Ye Olde Inn

Hi there,

probably many of you know that playing HQ can result in quite repetitive gameplay over time, e.g., with crossbows dominating the field and weak sorcery that makes playing the wizard as an only character not very much fun. These experiences were my main motivation behind making some improvements to the HQ ruleset, especially since the new official HQ reprint missed the chance to do a general overhaul of the rules.

Here I’d like to share with you my own set of HQ rules, which result in a quite different gameplay. The set of changed rules was playtested and also some calculus was used for balancing some things. Although one may pick individual changes as house rules for the original HQ, the entire set of rules is quite coherent and probably works best in this constellation. Here is the introductory abstract:

„These reworked HQ rules yield a more vigorous and more interesting course of combat, as the melee weapons and, especially, the sorcery of the heroes are strengthened. The various types of monsters gain more individual character traits: goblins are annoying, fimirs and mumies are due appropriate awe, and gargoyles are simply powerful. The difficulty level is somewhat enhanced, yet it should be appropriate for the adventures of the base game (including the new or the US version), Kellar's Keep, and Return of the Witch Lord. Heroes gather experience and improve their abilities over time. The slenderness and simplicity of the HQ rules are overall preserved. Additional optional rules may be used as preferred. THQ works both with the old and the new print of HQ. Have fun!“

All files now exist both in German and English versions, and additional stuff will likely appear in the future, depending on my spare time. So far, it is mostly in text form, as I am not very much skilled in editing graphics etc.

I am curious to read over time if and how you like this creation, in case somebody wants to try it out. I chose the name Tactical HQ because of how it eventually plays out on the board. That direction of development was not my original intention, it simply came out this way, and I actually found it quite interesting and appealing, thus my efforts to write everything down properly.

Now here is the link to THQ:
https://c.gmx.net/@682163002236999943/3 ... uOINT4NgSQ

Lastly, also thanks to Marcus for playtesting and useful comments.

There is certainly an impressive amount to digest here, but I would find it helpful, when people share such documents (in general, not just you!) for them to follow up with a single post explaining the what, why and how of ONE of the more significant changes and then allowing people to read, question, process and digest and feedback on that change, before moving onto another post on the next ONE significant change and so on as otherwise my tiny mind is blown by too much to handle at once.

For example, if I pick just one significant change (it may not be the most significant, but it just happens to be one that jumped out for me on the first page) of both Heroes and Monsters defending with White Shields. In my house rules, HeroQuest Gold edition, I also use for defence for all, but during play testing I found that this change alone, led to certain monsters, those with higher DD and BP, like Chaos/Dread Warriors and Gargoyles, becoming very difficult to put down and as they have the capability to deal significant damage, this becomes a problem. I resolved his problem by using the both as a “special face” in a similar way that you have, I think AND as an extra in standard close combat (I don’t like the term “melee” but that!) which helped balance out this problem as well as letting monsters in general dish out a little more damage when/if they got the chance.

At first glance I don’t see anything in your ruleset that counterbalances this introduced imbalance unless it is the “only one defence” change, which may work in the specific context of Chaos/Dread Warriors and Gargoyles, but it is the wider effects of that change that concern me, it makes the advantage of numbers even more significant and as they are generally, but not always, in the favour of the monsters, this change will make the door blocking tactic an even more widely used technique, practically essential in many situations and the excess use of the door blocking technique is already considered undesirable in the base version of game as it leaves a number of players twiddling their thumbs for long periods…

There are a couple of links below, that you may have already read but if you haven’t they might be worth a look:
Monster's defend dice
Houserule: Push Back

I'd also be interested in which base edition you are applying your rule changes to First Edition, Second Edition, North American or HQ2021, but I'm assuming from your Forum Language and choice of Morcar that it is probably the European Second Edition?

Yes, this is a lot to digest, and I assume only few people will read all this in-depth. I am certainly happy to answer questions and criticism that arise. It is also natural that some of the ideas in here must have been had also by other people during the 30+ years that the game is out. I have been a HQ fan for a very long time, but this is the first time I am active in such a forum.

Thanks for mentioning the links. Push back seems also an interesting mechanic I'll look into.

Now, I fully agree with your point that upgrading the monster defence from black to white shields is a signifigant change in difficulty. This was the main reason why I mentioned a slight difficulty increase in the intro text. Maybe some people actually like to have a higher difficulty. There is no exact compensation for this here, but there is some:

If we assume that monsters roll 3 defence dice on average, this change effectively gives them extra protection from 1/2 point of damage. To compensate this, we would require that all hero attacks gain 1 additional die. Therefore, the THQ barbarian has now regular access to weapons with 5 dice, which is 1 die more than the battleaxe (the strongest original weapon). Also the combat spells have got a lot stronger than they were before. The regular attack capabilities of the other heroes remain largely unchanged, though.

But in addition, you also recognised that every figure now only gets 2 chances of damage reduction in melee combat (1 defence, 1 evasion) per turn. This means that damage from any 3rd or 4th melee attack on a monster will get through. The heroes have plenty of choices to equip themselves with diagonal and reach weapons to achieve such attacks. On the other hand, the same rule also acts against the heroes. That was the reason why only very few standard monsters (the fimirs/abominations) were granted diagonal attacks in this set of rules.

Actually, I see the different versions of HQ still as one. I work mostly with the older German sets + original BQ and EQ. Apart from this, the THQ monster stats are closer to those from the US version/the new print.

MonsterMotor wrote:Actually, I see the different versions of HQ still as one. I work mostly with the older German sets + original BQ and EQ. Apart from this, the THQ monster stats are closer to those from the US version/the new print.

This is interesting, as I see the NA/HQ2021 version as distinctly different from the earlier European version (and the Japanese version is a third version) in many aspects I think the changes introduced in the NA version significantly change the game* but I acknowledge that different viewpoints have their own value.

*Just one example of this, and there are many, is that the enforced "sharing of treasure", everyone getting a go at searching for treasure, no conflict allowed between heroes approach largely removes the competitive element from the semi-cooperative approach of the earlier versions, and that competitive or selfish element is the way that HQ combats the "alpha player" problem where a single more experienced (or just bossy) player dominates the other hero players and the game becomes less of a four players versus the dungeon and more of a one player indirectly controlling four heroes... versus the dungeon. Changes in the NA version remove all protection from the "alpha player" problem and by doing so the make the game more suited to a 2 player than a real 5 player game (although probably not intentionally).

MonsterMotor wrote:Now, I fully agree with your point that upgrading the monster defence from black to white shields is a signifigant change in difficulty. This was the main reason why I mentioned a slight difficulty increase in the intro text. Maybe some people actually like to have a higher difficulty. There is no exact compensation for this here, but there is some:

If we assume that monsters roll 3 defence dice on average, this change effectively gives them extra protection from 1/2 point of damage. To compensate this, we would require that all hero attacks gain 1 additional die. Therefore, the THQ barbarian has now regular access to weapons with 5 dice, which is 1 die more than the battleaxe (the strongest original weapon). Also the combat spells have got a lot stronger than they were before. The regular attack capabilities of the other heroes remain largely unchanged, though.

That aside, I want to be clear where I believe the issue lies in this part of your ruleset.
1) I have no issue with all defending on , my own version of the rules does exactly that.
2) I have no issue with this making the game slightly harder across the board, in fact I think that is an improvement
3) However I think that this approach creates an issue specifically related to high DD, high BP monsters (this issue is not apparent when looking at averages as it doesn't come into play at any point on average, only it situations specific to these monsters). I have compensated for this in my ruleset by adding an extra in the form of a in combat, you have compensated by providing weapons with higher number of AD. I consider these two fixes to be broadly equivalent (I considered both options myself and only went with the solution that I did, in the end, because I felt that changing the dice facing was a smaller change than reworking the equipment) which is fine, although I would be cautious under your system that the party doesn't get over-reliant on the Barbarian's access to higher level weapons being the only way of resolving these situations, as that would make the team's success or failure down to one hero (and the Wizard's spells but they are limited in terms of their number of uses).

The issue that I see in your ruleset in this area is specifically around the defence once (or defend once evade once), I'll refer to this as "limited defence" change

MonsterMotor wrote:But in addition, you also recognised that every figure now only gets 2 chances of damage reduction in melee combat (1 defence, 1 evasion) per turn. This means that damage from any 3rd or 4th melee attack on a monster will get through. The heroes have plenty of choices to equip themselves with diagonal and reach weapons to achieve such attacks. On the other hand, the same rule also acts against the heroes. That was the reason why only very few standard monsters (the fimirs/abominations) were granted diagonal attacks in this set of rules.

The "door blocking" tactic is often cited as an example of an emergent property of the rules that creates a poor in-game experience. To be clear door blocking is and should remain a viable tactic in certain situations, but in the basic game rules, it rapidly becomes THE tactical choice in most situations. This combined with the poor experience of Barbarian plugging the gap and slugging away at a group of monsters one by one as they step into the gap, creates a situation where only one hero player and one monster are engaged for potentially a lengthy period, repeatedly. Many players acknowledge this as an issue and suggestion like the push back rules, or increasing the number of monsters with diagonal or missile attack weapons and similar ideas, are all intended to REDUCE the effectiveness of door blocking, so whilst it may well still be the best option in certain situations, it does NOT become THE go-to tactic is the majority of situations.

I feel that you "limited defence" change, significantly increases importance of enemy numbers, and therefore significantly increases the number of situations where door blocking is the best tactic which drives behaviour towards more door blocking rather than less which I think is moving in the wrong direction.

Thanks for your comments, I see you have also thought about similar things probably for a long time. Sure, if one changes a rule, this changes the difficulty, and there is no way to rebalance everything exactly, especially when one does not aim to introduce more complexity into the game.

Bareheaded Warrior wrote:

MonsterMotor wrote:The "door blocking" tactic is often cited as an example of an emergent property of the rules that creates a poor in-game experience. To be clear door blocking is and should remain a viable tactic in certain situations, but in the basic game rules, it rapidly becomes THE tactical choice in most situations. This combined with the poor experience of Barbarian plugging the gap and slugging away at a group of monsters one by one as they step into the gap, creates a situation where only one hero player and one monster are engaged for potentially a lengthy period, repeatedly. Many players acknowledge this as an issue and suggestion like the push back rules, or increasing the number of monsters with diagonal or missile attack weapons and similar ideas, are all intended to REDUCE the effectiveness of door blocking, so whilst it may well still be the best option in certain situations, it does NOT become THE go-to tactic is the majority of situations.

I feel that you "limited defence" change, significantly increases importance of enemy numbers, and therefore significantly increases the number of situations where door blocking is the best tactic which drives behaviour towards more door blocking rather than less which I think is moving in the wrong direction.

Ok, I see your point. Yes, the heroes will still want to use bottlenecks for their advantage. However, the hero blocking the door will also want to perform his evasion, so he can't always stay put on the space in front of a door. Otherwise, he can only defend one attack and may have to take a lot of undefendable damage. If a hero gives up such a critical spot, this can open an entry route for the monsters. And, yes, they can then become dangerous in larger numbers.

If you try out the THQ in practice, you will see how dynamically the positioning of heroes and monsters can change, as figures move back and forth, and this can play out very differently for various situations. During playtesting, combats inside rooms, at doors, in 1 space wide corridors, and in 2 space wide corridors each played out very differently, also depending on the equipment of the heroes and the type of monsters. All this is not really obvious from reading the rules alone, so I encourage you to give it a try on the board if this alternative ruleset has really awakened your interest.

I'm not sure where that second attack that the hero would need to evade would come from in the door blocking scenario, as the first monster to move and attack the hero (attack 1) would block any further monsters from moving into the same square to attack the hero again. Granted on subsequent turns with careful placing the EWP might be able to roll off the first monster after attacking once and replace with a second monster for a second attack, but that would only work if the first monster survived the heroes attack, potentially 1-3 heroes attacks if positioning and diagonal attack weapons are in play.

Anyway, moving onto the next point of feedback...

Name and Label Changes

Rule changes – dexterity and movement: Main attributes: These are body (BD), mind (MN), and dexterity (DX). „New“ attribute dexterity: This determines the movement points (MV = DX points modified by carried equipment, but cannot exceed the hero's start-DX plus 2) as well as the evasion value (EV). Encumbering load: Carried equipment may reduce the MV points. This occurs independently from whether the equipment is in use or just carried in the backpack.

There is a lot of changes in a short space here that if I break it down cover
a) terms of attribute or characteristic names/labels
b) fixed movement for heroes
c) movement penalties based on equipment
d) evade rules

So I’ll try and decompose these and cover each one separately starting with name/label changes for attributes and characteristics. It might also be worth reworking this section of your text as it is a very dense area of changes that are hard to absorb when presented together and might benefit with being broken down and presented separately.

Base HQ, we have the following values followed by their common but not necessarily official abbreviations

Movement Squares [MS or move] or Dice, Attack Dice, Defend Dice, Mind Points, Body Points so if I’m reading this correctly this is in part a relabelling exercise;

• Body Points [BP] now using [BD]
• Mind Points [MP] now using [MN]
• Attack Dice [AD] now using [AT]*
• Defend Dice [DD] now using [DF]*
• Movement Squares [MS or just move] for Movement Squares but this is now replaced with Dexterity [DX]

Where the changes are cosmetic only, I would question the value of deviating from convention here, as it adds another difference between your rules and the common rules or conventions that doesn’t really add any value.

*These two you don’t mention in this section but mention later in the document, which makes sense in the context of heroes as these values are driven by their equipment rather than themselves, but makes less sense in the context of monsters where the values and equipment are fixed, so it might be worth covering them all in the same section, just a thought.

The change from Movement Squares to Dexterity appears to be more than just cosmetic, however I still think that the name change isn’t required, it doesn’t really add any value but moves away from the familiar, and in the document even after the stated movement squares is now Dexterity [DX] you still often refer to MV throughout the rest of the document. Also Dexterity means ability to manipulate things with your hands so equating that to movement doesn’t make sense. In my own version the movement value is really more of an initiative value than a movement value (and that could be argued for the original) but I decided not to change the label as might be more accurate or precise but it is yet another difference for no material benefit.

Bareheaded Warrior wrote:I'm not sure where that second attack that the hero would need to evade would come from in the door blocking scenario, as the first monster to move and attack the hero (attack 1) would block any further monsters from moving into the same square to attack the hero again. Granted on subsequent turns with careful placing the EWP might be able to roll off the first monster after attacking once and replace with a second monster for a second attack, but that would only work if the first monster survived the heroes attack, potentially 1-3 heroes attacks if positioning and diagonal attack weapons are in play.

Yes, that is a possibilty. Now, the door blocking scenario is something that will always be present in HQ to some extent. These spots are natural bottlenecks and will be used by all figures to their advantage. Using the THQ rules will not eliminate this circumstance but changes how it can play out.

Apart from the direct melee combat, there are also other changes of relevance for door blocking tactics. One is the removal of traps behing doors and that monsters must not enter squares with traps. If a monster now approaches a door, the heroes know that there is a safe passage, so they are not scared to enter the room when the right moment comes. Furthermore, since ranged weapons are a little weaker now, they do not snipe the monsters in the room ahead so easily.

Bareheaded Warrior wrote:Anyway, moving onto the next point of feedback...

Name and Label Changes

Rule changes – dexterity and movement: Main attributes: These are body (BD), mind (MN), and dexterity (DX). „New“ attribute dexterity: This determines the movement points (MV = DX points modified by carried equipment, but cannot exceed the hero's start-DX plus 2) as well as the evasion value (EV). Encumbering load: Carried equipment may reduce the MV points. This occurs independently from whether the equipment is in use or just carried in the backpack.

There is a lot of changes in a short space here that if I break it down cover
a) terms of attribute or characteristic names/labels
b) fixed movement for heroes
c) movement penalties based on equipment
d) evade rules

So I’ll try and decompose these and cover each one separately starting with name/label changes for attributes and characteristics. It might also be worth reworking this section of your text as it is a very dense area of changes that are hard to absorb when presented together and might benefit with being broken down and presented separately.

Ok, we can do this, but many of these things interact with each other. I agree that some text passages are brief and can be extended for easier comprehensibility.

Bareheaded Warrior wrote:Base HQ, we have the following values followed by their common but not necessarily official abbreviations

Movement Squares [MS or move] or Dice, Attack Dice, Defend Dice, Mind Points, Body Points so if I’m reading this correctly this is in part a relabelling exercise;

• Body Points [BP] now using [BD]
• Mind Points [MP] now using [MN]
• Attack Dice [AD] now using [AT]*
• Defend Dice [DD] now using [DF]*
• Movement Squares [MS or just move] for Movement Squares but this is now replaced with Dexterity [DX]

Where the changes are cosmetic only, I would question the value of deviating from convention here, as it adds another difference between your rules and the common rules or conventions that doesn’t really add any value.

*These two you don’t mention in this section but mention later in the document, which makes sense in the context of heroes as these values are driven by their equipment rather than themselves, but makes less sense in the context of monsters where the values and equipment are fixed, so it might be worth covering them all in the same section, just a thought.

The change from Movement Squares to Dexterity appears to be more than just cosmetic, however I still think that the name change isn’t required, it doesn’t really add any value but moves away from the familiar, and in the document even after the stated movement squares is now Dexterity [DX] you still often refer to MV throughout the rest of the document. Also Dexterity means ability to manipulate things with your hands so equating that to movement doesn’t make sense. In my own version the movement value is really more of an initiative value than a movement value (and that could be argued for the original) but I decided not to change the label as might be more accurate or precise but it is yet another difference for no material benefit.

I was not aware of any official abbreviations for the stats, nor of a universal convention used by others. You can relabel all the abbreviations as you prefer. Using different inofficial abbreviations than other people is not a change.

Dexterity might not be the best term for what this attribute corresponds to in the game mechanics. It was just a standard idea borrowed from general fantasy RPGs, nothing special, given that "body" is a fairly general word for what it specifically does in HQ, too.

Yes, on the game board, only the movement speed matters, so I found it sufficient to leave out the underlying dexterity value for the monster stats because their equipment does not change (usually).

While "using different [unofficial] abbreviations than other people" my not be a change, per se, since you are now publishing this for the larger HeroQuest community you may want to align terminology with what the standard has been in that community for the ease of prospective readers.
As for the rules themselves, I'm out at the "5 seconds after the attack die is cast" part of the rules. I can understand the desire to have a rule like that and I don't assume any malice on your part in putting it in, but I'm not going to use a ruleset that includes a mechanic which is ultimately punitive to those who need more time to think.
I find it funny that to avoid retirement you have to stay at 29 total points. This also gives the Dwarf and the Knight an extra level-up before enforced retirement due to starting with only 17 points instead of 18.

MonsterMotor wrote:Now, the door blocking scenario is something that will always be present in HQ to some extent. These spots are natural bottlenecks and will be used by all figures to their advantage. Using the THQ rules will not eliminate this circumstance but changes how it can play out.

Agreed, the door blocking technique will and should always be present, we are just differing on how to handle it. My version, with increased diagonal and missile weapons for monsters (for example all Goblins are armed with Spears as standard, Skeletons scythes allow diagonal attacks, Goblins armed with short bows are more common than in the original and so on) largely rebalances the contest where door blocking is involved and the push back rules mean that a defender blocking a door may well be pushed back by or positions exchanged with the attacker even on the first attack.

MonsterMotor wrote:Apart from the direct melee combat, there are also other changes of relevance for door blocking tactics. One is the removal of traps behind doors and that monsters must not enter squares with traps. If a monster now approaches a door, the heroes know that there is a safe passage, so they are not scared to enter the room when the right moment comes. Furthermore, since ranged weapons are a little weaker now, they do not snipe the monsters in the room ahead so easily.

Whilst I understand the logic of banning traps behind doors (although I'm not sure how it relates to door blocking), to avoid a situation where the rules as written don't really work, this feels artificial or contrived to me, so I have changed the rules so that handling of traps works whether they are behind doors or anywhere else, but that aside, preventing monsters from moving onto or through trapped squares feels problematic to me. If you have a passage containing a hidden trap, this would prevent monsters from closing with the heroes, it would reveal the hidden trap to the heroes and would leave them with the non-ideal choice of either an indefinite stalemate, with monsters being unable to engage the heroes, and heroes being unwilling to engage the monsters on the other side of the trap as doing so would put them at a serious disadvantage.

Also you mention missile weapons being deliberately weakened and in your first post you mention "crossbows dominating the field" but the First Edition of HQ has a principle of "Equipment Cards limiting availability" repeated and explicit mentions of needing to be holding the Equipment Card, not being able to purchase Equipment without the Card being available, taking the physical card, and the presence of duplicate cards in the deck, shield and helmet and so on mean that only 1 crossbow is available (and this same principle in retained in the Japanese edition). The Second Edition (and the subsequent Character Sheet from the Adventure Design Kit) seemed to muddy the water by removing the duplicate cards, providing space on the Character Sheet to record the details from the Equipment Card, but stopped short of getting rid of Equipment Cards or from changing the text suggesting you needed to be holding them. It was never clear in the Second Edition whether cards were supposed to limit equipment or not, some parts of the game suggested that they were, other parts suggested that they weren't. This tended to mean that players who started with First Edition, continued with that principle, those that started with Second Edition were mixed. North American edition resolved this by scrapping Equipment Cards entirely, which was more clear, but caused a load of issues around handling excess equipment, storage, carrying capacity, carrying limits, movement penalties, dominance of crossbows that were never addressed.

The history aside, First Edition and arguably Second Edition (and Japanese Edition) use this mechanism to prevent Crossbows from dominating the field, and I think this is worth considering and potentially restoring or retaining, as it also has additional benefits of reducing equipment build up, which in turn reduces the need for complicated rules around carrying capacity and movement penalties based on volumes of equipment and other benefits (that can be extended to eradicate the character sheet entirely as I have done and made my version HQ Gold to be card and tokens based, no in-game scribbling required). Food for thought, I hope.

Bareheaded Warrior wrote:My version, with increased diagonal and missile weapons for monsters (for example all Goblins are armed with Spears as standard, Skeletons scythes allow diagonal attacks, Goblins armed with short bows are more common than in the original and so on) largely rebalances the contest where door blocking is involved and the push back rules mean that a defender blocking a door may well be pushed back by or positions exchanged with the attacker even on the first attack.

Deploying monsters with diagonal attacks is actually more a matter of quest design than one of the set of rules. Since diagonal attacks are much more dangerous in THQ than in the normal rules, I was very cautious with that. But I am considering giving a diagonal attack to a white monster species also in my rules, so each colour set of monsters then has one species capable of performing such attacks. This would certainly fit best for the skeletons because they are wielding a scythe, agreed. But, such an upgrade will then require the heroes to act tactically very accurately in some scenarios in Return of the Witch Lord. Otherwise, they will perish very quickly.

Bareheaded Warrior wrote:Whilst I understand the logic of banning traps behind doors (although I'm not sure how it relates to door blocking), to avoid a situation where the rules as written don't really work, this feels artificial or contrived to me, so I have changed the rules so that handling of traps works whether they are behind doors or anywhere else, but that aside, preventing monsters from moving onto or through trapped squares feels problematic to me. If you have a passage containing a hidden trap, this would prevent monsters from closing with the heroes, it would reveal the hidden trap to the heroes and would leave them with the non-ideal choice of either an indefinite stalemate, with monsters being unable to engage the heroes, and heroes being unwilling to engage the monsters on the other side of the trap as doing so would put them at a serious disadvantage.

Yes, but again a matter of quest design only. I find it very natural when monsters leave a safe path for themselves to walk around in their homes. If you look through the quests of the base game, you'll notice that all the traps are placed in a certain manner there.

Bareheaded Warrior wrote:Also you mention missile weapons being deliberately weakened and in your first post you mention "crossbows dominating the field" but the First Edition of HQ has a principle of "Equipment Cards limiting availability" repeated and explicit mentions of needing to be holding the Equipment Card, not being able to purchase Equipment without the Card being available, taking the physical card, and the presence of duplicate cards in the deck, shield and helmet and so on mean that only 1 crossbow is available (and this same principle in retained in the Japanese edition). The Second Edition (and the subsequent Character Sheet from the Adventure Design Kit) seemed to muddy the water by removing the duplicate cards, providing space on the Character Sheet to record the details from the Equipment Card, but stopped short of getting rid of Equipment Cards or from changing the text suggesting you needed to be holding them. It was never clear in the Second Edition whether cards were supposed to limit equipment or not, some parts of the game suggested that they were, other parts suggested that they weren't. This tended to mean that players who started with First Edition, continued with that principle, those that started with Second Edition were mixed. North American edition resolved this by scrapping Equipment Cards entirely, which was more clear, but caused a load of issues around handling excess equipment, storage, carrying capacity, carrying limits, movement penalties, dominance of crossbows that were never addressed.

Sure, you can obey such card limits. Thematically, I find it quite laughable that there should be only 1 crossbow, 1 battleaxe, etc. available for purchase for the great heroes on whom the whole world depends to save them. I don't know anybody who seriously plays with these equipment limits.