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.

valace2 wrote:
Where exactly does it say in that article does it say that Unbound armies will be fighting Battle Forge armies?

The wording is that,

There's another way to use your miniatures

Can someone please explain to me where is says that this is going to happen?

I think that is an assumption people have made because of the amount of claims that you have to play with Forge World/Escalation/Whatever units because it is official rules.

In reality people can just refuse to play Unbound games if they don't want to play them.

Of course we have always been able to play Unbound games before GW gave us permission -- you don't need rules that in effect aren't rules -- so the key thing about the official rules is how well GW manage to make Unbound balance against Bound.

There is always a chance that GW will pull something awesome out of the bag in that respect, although based on prior experience I am dubious. However there is no point in prejudging a new rulebook.

valace2 wrote:
As victory points can be earned each turn based on the new mission cards, I highly doubt tabling your opponent is an autowin anymore.

What could be done to change that? It seems unlikely (not impossible) that they would write a ruleset that allows one player to take a turn and achieve an objective only for the other player to blast everything off the table and lose.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
We all heard that Escalation and such was being rolled into regular 40k. I don't really know how that ruleset works, or Apocalypse, but I believe they are very open to taking almost anything?

Could Unbound be the Apocalypse version that we've been hearing about?

I am thinking that is Apocalypse Lite.

GW is greedy, they are self serving and have lost their way from the days of Rogue Trader, but I would be willing to bet money that they are not intending these two army types to fight each other.

GW does not care much about balance, but this is simply impractical.

Why would they even bother releasing troops boxes anymore? That's why I think tabling isn't an autowin. If I can just table you with my 12 flyers why would I need scoring units.

If the two army types are separate, it could actually be a great thing, because psychic powers and allies are being addressed.

People need to chill the heck out.

Trasvi wrote:
Cynical me is looking at this and thinking 'is this slightly odd timing?'

IIRC 5th and 6th editions were released in mid July 2008 & late June/early July 2012.
Having 7th edition up for pre-order May 24th seems like it might just be scraping in to the 2013-2014 financial year for what would presumably be their single biggest product release.

Am I reading too much in to that?

This was covered extensively earlier in this thread.

No, you are not reading too much into this. It's a panic/fire sale. They have had two half years of decreasing revenues, this would have been the third. Had to do something. More and faster codex releases topped off by a complete rules change. Not everyone will buy every codex, but everyone that want's to play will have to buy the RULES!!!!!!!!!

 Eldarain wrote:

valace2 wrote:
As victory points can be earned each turn based on the new mission cards, I highly doubt tabling your opponent is an autowin anymore.

What could be done to change that? It seems unlikely (not impossible) that they would write a ruleset that allows one player to take a turn and achieve an objective only for the other player to blast everything off the table and lose.

They would have to. Why bother awarding victory points if you are just going to be tabled.

If their sole goal is to get you to but Riptides and the like, why even continue releasing tiny troop squads.

Why bother designing new Storm Troopers.

If they want you to buy Riptides, and the general consensus is that people are going to abuse the heck out of this, but not just remove infantry from the game.

What is cooler a leman Russ tank or a bunch of Cadians?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
Cynical me is looking at this and thinking 'is this slightly odd timing?'

IIRC 5th and 6th editions were released in mid July 2008 & late June/early July 2012.
Having 7th edition up for pre-order May 24th seems like it might just be scraping in to the 2013-2014 financial year for what would presumably be their single biggest product release.

Am I reading too much in to that?

This was covered extensively earlier in this thread.

No, you are not reading too much into this. It's a panic/fire sale. They have had two half years of decreasing revenues, this would have been the third. Had to do something. More and faster codex releases topped off by a complete rules change. Not everyone will buy every codex, but everyone that want's to play will have to buy the RULES!!!!!!!!!

See that's the funny part of this conversation. Go to Adepticon and check out the sheer number of players. GW is irking their customers, and maybe their profit is down a little, (just like every ther business out there) but they are still capturing the bulk of the mini gaming $£¥

 MWHistorian wrote:
It's like GW heard the complaints of six and deliberately did the exact opposite just to give the players the middle finger.
(Of course that's not what happened. GW doesn't listen to complaints.)

This is one of the reasons that I think the White Dwarf pages are a hoax.
1) There was no one out there complaining the FOC is too restrictive in 6th edition. Likewise there were no complaints that Riptides and Helldrakes were rare.
2) There were countless complaints that the FOC wasn't restrictive enough. Likewise there were 100s of complaints that Riptides and Helldrakes were too common.
3) The Unbound FOC was the #1 "most exciting" thing cited in the WD about 7th edition, when it was clearly going to be hugely unpopular, and the examples cited were likewise lists that would be hugely unpopular to play against.
4) The people who read White Dwarf are going to be serious 40k fans. That means they are going to immediately understand the ramifications.
5) There was nothing stopping you from ignoring the FOC for a Campaign or Narrative game. I guess the only thing stopping you was the willingness of your opponent, which is not fixed.

In short, I think GW is not stupid. The are greedy and short-sighted, but not stupid or evil. There might be a way in which short-sighted greed makes Unbound FOC options seem like a good idea (doubt it), but there is no way where writing the WD article in that fashion would be anything but stupid. The WD article isn't incompetent, it isn't oblivious it is stupid, and that doesn't seem like GW.

On the other side of the argument, a phoney WD article written in that way is sure to garner tons of attention (20 pages in this thread in 1 day). It is the perfect way to troll the community. We have a history of fakes being released to troll the 40k online community in the past. Decent quality on the fake, but logic clearly argues it is a fake.

One last thing, the new psychic powers available to everyone except tyranids echoes the Facebook post from the Knights release where "They can ally with anyone except tyranids" which became something of a punch line. It is the sort of inside joke that someone looking to troll the online community would include.

valace2 wrote:

See that's the funny part of this conversation. Go to Adepticon and check out the sheer number of players. GW is irking their customers, and maybe their profit is down a little, (just like every ther business out there) but they are still capturing the bulk of the mini gaming $£¥

This isn't the thread for this, but there was another that discussed this. And actual market analysts are saying otherwise; that the market is seeing double digit growth while GW is seeing double digit decline.

I am hoping that we see clarity in issues such as Flying Monstrous Creatures (grant cover to vector strikes for infantry, no bouncing, no more area terrain cover saves while swooping, etc.) or some of the assault rules. We could handle these different ways to play if the fundamental mechanics are clear. The 24th of May could be a chance for things to change. The unprecedented 2 year turn around could also lead to an unprecedented swing back to Games Workshop welcoming the community with open arms?

At the cost of two of their wargames decaying and their final one beginning to crumble. Look at their two most recent mid-year announcements for that added to the rise of X-wing and continued might of warmahordes. 40k is much like WoW. Megalithic and suffering a very gradual fall.

Damn, this unbound thing seems like a terrible idea.

Still, I think that the 2 others new rules sounds good. Psycker were boring, adding a psychic phase will probably make them more interestning, and this daemonology school is very intriguing. Also, I think the secondary objective cards will bring a lot to the game. I always tought it was one of the best idea in Malifaux, so I'm happy to see a varaint of it enter 40k.

I'm willing to hear 7th ed out.

But if it doesn't impress me it's not coming home with me.

I have literally stupid numbers of GW models already. I've been playing since the Lazerburn/Rogue trader days. I'm pretty invested in the hobby.

That said, 40k has really started to pall for me, and has been getting worse since late 5th.

If it gets too bad i'll either sell the bulk of my armies to fund some other project (battle robots are expensive, as is rocketry) or just hang onto them to finally get them all painted, and just play 5th or 6th ed as the mood takes me and i can find opponents.

I'm also beginning to get drawn back towards Warmachine after a hiatus, and there are several other games well worth a look...

I'll check the new book out, and maybe even swallow the bile of paying 50.00 for another codex to update my Orks (since they will be in their THIRD fething edition since an update until the new codex hits....

valace2 wrote:


See that's the funny part of this conversation. Go to Adepticon and check out the sheer number of players. GW is irking their customers, and maybe their profit is down a little, (just like every ther business out there) but they are still capturing the bulk of the mini gaming $£¥

Yup. But everyone wanted to play in the TO vetted 40k. The everything goes Exterminatus
tournament had less than half its tickets sold (13 out of 32 or something like that).

Maybe this is a chicken/egg problem? No one who wants to play with all the expansions
all the time is necessarily wants to go to a tournament. Or maybe people want some
kind of balance at play and will go to the vetted events.

Or maybe having an Unbound only tournament at Adepticon will the biggest thing ever.

It would certainly LOOK cool.

 Eldarain wrote:

valace2 wrote:
As victory points can be earned each turn based on the new mission cards, I highly doubt tabling your opponent is an autowin anymore.

What could be done to change that? It seems unlikely (not impossible) that they would write a ruleset that allows one player to take a turn and achieve an objective only for the other player to blast everything off the table and lose.

Infinity does it with their official tournament rules. The games are based entirely on objective points. If you table your opponent before either side actually completing any objectives, the game is an automatic draw. This encourages people to actually try for objectives rather than going straight for a wipe, since if they fail at the wipe and their opponents can get some objectives they can still lose.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

In reality people can just refuse to play Unbound games if they don't want to play them.

While that is certainly true (that people can ignore the unbound rules and refuse to play against them), that concept just creates a more fractured game base than it already is.

When new player Timmy goes into his local GW store and the super-friendly customer service representative tells him that he is able to put nearly any models he likes on the store shelves into his army and play with it, then he's going to go ahead and buy his army...only to find out later that tournaments/players won't allow unbound armies, that just creates another division and blockage towards having a happy gaming experience.

so this is comment 1 as i read through the trash people are talking... and im only up to page 57...

HAHAHAHA... all this cry about heldrakes (this is my beef) who in the name of hell is going to field 11 of them at1850-2000 points? you cant do a damn thing with them, wont even slow green tide... and riptides as we know, are only as good as the support they get, remove markerlights and ignore is the current practice for triptide..
and to the ohhh how many StrD can we fit in... well the warhound gets 4 blasts at over 700 pts, so you can only fit 2 in sub 2k.. all its going to mean is that IF someone wants to do that, let them, itll cost them about a 1000 in the 2 models. and you can bet strD has been nerfed so again whooooo cares.

people are far too far up in arms over minor information atm.. breathe people

Has anyone hit on the fact that this "unbound" (aka, anything goes), opens the flood gates for potential mass gw sales. Pretty obvious why gw is doing this. This may boost sales big time for the next year, or maybe two, but this might be their high watermark. IMHO. Thousands upon thousands can now make their ultra uber army that once wasn't (fair) allowed...

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
so this is comment 1 as i read through the trash people are talking... and im only up to page 57...

HAHAHAHA... all this cry about heldrakes (this is my beef) who in the name of hell is going to field 11 of them at1850-2000 points? you cant do a damn thing with them, wont even slow green tide... and riptides as we know, are only as good as the support they get, remove markerlights and ignore is the current practice for triptide..
and to the ohhh how many StrD can we fit in... well the warhound gets 4 blasts at over 700 pts, so you can only fit 2 in sub 2k.. all its going to mean is that IF someone wants to do that, let them, itll cost them about a 1000 in the 2 models. and you can bet strD has been nerfed so again whooooo cares.

people are far too far up in arms over minor information atm.. breathe people

Nooooooo....!

The world is coming to an end.

Mark my words the two wont intermix, those two White Dwarf pages do nothing to confirm that they do.

 krazynadechukr wrote:
Has anyone hit on the fact that this "unbound" (aka, anything goes), opens the flood gates for potential mass gw sales. Pretty obvious why gw is doing this. This may boost sales big time for the next year, or maybe two, but this might be their high watermark. IMHO. Thousands upon thousands can now make their ultra uber army that once wasn't (fair) allowed...

I don't see this happening. People will still say no to a powerhouse army outside of a tournament setting, regardless of the owners intent: training, net listing, pub stomping, WAAC, playing the models they like, etc.

It just introduces another "not in my cornbread!" issue to the game. One where players must now discuss the intent of their lists even more so prior to playing that previously. As was stated earlier, not all unbounded lists are created equal. The disparity of bonus' given to battle-forged lists may make anyone seeking to go "Unbound" to pull less punches.

My personal spin is that GW wants an arms race. Arms races make money for the weapons dealers.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Of course we have always been able to play Unbound games before GW gave us permission -- you don't need rules that in effect aren't rules.

This has long been my feeling. I've been wargaming for 18 years and I've never needed a company to tell me I can break their rules, I'm fully capable of breaking the rules to create a narrative game or just to give stuff a try. That's why what I want in a wargame is for it to actually be a functioning game, a system of clear and concise rules where my ability to win or lose is primarily determined by my ability and not what rules I've tried to exploit more than my opponent.

Then if I want to go rule bending to try out other things, I'll still do that, I don't need to be told I'm allowed to break the rules in a game I'm playing for fun.

Now maybe if they could actually balance all the weird and wonderful things they put in to the game it wouldn't bother me... but GW don't exactly have a good track record when it comes to balance.

At the end of the day, the reason many people are facepalming at the idea of Unbound is that coming from the GW we know, it's hard to imagine any positive motivation other than "Hey, if we remove limits, people will buy more stuff! Game balance? What? We actually make a game? I don't remember any game..."

 TheKbob wrote:

This isn't the thread for this, but there was another that discussed this. And actual market analysts are saying otherwise; that the market is seeing double digit growth while GW is seeing double digit decline.
...
The 24th of May could be a chance for things to change. The unprecedented 2 year turn around could also lead to an unprecedented swing back to Games Workshop welcoming the community with open arms?

Markets regress to mean, and short term swings don't account for fundamentals.

It's entirely possible (if not likely) that their revenues were inflated by 6th edition and increased release cycles. Consumer appetite for small plastic models and books with no rules probably does have a ceiling. While I am certain there is some segment that will go out and buy these new books immediately, I am not sure asking people to go out and buy a $100 book every couple years is going to sit well with everyone. GW could very well open their arms to welcome people, they might not find that many people wanting to embrace.

The point of this is, I get why GW is releasing this new edition. They are making the rules more attractive for people looking to field larger armies, with the expectation this is going to increase sales overall. That bump might last a quarter, but I don't think it's a good bet that this is going to lead to increased revenues overall for the year. There's a good chance their market is saturated, and just introducing new rules might not be enough to sort that.

Looking in my closet, I have enough models to run just about any combination of CSM, Daemon, IG, Space Marine, and Ork armies. Even if there's a major rules change that makes these combinations more attractive, I don't see myself wanting to spend more on miniatures right now. It feels like I just spent a lot on all the 6th edition stuff and I don't know if I would want to spend more. Like, with the 2014 Adepticon winning list - unbound armies would allow someone to bring a similar 2000 point list with Fateweaver + 4 FMCs and 2 Heldrakes. I have that sitting on the shelf already, what is a new rulebook going to make me want to spend on?

 -Loki- wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

valace2 wrote:
As victory points can be earned each turn based on the new mission cards, I highly doubt tabling your opponent is an autowin anymore.

What could be done to change that? It seems unlikely (not impossible) that they would write a ruleset that allows one player to take a turn and achieve an objective only for the other player to blast everything off the table and lose.

Infinity does it with their official tournament rules. The games are based entirely on objective points. If you table your opponent before either side actually completing any objectives, the game is an automatic draw. This encourages people to actually try for objectives rather than going straight for a wipe, since if they fail at the wipe and their opponents can get some objectives they can still lose.

True. But I would argue that the mechanics and scale of that game along with he terrain density make that a viable and interesting concept for it.

If added to the kind of firepower available in the IGOUGO 40k system you'll end up with bizarre situations where one side tries to just about table someone and then score some points before killing the last couple Scouts.

Though watching someone lose because the dice got hot and finished off that last squad would be something else.

 TheKbob wrote:

 krazynadechukr wrote:
Has anyone hit on the fact that this "unbound" (aka, anything goes), opens the flood gates for potential mass gw sales. Pretty obvious why gw is doing this. This may boost sales big time for the next year, or maybe two, but this might be their high watermark. IMHO. Thousands upon thousands can now make their ultra uber army that once wasn't (fair) allowed...

I don't see this happening. People will still say no to a powerhouse army outside of a tournament setting, regardless of the owners intent: training, net listing, pub stomping, WAAC, playing the models they like, etc.

It just introduces another "not in my cornbread!" issue to the game. One where players must now discuss the intent of their lists even more so prior to playing that previously. As was stated earlier, not all unbounded lists are created equal. The disparity of bonus' given to battle-forged lists may make anyone seeking to go "Unbound" to pull less punches.

My personal spin is that GW wants an arms race. Arms races make money for the weapons dealers.

Well, from the small bit we read in the white dwarf, you can run your army two ways in the next rulebook, so I don't see how one gamer will be able to tell another "you can't do that." I have a legal unbound list, you have a legal battle forged army, their both correct points, let's game. If it is in the rule book, it is legal. Like it said

"The only limit to your games now, are the models you have."

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 krazynadechukr wrote:
Has anyone hit on the fact that this "unbound" (aka, anything goes), opens the flood gates for potential mass gw sales. Pretty obvious why gw is doing this. This may boost sales big time for the next year, or maybe two, but this might be their high watermark. IMHO. Thousands upon thousands can now make their ultra uber army that once wasn't (fair) allowed...

I don't see this happening. People will still say no to a powerhouse army outside of a tournament setting, regardless of the owners intent: training, net listing, pub stomping, WAAC, playing the models they like, etc.

It just introduces another "not in my cornbread!" issue to the game. One where players must now discuss the intent of their lists even more so prior to playing that previously. As was stated earlier, not all unbounded lists are created equal. The disparity of bonus' given to battle-forged lists may make anyone seeking to go "Unbound" to pull less punches.

My personal spin is that GW wants an arms race. Arms races make money for the weapons dealers.

Well, from the small bit we read in the white dwarf, you can run your army two ways in the next rulebook, so I don't see how one gamer will be able to tell another "you can't do that." I have a legal unbound list, you have a legal battle forged army, their both correct points, let's game. If it is in the rule book, it is legal. Like it said

"The only limit to your games now, are the models you have."

Except that's never how 40k has worked? If your opponent doesn't want to play against an unfun or totally unbalanced army then they won't. If you bring beaststar lists to casual games you probably won't find opponents either.

 yakface wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

In reality people can just refuse to play Unbound games if they don't want to play them.

While that is certainly true (that people can ignore the unbound rules and refuse to play against them), that concept just creates a more fractured game base than it already is.

When new player Timmy goes into his local GW store and the super-friendly customer service representative tells him that he is able to put nearly any models he likes on the store shelves into his army and play with it, then he's going to go ahead and buy his army...only to find out later that tournaments/players won't allow unbound armies, that just creates another division and blockage towards having a happy gaming experience.

Yes, this is something I don't understand. Why there was ever need to codify "Unbound" concept? People have always had the option to play the game whatever way they want and throw the FOC out if they so wish. Seems completely pointless to add new rules so you can play the game without restrictive rules! Another potentially negative development is "Battle Forged" concept, where apparently abiding to the FOC gives you some bonuses. Presumably this is something akin to Warlord trait or such.

However, all of this kind of "invisible" bonuses and abilities are annoying and should be done away with! When I look upon the gaming table, I want to see what's the situation is based on what reads on the Army lists, and not trying to remember whether unit X has Feel no pain 6+ and Unit Y has ability to hit fliers with 5+ or whatever - unless I already used up that ability, or whatever.

 yakface wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

In reality people can just refuse to play Unbound games if they don't want to play them.

While that is certainly true (that people can ignore the unbound rules and refuse to play against them), that concept just creates a more fractured game base than it already is.

When new player Timmy goes into his local GW store and the super-friendly customer service representative tells him that he is able to put nearly any models he likes on the store shelves into his army and play with it, then he's going to go ahead and buy his army...only to find out later that tournaments/players won't allow unbound armies, that just creates another division and blockage towards having a happy gaming experience.

Not to mention the fact that fluffy players may very well end up getting screwed over by WAAC gamers. If the continued resistance to Forge World units (on account of a few instances of OP shenanigans) is any indication, the abuse of Unbound armies may sour communities to the point that casual/fluff players that want to run thematic unbound lists may find themselves constantly confronted by opponents accusing them of being TFG. Unless there's something else to this whole "Unbound" deal that we don't know of yet, I would be very concerned about this change reducing the overall player base without demonstrating much in the way of potential growth.

tag8833 wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
It's like GW heard the complaints of six and deliberately did the exact opposite just to give the players the middle finger.
(Of course that's not what happened. GW doesn't listen to complaints.)

This is one of the reasons that I think the White Dwarf pages are a hoax.
1) There was no one out there complaining the FOC is too restrictive in 6th edition. Likewise there were no complaints that Riptides and Helldrakes were rare.
2) There were countless complaints that the FOC wasn't restrictive enough. Likewise there were 100s of complaints that Riptides and Helldrakes were too common.
3) The Unbound FOC was the #1 "most exciting" thing cited in the WD about 7th edition, when it was clearly going to be hugely unpopular, and the examples cited were likewise lists that would be hugely unpopular to play against.
4) The people who read White Dwarf are going to be serious 40k fans. That means they are going to immediately understand the ramifications.
5) There was nothing stopping you from ignoring the FOC for a Campaign or Narrative game. I guess the only thing stopping you was the willingness of your opponent, which is not fixed.

In short, I think GW is not stupid. The are greedy and short-sighted, but not stupid or evil. There might be a way in which short-sighted greed makes Unbound FOC options seem like a good idea (doubt it), but there is no way where writing the WD article in that fashion would be anything but stupid. The WD article isn't incompetent, it isn't oblivious it is stupid, and that doesn't seem like GW.

On the other side of the argument, a phoney WD article written in that way is sure to garner tons of attention (20 pages in this thread in 1 day). It is the perfect way to troll the community. We have a history of fakes being released to troll the 40k online community in the past. Decent quality on the fake, but logic clearly argues it is a fake.

One last thing, the new psychic powers available to everyone except tyranids echoes the Facebook post from the Knights release where "They can ally with anyone except tyranids" which became something of a punch line. It is the sort of inside joke that someone looking to troll the online community would include.

In one of the white dwarfs, they stright up said didn't care about balence when wrighting the rules for the knight. Just as long as it was stompy. I'm trying to find the issue right now so I can quote it proper. But it bassicly sounded like they were giveing a middle finger to competive players when you read it.

It's the reason I legit feel the designers right now get some sort of joy out of trolling us at this point.

valace2 wrote:

Mark my words the two wont intermix, those two White Dwarf pages do nothing to confirm that they do.

Why would battle-forged armies get 'in-game bonuses' if they can't be played against unbound armies? What would be the point of giving them 'bonuses' if both sides are getting a bonus?

The whole point of a bonus is that it gives you an advantage, i.e. an advantage against the unbound army to compensate for the fact that they can bring nearly anything they'd like in their army.

I don't get how you can read that WD article and come away thinking the two types of armies aren't meant to play against each other because there would be no point in giving battle-forged armies a bonus if that were the case.

Kirasu,
I agree with you. Let me start there. Yes, with 6th, some pushed the boundries of (good taste/fair play) in their lists. It was legal, and I passed on playing those folks. I'm just saying, it seems GW has expanded the ridiculousness of the list possibilities, and uber armies will go on the rise. I'd game in your circle, because I play for fun, and have a sense of fairness...

I just started playing 40k in Nov. kinda pissed about the rulebook but oh well.

I read that the new starter set is Blood Angels vs Orks. Cool. I play Orks.

What I was wondering. And maybe some of you cats remember. When the DA and Chaos starter set came out, did their respective codexes come out as well? Did they come out several months after?

Just wondering if this means that Orks and BA's are coming out back to back

They were the first two released. Though there were several month gaps between starter set and each book.

Johnnytorrance wrote:
What I was wondering. And maybe some of you cats remember. When the DA and Chaos starter set came out, did their respective codexes come out as well? Did they come out several months after?

DA and Chaos were the first two codexes out, but there was a bit of a gap.

Orks have been rumoured to be coming next for some time now, with BA supposedly being in there for soonish as well, so that would certainly tie in with the starter set rumours... although that might well be where the starter set rumours came from in the first place.