Magic: The Gathering Drive to Work Podcast - #1103: Making Things with Jess Dunks

Episode Date: January 19, 2024

In this podcasts, I talk with Rules Manager Jess Dunks about how we go about making mechanics work that do things we've never done before.

I'm not pulling out of the driveway. We all know what that means. This is another drive to work at home edition. Okay, so today I'm here with Jess Dunks, the rules manager of Magic. And so the topic that we're going to talk about today is I or members of my team will come up with crazy ideas for new mechanics that do things we've never done before. And then we have to talk to Jess to go, can we do this? So I want to talk about sort of how we carve out space for things we haven't done before. Clearly, a lot of things will come to you. You're like, yeah, yeah, we've done that. No problem. You know, a lot of the space we do is actually a known space. It's easy to do. But some of the time, and especially the earlier on,

the earlier on in the process, the more out there our ideas are because we're experimenting, especially in exploratory. Okay, so Jess, let's pick, I'll let you pick whatever, whatever mechanic you want to talk about, but let's walk through an example of

I or somebody comes to you and says, Jess, I want to do this thing. How do we handle that? Yeah, that's a great question. That conversation most often is just somebody coming to me and going, here's what I want to do. Does this work or can this work? Sometimes the answer is yes yes and that surprises people

uh where it's just like yeah this already works out of the box but um sometimes it's it's known that like hey i know this is weird how does it is it even possible um i'm not going to get into any examples that we haven't done because we might do them in the future as we develop things but um so one of the i think most obvious examples from recent years is probably battles as just as a concept uh they're this uh new kind of attackable permanent and when when somebody comes to me and says oh can we do this um i have to ask a lot of questions about something like that like okay well yeah okay we can probably do that but what do you what do you want to have happen

when, say, somebody else takes control of it? Or what do you want to have happen when these other weird situations come up? And we don't have to have all those answers right away. But I want a designer who's asking me those questions to also be thinking about a little bit about the corner cases. Because what we don't want to have

is somebody design something in the vacuum of just their draft environment and then have it break when it gets to the larger world of magic um and uh so thinking about that i think battles is a great example because um uh one of the things i was going to point out was how something can change dramatically uh while you're working on it um and uh i don't know when in development it occurred. Obviously, things change a lot when we're developing things, right? Battles were initially just, oh, this is an attackable permanent. And then somebody at some point said, well, what if you controlled it?

We actually want the player who is attacking it to be the controller of it. And that went from something that was, oh, yeah, we could probably do this. No problem. We could just, this is going to use basically the planeswalker rules to, oh, wow, this might actually be kind of complex and problematic and we had to uh figure that out and that involves a more in-depth back and forth of can this work should this work this way what does it look like when it happens um i don't know if that answers your question uh exactly but that's um i mean the thing that for the audience let's use this as a perfect battles. Yeah.

Example. We knew in early design, in vision design, that we wanted to do something different. We were open to a new car type. Although what we handed over is not, I mean, battles, as you know, is not even what we handed over. We handed over, I think what we handed over was like a double-sided land. Like what we handed over was more in known space. And Dave Humphries was the lead set designer and he and his team went farther into unknown space. You bring up a good point, by the way.

One of the things that always happens whenever I or someone come to you, when I come to you for sure, is you ask questions and like, hey, here's a list of questions. Can you answer this list of questions? Because you need to know the intent. And a lot of times we haven't thought through all those

things because usually we're in a little bubble trying to figure something out and you're like, well, I need you to, what is your intent? And then we have to figure out the intent. And sometimes there's some soul searching in our head like, okay, well, what do we think is supposed to happen? Right. And we don't necessarily need to have all the answers to those questions when I bring questions to people.

But I want people to be thinking about it. And even if the intent is, hey, actually, I don't know. I haven't thought about it. That's an answer to the question. Because then we get to go, okay, well, here are the two or three ways we could go with that. Which of those sounds best to you? And let's figure it out. And sometimes I'll argue with it. Sometimes you'll say, oh, here's the answer I want. And I'll be like, are you sure

that's the answer you want? This is what it does. And often what happens is this is a real common thing. You'll ask questions and the answer is for these two questions, I know what I want. I want this. And for these other questions, hey, I'm open. Which one of these might be easier for you? Like sometimes I don't care. And so what I'll say to you is, hey, whatever is easier is what I want to do. You know, if this is easier version A versus version B, I'm fine. That's not the thing I care about. So, hey, you can decide whatever helps make it easier to execute. uh and i think that's a really uh i that that's an important back and forth to have uh kind of you know i know that uh you were asking kind of about the early design process but that continues through the entire design process at pretty much every step you've got vision design

and then you've got when people are working on it and set design all the way through play design people are making changes to these cards and i uh have that kind of that same conversation when we're trying to make changes to mechanics um uh so how often like okay no go ahead what was your question how often does someone come to you and you're just like this cannot be done how often does that happen um pretty rarely that it's just like a firm yeah no you can't do that uh it does happen uh and i'm sure i'm sure that the designers will probably say i do it more than i say i do it but um it does happen for me to just say no but more often than not uh it's okay i see what you try to do there that doesn't work quite like that can we do something else in that vein can we use this other

mechanic instead or slightly change it to get kind of the outcome you're looking for because what designers are trying to build is the experience of playing the game right they're not necessarily usually not necessarily going well i want exactly this mechanic to work in exactly this way they're trying to say i want something that comes back from the graveyard in this way or whatever it is that they're trying to build um and we can kind of find a way to do that that does work and that's one of my goals as a rules manager is to as much as possible not say yeah no that doesn't work but rather say okay that doesn't work but here's what we can do that's kind of like that or instead of that or you can do that but it's going to have this really long text that maybe is hard to parse and we shouldn't we should consider something else

um because i i uh i have a lot of respect for the game designers and what they're trying to do and what they actually create is fantastic i love magic um and i want to enable that as much as possible rather than be the roadblock that says oh no, no, let's not do this because it doesn't work. Here's the kind of no that I, which isn't quite a no, but I think from you is more of, I want to do something. And you're like, yes, we can do that thing. But this one area is problematic. Could you stay away from this one area?

Like we can do it, but can you, like a lot of times you'll say, hey, I can do it as long as you promise not to do A, or c like a b or c gets us in trouble but you know and there's a lot of steering on your part about okay we can do it but and and some of that you know the no is like well let's stay away from this this is going to cause us problems we've done in the past or we've tried to do in the past we know there's issues there um right and the other thing for the audience that i mean that you're aware of but the audience might not be aware of is there are the rules it's not just a matter of can the rules function in a vacuum for example we have digital can the rules work with digital can the rules work with organized

play can the rules work with templating? Like there's a lot of other teams, like Jess could say, well, the rules could do it, but sometimes the answer is, well, just because the rules can do it doesn't mean the game can do it. Yeah, absolutely. There are other factors to consider there. And I work very closely with our digital teams to make sure that what we're doing works with what they're doing as well. And we work back and forth on those things. And so there's a lot of that. And you brought up the digital teams, I think it's a really good point because in some ways they do some of the same stuff I do where it's kind of easier to implement something new if it's kind of like what we've done before in some way. And I know something you've talked about in the past

is how there are things that you've tried to get in at one point and then a rules manager said no, and then you've tried to get it in later and a rules manager said no, and then you tried it at some point in the future and that rules manager said yes. And that makes it sound like it's a little bit like, oh, well, you know, this person thought it was okay. And there might be some of that, but what's more often true is as we build out the scaffolding of the rules to support more and more things, we can continue to build more things on top of it. An example of that would be Prototype from Brothers War.

So Prototype started out as just a regular additional cost that just made this creature bigger when you cast it for this. It might have been an alternative cost, actually. You cast it for this alternative cost. And at some point in design, they went, oh, actually, we want it to also have the color and the mana value of the smaller version when you cast the smaller version and the bigger version when you cast the bigger version. And I went, okay, well, you just went from something that was adding on a little bit of a thing when it's on the battlefield to really just changing the entire spell on the stack.

And that's a thing that if you say, okay, well, let's look back some number of years, we would have said we have no framework for making this happen. But when we actually went, okay, is this even possible? If you go look at the rules underlying prototype, you'll see that there's a lot of similarity to the rules for adventurer cards. There's one set of characteristics for the spell if you cast it this way and one set if you cast it this way. And we were able to kind of leverage that thing we'd already built change it a little bit as appropriate and leverage the

thing we'd already built to go okay yeah we can actually do that and i know that that prototype seems like a relatively mundane thing to say oh we it was weird for the rules but it was an interesting uh example for well actually this it gets easier to make new things the more new things we make. Yeah, and another important point is the designers don't always know what the trouble area is. Like, sometimes I come to you with a mechanic

that I think we, like, cold can do. I have no concern for. And you're like, oh, yeah, that's a hard thing to do. And other times when I come to something that I think is super complex, you're like, yeah, no problem. We can do that. And knowing what, like when I talk about different rules managers, on some level, when we give

you something new, it's like a logic problem. It's like, here are the rules. Is there a way to interact and use the rules in a way to solve this? And that it's possible that did me give this puzzle to one rules manager and they just can't find the answer and said other rules manager can find the answer i mean the rules is very complex like we talk about um if you print out the comprehensive rules it is inches thick it is there are a lot of rules um and so depending on the font size you you're around 200 pages, I think.

Yeah. Rules. Right. And part of part of you solving problems also is like where how do I change the rules or how do I adapt the rule? You know, a lot of that is just trying to figure out how to tackle the problem. Yeah. And in addition to that, also, just the backlog of of the many tens of thousands of magic cards that we have that can interact with whatever it is we're trying to do and trying to figure out, okay, is there anything that breaks here? Sometimes somebody will come to me and go, oh, I want to do this thing that we did something kind of like it once on an old card.

And I go, okay, well, we did that once and we haven't done it again in 25 years. Is there a reason for that? And I have to figure out, is this a break something or is just nobody wanted to repeat it? And that's a fun puzzle to kind of do a little bit of a history quest to be like, okay, what actually is the reason we haven't done this? Is there a rules reason? Is this something a past rules manager was like,

don't ever do this again and I don't know about. And so I have to do a little research to figure it out. Yeah, you hit upon another thing. The audience, the public really thinks like, oh, we once made a card that did this oh we're good we can do this and i'm like whoa whoa whoa we've got some cards that like in retrospect um what's the card that um while you're searching you can activate it uh are you thinking panglation worm where you're searching your library you can cast it from your library yeah that, Panglacial Worm. I'll use that as a perfect example. We should never make Panglacial Worm.

In fact, I think I made Panglacial Worm, so I will own up that it was my idea. And I think that you'll notice we've never made another Panglacial Worm. It really is messing in a place that's very problematic, and that

just because somebody once said, oh yeah, we'll figure it out. Just because we printed it once doesn't actually mean that the rules are like 100% square with what's going on. Yeah, there are definitely some weird corner cases that are strange or even possibly not quite right with the rules for Panglacial Wyrm, but most of the issues with Panglacial Wyrm can also come from just the way human players play the game versus the way it plays out in digital. And it's just weird. I'm not going to get too in-depth on that. I could spend the whole time talking about Panglacial Wyrm. But the digital thing, as we were talking about earlier,

is also relevant for those old cards that we've done before. as we were talking about earlier, is also relevant for those old cards that we've done before. If something's not implemented on Arena or on MTGO, on ICO, then you have something's not implemented, then you have them having to do the work of whatever the set normally entails, and then also they have to implement this new thing, because to them it is a new thing, even though we might have it totally handled in the actual rules for Magic the Gathering and paper.

They haven't done it before, so it's basically new work for them. And here's another distinction that I want to get across. Yeah. Often it's not really no or not no. It's in order to do this thing, here's what we need to do is it worth it um and my poster child for that is um last strike slash you know a triple strike

um it's not like it's not that there's not a way to fix the rules to do it it's just a giant giant thing and like how many cards are you making with Last Strike, with Triple Strike? Is it worth a complete overhaul of how combat works so you can make this? And the answer of Last Strike or Triple Strike is like, I don't know,

it's eight cards. It's not a lot of cards. Okay, there's no way worth it. There's no way in the world we should completely redo the rules for what's just a small amount of cards. Like, okay, there's no way worth it. There's no way in the world we should completely redo the rules for what's just a small amount of space. Yeah, the, you know, what's the bang for your buck you're getting is a real question we have to figure out when we're doing this. I will admit that I misheard you when you said Last Strike,

and I was looking up the card Last Rites and being like, what's wrong with this card? I don't understand. But, yeah, Last Strike's a big conundrum in fact i i think that's one of the first things you asked me about when when uh when i started working with you like in the last strike thing i'm like yeah not not so much that's a lot of moving parts we'd have to move around for that yeah um and uh but to be fair um those questions like like that's i want to be clear that that's not an antagonistic relationship. Those questions are how we keep moving Magic forward. I want to be exploring those kinds of questions constantly.

early on. Sometimes people think, oh, this is a thing that I'm not sure we could ever do this for various reasons, and it turns out, oh, it's fine. I think rolls in the most recent Eldran set were... Yeah, Wilds of Eldran, thank you. Roll tokens were something that

fairly early on, they were like, is this a thing we can even do for a few different reasons? And I was like, yeah, there are some constraints on it, reminder text and stuff, but yeah, we could definitely do for a few different reasons and i was like yeah there are some constraints on it reminder text and stuff but yeah we could definitely do that yeah you pick up a very good point the relationship between designer and rules manager is not like adversary i mean in the past sometimes for fun you know like back when matt tabak was oh we joke about it yeah it's fun to joke about it but the reality is the designer's like hey i need to do something i'm going to go to talk to a colleague to say hey are we able to do this like and sometimes it but the reality is the designer's like hey i need to do something i'm going to go to talk

to a colleague to say hey are we able to do this like and sometimes it's the editor can we template that sometimes it's digital is it you know but we're just coming here to say hey we're trying to figure out whether this is doable and you're there to help us do it if it is and if there's a problem you're there to say oh well here's where the problems are. It's not like, oh, if only not for Jess, I'd get my mechanics done. You know, it's more like, okay, hey, I need help. I need help to make this work. And the rules manager actually is an ally that's trying to help make things work. And that usually when something doesn't work, hey, I don't want to break the game.

It's not like the designer is trying to break the game. Like, I don't want to make something that people don't know what it does, you know? Yeah, and that can lead to frustration sometimes if it's not easy to understand why we can't do something, and I get that. It also, to be fair, as I became more experienced in this job as a rules manager, I became more able to say, oh, hey, here's something we can do. There have definitely been times where someone will come to me and say, hey, can we do this? And I'm like, yeah, I think we could do that. Let's explore that. And then somebody else will go, well, a year and a half ago, you told me we couldn't.

And I'm like, oh, well, I guess I wasn't thinking about it the same way at the time. I was still new. Or three years ago or whatever it was. That's the reason I keep going back to rules managers in some level is... I'm not... People seem to think I'm gaming the system or something.

It's like, hey, I have a problem. I'll keep asking people to see if someone else can find the solution to the problem. So, like, one of the classic examples,

and this is before your time, is I made the equivalent of Mind Slaver back in Tempest. And they just couldn't... They could not figure out how to make Mind Slaver work. And it took me, not until Mirrodin did someone figure out

how to make it work. And it wasn't that the person back in Tempest didn't think it was a cool idea and didn't want to make it work. It's just they couldn't figure out the time. And part of that is technology, right? We keep evolving how we do things. And the mechanic morph, for example,

is a classic example where the rules team was trying to figure out how to make camouflage and illusionary mask from alpha work. And by coming up with a solution, they just opened up this new space, and then they're the ones that go, oh, we can make a mechanic out of this. I mean...

Yeah. I remember talking to, I think I was talking to Del about uh face on cards at one point um and uh she was telling me about just like there was a lot of controversy at the time uh around the idea that you have these face down things your opponent would just have to trust you that it's okay for you to cast them um and now we just kind of accept that that's part of magic and it's wild the difference in thought where there are times where for whatever reason people

go oh we can't possibly do that and then some years later we're like oh that's just how magic works the thing that's hilarious to me looking back about face down cards is and at the time there was a whole team now there's a rules manager it worked a little differently but the rules team came up with it and we're all excited and they're like it works in the rules let's make it and rnd at the

time was very hesitant like it was it was a very opposite like rules seems like we can do this let's make it aren't you like i don't know about it and i had to like make decks like i i was a big advocate and so i was trying to convince all the other rnd people to do it um and i had to play chess with like i had to show them the coolness of it. And it's kind of funny. But that does happen. So it's not a one-way street. There's times when you will come to me and say, hey, in solving this other problem, there's this new thing that we can do.

Can you use this? Is there some way that, you know? And sometimes the rules manager comes to me saying, hey, here's a new ability or new element that we figured out for some other reason. This is now you can do this. Right. Yeah, that's happened. There have also been times where somebody will come to me and go, I have this weird thing. Can it work?

And I go, can you just do this other thing instead? And they'll go, I didn't think that would work. And that's way better because it's using a rules nuance that they or nuance isn't the right word here, but just kind of basically we're using the tech that we have available that is not necessarily easy to see if you're not engrossed in it all the time.

I do want to point out one thing just real quick. I don't want to take too much credit. I want to give it where it's due. You mentioned the rules team. We do actually have an internal rules team now that is me and two rules specialists, Eric Lubin and Eliana Rabinowitz, and they're fantastic people that I love to work with.

And I just want to make sure that they get their credit as well. They do a ton of work on our rules and working with the digital teams. But yeah, I agree with you that it's really a two-way street in a lot of ways. I know people have joked in the past about being adversarial, and people do ask me.

When I talk to people in the public, people will ask me, oh, how difficult is what Mark Rosewater comes up to you with? And I'm like, that's not how that relationship actually works. It's much less adversarial than that. And so I'm glad I get to tell people that.

Yeah, I think back when Tayback was rules manager, I'd made a lot of comics where it just was funny that we were some of our adversaries. We were messing around. There's no... Yeah.

I think that the most interesting thing for me is that usually what happens is we want to do something for the set we're doing. And then we come to you and it's just a matter of like we're all working okay, let's, what's the best answer we can get to solve this thing we want to do? And the other thing, by the way, that people don't realize is it's not like when I come to you,

everything's set in stone. Usually it's like, this is the general kind of thing I want to do. Okay, what, what, you know, what can I do in this space? And that a lot of what you'll do

is give me parameters. Like, well, this is problematic, but this is much easier to do. And a lot of what you'll do is give me parameters like well this is problematic but this is much easier to do and a lot of it is right is it's not I think people have this idea that like I have this hard fact I want to make this specific mechanic

and more than that it's like I'm trying to solve a problem in my set here's the kind of thing I want to do what is available what can I do that you know the game can handle and that right a lot of it is just sort of asking you to like help me you know the space better you know the rules better than i do so like where am i getting myself in trouble and where will i have the most success yeah we're

definitely trying to make sure that uh i think of it as the process at that point especially is kind of painting a picture when somebody's going to paint a picture they might have a general idea of what it's supposed to look like when they're done but they don't really know usually what it's actually going to look like when they're done that they're they're it kind of reveals itself to them as they're doing it and i know that's not always the case but often that's the case with art is you have an idea of where you're going and sometimes you get pretty much where you thought, and sometimes you go, actually it's going this other direction.

And that's just, that's just how that that's part of the process. It's how it works. And I love it. Yeah. The other thing that happens a lot is you're playing in a space. And then as you start to understand what you can do, it shifts to sort of fill the void of what is how,

how it works. That's a lot of... Usually if I'm coming to Jess with exploratory design or early vision design, I'm just trying to understand what space I can play in. And it's also fun sometimes. I never quite know when I come to Jess

whether or not what I'm asking for is completely doable or it's not. That's why I ask. The reason I ask is I don quite know when I come to Jess whether or not what I'm asking for is completely doable or it's not. That's why I ask. The reason I ask is I don't know. And I've learned over the years that there's things I think are super doable that are very hard to do. And I think things that are hard to do that are easier than it. So that's why I ask because I just don't know. I think I can remember one time you came to me and you were like, here's what I want to do.

Does that work? I'm like, oh, yeah, that's fine. You're like, I don't think you understood. Let me try that like, here's what I want to do. Does that work? I'm like, oh, yeah, that's fine. You're like, I don't think you understood. Let me try that again. This is what I want to do. Does it work? We're like, yeah, that's okay. And there have been times, you know, part of our job is to figure out the puzzle, right?

It's not our job to say, oh, no, that doesn't fit in the current puzzle. It doesn't work in the current rules. We can't do it. It's to say, how can this work in the current rules, we can't do it. It's to say, how can this work in the current way? How do we make it happen? There's, there's, you know, there's, there's a mechanic that I don't want to spoil anything, it is an eventual future thing. But there's something, somebody came to me with something. And I was just like, that is so cool. We have to make this work. Let me sit down and figure out what it is. how it is, and I'll get back to you.

We've worked together to make it work, but I don't like saying, no, that really doesn't work when somebody comes up with a cool idea. I want to make those work. Oh, here's another thing that people don't know that is interesting. So let's say I have two things. Thing one is I'm playing in space

we've never played before, and thing B is I'm playing in space we have played before before and thing B is I'm playing in space we have played before but it's a little bit different for the audience between A and B which is harder for Jess most of the time completely new space or a tweak on unknown space

but it's something new that we haven't done in that space but connected to stuff we've done which one usually is harder for Jess do you want me to answer that question done in that space, but connected to stuff we've done. Which one usually is harder for Jess? Do you want me to answer that question? Have you answered that question. Which one is harder for you? Which one's harder for me? Honestly,

quite often, it's the stuff that's tweaking the older thing is actually harder. And I think people might not realize that at first. The entirely new space quite often, if we can make it from whole cloth, if we can go, this doesn't contradict with anything we've done before. This doesn't relate to anything we've done before.

It's actually relatively easy to say, oh, yeah, we can do that. But if you go, well, I want it to be like this other thing, but a little bit different. We start to get into the things you were talking about. It's like, okay, well, you could do that, but you have to stay away from this and you have to stay away from that. Or it has to be this way. Or even just what you're doing might be different enough that I'll question whether or not it's even really the same as what it was. And we have to answer that question, usually for like naming and creative purposes. question uh usually for like naming and creative purposes um but like i think personally that the stuff that is just whole cloth new is often uh it might be more work in the like actually developing

the rules for it but it's less of a challenge in terms of making sure it works with what we've already got also we keep talking in terms of mechanics i'll come to you say i want a card i want to make one card just one card in the vacuum can I make this one card or how do I make this one card it's not always a lot of times the mechanics, the reason mechanics take more time is it's just more cards and so like there's more investment

in time that's okay when you're hey 30 cards are going to do this, okay let's figure it out but we do come to just one card, I want to make this one card work yeah i will admit that i'm i'm far more likely to to say yeah let's not do that if it's just one card just because often um you know if we're making for example a new mechanic like you were talking about uh the the amount of work that's involved for that is obviously pretty large but once we've done it, we've got the mechanic, and then we can make –

we don't have to do the same amount of work for the next 20 cards with that mechanic. So if somebody comes to me with one card that's only going to be this one card in this set that does this one weird thing, it may not be worth the amount of work that's involved for it as it would be if it were a mechanic for a main set or something along those lines and that happens a lot where we try to do one card you're like look this is not worth the time but i keep it in the back of my head and then later on like oh here's how we can make a mechanic out of it and then right it's now it's worth more time and maybe we can figure it out right yeah so that's that's one of the balance issues there is it's not that

we can't necessarily it's just sometimes it's not worth the – we have to balance our time to actually make all these sets of magic cards. And sometimes we have to make – sometimes that's the limiting factor as well. Yeah, actually, it's interesting. I think people think in the black and white of yes or no. But more often than not is here's the amount of work it takes. Is it worth it for whatever it is? And a lot of people are like, oh, it's just not worth it it we're just not getting enough out of it you know like last strike like can we make last strike work yes is it worth the energy no it's just not you know yeah and it

probably it probably won't be but it's that's a great example of something where it's like we could probably do it man there's so many things we'd have to change to do it that it's not worthwhile. And you're right. It's very rarely an actual yes or an actual no. It's usually just a, can we do this? Well, here's some questions. Okay, now we have the answers. Yeah, let's do that. Or let's do something slightly different. Yeah. And I enjoy the puzzle. And one of the things I love about my job, one of the things that keeps it interesting for me is that it's a constantly changing puzzle of trying to figure out how we can do things and how we take this thing that is fun and go, okay, well, let's actually make rules that support it and still support the rest of magic.

It's one of my favorite things. Well, anyway, we are almost done here. I'm hoping today, the reason I was so excited to interview you on this topic is I think the audience's sort of preconceptions about sort of what your relationship with the designers is and how we make new things, the actual reality isn't quite, I think, what people think. That's why I was excited to have this conversation. Yeah, I think people, I think a lot of people do think it's that more adversarial version or they maybe just don't really know what the relationship is.

And I I'm glad to talk on it. So I'm glad you had me on the podcast. So thank you so much for joining us, Jess. You're welcome. I hope to talk to you again. The podcast. Obviously, we talk at work. But anyway, guys, I can see my desk. So we all know what that means. you're welcome I hope to talk to you again in the podcast obviously we talk at work

but anyway guys I can see my desk so we all know what that means this is the end of my drive to work so instead of talking magic it's time for me to be making magic I'll see you all next time

bye bye