PDA

View Full Version : Probability



kyussinchains
14-12-2006, 14:23
Picture the Scene, a unit of 30 night goblins is charged by 8 frenzied khornate knights, bodies fly everywhere, goblins are turned into red mist by the force of the blows thudding into them.... nearly half the unit has been mown down in the initial charge and the knights look like they're only just getting started.

the goblins turn to flee, but then they remember that they are unit 36 and they must hold

that's right, they rolled a double 1 for their break test, next turn, a unit of frenzied savage orc boarboys led by the warboss crashes into the flank of the knights, the knights lose the combat and flee, losing the game for the chaos player who (rather foolishly in some people's eyes) spent a good portion of his points total on his uber destructive unit of knights.

The point I'm trying to illustrate here is that I personally think that warhammer is spoiled when they add rules like craven cowardice, and the rule of 1 and 6

rules like this take the strategy out of the game and make it more about rolling dice and luck, there is nothing the chaos player in the scenario I desribed could have done to change this, his knights slaughtered the goblins, but for some stupid reason, the goblins decided to hold.

There is a rule to represent this 'fight on against all odds' mentality, it's called stubborn, stubborn troops are the ones who dont run, that's why they have the rule in the first place.

I just feel it's part of this 'everyone gets a game' business, I would hate to lose a game because some skirmishers held off my knights by passing their break test on a double 1... it wouldnt feel right.

what does everyone else think?

Selsaral
14-12-2006, 14:31
Luck does seem to rule most of my games, to my gaming group's great frustration. It seems that the average result is far more rare than probability would dictate. Now, when I game, I chant to myself 'If anything can go wrong, it will'.

Dosadi
14-12-2006, 14:54
...snip

...his knights slaughtered the goblins, but for some stupid reason, the goblins decided to hold.

...snip

I just feel it's part of this 'everyone gets a game' business, I would hate to lose a game because some skirmishers held off my knights by passing their break test on a double 1... it wouldnt feel right.

what does everyone else think?

That's just it, for some stupid reason the Goblins didn't flee. They should have, but you made that crazy roll and they held. Too me it sounds like a perfectly reasonable response from gobbos...who knows what they were thinking?

Games are won and lost sometimes because whacky things like this happen. On Tuesday night I lost a game because my Giant fell over on his third round of Jumping up and Down. All that was left in the combat was his Tomb King and he would have taken 2D6 S6 hits if I didn't roll that 1. But I did. I lost the combat and the game as a result. It was still fun, I didn't feel like I had been cheated out of a win, it was just one of those funny things that makes the game interesting. Nothing is a sure thing, nor should it be. While your opponenet may think it's a sure thing that he's gonna pummel that unit of gobbos, it didn't turn out that way.

I'd look at it this way. The Chaos Knights charged in and cause so much destruction and mayhem (chaos even?) that the Gobbos didn't know what was going on. As a result they didn't even know that it was time to get the heck outta there and stood around taking the beating. So maybe it wasn't "insane courage" but "Insane Stupidity" that kept them in the fight.

Personally, If I had been the chaos player I would have just laughed it off and shook my head. If it cost me the game then at least I'd know it wasn't my generalship that lost me the game.

Dosadi

Count de Monet
14-12-2006, 14:56
Doesn't bother me. I'd much rather see that than a diceless situation of "My unit is power 12! I beat your power 10 unit!" and so on. I'll play Stratego or something if I want to do that. ;)

Without some randomness, the game boils down to the uber units and super characters. Unexpected results happen, in real life as well as in the game. The German High Command certainly didn't expect a bunch of infantry to tie up crack divisions at Bastogne, etc.

That sort of rare outcome bothers me a lot less than what seems to be the "whatever unit charges, wins" situation most of the time. I don't mind some "Luckhammer" mixed in with the "Mathhammer" and "Measurehammer".

kyussinchains
14-12-2006, 15:04
Personally, If I had been the chaos player I would have just laughed it off and shook my head. If it cost me the game then at least I'd know it wasn't my generalship that lost me the game.


maybe, but I personally would feel a bit cheated, I lost, but it wasnt my fault

kyussinchains
14-12-2006, 15:09
Doesn't bother me. I'd much rather see that than a diceless situation of "My unit is power 12! I beat your power 10 unit!" and so on. I'll play Stratego or something if I want to do that. ;)

Without some randomness, the game boils down to the uber units and super characters. Unexpected results happen, in real life as well as in the game. The German High Command certainly didn't expect a bunch of infantry to tie up crack divisions at Bastogne, etc.

That sort of rare outcome bothers me a lot less than what seems to be the "whatever unit charges, wins" situation most of the time. I don't mind some "Luckhammer" mixed in with the "Mathhammer" and "Measurehammer".

I think the element of randomness is more realistic, but I'm saying that they keep adding more layers of randomness to the game,

you see, the randomness in my example combat came from the dice rolling, there is just as much chance that the knights fluffed a bunch of their attacks and the goblins got lucky, that I can accept, but when those events work as expected and are undone by yet another random event, it gets a bit annoying, kinda like 'why do I even try'

I means that people with inferior tactics can win combats and games through sheer luck.

I just think when you've stacked the odds so highly in your favour, it's annoying to throw it all away to something you cannot control.

it's almost like grimgor ironhide in 6th edition getting an automatic +2 CR every turn because he's 'such an awesome fighter' a fact reflected in his STATS, the outcome of the game is already decided partly on random events, and there are chances for things to happen that are unusual, but I object to adding further layers of randomness to the proceedings

just my opinion

feeder
14-12-2006, 15:11
maybe, but I personally would feel a bit cheated, I lost, but it wasnt my fault


Welcome to real life! Life is a big poop sandwich, and everyday ya gotta take another bite.

kyussinchains
14-12-2006, 15:14
Welcome to real life! Life is a big poop sandwich, and everyday ya gotta take another bite.

I play warhammer to get away from real life for a while.... not to have reality shoved in my face

Count de Monet
14-12-2006, 15:15
Also consider that multiple units are also a form of stacking the odds in your favor. By putting so much into one superpowerful unit, that is a gamble. Sometimes it will pay off big, other times one cannon shot can destroy it, or it might get outmanuevered and flank charged anyways.

But yes, when it happens it can be frustrating.

IcedCrow
14-12-2006, 15:19
There are a couple of armies that rely on dice and not tactics to win. Maybe I shouldn't say armies... rather certain army builds.

Skaven SAD is one. There are no tactics or strategies in that build, you just roll a pile of dice.

Certain Bretonnian builds also come to mind. You just point your units, send them off, and roll piles of dice.

Warhammer never claimed to be a serious simulation of battle. Otherwise a turn would last 45 minutes to an hour each in a standard 2000 point game.

kyussinchains
14-12-2006, 15:19
I just think that a 1/36 chance isnt 'rare' enough for me, with the number of Ld tests taken in a game (more so in this edition, since nothing is ever 'automatically' broken) it's quite likely to pop up in a game, hardly the 'rare' occurence they make it out to be in the description.

kyussinchains
14-12-2006, 15:26
Warhammer never claimed to be a serious simulation of battle. Otherwise a turn would last 45 minutes to an hour each in a standard 2000 point game.

I'm not expecting it to be, but it does claim to be a 'strategy battle game' I just think that the more the dice control the outcome, the less the strategy

Count de Monet
14-12-2006, 15:27
I just think that a 1/36 chance isnt 'rare' enough for me, with the number of Ld tests taken in a game (more so in this edition, since nothing is ever 'automatically' broken) it's quite likely to pop up in a game, hardly the 'rare' occurence they make it out to be in the description.

If you believe that the rare results will show up on those rolls that need a two, sure. But consider the buckets of dice tossed for everything, and the leadership checks that need say, 7 to succeed and roll a 2. If you say there's 360 Ld checks in a game, and ten of those are so desperate that they need a 2 to succeed, the odds of those ten being the ones that actually roll a 2 are pretty low.

In short, don't sweat it, continue to try to minimize the damage luck can do you, play on and have fun. :D

IcedCrow
14-12-2006, 15:30
I think as far as warhammer's concerned, the dice make up a large portion of who wins and who loses. That's just part of the game to me.

kyussinchains
14-12-2006, 15:32
If you believe that the rare results will show up on those rolls that need a two, sure. But consider the buckets of dice tossed for everything, and the leadership checks that need say, 7 to succeed and roll a 2. If you say there's 360 Ld checks in a game, and ten of those are so desperate that they need a 2 to succeed, the odds of those ten being the ones that actually roll a 2 are pretty low.

In short, don't sweat it, continue to try to minimize the damage luck can do you, play on and have fun. :D

It will affect some more than others, the undead for example rely on their fear autobreaking the enemy.

the thing with your example of Ld checks, is that each Ld test is an independent event, if 10 Ld checks in a game REQUIRE a 2 or less to pass (a not uncommon event in a game involving undead) then the odds of one of these passing is 1 in 3.6 however you look at it.

I guess I'll try to not let it bother me, but if it loses me any games, I'll be shaking my fist at a picture of Gav and Alessio ;)

I guess I'm on my own with this issue

Steel_Legion
14-12-2006, 15:45
i liked the idea in 6th ed of autobreaking a unit because you won by X but i suppose double 1 is both rare and fun, its annoying when they hold, but can make sence.. sometimes.
I do think though that only some units can or cant get it, but then things jsut get too complicated

IcedCrow
14-12-2006, 15:54
I like how the Total War engine handles morale. That being when your morale reaches 0, you flee. Many things cause your morale to climb or fall... losing battles, taking casualties, winning battles, general dying, etc...

There would be no dice rolling for morale. It would be more realistic, but less fun from a dice rolling game's stance.

Yade
14-12-2006, 15:55
I feel for you and I would, in those circumstances, feel cheated. But I would blame the dice gods not GW. War is chaotic and unpredictable. Morre importantly, it is possible to do everything right and get all the dice rolls you need and still lose.

I think your argument would be more focused if you removed the example you used and instead talked about losing to mechanics in lieu of tactics.

kyussinchains
14-12-2006, 16:05
I feel for you and I would, in those circumstances, feel cheated. But I would blame the dice gods not GW. War is chaotic and unpredictable. Morre importantly, it is possible to do everything right and get all the dice rolls you need and still lose.

I think your argument would be more focused if you removed the example you used and instead talked about losing to mechanics in lieu of tactics.

perhaps, but I just got carried away!

I would say that 90 points of goblins would be nothing more than a speedbump for a unit of frenzied knights (or most other knights!) so when they pass an 'un-passable' break test, leaving you open to flank charges and the like, it's frustrating and you're helpless to do anything, you did everything right and still lost...

IcedCrow
14-12-2006, 16:21
I often feel this way. They have a saying at our local game store that refers to me and my legendary dice rolling (just wait until you read the newest battle rep in the Watchman).

I set up everything textbook-perfect and then when it comes down to hit I'm still hitting 25% of the time when I should be hitting 50% of the time, still wounding 25% of the time when I should be wounding 67% of the time, and still failing 2/3 of my morale checks when I have a leadership of 8 or 9.

=)

Griefbringer
14-12-2006, 17:28
I'm not expecting it to be, but it does claim to be a 'strategy battle game'

I think that honour belongs to a certain other game that I do not dare to mention here. WHFB only claims to be "game of fantasy battles".

apartment42
14-12-2006, 17:41
I've thought about this myself, but recently I've decided to let it go.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket, improvise your battle plan on-the-fly, expect your plan to fail and plan accordingly ... thats what strategy is, not "I should to win this combat" mentality. That goes for every strategy game I can think of.

Also, in a game where dice are still paramount, things still boil down to luck. At its core, Warhammer is based on putting your troops in a situation where you stack the odds in your favour as best you can, and hope for the best. I've had 6 Chosen knights before do jack all ... it happens.

Although I was toying around with the idea of making the "Insane Courage" rule work a bit more like the undead and new swarm rules (inspired by the similar 40k rule), in that if they do stick around, extra wounds are done ... the "sure you can stay, but you're just going to be slaughtered" idea. We tried it in the past, but realized that Insane Courage just doesn't happen that often so there's no point adding more rules to it. We found that any moment in Warhammer that makes both sides go "AHHHH OOOHHHH!" are great moments, and the Insane Courage rule fits that bill perfectly.

=A=

inq.serge
14-12-2006, 17:45
Otherwise a turn would last 45 minutes to an hour each in a standard 2000 point game.

Bah, In one game, the first turn was more then 2 hours long (2k Empire + my 2k lizzies vs 2k Tzeentch + 2k Dwarfs) (4k = 2+ hours <=> 2k = 1+ hour).

If this rule didn't exist, then most people would use the "outnumber instead of fight" tactic (I'm looking at you "30 man skeleton unit" using undeadlings!)

enyoss
14-12-2006, 18:20
I guess I'm on my own with this issue

*All by myself... don't wanna be, all by myself... again*

Whinge, whinge, whinge... that's all we ever hear from you ;).

I don't mind it to be honest. But then again, I've not played any games with the new rules and I'm usually the one who loses.

Who are you playing against anyway :mad:? You'd better not be abandoning the six. I get back from the States in a while and I want some enthusiasm on my return... don't burn out too early :(.

Cheers,

enyoss

Festus
14-12-2006, 19:16
Hi

maybe, but I personally would feel a bit cheated, I lost, but it wasnt my fault
It was the player's fault entirely: Putting his eggs into one big basket and expecting nothing to go wrong is faulty tactics: For the same points he could have had 2 Units of 5 normal Knights each, enhancing his potential and supporting each other.

No need to whine here...

Festus

Himself76NY
14-12-2006, 19:49
I embrace probability and this could just be because I am an Orc and Goblin player but I think it reflects reality. Sometimes in real life the infantry does fight on despite being massacred and overwhelming odds. Out of shock, courage, being out of it (stupidity in game terms) you name it. I look for reality in my Wagames. Its a fantasy world but IMO the tactics should be based on as much physical reality and psychology as can be captured in the rules. Of course magic is all made up as well as many of the beasts, but as long as the rules for these purely fantasy based elements has internal consistency within the realm of warhammer I am happy.

You know whats kinda ******** though. Lizardmen have Insane Courage on 6,1,1: 5,1,1: 4,1,1: 3,1,1: 2,1,1 and 1,1,1 now. I play vs. my bros lizardmen alot and they are already hard enough to break. Sheesh. But who am I to complain my orcs just got a lot more kickass!!

gjnoronh
14-12-2006, 22:40
I like it as it adds an element of surprise and suspense to that break test your opponent is taking. A lot of clubs ran the double 1 rule prior to seventh ed this was listening to the players.

Personally it makes the game more fun - there was no question that those khorne knights were going to mow down those LD 5/6 goblins - the surprise and suspense was out of the game. Ever have someone just say I'll take those models off the table after you get a charge in - they are saying there's no surprise or hope for them - that's a pity and neither player really enjoys those moments. Giving the meak a chance against the strong makes every charge a bit more interesting.

1/36th chance - even if you get 2 charges in a agame with your chaos knights you still only have that once every 18 games (incorrect application of stats I recognize.) Even at three or four charges per game you still have to go through the equivalent of two GT's worth of games to have it happen once.

kyussinchains
15-12-2006, 09:00
Hi

It was the player's fault entirely: Putting his eggs into one big basket and expecting nothing to go wrong is faulty tactics: For the same points he could have had 2 Units of 5 normal Knights each, enhancing his potential and supporting each other.

No need to whine here...

Festus

okay forgetting the example I first stated (I was trying to make an extreme point) a unit which greatly overpowers another unit (elite troops, cavalry etc.) and does just that, pounds the other unit into the dirt, can still end up failing having performed as expected, because of blind luck.

there's already the chance the knights will fluff their attacks and the goblins will get extremely lucky and kill a knight or two, nothing is certain anyway.

Warhammer is already a game of luck, we seem to be all agreed there, but bad luck can already happen, I can accept that, but I think that the way the rules are set up means that there is already a chance for the meek to overturn the strong, it's extremely rare, which relies on both sides luck, one guy needs to be very lucky whilst another needs to be exceedingly unlucky, which is more 'real'

maybe the goblins didnt know what hit them... explain it however you like, I just would rather have a rough idea of whether I'm going to win or not, if everything goes like clockwork, you can still be scuppered

anyway, I've said enough, I'll take it like a man if it happens, and enyoss, dont worry I'm well and truly ready for your return!

Pokpoko
15-12-2006, 09:46
man, i'd love to see something like that happen on table. i play the WHB for the "story", not to prove anything, and things like said gobbos standing fast to ensure that their livestock is not raped, and their women not killed by the knights is one of the few reasons that keep me playing. i love those totally random acidents, like gobbos surviving brettonian charge, like a unit of fast cav rolling an entire flank due to some insane rolls, etc.

FatOlaf
15-12-2006, 13:03
I can see why you dont like it, the same why my friend did not like it when my 20 skaven slaves beat his 5 Chosen Knights on static Cr alone by one, without landing a blow, he then failed his break on double 6 and then rolled 3 ones on his flee, I caught him.
For him he disputed the rules etc, I loved it, what story.
Same for your Goblin general, goblin bravery is not reknowned.
I personally love the double one rule even though I play VC and it really mucks you up losing the autobreak.

kyussinchains
15-12-2006, 13:54
I can see why you dont like it, the same why my friend did not like it when my 20 skaven slaves beat his 5 Chosen Knights on static Cr alone by one, without landing a blow, he then failed his break on double 6 and then rolled 3 ones on his flee, I caught him.
For him he disputed the rules etc, I loved it, what story.
Same for your Goblin general, goblin bravery is not reknowned.
I personally love the double one rule even though I play VC and it really mucks you up losing the autobreak.

the example you cited didnt require the addition of any further rules to represent weak troops getting lucky, that's the point I'm making, the game already caters to those kinds of scenarios, why add further rules?

EvC
15-12-2006, 14:15
maybe the goblins didnt know what hit them... explain it however you like, I just would rather have a rough idea of whether I'm going to win or not, if everything goes like clockwork, you can still be scuppered

But you do have a rought idea, you know you have a roughly 97% chance of breaking those Goblins when you attack. If you assume it's 100% to begin with, then you WILL be disappointed occasionally. However, the smart player takes the loss, shakes his opponent's hand and goes back and knows that he did the right thing, but it didn't quite work. Not the end of the world.

You accept you're playing a game based on luck, so you accept that you can lose because of it. Frankly, it's comforting knowing that a block of Khorne Knights can sometimes lose. Would you seriously enjoy the game better if what had happened was, "Okay, my knights charge your massive goblin unit. They are automatically destroyed"?

kyussinchains
15-12-2006, 15:14
But you do have a rought idea, you know you have a roughly 97% chance of breaking those Goblins when you attack. If you assume it's 100% to begin with, then you WILL be disappointed occasionally. However, the smart player takes the loss, shakes his opponent's hand and goes back and knows that he did the right thing, but it didn't quite work. Not the end of the world.

You accept you're playing a game based on luck, so you accept that you can lose because of it. Frankly, it's comforting knowing that a block of Khorne Knights can sometimes lose. Would you seriously enjoy the game better if what had happened was, "Okay, my knights charge your massive goblin unit. They are automatically destroyed"?

I'm not saying that at all, I am basically saying that I thought the combat result and fleeing and everything was fine as it was and they've monkeyed with it, adding EXTRA elements of chance, above and beyond the 'bad luck' losing of combats.

I am saying that WITHOUT the new rule, there was still a chance for the goblins to win/survive the combat, however slim, why improve those chances further?

The game represented people overcoming impossible odds with the old system, if the knights get unlucky, the goblins get lucky, that's fine, that's all the chance I need.

Rikkjourd
15-12-2006, 17:47
I am saying that WITHOUT the new rule, there was still a chance for the goblins to win/survive the combat, however slim, why improve those chances further?


Is this the problem? The 1/36 chance of not running away? Get over it man, the whole game is hundreds of dice rolls and this one makes you furious...

enyoss
15-12-2006, 17:48
kyussinchains, have you actually played with the new rules yet? If so, PM or email me to let me know how it went. I'll see what I think about the new edition after a few games, but on the surface I quite like the new 'double one always passes'. It should suit you anyway, 'snakeyes **' :).

Cheers,

enyoss

EDIT: Ha! Just re-read the thread and you're being mocked left right and centre :p

Sherlocko
15-12-2006, 17:52
The only thing I don&#180;t like about this is that lizzies still get to use their cold-blooded rule. So if they have a BSB close then they have one chance in six(if I count it right) to stay and that is way to high in my opinion.

enyoss
15-12-2006, 17:56
The only thing I donīt like about this is that lizzies still get to use their cold-blooded rule. So if they have a BSB close then they have one chance in six(if I count it right) to stay and that is way to high in my opinion.

Agreed. Still, we've just got to accept that with a change of editions things like this happen; some get better like this, and some get worse, like poor Questing Knights.

Cheers,

enyoss

TKitch
15-12-2006, 18:04
well, Lizzies were 6th ed rules, so some old rules will be wierd still.

They will get a new book (eventually) so it may change.

Pokpoko
15-12-2006, 18:53
don't think so, the rule survived from 5ed and through three army lists in 6ed. it would be like taking away the 3" move from the dwarves, and the alternative is a simple and uninspiring stubborn for every unit in the army or something that stupid.

Inkosi
16-12-2006, 03:30
his knights slaughtered the goblins, but for some stupid reason, the goblins decided to hold.


Thanks for telling me about my misery lol.

It used to happen alot when i started playing khorne.

But it isnt that frequent now, cause normally i would have a marauder horse flanking in as well cause for some unknown reasons, a unit of khorne knights charging them just isnt scary enough :D

Its part of the game i have learned to accept, even though i dont really agree with it.

Oh well at least i wasnt the one who had his bloodthirster defeated by a unit of empire infantry. :D

Chicago Slim
16-12-2006, 04:20
Well put, Inkosi.

We have a relatively new motto around my local group: "The luck doesn't matter." See, a couple of us kind of got tired of whinging about getting beaten by bad luck-- it was kind of turning into a case of poor sportsmanship: "Ah, he didn't beat me fair and square, he just got lucky is all."

With some soul-searching, a couple of us came around to the idea that you can't be beaten by bad luck. You can only be beaten by your own poor planning. If you're really playing well, then you have the worst-case scenario covered already. And the fact that there's a slightly greater chance of an underpowered unit holding out against a powerful unit (let's face it, the chosen Khorne knights hitting night goblins wasn't 100% under 6th ed, either-- rubberlance happens!) doesn't really make much of a difference to that planning.

LUCK DOESN'T MATTER. Just, you know, play better. :)

FlameKnight
16-12-2006, 05:41
I <3 your name, kyussinchains

Finnigan2004
16-12-2006, 15:57
I actually like the new rule. Sure, it's annoying when insane courage works against you, but it forces people to play with a contingency plan and not to rely on one uber unit to annihilate an opponent. That said, if those greenskins took out my beloved bloodthirster, I might change my mind... Nah, I'd still like the rule and it would be kind of funny in an embarassing sort of way.

enyoss
16-12-2006, 16:03
With some soul-searching, a couple of us came around to the idea that you can't be beaten by bad luck. You can only be beaten by your own poor planning. If you're really playing well, then you have the worst-case scenario covered already.

I think his point was that, with the new 'pass all break test on double one' rule, you can be beaten by one well placed lucky role. The problem is that in previous editions you could reduce the probability of bad luck ruining a combat to an arbitrarily small quantity by, basically, getting everything stuck in. Now there is a lower bound to this probability of 1/36, meaning that after a while just throwing more units into the fray really won't do you much good at all.

As I said before, I'm not really sure how this rule will affect me yet. But I don't think the original poster's gripe was with charging a Bloodthirster into a block of Empire Infantry and expecting to win every time :).

Cheers,

enyoss

EvC
16-12-2006, 17:00
I'm not saying that at all, I am basically saying that I thought the combat result and fleeing and everything was fine as it was and they've monkeyed with it, adding EXTRA elements of chance, above and beyond the 'bad luck' losing of combats.

I am saying that WITHOUT the new rule, there was still a chance for the goblins to win/survive the combat, however slim, why improve those chances further?

The game represented people overcoming impossible odds with the old system, if the knights get unlucky, the goblins get lucky, that's fine, that's all the chance I need.

Oh the tragedy of a new rule that benefits your enemies, while you take full advantage of the fact that your Chaos Knights HORSES all take an extra and strong attack due to the updated Frenzy rules. Why don't you offer your opponents that you'll give up your frenzied steeds' additional attacks if they give up the "insane bravery" roll?

The Knights only cost what, a bargainicious 200 points anyway (And a unit of Night Goblins is worth half that)? If losing that fight loses you an entire game, then it's not your opponent's good luck that is costing you a game. You weren't beaten by one lucky roll anyway, you were beaten by your opponent having the tactical though to place a powerful unit in place to take advantage of good luck.

NB this is coming from a Vampire Counts player, who now goes from autobreaking in a combat won by one to that player now having the 1/36 chance every time. If I'm not complaining,neither should you be!