Fluff Problems

[Barkanaut]

Eh old hammer fans have total war warhammer. 

[BunkhouseBuster]

I'm getting a sense of deja vu all over again...

Personally, I like the new setting of Age of Sigmar.  I also liked the setting of the Old World from WHFB.  I also like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the historical Total War games. Warhammer 40K, and various other fantasy and sci-fi settings.

I will say here what I have said in other threads on the setting and fluff behind wargames and how it should be considered:

• Age of Sigmar is more akin to an RPG - loosely defined settings and published campaign book modules, which can be completely replaced with your own home-brewed stuff.
• Warhammer Fantasy Battles - much more like a historical wargame, in that they have a pre-established world and setting that is defined (no empty regions on the maps for players to lay claim).  There are some opportunities for army customization, but not any way to feel like you have staked out your own region of the world.
• Warhamemr 40K - a mix of the two.  Lots of stuff has been defined and codified, but a galaxy is a big place to fill in, so you could easily write up your own fluff and make your own worlds that fit within the setting.
• Warmachine/Hordes - a "pure" game.  There is some fluff that doesn't make much sense in some places, and its all just ways to justify or contrive the unit and model rules.  No room at all whatsoever for personalization aside from color schemes.
• Historical Wargames (Hail Caesar, Bolt Action) - You want fluff?  Read a history book

My point is that you will get out of the games what you put into it,  depending on what the game lets you put in.  If you ever played D&D (or one of its equivalents) and enjoyed making up your own worlds and campaigns, then you should enjoy the personalization of 40K and AoS.  Do you prefer to follow along and recreate scenarios and relive the battles of yore?  Then pick up Historical Wargames or WHFB and enjoy.  Do you want to be treated with a certain degree of hostility because you enjoy GW products?  Then play WarmaHordes (literally happened to me and some friends on multiple occasions, ugh).

It is awesome to see the Old World get some new life in the form of the new PC games, and I wish that they had come out with Warhammer: Total War back when I still had a PC that could handle contemporary games.  Could GW bring back the Old World and a proper 9th edition of WHFB?  They could, and that would be cool.  Having more gaming options is only a good thing, until it drives the customers into an "us-versus-them" mentality that begins to harm the hobby and community.  So let's enjoy what we enjoy, and see what the future holds for us

In summary, the moral of this story has three points:

1. Enjoy what you like, and try not to criticize others for enjoying what they enjoy.
2. Keep playing the games you want to play, and enjoy life.  Wargaming is a hobby, and should be for fun.
3. Avoid elitist, anti-GW, Warmachine/Hordes players who won't get off their "Privateer Press is best" bandwagon.

[Lousy Beatnik]

42 minutes ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

I'm getting a sense of deja vu all over again...

Personally, I like the new setting of Age of Sigmar.  I also liked the setting of the Old World from WHFB.  I also like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the historical Total War games. Warhammer 40K, and various other fantasy and sci-fi settings.

You can like more than one thing? With the carry on with forums, Facebook etc. you'd be forgiven for thinking you can't! That's why when I read the Dragonlance novels a while ago, I had to pretend it was WHFB, otherwise I'd get in trouble...

[Lousy Beatnik]

Jokes aside, good post Bunkerhouse.

I find it odd that combine into three years in, on a purely AoS forum, we still have generic "I don't like the setting" threads. That's cool. That's the fun thing about nerd games like this, there are dosens (hundreds?) of other settings, miniatures and rules you can use instead if this one doesn't suit. 

[BunkhouseBuster]

23 minutes ago, Lousy Beatnik said:

You can like more than one thing? With the carry on with forums, Facebook etc. you'd be forgiven for thinking you can't! That's why when I read the Dragonlance novels a while ago, I had to pretend it was WHFB, otherwise I'd get in trouble...

You can also have a middle-of-the-road viewpoint of heated political topics because you have an understanding of where each side of the argument is coming from in their discussions.  But don't tell too many people that, or I might lose the franchise

18 minutes ago, Lousy Beatnik said:

Jokes aside, good post Bunkerhouse.

I find it odd that combine into three years in, on a purely AoS forum, we still have generic "I don't like the setting" threads. That's cool. That's the fun thing about nerd games like this, there are dosens (hundreds?) of other settings, miniatures and rules you can use instead if this one doesn't suit. 

Indeed.  And thankfully with TGA, we are actually having discussions about the topics, and not just rants and the "us-versus-them" like on other forums.

It's okay to like things, and it's okay to not like other things.  And it's okay that other people don't like the same things as you.  Good, even.  Because if we all like the exact same things, then we don't grow or innovate our media or fiction or games.  Our discussions would dissolve into echo-chambers as our interests stagnate and congeal into solid, unchanging masses.  Every time someone says "wouldn't it be cool if..." to a setting or a story, they are opening up possibilities and ideas for themselves or others to try out.  Some will be good, some won't, but it's better to try something and fail than to not try at all, right?

[Envyus]

3 hours ago, AthlorianStoners said:

I don’t know that the demand for WFB to come back is that high, not too support two whole games. 

 

4 hours ago, xking said:

Not going to happen. 

I don't get why you guys are so against it. 

[Barkanaut]

I’m not against it or deny fun. I just think it’s a waste of time and money on GW part. It’s not like re-releasing an olde edition  of dnd which is just books. You have to support an entire range of models and fluff. It competes with 40k and AoS and heavily overlaps with the later.  Seems like a waste of time.  Now if GW wants to rerelease old books but makes it clear no other support is coming then that’s fine. 

 

GW is barely keeeping up production now they are so short on factories. Granted by the middle to end of this year they should be lessened with their expansions but even then lots of people want support for nearly forgotten 40k factions. Existing AoS armies will need stuff on top of new armies for both and board games.

[AGPO]

I loved the Old World, I played five editions of WFB and it is still one of my favourite RPG settings. Honestly though I think people are looking at it through rose tinted glasses, and forgetting that it was developed over decades. I remember when the Old World was in its early bare bones days and it paled in comparison to what we've got with AOS. People criticise AOS for still using models from Fantasy, but the early editions were populated with generic fantasy and historical minis designed for a wide range of game systems. It wasn't until the Realms of Chaos books in third ed that any faction got a distinct look. Many (wood elves, lizardmen, tomb kings to name a few) didn't settle on a visual hook until 6th ed, more than 25 years into Warhammer's existence.

From a narrative gamer's perspective, the mortal realms give me an option I never had in the Old World, namely to create meaningful campaigns and background for my gaming group and armies that didn't override the setting as a whole. It also gives me plausible reasons why my armies would be fighting. Whilst a large campaign featuring Ogres, Tomb Kings, Chaos and Wood Elves was hard to explain in Fantasy, these games fit much better into the Mortal Realms.

As others have pointed out, the five minutes to midnight aspect in such a small setting meant that narrative progression was almost impossible, either on a personal level or for the designers. There was also very limited potential for "your dudes" given how finite and fleshed out the Old World was. 

All of this is slightly academic though, as the main issue with the game was that WFB was just much less accessible than 40K.  With massed ranks of infantry, the costs were just prohibitively high compared to 40k. The game didn't scale especially well, making quick pick up games and vast multiplayer games awkward. Once GW changed the pricing model to make a 10 strong infantry box cost the same as a 40K squad, when you needed four boxes to make a single unit in WFB, and made core units take up 25% of your points, there was a huge financial barrier. Last but definitely not least, there was no beginner friendly good guy army to paint like Space Marines. Stormcast and Marines are very forgiving to both a new painter and gamer. Empire, High Elves or Bretonians? Not so much.

Are there still issues with the mortal realms? Hell yes! But most of them are down to the fact the system is still very young. I want more relatable ordinary humans in the setting, but outside books like city of secrets all I have is the old Empire  range. I'm sure eventually GW will do a full free peoples supplement and it'll be great. The invincible Hallmark/Mary Sue Stormcast have become shellshocked survivors, forced by their god to endure death and torturous reforging again and again to defend the realms, losing more of their sense of self and humanity each time. Likewise the realms have started to take on genuinely interesting characteristics and we've seen awesome new factions emerge which IMO match anything that existed in the Old World. Once all the older ranges have been phased out I think we'll be better placed to judge the realms from an aesthetic perspective, but to me it's promising.

Tl;dr - I loved WFB and the Old World but both had their issues. So does AOS, but we need to remember it's very young still. Most of the early issues to my mind have been addressed.

[AthlorianStoners]

4 hours ago, Envyus said:

 

I don't get why you guys are so against it. 

Yeah im not against it at all, just from what I’ve seen the demand just isn’t that high. No disrespect to people who miss the old world and more to power to you if you wanna play it.

[Menkeroth]

5 hours ago, Envyus said:

I don't get why you guys are so against it. 

We are not, and as others have already said, it's will cripple GW to support three systems at the same time with full model ranges and fluff lines, and it's not needed. WHFB books and models still exist and nothing ever can stop you from playing, reading and enjoying it. But this is it.

[Killax]

14 hours ago, Envyus said:

That was not what I was saying. 

The mismanagement came form poor rules, lack of market research, ignorance of the gaming industry.  And ignoring what their fans wanted and feedback from them.

It eventually led to poor decision in my opinion to destroy their oldest setting and relaunch it with a new setting, new models and  a rule set with the bare minimum to actually make it a game.  (combiend with other rules that many fans considered borderline insulting.) This alienated many fans. And high price of entry still made it hard for new people to enter the hobby. 

New Leadership and practices eventually became common at GW which resulted in some of the balance issues and a chunk of the issues with the age of Sigmar game being fixed. Combined with actually communicating with their customers and fans. Along with playtesting their products. Which led to a great launch for a new edition of 40k. 

Sadly this came after destroying fantasy rather then before. New GW seems to have a fairly decent head on their shoulders. (Other then the fact they still want to jack prices up on things.) Fantasy's setting is very notable right now. With Vermintide and Total War Warhammer selling millions of copies. And many fans have expressed interest in the return of the old world setting in some fashion. 

So I hope they eventually see that many people want it back. Then we just have to pity the poor people that liked the Tomb Kings in the recent game who are not aware the model line was discontinued if they get interested in the hobby. It's probably why in Total Warhammer II they stopped promoting the model line. People were very confused. And it would have been even worse with  TW Warhammer II as the leading factions were broken up. 

It's an interesting opinion but I would like to highlight a couple of things and reflect them with you.
 

Quote

The mismanagement came form poor rules, lack of market research, ignorance of the gaming industry.  And ignoring what their fans wanted and feedback from them.

If this statement would hold any truth than by your vision Age of Sigmar's succes comes from this so called 'mismanagement' whilst this 'mismanagement' has create a growth in Games Workshop sales unseen like the early 6th edition era. Subject to opinion, but most complaints about AoS are/where: 
- Age of Sigmar has poor rules.
- Age of Sigmar has no market.
- Age of Sigmar doesn't click and connect with WFB.
- Age of Sigmar ignored what their fans wanted...

The fact is, now almost 3 years later, is that again rules, marketresearch, relating to gaming industry or awnsering your current market wishes doesn't directly lead to succes. In fact certain products massively benifit from an overhaul. The sole reason for this is that every creative design has a specific lifespan also and if a compagny cannot come up with better ideas (seen in WFB 7th and 8th edition) a reboot is not a bad plan. Because the fact of the matter is that a compagny should choose what they want to design not a current fan base. Because what was realistically the case is that the WFB fanbase didn't carry the costs of the WFB line in sales. 40K started to carry WFB weight.

As someone who has enjoyed Warhammer Fantasy Battles I think the healtiest player base is actually found in Age of Sigmar. Because the advantage of a reboot like this is that we are all currently new AoS players and this removes a large part of the 'elitists with an opinion' within this hobby. This practice is still found in 40K and to be honest it's damaging the community.
To self reflect, even my opinions are only based on my experiences and more than once have caused certain posters to be offended. Whilst this never is my intend to do so the issue is absolutely caused with having some knowledge of GW's marketing, choices and general business perspective. Whilst being familiar with their history and choices. The issue with this is that if you don't have that experience my opinions of the repeated GW marketing choices might lead to some 'uncoloured' words. Better put, I can't always make this 'hobby idea' as beautiful as some want it to be. Nice and funny as Duncan and crew are, to an extend they are GW's animation team that lets you forget about GW's costly practices through humour. As a salesmen I can tell you this is also the best way to influence your customers.

The long short story of WFB's demise wasn't a narrative choice. It was made because brick and mortar stores couldn't carry WFB lines and where filled with their boxes. Whatever the direct cause was of WFB not selling I do know that the sole cause wasn't rules/fan-wishes not being up to date. Because again if models look great enough they will sell.
This too is why the AoS line has given GW some market rises again, the game could have been 4 pages of rules and if the models look great enough it will still sell. You can see this as a test but from a business perspective this is actually a very ballsy idea that put that thought to the test (models sell) and yes, this is the truth, models do not need any fancy rules or narrative to sell well. They need to look incredibly awesome. Because the core selling product is models, not narrative, not paints, not amazing rules etc.

[Killax]

On the subject of bringing WFB back. I think GW wont do that, too many things have been changed allready to go back. Now what I would really like is a WFB Rulesbook akin to a Generals Handbook (but much bigger) which could give us a taste of clashing with WFB rules whilst playing AoS models.

Things like Strenght/Toughness and WS interactions are something I do think was an awesome aspect to WFB and the removal of it in AoS makes the game faster but not always much better. At the same time I do really like how AoS detached Rend from Strenght and this is actually a massive improvement in my eyes.

The other thing I absolutely don't miss is ranked units. Because the combat simulation of AoS is much more fun and chaotic but because of that visually also much more realistic. Especially for non-spear wielding soldiers you will not stand back to let your mates be cut down in front of you.

Movement and placement of models also is of much more importance in AoS as it ever was in WFB where set up of armies basically ordered the structure of movement for a game. Things I do think would be epic to implement in AoS would be found in 8th's 40K. I am a huge fan of the Stratagem concept and way to protect smaller characters in 40K. Not to directly port them over but improve on those and use them in AoS.

In the end though history often repeats itself and as before I believe a second edition of AoS is not unlikely to occur in either 2020 or 2025. The fun consistent thing we also see is that the GH improvements to AoS are basically WFB influenced.

[Menkeroth]

You nailed it, Killax, nothing to add. 

[SeanMaguire1991]

52 minutes ago, Killax said:

I believe a second edition of AoS is not unlikely to occur in either 2020 or 2025.

God I hope we get it by 2020 because then the game will be 5 years old. 

Given how widely inconsistent the Battletomes are I hope we see something akin to 8th ed 40k  with Index/Grand Alliance books to cover the entire range. 

But that's because I yearn for a return of the traditional statline or at least the 8th ed 40k one in AoS.

[Killax]

12 minutes ago, SeanMaguire1991 said:

God I hope we get it by 2020 because then the game will be 5 years old. 

Given how widely inconsistent the Battletomes are I hope we see something akin to 8th ed 40k  with Index/Grand Alliance books to cover the entire range. 

But that's because I yearn for a return of the traditional statline or at least the 8th ed 40k one in AoS.

Well a big change would make the most sence. I was somewhat suprised with the logo change in AoS though but I think it might be an new indication of books that will be the same (roughly) in this upcomming edition. At the same time we will just have to wait and see.

What I do think is a very healthy development is that GW has been very consistent with their last 3 Battletomes to "adress shooting" and implement "deep striking" because what these three books have in common besides supporting hordes really well is adding a new dimention to the game that isn't solely two edges of armies clashing into each other. As a Khorne player you could say I'm jealous about the option to deep strike or run/charge with massive portions of the army. It will lead to the Shooing phase being a great aspect of turn 1 still but less turn 2 and 3 also.

A thing I doubt will return is the traditional statline however. From a design standpoint the Age of Sigmar statline has one massive advantage and that's the speed the rolls can be made with. This simple approach remains a very good choice when 80% of the model line will not be able to treath oppossing units from the turn they enter the game (be it turn 1 or later in the deep striking aspects). 

In addition the Age of Sigmar game is great to play once you are up to date with the Core Rules, Generals Handbook and FAQ/Errata. The only issue I have is that these are all seperate content that isn't extremely clear advertised by Games Workshop itself. So for me the biggest 2nd edition update would actually be to contain this content into one book again. I think that the Core Rules can be contained to 6-8 pages and cover the most of the relevant rules required. 

Lastly while I like the pace GW takes for 8th 40K it too comes with some downsides in designs, meaning we see a lot of things being replicated. In that aspect I prefer Age of Sigmar's approach that does it best to not do things, through Allegiance abilities for example. Who are currently all still very unique.
 

[Aegisgrimm]

Honestly if the fluff doesn't call to you, but you can stand the way the AoS rules work, there is absolutely nothing stopping you (short of a agreeable chunk of gaming partners) from using the current rules to play non-regimented games in the Old World.  

Every faction save for the Stormcast can be imagined as factions of the Old World (and Stormcast just takes some imaginative fan-fluff).  Chaos is always chaos, in it's myriad craziness.  Seraphon are lizardmen who have found a new way to project their forces from Lustria into the Old World.  Fyreslayers are just a different way to field an army of slayers, and Sylvaneth are either spirits of Lorien mobilized, or evil spirits from withing the Great Forest taken mortal forms, depending on whether you want a 'good' or 'evil' army.

Having my games set in the Old World is not determined by whether my forces are ranked up nicely or not.  Frankly, for forces like Beastmen and Orcs/Goblins, it always seemed unlikely they would ever take to the field in an organized fashion, rather than charging the enemy en-mass in a disorganized mob.

[SuperHappyTime]

12 hours ago, Lousy Beatnik said:

I find it odd that combine into three years in, on a purely AoS forum, we still have generic "I don't like the setting" threads. That's cool. That's the fun thing about nerd games like this, there are dosens (hundreds?) of other settings, miniatures and rules you can use instead if this one doesn't suit. 

Because we have a threadomancer on the loose. The OT is over a year old and since then I (OP) have actually come to like the AoS setting more and more.

A lot has to do with that we've moved beyond the Realmgate Wars. There are now places for individuals to visit, instead of just more areas for full fledged armies to go fight each other in. It was the Skirmish book I felt has done the most, establishing the ruins of Shadespire as a location of interest in the world, what it's previous importance was and now how important it is.

I like the individual battletomes, they just focus more on that faction than on the world.

[Ollie Grimwood]

20 minutes ago, SuperHappyTime said:

Because we have a threadomancer on the loose. The OT is over a year old and since then I (OP) have actually come to like the AoS setting more and more.

A lot has to do with that we've moved beyond the Realmgate Wars. There are now places for individuals to visit, instead of just more areas for full fledged armies to go fight each other in. It was the Skirmish book I felt has done the most, establishing the ruins of Shadespire as a location of interest in the world, what it's previous importance was and now how important it is.

I like the individual battletomes, they just focus more on that faction than on the world.

It’s the Dread Solstice dead stuff being raised all over the place. 

[SeanMaguire1991]

4 hours ago, Killax said:

A thing I doubt will return is the traditional statline however. From a design standpoint the Age of Sigmar statline has one massive advantage and that's the speed the rolls can be made with.

I don't buy this as the 8th Ed rules on strength vs toughness are easy to remember.

It would also be better for monsters who die a little to easy for my liking

[Killax]

19 minutes ago, SeanMaguire1991 said:

I don't buy this as the 8th Ed rules on strength vs toughness are easy to remember.

It would also be better for monsters who die a little to easy for my liking

The thing is really that I don't dissagree with that being easy to remember but I've also played that kind system for over a decade. The real question is if it's as easy to understand and pick up as AoS Warscrolls and in reality it isn't. While it adds some additional roll influencer applying it to all of Age of Sigmar's Warscrolls at this point would be a ton of work to do and not really that benificial to the system.

The real reason why 8th kept it or only slighty altered it is because it had 7 preceding editions that allready made up a clear statline. Having said that the change of it within 40K has caused to the extreme relevancy of horde like units in conjunction to how S/T 3/4 isn't much worse or better as the other.

Monsters die even faster in 40k where D6 wounds are a plenty... To the point where they are a rarity unless they have less than 10 wounds so they too benifit from the 'character protection rule'. Honestly I like 40K too but it isn't like the system or it's approach is much better as AoS. Both reward horde-play, perhaps 40K a little too much. The only real thing I'd like to see port over are Stratagems and some additional rules for the Shooting phase for AoS.

Prime reasons are:
- Most Battalions in AoS have awesome rules but are irrelevant in Matched play.
- Most armies have little to no Shooting attacks but those who do have dominated the AoS competitive scene since GH2016.

[bsharitt]

2 hours ago, Aegisgrimm said:

Honestly if the fluff doesn't call to you, but you can stand the way the AoS rules work, there is absolutely nothing stopping you (short of a agreeable chunk of gaming partners) from using the current rules to play non-regimented games in the Old World.  

Every faction save for the Stormcast can be imagined as factions of the Old World (and Stormcast just takes some imaginative fan-fluff).  Chaos is always chaos, in it's myriad craziness.  Seraphon are lizardmen who have found a new way to project their forces from Lustria into the Old World.  Fyreslayers are just a different way to field an army of slayers, and Sylvaneth are either spirits of Lorien mobilized, or evil spirits from withing the Great Forest taken mortal forms, depending on whether you want a 'good' or 'evil' army.

Having my games set in the Old World is not determined by whether my forces are ranked up nicely or not.  Frankly, for forces like Beastmen and Orcs/Goblins, it always seemed unlikely they would ever take to the field in an organized fashion, rather than charging the enemy en-mass in a disorganized mob.

Heck, if you really want to play games with AoS rules set in the old world, go find the pre-GHB2017 warscroll compendiums and play off of those without any new stuff. They're literally old world armies with AoS rules.

[Envyus]

7 hours ago, Killax said:

On the subject of bringing WFB back. I think GW wont do that, too many things have been changed allready to go back. Now what I would really like is a WFB Rulesbook akin to a Generals Handbook (but much bigger) which could give us a taste of clashing with WFB rules whilst playing AoS models.

Things like Strenght/Toughness and WS interactions are something I do think was an awesome aspect to WFB and the removal of it in AoS makes the game faster but not always much better. At the same time I do really like how AoS detached Rend from Strenght and this is actually a massive improvement in my eyes.

The other thing I absolutely don't miss is ranked units. Because the combat simulation of AoS is much more fun and chaotic but because of that visually also much more realistic. Especially for non-spear wielding soldiers you will not stand back to let your mates be cut down in front of you.

Movement and placement of models also is of much more importance in AoS as it ever was in WFB where set up of armies basically ordered the structure of movement for a game. Things I do think would be epic to implement in AoS would be found in 8th's 40K. I am a huge fan of the Stratagem concept and way to protect smaller characters in 40K. Not to directly port them over but improve on those and use them in AoS.

In the end though history often repeats itself and as before I believe a second edition of AoS is not unlikely to occur in either 2020 or 2025. The fun consistent thing we also see is that the GH improvements to AoS are basically WFB influenced.

uh you do know my original idea was for WFB to have similar to Age of Sigmar and 8th ed 40k like rules. And for the Model lines between WFB and Age of Sigmar to be compatible. 

[Menkeroth]

3 hours ago, Aegisgrimm said:

Every faction save for the Stormcast can be imagined as factions of the Old World (and Stormcast just takes some imaginative fan-fluff).  Chaos is always chaos, in it's myriad craziness.  Seraphon are lizardmen who have found a new way to project their forces from Lustria into the Old World.  Fyreslayers are just a different way to field an army of slayers, and Sylvaneth are either spirits of Lorien mobilized, or evil spirits from withing the Great Forest taken mortal forms, depending on whether you want a 'good' or 'evil' army.

 

That's not true. Almost all of the new stuff does not fit into the old world which is no surprise, actually.  And never would have.

3 hours ago, Aegisgrimm said:

Having my games set in the Old World is not determined by whether my forces are ranked up nicely or not.  Frankly, for forces like Beastmen and Orcs/Goblins, it always seemed unlikely they would ever take to the field in an organized fashion, rather than charging the enemy en-mass in a disorganized mob.

It's one of the most stupid things back then - all ranked up, even those who won't and can't fight in this fashion. Skaven, beastmen, Khorne guys, greenskinz, ogres to name a few. Only several armies looked logical in this sense.

[Envyus]

13 minutes ago, bsharitt said:

Heck, if you really want to play games with AoS rules set in the old world, go find the pre-GHB2017 warscroll compendiums and play off of those without any new stuff. They're literally old world armies with AoS rules.

I liked those. I was one of the people incredibly saddened by the removal of all the characters and all Warscrolls being substituted for something else. (Though I  wish they had not put those really stupid silly rules into them.)  

[Envyus]

16 minutes ago, Menkeroth said:

That's not true. Almost all of the new stuff does not fit into the old world which is no surprise, actually.  And never would have.

No it's totally true. Name a few of the new things that would not fit into the Old World and I will counter you.