|
I would like a confirmation on something by one of the powers that be.
I was coordinating an event this weekend and my fellow GM had a player who needed to leave early. At what point does a player receive a chronicle? I made the call that since this player had not played through three encounters, he would not receive anything. Was I wrong? What is the "cutoff" for giving somebody credit if they have to leave early?
I believe that you made the correct call. 3 encounters.
If the player had left after the 3 encounters, he would get the XP, but not gold or PA which were not yet found.
|
It's the 'spirit' of the credit line. The player who died in act 1 or 2 still has some mystery left in the game. The player who died at the feet of the BBG doesn't.Again, just my opinion. Never run into this situation before. I have been wrong before and reserve the right to be wrong again in the future.
That does not really hold anymore since GMs can now get player credit After GMing, and a GM would know more about the scenario then a Player would.
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
What's the official PFS view on the Bard archetype Street Performer's Gladhanding ability?
Gladhanding: A street performer earns double the
normal amount of money from Perform checks. As a
standard action, he may use a Bluff check in place of a
Diplomacy check to improve a creature’s attitude for 1
minute, after which its attitude becomes one step worse
than originally. This ability replaces countersong.
Does it double the day job result? As a first level character I've got a +16 on perform for money (Performance Artist trait, skill focus, 18 cha) and on average could get a 26, so would I get 100 gp since gladhandling doubles the amount I'd get from my Perform check? Or 200 if I rolled a 19-20? Since the ability isn't banned or adapted (yet) for PFS, does it in fact double the day job result? I think it should, but I know the PFS is strict about how much gp is handed out...
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
Can a Player who played a scenario but did not receive player credit due to a character death play that scenario again to get the player credit?Hate to bug you Mark and Hyrum, But this will be coming up soon at my game so was hoping to get an answer this week.. :(
Out of curiosity are you referring to a PC that died and didn't get a raise or a PC that died but was raised later after the session?
As it is written if you didn't get a chronicle sheet its re-playable under the current rules but, that does sort of goes against the sprint of what has been stated here on the forums.
I would say the player could replay it but that is merely my 2 cp.
|
|
Can a Player who played a scenario but did not receive player credit due to a character death play that scenario again to get the player credit?Hate to bug you Mark and Hyrum, But this will be coming up soon at my game so was hoping to get an answer this week.. :(Out of curiosity are you referring to a PC that died and didn't get a raise or a PC that died but was raised later after the session?
As it is written if you didn't get a chronicle sheet its re-playable under the current rules but, that does sort of goes against the sprint of what has been stated here on the forums.
I would say the player could replay it but that is merely my 2 cp.
He died and stayed dead!
|
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
He died and stayed dead!
"In any scenario, so long as a PC played three of the encounters before dying and is brought back to life, he is awarded XP for that scenario. PCs who do not return to the realm of the living are awarded no XP for the scenario in which they died. Finally, note that a 1st-level PC can be returned to life in Pathfinder Society."
I am thinking that your player didn't get a chronicle sheet but is on the record if you sumbit your games to the website on the report as dead.
mmm you ask a good question.
I think the real answer is no but it is dicey (yes I know i just change my mind in 13 minutes)
Can a Player who played a scenario but did not receive player credit due to a character death play that scenario again to get the player credit?Hate to bug you Mark and Hyrum, But this will be coming up soon at my game so was hoping to get an answer this week.. :(
I would say yes, but only if the dead character did not make it through 3 encounters before dying. I say this because there is already a rule in place that would award whatever your character earned if he completes at least 3 encounters and is brought back to life.
But then, if a GM can run a scenario and then play it for credit, why couldn't you play another character through a scenario where you had a character die and stay dead and not earn any credit? Your knowledge of a scenario where your character died will be far less than what a GM would know when playing after running.
So I can see both sides of the argument.
|
|
Okay, I have gotten confused again, mainly because I cannot find what I thought was the final official post on the subject....
The subject:
Wands, scrolls, and potions made above minimum caster level.
Current definites:
Other than when available on a CS, you can only buy a wand with full charges at full price
As long as the wand costs 750 gp or less, you can buy it at any time with 2 PA, as long as you have 2 CPA to spend.
Less definite:
You cannot buy a wand, scroll or wand above minimum caster level for the spell.
So, is there a reason for this? It makes a Wand of Magic Missiles, as an example, past 3rd or 4th level, less than useful, since you cannot buy one appropriate to your spellcaster.
Also, since they are not included in the list, can you buy a wand, scroll, or potion with a spell with a metamagic effect on it?
|
|
This is the sort of thing which should be on chronicles sheets more often. Partly charged wands, wands with higher caster level, items characters could normally not afford... All perfect for chronicles.
I'm not exactly sure on the why. I would suggest it's to make treasure on chronicles sheets more unique and interesting than stuff you can buy off the shelf but to date I don't see a lot of these items on chronicles.
Also, since they are not included in the list, can you buy a wand, scroll, or potion with a spell with a metamagic effect on it?
This is a no, because modifying the spell is considered part of the banned crafting rules. Only the original version of the spell from the appropriate allowed source is valid for buying as a wand, scroll or potion.
|
|
I think the "eating a mod/replay" rules should be clarified because IIRC I thought Hyrum said you get ONE credit period not one player credit AND one GM credit. Meaning I can't eat a mod (GM it without playing it first) and give the credit to my Taldor PC and then play it and give credit to my Andoran PC. to me his stickied post was a little confusing. Maybe I'm dense :)
Mike
|
|
There is no more "eating" a mod in the traditional sense because you can play it or GM it in any order. The guideline is very clear at this point.
(1) You can receive credit for playing a scenario, but only once. All future participation in that scenario is for no credit and only under the "play play play" guidelines.
(2) You can receive credit for GM'ing a scenario, but only once. All additional occurrences of GM'ing that scenario are for no credit.
(3) You can receive up to two total credits per scenario, one for playing, one for GM'ing.
(4) You can receive credit in either order (play then GM or GM then play).
(5) You cannot apply the two credits (one for playing, one for GM'ing) to the same character.
EDIT...This applies to standard PFS published scenarios and should not be confused with the special exception rule regarding replay of The Godsmouth Heresy.
|
|
Well so like I said...I can DM a mod and give it to a Taldor PC then play a mod and give it to my Andoran PC. I guess I missed that
You are actually overcomplicating things.
Any character can get a chronicle only once.
You can GM once, and use the sheet for one of your characters.
You can play once and use the sheet for that character.
Faction doesn't matter, order doesn't matter, just not the same character.
|
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
What's the official PFS view on the Bard archetype Street Performer's Gladhanding ability?
Does it double the day job result? As a first level character I've got a +16 on perform for money (Performance Artist trait, skill focus, 18 cha) and on average could get a 26, so would I get 100 gp since gladhandling doubles the amount I'd get from my Perform check? Or 200 if I rolled a 19-20? Since the ability isn't banned or adapted (yet) for PFS, does it in fact double the day job result? I think it should, but I know the PFS is strict about how much gp is handed out...Gladhanding: A street performer earns double the
normal amount of money from Perform checks. As a
standard action, he may use a Bluff check in place of a
Diplomacy check to improve a creature’s attitude for 1
minute, after which its attitude becomes one step worse
than originally. This ability replaces countersong.
Ok, its almost been three weeks, I'm bumping my post... :)
|
|
Ok, its almost been three weeks, I'm bumping my post... :)\
Does it double the day job result? As a first level character I've got a +16 on perform for money (Performance Artist trait, skill focus, 18 cha) and on average could get a 26, so would I get 100 gp since gladhandling doubles the amount I'd get from my Perform check? Or 200 if I rolled a 19-20? Since the ability isn't banned or adapted (yet) for PFS, does it in fact double the day job result? I think it should, but I know the PFS is strict about how much gp is handed out...
(My personal opinion)
No, it certainly does not. The day job roll is much more than a standard action.
|
(My personal opinion)
No, it certainly does not. The day job roll is much more than a standard action.
A standard action has nothing to do with the first function of Gladhanding. Without any qualifier whatsoever, APG states: "A street performer earns double the normal amount of money from Perform checks."
The second sentence is not a qualifier on the first, but states an additional benefit of that class feature (the use of bluff as a standard action in place of diplomacy as a 1-minute action), in which perform plays absolutely no part.
The word "certainly" appears to be misused.
The crux of the matter is: Is the Day Job roll a "Perform Check"? Given that you are using your ranks in Perform to work as a performer to earn gold, it would seem to me that this is the very essence of the use of that skill. The ability in no way modifies the roll, it modifies the amount of gold received as a result of the roll.
Absent any ruling from Hyrum or Mark, I would (and have, and will continue to) advise players that as stated in the rules - yes, you would earn double gold for your day job if you have this class feature.
|
The crux of the matter is: Is the Day Job roll a "Perform Check"? Given that you are using your ranks in Perform to work as a performer to earn gold, it would seem to me that this is the very essence of the use of that skill. The ability in no way modifies the roll, it modifies the amount of gold received as a result of the roll.
Absent any ruling from Hyrum or Mark, I would (and have, and will continue to) advise players that as stated in the rules - yes, you would earn double gold for your day job if you have this class feature.
no it would not, as no where is day job roll a check of any kind:
If your character has any
ranks in a Craft, Perform, or Profession skill, she may
choose one of those skills and make one roll at the end
of every scenario.
not once in the entire 'day job' section does it mention checks, only rolls.
|
|
Medium load at 5 str is 12 pounds for small. Light crossbows are only 2 pounds. he should be good.
My sorcerer started with 5 str and 20 cha as a gnome. I am extremely mindful that I carry under 11 pounds. I recently got him a handy haversack, which weighs 5 pounds. He carries a small light crossbow( 2 lb) 2 small spring loaded wrist sheaths(For wands; .25 each) , and a belt pouch with scrolls in it.
|
|
As the rule currently stands, you do not earn money from a Perform check. Rather, you earn money from a Day Job check, which uses Perform ranks, feats, ability modifiers, and class skill modifiers but is not affected by racial modifiers or class abilities.
Thanks for stepping in.
So while you are here, does the Day Job roll include the +3 bonus for it being a trained skill? A plain reading of the text of the rule would seem to indicate that the +3 bonus does not apply.
Also, you state that the roll is not affected by racial modifiers, but the text of the rule states that you do add trait bonuses. So this begs the question, the gnome racial _trait_ obsessive grants a +2 racial modifier to Craft or Profession checks. If this is not a trait bonus, then what does qualify as a trait bonus?
|
If this is not a trait bonus, then what does qualify as a trait bonus?
One of the two traits you receive when creating the character. As in the Performance Artist Trait from the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, which would add 5 to the roll. Or the Brastlewark Businessman trait from Gnomes of Golarion, which would add 2 to the roll.
|
|
As the rule currently stands, you do not earn money from a Perform check. Rather, you earn money from a Day Job check, which uses Perform ranks, feats, ability modifiers, and class skill modifiers but is not affected by racial modifiers or class abilities.Thanks for stepping in.
So while you are here, does the Day Job roll include the +3 bonus for it being a trained skill? A plain reading of the text of the rule would seem to indicate that the +3 bonus does not apply.
Also, you state that the roll is not affected by racial modifiers, but the text of the rule states that you do add trait bonuses. So this begs the question, the gnome racial _trait_ obsessive grants a +2 racial modifier to Craft or Profession checks. If this is not a trait bonus, then what does qualify as a trait bonus?
That is a racial trait, as opposed to the traits from the back of the APG, which you get two of at first level. So the racial traits (Obsessive) from the front of the APG don't count, but the ones at the back of the book (Performance Artist) do.
Also, the +3 bonus from a rank in a class skill would be considered a "class skill modifier" so you get that.
So this begs the question, the gnome racial _trait_ obsessive grants a +2 racial modifier to Craft or Profession checks. If this is not a trait bonus, then what does qualify as a trait bonus?
"Trait bonus" is an actual bonus type, like "racial bonus". Similarly, a half-elf gets Skill Focus as a bonus feat, but that doesn't mean that Skill Focus gives a +3 "racial bonus".
|
|
As the rule currently stands, you do not earn money from a Perform check. Rather, you earn money from a Day Job check, which uses Perform ranks, feats, ability modifiers, and class skill modifiers but is not affected by racial modifiers or class abilities.Thanks for stepping in.
So while you are here, does the Day Job roll include the +3 bonus for it being a trained skill? A plain reading of the text of the rule would seem to indicate that the +3 bonus does not apply.
Also, you state that the roll is not affected by racial modifiers, but the text of the rule states that you do add trait bonuses. So this begs the question, the gnome racial _trait_ obsessive grants a +2 racial modifier to Craft or Profession checks. If this is not a trait bonus, then what does qualify as a trait bonus?
That is a racial trait, as opposed to the traits from the back of the APG, which you get two of at first level. So the racial traits (Obsessive) from the front of the APG don't count, but the ones at the back of the book (Performance Artist) do.
Also, the +3 bonus from a rank in a class skill would be considered a "class skill modifier" so you get that.
Thanks.
Bumping against that poor nomenclature choice of using the word "trait" for multiple different purposes.
There is no "class skill modifier" included in the list.
"You may only include the following modifiers: Skill Ranks + Ability Score modifier + any applicable feat or trait bonuses."
As stated in the rules, the +3 bonus is not applicable.
|
|
Neil et al. :) thanks. I thought you only get ONE Chronicle either as a DM running the mod BEFORE you play it, OR as a player. But Hyrum's sticked post doesn't say that. Ok I'm a lawyer so I'm arguing the language. I THOUGHT that only ONE Chronicle sheet was the rule but the sticked post changed that. It doesn't say ONE credit/Chronicle PERIOD. It says one player credit and ONE GM credit.
See:
>Hyrum Savage (Marketing Manager), Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 10:38 AM
>If you play you earn 1 credit that is applied to the character that >played through the scenario.
>If you GM a scenario, you earn 1 credit that can be applied to any >character that hasn't played through the scenario.
>
>You receive GM or player credit regardless of the order you play/GM the >scenario. You may not earn more than 1 player credit and 1 GM credit >regardless of how many times you GM or play the scenario. You are free >to use PPP to seat legal tables, but if you already have earned your >credits you do not earn any additional ones.
>
>Thank
I'm still upset about no elephants :)
Mike
|
|
As the rule currently stands, you do not earn money from a Perform check. Rather, you earn money from a Day Job check, which uses Perform ranks, feats, ability modifiers, and class skill modifiers but is not affected by racial modifiers or class abilities.Thanks for stepping in.
So while you are here, does the Day Job roll include the +3 bonus for it being a trained skill? A plain reading of the text of the rule would seem to indicate that the +3 bonus does not apply.
Also, you state that the roll is not affected by racial modifiers, but the text of the rule states that you do add trait bonuses. So this begs the question, the gnome racial _trait_ obsessive grants a +2 racial modifier to Craft or Profession checks. If this is not a trait bonus, then what does qualify as a trait bonus?
That is a racial trait, as opposed to the traits from the back of the APG, which you get two of at first level. So the racial traits (Obsessive) from the front of the APG don't count, but the ones at the back of the book (Performance Artist) do.
Also, the +3 bonus from a rank in a class skill would be considered a "class skill modifier" so you get that.
Thanks.
Bumping against that poor nomenclature choice of using the word "trait" for multiple different purposes.
There is no "class skill modifier" included in the list.
"You may only include the following modifiers: Skill Ranks + Ability Score modifier + any applicable feat or trait bonuses."
As stated in the rules, the +3 bonus is not applicable.
Mark's comment states "class skill modifier"
SNIP
Mike
The new rule is 1:1, meaning you can ultimately get 2 Chronicles per Scenario, 1 for playing (which is applied to the character going through it) and 1 if you GM it (which can be applied to any PFS legal character).
Hyrum.
|
|
Mark's comment states "class skill modifier"
"Mark Moreland
As the rule currently stands, you do not earn money from a Perform check. Rather, you earn money from a Day Job check, which uses Perform ranks, feats, ability modifiers, and class skill modifiers but is not affected by racial modifiers or class abilities."
Todd,
You are correct. His comment does state that. But his comment does not state that trait bonuses apply, while the rule in the Guide does. Which brings us back to:
WHAT ARE THE FREAKING RULES???
(Sorry for the shouting, but really. Really.)
Are the rules what are published in the documentation? Or are the rules whatever someone at Paizo commenting on the forum says this week that they are?
Play Play Play applies. Except when it doesn't.
You can replay. Except that you can't.
Trait bonuses apply. Except that they might not.
All you get are X,Y, and Z. Except you also get A, because Mark said so in a comment on the forums.
It's like a freaking game trying to get a developer to make a comment, or to dig up a previous comment in order to call a ruling how you want it one way or another, and thereby change the rules for the entire system from week to week.
Why is it so bloody impossible to simply write down the rules, and STICK TO THEM???
Other game systems seem to be able to make things work (and put your damn hand down 4e, I'm not even looking at you). I understand that staff has changed at Paizo. But does this really have to mean that all of the rules and previous rulings are now subject to the whims of the new guys? To the extent that we are to ignore the published rules in favor of forum postngs?
Yes, I recognize that I'm venting frustration about something as insignificant as Day Job rolls. But it's like the death-of-a-thousand-cuts. They are all little stupid changes that really didn't need to be made. If they really needed to be made NOW, then they would receive priority enough to actually publish the changes as rules. There's not even notification in the Guide that messageboards are a valid rules source.
I'm sorry, but there are days (like today) when the Paizo Organized Play idea seems like it's been stuck together with band-aids and masking tape. We're in the third season (counting season zero), and is it too much to ask that we have an actual stable ruleset?
|
|
Elias,
While I understand and agree with some of your frustration (I'd also like all rule changes to be in writing, in the guide), the Day Job has never changed from day 1. The Day Job roll has always only accounted for the Skill ranks (and associated class skill bonuses), feats, and traits. This has never changed since Season 0.
P.S. Mark probably just neglected to mention trait bonuses in his comment earlier. This is a question/answer FAQ thread where Paizo attempts to answer questions as soon as possible/when they come up. They're also human and make mistakes and forget things.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
"Mark Moreland
As the rule currently stands, you do not earn money from a Perform check. Rather, you earn money from a Day Job check, which uses Perform ranks, feats, ability modifiers, and class skill modifiers but is not affected by racial modifiers or class abilities."
I don't believe any equipment counts in this; am I correct? so, if someone had a set of masterwork instrument, or a headband of alluring charisma +2, or a belt of dwarvenkind, those would not factor into the Day Job roll. It's a character's native ability modifiers, unaffected by spells or items.
(This, because characters could swap around the equipment.)
--+--+--
In general, Brother Elias, I agree. A constantly-changing rules environment is bad for organized play. That makes it very likely that different GMs at neighboring tables are operating off different rules assumptions. (For example, I had not been applying the +3 class skill modifiers.)
--+--+--
Question: since day job takes place during a character's off-hours between scenarios, rather than immediately after the last encounter, can we allow characters to level-up before the day job roll?
|
|
The Day Job roll has always only accounted for the Skill ranks (and associated class skill bonuses), feats, and traits. This has never changed since Season 0.
Not strictly true.
Version 1.1 of the Guide only allows: "Skill Ranks + Ability Score + any
applicable feat bonuses."
I'm still not seeing anything in any version of the guide that mentions "associated class skill bonuses". This appears to be entirely an artifact of a messageboard comment.
P.S. Mark probably just neglected to mention trait bonuses in his comment earlier. This is a question/answer FAQ thread where Paizo attempts to answer questions as soon as possible/when they come up.
You know, I'd really prefer the opposite. I'd prefer that instead of answering off the tops of their heads, that we actually receive an accurate, well thought out answer in response to rules questions. If there's a grey area that they are resolving, I'd really like to see that grey area made more black-and-white, not less. From-the-hip rules answers do not serve the interest of long-term rules stability at all.
|
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
You know, I'd really prefer the opposite. I'd prefer that instead of answering off the tops of their heads, that we actually receive an accurate, well thought out answer in response to rules questions. If there's a grey area that they are resolving, I'd really like to see that grey area made more black-and-white, not less. From-the-hip rules answers do not serve the interest of long-term rules stability at all.
+1
|
|
The Day Job roll has always only accounted for the Skill ranks (and associated class skill bonuses), feats, and traits. This has never changed since Season 0.Not strictly true.
Version 1.1 of the Guide only allows: "Skill Ranks + Ability Score + any
applicable feat bonuses."I'm still not seeing anything in any version of the guide that mentions "associated class skill bonuses". This appears to be entirely an artifact of a messageboard comment.
You're correct about the language. I believe that Alizor is correct about the intent.
The problem is that the language in the Guide didn't change when skills went from the "4 times at 1st level, max ranks = level+3" of 3.5 to the "+3 bonus, max ranks = level" of PFRPG.IMO, as the +3 is a substitute for the greater ranks you had in 3.5, the bonus should apply.
|
|
The thing that irritates me the most is when posters go on and on for numerous posts asking the same question over and over. Then when Mark/Hyrum post a reply, posters either complain because the official ruling differs from their "better" or "more reasonable" opinion or complain that the clarification was made on the boards and not in yet another update of the OP Guidebook. Having to read through many posts on the official threads, like this one, is challenging enough. Having to filter through all the griping is aggravating. I, for one, would like to see someone at Paizo screen sticky threads like this one for pertinent postings and delete all the static, even if that means some of my posts would be removed.
|
|
You're correct about the language. I believe that Alizor is correct about the intent.
The problem is that the language in the Guide didn't change when skills went from the "4 times at 1st level, max ranks = level+3" of 3.5 to the "+3 bonus, max ranks = level" of PFRPG.
IMO, as the +3 is a substitute for the greater ranks you had in 3.5, the bonus should apply.
Exactly. Version 1.1 was written for 3.5 where cross class skills cost 2 times as many skill points. Pathfinder changed it to a class skill gets a +3 bonus and cross class don't, with all skills costing 1 skill point regardless of in class or cross class. The problem is, as Neil says, that the wording from Season 0 to now didn't change, however similar to other things in Pathfinder the +3 was always intended as inherently part of putting ranks into the skill.
|
|
For Day Job rolls start here then go here and here and here and here and here and especially here.
There are many more locations you can find information on Day Job rolls. Just do a simple search.
|
|
They haven’t changed since day one...
Except when they added traits.
Except when they added the requirement of having skill ranks.Other than that, it hasn't changed since day one.
I'll agree that it's a lot of text under the bridge for such a small in-game benefit.
Heck, I'd even be fine with them doing away with the Day Job, given the amount of text it's generated.
|
|
You know, I'd really prefer the opposite. I'd prefer that instead of answering off the tops of their heads, that we actually receive an accurate, well thought out answer in response to rules questions. If there's a grey area that they are resolving, I'd really like to see that grey area made more black-and-white, not less. From-the-hip rules answers do not serve the interest of long-term rules stability at all.+1
I agree, I think (hope) this is one of the things which will be cleared up a bit in the next rev of the guide. While the effect is fairly minor this is one of the most misunderstood rules in PFS. To be honest I'd almost prefer they just nixed it entirely because I see so many people trying to game it.
Obviously that would be an unpopular call as all the folks who have invested in it will holler (to some extent justifiably).
|
|
They haven’t changed since day one...
Except when they added traits.
Except when they added the requirement of having skill ranks.
Other than that, it hasn't changed since day one.
I'd add the fact that while it's quite clearly not a skill check the class skill bonus is added also which while perhaps not a 'change' is a significant clarification which a lot of people had wrong due to the wording.
Heck, I'd even be fine with them doing away with the Day Job, given the amount of text it's generated.
Hah, your post crossed with mine above. I agree.
|
|
I think part of all of these confusions is there are a lot of little things hanging out there in "boardspace" instead of in a collective document (i.e. an updated Guide).
Mark and Hyrum, I know you've stated that you guys "are working on it" and the FAQ system, and everyone wants them to be as accurate and helpful as possible....but any estimate yet on when that might be?
It's becoming painfully obvious that keeping up with the rules as is + rules as stated on the boards + all the opinions is getting difficult.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Mark and Hyrum, I know you've stated that you guys "are working on it" and the FAQ system, and everyone wants them to be as accurate and helpful as possible....but any estimate yet on when that might be?
It's becoming painfully obvious that keeping up with the rules as is + rules as stated on the boards + all the opinions is getting difficult.
We're aware of the issues and are still working on it. Unfortunately, working at Paizo is a non-stop juggling act, which means that we haven't yet had the chance to dig into this and do it justice while performing the other tasks of running the Society and getting product out the door on time.
Until we do get a revised Guide out and the consolidated, easy-to-find-and-use FAQ system, some rules clarifications from the boards will slip through the cracks in some areas, and that's just the way it is. We appreciate everyone's efforts to follow the boards and adjust local rulings as appropriate, but we know it's not ideal. So thanks, everyone, for your patience as we continue getting these systemic revisions in place in a presentable format to make public.