OFCC: Infinity Feedback

[Raindog]

Okay Lads and Ladies, 

 

The OFCC is done and dusted. 

 

I had a blast. I hope you did, too.

 

I would like to know what worked, what you liked, and what to change.

 

First, I like the table competition. I was entirely impressed at the level of quality for the tables. There was to like from every table.

 

Second,  I liked  the small teams. It kept a feeling camaraderie as well as inclusion between teams.

 

I liked the swag and give always from the Pins and Patches from the Pride of Rodina to Patchwork Merc's civilians to FUC's silhouettes.

 

The narrative event made the event relaxed and friendly with a great feeling of sportsmanship. I did not have a bad game. Heck, I did not have a negative feeling from any game and I felt a positive attitude from the table around me.

 

Finally, I liked the horse trading after prizes were given out, so people could get what they wanted.

 

Concerns:

 

1: I know compared to other places, prizes are thin. I hope no one felted shorted in comparison to the big events like Twinfinity or Rumble on Route 66 or Arizona Armageddon. 

 

2: I worried the booty chart made some spec ops too powerful and caused mismatches.

 

Questions:

 

1: Did people like the scenarios?

 

2: Were team give always okay?

 

3: What would you like to see next year?

 

Please give me constructive feedback, so the club can work to make the event better?

[rudra34]

This was one of my favorite OFCCs, so I don't have a ton of criticism to offer.

1-Prize support seemed fine to me, but the tournaments around here are all I really know.

2-If you want to keep with the booty trend but not make them too powerful, maybe cap the items at one from each chart.   If you get to roll in subsequent rounds then you can choose to trade out your previous items.  Some will still end up stronger than others, but that's just how booty works.


1-I liked the scenarios.  Some of them, like civilians, were a little rough with only 10 orders.   Other than that I can't remember having any issues.   Not needing specialists to complete or grab objectives does give a big advantage to certain units (*cough* Antipodes *cough*), but I don't know if it broke any games.

2-I thought team give aways were fine.  It's sort of a freebee raffle for attendance so I wouldn't kick it out of bed, and if we continue to get more prize support then it can always be boosted.

3-Next year I would like to see Chris Mathews' dice melted into the shape of a giant middle finger  >:)
 

[Twinmasks]

Definitely had no problems with the prizes given.  Yes, they were a bit thinner than what they had a Twinfinity, but in all fairness I wasn't there to win prizes.  I was there to have a good time with a bunch of great friends and hopefully make a few more in the process.

While the booty chart did make for some very powerful spec-ops, I am not sure that it was game breaking (at least not in my matches).  If not trying a custom booty chart in the future, then perhaps set it as one of the ways a team can get a medal (most spec-ops kills).  Or at least something that encourages the death of spec-ops models.

I liked the missions.  Did anyone run into any huge problems with them?  I would've really liked to see that Kyle rolling a 16 after opening the door in the final mission would've made for 16 zombies instead of just 5 , but I still enjoyed the mission.

As for Question 2, can you clarify?

I really liked the inclusion of the surprise when opening the door in the last mission.  Is there anyway to include more outside-of-the-game impacters?  They talked about examples of an air horn in the middle of a round to change the mission or insert a special additional rule at other events.  I know I am essentially asking for more work from the TO and those helping, but just throwing it out there that I thought it was fun and would encourage further experimentation.

I understand the stance on the 3 color minimum rule, but I am also worried that it chased some people away.  Just something I thought worth mentioning.

[Raindog]

Alex,

I was asking if team vs. individual give always were okay.

As to painted armies, the OFCC has always had a painting requirement. It is part making the event about hobby and showing brush skills.

[Sgt. Rock]

1: The scenarios were great. I agree that some of the scenarios were challenging with limited insertion, but honestly, I liked it. I'm actually a big fan of limitations on normal list building formats; lower point levels, limited insertion, stuff like that. So I thought it was great. I definitely enjoyed the last scenario (though I admit to letting my opponent be the first to open the door, just because I know George a little too well to be the one to charge in first after what we were told.) 

2: The team giveaways were awesome! We got some great swag, and we all loved it the random little bits of loot we received. It's like Halloween, but for nerds!

3: I can't say what I'd like to see next year, honestly. I think I might skip the Face Punch next year; ITS gets a little too competitive for me sometimes. Maybe next year we could do something using 20x20 as a basis for the narrative event? Just to mix things up a bit further.

As to prizes, are you kidding? I walked away with a ton of loot, and Kyle was complaining that he didn't have room in his suitcase to bring it all home! I didn't go to Twinfinity, but he did, and he had no complaints. I feel like I definitely came out well ahead on stuff.

I have to say, regarding the spec-ops, it was silly fun, but I think maybe it needed to be reined in a little. I mean, an ARM 7 Metro on a motorcycle carrying a MULTI rifle is funny as hell, but for 8 points, it's a bit game-breaking. And to be honest, that Metro basically spent the first four rounds as a cheerleader, even with all the loot she'd picked up. I was so concerned about keeping her alive for that booty roll that I just kept her hidden. It also felt like there was so much emphasis on them that I felt compelled to keep them safe in a link, which kind of limited my list-building options (as if the inclusion of Mirage 5 at 200 points didn't.) I would say maybe let the spec ops make the booty roll, but only keep one booty item at a time. That, or give all the spec ops models scavenger or something like that. 

[Kremmet]

1) Prizes were a little thin, but I know nobody up here was under the illusion of a large prize pool so I'm not too worried. Maybe next year you can try drawing on some of the artistic talent in the area to get more personalized prizes to make up for the lack of monetary gain. Always worked for my family when I was a starving artist!

2) The missions were mostly OK, but I strongly recommend against having anybody able to do all of them in the future. Specialists are priced that way for a reason and things like Mutts/doggos and high WIP murderers (Fidays, Oniwabans, etc) invalidate the challenge of a lot of them. I know I personally had a monstrously difficult time dealing with a pain train that was able to load up on the first mission as I had to spend the whole game firing into them as they were both covering my objectives and collecting their own. It's just too big of an advantage. 

As for something to change for next year, might I recommend a small disclaimer for how to set up a table. I'm all for seeing cool setups such as the one made by team Porkchop, but I wouldn't want to play on such a table due to the rather massive gameplay issues it causes. This goes for the majority of the tables as I saw a lot of three story buildings in deployment zones with LoF to the majority of the table. While I personally benefitted hugely from such terrain placement, I would prefer a bit of primer to help balance things out in the future. 

As for the Spec-ops, I really like Rudra's suggestion as it should leave things a little more open to interesting combos rather than broken ones.

Lastly, the team prizes are great. I love the idea of not just being able to "ace" your way to the top and needing to come together to really reach the top. Great execution of a good idea!

[Exile]

1 hour ago, Kremmet said:

As for something to change for next year, might I recommend a small disclaimer for how to set up a table. I'm all for seeing cool setups such as the one made by team Porkchop, but I wouldn't want to play on such a table due to the rather massive gameplay issues it causes. This goes for the majority of the tables as I saw a lot of three story buildings in deployment zones with LoF to the majority of the table. While I personally benefitted hugely from such terrain placement, I would prefer a bit of primer to help balance things out in the future. 

While there are most certainly outliers, as there are at any tournament; thanks to the inclusion of an infinitely tall objective room on all of the tables, I don't personally recall many tables that had abusive or utterly one-sided terrain setups, certainly not the majority.  What kind of guidelines would you suggest, though?

To RD's questions:

1a)  We don't go to these shindigs to get loot.  Some go for the competition, some for the camaraderie, some for their art, some for a multitude of reasons.  Prize support can(and will) grow with the event.

2a)  While amusing, some of the mechanics of the spec-op did lead to a 'snowball' effect.  Get some good rolls early, and your mans becomes a 8-14pt ARM 7 ODD HMG, or some other filth.  Lose him early, and you're back to square one against aforementioned min-maxers.  Perhaps a limiting effect, like Rudra's, or less of a death penalty;  if your guy dies, you get to roll for that round's split Objective Pointss for your next Spec Op.

 

1b) I think the scenarios were pretty good!  The removal of some of the more punishing aspects of certain ITS scenarios was an appropriate adaptation for this style of event.

2b) Team giveaways were awesome, and I am rightfully chastised for not thinking of something like that.  Although the number of people out there with access to custom Lasercut or CnC/3d print surprised me (not that it should, now that i think about it).  More motivation for next year, who's got the best giveaway swag.

3b) Still mulling this part over.

[Kremmet]

9 minutes ago, Exile said:

While there are most certainly outliers, as there are at any tournament; thanks to the inclusion of an infinitely tall objective room on all of the tables, I don't personally recall many tables that had abusive or utterly one-sided terrain setups, certainly not the majority.  What kind of guidelines would you suggest, though?

Technically the objective rooms were only infinitely tall in round five per the TO's ruling, but even with it I had some 40ish% visibility from the top of a few (I don't want to name names in an attempt to avoid any harsh feelings as that's not my intent). To enumerate my thoughts, I'd go with the following:

• Build your tables from the center out in terms of height.

While running the objective rooms being infinity high did this on some tables, there was still an issue with the other 2/3rds of the table and the amount of LoF you gained from 8" tall-or-taller terrain in deployment zones.

• Touch each table edge with at least one decently-sized terrain piece.

This was less of an issue than the first, but I still saw plenty of tables that allowed flankers (drop troops, Su Jians, etc) too much leeway. Having a terrain piece, even scatter terrain, touching each edge makes it so people can better protect/anticipate their flanks along with giving a wider variety of troopers a chance to contribute on the ropes.

• Look at your table not just from North to South, but also East to West.

Similar to my last critique, I saw waaaaaay too much of this going on. More than a few tables gave a parachutist basically unlimited opportunity down a street for targets. Getting shot from outside of LoF and 8" is a recipe for a bad time.

As you alluded to through your experience, this might not have been a thing everybody personally witnessed. However, I do know that most of my games (an exception being the one I played against Jenni) were played on tables where there was a clearly superior deployment zone. While I'm all for DZ choice being important, it was a little much in a few cases which was exacerbated given my army's focus on long range (2xsnipers+ML).

[Raindog]

Okay, that is just about a perfect set of thoughts on table layout. I will copy and paste for next year!

[Jay]

Next year I would like to see Eric and George dancing. Preferably in tutus. 

 

I agree with Kremmet on his table analysis. Playability should also be a factor in table judgement. 

[nathonicus]

I had a great time, and this was the most fun I've had out of 4 or 5 OFCCs I've been to. Simply the best weekend of solid games! I'm known up here in Bellingham to be really grumpy and to hate everything, so I want you to know how much fun I had. :D

Anyway, here are my thoughts. I just wanted to preface it with the above disclosure, to let you know I'm grouchy by default, and so you should take everything I say with massive salt.

Quote

1: I know compared to other places, prizes are thin. I hope no one felted shorted in comparison to the big events like Twinfinity or Rumble on Route 66 or Arizona Armageddon. 

Honestly, prizes were fine for me. I actually really enjoy smaller, more unique items like the Secret Weapon bases and the Fate and Fury dumpster I walked away with.  I think for most of us, if we want an Infinity mini bad enough we'll buy it, so having more interesting prizes that you might not otherwise pick up are great.

Quote

 

2: I worried the booty chart made some spec ops too powerful and caused mismatches.

 

I only really noticed it one time, and that was in a later match, when there was a trooper who if he had been costed, probably would have been at least 1.5 if not 2 SWC.  That's a pretty big swing in a 200 point game. I was actually looking forward to finally using XP to build a spec op, so I would either like to see some sort of XP system or perhaps make the Spec Ops optional.  In such a small list, adding one more basic rifle trooper was actually a bit of a puzzle in list building.

Quote

1: Did people like the scenarios?

For the most part, I think they were just fine.

I didn't like letting anyone be a specialist, all the time. Maybe in a few missions that would be ok.

I liked the way the Biotechvore was rewritten to progress, but I didn't like that it was altered to only affect biological units.  If you were facing  a lot of remotes, you were at a disadvantage as the mission was pressuring you, but not your opponent.

The only real beef I had was with the final mission.  I chose to go first, got to the room in my second turn, used a lot of coordinated orders and luck to cross some brutal fire lanes, and finally got ready to deal with the room and try and score some points.  I asked about opening doors, and was told that the Lockpick program would open just one door. So I spent two orders hacking that, only to find out that the room was trapped, and inside were two ARM 6, two-wound mutants with twin light flame throwers.  So going first and trying to achieve the mission was really rough, as I had to spend the rest of my orders trying to deal with the board, and was essentially punished for trying to play the mission. 

If there are going to be hostile surprises, I would say less is more. A single random enemy that you're not expecting, even if it only takes 1 order to deal with, is still eating up 10% of your order resources.   And if there are going to be hostile surprises, maybe there should be some good mixed in - like a panoply, covered position, turret that could be manned, or so on. Otherwise, the first player to try and deal with it is disadvantaged - they put in all the work to clear the room, and the 2nd player can just focus on getting in and scoring points. Also, traps aren't fun. Being told I could open just one door, then having them all open anyway was really not great. If there had been a mixed bag of good/bad inside the room, then I might feel better about it, but as it was, it was just a whole room full of bad, and a bit of a sucker punch after having worked really hard to dig out of my deployment. :D

 

Quote

 

2: Were team give always okay?

 

Were we supposed to bring giveaways? D'oh! I did find it a little hard to find the info on the event, seemed like it was buried in the forums.  I think a packet or something we could download would be great. I know that's more work.

Quote

3: What would you like to see next year?

I want to see everyone back, plus more people! I had such a great time.  As far as constructive criticism, I would like to see:

1. Terrain (walls, crates, etc) in objective rooms so they're not wide open.
2. Asymmetrical Missions. 

What I mean by Asymmetrical Missions, is missions in which we have an Attacker and a Defender, or differing mission objectives for each player.  My reasoning for this is, ITS missions are built to be super balanced for competitive play, but the OFCC is not about super-polished competitive gaming, but fun, narrative events. So why not abandon the ITS format and try something new? It's more work to write missions like that, but I think it highlights a lot of the possibilities in the rule set.  I know I used to really enjoy the wackier missions from the old 40k and WHFB books.

Anyhow, thanks to everyone who played, and especially to the organizers. It was really an incredible weekend.

[Raindog]

Nathonicus, 

For team giveaways, I meant at the end, where I put 12 piles of prizes to go out to the teams instead of to individuals.

[Raindog]

Also, George and I looked into asymmetrical missions and tried to make something work, but we're unable to make something work.

[nathonicus]

1 hour ago, Raindog said:

 

Oh, yeah, I thought the team giveaways were just fine. 

I imagine it's real tough to make the missions work in other formats, but I'd love to give it a go. I wonder if it would be possible with the missions published ahead of time, and maybe each player is allowed to bring two lists, and choose from each based if they are the attacker or defender. Or maybe use a sideboard.  Anyhow, that's just stuff tumbling around in my brain.  I had a blast, and I'm sure next year will be even more better!

 

 

[rudra34]

One more thing.  If we keep spec ops and booty, make sure everyone brings a model on a motorcycle just in case. 

[Raindog]

Next question.

Tables.

The clubs owns 70 plus, 4 foot by 8 foot ( or larger like the ones the Infinity games were played on for the OFCC) table tops. Do we need them? They make a long flat place to play and set our gear on. Or, can we push two 30 inch by 60 inch tables and call it good? With neoprene mats, the crack/gap issues would be at a minimum.

What do you think?

[Sgt. Rock]

8 hours ago, nathonicus said:

The only real beef I had was with the final mission.  I chose to go first, got to the room in my second turn, used a lot of coordinated orders and luck to cross some brutal fire lanes, and finally got ready to deal with the room and try and score some points.  I asked about opening doors, and was told that the Lockpick program would open just one door. So I spent two orders hacking that, only to find out that the room was trapped, and inside were two ARM 6, two-wound mutants with twin light flame throwers.  So going first and trying to achieve the mission was really rough, as I had to spend the rest of my orders trying to deal with the board, and was essentially punished for trying to play the mission. 

If there are going to be hostile surprises, I would say less is more. A single random enemy that you're not expecting, even if it only takes 1 order to deal with, is still eating up 10% of your order resources.   And if there are going to be hostile surprises, maybe there should be some good mixed in - like a panoply, covered position, turret that could be manned, or so on. Otherwise, the first player to try and deal with it is disadvantaged - they put in all the work to clear the room, and the 2nd player can just focus on getting in and scoring points. Also, traps aren't fun. Being told I could open just one door, then having them all open anyway was really not great. If there had been a mixed bag of good/bad inside the room, then I might feel better about it, but as it was, it was just a whole room full of bad, and a bit of a sucker punch after having worked really hard to dig out of my deployment. :D

I admit, I kind of agree. As a lifelong gamer, when I was told that we had to go get George when we opened the doors, that little alarm bell went off in my head and said "Go ahead, let the other guy trigger the trap." It's like when you're playing D&D, and as you approach a door, the DM starts rolling. "No, guys, seriously. I think we should let the bard go in first. There might be someone in there that we want to make a good first impression on." 

As for the tables, I liked having all that space to set my crap. Being able to put down my tournament box, dice, tokens, mission briefings, glass of beer, hat, etc. without crowding whoever was next to me was really nice. I've played at a lot of events where the tables are crammed so close together that you're bumping elbows with the player next to you, and I really prefer having some space to work.

[nathonicus]

I also loved the room to move and lay things out. Big fan of space on both sides.

[Andrewc]

Scared Hitless had a great time as always, but this was probably my favorite OFCC to date.  My opponents were fantastic, the painting on the models and tables was fantastic, overall a great vibe.  To answer some of your questions:

Concerns:

1: I know compared to other places, prizes are thin. I hope no one felted shorted in comparison to the big events like Twinfinity or Rumble on Route 66 or Arizona Armageddon. 

I think other have said pretty much the same thing, that we don't come for prizes, but more for good games and camaraderie.  That being said, you might want to consider going back to individual swag bags.  That's where you put your SWM discount code, your patches/buttons  (maybe go beyond and ask players what they are playing), get some small stuff like objective markers, camo tokens, LOF Painting templates, etc.  Stuff that's universally useful but not too expensive, in addition to team giveaways..  I don't know what percentage of the entry fee actually goes towards prizes, but folks might sell at a discount if they're not willing to donate for prize support.  More than willing to help out with this if needed.

2: I worried the booty chart made some spec ops too powerful and caused mismatches.

Didn't see it personally, but could imagine something like this coming up.  Spec ops base profile generally aren't great, so can't take full advantage of the good gear.

Questions:

1: Did people like the scenarios?

The scenarios were fun, connected and overall pretty balanced.  George did mention to me that there was a lot he may not have thought about, for example the rescue mission.  Without knowing in advance, and without a second list, a remote heavy list would have been at a huge disadvantage.  To be fair, he told me after the fact that had I asked, he would have said that any unit could sync with civvies, but we played it as written.  These types of clarifications before hand would have been nice.  Overall very good, just need a second or third pair of eyes, some polish and clarity.  

2: Were team give always okay?

Just fine.

3: What would you like to see next year?

More players!  36 was a fantastic turnout, but how many of us know more infinity players that just didn't show up?  Get on your peeps, and let's grow this thing!  Scared Hitless is committed to adding a second team, SH2: Electric Boogaloo.  

Others:

Myself at least have taken the feedback about table setup to heart.  Got feedback at the event and realized that we had way to open fire-lanes, and too much height in the deployment zone.  This will be corrected in the future, but having Kremmet's Treatise on Table Setup to start out with would have made a huge difference to someone who has never setup a table before.

I loved, loved, loved having all the space between tables, made a huge difference.

 

[rudra34]

Been thinking about the terrain issues and ways that we might be able to work on them, I think a lot of it boils down to the objective room.   Nearly every table had it dead center for each game, as the tables were designed knowing that it was needed for at least one of the scenarios.  The problem with that is that most objective rooms are not that tall, or even just an open 4-sided box for ease of use when you need to get inside of it.   If we want to use objective room scenarios next year then it might be worth it to encourage people to build the table knowing that it will need to be altered for this scenario, but that it shouldn't necessarily be designed around an 8-inch box in the middle.
 

[Wiccus]

1. Prizes were fine. Obviously everyone loves stuff but as others have said it really isn't a big deal. We split an outrage box so I was happy.

2. I didn't see any overpowered spec ops but I would like to see a bit of a smaller penalty for dying. I hid my spec ops most of the time as I was afraid of losing the small gains I'd made with him.

1b. Scenarios were mostly fine. I do agree with people about the biotechvore and final scenarios though. Having remotes be unaffected by the fog didn't matter in my game but it could be brutal in others. The final mission it definitely felt like I was punished for going first. It was only 5 zombies but I was at the end of my turn and had to deal with them rather than my opponent which definitely hurt. If there are going to be special events in the scenarios then I would prefer it to impact both players equally.

2b. They were totally fine.

3b. I would prefer to see the points go to 300. If you are worried about time then you could still make it limited insertion. At 300pts this allows people to bring cool centerpiece models like tags or fun heavy infantry. It gives more options for fun and interesting lists and the centerpiece models go towards the cool hobby emphasis that the OFCC is all about. 

I also would definitely like to see some better table set ups next year. There was one table in particular that I played on that looked great but wasn't the most functional. I felt sorry for the open ground Jay had to slog through under tons of my AROs. I would also like to have people vote on favorite tables next year just as we do on favorite armies. Also a bit more communication next year as far as whether or not the objective room will be infinitely high throughout the event. Our table was designed under the assumption that it was.

I think specialists should be more important as well. I really like the vibe of infinity where you have your bruisers move up and hate on your enemies and lay down suppressing fire while the skillful specialized troopers follow behind to accomplish vital objectives. This doesn't need to be in every scenario but having everyone able to do anything felt like it took a bit away from the infinity vibe. 

I would like to see the addition of a best general as an awards category. I like giving a nod to the best players and feel it doesn't turn it into too much of a competitive event. I've been to 40k and fantasy OFCCs where there is a best general prize and I've only had great and fun games. 

This list of criticisms may seem like I didn't enjoy myself but I really had a great time. If nothing changes I will still be back next year and loving every second of it, even when Scarface kills all my dudes by turn 2. Thanks for the great event everyone!

[Twinmasks]

On 8/2/2017 at 11:00 PM, Raindog said:

Alex,

I was asking if team vs. individual give always were okay.

As to painted armies, the OFCC has always had a painting requirement. It is part making the event about hobby and showing brush skills.

The give aways were fine... At least I hope... I mean I did speed paint 72 civvies in about 3 days to have our give away solidified

Hope everyone that got a set enjoy them ?...

On 8/2/2017 at 11:11 PM, Kremmet said:

As for something to change for next year, might I recommend a small disclaimer for how to set up a table. I'm all for seeing cool setups such as the one made by team Porkchop, but I wouldn't want to play on such a table due to the rather massive gameplay issues it causes. This goes for the majority of the tables as I saw a lot of three story buildings in deployment zones with LoF to the majority of the table. While I personally benefitted hugely from such terrain placement, I would prefer a bit of primer to help balance things out in the future. 

Honestly, I really don't care if a table is setup with sniper roosts in DZs.  It is just another aspect that I have to adapt my play style for (admittedly, I failed in my adaptation, but every failure makes me a better player).  It is kind of like complains coming from either side of the Euro or US table setup styles discussions.

As an aside I would recommend that when designing your tables that you make sure there are multiple paths for bases up to 55mm (if not Maggie sized) to make it across.

[Kremmet]

The problem with the three-story buildings wasn't just that there were sniper roosts, but that those positions could also see too much of the table. It's hard to adjust your play to eating 3+ superior-range shots a round if you try to anything but sit in your DZ. This also wasn't the only issue I saw in the tables as a few allowed for massive advantage when viewed from left to right rather than top to bottom.

While you personally might not have a problem with the roosts, they did have a massive impact on the games I played and watched on said tables.

2 hours ago, Twinmasks said:

As an aside I would recommend that when designing your tables that you make sure there are multiple paths for bases up to 55mm (if not Maggie sized) to make it across.

This is something I think I missed in my short write-up on table setup and is well worth consideration (poor Maggie).

[Justjokin]

1: Did people like the scenarios?

The Scenarios were a blast.  I felt a connected story for my team across the 5 missions.  I rushed to the lab door on mission 5 with guns ready and defense in-depth.  I did end up with my ARM:8 Spec-ops 'adhesived' to the doctor.   The Fog mission turned from my poorly executed trap failing, into a "Rescue the Spec-Ops from the Fog!" mission.  I had a blast.

2: Were team give always okay?

Yes!  Maybe next year have some 'tiers' of give aways, or some other way to build the excitement during the give away.   

3: What would you like to see next year?

More people, more tables.  I liked the team sizes, but I would have liked just a little more interaction between the teams. I screwed up my chance to compliment Kremmet on his painting in person!

I like thoughtful table building.  I see a good set of guidelines forming up here!  There has been a lot of discussion about 'asymmetric' table builds, and there seems like there should be some benefit from terrain in your initiative choices.  But as with all aspects of this awesome game, we need to take care not to break it! 

[Jay]

I would like more bananas next year. The one I got was small and smelled like hamster. :)