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.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Do we know the PfP chart already, or are we just assuming it's unchanged from the index?

Just assumptions, it was decent before. I am hoping they fix combat drugs. Book keeping 6 drugs across X units is very annoying. I have had 9 units with drugs before, it's silly now.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Do we know the PfP chart already, or are we just assuming it's unchanged from the index?

No, but the article hints toward it being unchanged. Re-roll charge turn 2 is defintiely unchanged.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Lord Perversor wrote:
The deepstrike Fly vehicle it's not as bad as it may seem mirrors pretty much the Craftworld one but can be used vehicle by vehicle wich allows to put 1 extra vehicle for the same amount of CP.

Actually, it's perfectly identical to Cloudstrike for Craftworld Eldar. And the Webway one for Infantry/Bikes is already in Chapter Approved and also perfectly identical. These pretty much seem like the standard stratagems for all pointy ears.

Not quite identical, DE's can be used on Beasts as well.

Still nothing for Monsters, which is really annoying.

 ElvisJuice wrote:
Don't understand how infiltrating units stop people from deploying since the infiltration is done after deployment, right?

Also the "modifiers never stack" thing would need every codex to be rebalanced, so, no thanks.

The way the faction keywords work you just need to share one to be battleforged, don't see the problem there.

There are already conditions on using the army-specific strategems that work fine (must be battle-forged, must be of that faction, and the strategems themselves have the rules of how to apply them) so nothing needs to change there. Your change would mean mixed armies of more than one faction would be awful as they'd lose access to any strategems.

Special deployment, It's why every imperial army has scouts in it. I drop them around the table and now any deep-strikers etc you have can't deploy outside your DZ. Not suggesting my fix is perfect, but when literally every imperial army has 3 scout units (same for eldar and chaos with nurglings and rangers) you know there is a balance issue. Stratagems are far from perfect actually. For example I can take a guard CC and give him the steal CP's relic in any other imperial army. Again something you constantly see. If the primary army is guard thats fine, however if its space marines for example thats just gaming the present system. Locking the army into space marine strats would prevent that CC from taking the Aquilla.

I disagree that a change would make soup armies bad. Currently several armies are locked into their own book. Soup armies can access 3-6+ books currently meaning you can mine all the best units and have no holes. Sorry, but that army doesn't need all those stratagems on top of that. IMHO of course.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Venoms have never had Splinter Racks before so I doubt they'll be getting them now, Raiders do have them but no splinter fire of their own. 10 guys inside in RF range will put out 20 shots, about 17 hits and re-roll 1's to wound. It's not amazing fire power but it's notably better than we currently have. The Obsidian Rose makes a lot of sense, they're the Kabal best known for being artisan weapon makers, having the beast weapons in the faction is perfect for them.

Oh, if it's just Raiders that makes more sense. Though you're not going to have 10 guys inside with splinter rifles. Especially not with that change to blasters.

With Obsidian Rose I meant more that I'm not sure that a kiting strategy is feasible, so I'm not sure how valuable it actually is for most things to be able to be 15" and rapid fire outside of maybe the first turn. I know that this is a powerful trait for Guard and Tau but they're a lot slower.

I thnk with Obsidian Rose it'll be more useful on weapons like Dark Lances, which with 36" are just slightly too short range to keep Ravagers out of your opponent range should they go first before moving in yourself, 42" would change that a lot. Blasters also benefit quite a bit and so would Shredders, on the off chance they've actually been made usable.

IDK, a 14" move on a 36" weapon always seemed fine to me. I think the DS stratagem is amazing though. How about no possibility of them killing a ravager before it shoots!

I'd say the problem there is the relics not having a cost, meaning powerful ones end up being auto-includes. Massively locking down the army building is overkill and would really harm the game, imo.

The deployment thing makes building your army around deep striking riskier, which is a good thing since deep strike mishaps are now gone. If your opponent covers the spread, you might end up having to deploy those units in your own zone instead. I see no problem with this.

 Red Corsair wrote:
IDK, a 14" move on a 36" weapon always seemed fine to me. I think the DS stratagem is amazing though. How about no possibility of them killing a ravager before it shoots!

That gives you a 50" threat range, which is not bad at all but only gives you 2" of room against Lascannons and other 48" weapons.

I was thinking a Tantalus filled with Trueborn for the Screamer Jet strat.

 ElvisJuice wrote:
I'd say the problem there is the relics not having a cost, meaning powerful ones end up being auto-includes. Massively locking down the army building is overkill and would really harm the game, imo.

The deployment thing makes building your army around deep striking riskier, which is a good thing since deep strike mishaps are now gone. If your opponent covers the spread, you might end up having to deploy those units in your own zone instead. I see no problem with this.

totally agree. Also, you don't have to DS on turn one you know? Clear the chaff and open up the corridors.

 ElvisJuice wrote:
I'd say the problem there is the relics not having a cost, meaning powerful ones end up being auto-includes. Massively locking down the army building is overkill and would really harm the game, imo.

The deployment thing makes building your army around deep striking riskier, which is a good thing since deep strike mishaps are now gone. If your opponent covers the spread, you might end up having to deploy those units in your own zone instead. I see no problem with this.

Except your not being fair. Nothing I suggested locks out army building. It just removes certain perks when you make a certain choice. You could literally build the same force, you just wouldn't get ALL the things like you currently do. It's ridiculous that there is currently no cost to taking a soup army.

In regard to infiltration, I disagree. Mishaps are gone, but so is the entire option of a risky DS. I literally get no choice. Maybe adding in mishaps could also work. Deploy anywhere outside 1" but you roll a die for each model, on a 1 a models is removed. If you deploy inside 9" you cannot assault the turn you arrive via risky deepstrike or whatever you call it. All I know is right now it's silly. Theres a reason why all my chaos lists have cheap as dirt nurglings tossed in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Imateria wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
IDK, a 14" move on a 36" weapon always seemed fine to me. I think the DS stratagem is amazing though. How about no possibility of them killing a ravager before it shoots!

That gives you a 50" threat range, which is not bad at all but only gives you 2" of room against Lascannons and other 48" weapons.

I was thinking a Tantalus filled with Trueborn for the Screamer Jet strat.

Tantalus sounds tasty. Still no word on whether or not Trueborn are in though.

I'm super impressed so far with Drukhari. Makes me lament Skitarii and Tau though.

Thanks for getting this thread back on track, folks. There's way too much snark last page, though, so please remember to keep it polite - that's all we ask, really

Thanks all!

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm super impressed so far with Drukhari. Makes me lament Skitarii and Tau though.

Yea I feel they finally hit their stride. Hopefully they readdress certain issues next fall. Space marines not having traits on vehicles for example is very dumb lol.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 ElvisJuice wrote:
I'd say the problem there is the relics not having a cost, meaning powerful ones end up being auto-includes. Massively locking down the army building is overkill and would really harm the game, imo.

The deployment thing makes building your army around deep striking riskier, which is a good thing since deep strike mishaps are now gone. If your opponent covers the spread, you might end up having to deploy those units in your own zone instead. I see no problem with this.

Except your not being fair. Nothing I suggested locks out army building. It just removes certain perks when you make a certain choice. You could literally build the same force, you just wouldn't get ALL the things like you currently do. It's ridiculous that there is currently no cost to taking a soup army.

In regard to infiltration, I disagree. Mishaps are gone, but so is the entire option of a risky DS. I literally get no choice. Maybe adding in mishaps could also work. Deploy anywhere outside 1" but you roll a die for each model, on a 1 a models is removed. If you deploy inside 9" you cannot assault the turn you arrive via risky deepstrike or whatever you call it. All I know is right now it's silly. Theres a reason why all my chaos lists have cheap as dirt nurglings tossed in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Imateria wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
IDK, a 14" move on a 36" weapon always seemed fine to me. I think the DS stratagem is amazing though. How about no possibility of them killing a ravager before it shoots!

That gives you a 50" threat range, which is not bad at all but only gives you 2" of room against Lascannons and other 48" weapons.

I was thinking a Tantalus filled with Trueborn for the Screamer Jet strat.

Tantalus sounds tasty. Still no word on whether or not Trueborn are in though.

I don't think the problem is Infiltrate like abilities, it's that whoever goes first controls the board regardless and leaves their opponent locked into their deployment zone. Iike your idea of a riskier deep strike option.

Even if it turns out Trueborn are, saddly, out of the codex the Blaster is still improved making them viable even as an index only option. Now if only the same level of thought could be finally put into Shredders.

I think the Dark Eldar Codex is the Codex with the most complex rules that they have made in 8th edition. This will be a very hard faction to play compared with others.

Just look at those traits, how long and how many special interactions they have. Compared with most of other Chapter Tactics, etc... that are normally very simple.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Except your not being fair. Nothing I suggested locks out army building. It just removes certain perks when you make a certain choice. You could literally build the same force, you just wouldn't get ALL the things like you currently do. It's ridiculous that there is currently no cost to taking a soup army.
In regard to infiltration, I disagree. Mishaps are gone, but so is the entire option of a risky DS. I literally get no choice. Maybe adding in mishaps could also work. Deploy anywhere outside 1" but you roll a die for each model, on a 1 a models is removed. If you deploy inside 9" you cannot assault the turn you arrive via risky deepstrike or whatever you call it. All I know is right now it's silly. Theres a reason why all my chaos lists have cheap as dirt nurglings tossed in.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be "unfair", but your suggestion was for mixed armies to have BRB strategems only? Which would make most of them loads weaker. That's why I think it would lock down army building too much, because it'd stop being competitive. A nice compromise might be that you have to choose one detachment and get their strategems instead of using everything, that way you have parity with mono faction armies.

I think the board control option offered by cheap infiltrator units makes those units interesting and viable where they weren't so much previously, the fact that your local meta favors it doesn't necessarily mean it has to be changed as you're suggesting. That board control isn't going to matter much to a low model count army, for example.

Why is it wrong for a mixed faction to give something up? Your suggesting that it is fair that they get to fill in every slot with the best unit AND get their cake to eat as well with the other bonuses.

Now look at Necrons, one book to fill your slots out. I have no problem with mixed detachments of the same faction. Like Cadia and Catachan. I have a bigger issue with guard, BA and Custodes suffering no drawbacks on top of having no weaknesses in their unit options.

The infiltration issue is also the lowest priority of mine. I'll aggree with Imateria its more of an issue with who goes first in a game of I go with everything, you go with everything which is why after further reflection I think an alternate deepstrike rule that has much more risk would work better.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Why is it wrong for a mixed faction to give something up? Your suggesting that it is fair that they get to fill in every slot with the best unit AND get their cake to eat as well with the other bonuses.

Now look at Necrons, one book to fill your slots out. I have no problem with mixed detachments of the same faction. Like Cadia and Catachan. I have a bigger issue with guard, BA and Custodes suffering no drawbacks on top of having no weaknesses in their unit options.

The infiltration issue is also the lowest priority of mine. I'll aggree with Imateria its more of an issue with who goes first in a game of I go with everything, you go with everything which is why after further reflection I think an alternate deepstrike rule that has much more risk would work better.

I agree that a lot of this would be solved if the Supreme Command Detachment was removed and if people wanted to run similar lists, they would have to take the auxiliary detachment that is -1 CP. Most of the spam issues observed in the game right now are due to the HQ slot. Having 0-1 on generic/fluff models like Commanders, Grandmasters, Tyrants, etc will go a long way on cutting out the spam. For example, the Adepticon winner had around 1500 points in the HQ slot. The runner up had ~900. That's bad. It makes no sense to have x Commanders. Who commands the Commander? Warboss? Grandmaster? Tyrant?

 Red Corsair wrote:
Now look at Necrons, one book to fill your slots out. I have no problem with mixed detachments of the same faction. Like Cadia and Catachan. I have a bigger issue with guard, BA and Custodes suffering no drawbacks on top of having no weaknesses in their unit options.

Except you have that backwards. It's the cherrypicking of traits from single book that looks dumb, is unfluffy, and covers all the possible holes without drawbacks. How many times you saw 3 SM chapters in books operating in one tiny zone? And not even mixed forces, but some sort of weird amalgam with UM only supplying bikes, IF artillery, and RG infiltrating CC units in front of all that? Ditto for IG mixtures and forces from two forge worlds on the opposite ends of the galaxy suddenly operating in one spot. I'd definitely curb that nonsense somehow, say limiting detachments not sharing same chapter/regiment/forge trait to patrols and auxiliary detachments, much like ally detachment in 6th.

I have much less problem with different armies supporting each other, but to be fair to above, I suppose all allying could use same patrol nerf to prevent cherrypicking of slots. There, problem solved.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Makes me lament Skitarii and Tau though.

How?

AM, GK and SM definitely need revisiting to bring them up to par to later books, but Tau? With their huge array of options making even IG look downright weak in places? What?

I am strangely sure once Codex: Mortars is nerfed, Tau will move above it in tier, especially with GW commitment to not touch new books, and you want to buff that? Hello, it's not 7th ed anymore...

To bad kabal of the dying sun wasn't amongst them would have love to see what trait they're getting. I have some 3rd edition dark eldar that I'm going to paint as them but I have been unsure about it. Seeing the trait for them might have motivated me to paint them.

 Red Corsair wrote:
I emailed the FAQ team, I'd encourage others as well. They asked us too.

I suggested:

1. Disallow the use of army specific stratagems by armies that are more then 1 factions.

2. Multifaction armies no long receive the +3 CP's for bettleforged

3. Modifiers never stack, ie. only ever -1 or +1 and opposing mods cancel eachother out

4. Smite casting cost of 7+

5. Remove supreme command, if they want more HQ;s they should use the auxiliary chart at -1 per unit penalty. Currently no one ever uses that chart because it is never needed.

6. Remove infiltration, give nurglings, scouts and rangers either deepstrike or scout moves but remove the current ability to cover the board and prevent every other faction from deploying.

Well I'll tell you why certain ones are terrible.
1. Some of those armies only care about the reroll in the first place. This punishes non-good Soup Lists, rather than fixing the actual issue of internal and external balance.
2. This one I'm okay with.
3. The only offender is Eldar for the most part, and maybe you shouldn't BE shooting at someone with a -3 to hit? Maybe supplement with melee if you want to avoid that?
4. Eh I'm fine with this. The issue is the cheap Psyker able to cast it though.
5. I'm also okay with this.
6. This is easily the worst suggestion. That's part of what these units do (Well maybe not Nurglings).

 Irbis wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Makes me lament Skitarii and Tau though.

How?

AM, GK and SM definitely need revisiting to bring them up to par to later books, but Tau? With their huge array of options making even IG look downright weak in places? What?

Because the Dark Eldar setup flatout proves that Skitarii could have been done as their own book or had their special rules kept intact(the reasoning behind Doctrina Imperatives becoming Stratagems was "they didn't want to confuse new players") with a single or two HQ choices...?

I am strangely sure once Codex: Mortars is nerfed, Tau will move above it in tier, especially with GW commitment to not touch new books, and you want to buff that? Hello, it's not 7th ed anymore...

Sorry where did I say anything about buffing?

The Dark Eldar book looks like it is a book with substance and thought put into it. Both AdMech and Tau, while okay books in their own rights, are rather uninspired and not exceedingly dissimilar from their 7th edition counterparts.

obligatory

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Makes me lament Skitarii and Tau though.

How?

AM, GK and SM definitely need revisiting to bring them up to par to later books, but Tau? With their huge array of options making even IG look downright weak in places? What?

Because the Dark Eldar setup flatout proves that Skitarii could have been done as their own book or had their special rules kept intact(the reasoning behind Doctrina Imperatives becoming Stratagems was "they didn't want to confuse new players") with a single or two HQ choices...?

I am strangely sure once Codex: Mortars is nerfed, Tau will move above it in tier, especially with GW commitment to not touch new books, and you want to buff that? Hello, it's not 7th ed anymore...

Sorry where did I say anything about buffing?

The Dark Eldar book looks like it is a book with substance and thought put into it. Both AdMech and Tau, while okay books in their own rights, are rather uninspired and not exceedingly dissimilar from their 7th edition counterparts.

obligatory

I feel that PARTS of the Tau Codex were pretty inspired. Some of the Septs are super unique in feel (Farsite Enclaves and Bork'An), but they didn't bother to fix a few core issues (like Crisis suits being junk).

The AdMech codex brings out hatred in me though as it's very uninspired.

On the one hand I am rather impressed by what they are doing with the dark eldar codex.

On the other hand, I don't think I'd want to be jumping through that many hoops just to field my army properly.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Makes me lament Skitarii and Tau though.

How?

AM, GK and SM definitely need revisiting to bring them up to par to later books, but Tau? With their huge array of options making even IG look downright weak in places? What?

Because the Dark Eldar setup flatout proves that Skitarii could have been done as their own book or had their special rules kept intact(the reasoning behind Doctrina Imperatives becoming Stratagems was "they didn't want to confuse new players") with a single or two HQ choices...?

I am strangely sure once Codex: Mortars is nerfed, Tau will move above it in tier, especially with GW commitment to not touch new books, and you want to buff that? Hello, it's not 7th ed anymore...

Sorry where did I say anything about buffing?

The Dark Eldar book looks like it is a book with substance and thought put into it. Both AdMech and Tau, while okay books in their own rights, are rather uninspired and not exceedingly dissimilar from their 7th edition counterparts.

obligatory

As a Dark Eldar player, I am hating the fact that it looks like our army has been split into 3.

It can be said that the AdMech and Tau 7th ed codecies worked in a way that matched what you would expect from armies, so little need to change it. The 7th ed DE codex was pure trash and needed this level of change.

I'm liking the look of it so far. The Patrol stuff gives us more granularity than other armies. And having the traits split up among Kabal, Cult, and Coven is more interesting than them all getting the same trait, which would inevitably be worthless on most of the units due to them being so different. It seems characterful, and shows that GW isn't just giving everybody the same template. I already own a mix of Kabal and Cult, so this works well for me.

 Imateria wrote:

As a Dark Eldar player, I am hating the fact that it looks like our army has been split into 3.

Welcome to the Guard, where we've got six unique factions sitting in our book.

It can be said that the AdMech and Tau 7th ed codecies worked in a way that matched what you would expect from armies, so little need to change it. The 7th ed DE codex was pure trash and needed this level of change.

The issue is that AdMech was two books that are now lumped into one.

I would kill to have Doctrina Imperatives back as a special rule for Skitarii and Canticles back exclusively to the Cult stuff, with the army being led by a Dominus or Cawl meaning that Canticles became a Detachment rule instead.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

As a Dark Eldar player, I am hating the fact that it looks like our army has been split into 3.

Welcome to the Guard, where we've got six unique factions sitting in our book.

No you don't, you have 6 regiments. Scions and Guard can make it count as 2, but taking Scions doesn't stop other units from getting their regiment benefits. Taking Kabal, Cult or Coven together in the same detachment will.

It can be said that the AdMech and Tau 7th ed codecies worked in a way that matched what you would expect from armies, so little need to change it. The 7th ed DE codex was pure trash and needed this level of change.

The issue is that AdMech was two books that are now lumped into one.

I would kill to have Doctrina Imperatives back as a special rule for Skitarii and Canticles back exclusively to the Cult stuff, with the army being led by a Dominus or Cawl meaning that Canticles became a Detachment rule instead.

 Imateria wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

As a Dark Eldar player, I am hating the fact that it looks like our army has been split into 3.

Welcome to the Guard, where we've got six unique factions sitting in our book.

No you don't, you have 6 regiments. Scions and Guard can make it count as 2, but taking Scions doesn't stop other units from getting their regiment benefits. Taking Kabal, Cult or Coven together in the same detachment will.

Scions, Aeronautica Imperialis(Valkyries and Officer of the Fleet), Astra Telepathica/Scholastica Psykana(Psykers), Adeptus Ministorum(Priests and Crusaders), AdMech(Enginseers), Auxilla(Ratlings and Ogryns), and Officio Prefectus(Commissars).

Every one of those have fixed things that are precluded from having the <Regiment> keyword. The only difference between those and Kabal, Cult, or Coven is that we had a special rule that had to be added to 'make it work'--just like the Incubi and Scourges are supposed to be working.

It can be said that the AdMech and Tau 7th ed codecies worked in a way that matched what you would expect from armies, so little need to change it. The 7th ed DE codex was pure trash and needed this level of change.

The issue is that AdMech was two books that are now lumped into one.

I would kill to have Doctrina Imperatives back as a special rule for Skitarii and Canticles back exclusively to the Cult stuff, with the army being led by a Dominus or Cawl meaning that Canticles became a Detachment rule instead.

I can certainly see how that would be a nice improvement, so long as it worked like Scions and Guard and not Dark Eldar.

Well sure, but no matter what Doctrinas ceasing to be damned Stratagems would be an improvement.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
I emailed the FAQ team, I'd encourage others as well. They asked us too.

I suggested:

1. Disallow the use of army specific stratagems by armies that are more then 1 factions.

2. Multifaction armies no long receive the +3 CP's for bettleforged

3. Modifiers never stack, ie. only ever -1 or +1 and opposing mods cancel eachother out

4. Smite casting cost of 7+

5. Remove supreme command, if they want more HQ;s they should use the auxiliary chart at -1 per unit penalty. Currently no one ever uses that chart because it is never needed.

6. Remove infiltration, give nurglings, scouts and rangers either deepstrike or scout moves but remove the current ability to cover the board and prevent every other faction from deploying.

Well I'll tell you why certain ones are terrible.
1. Some of those armies only care about the reroll in the first place. This punishes non-good Soup Lists, rather than fixing the actual issue of internal and external balance.
2. This one I'm okay with.
3. The only offender is Eldar for the most part, and maybe you shouldn't BE shooting at someone with a -3 to hit? Maybe supplement with melee if you want to avoid that?
4. Eh I'm fine with this. The issue is the cheap Psyker able to cast it though.
5. I'm also okay with this.
6. This is easily the worst suggestion. That's part of what these units do (Well maybe not Nurglings).

You didn't really tell me why though, you just agreed with most of it and the ones you didn't you just said they were bad ideas lol. That's fine, you don't have to agree with me, email them yourself. But I don't really understand the point of your post here.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
I emailed the FAQ team, I'd encourage others as well. They asked us too.

I suggested:

1. Disallow the use of army specific stratagems by armies that are more then 1 factions.

2. Multifaction armies no long receive the +3 CP's for bettleforged

3. Modifiers never stack, ie. only ever -1 or +1 and opposing mods cancel eachother out

4. Smite casting cost of 7+

5. Remove supreme command, if they want more HQ;s they should use the auxiliary chart at -1 per unit penalty. Currently no one ever uses that chart because it is never needed.

6. Remove infiltration, give nurglings, scouts and rangers either deepstrike or scout moves but remove the current ability to cover the board and prevent every other faction from deploying.

Well I'll tell you why certain ones are terrible.
1. Some of those armies only care about the reroll in the first place. This punishes non-good Soup Lists, rather than fixing the actual issue of internal and external balance.
2. This one I'm okay with.
3. The only offender is Eldar for the most part, and maybe you shouldn't BE shooting at someone with a -3 to hit? Maybe supplement with melee if you want to avoid that?
4. Eh I'm fine with this. The issue is the cheap Psyker able to cast it though.
5. I'm also okay with this.
6. This is easily the worst suggestion. That's part of what these units do (Well maybe not Nurglings).

You didn't really tell me why though, you just agreed with most of it and the ones you didn't you just said they were bad ideas lol. That's fine, you don't have to agree with me, email them yourself. But I don't really understand the point of your post here.

I don't need to type a whole paragraph on why an idea is bad. The sentence I provided for those bad ones perfectly sums up the issues.