Sedral

Feeling and Ideas about rules

Rules improvements   57 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think some rules could be improved/clarified?

    • Yes, there's always room for improvements!
      51
    • Nah i like it how it is now. Leave the rules alone you dweeb!
      6

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

81 posts in this topic

Hey guys!

Disclaimer: this is not a post to whine about "OP skillz", "OMG NURF CRIT§!!" and such. It's more about weird rules/interaction, and how some of them could be streamlined to make them more logical and easier to understand (especially for new players).

 

Personally, i have a two issues in mind. I'm no game designer, but even though i can understand that some rules are weird for balance purpose, there are other that just don't make sense to me, and i'd like to discuss those with y'all:

  • Dodge, low/poor visibility and smoke. This one was add by errata, and i feel like it's a mistake. There's a bush so i dodge on -3, but if the shots are coming from smoke or an almost invisible guy i can dodge on full PH? Doesn't make sense, plain PH for dodge no matter what would be fine i think.
  • Change facing shenanigan, and ARO declaration in general. For those who don't know about it, if you're within 8 of your opponent and out of LOF, the only things he can do is change facing/reset, even if your 2nd short skill is walking into LoF or shooting from smoke, because if he doesn't then he lose all his ARO's opportunity. I don't know you guys, but it feels like an exploit of the ARO mechanic, and i don't like.

    My proposal is to change how the ARO mechanic works a bit. Simply put, when you declare your ARO, if you decide not to declare any skill then you only lose those skill options you could actually declare. In this case, it means that if you chose not to use change facing, you still have the option to shoot/dodge/engage etc... if the guy walks around the corner or shoots you from smoke, so this problemn is solved. But there are others added benefits:

    • Defensive/EVO hacking device could actually use their defensive program. Nowadays, if a hacker walks into your ZoC, you can't use those programs because you can't declare them until you're targeted by an hacking attack, so you can use change facing or reset (and brain blast for evo hackers), and that's it. With my proposal, you could deny those options in order to use the defensive programs.

    • Marker/ARO interactions would not require any exceptions. You could discover, and if you decide otherwise you could still shoot/dodge etc.. if the marker reveal itself. If it doesn't, then you can't do anything else. Simple, no additional rules like delay and stuff, it would be all included in the ARO mechanic. Sadly, there's an issue with holoechoes, but nothing that couldn't be fixed (i don't like how those works right now anyway. Even Holo 1 could use some clarification regarding hacking and stuff. But i digress).

 

I'm probably overlooking a few things, and there's certainly some other weird rules that i didn't think about. Hence why i'm submitting this to the community instead of making plans and taking notes alone in my lair like a madman. Hopefully, this thread might give Corvus Belli some insight on how the player base feels about the rules, and (maybe) give them ideas.

 

Together, let's make Infinity great again even better! :thumb-up:

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules are very well put together on the whole, and CB has made such a giant improvement from the previous edition that I feel it needs to be pointed out. But there are a few strange rules interactions that bother me too:

The way change facing works, with no "free spin" like we had in the previous edition, has always rubbed me the wrong way. You shouldn't have to roll to turn your model around in ARO

Holoprojector 2 allowing you to move without breaking Suppression Fire at the beginning of your opponent's turn. I've used it and it's awesome, but almost certainly a gap in the rules.

Changes to Retreat! make it almost irrelevant, IMO. Just remove it from the game or make it more meaningful. The ITS caveat that the game ends prematurely once an opponent enters Retreat! bothers a lot of people, and rightfully so, I think. I'd personally remove that rule from ITS and lower the threshold for Retreat! so that it becomes much easier to go into Retreat!, making rules like Baggage, Religious and Doctor/Medic much more relevant than they are right now.

And the lack of interesting uses for the Lieutenant order was one of my biggest disappointments with the new ruleset. Its functionality was basically replaced by Command Tokens--and I love those--but in return it became just an irregular order that the Lt.  can use. Not enough reason to run an aggressive Lt. these days, IMO.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are both places where the rules could do with some cleaning up.

There are a few others too, but generally speaking N3 is in a pretty good place.

Any system is always going to have a few rough patches, and those certainly qualify. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll always vote for 'room for improvement' because a ruleset as broad as Infinity's is always going to have room for improvement. For your specific bits:

 

Low/Poor Vis Zones

What was added via FAQ was that they also apply without LoF if the trooper is in the Zone. The -3/-6 MODs for Dodge were already covered by the existing wording in the rulebook as Dodge is a Skill that (excluding templates from behind) requires LoF and the Vis MODs apply to all Skills that require LoF. See the first two Effects bullets on http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Low_Visibility_Zone and the equivalent for Poor Visibility:

  • Any Skill, Special Skill or piece of Equipment that requires LoF and is declared from, into, or through a Low Visibility Zone suffers a -3 MOD to the relevant Attribute in the required Roll.
  • Consequently, any Skill, Special Skill or piece of Equipment whose LoF makes contact with a Low Visibility Zone suffers the -3 MOD.

My emphasis. So this bit wasn't added via FAQ but very few players (including myself) had made the connection between Dodge and the LoF requirement.

The 'why' this was added in N3 is more interesting, as it's there to add more differentiation between the types of Visibility Zone. Players have always tended towards 'Zero Visibility or nothing!' and ignored other types of Visibility Zone as having too little effect on the game. Now they have an impact on both ends of a Roll. In particular, it adds back in some of the N2 deadliness for Direct Templates in cluttered conditions, and also stops Warband-heavy lists from going nuts with ARO Dodge moves on heavily-wooded tables.

What's definitely clunky and could do with improvement is the gradation of MODs, but adding a -6 Dodge MOD for Zero Visibility Zones would make MSV2-3 even more powerful, and removing the Dodge MODs for Low and Poor would remove a lot of the impact of the 'lesser' Visibility Zones.

 

Forced Change Facing AROs

For what it's worth, this is an intentional design choice, and is effectively unchanged* from N2. So it's not an 'exploit' because it's purposefully designed into the game mechanics. The idea is that once the enemy is that close, you don't have time to react properly and the slightest distraction will make you miss your chance.

One of the big impacts it has on the game is making close quarters battle and close combat more effective/easier to reach for the active trooper. Changing the game mechanics to your suggestion would require adjusting the points cost of a substantial number of short-range troopers that are designed to take advantage of the current rules, plus it would drastically reduce the usefulness of Sixth Sense.

Personally I'm ambivalent on it, while I hated it in N2 and campaigned for a long time to get it changed, it's just an odd quirk of gameplay and can be explained in real-world terms.

 

*Obviously needing a Roll was added, but so was the ability for that Roll to protect the trooper - in N2 you simply got shot in the back unopposed.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one that I find weird and could do with a tweak/clarification is remaining in the engaged state while you are base to base with an unconscious enemy trooper.

Picture this: it's the reactive turn for the Jotum player and the Jotum is in base to base with a CC trooper. By a stroke of luck the Jotum managed to robo punch the enemy CC trooper to unconscious state. The active player continues to move other pieces toward or around the Jotum in LoF but the Jotum can do...Nothing. It looks stupid from a tabletop point of view that the Jotum can't react even though he's towering over this unconscious enemy trooper.

I suggest just a minor tweak of making troopers not in the engaged state if all enemy troopers in base contact are in the unconscious state.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IJW Wartrader said:

Low/Poor Vis Zones

My emphasis. So this bit wasn't added via FAQ but very few players (including myself) had made the connection between Dodge and the LoF requirement.

The 'why' this was added in N3 is more interesting, as it's there to add more differentiation between the types of Visibility Zone. Players have always tended towards 'Zero Visibility or nothing!' and ignored other types of Visibility Zone as having too little effect on the game. Now they have an impact on both ends of a Roll. In particular, it adds back in some of the N2 deadliness for Direct Templates in cluttered conditions, and also stops Warband-heavy lists from going nuts with ARO Dodge moves on heavily-wooded tables.

What's definitely clunky and could do with improvement is the gradation of MODs, but adding a -6 Dodge MOD for Zero Visibility Zones would make MSV2-3 even more powerful, and removing the Dodge MODs for Low and Poor would remove a lot of the impact of the 'lesser' Visibility Zones.

I stand corrected, but as you say no one was doing it before it was stated in the FAQ. And yea -6 Dodge mod VS smoke trick would be insane, and that's why i don't even consider it and propose to go the other way (dodge is still one dice with no chance to harm your opponent, so it seems fair to give it some advantage over shooting). The main idea is to remain consistent and logical across the rule set, but without being detrimental to the game's balance.

And it's where i don't agree when you say removing it would make dodging too strong, and lesser visibility zone less important. To be honest, the people i play with and myself never did that before the FAQ(and even now we forget it half the time), it never felt like warbands/good dodgers had a significant advantage and the Vis Zones are often used to stack modifiers and such, so they're definitely impactul. Though, my opinion would probably be different if i had to deal with 3 Uberfall Kommando + Poor Vis zone everywhere on a daily basis :lol:

1 hour ago, IJW Wartrader said:

Forced Change Facing AROs

For what it's worth, this is an intentional design choice, and is effectively unchanged* from N2. So it's not an 'exploit' because it's purposefully designed into the game mechanics. The idea is that once the enemy is that close, you don't have time to react properly and the slightest distraction will make you miss your chance.

One of the big impacts it has on the game is making close quarters battle and close combat more effective/easier to reach for the active trooper. Changing the game mechanics to your suggestion would require adjusting the points cost of a substantial number of short-range troopers that are designed to take advantage of the current rules, plus it would drastically reduce the usefulness of Sixth Sense.

I don't know... I understand how it could be helpfull for most CQB fighter, but i've been playing for 2 years and i've NEVER seen it used to help a dude get up close and personal. Yet i still see a fair amount of CC specialist proving that to bring a knife to a gunfight isn't a stupid idea (heck, my crane agent sliced a Dragao in half just yesterday). If anything, i've myself used it one or two times for smoke + MSV2 trickery, and i was just ashamed of myself because of how unfair it was for my opponent (i didn't play in N2, but i guess that's how it felt to get suprised shot without being able to react).

I definitely think it does more bad than good in this regard, so wouldn't it be better to find something else to help CC units? Do they really need help in the first place? To be honest, I'm personnaly quite happy with how the CC works right now, and i think most specialised CC units have all the tools they need to make great use of their abilities.

As for SSL1, it's still a very usefull skill against everything that happens in your ZoC: Surprise shot and attack, grenade lobbing over walls, hacker vs hacker, etc... the list is quite long! Even without this, it's still one of the most usefull skill in the game.

 

Thanks for your contribution anyway, it's always interesting to see how people's perception of the game can vary depending of their local meta!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that where I've said 'intended' or 'design choice' etc, that's not my local meta - those bits are from discussions with Interruptor. 

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, IJW Wartrader said:

Note that where I've said 'intended' or 'design choice' etc, that's not my local meta - those bits are from discussions with Interruptor. 

If it comes from the ultimate meta ("the one to bring them all and in the darkness bind them"), it's even more interesting :D

Then it's entirely possible that the reason those rules are how they are just don't show up very often, and the reason i don't understand them is because i've yet to face a situation where they're meaningfull (though i know for sure that smoke trick within ZoC is absurdly strong, especially with MSV2 shotguns).

It makes me want to push the system to the limit by playing on those things as much as possible and see how it impacts the game, be it in a good or bad way. I guess it's time to clean up my 8 kuang-shi, and to try as hard as possible to get into CC with my crane without smoke support :pirate:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can get an MSV2 Shotgun trooper far enough up the table to do that, kudos to you!

In practical terms it doesn't make that much difference unless the target has a Direct Template Weapon as the MSV2 trooper will usually have such overwhelming odds that the target would need to critical their BS Attack anyway.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1). Fix that damn Jammer interaction with everything. Basicly stop saying that's a BS shoot attack with exceptions for every BS shoot attack rule.

2). Smoke grenade BS attack is a dodge against no MSV2 attacks but deploying White Noise has no dodge effect against MSV o0 (strange rule exception)

3). <personal bias> delete some Aleph rule hacking </ personal bias>

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, T.I.A said:

The one that I find weird and could do with a tweak/clarification is remaining in the engaged state while you are base to base with an unconscious enemy trooper.

Picture this: it's the reactive turn for the Jotum player and the Jotum is in base to base with a CC trooper. By a stroke of luck the Jotum managed to robo punch the enemy CC trooper to unconscious state. The active player continues to move other pieces toward or around the Jotum in LoF but the Jotum can do...Nothing. It looks stupid from a tabletop point of view that the Jotum can't react even though he's towering over this unconscious enemy trooper.

I suggest just a minor tweak of making troopers not in the engaged state if all enemy troopers in base contact are in the unconscious state.

Per the FAQ:

When a trooper enters the Unconscious state does this cancel the Engaged state?

The Engaged state can be cancelled when all the adversaries of the active troop are in Null or Immobilized states.

 

So when the Jotum robo punches the active model to into unconsciousness it can then choose to leave the engaged state at the end of the order. The FAQ entry does not say that this only applies to the active player, so the reactive player should be able to do this as well.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Retreat is indeed a problem: It doesn't do anything except prematurely end the game, possibly adversely... like if I'm losing, I can rush some people to their deaths (or kill them myself in a few ways) to end the game with a narrower margin of victory than if I had not. 

Self-destruct Jumping is certainly a bug and incredibly stupid.

Classified Cards are a good idea, but the ones we have are not a solution. They don't add much to the gameplay, as much as just giving you a total luck factor. Did you get the one where you need to Engineer the HVT? tough luck. As compared to 'FO an enemy or enemy corpse' or 'stab a guy on the ground' ones. They need more interesting interactions IMO or simply be removed, the missions have enough going on as is.

DHDs are pretty trash. Did White Hacking need to exist, as opposed to simply buffing the already near useless DHD?

Honestly, Hacking in General could be simplified a great deal. 90% of the time, there's no choice on what the right program is, it's obvious. Just simplify the program list and have bonuses for specialized devices.

Apparently, there's a ruling that the 'butt' of your base doesn't generate LoS? That's really idiotic. So an enemy can be in my front arc, but draw it in a way where the front of my base can't see, but the back can--- and that's not LoS for me but is LoS for them? That adds nothing to the gameplay, while making movement more finnicky.

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sedral said:

I don't know... I understand how it could be helpfull for most CQB fighter, but i've been playing for 2 years and i've NEVER seen it used to help a dude get up close and personal. 

Not every CQB fighter has stealth. Anybody with at least a direct template or upgraded pistol qualifies. Most combi armed troops can do in a pinch. AD troops with shotguns are nothing if not CQB. 

The Change Facing roll almost makes it like a discover roll when someone is prowling around your ZoC. When I have to use that ARO it's either because of weakness on my part or superior play on my opponents. Not automatically turning to face the attacker after the first salvo has been unleashed is harsh, meaning you have to rely on failing that guts check as long as you aren't completely out in the open.

My submission for the weird rule is the removal of the dismounted pilot when a TAG is dead. It was an odd interaction before, but didn't come up much before because of the cost of dismounting. With TAG LINE changes, there is actually an excuse to dismount.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BaleWolf said:

Per the FAQ:

When a trooper enters the Unconscious state does this cancel the Engaged state?

The Engaged state can be cancelled when all the adversaries of the active troop are in Null or Immobilized states.

 

So when the Jotum robo punches the active model to into unconsciousness it can then choose to leave the engaged state at the end of the order. The FAQ entry does not say that this only applies to the active player, so the reactive player should be able to do this as well.

As far as I'm aware the FAQ is just a restatement of the current rules and needs another FAQ. At the moment the only way to cancel it is to move away from the unconscious trooper. The way it's worded seems like a permissive thing not a statement if you know what I mean.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally feel like Sixth Sense (or more especially sixth sense level 2) could use some extra clarifications. Like it says you can shoot at targets without LoF, but does that include instances of shooting over walls like guided ammunition or speculative fire with grenades? Is it clear to others that you can't delay your ARO with Sixth Sense Level 2 when out of the 8" range, or am I misinterpreting that? A few more examples with permutations of what you can do can go a long way IMO. 

No LoF in general could use some extra clarification in my opinion. It would help with the case of Jammers too (although I'm aware an FAQ used to say that Jammers don't take Camo/TO camo into account, it's not explicitly stated anymore).

F2F with Impact Templates also isn't quite as intuitive for me. I would think shooting back when you aren't the primary target shouldn't be a F2F roll, but, y'know how it is. 

Those are my main issues, rather minor at that. The only other thing I kind of don't like is how Irmandinhos look like they should have Aquatic Terrain (anchor in their logo, their official basing is full of water, one's carrying flippers and goggles and yet ... zip).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda wish it was possible to have both shooters in a face-to-face kill (or at least hit) each other, but I love the cinematics of both CCers critting meaning they are staring at each other through crossed blades.  To have one crit rule for shooting and a different one for CC is anathema in ANY rules set.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everything can be trimmed. For example: we definitely don't need all the hacking programs, do we really need multiple MSV levels or inferior infiltration?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hacking could easily be streamlined and lose zero gameplay nuance. You never use 80+% of the programs. There's no reason why for example, AHDs couldn't just be a flat bonus to a standard set of hacking programs such as the immobilize ones or possession, but loses access to support ware, etc. Instead of having like 8 programs that just immobilize better.

A few rules are clearly bugged too: ECM for example, is both really corner case as well as rather pointless. Not a fun mechanic, or a meaningful one. I haven't triggered it once in N3 at all, in part to how guided now sucks, but also as a poor rule on it's own.

Nimbus needs to just go. It doesn't do anything. Nimbus Plus at least has mechanical benefits, kinda. 

Minesweeper and Deactivators are stupid, as their rules don't quite do anything interesting. Yes, you can yank an AI beacon. But why bother? It was better when it was a sort of reaction for Minesweeper. Deactivator units can just use a gun against a mine.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, Deactivator is almost always on better odds than a Combi or similar due to ignoring all MODs but range, using WIP and only needing to hit. It's also the only way to target an enemy D-Charge.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like things to be looked over and clarified and simplified where possible. Some of the rules suffer from being complex with no benefit. 

I also agree that hacking needs to be overhauled. There are way too many programs for no reason. 

Link Teams could be explained much more eloquently. People are frequently confused by Coherency and what actually breaks the link. 

I don't think there is a benefit to having Low, Poor, and No Visibility. I think it would work just as well where Low Vis incurs -3 mods to shoot through and No Visibility cannot be shot through  unless you have MSVL2+ or Intuitive Attack. In either case,  being shot at through Low Visibility or No Via incurs a -3 to any ARO that requires a roll. In doing this, Surprise Shot, Mines, and Shots through Low/No Visibility all incur the same penalty to represent the same surprise/difficulty in responding. Consistency is good. 

There's some more, but I'm tired. N3 has significantly increased the quality of the game, however. Never again the hijinks of N2.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it's a great game already, the rules could definately use another clarity pass for little issues that have come up, and a more streamlined, polished, timely formal errata / FAQ process.

Bostria was pretty dismissive of FAQ clarifications in recent podcast appearances though - saying stuff like 'only 4 guys see them'. I think he's missing that the alternative is to have broken rules for years on end, and that the '4 guys' that see them are all the Warcors, TO's, and super fans, who propagate them to everyone else.

For the triggering ARO in ZoC but not LoF issue, it is deliberate but it's also a bit clunky and unintuitive. If it was changed as you say but with the addition that you can't ARO BS Attack against a Trooper that enters CC the same short skill you gain LoF to them (they jumped you) that would more or less keep the balance for CC while removing some of the other clunk.

I also agree hacking really could use streamlining. One program per effect (IMM, Isolate, Inflict Wounds etc), with different devices giving selective access to the different effects and bonuses is a good idea.

And the not being able to see enemies in your front arc from the back part of your base is just a bad ruling, not in line with the rulebook text to boot IMHO. I think it's super 'gamey' to be able to shoot someone in the back from in front of them.

There's a ton of little stuff that could be tidied up with clearer language or clarified to be more intuitive. Stuff like how White Noise works with NFB, or how the definition of Hacking Area reads doesn't like it doesn't include enemy hackers not in ZoC of a repeater through their own repeater, or how you can't ever split burst in ARO but that's never definitively stated broadly etc etc.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

N3 is a great step forward and I'm pretty happy with where the rules are at!

That said, I'll jump in with clarifications and fixing the 'gamey' rule interpretations that I would love to see done. 

1. ZoC shenanigans are some good some bad. I think it would be fixed if the opponent could at least do something at reduced chances rather than just flailing helplessly. Its not in line with where the rest of the game went. Large penalties are better than getting to do nothing, and no, passing a change face to just get engaged, or shot again is hardly doing somethin. 

2. LoF rulings as of late have been rubbish. The shooting people in the back while in front of them completely contradicted the rules text - bonus is you can intent your way into shooting people in the back from infront if they are prone behind a low wall pretty easily (thankfully no-one here does). 

Introducing minimum amount of attacker seeing defender would put the intent debate to bed. Anything that removes "infinitly thin line" math theorems becoming part of everyday gaming. 

3. Remove stealth providing benefits regarding hacking and generally being unintuitive for the important aspects, like actually reaching combat where you opt not to use stealth and use ZoC shenanigans instead. Fixes to 1. could then move some of benefits currently provided by ZoC shenanigans into the stealth skill. 

4. Hacking could be cleaned up. But I'm hopeful thats probably on the to do list as N3 is the first iteration of hacking as we now know it. 

5. Clarify if delay can be used in CC so it works like every other order sequence in the game (reactive player has to choose action first). 

6. Clarify that pilots remain on the table even if the TAG gets killed. Currently a bit weird.

7. nerf Jammer plz. Or atleast provide some clarity on what game rules it actually uses plus/minus reduce its effectiveness - permanent isolation is ruthless. 

8. Retreat becoming a more relevant game state (I like how LoL works now as a difficult but not debilitating situation) or improving skills to which ignore retreat to have more relevance. 

9. Balance the strategic command token use so its not always "every first turn starts with -2 orders LOL". I think a scaling order loss which is far less detrimental would be better than trying to make the no coordinated order option more penalising. 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's consistent to admire the game and praise the good things about it while demanding improvement. We pay for it after all. I think every aspect of the hobby can continue to progress in the right direction, not just these few rules. We could have better profiles, better models (yes, better models in case of things like Guijia Pilot/Techbee), better background writing/translation, better campaigns, better missions, better forum moderation...... it's comprehensive. Let me be clear though, in saying that all of these things are already pretty good. That's why we're still here.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, alphz said:

3. Remove stealth providing benefits regarding hacking and generally being unintuitive for the important aspects, like actually reaching combat where you opt not to use stealth and use ZoC shenanigans instead. Fixes to 1. could then move some of benefits currently provided by ZoC shenanigans into the stealth skill.

So you say you don't want anyone to play MO or JSA anymore ?;P

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@alphz Most of those things are wishes for rules changes, not clarifications or tightening up logic.

2. Agreed! What the rules do now by leaving it open is cause clashes of culture and etiquette. With an official way of doing it, players can consciously house rule it and not have great issues when playing strangers.

3. What @Eciu wrote. Stealth as a counter to hacking is very important to some armies, nearly to the point of keeping them afloat.

4. This one deserves a bit more clarification, possibly even its own thread, though we've had them and what is clean varies from player to player.

8. I think the only way of making it more relevant is to make retreat easier to end up in and easier to get out of. Yeah, that does mean less murderous doctors and probably having retreat no longer piggybacking on LoL

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now