; it could have taken the place of any craprare (Hazoret's Favor or something) in AKH.
They are not psychic and did not know that they should print pithing needle, they work over a year in advance. If they were actually thinking about saying "hey, even though we haven't printed pithing needle in a while, you can play it if you have one", then its clearly not in the next set.
It doesn't take a lot of foresight to reprint Pithing Needle. It would have answered the vast majority of the problematic cards that have been in standard over the last year.
Absolutely. Definitely could've reprinted Pithing Needle or Duress, pretty much anywhere.
The "reprint Pithing Needle" sentiment is one of the reasons I'm happy that core sets are returning, since that should allow answers to be reprinted and be in Standard (an advantage of past core sets).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lapsed DCI Rules Advisor - Retired from playing but still hanging around
I don't understand why they can't just print Pithing Needle. The card's not tied to any specific flavor; it could have taken the place of any craprare (Hazoret's Favor or something) in AKH.
They are not psychic and did not know that they should print pithing needle, they work over a year in advance. If they were actually thinking about saying "hey, even though we haven't printed pithing needle in a while, you can play it if you have one", then its clearly not in the next set.
It doesn't take a lot of foresight to reprint Pithing Needle. It would have answered the vast majority of the problematic cards that have been in standard over the last year.
Absolutely. Definitely could've reprinted Pithing Needle or Duress, pretty much anywhere.
The "reprint Pithing Needle" sentiment is one of the reasons I'm happy that core sets are returning, since that should allow answers to be reprinted and be in Standard (an advantage of past core sets).
And at core we can get a (shock!) Kamigawa-art Needle!
What the marvel ban is saying to me is that we can expect more things in standard like the Titans in power level from the unreleased sets so they are killing this thing before the fall set hits.
Unfortunately, unless a miracle happens that also means that bolas is probably no where near as competitive as he would have been. Sad times to be a super villain these days. Tezzeret got burned in the last block by not having enough support and Bolas is in the wrong colors to get out swiftly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I am very glad they banned Marvel itself and not just the pieces. As people have mentioned before, we don't know if there will be future cards just as bad as Ulamog is cast on Turn 4. Leaving Marvel unbanned would leave too many loose ends.
But now what does that mean for Standard? Will Mardu Vehicles and Zombies now take top tier? Will there be some other deck that can now rise after being suppressed by Marvel?
Standard since they started banning in January has been awful and Wizards has been essentially on a damage control period. I hope that was the last issue for Wizards to take care of for this damage control
They already have a means to reprint cards into standard on shorter notice without having to re-playtest for limited or squeeze out another card that would have been on that C/U/R sheet instead. They could print stuff like Duress and Pithing Needle into welcome decks, deckbuilder's toolkits, and planeswalker decks. It's the reason Borderland Marauder and Disperse are standard legal right now. It's the reason why Timber Gorge will continue to be standard legal even after Oath rotates out.
Good. Time to get back into Standard. So ends the worse period of the format since Caw (the period defined as the bans from Copter onward), and hopefully all the big announced changes on the horizon will keep the meta diverse for the foreseeable future.
I actually enjoyed Caw-Blade standard. It sucked because everyone played it but the mirror was so skill intensive. But then this was before Batterskull.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks for spiderboy4 of High~Light_Studios for the kick ass avatar.
Thanks for DarkNightCavalier of HotPS for the exceptional signature.
I am convinced that WotC is "dumbing" the game because of all the stupid posts they come across on MTG-related forums
Arcbound Ravager, Disciple of the Vault, Darksteel Citadel, Ancient Den, Great Furnace, Seat of the Synod, Skullclamp, Tree of Tales, and Vault of Whispers are banned.
RIP any relevance or win condition Energy had. Aetherworks Marvel was the big splashy win condition for energy. It made energy more relevant..but it turned out it was too easy to accrue the energy required. We still have the "timewarp energy" variant, but I don't think its good enough.
The same thing happened with affinity. I think energy will be completely irrelevant after Aetherworks Marvel is banned. That's the danger with parasitic mechanics, I guess.
I agree it is bad, but I'd like to hear your explanation as to why. I've been playing a lot of shadowverse recently and they do functional erratas when a card proves to be too powerful. It allows players to continue to use the cards they like and the effects they bring, just in a more fair version.
To really, fully answer this question, I'd have to dive into a discussion of the history of Power Level Errata, the schools of errata policy, and current Oracle management ideas as explained by Matt Tabek, all of which is probably too far off topic. So, understand that my answer is here necessarily a bit abbreviated.
What they're talking about here is "Power Level Errata." This term gets tossed around all the time incorrectly. What it actually means, from WotC's perspective, is this: Power Level Errata means changing the Oracle text of a card with the specific intention and with the stated goal of reducing its power level. It is a way to keep "designing" a card even after it is published. Some examples from the Bad Old Days: Relic Bind was eratted to prevent you from enchanting your own Basalt Monolith for infinite damage; Parallax Wave (and co) were errated to prevent you from being able to destroy it with triggers on the stack to create a one-sided wrath effect; Palinchron (and co) were errated to prevent you from being able to untap lands unless it was cast from your hand to stop shenanigans when they were cheated into play.
There are at least three reasons why Wizards should NOT depart from this policy and go back to the Dark Ages of Oracle when they redesigned cards to deal with power level problems. I present them in the order they seem persuasive to me.
1. It wrecks something many people (myself included) love about Magic: the unexpected and powerful interactions between cards. Basically, it is a big fat middle finger to Johnnie. This should not be underestimated. People have large collections of quirky old cards specifically because some of them might be "broken" by a new printing. We don't want our cards to be retroactively rendered useless by re-designing. (I'm still sore about how they screwed over Thoughtlash after printing the Commander sets, and that wasn't even technically power level errata.)
There's something worth noting here about your comparison to digital card games. What's the lifespan of a digital game? Ten years, maybe, for very competitive ones like Starcraft or Counterstrike? Magic is already twice that old. It has a rich history to draw from sitting on shelves and in card catalogs all over the country.
2. It's arbitrary. If you allow that cards can be changed just to re-design them, then there's no limit to your ability to change the Oracle text of cards. I would expect to see one person's view of how Magic should be (or worse, a committee's view) imposed on everyone else.
3. It leads to confusion when the printed card does not agree with the Oracle text. This occurs any time a card gets errata, but it's always a bad thing. It gets worse when the card has different text for no reason other than it was a "mistake." Imagine digging through older cards and discovering Skullclamp (in a world where it did not get reprinted) and to excitedly jam it into a deck only to be told it was eratted so that the creature has to die from combat damage to draw two cards. There's no reason to make this gap between printed text and actual text any wider than it has to be.
This is another place where digital games have it easier. You can errata cards universally whenever you want; no one will have a version that reads differently from how it actually acts.
Thank you for the well thought out response. I agreed with you that it was bad, but I couldn't really put into words why when I was ok with the Shadowverse errata. I think you made some great points as to why WotC should avoid this at all costs. To see them entertain the possibility isn't a good sign.
They really should hace preemptively banned Heart of Kiran in light of Mardu's inevitable rise back to the top.
WotC is just heading its bets. This form of Standard will only be here until September. We just need to limp on with this lame duck Standard and then start fresh.
Arcbound Ravager, Disciple of the Vault, Darksteel Citadel, Ancient Den, Great Furnace, Seat of the Synod, Skullclamp, Tree of Tales, and Vault of Whispers are banned.
Thats's 9 cards banned in standard all at once.
you are right, but 6 of them are virtually the same card, and all of them fit in the same archetype. It's something like they banned one thing in particular.
This time the unprecedented thing is that they banned 5 cards very different from each other, at the core of as many different decks. They banned (almost) five different thing this time
Fair point. I still think a lot of this is due to how in flux Standard has been, especially in terms of rotation. You design for a 2 year meta, switch to an 18 month schedule, then switch back to two years... It is going to cause issues since cards exist in Standard that were not really supposed to be played together.
Layer on the clear lack of testing with some cheese cards and you have a recipe for disaster.
I played Hearthstone competitively for around two years and I was really surprised the first time Blizzard straight-up nerfed some overly strong cards that I'd been using in multiple decks (and allowed players to effectively trade those cards in for any other cards of equivalent rarity). I was happier still being able to play most of those cards than I would've been if they'd just banned them outright.
I don't think that Magic should reintroduce functional errata, but watching Standard repeatedly shoot itself in the foot over the past year makes me a little more appreciative of Blizzard's approach to problematic cards.
I played Hearthstone competitively for around two years and I was really surprised the first time Blizzard straight-up nerfed some overly strong cards that I'd been using in multiple decks (and allowed players to effectively trade those cards in for any other cards of equivalent rarity). I was happier still being able to play most of those cards than I would've been if they'd just banned them outright.
I don't think that Magic should reintroduce functional errata, but watching Standard repeatedly shoot itself in the foot over the past year makes me a little more appreciative of Blizzard's approach to problematic cards.
Shadowverse did the exact same thing (considering it is basically the same game, not surprising) and it worked out really well for them. But as I said before, they are more transparent with their actions to the point where no one could've really argued that the fixes weren't justified. But I think the difference between a digital only product and one like Magic would make the functional errata a nightmare as discussed on the previous page.
So many different ways to deal with marvel and wizards just bans it? Wizards prints a sufficient amount of removal and counterspells to deal with things like this, but, would rather cater to players that cry about it or cry "it's broken", "ban it", etc. Bravo Wizards, bravo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Trolling Magic since 2000.
I play Standard, EDH, and a very tiny bit of Modern.
I agree it is bad, but I'd like to hear your explanation as to why. I've been playing a lot of shadowverse recently and they do functional erratas when a card proves to be too powerful. It allows players to continue to use the cards they like and the effects they bring, just in a more fair version.
To really, fully answer this question, I'd have to dive into a discussion of the history of Power Level Errata, the schools of errata policy, and current Oracle management ideas as explained by Matt Tabek, all of which is probably too far off topic. So, understand that my answer is here necessarily a bit abbreviated.
What they're talking about here is "Power Level Errata." This term gets tossed around all the time incorrectly. What it actually means, from WotC's perspective, is this: Power Level Errata means changing the Oracle text of a card with the specific intention and with the stated goal of reducing its power level. It is a way to keep "designing" a card even after it is published. Some examples from the Bad Old Days: Relic Bind was eratted to prevent you from enchanting your own Basalt Monolith for infinite damage; Parallax Wave (and co) were errated to prevent you from being able to destroy it with triggers on the stack to create a one-sided wrath effect; Palinchron (and co) were errated to prevent you from being able to untap lands unless it was cast from your hand to stop shenanigans when they were cheated into play.
There are at least three reasons why Wizards should NOT depart from this policy and go back to the Dark Ages of Oracle when they redesigned cards to deal with power level problems. I present them in the order they seem persuasive to me.
1. It wrecks something many people (myself included) love about Magic: the unexpected and powerful interactions between cards. Basically, it is a big fat middle finger to Johnnie. This should not be underestimated. People have large collections of quirky old cards specifically because some of them might be "broken" by a new printing. We don't want our cards to be retroactively rendered useless by re-designing. (I'm still sore about how they screwed over Thoughtlash after printing the Commander sets, and that wasn't even technically power level errata.)
There's something worth noting here about your comparison to digital card games. What's the lifespan of a digital game? Ten years, maybe, for very competitive ones like Starcraft or Counterstrike? Magic is already twice that old. It has a rich history to draw from sitting on shelves and in card catalogs all over the country.
2. It's arbitrary. If you allow that cards can be changed just to re-design them, then there's no limit to your ability to change the Oracle text of cards. I would expect to see one person's view of how Magic should be (or worse, a committee's view) imposed on everyone else.
3. It leads to confusion when the printed card does not agree with the Oracle text. This occurs any time a card gets errata, but it's always a bad thing. It gets worse when the card has different text for no reason other than it was a "mistake." Imagine digging through older cards and discovering Skullclamp (in a world where it did not get reprinted) and to excitedly jam it into a deck only to be told it was eratted so that the creature has to die from combat damage to draw two cards. There's no reason to make this gap between printed text and actual text any wider than it has to be.
This is another place where digital games have it easier. You can errata cards universally whenever you want; no one will have a version that reads differently from how it actually acts.
To put things even more simply than this, power-level or functional errata simply makes the game less fun. I played during the years of power-level errata prevalent during the time of Urza block, and needless to say there was a great deal of confusion and disappointment because not everyone had access to updated Oracle texts in 1998-99 (Gatherer didn't come into being for a few years and not everybody had internet access at the time). One of the things that brought me back to the game was the "Power Level Errata-B-Gone" move that Wizards made back in 2006. The only way we should be seeing cards get errata is if they somehow don't function correctly under the rules (even if this creates weird things like Rally the Horde) or if they need to be updated for current wordings ("put a token onto the battlefield" -> "create"). I'm a little scared that Wizards considered the idea of power-level errata, but I'm glad they didn't go that route.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lapsed DCI Rules Advisor - Retired from playing but still hanging around
This quote is of high interest for the foreseeable future:
To that end, we considered several weird or off-the-wall options. We discussed something we called "pair banning," where two cards could not be played in the same deck but could be played separately, a tactic other TCGs have employed. We looked at making other cards legal for Standard that otherwise wouldn't be, like Pithing Needle and Duress. We looked at restricting and even functional errata. Ultimately, these created more problems than they solved for this particular issue, and while we might keep exploring newer options in the future, for now we're sticking with our tried-and-true solution, even though we, like you, would rather it not come to this again.
It shows they DO want to think outside of the box, should be interesting to see if it actually gets employed.
I'm guessing these 2 cards are in the new core set.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
Competitive: GW Hatebears - UG Infect - BGW Liege Rhino
Casual: GR Titan Ramp - BR Aggro
WIP: BUW Control Mill
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The "reprint Pithing Needle" sentiment is one of the reasons I'm happy that core sets are returning, since that should allow answers to be reprinted and be in Standard (an advantage of past core sets).
And at core we can get a (shock!) Kamigawa-art Needle!
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
What the marvel ban is saying to me is that we can expect more things in standard like the Titans in power level from the unreleased sets so they are killing this thing before the fall set hits.
Unfortunately, unless a miracle happens that also means that bolas is probably no where near as competitive as he would have been. Sad times to be a super villain these days. Tezzeret got burned in the last block by not having enough support and Bolas is in the wrong colors to get out swiftly.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
But now what does that mean for Standard? Will Mardu Vehicles and Zombies now take top tier? Will there be some other deck that can now rise after being suppressed by Marvel?
Standard since they started banning in January has been awful and Wizards has been essentially on a damage control period. I hope that was the last issue for Wizards to take care of for this damage control
I actually enjoyed Caw-Blade standard. It sucked because everyone played it but the mirror was so skill intensive. But then this was before Batterskull.
Thanks for spiderboy4 of High~Light_Studios for the kick ass avatar.
Thanks for DarkNightCavalier of HotPS for the exceptional signature.
Lord of the Accursed
lol
Yeah I'm happy about this banning. Marvel players, " Come on now, you knew, YOU KNEW this was a possibility".
Modern: Decks I'm playing right now:
G Mono Green Tron (34-10-3 paper record, only SCG/Regionals/PPTQ record)
C Eldrazi Tron (9-5)
UG Infect
RW Burn
Same. I have no idea at all. Now it will never be unbanned. RIP to Emrakul and Reflector Mage.
not really unprecedented.
2006:
Arcbound Ravager, Disciple of the Vault, Darksteel Citadel, Ancient Den, Great Furnace, Seat of the Synod, Skullclamp, Tree of Tales, and Vault of Whispers are banned.
Thats's 9 cards banned in standard all at once.
Because it will rotate in a few months. No sense unbanning it.
The same thing happened with affinity. I think energy will be completely irrelevant after Aetherworks Marvel is banned. That's the danger with parasitic mechanics, I guess.
I guess...
They should have removed it from the ban list when the cat was added. I'm not hung up on it...just curious.
To really, fully answer this question, I'd have to dive into a discussion of the history of Power Level Errata, the schools of errata policy, and current Oracle management ideas as explained by Matt Tabek, all of which is probably too far off topic. So, understand that my answer is here necessarily a bit abbreviated.
What they're talking about here is "Power Level Errata." This term gets tossed around all the time incorrectly. What it actually means, from WotC's perspective, is this: Power Level Errata means changing the Oracle text of a card with the specific intention and with the stated goal of reducing its power level. It is a way to keep "designing" a card even after it is published. Some examples from the Bad Old Days: Relic Bind was eratted to prevent you from enchanting your own Basalt Monolith for infinite damage; Parallax Wave (and co) were errated to prevent you from being able to destroy it with triggers on the stack to create a one-sided wrath effect; Palinchron (and co) were errated to prevent you from being able to untap lands unless it was cast from your hand to stop shenanigans when they were cheated into play.
Wizards stopped doing this in 2006. Here's the article explaining that.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/power-level-errata-b-gone-2006-07-14
There are at least three reasons why Wizards should NOT depart from this policy and go back to the Dark Ages of Oracle when they redesigned cards to deal with power level problems. I present them in the order they seem persuasive to me.
1. It wrecks something many people (myself included) love about Magic: the unexpected and powerful interactions between cards. Basically, it is a big fat middle finger to Johnnie. This should not be underestimated. People have large collections of quirky old cards specifically because some of them might be "broken" by a new printing. We don't want our cards to be retroactively rendered useless by re-designing. (I'm still sore about how they screwed over Thoughtlash after printing the Commander sets, and that wasn't even technically power level errata.)
There's something worth noting here about your comparison to digital card games. What's the lifespan of a digital game? Ten years, maybe, for very competitive ones like Starcraft or Counterstrike? Magic is already twice that old. It has a rich history to draw from sitting on shelves and in card catalogs all over the country.
2. It's arbitrary. If you allow that cards can be changed just to re-design them, then there's no limit to your ability to change the Oracle text of cards. I would expect to see one person's view of how Magic should be (or worse, a committee's view) imposed on everyone else.
3. It leads to confusion when the printed card does not agree with the Oracle text. This occurs any time a card gets errata, but it's always a bad thing. It gets worse when the card has different text for no reason other than it was a "mistake." Imagine digging through older cards and discovering Skullclamp (in a world where it did not get reprinted) and to excitedly jam it into a deck only to be told it was eratted so that the creature has to die from combat damage to draw two cards. There's no reason to make this gap between printed text and actual text any wider than it has to be.
This is another place where digital games have it easier. You can errata cards universally whenever you want; no one will have a version that reads differently from how it actually acts.
Unbanning it would also make Magic look bad because they very clearly banned the wrong card.
They are already going to catch flack for banning Marvel, why incur more flack for unbanning something?
WotC is just heading its bets. This form of Standard will only be here until September. We just need to limp on with this lame duck Standard and then start fresh.
Fair point. I still think a lot of this is due to how in flux Standard has been, especially in terms of rotation. You design for a 2 year meta, switch to an 18 month schedule, then switch back to two years... It is going to cause issues since cards exist in Standard that were not really supposed to be played together.
Layer on the clear lack of testing with some cheese cards and you have a recipe for disaster.
I don't think that Magic should reintroduce functional errata, but watching Standard repeatedly shoot itself in the foot over the past year makes me a little more appreciative of Blizzard's approach to problematic cards.
Shadowverse did the exact same thing (considering it is basically the same game, not surprising) and it worked out really well for them. But as I said before, they are more transparent with their actions to the point where no one could've really argued that the fixes weren't justified. But I think the difference between a digital only product and one like Magic would make the functional errata a nightmare as discussed on the previous page.
I play Standard, EDH, and a very tiny bit of Modern.
My youtube channel, I upload gaming related videos and other videos.
Hard to do that with real Magic Cards.
To put things even more simply than this, power-level or functional errata simply makes the game less fun. I played during the years of power-level errata prevalent during the time of Urza block, and needless to say there was a great deal of confusion and disappointment because not everyone had access to updated Oracle texts in 1998-99 (Gatherer didn't come into being for a few years and not everybody had internet access at the time). One of the things that brought me back to the game was the "Power Level Errata-B-Gone" move that Wizards made back in 2006. The only way we should be seeing cards get errata is if they somehow don't function correctly under the rules (even if this creates weird things like Rally the Horde) or if they need to be updated for current wordings ("put a token onto the battlefield" -> "create"). I'm a little scared that Wizards considered the idea of power-level errata, but I'm glad they didn't go that route.
I'm guessing these 2 cards are in the new core set.
Competitive: GW Hatebears - UG Infect - BGW Liege Rhino
Casual: GR Titan Ramp - BR Aggro
WIP: BUW Control Mill