I don’t have time to test your house rule, but it sure looks interesting. I might use it sometime.
G40 Halifax Rules
-
Piggy backing units are not part of Halifax, don’t worry… just thinking out load.
-
Haha gotcha, I thought the proposal was to replace NOS or faction control with the scheme you were brainstorming on. My thought was that it could be cool as an add on though. I guess what I like would be as few new mechanics as possible in core set.
Then a list of options beneath it for add ons that might be compatible. That way it could be layered ;)Ps. I seen to have “removed” my earlier post from today, when I meant to “modify” a spelling mistake. Those buttons are too damn close together on mobile. Oh well.
Basically my earlier post just reiterated my preference for add ons to the core system, rather than introducing new mechanics into that core.
-
Lots to report, but way too tiered. Having an awesome time at FMGC weekend… I’ll report on Monday.
-
A few things before I go to sleep, everyone loves the production units, everyone loves the fact the Allies can spend money “differently”, everyone agrees it does very little to help the Allies win.
I would like to see this for starters…
Russian declaration of war:
The Soviet Union my now declare war against the European Axis powers on turn 3.
Essex class carriers:
All American aircraft carrier may now carry up to 3 American and/or Allied air units each.
-
Hey YG, I know you have put the City Objective idea on the back burner, but if you get a chance to try it out I would love to hear any feedback from your playgroup. I am using Halifax with my buddy Tony on monday, and we are adopting the scheme you initially proposed with the VCs at 5 and Capitals at 10. I have been playing solitaires today in preparation (resetting at round three, just to tease out openings.)
In our game we have decided not to restrict the City bonus only to “Nations at war.” Simple rule, control of the City awards the set bonus, regardless of the political situation. I let my friend make the call on this, and he said he didn’t want to play another game “where Russia gets slammed, and USA is a broke joke”, so that was my solution. :-D
We are keeping the DoW with the Mongolia rule in effect for Japan/Russia (the first one to attack the other, activates Mongolia for the enemy, but this has no effect on City Objective money). So in this situation Russia collects +20, USA +20 (or more), right from the outset. I can honestly say just looking at the solitaires, that this is the most fun I’ve had playing myself in a while ;)
This is considerably more money to the Allies than under some other schemes proposed, but to be frank, I think its not unreasonable at all.
Commonwealth including South Africa and S.W. Africa. and the balance seemed to definitely improve the Allies’ standing. Going to try this Face to Face on Monday.
Anyway, I don’t know how much interest there is on the City Objectives for Halifax, but I think its going to be a lot of fun.
To the last post, Essex Class carriers sound cool. For me, basic unit parity at the start is important though. Some players I’ve gamed with in the past, believe that National units should have different values and different costs in A&A games. I suppose if its going to work anywhere, it would work with G40 players. But I prefer when all unit types basically behave the same way at the outset, so you can see the comparative strength of all players at a glance (without having to memorize an independent unit roster for each Nation.) When unit values or costs do get changed, I always like it better when this is handled through some kind of Technology or standard Upgrade mechanism (something that could be available to all players). Even if it ends up being a “Free tech” awarded to just one Nation at the outset. So that might be something to think about.
Just out of curiosity, why round 3 for the Soviet Union? As opposed to say round 2 or 4?
I’m not opposed. But just to illustrate a point, in more general terms, one thing I don’t really like is when the game pretends that there is a fixed timeline in A&A beyond the “start year”, or proposes some “real” correspondence between game rounds and actual time months/seasons/years etc.
Why place restrictions on the sort of Narrative players can create? Beyond the “Start Date”, I prefer to imagine my own story about what’s going on with my games, or where exactly we are in the World War II timeline at any given point. Seems to me that when you fix a DoW by round, its like saying “OK by round 3 we’re definitely in 1941.”
I guess I just find the DoW weird and annoying in general. Introducing a whole complex layer of politics to achieve a fairly narrow gameplay outcome. I suppose my question on that issue is, wouldn’t it make more sense to just pick a round and say, “by this round all nations may declare war”? Just seems kind of curious to have one restricted to round 3, but another to round 4. Well anyway, I’ll leave that to people who find the DoW entertaining. My goal would be to find a way to get rid of DoW completely, while still preserving the same essential feel of a 1940 start but leading immediately into a total war situation as quickly as possible (where all players behave according to the same essential rules for movement, combat, and all the rest.) To DoW just seems like overburdened artifice, which is only there to restrict what the US/Russian player can do. I mean before DoW, we had a simple restricted opening in Classic that seemed to work reasonably well to a similar end, and it didn’t have all this complex baggage that influences the game beyond the first round.
Again, for those who do favor the current system, I’d much rather have the Russians able to DoW in Europe in round 3 as you suggest, rather than no DoW at all, (or no activity until London falls.) I guess I just really don’t like the DoW in general, as I don’t find that it adds very much to the gameplay for the all complexity it introduces into the game. Alas
Had it been Europe and Pacific 1941, combined for G41, the integration would have been so much smoother, but I guess that ship sailed a long time ago.All that said, I like where you’re headed with this thing. Can’t wait to hear the after action reports after the weekend.
Have fun dude :-D -
Ps. Not sure if anyone is interested, but I started a thread at tripleA if anyone wants to develop a mod to test some of these ideas we’ve been discussing.
It’s been a while since I did any real work on games for tripleA. I used to enjoy making graphics and maps though, and testing out ideas for HRs. I wanted to wait until we had a good idea about how the rules would look, but I think everything we need to create Halifax can already be handled by the engine, and anything that can’t just yet can be player edited fairly easily in the meantime.So far the critical changes are all supported
Single UK faction with a single Capital. New faction Commonwealth. New NOs. The ability to change things like territory possession, starting income etc on the fly.
A new factory unit is not very complicated, even the purchasing options on such factories can be controlled, but the upgrade downgrade concept for now would have to be by player edit. Mongolia rules likewise can be handled with a player edit, for now anyway.Still that gets pretty close, if anyone wants to see if we can get a beta going.
Here’s a place to discuss what sort of changes to the TripleA mapfiles and gamefiles might be necessary, or to make feature requests… http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Global-Variant-with-the-Commonwealth-Dominions-tp7586439.html
I’m so excited for my game tomorrow. :-D
There is a chance my friend Jen might come play too, which would be rad, but we’ll have to see. A 3 player Halifax would be cool to see (split Allies). She’s been itching to check it out, but work schedules can be hard to coordinate. That’s another reason tripleA could be fun for testing. Since you can save and play a few hours at a time, and reset to test strats with ease. Anyhow, have a great weekend all! Catch you soonElk out
-
Thanks guys for the great contributions to the thread, unfortunately Black Elk, I was unable to play the VC rule. However, there was lots of great discussion about Halifax rules between hard core gamers. so, a couple of things became clear to me over the weekend…
1. Word the rules to allow 2 separate options, a United Kingdom controlled South Africa, and a Commonwealth controlled South Africa.
2. Take out the American War Economy… if players want to add stuff like this, they will without putting it in the rule document.
3. Add a few National Objectives for balance.
Too tiered to chat about it right now… but that’s the jist.
PS: The Convention was awesome, Tons to report, many pics to post, and lots of stories to tell.
-
I like it. So basically we’d have…
Halifax with the most straightforward implementation, regular CAnzac.
And Halifax Plan A (For Africa?) :-D
with a somewhat more involved implementation, including South Africa, S.W. Africa, Newfoundland, Eire etc. as part of the Commonwealth faction.These two options would seem to satisfy the desires of most players here. In terms of the Rules wording, I would lead with the basic set up adjustments for each, and then follow with balance suggestions for each basic scenario.
In the simplest possible formulation Halifax is:
Add in a Commonwealth faction with Anzac and Canada (option 1), or CAnzac + S. Africa, S.W Africa, Newfoundland, Eire (option 2).
Collapse UK/UK pacific into a single faction.
Practically everything else can be built on top of this as a suggestion. For example in Option 2, it might be worth considering whether to give UK a Minor factory in Egypt to balance the production. Or add in a USA income boost. Or other ideas to fine tune balance. Basically you could provide an outline for each type of game, that serves the needs of the set up on balance.
-
ps. so how about this for Halifax? I am trying to think of the best way to word the rules so that they follow the basic order of the set up (allowing for options at each step where such might be advisable)… Then stitch it all together again in one doc.
First Step: Set the Board as Normal, OOB G40
Next Step:
New Single UK Economy:
The British economy is no longer split between London and Calcutta, instead, the United Kingdom collects only one income for all territories owned on the map with London as it’s capital.
[Note] The UK must relinquish all IPCs each time an Axis power captures London, however, the UK may retain all IPC’s if Calcutta is captured, as it is no longer a capital city.
–----
Next Step:
New Commonwealth Nation:
_[Insert here a brief historical introduction explaining what the Commonwealth Dominions are, and the role they played in the war effort. A few lines from CWO Marc to set the stage for Halifax rules :-D
First highlight the participation of Canada… and then follow with the rules for including Canada in the Commonwealth CAnzac. Then the rules for the full Commonwealth faction expanded to include South Africa etc.]_
–----
Next step:
Commonwealth possessions, roundel and unit substitution:
All territories with an ANZAC and Canadian roundel on them, as well as the following specific territories and sea zones… will form the new nation “Commonwealth Dominions.” **
This new nation will replace ANZAC in the game round sequence, and all British beige starting units on these territories [below] must now be replaced with ANZAC gray pieces.
Halifax: All territories with a Canadian roundel + W. Canada and sz 106
or
Halifax Plan A: the above, but also including Newfoundland, Eire, S.W. Africa, South Africa and sz 71.
**Trying to draft this out quoting the key stuff YG has already outlined, just with some notes italicized or in [brackets]. I favor the name Commonwealth Dominions for this faction over British Commonwealth. Commonwealth Dominions seems to capture the same idea, but is less likely to be confused with “British Empire” or “Great Britain” or other designations people use when referring to the UK player. What do you think?
–----
next step
New Production Unit Profiles:
Industrial Complex:
Produces up to 10 units
Maximum damage 20
Unoperational at 10 damage
Capable of building all units
May never be purchased
Immediately downgraded to a Minor Factory once capturedMajor Factory:
Produces up to 5 units
Maximum damage 10
Unoperational at 5 damage
Capable of building all units
May never be purchased, or upgraded to an Industrial Complex
Immediately downgraded to a Minor Factory once capturedMinor Factory:
Produces up to 3 units
Maximum damage 6
Unoperational at 3 damage
May only build units that cost 10 IPCs or less
May be purchased at a cost of 12 IPCs
May be placed on any territory with an IPC value of 2 or greater.
May be upgraded to a Major factory for 10 IPCs*There are only two conditions in which a nation may upgrade a production unit:
*1. The original owner of a territory containing a minor factory may upgrade it to a major factory for 10 IPCs, but only if the minor factory in question was already downgraded from a major factory or Industrial Complex due to capture.
2. Once they are at war, the United States may immediately upgrade all their major factories to industrial complexes free of charge.
All the new production stuff outlined by knp etc
–----
Next step
Setup Adjustments:
- All minor industrial complexes now become major factories
- The major industrial complex in India now becomes a major factory
- Add 1 Commonwealth fighter to Ontario
Add to these any others which might be necessary for Plan A to work. For example
-UK gets a free Minor factory in Egypt–----
Next Step:
DoW Rules, Neutral Rules, NAP Rules:
1. Suggested DoW options or restrictions
2. Mongolia, or any other neutral situations that need clarification
3. Russia/Japan Non Agression Pact options or restrictions. Anything else relating to national Politics, or its adjustment from OOB.
–----Next step:
Income Balance Adjustments
1. Suggested National Objectives… for Halifax (or additional/different NOs for Halifax plan A if necessary)
2. Optional City Objectives
Next step:
Additional adjustment options
1. New mechanics like oil drums, or new general mechanics rules, if desired.
2. More nation specific or national unit specific rules
3. New turn order or sequence of nations rulesBasically just trying to think of this like an inverted pyramid, where the most important foundational stuff comes first, and the rest goes on top. That way you can cut it off at any point (like a ziggurat) :-D
-
I learned this weekend that less is more.
Check modifications made to post #1 of this thread.
-
Looks clean! I dig it :-D
And for option 2, if a player wanted, they could easily include Newfoundland or Eire as well (depending on player preference) since both those territories are at zero IPCs it would not really effect the game beyond aesthetics. This way everyone is happy. Simple set up, option 1 or option 2. Easy
Also, about the names…
I like the name “British” for the British Empire which would encompass UK, India etc. for the joined UK/UK Pacific faction. And the other name being something like “Commonwealth Dominions” rather than British Commonwealth, so it could still have the word ‘Dominions’ in it, which is a badass sounding word after all!) I am speaking here from the perspective of TripleA, or card formats and stats columns, where the ability to make clear abbreviations can be important. So you could use “B” and “CD” for short, which has a nice alphabetical flow. Or even just B (british) and D (dominions) to prevent any confusion whatsoever with China.
B and D, so in the stats column, or when describing the turn order in the simplest 1 letter structure…
‘British’ Empire = B
Commonwealth ‘Dominions’ = DThe Dominions, or simply Dominion as in “a Dominion infantry unit”, or “the Dominion fighter.” This will be much better for simple abbreviations, and simple reference. So that the boxed game sequence can be described as follows:
G-R-J-A-C-B-I-D-F
Germany, Russia, Japan, America, China, Britain, Italy, Dominions, France
Germans, Russians, Japanese, Americans, Chinese, British, Italians, Dominions, French (if you prefer)
or in the case of adjectives/adverbs…
German, Russian, Japanese, American, Chinese, British, Italian, Dominion, French
G
R
J
A
C
B
I
D
Fwith the cleanest possible abbreviation lines for stats columns. 8-)
@Young:
New Production Unit Profiles:
Industrial Complex:
Produces up to 10 units
Maximum damage 20
Unoperational at 10 damage
Capable of building all units
May never be purchased
Immediately downgraded to a Minor Factory once capturedMajor Factory:
Produces up to 5 units
Maximum damage 10
Unoperational at 5 damage
Capable of building all units
May never be purchased, or upgraded to an Industrial Complex
Immediately downgraded to a Minor Factory once capturedMinor Factory:
Produces up to 3 units
Maximum damage 6
Unoperational at 3 damage
May only build units that cost 10 IPCs or less
May be purchased at a cost of 12 IPCs
May be placed on any territory with an IPC value of 2 or greater.
May be upgraded to a Major factory for 10 IPCs*There are only two conditions in which a nation may upgrade a production unit:
*1. The original owner of a territory containing a minor factory may upgrade it to a major factory for 10 IPCs, but only if the minor factory in question was already downgraded from a major factory or Industrial Complex due to capture.
2. Once they are at war, the United States may immediately upgrade all their major factories to industrial complexes free of charge.
New Single UK Economy:
The British economy is no longer split between London and Calcutta, instead, the United Kingdom collects only one income for all territories owned on the map with London as it’s capital. The UK must relinquish all IPCs each time an Axis power captures London, however, the UK may retain all IPC’s if Calcutta is captured, as it is no longer a capital city.
New Commonwealth Nation:
At the beginning of the game, one of the following options must be chosen by the player, or players controlling the Allied powers.
Commonwealth Option #1
All territories with an ANZAC and Canadian roundel on them will now be know as the British Commonwealth. This new nation will replace ANZAC in the game round sequence, and all British beige starting units on Canadian territories must now be replaced with ANZAC gray pieces (including the sea units in sea zone #106). This powers starting income will be 17 IPCs, and the United Kingdom’s will be 38 IPCs.
Commonwealth Option #2
All territories with an ANZAC and Canadian roundel on them, as well as South Africa and South West Africa will now be know as the British Commonwealth. This new nation will replace ANZAC in the game round sequence, and all British beige starting units on Canadian and South African territories must now be replaced with ANZAC gray pieces (including the sea units in sea zones #106 and #71). This powers starting income will be 20 IPCs, and the United Kingdom’s will be 35 IPCs.
Political Situation
The Commonwealth nation is at war with Germany and Italy to start the game, however, they may not collect national objectives until they are at war with all the Axis powers. The Commonwealth nation does not have a capital, and as long as the Commonwealth controls Ottawa and/or Sydney, they may collect an income and build units. However, if both Ottawa and Sydney are under enemy control, the Commonwealth must immediately relinquish all IPCs to the bank, and remove their roundel from the income tracker until at least 1 of these two original victory cities are liberated.
Map Board Adjustments
_If you are using a G40 2nd Edition map and playing option #1, you must put a commonwealth roundel on Western Canada.
If you are using a G40 2nd Edition map and playing option #2, you must put a commonwealth roundel on Western Canada, as well as South Africa and Western South Africa._
New National Objectives
All national objectives for the United Kingdom and ANZAC have been removed, and are now replaced with the following:
United Kingdom:
5 IPCs if the United States are at war with the Axis powers
5 IPCs if the Allies control Gibraltar, Egypt, India, and Malaya
5 IPCs if there are no Axis Submarines in the Atlantic (any sea zone west of Denmark and Gibraltar straits including #128 and #127)British Commonwealth:
5 IPCs if the Commonwealth controls all their original territories
5 IPCs if the Allies control Borneo, Sumatra, Java, and Celebes
5 IPCs if the Commonwealth has at least 1 land unit on an original German territoryThe following national objectives for the United States and Japan, are in addition to the already existing national objectives for each nation.
United States:
5 IPCs if the Allies control Borneo, Sumatra, Java, and Celebes
5 IPCs if at least 1 American strategic bomber has made a successful SBR on a German production unitJapan:
5 IPCs if Japan Controls all Chinese original territories
The following national objectives are a modification of the existing Soviet Union national objective called “national prestige”, which has now been removed.
Soviet Union:
5 IPCs if sea zone #125 is free of Axis warships, and the Allies control Archangel
5 IPCs if there are no Allied units on original Soviet Union territoriesNew Setup Modifications
- All minor industrial complexes now become major factories
- The major industrial complex in India now becomes a major factory
- Add 1 Commonwealth fighter to Ontario
Great work
-
Also, about the names…
I like the name “British” for the British Empire which would encompass UK, India etc. for the joined UK/UK Pacific faction. And the other name being something like “Commonwealth Dominions” rather than British Commonwealth, so it could still have the word ‘Dominions’ in it, which is a badass sounding word after all!)I noticed this question posted by Black Elk in a couple of threads, so I sketched out the following answer which I’ll post in both threads.
I’d be in favour of using the term “Commonwealth” (“the Commonwealth”, “the Commonwealth nations”, etc.). For the period from the end of WWI to the end of WWII (thus in a time frame which works for A&A 1940), the term “Commonwealth” can be interpreted as referring more or less just to the six self-governing Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Eire (originally the Irish Free State) and Newfoundland (which, it should be noted, voluntarily agreed to go back to being ruled from London during the Great Depression).
The phrase “(British) Commonwealth of Nations” originated – at first with unofficial status – in the late 19th century, resurfaced (still unofficially) in 1917, and finally received official recognition in 1921. It was intended to be used in parallel with (or in some cases as an alternative to) the phrase “British Empire”, an example being Churchill’s famous statement that “if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say: This was their finest hour.” The “Commonwealth” usage arose in recognition of the fact that a number of British territories had become self-governing – the first such case being Canada, the original “Dominion” – and that therefore they had a greater degree of sovereignty than the Britain’s colonies, protectorates and mandates.
Dominion status was granted to Canada in 1867, Australia in 1901, New Zealand in 1907, Newfoundland in 1907, South Africa in 1910 and the Irish Free State in 1922 (it became Eire in 1937). Via the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the 1931 Statute of Westminster, it was recognized that these six Dominions were equal in status with the UK and that they were “freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.” Strictly speaking, it could be argued that the UK was also an equal-status “member” of the Commonwealth rather than its head, but this would be a bit like arguing that the Augustus was basically an ordinary Roman Senator who simply happened to be “first among equals” in the Senate rather than the Emperor (an argument which Augustus himself liked to make). A similar dynamic existed within the Commonwealth by virtue of the fact that the UK’s (resident) Sovereign was recognized by the Dominions as their (absentee) Head of Statec – so Churchill’s phrase “the British Empire and its Commonwealth” is actually a good description of the asymmetrical relationship that existed at the time.
The phrase “Commonwealth” as it is used today has important differences with what it meant in 1940, since it now covers more than 50 entities. Back in the 1930s, it essentially referred just to Britain and its self-governing Dominions, of which there were six. The list started growing after WWII, when India, Pakistan and Ceylon were granted Dominion status, but the only British territories to achieve Dominion status prior to WWII were the six so-called “white colonies” whose population was preponderantly of European ancestry. So all in all, I think it’s historically justifiable to refer to the A&A 1940 “grey sculpt” block as simply “the Commonwealth,” which is certainly more convenient than the convoluted phrase “the self-governing Dominions of the British Commonwealth of Nations.” “The Commonwealth Dominions” (perhaps “the CDs” in shorthand?) would be my second choice: it’s longer than just “the Commonwealth” but it’s a trifle more accurate since it excludes the UK and thus refers only to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Eire and Newfoundland.
-
So you’re saying that we should use…
The British Empire, and the Commonwealth
Instead of…
The United Kingdom, and the British Commonwealth?
-
Halifax with the most straightforward implementation, regular CAnzac.
I’ve never been very fond of the term “CAnzac” – so just for fun, I played around with the names of the six Commonwealth Dominions to see if I could find an alternative acronym for the whole group. There are several possible combinations, and strangely enough most of them sound (to me at least) like they should be patented names for drugs. The one I like best (or hate the least) is what you get when you combine the capital letters for South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Newfoundland, Eire and Canada: SANZANEC. Frankly, I think we should stick with “the Commonwealth”. :-)
-
@Young:
So you’re saying that we should use…
The British Empire, and the Commonwealth
Instead of…
The United Kingdom, and the British Commonwealth?
No, I was just providing some historical context when I quoted Churcghll… The UK should be called the UK. The group consisting of South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Newfoundland, Eire and Canada should be called either “the Commonwealth Dominions” or “the Commonwealth” depending on whether one prefers accuracy or brevity.
-
And just to clarify something about my previous post: perhaps what I should have said was that I’m not bothered by the fact that most A&A games use the term “United Kingdom” (which very conveniently abbreviates as UK, which is 50% shorter than that USSR and 33% shorter than USA), even though, strictly speaking, the territories depicted with UK roundels on the official map could more accurately be described as “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, its colonies, protectorates, mandates, territories and imperial holdings, and some of its self-governing Dominions.” That’s a trifle unwieldy. Basically these spaces amount to “the UK and its territories”, so “UK” is a convenient and acceptable shorthand for this concept and I’m fine with retaining it.
-
So that the boxed game sequence can be described as follows:
G-R-J-A-C-B-I-D-F
Germany, Russia, Japan, America, China, Britain, Italy, Dominions, France
Germans, Russians, Japanese, Americans, Chinese, British, Italians, Dominions, French (if you prefer)
or in the case of adjectives/adverbs…
German, Russian, Japanese, American, Chinese, British, Italian, Dominion, French
G
R
J
A
C
B
I
D
Fwith the cleanest possible abbreviation lines for stats columns.
I find two-letter abbreviations potentially less ambiguous than single-letter ones. The two-letter ones make it pretty clear what they represent: for example, “AM” and “AN” couldn’t stand for anything other than American and ANZAC, whereas “A” is ambiguous on its own (unless one remembers that in these house rules ANZAC has been replaced by a new power). Furthermore, the bases of all the OOB infantry sculpts (except for ANZAC) are stamped with two-letter codes (representing adjectival nationality), so that’s a familiar reference point. My preference would be for:
AM
BR
RU
GE
JA
IT
CH
FR
CD (Commonwealth Dominions) -
@CWO:
Frankly, I think we should stick with “the Commonwealth”. Â :-)
100%
-
My preference would be (in order of play)
GR
RS
JP
US
CH
UK
IT
CD
FR -
Yeah that’s great for me. On the physical board, sitting around tables in our living room, we can call them whatever we want. CAnzac is for sure ridiculous haha, that should be nowhere in the official rules, it was a joke for kicks! Though potentially useful shorthand for discussing the simple Canada+Anzac amongst ourselves.
As for the abbreviation scheme I mentioned, I was referencing TripleA, which uses B for British = UK already, so I was just clarifying what it’s going to look like if we make a Halifax mod there. In the stats column British Commonwealth would look confusing, which is why I like Commonwealth Dominion so we could use Dominion for short. CW and CD work equally well for me, but CD gives you the D if you need it.
But otherwise yeah, a two letter is fine :-D
It doesn’t matter as much for Face to Face play. But the computer game has conventions in place, so I just wanted to make the notes clear.
Sounds great!
Suggested Topics
