Magic: The Gathering Drive to Work Podcast - #1242: Repeats and Tweaks

Episode Date: May 16, 2025

In this podcast, I talk about times we decided to reuse mechanics and times we chose to tweak mechanics into something new.

I'm pulling away from the curb because I dropped my son off at school. We all know what that means. It's time to drive to work Okay, so today's topic came from my blog Somebody asked me how do we decide when we repeat mechanics versus when we tweak mechanics? So that is that is today's topic So mostly the idea is like we'd like to think of mechanics as a resource. I often talk about the metaphor of their tools in our toolbox and so the idea is if we can use a mechanic we will. You know, if a set needs something there's no need to necessarily reinvent the wheel. If something will work that already exists why not use that thing? But there are reasons why we will tweak things.

So that is sort of the topic du jour. Okay, first and foremost, maybe the thing that we did, there is something problematic with it. So the first problem I will bring up is what I will say is it's unintuitive. Meaning we had a mechanic, it did something, and then people didn't, they just did not play it correctly. And then once again, not really a fault of the player. There's something about the mechanic that kind of just fought expectation. My example

here will be fading. So if fading first showed up I believe in nemesis. And the way the fading worked is you came with a certain number of counters, fading counters, and then each turn you remove a fading counter, each upkeep. And then on the turn that you couldn't remove a counter, it would go away. So let's say for example, I had a card with fading three. On the first turn I play it. On the second turn I remove the first fading counter. On the third turn I remove the second fading counter. On the fourth turn I remove the third fading counter. And then on the fifth turn when I'm unable to remove a counter that is when it goes away. And I believe the reason we did it that way

is we were sort of mapping how losing because you can't draw a card works. When Richard made the original game, he knew that, hey, the game could be a stalemate. How does the game end when people can't attack anymore or something? And the answer he came up with was, well, okay, if you can't draw a card, you lose. And so the way that works is, as long as I can draw a card, I'm good. It's when I can't draw a card. And the reason he can't draw a card is, well, he wants you to be able to play the cards.

He doesn't want you to lose because you draw your last card, because maybe the last card can win the game for you. But when we sort of repeated that same concept, meaning it's when you can't do something that it goes off, it just didn't follow what people's intuition was. Oh, I have three fading counters. When the last fading counter was removed, it goes away. So people kept playing fading wrong. Now, fading is an interesting mechanic. And so when I was working in on time spiral block, the middle set planar chaos. So this whole block had a time theme. So we did past, present, and future. So for each set, I wanted a mechanic that felt like that. So past was flashback,

future was scry. But what was the present? Present seemed hard. And I liked the idea of fading being the present, right? It's just not around for long. It has no past, it doesn't have much of a future, it's about the here and now. The problem was I recognized the confusion that fading had caused. So rather than bring fading back, I tweaked it. We made vanishing. So vanishing is exactly fading with two differences. The subtle difference is instead of using a fading counter, it uses a time counter. And the reason for that is there's a time theme in Time Spiral Block and there are things that interact with time counter. So it just made it a little more interactable.

But the bigger thing is I said, okay, instead of it going away when you can't remove a counter, it goes away when you remove the last counter. I just changed it so it matched intuition. Instead of it going away when you can't remove a counter, it goes away when you remove the last counter. I just changed it so it matched intuition. And because we can adjust numbers, you know, a fading three card would stick around for a certain number of turns. Well, you could just change the vanishing number so it stays around the same number of turns.

You just have to have a different number. And so that's a good example. It's like, I liked the mechanic. I wanted to repeat the mechanic, but we had fundamentally, it had confused people. And so that's the tweak of just let's fix the thing that confuses people so that it doesn't confuse them anymore. And there are a lot of examples, like believe it or not,

one of the things, especially in early magic, that you would do something and it would make sense until it got to the public. Nowadays, there's a lot more people get more eyes on it. Not that we don't do things that aren't, not that we don't ever mess up, but we mess up less than we used to. The idea of matching intuition

just become more important to us. And some other real quick examples, shroud got introduced in future site and shroud is nobody can target it. The problem is people's assumption was, well clearly I can target, why can't I target my own creature? They assumed that it meant your opponent can't target it. So we ended up getting rid of shroud and making hex proof and hexproof is what people thought Shroud was. Another classic example, this is not mechanic we brought back, there was a mechanic in Mirage called Flanking and the flavor of Flanking was that some characters were on horses and strategically speaking if you're on a horse it's harder you know so the way

Flanking works is if you are blocked by a non flinker because you're not on a horse Then you get minus one minus one when you block a flanking creature But the idea that they were on a horse so they don't they don't flank against other creatures on a horse I don't think people really got the on a horse thing All the flankers were either on horseback or rising one or two were sent ours You know had a horse body. And so people didn't quite get the flavor of why it didn't work against other flankers and so there's no one ever remembered that. So if we ever brought flanking back, I don't know, we

will. For example, we wouldn't probably have the work against flankers with it. Also probably we would change the name to maybe help convey the flavor a little bit that Flanking did. Okay, another thing that we can get wrong is sometimes just the execution is a little bit wrong. I will use Chroma for my example here. So while I was working on Fifth Dawn, I believe, Aaron Forsythe, his first design team he was on, he submitted a card that counted

the number of mana symbols, I think you need your hand. Anyway, I loved the idea of counting mana symbols and I said to him, this is way bigger than a single card, this is a mechanic. So we held on to it, I think we teased it in future site, and then in Eventide we did the mechanic, which we called Chroma. And I was really excited. I thought counting mana symbols would be great. And the way Chroma worked is each card told you where you can count the mana symbols, maybe from your hand, maybe from the battlefield, maybe from the graveyard. And we messed up a couple things.

We also really didn't push it. But I think the biggest problem was there was no cohesion to the chroma cards. Meaning if this chroma card counted the graveyard and this chroma card counted your hand and this chroma card counted the battlefield, you just didn't want to play them together. And really what we realized was that it, you kind of wanted to do something that encouraged you to play them together which that design didn't and so and it wasn't very focused the word chroma means color in Latin so it was very vague in name it is this didn't it's a good example where we just didn't execute it right so we were working on

Theros original Theros and we needed a mechanic that represented the devotion that people had to their gods. And it dawned on us that, you know, the idea of Chroma was interesting. So we said, OK, what if we clean it up? What if we tweak it? Number one, we said, let's concentrate it. Let's only count the battlefield. So all Chroma cards work together, or of the same color at least work together. And we'll give it some flavor, a little less neutral than Chroma.

And the idea of devotion, like, oh, well the more mana symbols, the more I care about, you know, if I care about the white god, the more my white mana symbols, the more I'm devoted to the white god, you know. And so we took something that we we thought had potential that we just didn't execute unwell so like if we do something and we do it badly

there's no great reason to repeat the thing we did badly you might as well like make the better version and so the interesting thing is we did devotion and it was a giant hit which is a good example of execution matters. Sometimes we tweak things because we just didn't execute it right. Um, now I should stress, let me jump in at this point. Um, when you take a mechanic, if there's something inherently wrong with the mechanic, you don't necessarily have to give it a new name. Um, it has to do a lot with what are you changing and how does

affect the cards already printed. My good example there is I will use Echo. So Echo first showed up in Urza Saga. The way Echo worked is Echo costs had a mana cost. On the second turn they were on the battlefield during upkeep you had to pay the mana cost again, the Echo cost which mirrored the mana cost or it went away. And the idea was cars were costed so instead of having a cost that you like they were cheaper than normal because you had to pay them over two turns. When we brought back echo in time spiral block it dawned on us that there was some flexibility because we had tight echo. Echo

didn't have a number or anything it just said echo and it was always tied to the mana cost. We're like, you know what? I think echo would be more flavorful if we had some flexibility of what the echo cost was. So what we did when we brought it back and we said, okay, we're going to start putting a cost. So echo, and then it says a cost you have to pay. That cost can be the original mana value, but it could be something different. And what we said is, look, we're just going to errata all the old cards that are echo and the cost. So the idea is if you don't see a thing on it, it just matches the mana value. But if we put something and from now on, from time spell block forward, we'll put it on there so you know what it is. And the idea was we weren't changing the old echo cards. They still

worked the way they always worked. It was like changing fading to vanishing. we weren't changing the old echo cards. They still worked the way they always worked. It was like changing fading to vanishing, it didn't work the same. Changing chromatodevotion, it didn't work the same. There were differences. Changing echo to new echo, it didn't change the old cards. And so we kept the word echo. So sometimes when you tweak, you can keep the name.

Now an interesting one where we changed, we actually did change functionality but kept the name was lifelink. Lifelink was an evergreen keyword we introduced in future site. Basically you gain life equal to the damage you deal. Originally lifelink used to be what we would call stack. Meaning if I had lifelink and then got a second thing that granted me lifelink I would gain to life for every damage I did But because it was evergreen and there's some problems we end up deciding we didn't want it to stack And so we did is we changed it so it didn't but here's the interesting thing

lifelink just said lifelink on the cards or if it had reminder text is like you do damage equal to you know, like Nothing about the reminder text contrad it's like you do damage equal to, you know, like nothing about the reminder text contradicted what we were saying here. So we said, look, only the people that are gonna get confused are the more in franchise players that understand in the first place that it's stacked. We'll teach them it doesn't stack. None of the cards said it's stacked.

That wasn't on the cards or in the reminder text. So we felt like let's do the right thing. The word is a good word. People know it, it's on a lot of cards. We don't need to introduce the new word here. The change we're making is a minor change that most players won't even know is different. So it, you know, and the people that would know it's different are more likely to know the change that we can communicate. Okay. Another reason that we might change things and need to tweak things is an environmental change. What I mean by that is magic itself keeps shifting.

My example for this one is Morph. So Morph came about because the rules team at the time was trying to solve two cards that Richard Garfield had made in Alpha, illusionary mask and camouflage. Both of them had you turning a card face down but really didn't explain what that meant. We're very vague about like just a lot of Richard and early magic one of the things back when he was designing the initial game before he had any idea how big it would get some of the cards were kind of did weird things it's like I figured out and when you don't have like tournaments and things like that I figured out is fine when you're playing

in the kitchen table but when you start having people who've never met before playing big structured tournaments, like the rules have to answer things. You can't just like figure it out. So they came up with this way to define an upside down card, you know, face down card. And then they realized that we could actually make a mechanic out of it.

So they pitched Morph to Bill Rose. Bill wasn't that interested in it. They pitched it to Mike Elliott. Mike wasn't interested in it. But then they pitched it to me. I was interested in it. So they pitched Morph to Bill Rose. Bill wasn't that interested in it. They pitched it to Mike Elliott. Mike wasn't interested in it. But then they pitched it to me. I was interested in. So I ended up making decks. Like I worked with them. We tweaked it a bit. I think they had it two for one one. I got them to change it to three for two two. And anyway, I also introduced the idea of effects that happen when you turn them off and stuff like that. But anyway, I played around with R&D, got them invested. Everyone said, OK, we put it in onslaught, ended up being a big hit. The problem is over time, we have made creatures a lot better.

When the game first came out, the spells were a little too strong. Creatures were a little too weak. And over the years, we've made spells not quite as strong and creatures a little bit stronger. So what happened is in a time, happened is, when Morph was made, 3-manifur 2-2 wasn't that far from the norm of what creatures were. But we've really improved creatures,

and so, Morph, it's not that people didn't like the mechanics, the core mechanic is super fun. And so we said, okay, is there a way for us to tweak this, because we like Morph, we can give it a new name. And so we experimented with a bunch of different things over the years. We've tried two men for two, two. We've tried, um,

for a while we were trying three, two rather than two, two. In the end, what we ended up coming up with, which is the skies is, well, what if we gave ward two? And the reason we like that is one of the things that's most fun about Morph is getting to turn the Morph creatures up. So what if we just made it a little bit harder to destroy the face down versions of things, allowing you just more opportunity to get to turn them face up. And that ended up playing well, so we made that change.

And the other thing, once again, Morph had been named flavored based on the story. It's kind of a very neutral name. When we had the ability to redo it, disguised, a little more evocative, has a little bit of flavor. Not so much so that we can't put it on a lot of worlds because people disguise themselves all over the place. But it has a little bit more meaning than Morph that really didn't have much meaning. Another example of this is like early

magic Richard made him, he didn't name it in alpha but it fear and so eventually we keyword fear and then what happened was it was a little bit too narrow that you know it only worked against black or you had a black with black or artifact creatures if you had fear and so we ended up turning fear into intimidate. So intimidate was, well, I can only be blocked by artifact creatures or creatures that share my color. So the idea is I can put fear on a red creature and now only a red creature or artifact creature.

Now eventually we ended up getting away with that and moving to menace because menace was more fun. But there's a good example of how as we play and we realize things, you know, we can tweak things to make them play a little bit better. Okay, the next example I'll give is what I like to call better utility, which is we make a mechanic and the mechanic is good, but maybe it could be a little bit better. And so my example here is going to be manifest.

Actually, manifest does two things. I'll get to both of those in a sec. So Manifest was a mechanic we introduced in Khans of Tarkir block. So in Khans of Tarkir block, what we did was, the theme was we go to Tarkir. It's a world run by Khans of warlords. And there used to be dragons here, but the dragons are gone. And Sarkin loves dragons. And so he ended up going back in the past.

That's the second set, Fate Reforged. A concept here is the first set. Fate Reforged is in the past. The clans are in their proto versions. And then he changes something. He saves Ugin from Nicole Bullis because Nicole Bullis killed him in a fight. He saves him.

And because of that, he saves the dragons. So the third set is modern day, but alternate reality. You know like an alternate timeline, a different timeline of present. And so the idea was I wanted something, I wanted a mechanic that sort of conveyed present, past, alternate present. So we ended up using morph to do that. So morph was in the first set, protomorph needed to be in the second set, so we ended up making a mechanical manifest. So the way manifest worked was you got a card from somewhere, it could be from your hand, it could be from the graveyard, the library, and you

turn it face down, and then while it was face down it was too-too like a morph, but if it was a creature, you could turn it face up for its mana value. So it kind of turned creatures into morph creatures, sort of, and the most fun version of it was off the top of the library. Mostly, morphing from, I'm sorry, manifesting from an unknown, from a hidden thing was more interesting, because your opponent

didn't know whether it was a creature or not. If I manifest out of the graveyard and you know it's not a creature, or even if you know it is a creature, there's no suspense there. But if I manifest on the top of a library, hey, you don't know and there's a lot of fun there. The problem was the top of the library, 40% is going to be mana, 10 to 20% usually is non-creature stuff. And so you tend to hit creatures like maybe 40 percent of the time and it just, you didn't

hit them enough. It's like that was the fun part of Manifest. So we were working on Dusk Mourn and we were trying to sort of play into, you know, we like the idea of there's some, you know, in a horror setting, we like the idea there's some, you don't know what's going to happen. There's a little bit of tension. But the idea of Manifest was Manifest was not, the utility the idea that there's some, you don't know what's going to happen, there's a little bit of tension. But the idea of manifest was, manifest was not, the utility wasn't quite there, that you didn't quite get the creature enough.

So I said, well, what if we tweak it? And then, so I've talked about how Echo, we didn't change the name, and how, you know, Vanishing, we did change the name. Manifest Dread's a good middle ground, where we sort of changed the name, didn't completely change the name, we became Manifest Dread is a good middle ground where we sort of changed the name, didn't completely change the name, we became Manifest Dread. And the idea we set is one, it's only going to be at the top of the library, that's the most interesting thing. Two, instead of looking at one card, we're going to let you look at two cards and then

put the other card in the discard pile, which played nicely with other elements of the set. And then we're going to keep the word Man word manifest in it because it's a lot like manifest But we're gonna add an extra word dread to say hey, it's not exactly manifest. It's a little bit different It's only from the library you get a look at two cards And it's a good example where we sort of we did a middle ground tweak where we sort of it's a new mechanic But it's reminiscent of old mechanics so we kept the name in it so that you understand how it works. Now speaking of as we talk about cons block let me talk about the so the first set

was morph second set was manifest third set was mega morph so the idea that we wanted to do at the time was a thing, we called it Smorph, that would have been the actual name. So what Smorph stood for was Specialmorph. And the idea was instead of spending three mana for a face down 2-2, you spent four mana for a face down 2-2 with a plus on plus one counter. So it was a 3-3. So instead of three for a 2-2, it was four for a 3-3.

And then if you turned it face up, it got to keep the counter. So if you played it straight up, you it was not as big as if you went through the face down version. In the end, there was worry from R&D that morph and smorph didn't play together because if I played a smorph card, it had a plus one plus one counter on it. You knew it wasn't morph. In the end, not so little morph got played or constructed. I really believe we made a mistake.

I wish we had just done smorph back then. But anyway, instead of doing smorph, we did megamorph, which was the idea that when you turn it face up, you got a plus one plus one counter, which was a reminiscent of smorph. But the four mana three, three was really like, we were trying to do alternate reality, right, that was the alternate reality.

It's not a three mana two, two it's a format of three three but we just kept the plus one plus one counter which is something but it's the kind of thing that morph could do morph had effects that it did so we named it mega morph I'll admit was not the greatest of names we were doing the same thing we wanted to be reminiscent of the mechanics that we were tweaking and it just went over really badly. It went over badly because players... it didn't feel different enough. Like we manifested such a good job of showing you protomorph that the idea of doing alternate reality

morph just was such a letdown to people that people did not like it. And the name was silly. So it was like one of the, at the time, the lowest rated mechanic we ever had. So what I'm saying there is if we brought back Monstrous, like one of the reasons we change names sometimes is flavor. Now I don't know if we brought back Megamorph, not Monstrous, sorry. I said the wrong thing. If we brought back Megamorph, I doubt we would call it Megamorph. Megamorph, not monster, sorry. I said the wrong thing.

If they brought back Megamorph, I doubt we would call it Megamorph. Now, because Megamorph could be done with morph, maybe we just call it morph. But I guess the segue into this is that there are sometimes names where you don't want to use the name again. Megamorph's an example of it just has bad negativity to it.

If we brought it back, even like Megamorph is interesting in that it played well, it showed up in tournaments, and if we were going to bring back that mechanic, I would not call it Megamorph. Probably I would just call it Morph. So sometimes you have to change the name of the mechanic because there's just negative association with the original mechanic. And it's not even because it played bad like Megamorph is not a matter of it played bad. It was a matter of bad expectation setting Now often sometimes we change things because the name is not a good fit not that the original name is bad So this is my monstrous example. We did monstrous and original Theros. We like the idea that monsters get better

They had a one-time cost that you could use. And the way monstrous worked is it said you have a mana cost and then it says, and it always put plus one plus one counters on it. And then it said, if I'm not, you can only put counters on me if I'm, if I'm not monstrous. So the idea of the act of using the thing gave a state to you. Now we always put plus one plus one counters on you. So that kind of reminded you that you had used it. But if you had ever taken the counters off, you couldn't then reuse it again because it knows it's monstrous.

So when we were redoing monstrous in, for the Simic in Guilds of Ravnica, the team decided the word monstrous just wasn't a great, Simic wasn't about things being monstrous, that's not how Simic thought of things. So they changed it to adapt. And while they were changing it to adapt, they subtly changed how it worked.

The way adapt worked is, monstrous cares whether or not you activated it at once. It doesn't care whether the counters are on it or not, although the counters are often a reminder. Adapt says, hey, as long as there aren't counters on me, you can adapt me. So what that means is if you do adapt and put counters on the creature, and then you move the counters

or remove them or whatever, the creature doesn't have the counters on anymore, you can adapt it again. Or likewise, if someone puts a counter on it, if the opponent puts a plus or minus counter on it, you can't adapt it because it has a counter on it. Now the interesting question there is changing monsters to adapt, was that the right call? I'm not sure it was. I think the change mechanically is really subtle. And the larger issue is, so

this is another thing about tweaking is vocabulary. One of the things in general about magic is there's a lot of vocabulary to learn. Now if you're playing in an eternal format like commander, okay there's just lots of mechanics to learn that you're signing up for that. But if you're playing in limited or even standard we're trying to be careful how much vocabulary we introduce to you. That's why we have a limit of how many evergreen mechanics we do. And so the idea is every time we change vocabulary, it comes at a cost. It's not that we should never do it. Sometimes we want to change functionality anyway and that's fine because it's not going to work the same. So it would have to have

a new name. But we want to be really careful about changing things such that it's basically the same thing but with a new name. And if we're going to get a new name, odds are let's try to pick a name where that can be the name from now on. We don't want to have 8,000 different names for the same thing. Like one of the things, by the way, that saddens me is, in Guilds of Ravnica, Eric did a bunch of variants on things.

Now he didn't do adapt. He did a flashback variant called Jumpstart. And he did a scry variant called Surveil. So Surveil is exactly scry, except it goes to the graveyard rather than to the bottom of your library. With Hindsight, I really wish that was something like Scry to the graveyard, only because Scry and Surveil are basically the exact same action.

They now both have become basically every ring because we use both of them all the time. And we don't tend to use them in the same set, but just the idea that people have to learn Scry and have to learn Surveil, and they basically mean almost the same thing. I wish we had tweaked the name there, but that's just my two cents.

Okay, the other reason that we will tweak things is it just doesn't fit the design needs. So for example, I'll use a very recent example. When we were making Tarkir Dragon Storm, we wanted the dragons to have an extra use for them. We wanted them to have, we ended up being Omen. But we made the choice with Omen to shuffle them into the library.

But, but we have a mechanic called Adventure that works very similarly. Why didn't we just use adventure? And the answer is one of the things that's really important for us is we wanted the mechanic to be on dragons. We wanted dragons to be this big, exciting, powerful thing that you played. If we use adventure on them, there's a big cost to having a spell and then still getting to cast the card. You don't, that second card you cast usually isn't as efficient as it needs to be

because you got the bonus of casting the first spell. If you look at a lot of the adventures, there's not a lot of big things, or if they are expensive, you're not getting as much as you normally would get. But we wanted the dragons to be exciting dragons. And so we did adventure, we'd have to have watered down sort of not exciting dragons.

And so the reason we shuffled them in is that's what we needed. We needed to go on dragons. In fact, the whole point of the mechanic was to have you put more exciting dragons in your deck. So the last thing we wanted to do is do adventure and then you're not even putting exciting dragons in your deck, you're putting kind of weak dragons

in your deck. So that's why we did Omen. So that it didn't fit the design needs. Now, I should stress, we don't always have to change things. Sometimes in fact, we find ways to add, like one of the things that's fun is when you can take an existing mechanic and find new space, but tie it to it. Like I already talked about sort of how we use manifest dread to make a new mechanic that was similar to manifest. But for example, take kicker. Um, we liked

the idea in world awake that you could do kickers that you could pay more than once. So instead of breaking a brand new mechanic, we made multi kicker, which is sort of kicker, but adapted. Um, we did a version on cycling. We got basic land instead of making a brand new mechanic, we made basic land cycling. So you know and that way that you know basic land cycling triggers on cycling effects. Multi-kicker triggers on kicker effects. So it was a way to do something that allowed you to sort of get new utility but use the knowledge and the vocabulary from before. So those are tweaks but they're once again they're tweaks that tie into the original. And the one last example I use today is

Sometimes we bring back mechanics we can adapt them in a way that gives us more flexibility As a general rule, you know if we can bring them back and just use them as is we will My last example for today is a mass. So a mass was, we were doing War of the Spark, and Nicole Bolles brought this army of eternal zombies. And so early on we were trying a lot of things with different counters, and normally what we do is like they can't block, or we tried this thing where they had a attacker block together,

so all the tokens like had to go together as a group. But in the end, the solution we came up with was what if instead of there being lots of tokens because that comes up The board there's one token So when you amass you make an army and then if you already have the army token instead of making more you just put some Counters on it you make it bigger. So the idea is you mask your zombie army It's making a bigger and bigger creature that creature can have real impact because they can get pretty big Okay flash forward a couple years working on Lord of the Rings and we're trying to solve the same problem But with an orc army and we're like we solve this problem

But the problem was we had baked into a mass that was a black creature and it was a zombie creature And so we said you know, maybe we could change that. What if we just say, what if a mask said what it made? So instead of just a mask and that means zombies, what if we said a mask orcs, a mask orcs two or whatever. So we ended up having to change a mask. Now, once again, we sort of errata the old card, so nothing functionality changed for them.

All it said is now, even though it said a mask, you to imagine it says a mass zombies they now errata say a mass zombies it doesn't change how the cards work if you use those cards everything about the cards what it's telling you is true but it allows us to make more cards because now we can make an orc army or we make other things we still haven't making a black hunter i'm just kind of curious if we find the army we need to make that isn't Blackhunter and we'll make that change. We haven't made that change yet, but in my gut we might one day. But anyway, to sort of sum up for today, as a general rule, if we can repeat something and use the same name, we will. But if something has to change, if there's functionality that's wrong, it's unintuitive, it didn't play right, if you know the name is a creatively bad fit.

Like there are reasons that we will tweak things and there are reasons that we will rename things. And so that hopefully to answer the question for my blog, that is sort of how we decide to tweak things versus repeat things. So anyway, I hope you guys enjoyed my podcast today, but I'm at work. So we all know what that means. Means instead of talking magic, it's time for me to be making magic. Well, I'll see you all next time. Bye bye.