XCOM had an app and as far as, translating app was not that much different then normal translation - your publisher translates the app, sends files to FFG, they add your language to the app. It will happen, but may take some time, leaving us with english version at start.

XCOM had an app and as far as, translating app was not that much different then normal translation - your publisher translates the app, sends files to FFG, they add your language to the app. It will happen, but may take some time, leaving us with english version at start.

I hope they do it that way for Descend 2nd edition as well...

This has to be one of the best news in board games, at least to me. I got the core game last X-mas, have played 2 times. I felt kinda bummed out that I wold most likley always be stuck as the Overlord, but no more!

And I suspect I can now play solo?!

This app cannot come fast enough!

I just hope they release the Core game lieutenants again too.

Man, was I ever right.

Well at least they will keep making new content if people buy Descent 2nd edition stuff... so it's a win-win situation, right?

What I want to see in this app, more than anything else, is the ability to play through the adventures/campaigns that come in the box sets. The idea of playing new, randomly generated adventures is great, but I want to be able to play through the existing material with my group where we can all be on one team and no one has to play the Overlord. If this app will do that, then I am sold 100%. That is the number one thing that I have been wanting for this game. Right now it just doesn't get played because no one wants to play the Overlord. And yes, if we can play through the existing campaign, then Imperial Assault would be the next on my wish list. Here's hoping that playing through existing material is included in this app.

Oh man......

What a disappointment! I saw the Road to Legend announcement and thought we had an extremely enhanced campaign like in first edition. My imagination went wild with all the possibilities. Possibly act 3 or even act 4 level monsters, tons of new dungeons, an overland map with lieutenants putting cities under siege...maybe even cool coins like they used to have. So many amazing things could happen with 2nd edition. Not to mention I've been pining for a Road to Legend equivalent for second edition.

And then I read it....

Co-op care bear stuff. So sad.

I'm excited to have a Solo option for Descent.

I hope they are gonna make quest vault work with this app. Would be awesome to see player created scenarios!

I wonder if the folks at FFG received the same grammar lesson that I did when I was a kid:

- A "couple" = 2

- A "few" = 3

- "Several" = 4 or >

"In just a few weeks", me arse! Jupiter weeks maybe...

I fail to see how this app will make the game go faster or smoother. It's not even the intent? While it does technically replaces one player (the overlord), you do realize running him by the app will seriously dumb down the AI and make the game a lot more flat.

I don't think faster is a real benefit. Smoother because it keeps track of your progress. More enjoyable if no one in your group likes to play the Overlord. More enjoyable if you don't have the time to commit to a gaming group or the people around you who are interested in the game. For a lot of people, a gaming group is just not an option. Sorry to break it to you folks but not everyone lives in the same areas, or same demographics as places with high concentrations of gamers. Not everyone has the familial or professional responsibilities as those who can game regularly. And for those who can barely scrape more than one person together (if that), if no one wants to play at the Overlord, who are you to say they're wrong? To them, the choice is easy - either play Descent in a way that everyone enjoys or pick something else. And up til now, a LOT of people have been picking something else.

Why are you so concerned about how other people play? What does it have to do with you in the slightest? If you and your alpha gaming group don't like how it affects the Overlord... don't use it. And let others play the game the way that is enjoyable - or even possible - for them.

Indalecio, you might not realize it yourself but most of your arguments are of the slippery-slope variety. Furthermore, you mention that "you prefer" the old type of descent, which is a valid albeit moot point since it is your opinion alone. Your comment on this making some of the gamers "look bad" was a joke I guess.

This small "dialog" was a joke indeed, but the point behind this layer of silliness was serious. It marginalizes the players sticking to the "old school" content or way of playing. Let's be clear here, the app is not just an accessory, it's going to be the most prominent component to the game, so new players will certainly see this as way more appealing than gaming without it. We might still be able to keep a community going playing the game as originally intended, but I believe a rift in the community will be created as a result of that. These are not only two game modes, these are different games, with - arguably - the same components.

People are free to play games with apps for all I care. I think my point is valid regarding the fact people do not realize how this society is desperately lacking human contact. Board gaming is one of the very few havens around, and people like me or my friends have been litterally surviving thanks to that. Don't dismiss the value of having a moment of your life without the implication of the internet or a screen. Then sure, do what you want with that, we might have cultural differences as well.

People are also free to play overlord-less versions of the game if they want. I think it makes most of the things that make the game interesting void, but again that's free to debate. I personally value integrity in game systems, because I relate to my own games, but again if people want to use board games as disposables then they´re free to do so.

My tastes and personal preferences are not to be valued higher than the community's, but my opinion (which is again mine alone) deserves to be expressed whether people like it or not, that's what a community is for.

You also mention that "resources might be shifted towards new game modes" (not a direct quote), this is akin to the slippery slope argument but it is also wrong since it's a luddite-esque argument and if the market demands it, the market demands it. If resources were to be shifted to electronic development of descent content, it's FFG's prerogative.

I agree with that, but the community is also impacted by this decision. It affects us and how we perceive our hobby. It's no longer about buying a game regardless of who publishes it, it's more and more about what vision the company has, what the community looks like, the image of the publisher etc. My other joke about the rock star is a good example, for instance. We´ll probably be hitting cultural differences again, but I personally find hard to justify the use of products from a company that has been deceiving me. The normal approach would be to just ignore it and do something else, but Descent has also been a huge investment from my part so you can understand why I take things that affect my hobby so personally.

I also think you are wrong in saying that it is a problem that less traditional content will be developed. Look at all the descent content out there, if you truly have it all and played it all then you shouldn't gripe about new type of content for, not in your words, 'other' players. Apparently these 'other' players aren't as privileged in having content suited for them, and they deserve it as much as you do. It's wrong to categorize it into old and new, or analogue and electronic players because us players looking forward to this app and more electronic implementation of board games are not closer to modern FPS gamers on a "electronic-analog scale" than you are. It's not one-dimensional. This is a niche, as are all board games, and for many of us we look forward to seeing our niche demands being satisfied.

Again I do respect the fact people have different views or situation than mine, but many of the reasons exposed are just not obvious to me, as I have made the remark about before. I´m trying to defend the game and prove that the app is not needed. If people need a playgroup then the app is not going to give them that. If people need full co-op, then why do people want to play Descent at the first place? I can give recommendations about very good games at it. If people prefered D1E then why not playing D1E? If people want to play with kids or newbies then why don't their adapt their playstyle? And if people want an app for a game like Descent, why not playing a video game instead?

Because they want to play what they want to play. Simple as that and no further justification needed. Who are you to question the validity of other peoples' play preferences? Who made you the king of what is right and what is wrong in gaming? You do realize that there was a time when Role Playing games were pen and paper only, right? And there were alpha gamers such as yourself that scoffed at a product like Warhammer Quest and even Descent. "What??? It has map tiles pre made? You can't do that! The only way is to make your maps on graph paper and your imagination! And the dice dont have numbers? Theyre only six sided??? No D20s? No percentage dies? They are dumming it down (sound familiar?). They're ruining gaming!!" Well, it's called innovation. Product evolution. Market development. It's how new and cool things come to be. And guess what? The old pen and paper rulebooks and modules are still available on the market today, stronger than ever and in more variety than ever.

FFG recognized how a sizeable but silent segment of their consumer base were not being properly served and they came up with a great idea and product to address the reasons why they dont play Descent more often and to make them happy too. At absolutely no consequence to gamers like you. You play how you want and let me play how I want. If we could all follow that one mantra, I think the world would be a much better place. No?

Some small input from me, as much of the discussion seem to use or not use the app. Personally, I think I'll play both ways.

I believe I'll mainly play with an overlord. For me personally, this is the most enjoyable style of play. But I do think that when my wife and I get the urge to play Descent, and the rest of our gamer friends are busy, we'll use the app. Probably with two hero characters each, similar to when we have played the coop expansions.

It seems that the app (and coop expansions) are a great way to enjoy the game when you're low on players. Playing with one overlord player and one hero player just isn't that fun.

Some small input from me, as much of the discussion seem to use or not use the app. Personally, I think I'll play both ways.

I believe I'll mainly play with an overlord. For me personally, this is the most enjoyable style of play. But I do think that when my wife and I get the urge to play Descent, and the rest of our gamer friends are busy, we'll use the app. Probably with two hero characters each, similar to when we have played the coop expansions.

It seems that the app (and coop expansions) are a great way to enjoy the game when you're low on players. Playing with one overlord player and one hero player just isn't that fun.

That's the spirit! Play how you want to play. FFG just made Descent more versatile is all. Yours is a great example of offering players different ways to enjoy the game based on people available or even just mood.

And I guarantee that they will see a dramatic increase in their physical sales as well. I actually stopped collecting the expansion packs. I love the game and wish I could play it more. But I realized that I probably wouldn't be playing it as much as I hoped so justifying the purchase of more figures I'll never use ended up on the losing end of the stick. Now with this news and the opportunity to play solo or with the couple of friends I have that like to play (but hate playing the OL), I've already picked up the latest small box release and hero and villain packs in preparation.

Well for the complains about the app would make the "normal 1 vs 4" gameplay less played as the coop I can only say one thing after looking at many posts in a few forums (also including the first expierience with the game with my own group):

If a group has less than 5 members the coop is IMHO the best way to learn the game. It would be better if in a rule discussion all are on the same side. Most players think the OL is kind of "betraying" if he follows the rules and the heros just haven't read the rules as well as the OL (let's face it: he's most of the time the owner of the game and the only one who read the whole rulebook + errata).

A first campaign takes forever to play (because of the learning process) and is kind of the break-point for most groups IF they even "bother" with playing again.

Also: I don't think the coop will be the "main way" to play the game in most groups... For the most groups the competitive OL vs. Heros was the main selling point of the game. And I can't see how people who bought the game would want to not use a part of that game they paid for. Everyone would at least want to try playing as/with a OL because of the many cards and stuff... And if they do that AFTER everyone knows the rules... that's even better.

I swung by to see if FFG Had anything new posted about the game and to my dissapointment, I only find news on the Co-Op App. So already this thing is taking precedence over the real game, which sadly was one of my biggest concerns when they initially announced this. I really want news on "Chains of Rust" dammit.

But then I read the article on it anyway, because why not, I was still intrigued. What I took from it wasn't positive at all.

First, let's just get this straight: All this app is, is an updated electronic version of the Co-Op system they've already introduced. Morale and Peril are exactly how Fate and Doom works. If you've experienced Co-Ops, you'll know that they challenge you to make quick decisions and to get through the encounters as quickly as possible. They are challenging and very hard to complete fully. On a system where the heroes are going to be pressed for time every single quest, that may not be the most fun experience.

But the real kicker- and perhaps the most unforgivable offense- is changing the way the game's core design by alternating Hero and Monster activations. That's just No. The initial design of Descent is to have the heroes work together as a team, deciding when and where to spend actions at any given point. The heroes must establish a turn order, decide who moves and attacks, what kinds of abilities they need to use effectively. Alternating activations may give the game a more "action" oriented feel, but it's going to take away from the game's best feature- using actual strategy. And in a situation where the heroes are already pressed for time and take penalties for being KOed, I really don't see this as being fun at all.

It's like someone took over Descent and said, "hey, I really don't like how this game is designed. I know let's change some things because obviously it worked, but I can make it work better." B.S.

I'm glad some people like it, some are obviously being drawn back into the game with this app. But let's not sugarcoat it for what it is: Electronic Co-Op versions that are trying to change how this game is played.

Omnislash024 I think the rulechange was made so the "AI OL" stands a change against players. I don't think the app rules should be used against a "real" thinking OL... But thinking and planing against the AI would (most of the time) take ages... Because you don't have to only think about how the OL wants to achieve his goal (with the coop that would mean kill your group) but also random things like attacking a hero which does not make any sense at all at the moment.

So my guess would be you could (if you want to) still plan your moves with keeping in mind who could do what action/effect in his/her next turn if you really want to... But against an AI that would make not much sense, because it doesn't react to your tactics.

EDIT: I haven't played a coop game,because I like to play the OL and don't own any coop expansion (and probably never will). I would like it, if someone made an "automated hero add on".

In the Co-Ops, yes the heroes could determine how a monster moved or if forced to make a choice between targets, could choose either or. That's because in the Co-Ops, it was assumed the monsters were mindless, not really taking orders from a higher authority. The Co-Ops handled this though by having surprise effects occur- more monsters could show up, the monsters could have bonus effects occur, something of that nature. It was fine because the difficulty was balanced out.

Yes I know, this change only effects the Road to Legend app. Which is why it's turned me off.

In the Co-Ops, yes the heroes could determine how a monster moved or if forced to make a choice between targets, could choose either or. That's because in the Co-Ops, it was assumed the monsters were mindless, not really taking orders from a higher authority. The Co-Ops handled this though by having surprise effects occur- more monsters could show up, the monsters could have bonus effects occur, something of that nature. It was fine because the difficulty was balanced out.

Yes I know, this change only effects the Road to Legend app. Which is why it's turned me off.

So you wanted to have something for all users? Like a completly new feature to the game?

I think they will keep using the normal box expansions for that (like MoB and later chains of rust and so on). I hope at least we still get many boxed expansions (nothing beats the feeling of unpacking something for the first time and thinking about all the possibilities of the new stuff.... and then introducing it to your gaming group and see what they came up with).

I swung by to see if FFG Had anything new posted about the game and to my dissapointment, I only find news on the Co-Op App. So already this thing is taking precedence over the real game, which sadly was one of my biggest concerns when they initially announced this. I really want news on "Chains of Rust" dammit.

But then I read the article on it anyway, because why not, I was still intrigued. What I took from it wasn't positive at all.

First, let's just get this straight: All this app is, is an updated electronic version of the Co-Op system they've already introduced. Morale and Peril are exactly how Fate and Doom works. If you've experienced Co-Ops, you'll know that they challenge you to make quick decisions and to get through the encounters as quickly as possible. They are challenging and very hard to complete fully. On a system where the heroes are going to be pressed for time every single quest, that may not be the most fun experience.

But the real kicker- and perhaps the most unforgivable offense- is changing the way the game's core design by alternating Hero and Monster activations. That's just No. The initial design of Descent is to have the heroes work together as a team, deciding when and where to spend actions at any given point. The heroes must establish a turn order, decide who moves and attacks, what kinds of abilities they need to use effectively. Alternating activations may give the game a more "action" oriented feel, but it's going to take away from the game's best feature- using actual strategy. And in a situation where the heroes are already pressed for time and take penalties for being KOed, I really don't see this as being fun at all.

It's like someone took over Descent and said, "hey, I really don't like how this game is designed. I know let's change some things because obviously it worked, but I can make it work better." B.S.

I'm glad some people like it, some are obviously being drawn back into the game with this app. But let's not sugarcoat it for what it is: Electronic Co-Op versions that are trying to change how this game is played.

I kind of feel the same way. Except I was initailly very hyped, because I thought, this was an electronic version of the Coops. It's not that I prefer the Coops to the 1vsMany playstyle, it's just that it's fun to play with the hero team a few times and teach them the different approaches you can take in the encounters and showing them how diversly level your heroes and so on.

In short, I found the Coop to be a very fun way to make the heroes understand and learn the finer details of the game, so that the campaigns can be more close and exciting.

Now they changed the game system of this app, which will probably have a big impact on the viability of certain skill combos and how to build your hero in general. If IA is any good indication of what skills have the biggest impact in this kind of game-system, I would think that most movement skills will be quite useless (because coordination of movement isn't something you can do relaibly) and skills that boost your damage will have an exceptional high impact. If that's the case this app will be quite useless of understanding the finer details of the game without losing a lot of standing ground in a campaign.

So effectivly I lost a lot of interest in the coop-app, to the point where I am not even sure I'm going to instantly buy the full campaign for this. I even think that I may try it out only in solo, because I'm not quite sure if this is in any way satisfying for my gaming group. It probably lost most if not all of it's strategic depth, because I think quite a lot of hero-skills are really useless in this new system (eliminating any real choice in leveling up). So this mode will be more like a narrative kind of game? Well they also get rid of acquiring gear by killing monsters and leveling up mid-game, which was a huge part of the fun of the PoD coops, because progression was much faster (which I find very important in these kind of theme-heavy games, because else too little interesting happens).

So effectivly imo, they took the part of the game (the slow character progression) that only was tollerable for my group, because it was a trade-off for tactical gameplay and at the same time got rid of a lot of tactical depth (eliminating the trade-off).

Then again maybe this is supposed to be a kind of RPG adventure game, where the biggest focus lies on the story and they got rid of anything that can hinder your expirience of the story (tactical thoughts, difficult decisions, character progression) and this will be a much more luck-heavy mode, where most of your success hinges on the luck with the dice. Kind of like Descent-Talisman to over-exaggerate my point.

Changing one of the important rules seems really weird and not cool. I, playing with this app, would love to have experience as close as possible to the original variant.

So, I see NO problem with playing with standard turn system. All heroes first, then monsters. App does not require much input (it seems), so it looks like there would be no problem with changing how it plays. It says "1st hero makes decision", but you, instead of using one hero, you activate all of them, traditional way. Then it asks you to do 1st monster group, you activate it, and then when it goes with "2nd hero", you just skip that, then it gives you 2nd monster commands, and so on. I don't see a problem with disobeying the new rules. At least now, we have no info that it wouldn't be possible. So I don't panic

But, I see no reason of criticizing the whole idea of alternate turns. Many, many turn-based strategy games uses different systems, mostly based on "initiative", and it does not make them less tactical. I do agree that it can mess with the D2e design, and I find it a surprising decision.

Though, in matter of fact, as I never played Descent, I am surprised that it didn't had alternate turns from the get-go. I find it good that they keep on improving the system.

Changing one of the important rules seems really weird and not cool. I, playing with this app, would love to have experience as close as possible to the original variant.

So, I see NO problem with playing with standard turn system. All heroes first, then monsters. App does not require much input (it seems), so it looks like there would be no problem with changing how it plays. It says "1st hero makes decision", but you, instead of using one hero, you activate all of them, traditional way. Then it asks you to do 1st monster group, you activate it, and then when it goes with "2nd hero", you just skip that, then it gives you 2nd monster commands, and so on. I don't see a problem with disobeying the new rules. At least now, we have no info that it wouldn't be possible. So I don't panic

But, I see no reason of criticizing the whole idea of alternate turns. Many, many turn-based strategy games uses different systems, mostly based on "initiative", and it does not make them less tactical. I do agree that it can mess with the D2e design, and I find it a surprising decision.

Though, in matter of fact, as I never played Descent, I am surprised that it didn't had alternate turns from the get-go. I find it good that they keep on improving the system.

My two favorite tactical grid-based games are the Fire Emblem series and Final Fantasy tactics. One has a player - enemy turn system, while the other determines turn order based on the 'speed' of individual characters. Though they require different playstyles, I enjoy them both very much. But because they are different, it is hard to compare. Or as we Dutch say 'comparing apples with pears'.

Changing one of the important rules seems really weird and not cool. I, playing with this app, would love to have experience as close as possible to the original variant.

So, I see NO problem with playing with standard turn system. All heroes first, then monsters. App does not require much input (it seems), so it looks like there would be no problem with changing how it plays. It says "1st hero makes decision", but you, instead of using one hero, you activate all of them, traditional way. Then it asks you to do 1st monster group, you activate it, and then when it goes with "2nd hero", you just skip that, then it gives you 2nd monster commands, and so on. I don't see a problem with disobeying the new rules. At least now, we have no info that it wouldn't be possible. So I don't panic

But, I see no reason of criticizing the whole idea of alternate turns. Many, many turn-based strategy games uses different systems, mostly based on "initiative", and it does not make them less tactical. I do agree that it can mess with the D2e design, and I find it a surprising decision.

Though, in matter of fact, as I never played Descent, I am surprised that it didn't had alternate turns from the get-go. I find it good that they keep on improving the system.

I think it's not that simple. If the enemies turn takes place after each hero had his turn, the monster-groups need to be more sturdy featuring more figures or more HP. Playing the game the way you described, will make the game much easier than it's supposed to be.

I thought they were doing quite fine in the PoD coops, where they managed to pull off the Coop mode without alternating turns.

Maybe this has come off wrong, but I do not intend to critizise an alternating turn system per se, but personally I prefer non-alternating turns in FFG's boardgames, which I tried to illustrate with a few arguments. At the end of the day this preference is still subjective, but I see no problem in expressing opinions on this forum, however I'm wondering how some people (not you) post against these opinions without adressing my arguments to which I can only say: I can see that your opinion is different, but since you don't make any effort of discussing reasons for this opinion, I see no point in starting a discussion with you. So, why do you think that the introduction of alternating turns per se is an improvement?

I'm only really critizising the implementation of alternating turns with content/skills/conditions that were designed with a different system in mind and the imo logical consequence that quite a few skills will be useless in this mode. Afterall there is a good reason why Imperial Assault features quite a different kind of skills.

I'm only really critizising the implementation of alternating turns with content/skills/conditions that were designed with a different system in mind and the imo logical consequence that quite a few skills will be useless in this mode. Afterall there is a good reason why Imperial Assault features quite a different kind of skills.

Yeah, I bet FFG put zero thought into that when they designed this game mode. I bet this thread is causing a complete app redesign (hence why it's taking so long) as we all hash out our emotions on this topic on the internet and enlighten them on what a mistake they've made. They should really learn how to design a game..

Wait, what?

15 pages of rampant pessimistic speculation and criticism of a completely optional game mode that no one has any real details on other than a teaser article, and that is, depending on who you listen to, going to break everything balance-wise or possibly take the product in the wrong direction, or alienate some players, or render entire heroes useless or... bah whatever. Now it's starting to rub off on me. For shame. Other than some high-level details we know squat about how it plays on a real table. Please, tell me more about how FFG has no idea what they are doing to their beloved D2E or they're doing it wrong, all based on complete conjecture. When this thread gets to 25 pages remind me again how they are headed the wrong direction with the game. Oh wait, how many threads around here lately have had this many pages in such a short span? On community energy-level increase alone they are already winning. How many have chimed in on this thread to state they've made purchases of D2E content to round out their collections in anticipation of this exciting development, usually after wiping a thick layer of dust off their game boxes from non-use because the game in it's current state wasn't doing it for us anymore.

FFG: do your thing. Take our money. There are those of us that have been waiting for something exactly like this and we trust you know a thing or three about designing a game/expansion. We will reserve judgement until we actually have something to judge.

FFG: do your thing. Take our money. There are those of us that have been waiting for something exactly like this and we trust you know a thing or three about designing a game/expansion. We will reserve judgement until we actually have something to judge.

I wouldn't say it like that... more like... "Shut up and take my money".

Jokes aside, I think you are right about what you meant to say... we don't even know much about it so we can't really argument about pros and cons and so on.

I'm only really critizising the implementation of alternating turns with content/skills/conditions that were designed with a different system in mind and the imo logical consequence that quite a few skills will be useless in this mode. Afterall there is a good reason why Imperial Assault features quite a different kind of skills.

Well in my opinion that's not true at all.... I don't know any skill which will be useless... you had to think about how the OL will react in the next turn and had to plan ahead for that. It could be the priority order of skills will change... but that's also true with different campaigns if you think about it.

And about conditions: they just work like in the past. They are linked to your turn not that of the heroes as a whole. A hero could activate for you and cure your poison (as example) for you... in this system and in the old one too.

(You don't have to agree on that.... And I think you can have a totally different opinion and doesen't mean YOU are wrong!)

Now you still have to the same tactical thinkging to do. I mean you can't tell me your group could everytime plan ahead what your OL would do. Simply because the OL had the choice to make his own plans... the heros could plan their turn for hours and all would be completely useless if the OL decided to move only one monster not like the heros though he would. ---> you still wouldn't say their planing was useless, right?

I see no real difference here other than the speculating of the heroes how the OL will react has to be made between the hero turns. They still have to keep in mind how other monster could walk, how other heroes had to be positioned to not block line of sight and could reach their target and so on...

If you say, you can't plan that if the OL has his monsters perform actions between the heroes, then you haven't though how they would react. That is, to be honest, kind of hard.... because the ai will make random choices. But as far as I know it was the same with the "old coop" system you couldn't plan ahead of your turn, because the OL had no real tactic.

And you could still plan one tactic with one random monster group better than 4 heroes and then like 4 monster groups.... the 4 monster groups movement could not be in your plan because it would take to many variables into account... with only one monster group activation after each hero, each hero could at least try to guess the monster movement and take that into account of his/her plan.

And about abilities becoming useless... If you talk about skills like advance I can only say: what is the difference about raching a goal or position yourself for an attack or move out of reach for a counter attack from monsters between this system and the standard version? I see no skills to be honest which will be useless...

Although all what I wrote is just my opinion and could differ from group to group.... After reading many posts about the game and talking with many people about it there seem to be many "ways to play"... some play just for fun and have fun loosing (even if they "stand no chance at all"... there are even groups who try to go a few turns back, if the heros are loosing because of an error) and others have only fun if they win. Different people like different things.