Magic: The Gathering Drive to Work Podcast - Drive to Work #99 - Torment, Part 1

Episode Date: February 21, 2014

Mark starts with first in his series on the design of Torment.

Okay, I'm pulling on my driveway. We all know what that means. It's time for another drive to work. Okay, so a little while back I did a series of podcasts talking about the design of Odyssey. So I thought I would talk about Torment, the next set in that block. I've done a lot of talking about first sets in my podcast, but not as much about the second set. So I'm going to try to do a little more of finishing out some blocks. So I'm going to talk about torment, and then in a little bit I'll talk about judgment. And, I mean, my plan is with this podcast series is to hit all the different sets. There's a lot to do.

Luckily, I'm trying to cover many years worth of podcast content. But today is about Torment. So let's set the stage. So if you guys remember, for those that listen to my Odyssey podcast, Odyssey was a block about the graveyard. Introduced two big keywords, flashback and threshold. Flashback, most people should know since it was just an Innistrad, but it allows you to cast cards out of the graveyard. It goes on instants and sorceries. And Threshold was something that usually went on permanence.

And if your graveyard had seven or more cards in it, then it upgraded it. There were some spells that used it too, but mostly it went on permanence. So, Torment. I guess, let me start with the most, well, let me start with the design team Upgraded it. There were some spells that used it too, but mostly it went on permanence. So, Torment, I guess, let me start with the design team, and then I'll jump into the big theme of Torment, which, if you know anything about the set, is pretty obvious. So the design team, the design lead was Bill Rose, and then there were two other members of the team,

which was Mike Elliott and myself. Uh, Richard Garfield is also credited in the design because as I get to nightmares and talk about them, he had made them during Odyssey design and I liked them and convinced Bill to use them in Torment. Um, cause I thought it fit the theme well. We'll get to the theme in a second. So let me talk a little bit about Bill and Mike. I've talked about them before, but, um, So Bill was one of the original play tefters. He, in fact, was...

He met Richard through his bridge group. And the people that he met through the bridge group would go on to be the team that made Mirage and Visions. So the interesting thing about Bill is that Bill and I started on the exact same month, in October of 1995. And he and I had taken very different paths. Bill now is the vice president of R&D.

So he's very high up in the company. So what happened early on was that Bill was very interested in management. The job he had before he came to Wizards was managing the chemistry department. I'm not sure what college. I want to say Penn, because I know he went to Penn, but it might not have been Penn. Where I wanted to make magic sets,

my desire has always been on the creative side. I have done some management, but more so that I could do the stuff I wanted to do creatively, not because I have a great passion for management. In fact, the current system, the way it's set up now is I have a manager, Mark Gottlieb, who manages my design team so that I don't have to spend time managing them so I can focus more on doing design work. Because really, my big thing is that I enjoy the act of

making magic sets. So Bill and I have gone down very different paths. Like I said, we started in the same basic place. I mean, he was involved earlier than I was. He was involved in the playtesting, and he knew people there better than I did when we first started, because he had been brought in by people he knew, like Joel Mick, for example,

who was the head designer when I started. He and Bill and Joel were very, very good friends, and they had worked together on Mirage. Joel Mick, for example, who was the head designer when I started, he and Bill and Joel were very, very good friends. And they had worked together on Mirage. They had been the lead designers of Mirage. So anyway, over the years, Bill definitely keeps his fingers in. I mean, Bill likes being involved. I think Bill has led more designs than anybody other than myself, Mike Elliott, and Brian Tinsman.

I think he's number four as far as the number of designs he's led. I think Ken Nagel is hot on his tail. I'm sure Ken will pass him one of these days. Only because Bill being vice president doesn't have a chance to do a lot of designs. I think the last thing he led is he did Shards of Alara and Conflux. So that was a little while ago. Anyway, Bill's also interesting in that Bill well, Bill definitely has some

design chops. He also has development chops. He's one of the people, for example, that has led multiple design teams and multiple development teams. In fact, he was the lead designer and the lead developer of Mirage, a practice we don't do anymore, but that is one of his claimed fames as he was lead of both aspects of Mirage, a practice we don't do anymore, but that is one of his claimed fames, as he

was lead of both aspects of Mirage. Anyway, Bill is very, very interesting. I think Bill's strength as a designer, or as a developer, is he's really, really good with sort of seeing context and seeing how everything fits together.

And he'll look at a file, and he does a good job of saying, oh, he'll recognize weaknesses very fast, because he understands the structure of how everything fits together. And he'll look at a file and he does a good job of saying, oh, like he'll recognize weaknesses very fast because he understands the structure of how things fit together. Mike Elliott, I've talked about a lot. Mike is number two in the most lead designs. For a while, Mike and I, for a while, Mike was number one

and then Mike left and I slowly caught up. And Mike started shortly after I did. He started in January of 96. But Mike and me and Bill, a guy named William Jockish and Henry Stern are what I call the second age design. The five of us for a while were doing most of the development. Like, there's a period of time where, like right now, each development team is a unique and different development team. But there was a couple of years where, like, if you were on Magic R&D, you were on the development team. There were only five members of Magic R&D, and, like, we did all the development. It wasn't, like, who was the development team.

Of course, we were the development team. Okay, so the big thing about Torment, for those that might not know, is the story of Odyssey takes place on Dominaria on a content called Otaria. And it was the story of a guy named Kamal who starts as a red character and if you know your magic, ends up as a green character. Anyway, this particular story, so the good guy, the protagonist of the story was Kamal.

The antagonist was the Cabal. Yes, Kamal and Cabal sound a lot alike. The Cabal was led by the Cabal patriarch, and one of the main characters in the Cabal was a guy named Chainer. And Torment was the story of Chainer and his rise to power because he gets his hand on the Mirari, which is the important object of the story. The Mirari would have a lot of impact on Magic. It would later play into

the Mirrodin story. But anyway, so the idea is I pitched Bill the idea of what if we didn't, what if we made a set that wasn't color balanced? So if you know anything about Magic, you know that every set has an equal number,

a very, very close to equal number, of black, blue, red, green, and white cards. I'm not sure of the order I did there. So there's usually a pretty even keel of all the cards. It's balanced. I mean, back in the day, it was exactly balanced. Now we're a little more looser on rares and mythic rares than we need to be, but it's very close.

And so the idea was, what if we made a set? Well, that just wasn't the case. And the idea was I knew we were doing a story about Chainer and I said, well, what if look, what if we just made this a darker set than normal and just had more black cards?

And Bill was intrigued by the idea. And so what we came up with was the idea that black would have the most cards. I believe black had 40 cards. The set had 143 cards total, 55 commons, 44 uncommons, 44 rares. That was, we have shifted over, our set size has shifted.

Over time, our large sets became a little smaller. Small sets became a little bit bigger. So this is back when the small sets were a little smaller. Now they're more in the 165 range. Anyway, there were 40 black cards in the set, 28 blue and red cards, but only 21 green and white cards in five lands. So what we had done was, blue and red were, but only 21 green and white cards in five lands. So what we had done was blue and red were where they normally were,

and then black stole cards from white and green and went up in number. And not only did black go up in number, but we also gave more of the good cards to black. When the set was developed, white and green in general had weaker cards and black had stronger cards. So not only was black higher in as-fan, it was higher in overall power level. So the set just had a sense of being a black set. In fact, we refer to it as the black set. Now, it's funny, with a modern sensibility looking back, I don't think we went far enough. I don't think there was enough black cards in the set.

That if we were going to do what we were going to do, I think we needed to push it a little more. Using modern technology, I would have made black slots in the set. That if we were going to do what we were going to do, I think we needed to push it a little more. Using modern technology, I would have made black slots in the pack, meaning that every single pack would have had a locked number of black, or not a locked number, but a minimum number of black slots, so that you would have noticed. The problem with this set is you could open up a pack and only get a couple black cards. You know, I mean, you could get a pack with like eight or nine black cards, I believe, but you know, if we're going to communicate something to, I feel like the pack, one pack has to communicate it, not multiple packs. That's a mistake we've made before. Well, once you open nine or ten packs, maybe you'll start to see the theme. No, you really got to see the theme early. The point is, there's black. Well, then you need to see it. And I think

we didn't push it enough. Meaning, if we're going to do the gimmick. Now the interesting thing is, Innistrad tried to up black a little bit. Not enough to be the black set, but just to sort of have a little bit of a black taint. You know, a little more. And development ended up killing that because it caused lots of limited problems. So I don't know if we're ever going to be doing any more

unbalanced color sets again. Judgment and Torment, or Torment and Judgment, might be the only two. But anyway, it was the black set. It had a black theme. And as I go through and talk about what we did, a lot of what we were doing

was trying to have black, the essence of black, seep in a little more than normal. Now, obviously, there are other sets that have a little sort of darker tone to them. You know, the dark had a dark tone. Neufrexi had a very dark tone. So we've definitely done other sets that are a little meaner than normal.

But this set was a little blacker than normal, which... Cutting hair is a little different. Being meaner and being blacker are not always exactly the same. Okay, so let's talk about what this set did. What were the mechanics of the set? So, first off, we brought back the two major mechanics. We brought back Flashback. We brought back Threshold.

The thing for Flashback we did was, the first set, we only used mana costs. And if I remember correctly, I think in the first set, in Odyssey, I don't think we did off-color. I'm trying to remember whether that's true or not. We've done some flashbacks since then. I don't think Odyssey did off-color that it waited. So what happened in Torment was there was a cycle of uncommons that, let's see,

Spirit Flare, Deep Analysis, Crippling Fatigue, Flash of Defiance, and Acorn Harvest, Deep Analysis being the most famous of these, that were all one and a color, pay three life for their flashback cost. So they were cheaper to flashback usually than the original cost.

So the idea was, if you could get these in your graveyard, they were cheaper, I mean, they cost life, so they weren't cheaper overall, but they were cheaper mana if you could get these in your graveyard, they were cheaper. I mean, they cost life, so they weren't cheaper overall, but they were cheaper mana if you could get them in your graveyard. And so one of the things that definitely we played with back in the day was, we would introduce the mechanic in the first set, and then we would play with it and evolve it in the second and third set. I mean, we still do that today,

but we were, I think today we try a little bit harder to make sure that we have some simple stuff for the second and third set. Back then, it's like, do all the simple stuff in the first set, do more complex in the second set, even more complex in the third set, which made our third set kind of complex, but anyway, different topic. So, what happened was, we brought Flashback back we did a little bit of

non-mana in it but other than that we pretty much did just did flashback did more flashback cards threshold what we did with threshold is we had another cycle

where we had creatures that had comes into play ability now called enter the battlefield ability back then it was called comes into play that only worked where we had creatures that had a comes-in-play ability, now called an enter-the-battlefield ability, back then it was called comes-in-play, that only worked if you were at threshold. So one of the things we had done in the first set

was most of the threshold things were like, I'm on the battlefield, and then something happens at threshold, and I change. Here was something that you needed at threshold before you played it. That's something a little different. But once again, mostly with Flopstrain threshold, we did little tiny tweaks to it, but we were mostly

just trying to do more of it. We weren't trying to reinvent the wheel. We were trying to sort of just take it, evolve it a little bit, but give you more of the... I mean, those were the two base mechanics. They were in Odyssey. We wanted to make sure they were in Torment. Okay, next.

So we had one new keyword mechanic, which was madness. So what madness was is madness says, if this card is discarded for any reason, you may pay this madness cost and cast the card. So already in the set, we had a lot of enablers for threshold and flashback that allowed you to get cards into the graveyard, especially, I guess, threshold enablers. But we also had ways to discard cards that you could discard if you wanted to, your flashback cards, get the benefit of discarding them and still be able to use their flashback ability.

So with all these enablers, madness worked really well. So it would allow you to trigger your own Madness, meaning you could discard the card, get the cost of discarding the card, and then cast the thing. Sometimes the Madness cost was even cheaper than the original cost. I mean, usually it was. And so, not only did you get a benefit of having discarded the card, but you got a

cheaper card to boot. Okay, so the way Madness worked was we did a common cycle of Madness, and we did a common cycle of Madness and we did an uncommon cycle of Madness. Common Madness were Frantic Purification, Obsessive Search, Psychotic Haze, Fiery Temper, and Basking Ruwala. Basking Ruwala was the most famous of those five because its Madness cost was zero. You could play it for free if you could discard it. And then uncommon Madness was Strength of Isolation,

Circular Logic, Strength of Lunacy, Violent Eruption, and Arrogant Worm. Arrogant Worm was probably the most famous, although Circular Logic also saw a lot of play. Arrogant Worm just was significantly cheaper. It was a big 6-6 that you could get out. So if you could discard it, it allowed you to get out, I think, 3G.

You could get out a 6-6 much cheaper than you could normally. Anyway, Madness was very, very powerful. It was well-received, probably because it was so powerful. One of the things I talked about last time with Odyssey, when I talked about the Odyssey, is that Odyssey was probably the spikiest set we've ever made. Super, super spiky. And one of the problems was,

if you understood how to maximize it, which was a lot of the fun of it, it was cool. But a lot of what we did is we were turning things on their ear like card advantage and that. It was really an environment where like there was so much going on and it was hard to even wrap your brain around all the things that needed to be done. Because at any moment I could get threshold and I'd discard enablers and I'd discard things and some of them had madness and maybe flashback and there was just a lot going on.

Now for the really invested player, the Spike that understood it all, you know, the better player could win of just understanding everything better. And so there was a lot of love of Spike in it, because there was tons and tons of incremental advantage, where it's like, the right plays to do this thing that might not seem right, but five turns later, it is the right play, you know, and so the set was super Spike-y. Madness. People often ask if Madness will ever come back, and the question about that is Madness had some power level issues, part of that was costing, part of that was also the enabling that you need to make it happen, so Madness in a vacuum is not particularly

interesting. If you don't have a way to discard your own cards, and there's not a lot of discarding going on in your opponent's side, it's a pretty boring mechanic. So it needs a certain amount of structure built into the format that is playing it. And so, in my mind, it could come back. We'd have to address some power level issues with development, and it would have to be in the set that it makes sense in. So

I feel like if I was a gambling man, I don't know. It's 50-50 in my mind in the sense that people really like it, but it has a lot of problems that we have to resolve, and it needs a lot of support

to work. So I don't know. Maybe one day. Maybe one day. Yeah, it's a tricky mechanic to make work. The other thing in the set that was not a named mechanic, but also was a keyword, was what we called the nightmares. I think all the black ones were creature-type nightmare. There were some blue and red ones that I'm not sure were in torment or we waited to put them into judgment. The black cards, what the nightmares did is

they came into play, they removed something of your opponents. It could be a creature in play, it could be a card in their hand. It removed something and as long as that creature is in play, that thing was gone. Now, interestingly, nightmares have shifted over time, and they're now a white thing. A lot of what we did in black in this set are now white, where white is like, I temporarily removed the threat. But if you deal with my threat, then you get your threat back. It's very white.

But at the time, it was in black. Blue and red had nightmares that they removed your own stuff. So the idea was, it was a cost to get them, you got something more for it, but if your opponent killed the creature, then you got your stuff back. So the reason that Richard Garfield was credited in his design is the nightmare creatures were designed for Odyssey. Now, but we had a lot going on, we had a lot going on in the story of Odyssey. We had to pull a bunch of stuff out. And what I realized was, at that point, we were aware that we were going to try this black set. And I knew that Madness really wanted to mostly, at the time, wanted to sit in black.

Not Madness, sorry. Nightmares wanted to sit in black. Because literally, they represented nightmares coming to life. And this magic brought nightmares to life, and they were so scary, that's why they caused things to be locked up while they were in play. And so you'll notice the set had a very strong theme

of insanity and madness and crazed mental states and nightmares, and it was a very dark sort of set trying to have that black feel. And the idea was the Cabal were evil, evil, evil people that really made use of the worst possible tools to enslave the people that they did. They were as black as bad guys come.

The set also obviously had a lot of graveyard matter in the set because it continued the Odyssey theme. The codename, by the way, of the set was Boron. So Odyssey was Argon, Torment was Boron, and Judgment was Carbon, or Carbon. At the time, the way we did codenames was we were starting this idea of we wanted them to be connected,

but we wanted to know the order. So for a little while, we did things that were ABC. So this is chemical elements, obviously, ABC. What order? Well, they go in ABC. At the pre-release for this, Laquatus' champion was done in Cyrillic and given away. So during this period, we went through this phase where pre-releases, where we take a card, and the pre-release card will be done in another language, a language that Magic didn't normally do. So there's one of cards in a particular language that they're the only card ever existing in that language.

When I get to the next set, there's a Judgment has a fun card. I'll get that when I do Judgment. Okay, so there were a lot of cycles in the set. I already talked about the threshold cycle. Oh, there was a disorder cycle in which all five cards, hypochondria, compulsion, mortophobia, pyrimania, and narcissism, they were all disorders, mental disorders, and they required you to either discard a card or sack the enchantment to create an effect. So they did an effect,

and you either discarded a card from your hand or you sacrificed this enchantment, you could get the effect. Compulsion was probably the one that was the most played. Obviously, blue in the card drawing is good. So that was partly for our enablers. It played into a lot of our themes. It helped with madness that was key to this. So we had our flashback cycle that you paid life. We had common madness. We had uncommon madness. So those were our five-card cycles. Now, here's the thing that's interesting.

were five card cycles. Now, here's the thing that's interesting. We had some four card cycles. And so, well, first was a five card cycle. Actually, before I get to the four card cycles, there was a cycle of dreams in which the way we did it was, is a rare cycle and a vertical cycle in black. So for those who don't remember what a vertical cycle is, a vertical cycle means you have a common card and uncommon uncommon, and either a rare or mythic rare. Everyone's in a blue moon are rare and a mythic rare. Back then there weren't mythic rares yet. So there was a common, an uncommon, and a rare. So the dreams,

let's see, the vertical dreams were relentless dreams, sickening dreams, and insidious dreams. And the cycle of dreams were vengeful dreams, turbulent dreams, mythological dreams, and devastating dreams. And these were all instants of sorceries that when you played them, you could discard any number of cards you want to create a scalable effect.

And so what we did is we both made a vertical block cycle and made a rare normal cycle, five-card cycle, because we wanted more block cards, and so that's one of the ways we played it up. We also, in the set, by the way, did a couple four-card cycles. It's hard to do four-card cycles. You don't do them that often. The way you do a four-card cycle, and the set does them, is you have a color that's central, and the cycles show up in the other colors.

So, let me explain. The possessed creatures were four creatures that existed in the four other colors. Possessed Nomad was white. Possessed Aven was blue. Possessed Barbarian was red. Possessed Centaur was green.

At threshold, they turned black and then turned on their own kind. And it was based on, I talked about during the Odyssey podcast, about Repentant Vampire. There was a black vampire that at threshold turned white and started killing black things. It was my nod, by the way, to Angel of Buffy the Vampire fame. And anyway, we made sort of the reverse

version of that, that as things got worse, as it gets darker, you see all the creatures being possessed and going dark, and then killing their own kind. We also had a tainted land cycle, and the way that worked was, there were four lands, tainted fields was white,

tainted isles, I mean, produced white mana, tainted isles was blue, tainted peaks was red, tainted wood was green, they all tapped for one colorless, but if you had a swamp, then they became a dual land, and tapped for black or the appropriate color. So, you know, tainted fields would tap for black or white,

tainted isles black or blue, and such. And the idea there was we wanted to give you a dual land that was tied to the central color. Anyway, we don't do four-card cycles a lot. Interestingly, Innistrad is the next place we would do four-card cycles where we were trying to avoid white because white was the non-monster color. interestingly, Innistrad is the next place we would do four card cycles where we were trying to avoid white because we were trying to white was the

non-monster color, so we had some monster cycles that didn't show up in white. We don't do them all that often. The other vertical cycle, we did one more vertical cycle, which was in red. In Odyssey, we had done something we called a Punisher mechanic. And what a Punisher mechanic is is you have a choice. The red spells that say

either let me do something and often that something was not something red normally got to do, or take a bunch of damage. And the way I used to joke is red going, let me do this thing, or I punch you in the face. And you go, I don't want to punch you in the face, okay. And it let red draw cards, it let red do discard effects. It did a bunch of different things. So the vertical cycle was Longhorn, Firebeast, Flaming Gambit, and Skull Scorch. Anyway, it was something we had started in Odyssey, and we continued. We messed around a lot with red. The one experiment we did, by the way, in the Odyssey block that I end up regretting was we did a lot of discarding, because discard was so important, and we decided to fit red. We made all of red to discard random

which meant that red kind of had to sit it out mostly because you couldn't control things. So like, here's this neat intricate thing of all these cool things you can do and red just can't control it. And like thematically I understand why we did it but play-wise it was bad. It just made red not playable.

It just made Red really get avoided mostly, because, like, here's this neat thing. I have Madness. I want to discard my Madness card. Sorry! Like, Red had to, like, I have to discard every card but my Madness card to be able to use it, and, like, it just made it really hard to use, you know, and you'd have a lot of dumb games where, like,

you know, sometimes Red would have to use stuff, and it's like, oh, ah, you know, I got the wrong thing. Like, this could have been an oh, ah, you know, I got the wrong thing. It could have been awesome play, but no, I randomly hit the wrong thing. And we've shied away from that. What we've learned over the years is that part of showing chaos in Red is not just making the person who plays Red not be able to control what they do. There's other ways to sort of get a flavor of chaos.

But making the Red player just have no control just makes bad play for the red player and doesn't the key to making flavor is the flavor has to not just you have to match gameplay you have to make gameplay that is fun that there's ways to make red feel chaotic

without red just for example I felt that the punisher mechanic did a very good job making chaotic red didn't quite know what was going to happen, but those were much more useful cards. Red could play those and use those, where a lot of the random disc cards were just very, very hard to use.

So the last thing to talk about today is, I want to talk about so Odyssey had two mega cycles. One was a strong cycle and one was a loose cycle. I'll talk about the loose cycle first, save the strong cycle for later. So the loose cycle was we had made

five lords that were all three, CCC, three colored men of their color, and all of them could tap a creature of whatever type the lord was lord of to do something. It was a loose cycle because all of them were rare,

except the black one in Torment, which was Zombie Trailblazer, which was uncommon. And all of them did one ability, except the black one did two abilities. And then all of them were normal creatures, except the green one was a legend. So it was something that we sort of connected loosely, but there's a lot of...

It was not consistent the way through. So there's a hard cycle to see. Okay, now the not hard cycle to see, or a little more straightforward, was we had an alternative win cycle. And the alternate win cycle, the most famous one of those was actually in Odyssey, was Battle of Wits.

That's the famous of them. But there was one in Torment, which was Mortal Kombat. So you'll notice both of the black parts of the mega-cycle, so Odyssey would have cycles in which the five colors were spread throughout the five sets. What we did is the red and blue parts of the mega-cycle would show up in Odyssey, the black

one shows up in Torment, and the white and green ones show up in Judgment, which is weighted toward white and green, if you hadn't figured that out. We'll get there eventually. So anyway, I see Wizards, so let me wrap this up. So the plan, by the way, is I will continue next time. I want to tell card-by-card stories, and I'll

I think as I, what I've learned is as I get into the card-by-card stories, I start hinting at other things I had forgotten about the set design. I feel like today was mostly just mapping out all the different things we had done, and next time I will talk a little bit more about some individual choices and how we got there.

So Tournament, like I said, was an interesting experiment. I like experimentation. I like trying things. I definitely like... I definitely like... I'm not at all upset that we did a heavy black set. Like I said,

ironically, I wish we had pushed it a little more. Although it's something that I don't expect us necessarily to repeat. Part of doing experiments is to see how things work. And Torment had a lot of issues with it. It had an imbalance in limited that was problematic. A lot of people obviously were playing black. Anyway, but it was a fun set to do. I feel like there's a lot of neat things in it,

and it's super spiky, but the Odyssey block has gone on to be a very popular let's-go-back-and-draft-the-past block because there's so many moving pieces in it. The thing that was a problem at the time, I explained this during Odyssey, was that it was a very, very hard set for the average player because there were so many moving pieces

that they couldn't keep track of all of it, and we were asking them to do a lot of things that weren't inherently fun. Discarding your hand is not inherently fun. But for the people that really enjoyed it, especially on the Spike end of the spectrum, it is one of the widget-y, most, you know, resource management, maybe the most we've ever done.

And I know that it's a very, very popular set to draft after the fact, you know, go back and draft now. And so, anyway, like I said, I have positive feelings of Torment. I think we tried some stuff that some worked, some didn't. But it had a very nice, dark feel. I like a lot of the stuff we did, positioning block in a different place

in the four card cycles. And it allowed us to do some stuff we don't normally do. That's my favorite thing as a designer. When we come up with a way to sort of position ourselves and do things we don't normally do, because that way we get to make cards that we don't normally get to make. And stuff like the Tainted Lands is a real good example where that's super, super hard to do that in a normal set. But there, we were allowed to be able to do something like that.

Anyway, thank you so much for joining me today. It was a lot of fun talking about Torment. Obviously, we'll talk more about Torment next time. But as much as I like talking about Torment, I also like making magic. So I'll talk to you guys next time.