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

 BaconCatBug wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If a system can't handle being taken to its extremes it's a bad system.

On that logic every game in the world has bad system. We are all doomed.

Other game systems can mitigate the extremes, or be designed in a way to prevent those extremes from happening.

Oh sweet summer child how wrong you are.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Other game systems can mitigate the extremes, or be designed in a way to prevent those extremes from happening.

They still don't solve the problem at the root.

It's only bothering those with the mindset leading to the said extremes, in the end. At some point, we have to ask the true question : is that really worth it to bother the majority just to satisfy a small minority that will always cause trouble anyway ?

To me, the answer is clear ; it's not. Power Level is fine. And if someone wants to abuse it just to "prove" something, just make him understand he won't play at all if he keeps that toxic mindset, or let him play with his group of friends with the same mindset.

Thing is, people arguing for only one way to build your list - the point system - aren't really concerned with balance. They just want everyone to play their way, so that they don't have to adapt to another. It's really just a matter of habit.

Honestly, it’s objectively incorrect to say it is possible to write perfect rules.
You have to apply a Reasonableness standard to rulesets (I.e., RAI).

And this is coming from a decades long MTG player where there are very few RAW hiccups, but which is due to an active and engaged Judging system assisting with RAI clarifications.

sieGermans wrote:
Honestly, it’s objectively incorrect to say it is possible to write perfect rules.
You have to apply a Reasonableness standard to rulesets (I.e., RAI).

And this is coming from a decades long MTG player where there are very few RAW hiccups, but which is due to an active and engaged Judging system assisting with RAI clarifications.

Exactly. Not to mention the number of times MtG has banned or restricted cards because of unforeseen combos that break the game.

No system is perfect. No system can be perfect. Complaining that a system isn't perfect isn't a valid argument, it's a cry for attention.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If a system can't handle being taken to its extremes it's a bad system.

On that logic every game in the world has bad system. We are all doomed.

Other game systems can mitigate the extremes, or be designed in a way to prevent those extremes from happening.

There are most certainly aspects of warhammer 40k that are not typical in other systems and that allow for these extremes.

For example, Deathwatch Veterans with their wildly variant wargear and customization are much more difficult to balance than Intercessors, with their totally fixed loadout. In most games with better inter-unit balance than 40k that I've played, you cannot choose to change individual models' wargear or if you can, you cannot do it nearly as much. This tends to greatly reduce the burden of what you have to balance on the designers.

In my experience, that customization tends to be a selling point for 40k and people tend to complain when that is taken away from them. Not everything that produces better balance is going to be universally popular with current fans of 40k.

I for one want the customization that has been lost back. (Stares wistfully at csm 3.5 codex).

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I for one want the customization that has been lost back. (Stares wistfully at csm 3.5 codex).

I do too. Personally, I find that in other games that are more balanced, I get bored of them much faster. Once I've played against a particular faction, I've probably experienced pretty much what that faction is bringing to the table.

The fact that 40k has 20-odd different factions with pretty extensive unit customization is somthing that will make the balance far worse than it would otherwise be. I would not want to reduce that, though. I'm OK with the imbalance that brings not because I like the imbalance, but I understand it comes with the benefit of variability.

That's probably why I tend to play Necromunda over Infinity or Malifaux when it comes to skirmish gaming if I have the choice. It is objectively a FAR less balanced game, by several orders of magnitude, but the possibilities of what you can bring in your gang is pretty much endless.

Sarouan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Other game systems can mitigate the extremes, or be designed in a way to prevent those extremes from happening.

They still don't solve the problem at the root.

It's only bothering those with the mindset leading to the said extremes, in the end. At some point, we have to ask the true question : is that really worth it to bother the majority just to satisfy a small minority that will always cause trouble anyway ?

To me, the answer is clear ; it's not. Power Level is fine. And if someone wants to abuse it just to "prove" something, just make him understand he won't play at all if he keeps that toxic mindset, or let him play with his group of friends with the same mindset.

Thing is, people arguing for only one way to build your list - the point system - aren't really concerned with balance. They just want everyone to play their way, so that they don't have to adapt to another. It's really just a matter of habit.

So please explain why if PL is fine the 5 2000 point lists currently to hand have a spread of 20 PL and all 5 are over 100PL.

Because it's a simplified points system looking for a role.

Also if Crusade is PL and supposed to be playable with everyone including matched play as GW said and matched play is points are we suddenly needing to convert points to PL, thats a flat out admission that PL doesn't balance against points.

So crusade is not a for everyone compatible with everyone else way to play like the said it's more content that's now stuck behind a paywall of you have to accept PL levels of imbalances in your games.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Honestly I don't get why people are getting bent out of shape about the PL. It's not like Narrative Players haven't spent most of the last 3 years using points anyways.

PL isn't a horrible system in concept, but unfortunately I don't trust people to not game a system if given half a chance. If they update PL to adjust based on wargear (say +1 PL if your tactical squad takes a special weapon for example) then sure, but as is it can get pretty lopsided.

I love campaign systems and dislike power level. So I am personally somewhat miffed they are pushing my campaign system to use PL, and worried they will do something to make PL integral to the system in a way you can't easily untangle it.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

25pl is approx 500 points as per their recommendation for starting a crusade and as was the case in 8th ed pretty much.

3 units with three company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24, and 126 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
3 units with three company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24, and 405 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?

3 units with five company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24 as well, but 270 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25L is appox 500 pts. ?
3 units with five company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24 as well, and 675 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?

Which just shows that the point system is broken.

No, it isn't.

Look, the game designers DID NOT make their rules with the idea of powerlevel in mind. It's, essentially, something parasitically borrowed from AoS, and it doesn't work amazing in AoS either with everyone literally just taking the best equipment they can (And then GW changing what amount they are allowed to take, screwing over the large amount of people who have converted or sourced bits to have a better unit), but the swings in AoS aren't nearly as dramatic as many units in 40k, because 40k had not, and has really never, been made with the idea of power level in mind.

tneva82 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

25pl is approx 500 points as per their recommendation for starting a crusade and as was the case in 8th ed pretty much.

3 units with three company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24, and 126 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?
3 units with three company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24, and 405 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?

3 units with five company veterans with boltgun/chainsword is PL24 as well, but 270 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25L is appox 500 pts. ?
3 units with five company veterans with combi melta/Thunderhammer is PL24 as well, and 675 pts. Wait, didnt you say that 25PL is approx 500 pts. ?

Which just shows that the point system is broken.

And in practice who has all those thunderhammer/combi melta death companies?

As I said above. Hyperbole exaggeration. Those making claims like that are just net crying and haven't actually tried it in practice.

Truthfully? Quite a number of older marine players do.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

sieGermans wrote:
Honestly, it’s objectively incorrect to say it is possible to write perfect rules.
You have to apply a Reasonableness standard to rulesets (I.e., RAI).

And this is coming from a decades long MTG player where there are very few RAW hiccups, but which is due to an active and engaged Judging system assisting with RAI clarifications.

Exactly. Not to mention the number of times MtG has banned or restricted cards because of unforeseen combos that break the game.

No system is perfect. No system can be perfect. Complaining that a system isn't perfect isn't a valid argument, it's a cry for attention.

And you know the system that GW set and then never once adjusted through the entirety of 8th? Power level. With points they did their best (whatever you think of their best) to fix issues. With power level they dumped it out and then, pretty much, abandoned the concept.

Ice_can wrote:

Sarouan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Other game systems can mitigate the extremes, or be designed in a way to prevent those extremes from happening.

They still don't solve the problem at the root.

It's only bothering those with the mindset leading to the said extremes, in the end. At some point, we have to ask the true question : is that really worth it to bother the majority just to satisfy a small minority that will always cause trouble anyway ?

To me, the answer is clear ; it's not. Power Level is fine. And if someone wants to abuse it just to "prove" something, just make him understand he won't play at all if he keeps that toxic mindset, or let him play with his group of friends with the same mindset.

Thing is, people arguing for only one way to build your list - the point system - aren't really concerned with balance. They just want everyone to play their way, so that they don't have to adapt to another. It's really just a matter of habit.

So please explain why if PL is fine the 5 2000 point lists currently to hand have a spread of 20 PL and all 5 are over 100PL.

Because it's a simplified points system looking for a role.

Also if Crusade is PL and supposed to be playable with everyone including matched play as GW said and matched play is points are we suddenly needing to convert points to PL, thats a flat out admission that PL doesn't balance against points.

No arguement FOR -or- AGAINST PL can truly be made until we see what 9th actually does with it, so just drop it or go argue about it in the general 40k section instead of filling a dozen more pages with it instead of news. I don't want to have to comb through more bickering while I'm trying to see if anything actually came out that I missed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

stratigo wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Honestly I don't get why people are getting bent out of shape about the PL. It's not like Narrative Players haven't spent most of the last 3 years using points anyways.

PL isn't a horrible system in concept, but unfortunately I don't trust people to not game a system if given half a chance. If they update PL to adjust based on wargear (say +1 PL if your tactical squad takes a special weapon for example) then sure, but as is it can get pretty lopsided.

I love campaign systems and dislike power level. So I am personally somewhat miffed they are pushing my campaign system to use PL, and worried they will do something to make PL integral to the system in a way you can't easily untangle it.

We don't know that for sure until we see the rules, so stow the complaints until we know exactly how it works. All your doing is wasting time being mad about something you could be wrong about.

stratigo wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

sieGermans wrote:
Honestly, it’s objectively incorrect to say it is possible to write perfect rules.
You have to apply a Reasonableness standard to rulesets (I.e., RAI).

And this is coming from a decades long MTG player where there are very few RAW hiccups, but which is due to an active and engaged Judging system assisting with RAI clarifications.

Exactly. Not to mention the number of times MtG has banned or restricted cards because of unforeseen combos that break the game.

No system is perfect. No system can be perfect. Complaining that a system isn't perfect isn't a valid argument, it's a cry for attention.

And you know the system that GW set and then never once adjusted through the entirety of 8th? Power level. With points they did their best (whatever you think of their best) to fix issues. With power level they dumped it out and then, pretty much, abandoned the concept.

You know what system GW admitted to dropping the ball on and said they'd be addressing more often to try and prevent it from being so badly imbalanced? Power level. GW basically overly focused on matched play for 8th and left narrative as a vestigial limb that looked like it was going to fall off (and the less said about open play the better).

We don't know what 9th looks like in whole, but judging it on what 8th currently exists as is a falacy. There are not the same system. Similar perhaps, but not the same.

Honestly, I see the following happening.

points players will not generally play a game vs a Crusade PL player.
many Crusade players will simply use points.

I play a lot of the narrative missions, but i use points simply because it's the system I know and is easy for me.

Will I try PL with 9th in Crusade? Maybe...don't know enough about it yet to make that decision.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Here's a crazy concept: if you prefer PL, play with PL. If you prefer points, play with points. Like the Crusade system? Play it. Don't? Don't play it. Personally I'll stick with points and matched play.

I'm willing to bet there will be people playing with the Crusade system using points, which will smooth over playing with matched play folks in pick up games a bit easier to manage.

But yeah, this whole back and forth has gone on for too many pages for what is basically a non-issue.

It isn't a non-issue because it was already something the rules team chose to focus on when there are several things at hand they needed to look at.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Here's a crazy concept: if you prefer PL, play with PL. If you prefer points, play with points. Like the Crusade system? Play it. Don't? Don't play it. Personally I'll stick with points and matched play.

I'm willing to bet there will be people playing with the Crusade system using points, which will smooth over playing with matched play folks in pick up games a bit easier to manage.

But yeah, this whole back and forth has gone on for too many pages for what is basically a non-issue.

It isn't a non-issue because it was already something the rules team chose to focus on when there are several things at hand they needed to look at.

You say that like you have proof they didn't focus on other things. Which there is none. Fixing narrative doesn't mean they didn't fix other parts of the game, meaning the gripe-a-thon that has been going on is just as meaningless as it was before you presented this defense.

The issue is they where selling this as compatible with all players and matched play, they then in their preview tease imply that that was a total bait and switch BS.

Crusade as a concept
Crsuade forcing you to use PL

Ice_can wrote:
The issue is they where selling this as compatible with all players and matched play, they then in their preview tease imply that that was a total bait and switch BS.

Crusade as a concept
Crsuade forcing you to use PL

Crusade isn't "forcing" you to use PL. As has been mentioned many times, people are going to likely use points anyways just to smooth out pick up games.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The issue is they where selling this as compatible with all players and matched play, they then in their preview tease imply that that was a total bait and switch BS.

Crusade as a concept
Crsuade forcing you to use PL

Crusade isn't "forcing" you to use PL. As has been mentioned many times, people are going to likely use points anyways just to smooth out pick up games.

Crusade IS pushing you to use PL and not using it is people modifying the ruleset, which is, ideally, not something that should be done. The ease of subbing out point for PL is unknown, and that, too is a source of anxiety. I can only hope its easy, but fear it is not.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The issue is they where selling this as compatible with all players and matched play, they then in their preview tease imply that that was a total bait and switch BS.

Crusade as a concept
Crsuade forcing you to use PL

Crusade isn't "forcing" you to use PL. As has been mentioned many times, people are going to likely use points anyways just to smooth out pick up games.

I don't know if it will be that straight forward though. From reading the info given out, I get the impression that many of the advancement and RP generation/use will be codified to PL and not points. To truly benefit from the Crusade system you will then need a reliable way to convert PL to Pts. You could, of course, work in Pts and then just convert the army into a PL value afterwards but as I understand it, the two are not balanced against one another and armies that may be point efficient are not always the same when looked at from a PL perspective and vice-versa. Reaching a consensus, even within local friendly gaming groups as to a PL/Pts conversion will be an unnecessary ball ache, especially if you get Imperial players, who naturally benefit from PL more than other armies, wishing to derail fairness to maintain that monopoly (spare me the "if they're good friends" or "why would you play" rhetoric, they're all human).


I hope this isn't the case as it would be truly stupid to invest these kinds of resources into this new big system for it to be so limited and not engage with Pts which is obviously the more traversed path of army building. It also doesn't make much sense as, of the two, I am more likely to plan and engage with a crusade game (hence have the time to use Pts) opposed to it being a 'pick up' game, so the execution seems contradictory. Crusade is pushing PL seemingly (from the admittedly little we know) .

I personally have no interest or even a passing care to begin dealing in PL; I don't quite understand it's use as I personally don't see Pts as a particularly big obstacle to a game in an age when calculators, apps and excel all exist. The idea of it being present for 'pick up games' seems totally redundant to me when Pts and modern technology exist and units can maintain some sort of nuance and customisability.

I can imagine 9th edition having the same "Most important Rule" than the other editions. Surely, this means that we, as players, can choose to use points instead of PL for our crusades.

I like the idea of PL, but I think using PL's should be tied to using non-customizable units only (like primaris). There are so many units that can multiply their effectiveness by powrs of magnitude with paid upgrades, and these units will likely never work well with the PL system.

If GW wants to push for PL, they should also give datasheets of "fluffy" non-customizable units with fixed PL values.

All in all, I think 40k has some weirdo units in elite slots that are more like several HQ's bound to a 2" coherency than squads of soldiers. Customization should be left mainly to HQs IMO. In the larger scale that bigger 40k games play at, squads where evry model has different wargear slows the game way down. Maybe leave that ish to skirmish level games, hmm?

I just don't understand why GW, with all the work they have on:
- mission rules (I bet you these 9th ed ones will be far from perfect, even with "pro tips")
- terrain rules (I am more optimistic but terrain rules are hard to do right in any wargame)
- core rules
- matched play rules
- open/narrative/whatever rules
- army specific rules

Why Oh Why bother with an alternative "point" system which fell totally flat the first time around (8th ed).
I would like to tell GW staff "hey guys, honeslty, who is making you do this ? Admit none of you want to do this !" I mean David Graeber would call PL design a "bs Job", of that I am sure

 addnid wrote:
I just don't understand why GW, with all the work they have on:
- mission rules (I bet you these 9th ed ones will be far from perfect, even with "pro tips")
- terrain rules (I am more optimistic but terrain rules are hard to do right in any wargame)
- core rules
- matched play rules
- open/narrative/whatever rules
- army specific rules

Why Oh Why bother with an alternative "point" system which fell totally flat the first time around (8th ed).
I would like to tell GW staff "hey guys, honeslty, who is making you do this ? Admit none of you want to do this !" I mean David Graeber would call PL design a "bs Job", of that I am sure

Because it's for narrative play where being perfectly balanced is less the goal, and missions are determined by specific victory conditions (survive through turn 3, get your units to your opponent's board edge, defend against an overwhelming foe for as long as you can, ect, ect) that go beyond just killing and holding.

The idea of power level is to have a really stripped down and simple system that's fast to use for quick pick up games. I've a feeling its also aimed at being easier for younger gamers to get into for earlier matches.


It's not that regular points are too complex, just when starting out or after quick games its a lot simpler and doesn't bogg people down before they can play

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Here's a crazy concept: if you prefer PL, play with PL. If you prefer points, play with points. Like the Crusade system? Play it. Don't? Don't play it. Personally I'll stick with points and matched play.

I'm willing to bet there will be people playing with the Crusade system using points, which will smooth over playing with matched play folks in pick up games a bit easier to manage.

But yeah, this whole back and forth has gone on for too many pages for what is basically a non-issue.

It isn't a non-issue because it was already something the rules team chose to focus on when there are several things at hand they needed to look at.

You say that like you have proof they didn't focus on other things. Which there is none. Fixing narrative doesn't mean they didn't fix other parts of the game, meaning the gripe-a-thon that has been going on is just as meaningless as it was before you presented this defense.

It's time that could've been spent fixing things elsewhere and that's an indisputable fact.

I think its clear why GW wants to push for power level. Its obvious from the corny morning cartoon CGI "cinematic" trailer, Anime-insipired illustrations, twitch stuff.. even the crusade system is getting on the RPG revival bandwagon to seem hip. They want to get more kids into playing 40K. Us beards are way past the point of no return, no reason to cater so much to us, they want to make 40K more accessible to the general public (and sell a boatload of Space Marines).

tauist wrote:
I can imagine 9th edition having the same "Most important Rule" than the other editions. Surely, this means that we, as players, can choose to use points instead of PL for our crusades.

I like the idea of PL, but I think using PL's should be tied to using non-customizable units only (like primaris). There are so many units that can multiply their effectiveness by powrs of magnitude with paid upgrades, and these units will likely never work well with the PL system.

If GW wants to push for PL, they should also give datasheets of "fluffy" non-customizable units with fixed PL values.

All in all, I think 40k has some weirdo units in elite slots that are more like several HQ's bound to a 2" coherency than squads of soldiers. Customization should be left mainly to HQs IMO. In the larger scale that bigger 40k games play at, squads where evry model has different wargear slows the game way down. Maybe leave that ish to skirmish level games, hmm?

No. One of the few things csm have over primaris is the selection of wargear we can take on our units. Unit customization has always been a part of 40k. I want more options not less.

 Overread wrote:
The idea of power level is to have a really stripped down and simple system that's fast to use for quick pick up games. I've a feeling its also aimed at being easier for younger gamers to get into for earlier matches.


It's not that regular points are too complex, just when starting out or after quick games its a lot simpler and doesn't bogg people down before they can play

Then why tie a system that introduces further complexity to the simplified points system? That is counter-intuitive if the goal for PL is (and should be, IMO) a quick, dirty, easy way to get people who have bought a few boxes of models to playing a reasonably balanced game using only the free rules they get in those boxes, and the free rules they can download online.

This is a thing that EVERYONE ignores online that has been, in my opinion, is that people can play a game of warhammer with free materials that are available in the model boxes that they buy. You can answer someone's question of "Hey, what do I need to play" with "here, take this packet, and grab one of those model boxes."

It isn't the full game, but it functions. and that is better than previous editions.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Here's a crazy concept: if you prefer PL, play with PL. If you prefer points, play with points. Like the Crusade system? Play it. Don't? Don't play it. Personally I'll stick with points and matched play.

I'm willing to bet there will be people playing with the Crusade system using points, which will smooth over playing with matched play folks in pick up games a bit easier to manage.

But yeah, this whole back and forth has gone on for too many pages for what is basically a non-issue.

It isn't a non-issue because it was already something the rules team chose to focus on when there are several things at hand they needed to look at.

You say that like you have proof they didn't focus on other things. Which there is none. Fixing narrative doesn't mean they didn't fix other parts of the game, meaning the gripe-a-thon that has been going on is just as meaningless as it was before you presented this defense.

It's time that could've been spent fixing things elsewhere and that's an indisputable fact.

Again, what proof do you have that they didn't fix other things? They could have worked on it while the edition was off for playtesting for matched play for example. Just because they worked on Narrative and buffed it into a valid mode of play doesn't mean they didn't work on other things. Not everything has to be aimed at tournament players.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You know what system GW admitted to dropping the ball on and said they'd be addressing more often to try and prevent it from being so badly imbalanced? Power level. GW basically overly focused on matched play for 8th and left narrative as a vestigial limb that looked like it was going to fall off (and the less said about open play the better).

This is correct. Which felt completely at odds with where the game design headed. The studio is capable of designing rulesets for competitive play, but what they're doing with 40K - endless factions and subfactions and traits and stratagems isn't that. It's a helluva toolbox for narrative play, though.

I think GW and many here have this idea that "narrative players" and "casuals" and whatever (I considered myself as such from 4th to 6th ed, then started competing a bit during 7th) players are ok with wonky balance, and far from perfect mission rules, and such, unlike comp players.
Stuff like missions where one side is sure to win, and whatever other bad idea GW or a someone with weird ideas for a home made mission (I produced my fair share of dodgy missions back in the day, especially during 5th ed haha hah).

I think that is total bull, all aplyers want good, sound stuff and that is why all GW attempts ti cater specifically to that socalled "crowd" fail miserably,
every
single
time

This crusade stuff doesn't seem tight at all. 100 year old space marines, in the fluff, don't become better shooters after one or two battles, do they ? What works for necromunda gangers doesn't for Necrons, eldar, etc. Orks ok, they get bigget, but tyranids? I mean the whole concept is just so "not 40k" that it feels very strange they actually went through with this.

This Crusade stuff should reallty be called "kids 40k" or something, because it just doesn't really fit in the fluff at all. I heard it was an AoS port, well... I dunno, hopefully the rest of this weeks' previews will just make everyonbe forget about Crusade until relase, then those who don't mind the "not 40k aspect" of Crusade can just have their fun for a few games (by 2021 Crusade will have gone, i don't think they will keep adding Crusade stuff in 2021 codexes, but that is just my opinion)

Today's video, Missions and Matched Play.

Points have been completely adjusted across the entire game.

Major change, they said on average they have gone up.