Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That's nice. I guess they'll make proper 8 dollar RRP miniature molds for the people who didn't get it on the KS and have to pay actual RRP for these figures. Oh wait...no, they're still getting the same thing and paying about 8 bucks per figure

Sining you can take it as you will but I have things to pay for and a family and life outside of gaming and I would have probably only bought the main set for the retail price and nothing more. So the price is not a slam on PB or the quality as you would twist it to but a simple fact that $10+ per mini like we pay nowadays for Battletech stuff or GW stuff is outside my price range as I have more important things to pay for as I am sure you do.

Yeah, the "we only paid a couple bucks each" thing is great for the 5k backers. It's terribly short sighted in terms of the potential longevity of the game.

Non-backers should be looking at us with envy because we got an incredible deal on awesome figures, not because they're weighing out paying 2-6 times as much for the same stuff, and are struggling to justify the cost. Just because it's disposable income doesn't mean it's limitless.

It's a shame the skirmish rules are essentially a footnote. I suspect that even if the game struggles, a strong small scale skirmish version might hold higher appeal based on the reduced barriers to entry (lower cost, fewer models to build/paint, cheaper to expand into the expansions when a single box or two is all one would need, etc).

 warboss wrote:

Fruit, don't take the above as directed towards you as it isn't as I do appreciate you posting it. I just don't believe anything palladium says without verifiable proof.. like.. you know.. them posting the video that makes them so happy. With the way this kickstarter has gone, the FANS will probably be the first to notice miscasts and short shots in the sprues on the video. Until then, I'm going to file this one under "BS until proven otherwise" alongside the minis construction video that we were supposed to get.

LOL no worries, I smiled, nodded, and chuckled at your comments.

Well, to be honest the rules as is are not designed for small games. The good news is that there was talk about doing skirmish level rules for things later on like the Invid Invasion stuff where tiny cyclones would suck. These rules could be opened up to use all 3 generations.

Now I don't think the minis are as bad as some profess BUT for $7-$8 per mini they are not bad at all. In fact the only real complaints are based on the seams on the Spartan, Gnerl and Tomahawk. The Spartan's worst seams are on the legs. The problem is everyone is going to want to use Tomahawks because they kick some serious butt. The production pic looked much better with much tighter seams but they are still there. Problem is making the seams dissapear with thick paint because a wash will bring them right out if they are not done right. If only the seams had been placed in other spots or the detail reduced some to ensure a reduced parts count but if they did that they would have been screamed at for low detail. I think this was a catch 22 situation for them. Personally I would have preferred less detail and lower parts count but then these would not be "mouth watering" with detail.

Mike1975 wrote:
Well, to be honest the rules as is are not designed for small games. The good news is that there was talk about doing skirmish level rules for things later on like the Invid Invasion stuff where tiny cyclones would suck. These rules could be opened up to use all 3 generations.

Well, I guess you can add one more thing to the pack of lies told to me when I was backing the project. I bought it specifically for the skirmish gaming they said would be one of the two types of gameplay included. They stressed it multiple times right up until the KS ended and we were locked in.

The skirmish rules are the same as the regular ones, you just play with squads and are not locked into using Squadrons with support and elite cards. So if you think that you had 2 sets of rules in the book you were mistaken. Basically instead of using one squadron with 0-2 support and 0-1 elites you can use support and elite cards by themselves in a skirmish game. The rules are basically the same. I will be sharing some character creation rules with you all once things come out so that you can use characters in skirmish games for each unit to make it more fun.

I never thought there would be a separate set of rules other than for army construction. I just expect there to be a fun and useful set of rules that scale well down to skirmish gaming because that is what I was sold. I'm just responding to your post where you say that "the rules as is are not designed for small games". That is the opposite of what they told us during the crowdfunding. I take what you say as a fallible opinion but you obviously have more info to base it on seeing as how you have the final approval finalized^3 version of the rules from back in December.

I have a much newer set now. The skirmish rules are basically a paragraph or two outlining what I stated above and changes how you can organize your forces, basic rules are unchanged.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry if you missed it but I stated that a few times a while back

Mike1975 wrote:
Problem is making the seams dissapear with thick paint because a wash will bring them right out if they are not done right. If only the seams had been placed in other spots or the detail reduced some to ensure a reduced parts count but if they did that they would have been screamed at for low detail. I think this was a catch 22 situation for them. Personally I would have preferred less detail and lower parts count but then these would not be "mouth watering" with detail.

Well the other problem is that any paint thick enough to mask the seams will also risk masking some of that 'mouth watering detail' as well, defeating the whole supposed purpose of the high parts count in the first place. Note: not that I'm giving credence to that little excuse of theirs, but it is at odds with their desired goals. If we accept their premise, and the reality is solved in a counter productive fashion to that premise, then son, someone done feth'd up.

And I disagree. I think it's entirely possible that they could've dialed back to, say, 90% 'mouth wateringness' on the detail and trimmed down the necessary parts a few points. Quality, Detail and Parts Count (among plenty of other things) exist on a spectrum, and it's totally possible they could've slid back on both and ended up with a stronger product overall.

Hell, I'm reminded of it every time someone tries to defend the seams. "You won't notice them on the table! What does it matter!" ... ummm, we won't notice this teeny tiny detail from 4 feet away either, so how about we go with fewer seams and slightly lesser detail/parts count, but both end up being net positives because we're still not noticing the bad stuff, and the good stuff would've needed a '6 inches away' inspection anyway.

Edit: You're allowed to share parts of the rules still, correct? Any chance you could either scan or type out that section? If it's truly that short, perhaps the exact wording will help set aside the matter once and for all? Or at the very least, fully direct our consternation where it belongs, with Palladium.

I was originally bummed that I didn't get as high a tier as I would of liked. Now I am really happy that I didn't.

I don't like that these are made like they were designed and manufactured by someone who did plastic models not miniatures. I love my Gunpla but I also have a lot more to work with as a model and there is a certain quality that is be expected when putting them together. The details and getting rid of the seams are how those who do Gunpla show their skills in putting them together and painting.

I however bought into a miniatures game with great looking miniatures, not a model kit. Splitting a part into multiple pieces does not mean you get better detail, it could but definitely not in the method they chose. There are hundreds of great miniatures out there with superb detail as 1-6 piece miniatures and still provide multiple options for posing and kit bashing. It looks more like they took the easy way out, got a good deal with older manufacturing equipment and thus are limited by the design choices. It definitely isn't what I expected or the quality that I was demo'd and shown while at conventions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Forar wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:
Hell, I'm reminded of it every time someone tries to defend the seams. "You won't notice them on the table! What does it matter!" ... ummm, we won't notice this teeny tiny detail from 4 feet away either, so how about we go with fewer seams and slightly lesser detail/parts count, but both end up being net positives because we're still not noticing the bad stuff, and the good stuff would've needed a '6 inches away' inspection anyway.

I can understand those that defend the seems to a degree. I think the issue is there is a large group of fandom when it comes to Robotech. It doesn't just consist of those that are fans or miniature gamers, it has a large audience including a good portion of those who work with models (at least given how some of the comments are). However I was a miniature gamer before I became a modelist. When I buy a plastic model I expect seams, work to cover them up, etc. I backed this as a miniatures gamer and I shouldn't have to deal with seams or spending hours cleaning up a miniature to cover up the poor design choices. A little trimming of flash, a little sanding sure... but not to the level where I have to break out my Gunpla skills and techniques.

Mike1975 wrote:
I have a much newer set now. The skirmish rules are basically a paragraph or two outlining what I stated above and changes how you can organize your forces, basic rules are unchanged.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry if you missed it but I stated that a few times a while back

Yeah, I missed it. So did they ever add the VF-1J as a support so you can play Vermillion squadron in the skirmish rules?

 Forar wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:
Problem is making the seams dissapear with thick paint because a wash will bring them right out if they are not done right. If only the seams had been placed in other spots or the detail reduced some to ensure a reduced parts count but if they did that they would have been screamed at for low detail. I think this was a catch 22 situation for them. Personally I would have preferred less detail and lower parts count but then these would not be "mouth watering" with detail.

Well the other problem is that any paint thick enough to mask the seams will also risk masking some of that 'mouth watering detail' as well, defeating the whole supposed purpose of the high parts count in the first place. Note: not that I'm giving credence to that little excuse of theirs, but it is at odds with their desired goals. If we accept their premise, and the reality is solved in a counter productive fashion to that premise, then son, someone done feth'd up.

And I disagree. I think it's entirely possible that they could've dialed back to, say, 90% 'mouth wateringness' on the detail and trimmed down the necessary parts a few points. Quality, Detail and Parts Count (among plenty of other things) exist on a spectrum, and it's totally possible they could've slid back on both and ended up with a stronger product overall.

Hell, I'm reminded of it every time someone tries to defend the seams. "You won't notice them on the table! What does it matter!" ... ummm, we won't notice this teeny tiny detail from 4 feet away either, so how about we go with fewer seams and slightly lesser detail/parts count, but both end up being net positives because we're still not noticing the bad stuff, and the good stuff would've needed a '6 inches away' inspection anyway.

Edit: You're allowed to share parts of the rules still, correct? Any chance you could either scan or type out that section? If it's truly that short, perhaps the exact wording will help set aside the matter once and for all? Or at the very least, fully direct our consternation where it belongs, with Palladium.

Skirmish games use the Standard Scenarios and are intended to be played with small forces. The set up for a skirmish game is performed in the normal way outlined earlier in these rules, except for the forces used. Instead of Faction Cards, Core Force Cards or points, each player simply chooses a single Support Card or Special Card and uses those mecha. Normally it will best of the two cards chosen cost close to the same amount of points. Mecha with the Life is Cheap special ability do not have that ability in skirmish games. Some sample skirmish squadrons that could face off against each other are:

1 VF-1S VS. 2 Nousjadeul-Ger
2 VF-1As VS. 6 Regults
2 Tomahawks VS. 3 Gnerls

I'm pretty sure I typed this up before but here it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also wholeheartedly agree that a bit less detail and a lot less parts and even poseability would have been great in my book.


Warboss, I did mention it. I mentioned a lot of other things that were not always taken into account. There are no single VF-1J's on a support card or special card.

Mike1975 wrote:
Skirmish games use the Standard Scenarios and are intended to be played with small forces. The set up for a skirmish game is performed in the normal way outlined earlier in these rules, except for the forces used. Instead of Faction Cards, Core Force Cards or points, each player simply chooses a single Support Card or Special Card and uses those mecha. Normally it will best of the two cards chosen cost close to the same amount of points. Mecha with the Life is Cheap special ability do not have that ability in skirmish games. Some sample skirmish squadrons that could face off against each other are:

1 VF-1S VS. 2 Nousjadeul-Ger
2 VF-1As VS. 6 Regults
2 Tomahawks VS. 3 Gnerls

I'm pretty sure I typed this up before but here it is.

Yeah, that's not so much "skirmish rules" as it is "demo rules". Skirmish rules would try to retain the back and forth activation nature of the full sized game, and offer alternate rules to maintain tactical complexity rather than just be the big game at a smaller force scale.

Too bad they just don't RELEASE THE RULES as a PDF so we can all see that.

Not releasing rules (or at the least a basic set for demo/testing it out at the very least) for a game says one thing to me: our rules suck.

Mike1975 wrote:
There are no single VF-1J's on a support card or special card.

That is disappointing along with the watered down skirmish rules. It would have been nice to be able to play the skirmish sized squadron from the anime as well as have official rules for smaller games beyond just a single card. Oh well, I guess I can just take the palladium RPG route and "house rule" yet another game right out of the box to get what I was supposed to be sold. I'll have to figure out a cost for a VF-1J and use support/special cards as well as the points as long as I have my opponent's permission as with all house rules. In the end, I don't think it'll be that big of an issue seeing as how I know of only two people who went in on the kickstarter and the rest of the Battletech crowd consider it to be a good-natured long-running joke to ask me about every time they see me since I tried to convince them to get in on it. Also, there is also x-wing for smaller space combat games although i don't think it would work well for terrestrial combat.

Actually this gives me an idea. I'll play out a few skirmish games for my next couple Demo games. I won't need a large surface and could set it up quickly. Any suggestions?

How about a video of you flipping through the rulebook with the camera focused onthe page so we can see the rules for ourselves?

Doing more detailed skirmish rules, while I think it was a ball they dropped, would have required them to make a lot more of the force cards for units like the VF-1J. I don't plan on doing any skirmish games at all myself as a small squadron on squadron game only take 20 minutes.

Either way, for me personally, I plan on sharing costs for units individually from my spreadsheet so that players can make their own games up and use what they want much like a game of Alpha Strike. It will also allow players to make "Frankenmecha" or use Battletech minis in the game and figure out their points costs.

vitae_drinker wrote:
Too bad they just don't RELEASE THE RULES as a PDF so we can all see that.

Not releasing rules (or at the least a basic set for demo/testing it out at the very least) for a game says one thing to me: our rules suck.

The thing is, the beta rules had flaws, and were quite a bit simplistic IMO, but seemed reasonably solid for what it was attempting to be.

The worst part about them not showing us earlier, is that they could have had another 5000+ spelling/grammar/consistency/loophole editors. All they have to say is "We're not going to change the way the rules work", and you'll get some grumbling from some people about how Hover should work this way or that, but for the most part, you get a relatively sleek rules set.

Now, if there are any spelling/grammar/consistency/loophole issues, they're just going to get slammed for it.

And all because PB and/or HG are Luddites in the modern world. There's NO valid reason why a PDF couldn't have been done. The "no artwork" thing was nonsense, but even so, stripping out, or blacking out the pictures and fluff is NOT difficult. And would have given people stuff to be excited about.

Unless they truly suck, at which point, they're STILL going to cop flak for it. They're just delaying it.

I agree completely Morgan. I've already got a list of "Advanced Rules" for them to add later on that did not really slow things down in my mind but added more detail and realism. Problem is some want a really super fast playing game and others want more detail. I think having it on the fast side and then adding in more later is a good move that I've been pushing with them. Personally I want more detail.

I am not happy with the character creation or the hand to hand rules and already have alternatives for both written up. I also have an alternative for the Anti-Missile rules. The ones the have are not bad but they have 2 flaws in my view, better units do not have a better chance to shoot down missiles and they do not work the way I think they should when you use Anti-Missile against missiles with the Blast trait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

vitae_drinker wrote:
How about a video of you flipping through the rulebook with the camera focused onthe page so we can see the rules for ourselves?

I would if this was not specifically prohibited to share video of any printed materials from PB, at least in my NDA. I beleive Tom Roache was allowed since the pics he shared were low resolution and you could not pic out and read anything from him flipping through them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:
There are no single VF-1J's on a support card or special card.

That is disappointing along with the watered down skirmish rules. It would have been nice to be able to play the skirmish sized squadron from the anime as well as have official rules for smaller games beyond just a single card. Oh well, I guess I can just take the palladium RPG route and "house rule" yet another game right out of the box to get what I was supposed to be sold. I'll have to figure out a cost for a VF-1J and use support/special cards as well as the points as long as I have my opponent's permission as with all house rules. In the end, I don't think it'll be that big of an issue seeing as how I know of only two people who went in on the kickstarter and the rest of the Battletech crowd consider it to be a good-natured long-running joke to ask me about every time they see me since I tried to convince them to get in on it. Also, there is also x-wing for smaller space combat games although i don't think it would work well for terrestrial combat.

I'll have points for each unit and stat cards made up for you, don't sweat it. I've already converted many Star Wars units to Tactics and can readily do more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/310818811753513913/

I plan on going the opposite way (valkyries into xwing) but thanks. How about a roy versus miriya or VF1S vs QRau skirmish?

Mike1975 wrote:
Skirmish games use the Standard Scenarios and are intended to be played with small forces. The set up for a skirmish game is performed in the normal way outlined earlier in these rules, except for the forces used. Instead of Faction Cards, Core Force Cards or points, each player simply chooses a single Support Card or Special Card and uses those mecha. Normally it will best of the two cards chosen cost close to the same amount of points. Mecha with the Life is Cheap special ability do not have that ability in skirmish games.

I'm pretty sure I typed this up before but here it is.

Yeah, these are similar to the ones we debated back and forth for a couple pages. I'm too lazy to go find and compare the posts, but I'm pretty sure you paraphrased them previously. Don't recall the "as outlined in these rules earlier" type verbiage that stands out now.

Also, they're terrible. They even glance at why they're bad, and then go ahead and end up bad anyway.

And ignoring Life is Cheap seems incredibly arbitrary and stupid.

So, in a 150 point game, I can play with a VT squad (80 points) and a Destroid Squad (one of the 60 point ones): 140 points, 8 figures: 10 Command Points (I think, based on the J having Leadership 2?). My opponent has 2 Battlepod squads: 24 Battlepods: 0 Command points. This is supposed to be a balanced fight, within some acceptable margin of error.

We decide to play a skirmish. I pick 2 VT support cards: technically 80 points but we're ignoring those, 4 VTs, 4 command points. My opponent has 2 Battle Pods support cards (technically 70 points): 12 Battlepods: 12 command points.

Now, what about characters? Can they not be used in Skirmishes? Guess Warboss doubly can't play with Vermillion squadron; just a 1S and two 1A's! What about card upgrades? Can't be used? The Skirmish game is the perfect place to begin teaching people these concepts and of weighing out the benefits/costs of using characters or not, using upgrades or not, sacrificing the quality of a card or an entire unit to utilize one, the other, or both, etc.

Holy. Gak. What. The. Feth.

I cannot get my mind around how Command Points are supposed to be a super valuable resource, and yet units that don't get any in large scale games end up drowning in them in small scale games. If 2 VTs versus 6 battlepods is that uneven a fight that they need to disregard a balancing choice so badly, there is potentially something seriously wrong here.

I'd love to see their reasoning as to why the skirmish game can't just use the base games rules, POINTS INCLUDED, except you use Support cards instead of Squad cards, and Specials have to be added to a support instead of a squad. Like a full game, players pick an arbitrary point total (100? 50? Whatever) that they feel they'll enjoy/have time to play out, and build a force from that. That's way easier, especially since they note "oh, you should totally pick support cards that are roughly the same cost". And how would we pick that out? BY DECLARING ROUGHLY WHAT POINTS THEY SHOULD BE OH MY GOD IT'S ALL COMING BACK TO ME NOW.

Now, before I go too far off the reservation, thank you for sharing that with us, Mike.

They're terrible. I sincerely hope that the 300'ish point rules are immeasurably tighter (AGAIN FROM THE BOX), because if I have to do their bloody homework again, I'm going to be a very unhappy camper.

Edit: as was referenced before, I can play a "skirmish" game of X-Wing just fine. 40 points to build your force; go. 1-3 ships per side, choices on ship, pilot, upgrades, missiles, pilot enhancements, modifications and others could lead to hundreds (if not thousands) of possible combinations. Hell, even 25 points could be interesting, with 1-2 ships per side, and a very tough choice on whether or not to go with 1 heavily loaded ship, or 2 baseline ships with no upgrades.

This is my 2 cents on this deal.

The simplest answer is usually the right one.

The game was NEVER planned to have a skirmish mode. It was added to include a small group of Backers that wanted a skirmish game so PB promised added rules for one.

Small games with one squadron each are simple enough to teach basic rules.

Skirmish games in my mind should have more detail for each unit otherwise they are no fun at all since each unit should have more value to the player and dies too quickly in small skirmish games. The rules are designed to have players use command points in a tactical manner. Using them in skirmish mode changes this balance.

The idea that the game would have skirmish rules that can be used to teach the game is diametrically opposed to the PB point of view that this game is simple and fast enough that a simple squadron on squadron game is enough to teach the basics (Key Point here for you Forar, you may not agree but this is what I personally think PB thinks about skirmish rules)

Also I suggested that you have Battlepods generate 2 Command Point for every 2 pods since 12 points for 12 pods also seems extreme to me. I was basically ignored.

That being said I plan on releasing point values and the calculations that I used soon so that conversions can be made and people can use any combination of units that they prefer instead of being locked into what is on a force card. It will also allow conversions from Mekton, Battletech, and others to Tactics. This might eat into Tactics minis sales by the more budget inclined people who want to use other minis that they already have but that is my plan regardless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again, would skirmish rules be any better if they said use 100 points or 50 points per side?

They already say that "Normally it will best of the two cards chosen cost close to the same amount of points."

Mike1975 wrote:
The game was NEVER planned to have a skirmish mode. It was added to include a small group of Backers that wanted a skirmish game so PB promised added rules for one.

That's kinda the point, and the problem. We were promised an alternate rules set (skirmish mode), and then given nothing. Seriously, they could have just said "Skirmish is any game 50pts or less, and can purchase Support and Special cards without prerequisites", and been several lines less. While I never expected them to be close to as significant as the core rules, if what you've shown ends up in the final rules set, I can't see how that's anything but a slap in the face to those backers who asked for it.

*facepalm*

MIKE, THE POINT TOTAL DOESN'T NEED TO BE SET BY PALLADIUM. WE WENT OVER THIS. THE PLAYERS COULD PICK ONE JUST FINE, AS THEY WILL FOR "NORMAL" GAMES.

Damnit man, we went over this.

How will the two players know that they're using roughly the same amount of points? By setting a points total.

That's what I meant by 'they even glance at it'. If the players are going to be 'balancing' things somewhat from the start, why not just use a fething points total in the first place? "The points rules aren't used for skirmishes, but you should use them to vaguely balance the fight being played out".

And apparently no characters? And no unit upgrades? Why not?

Also; bullgak, re: 'it was never meant to be played as a skirmish"

From the RRT KS front page:

Robotech® RPG Tactics™ is a battle game in which players build armies of multiple squadrons of mecha to fight it out in scenario driven, objective based game play. Depending on the faction, and their choice of mecha, a player's army may include anywhere from 2 game pieces to as many as you desire! The rules are scalable from small skirmishes to mass combat with hundreds per side.

From the news page;

Scalable from small squad skirmishes to mass battles.

From the original announcement page:

-Two or more players can engage in small squad skirmishes or scale up to massive battles.

-Rules are scalable from skirmishes to mass combat with dozens, even hundreds, of opponents on both sides.

- Ninja Division and all of us believe we have a solid set of rules that captures the action and capabilities of the TV show combined with fast game play and scalability from skirmish battles to mass combat. Fun, fun, fun.

That's not 'something they added after the fact'. They volunteered that option themselves, and any claim otherwise is a flat out lie.

Citations:

http://www.palladiumbooks.com/index.php/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=651:prepare-for-invasion&catid=53:product-features

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rrpgt/robotech-rpg-tacticstm

http://www.palladiumbooks.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=707:special-robotechr-rpg-tactics-update-january-30-2014&catid=52:weekly-updates&Itemid=183

Forar,

Mike1975 wrote:
This is my 2 cents on this deal.

The simplest answer is usually the right one.

The game was NEVER planned to have a skirmish mode. It was added to include a small group of Backers that wanted a skirmish game so PB promised added rules for one.

bs. Complete and utter bs. The two modes of play are even mentioned in the intro video available day 1 first second of the kickstarter. Kevin S. also mentions skirmish gaming on the MTV interview whose part 1 was posted in the first week of the KS so was obviously conducted prior to that. In your zeal to defend this, you've reversed the cause and effect. Skirmish gaming was promised and backers just wanted palladium to follow through on that promise. Sorry, Mike, but on this one you are completely and utterly wrong.

edit: Ninja'd by forar who provided ADDITIONAL info that completely disproves the above. Mike could theoretically claim that the front page was changed during the kickstarter to accomodate backer requests but he can't say that about the video that has been there since the first second of the KS.

Yeah, the front page and news post could have been altered, but the announcement predates both the video and the campaign.

But the video is pretty compelling. Good catch on that one.

Also, I am a fan of Ocham's Razor as well.

I just happen to think "use the damned points" is the simplest answer. ;-)

So, after 15+ months (plus the pre-KS development time), the skirmish rules are a badly worded, badly thought out, paragraph and three examples. Glad to see those 16 hour days, 6 day weeks, are paying off.