Well found. If we remove the Royal Scions and Ashiok from the "tier list" it is even more skewed to the "bad" category. Which makes my rationale for making this video even better. But I am sorry I missed those Planeswalkers. I didn't see them when I looked the characters up.
Techncually it was more likely the popularity of commnader that killed planeswalkers as they work quite poorly in multiplayer ontop of not being able to be commanders.
Agreed think Commander did the heavy lifting killing planewalkers. I also feel the design space for walkers is quite small. Kaito and Wanderer from neon dynasty were two of the best walkers ever made from a design lens and Wanderer ended up being really but you can't lean on gimmicks like that all the time. The classic + value ability, - defensive ability, gaming ending ult is boring but is also the only consistent recipe for a walker that gets used in 60 card formats.
This is nonsensical, Wizards constantly prints planeswalkers that can be commanders, on top of people readily agreeing to rule 0 a planeswalker as a commander.
@@franslair2199 There i 19 (20 if you include both side of wil land rowan) 2-3 which seem to be in draftable non standard sets. So since the video specifically only included standard printing and also excludes the baldurs gate planeswalkers. Zero planeswalkers that are printed in standard sets can be commanders. Rule 0 is completely irrelavent since its assumed the everyone follow rules and banlists. Therefore most planeswalkers cant be commanders. So planeswalkers get axed in favour of heaps of legendaries every set.
@@franslair2199 "all the time" yet there's only 20 printed legal planeswalker commanders out of 295 the top played planeswalker in EDH according to EDHREC is Teferi, Time Raveler played in 7% of decks. Compare that to Creatures (BOP in in 27% of decks) Instant (Swords in 61% of decks) Soerceires (Rampant growth in 43% of decks) and Enchatments (Rhystic Study in 28%) it's pretty obvious Planeswalkers aren't played much in Commander
The real reason wizards cut back on plainswalkers is because they don't want all the voice clips bloating the mtg arena file size. This is my new conspiracy.
So I'm an old magic player. Planeswalkers were a brand new concept and card type right around when I stopped playing. Now my work schedule has changed and I'm trying to get back into the game. Planeswalkers are still the "new" strange cards to me and I'm not too hurt to see them marginalized. What I am a bit disappointed to see that basically everyone plays commander now, and my old 60-card decks can't really be played. It's like I'm starting over from nothing. What's worse is the deckbuilding process is so different for a singleton format. Worst of all though is trying to shuffle sleeved 99 card decks. Who thought that was a good idea?
I think they can introduce Plainswalkers in Universe Beyond. Simply don't call them "plainswalkers", and call them "Heroes/Villains" or something like that. Like they do with Sagas. For Murder at Karlov Manor they change them a bit to become "Cases", and for bloomburrow they changed them a little bit to become "Talents". If UB is the future as they have stated by making them standard legal from 2025, then they can manage to use the "Plainswalker" mechanic, simply a little changed.
Those are good ideas. But even still we won't have a Planeswalkers story arc as we follow them on different planes. Spiderman will still only be in the Spiderman set. I didn't get into the mechanical side of things too much because I care about the story and flavor of it more. (Also The "talents" are classes. The enchantment subtype was first introduced in the forgotten realms standard set)
Well, Cases and Classes are not the same as Sagas. Cases were a new Enchantment type introduced in Murder at Karlov Manor and Classes were introduced with the D&D-Sets
@@Bozzyverse I'm not saying that this is true, but it would be very weird if an artist / WoTC poorly depicts a character on a card and the fictional character is the thing that gets Canceled.
It was used to get Chinese players into the game but it was only in standard for China. It’s the only Global series product, it had the potential to explore Magic for different countries.
I clicked on this video with the expectation id get to hear someone complain about planeswalkers for 20 minutes, this was not that. I don't know how to feel.
You like having lots of new planeswalkers but are disappointed when they don't get enough cards. It's difficult to have both because it would require a huge proportion of the set be planeswalkers (unless they're also going to make sets HUGE, like 500+ cards), which kinda robs War of the Spark of its "thing," but, more importantly, would dramatically alter the feel and balance of the game, which is already a terribly risky guessing game as it is I think they should have limited the number of unique planeswalker characters but consistently give them new cards with the same sub-type then kept the original planeswalker uniqueness rule. This would have made their types more mechanically relevant and the cards less powerful in multiples, which rewards more thoughtful, synergistic decks over Pile of 20 Goddamn Chandras (big sloppy "good stuff" piles can be fun, but you really ought to be punished harshly for it) This also makes it easier for them to print cards that "care about" Planeswalker types because they won't be tied to a character that maybe appears once every 4-5 sets. It also makes introducing, changing, and killing off Planeswalkers a lot more dramatic, especially if they're going to do stupid crap like bringing them back to life or "Mending" the multiverse to retcon the lore or "desparking" them again to retcon their stupid retcon
I was showing that they were making too many new Planeswalkers because they weren't really utilizing them. The "too many Planeswalkers per set" was never an issue with me. But I don't want war of the Spark amounts in all sets. That would be ridiculous
I think planeswalkers are being de-emphasized due to Commander, not due to UB. If they really wanted keep the same levels of planeswalkers they could make them work in UB sets, just like they did in the D&D set. No, the reason I think is commander. Think about it. Your marquee characters driving the main magic IP forward are all planeswalkers. But planeswalkers cannot be commanders (and on top of that are pretty weak in multiplayer). You WANT folks identifying with characters, adopting them and following them (remember spellbooks?), a role commanders fill perfectly, but instead people had to use background characters (or pre-spark characters). Sure, you could change the rule to allow planeswalker commanders, but until recently Wizards didn't control the format. So, how to fix? Shift many/most to be legendary creatures instead. Ah but now you need a way to allow them to follow the story to various planes... so also add omenpaths. Boom! Now most of your marquee characters can plane hop along with the story and ALSO be commanders for their fans. The varying amount of effort Wizards put into the story over the past few years didnt do planeswalkers any favors either. Maybe now that they control Commander they will allow planeswalker commanders and ramp them back up? But with the reduced planewalkers already in place they probably will take their time doing that, or maybe even never do it (my money would be on them doing it eventually though).
Others have also explained why they think commander is "killing" Planeswalkers. I will reiterate that I think many things are influencing the shift. My video is simply about how universes beyond is affecting the shift of Magic Planeswalkers and story. The one thing I disagree with is I don't think Planeswalkers will be in UB. But hey, I don't control the decision making. I could be wrong Thanks for your thoughts
@@Just.Westin yeah I agree ub won't have Planeswalkers (wizards has said as much) but that is a self imposed limit and one that they wouldn't have put in place if they really wanted more Planeswalkers. Or they could just boost the pw count in the non ub sets to balance. Either way, I think it is a factor, but not the biggest one. One thought occurred to me: back in the block days you had 3 magic sets a year. And now we will have three magic ip sets a year. So not so much that there is less magic as a ton more ub stuff. Not really related but interesting.
Planeswalkers integrate remarkably well into the existing rules but their design space is rather limited and by their nature tend to lead to repetetive gameplay. They tend to snowball all by themselves if left unchecked which often leads to "I win but in a very annoying way". Jace The Mindsculptor is a great example: Why does this ultimate even exist? Why keep playing after it resolves? That is bad design. My breaking point was playing against SuperFriends in EDH, watching the pilot manipulating dice on cards for wayyyy to long, resolving a bunch of effects, then proliferate and back to manipulating dice. That is not Magic, or at least not the kind of Magic I liked. It is a shame there will be no more lore on these charcters, but the magic lore these day is pretty thin anyways.
And overall I'm sad about the continual diminishing of lore. Planeswalkers being reduced this far is part of that. I never mentioned how Planeswalkers play out in different formats. I just like them.
Alot of people here are saying commander is responsible for pushing out plainswalkers. I disagree, its only high level play where they become unusable. The level that the vast majority play at can sustain plainswalkers.
Interesting thoughts. Thank you for sharing. I think commander has an influence over Planeswalkers but I don't think it's why they reduced their numbers
@@deezboyeed6764 the top planes walker played according to edhrec is teferi time raveler which sees play in 7% of decks The other card types top cards other than battles have play rates above 25%
@RCCrisp I don't dispute they are less common, I just think people generally dont use them correctly. Also edhrec is somewhat useless for such data because its just built off of peoples theoretical decks meaning that you end up with a skew to more powerful and competative decks.
I don’t think it’s Universes Beyond that’s the issue. I think the problem is that Planeswalkers are weird to design, not very popular, and not very compatible with the most popular format, Commander. Many of the universes their collabing with could have planeswalkers just fine. Spiderman has an entire multiverse, so why can’t spidey be a planeswalker?
I think there are many things pushing Planeswalkers out. I think universes beyond is part of that. Maybe they'll start having Planeswalkers of outside IP. But so far, nope.
I really wish you had done more converge/research of the history of planeswalkers in this video style. because a decent amount of the planeswalkers you brought up had incorrect facts attached to them. jiang and sister? were for the Chinese audience. i really enjoyed the video and highly recommend the book about davriel 'children of the nameless' by brandon sanderson, it makes me very upset that we are not going to see more of him for a very long time, as the set he would have worked well in was duskmourn, and with more universes beyond and a limit on planeswalkers per set, aswell as his unnatural planeswalker spark making him immune to being desparked. it is unlikely he will return. Your video and another commenter pointed this out already but id like to add additional points. there are three main reasons planeswalkers got relegated. 1. planeswalkers design is extremely flawed, they usually have to do 2 of three thing with their plus, minus, and (possibly) static. they have to make a token, protect themselves, or remove something. this restricts how they can design planeswalkers. additionally the minus ability can't win the game, but cant do nothing, can't be too cheap, but players don't want it to be prohibitively expensive. because of these restrictions the typical planeswalker will come down on turn 5, spend three turns making 2/2s or giving minus -4/-0 to various opposing creatures, and then they will either be hated out by opponent(s) or have 8 loyalty. at which point they have a choice, deal with the opponents threat with their '-3' ability, or create another 2/2. usually what ends up happening is the '-3' is forced at some point to kill the opponents threat. however if they reach 9-10 loyalty they can, create an opening in the opponents defenses to maybe kill an opponent next turn unless the opponent has removal or something. IK THAT i SHOULD HAVE USED AN ACTUAL PLANESWALKER AS AN EXAMPLE HERE BUT IM NOT REWRITING IT, look at jaces, kaitos, vraskas, ajanis, and elspeths to see what im talking about ig. 2. commander is magics most popular format, so to have the audience stand ins be characters that you can't put in the command zone, really doesn't help sales. its much easier to swap the cool planeswalkers in each set with cook legends that do the say value engine style gameplay in 60 card and limited while also pandering to commander players. 3. as you said universes beyond can't have planeswalkers in their current state. with 50% ub content, this really limits planeswalkers. while this is very inconvenient for planeswalkers and likely damages them in the eyes of wizards, though not as much as commander sales. I would personally not cite this as the main reason for planeswalkers religation. thanks for coming to my ted talk. edit 1: slight change to first paragraph grammar, let me know if I mispelled anything or missed any important points. figured i should clarify this is not a hate piece or whatever.
I basically just searched up every Planeswalkers that was released since Ravnica Allegiance and looked at their card histories. I missed three as far as I'm aware. While that's sad it doesn't really change the argument in the end. (The list of Planeswalkers that they've utilized well shrunk if you remove the ones I missed) And yes, there can be many reasons why planeswalkers are being removed. I don't claim to know why they are being removed, the title and thumbnails are just trying to be an introduction to why I think they are being removed. Thanks for your insight.
Rowan and will were printed originally in battlebond in 2018.
Well found.
If we remove the Royal Scions and Ashiok from the "tier list" it is even more skewed to the "bad" category.
Which makes my rationale for making this video even better.
But I am sorry I missed those Planeswalkers. I didn't see them when I looked the characters up.
Techncually it was more likely the popularity of commnader that killed planeswalkers as they work quite poorly in multiplayer ontop of not being able to be commanders.
That's why planeswalkers were primarily printed in standard. But maybe
Agreed think Commander did the heavy lifting killing planewalkers.
I also feel the design space for walkers is quite small. Kaito and Wanderer from neon dynasty were two of the best walkers ever made from a design lens and Wanderer ended up being really but you can't lean on gimmicks like that all the time. The classic + value ability, - defensive ability, gaming ending ult is boring but is also the only consistent recipe for a walker that gets used in 60 card formats.
This is nonsensical, Wizards constantly prints planeswalkers that can be commanders, on top of people readily agreeing to rule 0 a planeswalker as a commander.
@@franslair2199 There i 19 (20 if you include both side of wil land rowan)
2-3 which seem to be in draftable non standard sets.
So since the video specifically only included standard printing and also excludes the baldurs gate planeswalkers.
Zero planeswalkers that are printed in standard sets can be commanders.
Rule 0 is completely irrelavent since its assumed the everyone follow rules and banlists. Therefore most planeswalkers cant be commanders. So planeswalkers get axed in favour of heaps of legendaries every set.
@@franslair2199 "all the time" yet there's only 20 printed legal planeswalker commanders out of 295
the top played planeswalker in EDH according to EDHREC is Teferi, Time Raveler played in 7% of decks. Compare that to Creatures (BOP in in 27% of decks) Instant (Swords in 61% of decks) Soerceires (Rampant growth in 43% of decks) and Enchatments (Rhystic Study in 28%) it's pretty obvious Planeswalkers aren't played much in Commander
The real reason wizards cut back on plainswalkers is because they don't want all the voice clips bloating the mtg arena file size. This is my new conspiracy.
That's a good one. They were probably tired of paying voice actors.
I really liked battles and wish they would replace Planeswalkers but alas.
Interesting take.
I think battles are a little fun. But they are balanced weirdly
13:58 , We actually got 5 if you count the Kaito form the Miku secret lair. (I'm joking)
Good one
So I'm an old magic player. Planeswalkers were a brand new concept and card type right around when I stopped playing. Now my work schedule has changed and I'm trying to get back into the game. Planeswalkers are still the "new" strange cards to me and I'm not too hurt to see them marginalized.
What I am a bit disappointed to see that basically everyone plays commander now, and my old 60-card decks can't really be played. It's like I'm starting over from nothing. What's worse is the deckbuilding process is so different for a singleton format. Worst of all though is trying to shuffle sleeved 99 card decks. Who thought that was a good idea?
Shuffling is my beginner friends least favorite thing
Crazy, i started playing at exact same time! So our game experience was somewhat same!
Neat!
4:36 ashiok nightmare weaver printed 6 year earlier in original theroes disagrees with your statement
Well found
I think they can introduce Plainswalkers in Universe Beyond. Simply don't call them "plainswalkers", and call them "Heroes/Villains" or something like that. Like they do with Sagas. For Murder at Karlov Manor they change them a bit to become "Cases", and for bloomburrow they changed them a little bit to become "Talents". If UB is the future as they have stated by making them standard legal from 2025, then they can manage to use the "Plainswalker" mechanic, simply a little changed.
Those are good ideas.
But even still we won't have a Planeswalkers story arc as we follow them on different planes. Spiderman will still only be in the Spiderman set. I didn't get into the mechanical side of things too much because I care about the story and flavor of it more.
(Also The "talents" are classes. The enchantment subtype was first introduced in the forgotten realms standard set)
Well, Cases and Classes are not the same as Sagas. Cases were a new Enchantment type introduced in Murder at Karlov Manor and Classes were introduced with the D&D-Sets
Garruk. I remember there was a card where he choked Lilianna and it was controversial. He's appeared since then but maybe its to do with that
I never heard of that. Interesting
@@Bozzyverse I'm not saying that this is true, but it would be very weird if an artist / WoTC poorly depicts a character on a card and the fictional character is the thing that gets Canceled.
Jiang Yanggu & Mu Yanling were first introduced in the Global series. Their plane is based off of China
Thank you, I've never heard of the global series before.
It was used to get Chinese players into the game but it was only in standard for China. It’s the only Global series product, it had the potential to explore Magic for different countries.
Domri was in Gatecrash
Excellent! Another Planeswalkers that I marked as "utilized meh" is removed from the list.
I'm a little sad I didn't know about the histories though.
I clicked on this video with the expectation id get to hear someone complain about planeswalkers for 20 minutes, this was not that. I don't know how to feel.
On one hand, I'm sorry the video didn't match your expectations.
On the other hand, I'm glad I didn't match your expectations?
Creating mu yanling for a Japanese audience would be super weird if true considering that is in no way, shape or form a Japanese name
Same with jiang actually. Seems more likely they were made to try to tap into some of that sweet, sweet china money
Made in the Global Series for Chinese. Pointed out by another commenter.
@@Just.Westinyeah I should maybe scroll down every now n then before I post. Enjoyed the video 👍
I'm glad you liked it.
And no worries. It would be silly to expect someone to read every comment.
Ashiok was in the first theros set
Yep, the pinned comment mentions that. I've made multiple mistakes. Which makes me sad.
You like having lots of new planeswalkers but are disappointed when they don't get enough cards. It's difficult to have both because it would require a huge proportion of the set be planeswalkers (unless they're also going to make sets HUGE, like 500+ cards), which kinda robs War of the Spark of its "thing," but, more importantly, would dramatically alter the feel and balance of the game, which is already a terribly risky guessing game as it is
I think they should have limited the number of unique planeswalker characters but consistently give them new cards with the same sub-type then kept the original planeswalker uniqueness rule. This would have made their types more mechanically relevant and the cards less powerful in multiples, which rewards more thoughtful, synergistic decks over Pile of 20 Goddamn Chandras (big sloppy "good stuff" piles can be fun, but you really ought to be punished harshly for it)
This also makes it easier for them to print cards that "care about" Planeswalker types because they won't be tied to a character that maybe appears once every 4-5 sets. It also makes introducing, changing, and killing off Planeswalkers a lot more dramatic, especially if they're going to do stupid crap like bringing them back to life or "Mending" the multiverse to retcon the lore or "desparking" them again to retcon their stupid retcon
I was showing that they were making too many new Planeswalkers because they weren't really utilizing them.
The "too many Planeswalkers per set" was never an issue with me.
But I don't want war of the Spark amounts in all sets. That would be ridiculous
I think planeswalkers are being de-emphasized due to Commander, not due to UB. If they really wanted keep the same levels of planeswalkers they could make them work in UB sets, just like they did in the D&D set.
No, the reason I think is commander. Think about it. Your marquee characters driving the main magic IP forward are all planeswalkers. But planeswalkers cannot be commanders (and on top of that are pretty weak in multiplayer). You WANT folks identifying with characters, adopting them and following them (remember spellbooks?), a role commanders fill perfectly, but instead people had to use background characters (or pre-spark characters). Sure, you could change the rule to allow planeswalker commanders, but until recently Wizards didn't control the format. So, how to fix? Shift many/most to be legendary creatures instead. Ah but now you need a way to allow them to follow the story to various planes... so also add omenpaths. Boom! Now most of your marquee characters can plane hop along with the story and ALSO be commanders for their fans. The varying amount of effort Wizards put into the story over the past few years didnt do planeswalkers any favors either.
Maybe now that they control Commander they will allow planeswalker commanders and ramp them back up? But with the reduced planewalkers already in place they probably will take their time doing that, or maybe even never do it (my money would be on them doing it eventually though).
Others have also explained why they think commander is "killing" Planeswalkers. I will reiterate that I think many things are influencing the shift. My video is simply about how universes beyond is affecting the shift of Magic Planeswalkers and story.
The one thing I disagree with is I don't think Planeswalkers will be in UB. But hey, I don't control the decision making. I could be wrong
Thanks for your thoughts
@@Just.Westin yeah I agree ub won't have Planeswalkers (wizards has said as much) but that is a self imposed limit and one that they wouldn't have put in place if they really wanted more Planeswalkers. Or they could just boost the pw count in the non ub sets to balance. Either way, I think it is a factor, but not the biggest one.
One thought occurred to me: back in the block days you had 3 magic sets a year. And now we will have three magic ip sets a year. So not so much that there is less magic as a ton more ub stuff. Not really related but interesting.
Planeswalkers integrate remarkably well into the existing rules but their design space is rather limited and by their nature tend to lead to repetetive gameplay. They tend to snowball all by themselves if left unchecked which often leads to "I win but in a very annoying way". Jace The Mindsculptor is a great example: Why does this ultimate even exist? Why keep playing after it resolves? That is bad design. My breaking point was playing against SuperFriends in EDH, watching the pilot manipulating dice on cards for wayyyy to long, resolving a bunch of effects, then proliferate and back to manipulating dice. That is not Magic, or at least not the kind of Magic I liked. It is a shame there will be no more lore on these charcters, but the magic lore these day is pretty thin anyways.
And overall I'm sad about the continual diminishing of lore.
Planeswalkers being reduced this far is part of that.
I never mentioned how Planeswalkers play out in different formats. I just like them.
Alot of people here are saying commander is responsible for pushing out plainswalkers. I disagree, its only high level play where they become unusable. The level that the vast majority play at can sustain plainswalkers.
Interesting thoughts. Thank you for sharing.
I think commander has an influence over Planeswalkers but I don't think it's why they reduced their numbers
@@deezboyeed6764 the top planes walker played according to edhrec is teferi time raveler which sees play in 7% of decks
The other card types top cards other than battles have play rates above 25%
@RCCrisp I don't dispute they are less common, I just think people generally dont use them correctly. Also edhrec is somewhat useless for such data because its just built off of peoples theoretical decks meaning that you end up with a skew to more powerful and competative decks.
I don’t think it’s Universes Beyond that’s the issue. I think the problem is that Planeswalkers are weird to design, not very popular, and not very compatible with the most popular format, Commander.
Many of the universes their collabing with could have planeswalkers just fine. Spiderman has an entire multiverse, so why can’t spidey be a planeswalker?
I think there are many things pushing Planeswalkers out. I think universes beyond is part of that.
Maybe they'll start having Planeswalkers of outside IP. But so far, nope.
Planeswalkers are actually the most popular card type, as stated by Maro
I really wish you had done more converge/research of the history of planeswalkers in this video style. because a decent amount of the planeswalkers you brought up had incorrect facts attached to them. jiang and sister? were for the Chinese audience. i really enjoyed the video and highly recommend the book about davriel 'children of the nameless' by brandon sanderson, it makes me very upset that we are not going to see more of him for a very long time, as the set he would have worked well in was duskmourn, and with more universes beyond and a limit on planeswalkers per set, aswell as his unnatural planeswalker spark making him immune to being desparked. it is unlikely he will return.
Your video and another commenter pointed this out already but id like to add additional points. there are three main reasons planeswalkers got relegated.
1. planeswalkers design is extremely flawed, they usually have to do 2 of three thing with their plus, minus, and (possibly) static. they have to make a token, protect themselves, or remove something. this restricts how they can design planeswalkers. additionally the minus ability can't win the game, but cant do nothing, can't be too cheap, but players don't want it to be prohibitively expensive. because of these restrictions the typical planeswalker will come down on turn 5, spend three turns making 2/2s or giving minus -4/-0 to various opposing creatures, and then they will either be hated out by opponent(s) or have 8 loyalty. at which point they have a choice, deal with the opponents threat with their '-3' ability, or create another 2/2. usually what ends up happening is the '-3' is forced at some point to kill the opponents threat. however if they reach 9-10 loyalty they can, create an opening in the opponents defenses to maybe kill an opponent next turn unless the opponent has removal or something. IK THAT i SHOULD HAVE USED AN ACTUAL PLANESWALKER AS AN EXAMPLE HERE BUT IM NOT REWRITING IT, look at jaces, kaitos, vraskas, ajanis, and elspeths to see what im talking about ig.
2. commander is magics most popular format, so to have the audience stand ins be characters that you can't put in the command zone, really doesn't help sales. its much easier to swap the cool planeswalkers in each set with cook legends that do the say value engine style gameplay in 60 card and limited while also pandering to commander players.
3. as you said universes beyond can't have planeswalkers in their current state. with 50% ub content, this really limits planeswalkers. while this is very inconvenient for planeswalkers and likely damages them in the eyes of wizards, though not as much as commander sales. I would personally not cite this as the main reason for planeswalkers religation.
thanks for coming to my ted talk.
edit 1: slight change to first paragraph grammar, let me know if I mispelled anything or missed any important points. figured i should clarify this is not a hate piece or whatever.
I basically just searched up every Planeswalkers that was released since Ravnica Allegiance and looked at their card histories.
I missed three as far as I'm aware. While that's sad it doesn't really change the argument in the end.
(The list of Planeswalkers that they've utilized well shrunk if you remove the ones I missed)
And yes, there can be many reasons why planeswalkers are being removed. I don't claim to know why they are being removed, the title and thumbnails are just trying to be an introduction to why I think they are being removed.
Thanks for your insight.
I love how you completely pretended Zimone doesn't exist, when shes more overused than Kaito.
I guess it's because she wasn't a Planeswalkers ever? But she has shown up a bunch.
@Just.Westin true enough, but she is just so pushed and appears in so many sets she FEELS like one for some reason lol
First view wow!
Nice