Sorry for reviving an older thread, but here's an out of the box (and also completely untested) idea:
Instead of (or possibly in addition to) trying to expand the character decks to fit the characters, what about expanding the characters to better fit their decks?
Class card type:
Introduce a new dual-sided "Class" (or Multi-class, or whatever you want to call it) card type that represents some of the basic skills/powers of that class. This would be a completely optional upgrade option.
The intent is to impart the flavor of each class, but not all of the power or full access to another character deck. You could gain a limited number of cross-class powers, skills, and cards. You could gain the skills/proficiency requires to actually use cards in your deck. You could even help Flenta realize her dreams of becoming a spell caster!
How to acquire:
This card type could be unlocked using a Card Feat, which then allows that character to display their new Class card next to their Character/Role card, adding its traits, skills, powers, and card feats to your character.
To try to keep it from being a huge power jump, the initial benefit of the card would have to be minimal: 1 additional skill with no/small bonuses, and a rather limited class power.
The rest is up to you to unlock with feats. This would allow for a lot of flexibility in building your character and in distinguishing the same character from player to player.
The front of the card: Skills
There would be 1 (maybe 2) specific class skill already unlocked (ex: Arcane: Int; +0 or +1 modifier).
A very limited number of Skill feats available, let's say 3:
1) a +1 to that class's primary base skill (Str/Dex/etc)
2) a +1 to another a secondary skill
3) a +1 or +2 to a specific (Arcane/etc) skill
These would add to the skills on your character card. For example, if you had 2 skill feats invested into Str on your character card, and you invested another skill feat in Str on your class card, you would have a total of Str+3.
Powers
Also very limited class-specific powers, and a limited number of Power feat upgrades (maybe limited to 2 or 4). For example, the Cleric's "Reveal Divine --> Heal" could start off limited to Blessings, and could be upgraded with a power feat to "Blessing or Spell".
The back of the card: Cards
Taking a Card feat on (but not to gain) a Class card would still increase the size of your character deck, but it would also grant you the ability to add these extra cards from this specific class deck. The number of card feats would be limited as well (let's say 4: 2 of 1 type and 1 of the other 2). For example, if Kyra (Cleric) had a Fighter Class card with a "Weapon 1" checked, she could add this weapon from either the Cleric or Fighter class decks, but could have no more than the 1 Fighter weapon in her deck.
Fluff
A quick blurb about the class in general.
How to distribute
This could be made available as a (free?) download, and players could print out whatever class(es) they wanted. If done this way, the only other thing you would need is whichever class deck(s) with which you wanted to multi-class.
Hi, it looks like there was a printer alignment issue with my PACG Bard Character Deck. The text and artwork in the deck containing the character, weapon, spell, and armor cards is blurry (it has a certain "printed for 3D" look to it). Only the one deck is affected, but all cards in that deck are affected to some degree (varies from "barely noticeable" to "barely legible").
I purchased it from my FLGS, so do I need to take it back there or is this (preferably) something you guys can help me with directly?
Who says you have to buy it and/or play it immediately?
Logically releasing monthly is a disadvantage to no-one. Whereas releasing Bi-monthly was a disadvantage to those who were thirsting for new content.
There's also the player-subscribers. If monthly is too frequent (and/or possibly too expensive), they might end up unsubscribing rather than paying for something that's just going to sit until they (maybe) get around to it later.
That runs the risk of them not even coming back to the game, especially if they subscribe mainly for the promos (such as myself) and would be unable (or unwilling to pay the extortionately high resale) to get them later.
I just received my errata decks (full 1st edition), and did a card-for-card replacement; I ended up with 21 original cards with no replacement:
1x - Blessing of the Gods (C)
1x - Siren (C)
Regarding the size difference: I can tell the difference if I stand them up next to each other, but since I sleeve me cards it's not an issue for me. However, I would think it would be better to have the disclaimer saying there *might* be a difference even if it's not noticeable than to not have a disclaimer when it is. CYA.
One minor wish would be that the errata card somehow indicated a version or at least that it is an errata (such as a tiny "e" in the corner). More than once when I was replacing cards would I set the old too close to the new, look away, and forget which was which. Note: this should also serve as a compliment for how close the new are to the originals.
EDIT: I checked the FAQ and found why C-Deck Siren wasn't replaced: it was already correct; only the B-deck version was missing the Elite trait.
Well that still depends on whether an added skill does not add itself as a trait. Is there anything new on that?
I would think that "cards don't do what they don't say" rule would apply. It says only that you add the skill (rule book says this is die + modifier); it doesn't say that you add trait(s).
I'm not aware of anywhere in the rules that says adding a skill also adds the traits, except when you are determining the skill (which you are not; you are past that step).
So why would you think you add them?
Why am I past that step? I am still playing the same exact power that allowed me to use another skill instead of Melee/Strength for combat. It is not only on the same card, it is the same paragraph, meaning the same power! How can I play one sentence of the power in this step and the next sentence in another step? (Which is not even the following step.)
You're right, sorry. Upon closer inspection of the text, I agree that you are still in the "define" step. For some reason I was thinking this was a card power you're playing into an already-defined check.
So as zeroth_hour pointed out above, it comes down to a matter of "add" vs. "use" and the distinction between them. Quite literally, it does say "add your Divine skill" not "use your Divine skill". Since only skills you are using add their traits, I would still be inclined to conclude you don't add the traits. We'll see what the official ruling is.
Well that still depends on whether an added skill does not add itself as a trait. Is there anything new on that?
I would think that "cards don't do what they don't say" rule would apply. It says only that you add the skill (rule book says this is die + modifier); it doesn't say that you add trait(s).
I'm not aware of anywhere in the rules that says adding a skill also adds the traits, except when you are determining the skill (which you are not; you are past that step).
I suggest reading up on the Community Use policy for details.
I am familiar with the CUP, but uncertain how the following condition applies in this case:
Quote:
To use Paizo Material under this Policy you must include the following notice in plainly legible and accessible form in each product or on each website that uses any Paizo Material...
Since we're not able to fit the required blurb onto the card, I'm not sure how we can comply with that requirement. I wasn't sure if there was a loophole in that this is an official app and not a fan app.
I do see at the end of the card creation process that you (the creator) agree to transfer ownership over to Paizo, so that might cover it and also open up the public option when using Paizo's content. It's their content and IP; it's probably a question best left to them to decide.
However, this opens up the question of rights with regards to images to which you have the right to use but not transfer to others.
Question regarding the Community Use Policy, images from the Paizo Blog/Fiction, and the new card editor:
Are we allowed to use the artwork found on the blog/serials in our custom cards? I would assume that making the cards public would definitely be off limits, but what if the cards are kept private (assuming also you're also printing them for resale)?
A Discount is not an option, have tried it in the past and it was a no go.
Going to another store to play would be the same experience.
Another, slightly harsher, suggestion would be to just start turning people away. If the store sees people are interested, but are not able to participate because of (your) lack of supplies, they might (just maybe) be more willing to consider a discount.
If watching would-be customers walk away empty-handed doesn't change their mind, then I don't know what would.
I thought it was mentioned somewhere that stores registering their involvement in PACG OP would get reduced-cost base/expansion sets (something in the order of "just pay shipping").
Heck, even if they did have to crack open one of their own boxes (their cost: wholesale), if you have in excess of 12 people interested in playing in your area, surely they can be convinced to invest in capturing this player base.
If not, maybe you can negotiate a significant discount for yourself in exchange for bringing potential players into the store; even if they sold it to you at wholesale, if 1 person buys 1 thing from them, they come out ahead (dollar-wise anyhow; I'm not trying to start a principles of economics debate here).
If this is still too costly for them, I second the "go elsewhere" approach, both in terms of playing and buying.
I house rule when playing with my brother that if we lose by the timer, we still rebuild our decks from what we have, but then we banish a random card from each of our decks. That then has to be replaced like the usual rules, a basic until Adv 3 and then it's 2 adventures lower.
It might help new players better understand the actual rules if house rules are left out of the conversation.
Andrew is correct in his first paragraph. Regardless of whether you win or lose, you rebuild your deck using the cards in your hand/deck/discard as usual. If you gained a cool magical sword, you don't have to give it back; if you lost (banished) something during the scenario, you don't get to take it back. If the rules/cards don't tell you something bad happens, it doesn't.
My FLGS has also had a terrible time getting promos (through Alliance, I believe); I got exactly 1 promo through him, and it took weeks of me badgering him to badger his rep.
There is never any mention of actually "killing" anything or anyone in this game. You "defeat" things, but what you do to defeat them is left up to you. It could be anything from outright killing them to punching them in the face to jello wrestling (I'm going to start using that one).
I hope WoodManZX is still around so that when they release new card templates he can add them in. I personally consider the MSE template to be perhaps the best thing any one in the community has ever contributed. It is that good. And the time it saves is unbelievable. He doesn't get enough praise for it, probably because it works so well you can just take it and use it. But it is the best.
I will echo my praise for WoodManZX's template; it really is an amazing creation, and far less work than creating cards in GIMP (hours of my life I won't get back).
I've been making updates to his template locally, and have made several enhancements (deck number, loot support card type, enabled printing directly from MSE, and removed the recharge box, etc). I can release mine... once the templates are updated officially, of course.
That said, any update on when we can get the updated styles?
Guillotine is the first to come to mind for cost and ease of play. I've seen players who have trouble with bigger card games have fun planning out their strategies of how to get a head. Even with all of that is a pretty cost effective card game.
Notably designed by PACG developer Paul Peterson. I helped a tiny bit too.
Stop putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my brain!!! (That was Blazej.)
As a suggestion note:
Murder of Crows is also fun. It's the sort of game you would get if you asked Tim Burton to cross Munchkin with a spelling bee.
You were probably closing locations when you hit henchmen. We never did unless the location was annoying and made you bury cards or something. We went to the bottom of every deck to get all the loot. We would even intentionally fail the boss encounter sometimes if we got him too early.
I actually play very similar to you; my main group is Kyra, Seoni, and Merisiel. I also farm each location for as many boons as possible, and rarely have I lost either. Where we differ though is that I don't intentionally lose against the villain (potentially cards off the Blessings deck).
It's interesting that despite the similarities, we have very different styles of play. We just place different values on different abilities and cards. And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. (Which was the point of my first post, for those who seem to have missed it).
(Side note: "mostly useless" and "a good backup" are not synonyms.)
Her heal power was terrible in RotR and is still terrible in S&S. It's too expensive. You should never be skipping explores unless it's an emergency. I think in all of RotR I used the skip-heal maybe 4-5 times and we would have lived without it.
We used that much more. I think it depends on party make-up, size and playstyle.
Huh. I just don't see why you would. Cure spells are far more effective for no real cost.
If by "far more effective" you mean "equally as effective with no means of upgrading it" and by "no real cost" you mean "requiring extra cards in your deck" then I can definitely see your point.
I use Kyra's heal power a minimum of 4-5 times per scenario, and I love it because...
1) I don't need to actually have a Cure spell in hand to heal someone.
2) You can use over half your deck as a healing implement (Holy Water, Token of Remembrance, Inflict, etc).
3) You can upgrade it to 1d4+2/3 (3-6 or 4-7 cards) with Role.
4) You can give her spells other than just Cure.
5) If my Cures end up in my discard (or bury) pile, I can still heal.
The cost of my first explore is a small price to play, IMO.
I don't mind running a character sometimes with a heavy Cure spell list (Alahazrah, etc), but I feel I'm limiting the character.
I play solo with 1, 2 or 3 characters, so I don't mind Kyra taking her entire turn to heal (especially when it's Cure + her heal power to fully heal someone in one turn). I use those extra spell slots for Augury, of all spells. But if I'm playing her "wrong" then I'd be open to hear how I "should be" playing her...
I hate when people judge other peoples' play styles because it differs from their own, as if theirs is the only valid style.
I see Orbis's statement about not realizing Chad was the (lead) designer for the game, so his stance makes a lot more sense now.
Here is how I was reading the conversation before (paraphrased):
Orbis: "Should this card do this or have this trait?"
Dev: "Yes, and here is why."
Orbis: "I don't like that answer; my interpretation is better."
I acknowledge that I was a bit overly aggressive, and I'm sorry. It just seemed like a total (and repeated) disregard of the designer's intent, which tends to get me fired up.
It is better or worse because of what keys off of this trait. In an utter vacuum, it woudn't be any better or worse, but that's not how cards are intelligently evaluated.
There are many situations that crop up that prevent a player from playing spells with the attack trait.
By that same logic, adding/removing any trait(s) would make any card better.
If I add the "Foo" trait to the Longsword, and have a power that utilizes that trait, is the card better or worse? (Note that I didn't mention what that power does...)
I don't need a description of how traits interact with powers. I know that removing the Attack trait means certain characters don't get to use certain powers, while others do. I know it may cause you to interact with situations differently, such as banes that react to this trait.
What I don't get it why you think this card would be better without it. It seems like a preconceived notion of how you think the card should operate versus how the developers have already said they want it to operate.
Orbis Orboros wrote:
These situations are nearly all designed to prevent the player from using her spell to determine her combat check, forcing her to rely on weapons or some other form of combat. The attack trait is how the game lumps these spells together, saving space in card text over saying something like "you cannot play spells that determine the skill you use for your combat check."
"Nearly all" is the same as "not all", and where have the designers ever said this is the their definition of the Attack trait? In fact, Chad's comment above directly contradicts this.
To say that "all spells that define the die in your combat check also have the Attack trait" means "all spells that have the Attack trait also define the die in your combat check" is a false equivalency.
All cards that have the Tool trait are items, but not all items have the Tool trait. All bows are weapon cards that have the Ranged trait, but not all weapon cards that have the Ranged trait are bows.
I think that rules quote is a red herring here. It covers a situation like the Garrison, which has an ability something like (sorry, going from memory here):
"If you encounter a monster other than a henchman or villain, each other character at this location summons and encounters that monster."
I see your point, but that's not the situation I was envisioning. Consider this situation based on your example above:
Valeros is at this location and encounters a monster with the Aquatic trait; let's assume there is only 1 copy in the game. He somehow whiffs and fails to defeat the monster, so it would get shuffled back into the location.
Lini is also at this location, so she summons, encounters, and defeats that monster. What is Lini to add to her hand? Her power says that she should put something into her hand; she defeated and would banish a qualifying monster, but because it's a summoned proxy of a card that got shuffled back into the location, what is she supposed to do? She did her part in activating her power, but gets nothing for it (unless you proxy with a random monster from the box).
Another example would be if you have 2 characters that add monsters to their hands; both defeat the same summoned monster and would normally be able to add it to their hands. Who gets it? Again, you could proxy it, but it's also possible that what the monster is might be important, so a random replacement might not be acceptable (possible foreshadowing).
It's kind of like saying, "I know you played a blessing but there are no more dice, so you don't get your extra die roll and you don't get your card back. Sorry." (Yes, I know you can pick up one of the dice, re-roll it, and add the result; it's an analogy only).
My point is that the rule should be absolute, not "in this case, do this; in this other case, do this other thing; in this other case don't so anything". If there are ways for Lini to fulfill her activation requirements yet not be able to put that card in her hand, then the power is broken.
Now, if the rules said "Summoned monsters are banishedreturned to the box" then her power would be behave in a consistent manner, because it would not apply to these cases.
So for me, soloing or trying to solo through the game has no pull; no enticement. I could see myself trying to solo a character through specific scenarios just to see how they'd do. But not through an entire adventure or even the path.
That's you but it's not everyone. I can see the task of completing the entire AP solo as being more of a challenge, which some people might enjoy more than having a rounded party.
The great thing about this game is that all styles of play are equally valid. I personally think the sweet spot is 2-3 characters, but I am not going to try to change/judge anyone else's way of playing.
The same "haven't experienced" argument could be made for people who haven't played 5/6 character games.
It's different experience solo than it is with 2/3 characters, and its a different experience than with more. I wouldn't say its better/bad/worse, its how each person wants/likes to play that is important.
Solo (1 character) is a unique experience because you don't have the benefit of well-rounded party, and you don't have the benefit of blessing/other help from anyone else. It's just you, 30 location cards, 30 turns, and only 15 cards in your deck. Unless you have reliable healing, you have to manage your hand and your deck more than with 2 character, where you have 15 fewer turns and can be slightly more liberal with your discards. It changes slightly again going to 3 characters, where you have 10 turns, which is roughly 1 discard per turn.
More characters than that and the game changes from hand/deck to time management. You have 60 to 80 location cards and still only 30 turns in which to go through them, at an average of 7.5 to 5 turns per character. Your character needs to better at getting through the locations faster because you don't know if the villain/henchman is going to be halfway down or at the very bottom.
I've equipped mine with a whoopie cushion on the inside so it makes the fart noise when putting the lid on as well as taking it off. It's all about symmetry.
At first glance, I'd say it looks like a fairly well-rounded character.
A couple notes though:
1) You have 1 too many cards (should be 15; you have 16).
2) Saying "Shield Armor" as your favored card might get you into trouble if you ever find yourself with no shields available in your deck at the start. I think shields would be the armor of choice normally, but the added trait creates a grey area where it's possible to not legally be able to draw your starting hand.
3) Your "Reduce Acid () Fire () Cold damage" power should specify whose damage is being reduced; as written, it implies any damage of that type taken by any character at any location. I think it should be "reduce your" here for clarity.
4) Minor wording issue just to be consistent with the game: include "or" between options so it forms a complete sentence when you skip or include certain options. When you have no feats checked, it should read (for example) "Reduce Acid damage"; then when you have the first one selected it should read "Reduce Acid of Fire damage". It's generally clear what you meant, but as written it could be interpreted as Fire replaces Acid, Cold replaces Fire. as what happens with the numerical values.
5) Hand size generally is an indicator of "squishiness" of a character (based loosely on hit dice). 4 is considered the norm for fighters* and paladins (d10, maybe d8); 5 is normally rogues/rangers/etc (d8 or d6); 6 is normally wizards/sorcerers/etc (d4). I'm not saying it's wrong, just that you run the risk of being overpowered. It's probably OK considering your hand size is capped at 6.
(*Before anyone mentions Flenta as an example, she doesn't example represent the fighter class with her attention to the arcane; she's made herself a weaker fighter by trying to be a better wizard.)
6) And the obvious: only 1 role card. :)
Overall, I like your character; the powers are different than we've seen, and seem to be decently powered. I'm not sure about that "another location" feat in your "redirect damage" role power; it's hard to judge whether that would be OP or not in actuality.
That explains how it's different, but now why it's better. I understand that certain characters/powers/monsters key off of this trait; that's not my question.
Chad said that some spells (like this one, specifically) were given the Attack trait by design and others were not. Why would this card be better if it did not the Attack trait? (Why are the developers wrong?)
I just don't see a need for it to be there. Especially since, generally speaking, it would make this already just okay card a little better to remove it.
Why do you see a need to remove it? How would removing it make it better?
Regardless, other characters don't interact with the bane (again, unless the bane specifies otherwise).
Another character can interact with the bane if there are multiple checks to defeat, or acquire for boons. If there 2+ sequential checks ("THEN"), the character encountering it must attempt at least 1, but the other check can be attempted by someone else.
After evading a summoned card or resolving the encounter with it, banish it unless you’re instructed otherwise.
Lini's power instructs you to do otherwise.
However, one other point that the rules mention is:
Summoning and Adding Cards, pg 14 wrote:
However, if you’re told to summon a card that’s already in play, just imagine you have another copy of that card for the new encounter; this summoned copy ceases to exist at the end of the encounter.
(Emphasis mine) This I think is (conceptually) what Vic was saying back in Feb. If a summoned monster "ceases to exist" after the encounter, then it can't be added to anyone's hand or any location.
That said, I do realize the predicate is "if you're told to summon a card that's already in play" but I would have a hard time accepting that a summoned monster should be handled differently if there is or isn't an extra copy of the card.
I'm kind of on the "summoned monsters never go anywhere other than to the box" camp now, but what about summoned boons? I can't think of examples, but the concept is the same.
Isn't something being in the rules/FAQ basically the same as "because we said so" in written form? ;)
Also bear in mind that Vic's comment about summoned cards never going anywhere but the box was over 6 months ago; there's been a lot of time for discussion on that point, introduction of new powers, and revised rules.
EDIT: I've moved my point about what the rules say over to the other thread, specifically here.
Reveal and Display are 2 separate things. I think you might be doing the right thing (display) but calling it the wrong thing (reveal).
2) You would need to display that weapon (not reveal it); this means it is no longer in your hand and not usable again until it returns to your hand, which would be your next turn.
3) That card stays displayed in front of you (not in your hand, not usable) until your next turn.
4) Your "display to add 1 to checks" power applies only to blessings and weapons; you cannot reveal display an armor, only a blessing or weapon. You would not be able to help Lini now.
5) Again, you cannot display an armor, but if you could it would stay displayed until your next turn.
7) The cards stay displayed until your power specifies when they return to your hand. You have probably not checked the "and at the start of your turn" power feat, so they stay displayed until you right before reset your hand at the end of your turn.
When you gain a power feat and check that option, they will return to your hand immediately at the start of your turn and you can use them again on your turn.
8) Since the weapon is still displayed, no you cannot use it.
9) While the armor (or any card) is displayed, not you cannot use it (unless the card itself says it can be played while it is displayed).
10) Before you rest your hand, the cards you have displayed return to your hand. So now you have the weapon, armor, and spell in your hand. You may discard none or any number of them, then draw up to your hand size.
Why should Lini take damage from watching Valeros fight?
Because that's what the card says to do. Call it collateral damage from flying boulders if you need justification.
I think the biggest take-away here is: Don't interpret, just read.
It starts out "Before any combat"; this is the trigger.
What happens when this triggers? "Each character at this location must succeed ... or take 1d4 Combat damage".
Regardless of what you or anyone else thinks should happen at this location, is this power not clearly worded? (The exact meaning of "combat" notwithstanding).
The examples being monsters makes no difference; a power is a power. Let the cards tell you what to do rather than trying to figure out what you want the cards to tell you to do.
No, the only way that would bother me is if, when they get around to making the Druid Class Deck (crosses fingers), they didn't put Resto in it for that reason.
For that matter, why not put Restoration in ALL of the class decks, even the for non-Divine casters? What does theme matter in a thematic game anyway. ;)
The fluff is just fluff; it has no bearing on the powers or how to interpret them.
The "At this location" specifically says "each character at this location"; I don't see how this can be interpreted as "only the character facing combat".
That's just silly, especially when they started making characters like Alahazra and Zarlova.
You're using characters created after RotR to justify the need to for more in RotR?
As nondeskript said, there didn't need to be more divine attack spells in RotR because the characters in the box weren't as reliant on their spells. On the Arcane side, this wasn't true, which is why there are ton of basic Arcane spells (which is also true of the RPG spell lists).
In S&S (and later), there are more characters whose divine magic is their primary means of fighting; the need is greater now so we're getting more now.
Well, how many Divine attack spells are there in the RPG? Divine is generally not attack-oriented, hence the limited numbers and "mediocrity" (I prefer to think of it as "accurate representation").
This is the method we are using for Season 0. We used it at Gen Con, and we think it works fine.
Seriously... why is this discussion argument still happening after Vic's statement? There are 2 options listed in the guide now. Try them for season 0 and if there are legitimate issues, they will get resolved.
I recommend a rule that anyone who argues about what method is used gets NO reward.
My only problem with picking and choosing is that for some scenarios you'd want to tune your deck one way and the next scenario, another way.
I should clarify that I don't do this; I keep my deck intact and only swap out if I change characters, and even then I might not (depends on what I had previously chosen for my deck).
I'm more of a boon hoarder than an deck optimizer.
Right, and I agree with the request as well; it would be nice to have them unmarked. They are released under the CUP, so there's no real need that I can see to watermark them.
I'm just offering other options for the time being, or just in case.
One (low tech) option would be to get a straight-line paper cutter and trim off the watermark after you print them. The down side is that it gives you a slightly smaller page, but it works.
Another would be to try printing at a slightly higher zoom (if your printer supports it) so that the watermark (and your email) gets cut off by the printer margins.
Alternately, check out Foxit PDF Reader (free); there is a "Typewriter" option that lets you mark up PDFs without form elements and a "Highlight" feature that lets you highlight any text (including the watermark) with solid black to cover it up before printing. It then lets you save the PDF with those changes when you're done. (I'm not sure if Adobe's AR has a similar feature or not because I quit using it long ago.)
You rebuild your deck after each scenario and your deck goes back to its starting size; any cards you didn't keep are returned to the box (no mention in the rules of keeping a record, so you wouldn't).
However, that's how I do it at home (solo) so I can mix and match characters in my party without reverting back to Basic cards when there's a gear conflict.
That's closer to how I play CRPGs (Baldur's Gate, etc). I tend to squirrel gear and consumables around town for when I might want them later, rather than sell them and have to buy them back later at a loss.
Also, I find it fun to treat it as a checklist (Gotta acquire 'em all!). :)
