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

 kingheff wrote:

I don't think even thinness of a codex is even the issue here, but quality. I agree we pay a LOT of money for a codex, the rules should be better written and the fluff should proably be more in depth then what amounts to a 12 year old hype of the faction. sometimes the fluff in a codex can be great. but yeah when you buy a 50 dollar codex and get a cut and paste of the lore that was in the last 5 editions worth of codices, and poorly thought out rules... that is annoying. Warhammer 40k is a bit of a premium product, we outlay a decent amount of money for it... I'm cool with that, I expect that. 40k's my hobby, it's what I sink my money into once I buy all my necessities etc. but I should get premium quality for a premium price. I get that with the minis. Not sure we get that with the books.

Well, comparing the dark eldar codex to the main marine codex suggests a very big difference in both rules and fluff contents. I haven't read the Harlequins codex but I suspect they will make the dark eldar codex look thick by comparison. But the price is the same for all, that's hardly a good look.

actually IIRC the Marine codex was 10 bucks more, but yeah GW should for smaller factions discount their codeices a bit

BrianDavion wrote:

 kingheff wrote:

I don't think even thinness of a codex is even the issue here, but quality. I agree we pay a LOT of money for a codex, the rules should be better written and the fluff should proably be more in depth then what amounts to a 12 year old hype of the faction. sometimes the fluff in a codex can be great. but yeah when you buy a 50 dollar codex and get a cut and paste of the lore that was in the last 5 editions worth of codices, and poorly thought out rules... that is annoying. Warhammer 40k is a bit of a premium product, we outlay a decent amount of money for it... I'm cool with that, I expect that. 40k's my hobby, it's what I sink my money into once I buy all my necessities etc. but I should get premium quality for a premium price. I get that with the minis. Not sure we get that with the books.

Well, comparing the dark eldar codex to the main marine codex suggests a very big difference in both rules and fluff contents. I haven't read the Harlequins codex but I suspect they will make the dark eldar codex look thick by comparison. But the price is the same for all, that's hardly a good look.

actually IIRC the Marine codex was 10 bucks more, but yeah GW should for smaller factions discount their codeices a bit

I think you're right, I bought the marines codex and I think it was five pounds more but they only list the digital prices which are identical.

Both:
Codexes with fluff and photos, with all of the datasheets and special rules
and
Indexes, updated annually, grouped as before in the 5 books. Have the 2-pages per army for warlord traits, weapon tables, h stratagems sold as card packs.

I don't read any of the fluff in a codex, but the photos help with painting, and choosing schemes. I can get the photos online though, as Dakka has more variety of schemes.
I don't like that campaign books are the mechanism they chose to flesh-out a codex. I want my codexes complete on release, but I acknowledge that the players are the beta testers. Since GW refuses to allow enough to be updated before the books get printed and loaded onto ships, day-one FAQs are a thing. Reprints never happen, so (properly updated) annual indexes would be nice.

Eventually, we'd buy the codexes, and the Chapter Approved would be an index reprint of the FAQ'd and updated rules.

I put some thought into this, and assuming that books are the only way to go, I'd propose this:

Index Astartes
- Contains all loyal Space Marine Factions, including Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Death Watch and Grey Knights
- Consists of two books, one fluff and one rules only, similar to the current Chapter Approved. Reasoning behind this is the size and weight of a single book.

Index Imperium
- Contains everything else loyal to Terra: Adeptus Mechanicum, Guard, Knights, Inquisition, Sisters, Assassins
- Two books

Index Chaos
- Daemons, Knights, Chaos Legions, Renegades
- Two books

Index Aeldari
- Craftworld, Drukhari, Harlequins, Ynnari
- Two books

Index Tyranids
- Hivefleets, Genestealer Cult, full reprint of Blood Brothers datasheets
- Two books

Codex Orks
Codex Necrons
Codex Tau
- One book each. You never need Tau rules in an Ork game.

This way, you'd bringing a soup army no longer requires bringing an entire library of books.

Bunching up many armies into one book also has one major downside - updates from GW would always have to be done for all of them at once.

BrianDavion wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Where's the option for free, downloadable rules?
.

It's a useless option as GW's not going to do that and it tends to skew it as everyone likes free.

If you're only going to include horrible options because "GW won't do anything else", then this is about as useful as asking people to pick their favourite STD.

BrianDavion wrote:
it's just not reasonable to expect a codices worth of rules for one to two dozen factions to be given away for free

If near enough every other miniature company can give away their rules for free, why is it unreasonable to expect the market leader to do the same?

Merge subfactions and variants into the parent lists.

Release rules as small format softbacks.

Change codexes to be purely background. Don't churn out a new one every edition.

Prefer Indexes plus supplements

 Jidmah wrote:
I put some thought into this, and assuming that books are the only way to go, I'd propose this:

Index Astartes
- Contains all loyal Space Marine Factions, including Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Death Watch and Grey Knights
- Consists of two books, one fluff and one rules only, similar to the current Chapter Approved. Reasoning behind this is the size and weight of a single book.

Index Imperium
- Contains everything else loyal to Terra: Adeptus Mechanicum, Guard, Knights, Inquisition, Sisters, Assassins
- Two books

Index Chaos
- Daemons, Knights, Chaos Legions, Renegades
- Two books

Index Aeldari
- Craftworld, Drukhari, Harlequins, Ynnari
- Two books

Index Tyranids
- Hivefleets, Genestealer Cult, full reprint of Blood Brothers datasheets
- Two books

Codex Orks
Codex Necrons
Codex Tau
- One book each. You never need Tau rules in an Ork game.

This way, you'd bringing a soup army no longer requires bringing an entire library of books.

Bunching up many armies into one book also has one major downside - updates from GW would always have to be done for all of them at once.

This is what I would prefer. Since there are six Indicies/Codicies they could update each one once a year- while publishing a different index/codex every other month. Offsetting with GWs AOS line and specialist games. So all of the errata and other information could be compiled throughout the year and an annual update would get published.

Indices for me.

But, the Indices do lack a connection to me and need a change. My attraction to 40K and my obsession with 40 was mainly because of the miniatures.

The last codex that I bought was the 2016 Genestealer Cults, so I am going to use that Codex as an example. 'Eavy Metal on page 63 of the Codex has photographs of miniatures with captions such as the following:
- Neophyte Hybrid with heavy stubber
- Neophyte Hybrid with seismic cannon
- Neophyte Hybrid with shotgun
- Aberrant with power hammer
- Acolyte Hybrid with heavy rock cutter
- Acolyte Hybrid with heavy heavy rock saw

Every Datasheet in the next set of Indices needs the 'Eavy Metal photographs with captions of their miniatures beside them.

One faction per book, because it lets them add more lore, art, and flavor to the factions. If all you wanted literally were just the numbers attached to each unit, they could just sell access to a barebones spreadsheet that they update periodically. But 40k is about more than just the numbers.

 Melissia wrote:
One faction per book, because it lets them add more lore, art, and flavor to the factions. If all you wanted literally were just the numbers attached to each unit, they could just sell access to a barebones spreadsheet that they update periodically. But 40k is about more than just the numbers.

My personal issue with this take is that most of that art is recycled, often from 20 or even 30 years ago, I've got multiple copies of such art in both black and white and color now spread over many books. Likewise, the lore is either the exact same stuff that was in the last 7 versions of the codex, or its increasingly thin blurbs that in many cases could easily be copy-pasted between factions by changing a couple names, at least for most factions. More to the point, the writing quality in the newer stuff doesn't capture my imagination like a lot of their older stuff and feels increasingly flat or fanfic-ey, and if I'm going to pick up a codex to read just for its own sake, honestly, it's not really anything from the past couple editions.

I'd really prefer if GW's website was more of a lore portal than simply just an online store. It used to be when I first started, in fact that's a big part of what drew me in, but they dumped all of that and left it to various fansites to maintain. Having a GW maintained online lore/art source would be awesome and would be a fantastic place for a lot of that stuff.

I'll acknowledge in all fairness that some of the above points apply more to some factions than others, and a brand new player may obviously see things differently, though I'm sure many would like the option of just getting the "spreadsheet" so they can hop in and play, and leave reading the lore to their smartphone.

Some ideas here aren't terrible, again, provided we don't lose content. I'm not sure that some of these suggestions could be achieved without losing a lot, but if they could, I suppose I could get behind it.

I don't like strats being cards only to save space- cards are too easy to lose.

I want to clear something up for those of you who have stated that Codexes are incomplete because campaign books add to them. This is not actually true; codexes are "complete;" campaign books expand on many ranges so that we don't have to wait 5 years for a new codex release to get anything new.

Last but not least, as for GW being able to release stuff for free because all other miniature companies can do it:

No other company is GW and no other game is 40k. If you took every other miniatures company in the world and added them all together, I'm pretty sure GW would still squash them like a bug. Not to say that there aren't good games by other manufacturers; there are.

But they are small, and they would crumble like a house of cards if they got to even a third of the size of just 40k.

40k isn't a game; it is a culture. No other game has 6 secondary games based on it, a library of more than 150 novels, an annual magazine subscription, licensing to video games and a new animation. movie arm.

Oh, wait, there is another game like that. Age of Sigmar. Right, GW makes that one two.

Some of the money that you don't like spending on books was used to build this empire. It might be why no other game can offer what this one can.

Life was much simpler then.

I prefer codexes. But really if I could choose I'd move to AoS style books. Basic army rules are available free online but formations, subfactions, traits etc are in codexes.

PenitentJake wrote:

40k isn't a game; it is a culture. No other game has 6 secondary games based on it, a library of more than 150 novels, an annual magazine subscription, licensing to video games and a new animation. movie arm.

Oh, wait, there is another game like that. Age of Sigmar. Right, GW makes that one two.

If that's the measure we're going to judge by, GW and 40k are not alone there, just off the top of my head we can throw in Battletech, which has several variant games of similar nature to 40k's, including space battles, the Mechwarrior tabletop RPG series, aerial fighter games, tons of videogames spread over 30 years, a TV show, and a similarly triple digit sized library of books.

Well, I find codices too expensive - one or even two codices for each faction is too much.
On the other hand, the indexes at the start of the 8th ed were really helpful and enough for an addicted gamer.

PenitentJake wrote:play it almost as if it's an RPG, and I love having all those options you guys hate so much.

this is the best thing ever!

I'm one of the (currently)2 people that picked dont care either way.

I could see that indexes for competitive and a codex that would supplement the "balanced" stuff with cool rules, fluff, painting etc.

 Vaktathi wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

40k isn't a game; it is a culture. No other game has 6 secondary games based on it, a library of more than 150 novels, an annual magazine subscription, licensing to video games and a new animation. movie arm.

Oh, wait, there is another game like that. Age of Sigmar. Right, GW makes that one two.

If that's the measure we're going to judge by, GW and 40k are not alone there, just off the top of my head we can throw in Battletech, which has several variant games of similar nature to 40k's, including space battles, the Mechwarrior tabletop RPG series, aerial fighter games, tons of videogames spread over 30 years, a TV show, and a similarly triple digit sized library of books.

Yeah, I played that one too. It does come close, I'll give you that. It is also a good game, and I liked the Mech Warrior RPG too. It has the kind of deep, rich history I'm looking for in a game, and it can be immersive.

But it's still small potatoes next to GW. Google searching for current models and sellers of them is hard. The company doesn't appear to have a webstore, and no store carries the entire range. In fact, it's hard to find out how many models even exist! Also, I really don't think they come close to GW in terms of model quality, but that's a matter of scale, taste and aesthetics. I also think their current range is far, far smaller than 40k's.

They also don't appear to give their rules away for free, which was the context in which I mentioned 40k's status as an institution and a culture. If they don't give their rules away for free, that proves my original point because it's probably why they are they only other company that comes even close to GW. If they do give their rules away for free, it also proves my point because I couldn't find them in a reasonable search, meaning Battletech ISN'T an institution or a cultural phenomenon like GW. Haven't seen any Battletech tournaments with thousands of annual attendees either.

None of this is disrespect for Battletech. I haven't played since the 2000-2003, but I did enjoy the game, and probably still would. They should really do a better job of putting the product out there- I didn't even know they were still making new stuff. Which, again, proves the original point.

RE: Free rules/datasheets.

The AoS warscrolls for every unit in that game can be downloaded off the model’s page at no cost. Why can’t GW do this for the 40K models?

PenitentJake wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

40k isn't a game; it is a culture. No other game has 6 secondary games based on it, a library of more than 150 novels, an annual magazine subscription, licensing to video games and a new animation. movie arm.

Oh, wait, there is another game like that. Age of Sigmar. Right, GW makes that one two.

If that's the measure we're going to judge by, GW and 40k are not alone there, just off the top of my head we can throw in Battletech, which has several variant games of similar nature to 40k's, including space battles, the Mechwarrior tabletop RPG series, aerial fighter games, tons of videogames spread over 30 years, a TV show, and a similarly triple digit sized library of books.

Yeah, I played that one too. It does come close, I'll give you that. It is also a good game, and I liked the Mech Warrior RPG too. It has the kind of deep, rich history I'm looking for in a game, and it can be immersive.

But it's still small potatoes next to GW. Google searching for current models and sellers of them is hard. The company doesn't appear to have a webstore, and no store carries the entire range. In fact, it's hard to find out how many models even exist! Also, I really don't think they come close to GW in terms of model quality, but that's a matter of scale, taste and aesthetics. I also think their current range is far, far smaller than 40k's.

They also don't appear to give their rules away for free, which was the context in which I mentioned 40k's status as an institution and a culture. If they don't give their rules away for free, that proves my original point because it's probably why they are they only other company that comes even close to GW. If they do give their rules away for free, it also proves my point because I couldn't find them in a reasonable search, meaning Battletech ISN'T an institution or a cultural phenomenon like GW. Haven't seen any Battletech tournaments with thousands of annual attendees either.

None of this is disrespect for Battletech. I haven't played since the 2000-2003, but I did enjoy the game, and probably still would. They should really do a better job of putting the product out there- I didn't even know they were still making new stuff. Which, again, proves the original point.

Oh it's for sure not what it used to be, FASA's odd demise awkwardly killed Battletech's momentum at its peak popularity just as they were wrapping up the Clan Wars and the re-establishing the Star League (IIRC when Microsoft bought FASA's digital division after the IP got real hot, the founders basically jumped ship to go work for Microsoft to do video games instead and intentionally shut FASA down as a gaming company to just become an IP holder, and the BTech franchise has never recovered its former glory despite one of them later founding WizKids and picking the game back up later). I'll totally grant your other points, just wanted to point out that there were other franchises that saw similar kinds of success.

Racerguy180 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:play it almost as if it's an RPG, and I love having all those options you guys hate so much.

this is the best thing ever!

I'm one of the (currently)2 people that picked dont care either way.

I could see that indexes for competitive and a codex that would supplement the "balanced" stuff with cool rules, fluff, painting etc.

The RPG level detail is great in an RPG or skirmish game.

When the model count on the table is into the triple digits and we're worrying about whether a sergeant's power weapon is an axe or a sword when he's facing up against a lance of Superheavy war machines the size of 3 story buildings that aren't going to care either way, it often becomes tedious however.

EDIT: It might also be different if GW did more to support the narrative/RPG style of play, that's actually something Battletech did really well, developing campaign books that would let you get as detailed as you want, laying out battles and scenarios in some pretty solid detail, and depth in storytelling right down to managing the finances of a military operation, costs of mech repairs, raising pilot stats over battles, etc. GW's efforts largely amount to "here's a modified pickup-game scenario with some stitled objectives or random table elements, and we added some additional power bonus rules for X and Y factions!"

Ironically, the older editions (which were far more detailed and realistic as well as having better RPG elements) were good about this, because they explicitly didn't care about what type of power weapon your dudes were armed with.

GW is regressing hardcore in their game design, rather than progressing. Things should be better than 4th edition, not worse!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ironically, the older editions (which were far more detailed and realistic as well as having better RPG elements) were good about this, because they explicitly didn't care about what type of power weapon your dudes were armed with.

GW is regressing hardcore in their game design, rather than progressing. Things should be better than 4th edition, not worse!

Which edition? The oldest (RT) had indivdual rules for everything from slings, power axes and Power gloves to large walkers and Defence lasers - bit like current edition.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ironically, the older editions (which were far more detailed and realistic as well as having better RPG elements) were good about this, because they explicitly didn't care about what type of power weapon your dudes were armed with.

GW is regressing hardcore in their game design, rather than progressing. Things should be better than 4th edition, not worse!

Which edition? The oldest (RT) had indivdual rules for everything from slings, power axes and Power gloves to large walkers and Defence lasers - bit like current edition.

I was thinking 3rd, 4th, and 5th, though 4th holds up as the last edition where the game scale made sense to me. Late 4th was Apocalypse, and 5th is when the scale creep got out of control (e.g. tank squadrons in heavy support slots instead of individual tanks) and 6th is when the scale creep in both directions got EVEN WORSE (e.g. splitting out individual weapons, allowing 1v1 challenges between characters, and also the introduction of Lords of War in the normal game with that supplement. Escalation, I think it was).

Dandelion wrote:
I saw some discussion related to this, and I was wondering what other people think about GW's rules layout.

As for me, I've found that I much prefer the compact nature of the 8th ed indexes despite GW's decision to eventually get rid of them. As it stands now, I feel that GW is spreading rules out way too much and making it harder to fully play the game without a handful of rulebooks.

For example, I like to play some guard with knights and assassins. When 8th dropped all of that was in one book. Now? 2 codexes and a white dwarf/chapter approved. All that fundamentally changed was added faction traits, strats and relics (about 1 page for the traits, 3 pages for strats, and 1 page for relics) which could have easily fit into the indexes. Admittedly, a lot of lore was added, but as a rules source it became overly cumbersome imo.

Another issue is that GW seems reluctant to make a codex for inquisition/imperial agents. Which on the one hand makes sense since the inquisition is meant to be incorporated into actual armies, but on the other hand we already had their rules packed with most of the armies they would be used with anyway. It just feels like a major step backwards. Same goes for assassins, and at this point the sisters of silence too.

Plus they were cheaper too

GW will never stop selling you codex books. The only solution would be a fan based take on 40K like it was done with 9th Age.

how much smaller were games in 3ed or 4th edition?

PenitentJake wrote:

But it's still small potatoes next to GW. Google searching for current models and sellers of them is hard. The company doesn't appear to have a webstore, and no store carries the entire range. In fact, it's hard to find out how many models even exist! Also, I really don't think they come close to GW in terms of model quality, but that's a matter of scale, taste and aesthetics. I also think their current range is far, far smaller than 40k's.

They also don't appear to give their rules away for free, which was the context in which I mentioned 40k's status as an institution and a culture. If they don't give their rules away for free, that proves my original point because it's probably why they are they only other company that comes even close to GW. If they do give their rules away for free, it also proves my point because I couldn't find them in a reasonable search, meaning Battletech ISN'T an institution or a cultural phenomenon like GW. Haven't seen any Battletech tournaments with thousands of annual attendees either.

Google search is tricky here as the PC Games are now more popular and new ones were recently released
And those are still more famous than any 40k PC Game and younger people will likely know the PC stuff only

big tournaments are not a thing any more, same as FLGS presence but because of the boardgame nature, online campaigns are a thing

going for Battletech Tabletop one of the first results that is not some kind of Wiki brings you to the Catalyst Games website who own it for now (also including an online shop)
https://www.catalystgamelabs.com/battletech/

with free Quickstarter Rules for the Tabletop, Boardgame and RPG
https://bg.battletech.com/new-to-the-board-game/

PenitentJake wrote:

None of this is disrespect for Battletech. I haven't played since the 2000-2003, but I did enjoy the game, and probably still would. They should really do a better job of putting the product out there- I didn't even know they were still making new stuff. Which, again, proves the original point.

there was a Kickstarter for a new Starter Box and to get new models done, asking for 30.000$ and ended with 2.5 million
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/450703636/battletech-clan-invasion?lang=en


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
how much smaller were games in 3ed or 4th edition?

and the usual game size was 1500-1750 points

@vaktahi - yeah, it's true; micromanagement doesn't work as well at the company level as it does at the skirmish level.

But for the edit point, about supporting the rpg part, my point is that having all those dexes, factions and campaign books IS THE THING that GW does to support roleplaying.

Let me give you an example: one of the most valuable parts of the sisters dex, for me, was the two page spread detailing the organizational structure of the sisters. I now only refer to my mission-level cannonesses as Cannonesses. If they oversee a Commandery, they are a Cannoness Comander; if they oversee a Preceptory, they are a Cannoness Preceptor, etc.

Now, there are no rules to differentiate between those three ranks you say. But wait! There are.

Want to field a Cannoness Commander who feels senior to a regular cannoness? Well, for starters, you already know which one gets the Warlord Trait and the Relic. But beyond that, you could also dig out Chapter Approved 2018 and give the Cannonness Commander a battle honour. In Kill Team, it's built right into the selection process- there are three levels of Cannoness available; they don't attach the titles to those three levels, but it's pretty much built for it.

What they did to help me play role play Eldar was keep CWE in a different book than DE and Harlies. That's why The Cult of Strife and the Cult of the Red Grief don't feel the same on the battlefield. Try cramming those 3 books into one and see how many unique Cults, Kabals and Covens can continue to exist.

This IS the thing that supports roleplaying. And those who want to change it/ streamline it/ consolidate it are not the people who prioritize the role playing and storytelling components of the game; this is why they don't care if GW has to sacrifice all that detail, as long as it means fewer books to buy/ carry and a more balanced, competitive game.

I like sand boxes, and that holds true of any format of game. I prefer wide open worlds in video games as opposed to tight shooters with mission after mission after mission that provide no sense of the gameworld beyond those missions.

I prefer card games with multiple, concurrent sets, so that no two decks are ever the same. Heck, I used to play both Rage and Vampire the Eternal Struggle, and yeah, you guessed it, I found a way to combine the games so that I could grow the world.

The World of Darkness RPG's were the best thing ever- five games that used the same core mechanics, all connected in the fluff and each one with it's own legion of supplements. You could play any one of the five games and go super, super deep. Or you could combine any number of the games, which usually meant you could go shallower on each game's supplemental rules.

But many of us didn't. Many of us combined ALL of the games and used ALL of the supplemental rules. And then they made the mistake that GW has already made seven times; they hit a reset button, invalidated their library.

Look at D&D. The 3.5 open game was awesome because there was So. Much. Content.

5th ed is weak by comparison, because there is not.

I've been playing RPG's 39 years (played my first AD&D in grade 3!); Rogue Trader was my first tabletop back in 89- so only 31 years there. Started Vampire the Eternal Struggle (NE: Jyhad) in 92 I think? So 28 years of CCGs. LARP's didn't start until 96 I think.

The sheer number of games of all three types I've played in my life is staggering. Like, ever play the table top Fairy Meat? I have. How about the Masterbook games, like Tank Girl? Yup. That too.

Heck, I met my wife of 22 years at a gaming convention!

My point is that for some of you, this is a build an army per year, participate in 3-5 tournaments with it, as well as a handful of prep games leading up to each of those main events. Some of you are weekend warriors, who want to have an army that is finished and you want to be able to find opponents among strangers as often as you can, and then walk away from the table and not think about it until next game.

And for you guys, yeah, I concede that GW's current design philosophy will not optimize that experience for you. I'm genuinely sorry about that, because you all deserve a game that makes you happy.

But for lifers like me, people who spend more time in imaginative headspace than practical headspace, I want all of it. ALL OF IT. Because all of it is tool that supports roleplaying and the development of custom missions and campaigns.

and the usual game size was 1500-1750 points

how much was it in models? 100 plus like now, or less?

Karol wrote:

and the usual game size was 1500-1750 points

how much was it in models? 100 plus like now, or less?

see the picture, a pure mass-army could go up from 70-100 models, standard were 40-50 models and elite lists were 20-30 models at 1750 points

 kodos wrote:

Karol wrote:

and the usual game size was 1500-1750 points

how much was it in models? 100 plus like now, or less?

see the picture, a pure mass-army could go up from 70-100 models, standard were 40-50 models and elite lists were 20-30 models at 1750 points

I see a small white square with a zigg zag line going through it, and no picture. So thank you for explaining . I think I would have liked it better, then this edition.