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.

I initially disliked this, but with everything else we have seen, I’m starting to like it. Still think games will take too long but I could see this as a good middle ground to at least prevent CP farming if nothing else. Orks will probably need an almost total rewrite but I’ve been expecting that for most books anyway.

A little bumbed my mechanicus army is going to need to blow that much cp just to bring my loan knight errant, but thems the breaks.

Yea...my thoughts on tossing Magnus into reserves just went up to 6 CP. Oh well...

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Oh. Right. I missed that you were referencing the old rule.

I think it may destroy any LoW that isnt in their own codex - wraithknight, stormsurge, etc. 3cp is a big hit just to take one of those if knights have a work around.

Should be interesting to see how they juggle this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the other end triple Lord of Skulls is dead, so....I can cope.

I suspect that, outside of lone LOW's in Supreme Command detachments, non-knight super heavies are DOA in 9th.

Hierodules aren't worth the points you pay for them. Now you want me to pay CP on top of that???

sanguine40k wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Oh. Right. I missed that you were referencing the old rule.

I think it may destroy any LoW that isnt in their own codex - wraithknight, stormsurge, etc. 3cp is a big hit just to take one of those if knights have a work around.

Should be interesting to see how they juggle this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the other end triple Lord of Skulls is dead, so....I can cope.

I suspect that, outside of lone LOW's in Supreme Command detachments, non-knight super heavies are DOA in 9th.

I think most knights will go away as well, since they were mostly used as a splash to help out an army that needed the extra beef. LoWs will have to be amazing to shell out the point cost and the 3 to 6 CP cost. But then again people were shelling out 5+ CP at the beginning of the game to get chapter master, and veteran intercessors, so there is prior precedence for taking a CP hit to add some extra bang to your army. It could also be that your not buying the model but instead are spending points and CP to get access to different stratagems.

I guess if we are bringing a Titanic unit we are committing to it. An AM Bde at 2000 points would have 9 CP left if it took a Knight or Baneblade. Not too bad, but it does make you think about it beyond the points. Some lists rely heavily on CPs to fuel their power - those will have to make careful decisions about taking more than one Detachment. Its true that we get 1CP per round, but if you are spending several before the game you are looking at a thin wallet when the game starts if you take three Detachments. I feel fatalistic to go under 3 CP during a game now - that's when you pin your colours to the mast...you've selected the hill to die...Its all come down to this etc. Starting the game with 4 or 5 CP? Uh oh.

If extra detachments (whatever the flavour beyond the Core ones) cost 3 CP each then I doubt that we will have to pay extra to unlock an additional Codex. Of course, I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. I can't see them, though, costing less than a Patrol. If this means that the Supreme Command detachment is now a rarity I am happy. Since the current incarnation can take a LOW I can't see it costing less than 3 CP - it will likely cost more. Want Ahriman and two DPs to support your Night Lords? Pay the CP to the Ferryman...

Well the thing with knights is that Vet intercessors or relic TH on sgts made the units very good, and spamable. If a knight cost 3-6CP, but you still have to pay CP to give it the cawl gun and use its stratagems, it starts to cost too much. To be valid, the rule set for a knight would have to be something like a better pre nerf castellan.

A knight isn't worth it to begin with now, so I dunno why it would be in 9th unless they get a comparative points cut.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hierodules aren't worth the points you pay for them. Now you want me to pay CP on top of that???

Hierodules overpriced? Hellforged fellblade says "Hi".

If they're isn't an additional CP cost for bringing another codex I don't understand the price of the super heavy auxiliary detachment. Shouldn't you get some kind of discount for for bringing a super heavy from your own faction? Guard and csm will be able to bring three knights for the same cost as a single LOW from their own codex if they make the knights their primary detachment. There must be an additional cost for bringing another codex.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hierodules aren't worth the points you pay for them. Now you want me to pay CP on top of that???

Hierodules overpriced? Hellforged fellblade says "Hi".

If they're isn't an additional CP cost for bringing another codex I don't understand the price of the super heavy auxiliary detachment. Shouldn't you get some kind of discount for for bringing a super heavy from your own faction? Guard and csm will be able to bring three knights for the same cost as a single LOW from their own codex if they make the knights their primary detachment. There must be an additional cost for bringing another codex.

I think the idea now is that you get more CP for less points (theoretically) -- in fact, with a single basic detachment, 12 +6 CP is free. If you want to take these supplemental detachments, you exchange CP as part of the trade.

I think people just need to start thinking of CP more along the lines of something you're spending to improve your army with more force org slots, instead of gaining it through "good army building".

tulun wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hierodules aren't worth the points you pay for them. Now you want me to pay CP on top of that???

Hierodules overpriced? Hellforged fellblade says "Hi".

If they're isn't an additional CP cost for bringing another codex I don't understand the price of the super heavy auxiliary detachment. Shouldn't you get some kind of discount for for bringing a super heavy from your own faction? Guard and csm will be able to bring three knights for the same cost as a single LOW from their own codex if they make the knights their primary detachment. There must be an additional cost for bringing another codex.

I think the idea now is that you get more CP for less points (theoretically) -- in fact, with a single basic detachment, 12 +6 CP is free. If you want to take these supplemental detachments, you exchange CP as part of the trade.

I think people just need to start thinking of CP more along the lines of something you're spending to improve your army with more force org slots, instead of gaining it through "good army building".

Except these units are part of the suplimentery units for said codex's.
And none of the "basic detachments" allow you to take a LoW.

So to take the Hellforged Fellblade, the thing is 1k + points for a unit thats maybe worth 600-700 points currently.

You expect people to pay 3CP for an over priced unit with zero strategums when they could spend 3 CP to unlock codex choas knights and Engine War for 30+ Strategums for the same cost?

Not to mention if GW do their usual shoddy job taking knight primary with allies will be way cheaper in CP without actually having a downside and will lead to the same mess both knoghts codex's ended up in 8th where they no longer work solo due to being nerfed repeatedly for issues with allies.

 NoPoet wrote:
I wonder at which point 40K became all about CPs. A few years ago, no-one had heard of them. Now they govern every aspect of "competitive play". It controls our choice of army, it controls our strategy, it determines which units are useful, it compensates for crap units, in fact it now seems necessary to let many units do their job at all. "I can shoot my gun faster because the magical hand of the Emperor... er... does something really important."

I dunno, I remember when clever use of units and positioning could win games, instead of deus ex machina.

That's some pretty severe rose tinting going on there ngl. At least this edition it's not just 'pile 300 defensive buffs on one big unit and faceroll'.

Ima just say it: I really like CPs and Strats. They have changed the game for the better, and most factions now have a really fluffy way to impact the crunch of their playstyle. They're highly modular, so strats can be nerfed, reworded or retired according to game balance while keeping units the same.

The main problem before was disparity in access to CPs, with janky lists being rewarded and thematic lists getting curbstomped. I'm really optimistic that this edition has addressed this problem very seriously, and I'm excited to see what will emerge.

I'm kinda liking the look of all this so far – seems like there's actually some decisions to be made in terms of weighing up the benefits of putting something in your army vs. how many CPs you get.

• Want more than two of a slot in your core detachment? Spend CPs or take another Troops and another HQ.

• Want more than 3 of a slot? Spend CPs or fill out the minimum Brigade requirements.

• Want to ally some guys in to plug the gaps in your core Codex? Sure, but you need to weigh up whether that's more important to you than having the extra CPs.

I wasn't one of the people who had a particular beef with the old way CPs worked, but seeing this, it seems like a much more elegant system.

(I'm still kinda mad I'm limited to max. 3 clans in an Ork warband, but it seems GW have just decided to fire that longstanding bit of the lore into the bin)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grouchoben wrote:
The main problem before was disparity in access to CPs, with janky lists being rewarded and thematic lists getting curbstomped. I'm really optimistic that this edition has addressed this problem very seriously, and I'm excited to see what will emerge.

Totally – it seems like this system essentially goes "we're not telling you you can't use your bizarre conglomeration of units that no really it's all about my own very niche fluff justification and not just trying to cheese the system while ignoring the background, BUT there are some consequences to doing so now"

I agree, I think its definitely for the better with regards to balancing the game and I think that having some armies start with less cp than they do now is also a good thing for the game, it means we are definitely going to be seeing less of the "blow all your strats in the first 2 turns" type of play.

Can,t speak about superheavies as the only one I own Is a Stompa (which needs more work than fiddling around with cps i can tell you).

One fun thing is as a Tyranid player, if for example, my splinter fleet wants to run a Kraken detachment and a Kronos one, I can pretend the CP loss is representative of the biomass and effort used to create these particular nids...very fluffly and i like that (of course i understand this has nothing to do with the game mechanics itself but I thought I,d mention it anyway).

I can probably see them playing around with the cp refunding mechanic as someone mentioned with regards to Belial and Sammael and other characters of that ilk. Maybe not immediately in the faqs, but possibly in the codex eventually (can you guess what my other army is?)

sanguine40k wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Oh. Right. I missed that you were referencing the old rule.

I think it may destroy any LoW that isnt in their own codex - wraithknight, stormsurge, etc. 3cp is a big hit just to take one of those if knights have a work around.

Should be interesting to see how they juggle this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the other end triple Lord of Skulls is dead, so....I can cope.

I suspect that, outside of lone LOW's in Supreme Command detachments, non-knight super heavies are DOA in 9th.

Have to agree with that. I wasn't really putting my Wraithknights on the table much in 8th. Can't really see I'll be more willing to do that 9th with the extra CP cost.

As an aside, any strat which is a before-the-game-starts unit upgrade - like Chapter Master, Skarboyz or Veteran Intercessors - should be retired and replaced with either a new datasheet or just a points/PL upgrade cost on the appropriate base datasheet(s).

 grouchoben wrote:
Ima just say it: I really like CPs and Strats. They have changed the game for the better, and most factions now have a really fluffy way to impact the crunch of their playstyle. They're highly modular, so strats can be nerfed, reworded or retired according to game balance while keeping units the same.

The main problem before was disparity in access to CPs, with janky lists being rewarded and thematic lists getting curbstomped. I'm really optimistic that this edition has addressed this problem very seriously, and I'm excited to see what will emerge.

You should remove this statement because this edition STILL has this problem where armies that need at least 2 detachments to properly function EFFECTIVELY start the game with fewer CPs than ANYONE else (GSC, Guard, Orks and so on). Having a detachment limit and making people PAY for any detachment when CPs are fixed is outright stupid, incoherent and does not solve any issue (in fact it exacerbates even more the problem with many codices design), while also punishing any army that just needs a detachment REGARDLESS of the detachment being from the same codex (punishing mono armies the same way they would punish detachments from different armies).
It's bad on so many levels that I'm pretty sure they're gonna change it in few months (most likely by reducing all the detachment costs which are CRAZY HIGH right now).

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
Ima just say it: I really like CPs and Strats. They have changed the game for the better, and most factions now have a really fluffy way to impact the crunch of their playstyle. They're highly modular, so strats can be nerfed, reworded or retired according to game balance while keeping units the same.

The main problem before was disparity in access to CPs, with janky lists being rewarded and thematic lists getting curbstomped. I'm really optimistic that this edition has addressed this problem very seriously, and I'm excited to see what will emerge.

You should remove this statement because this edition STILL has this problem where armies that need at least 2 detachments to properly function EFFECTIVELY start the game with fewer CPs than ANYONE else (GSC, Guard, Orks and so on). Having a detachment limit and making people PAY for any detachment when CPs are fixed is outright stupid, incoherent and does not solve any issue (in fact it exacerbates even more the problem with many codices design), while also punishing any army that just needs a detachment REGARDLESS of the detachment being from the same codex (punishing mono armies the same way they would punish detachments from different armies).
It's bad on so many levels that I'm pretty sure they're gonna change it in few months (most likely by reducing all the detachment costs which are CRAZY HIGH right now).

No army outside of Drukari needs multiple detachments.

Also if you want to add some scions 2CP isnt exactly a massive cost.

Too many people have got too used to min maxing subfactions in 8th and they are going to have to suck it up for 9th.

I do hope the roumered CP cost for additional codex's does materialise.

Well for some faction something like lets say the elite section requires more then 6 slots. Same with HQ which require you to play with more then 3.

It really isn't people foult that GW designed their codex that way. Same as it isn't people foult that their codex didnt get updated in 8th ed, and they now get to enjoy playing 9th with a codex ment for 6th or 7th ed. And it gets double that, if the faction were some sort of a power house in 8th. I get GW wanting to nerf some good stuff, but they really don't have to nerf weak or weaker factions or ways of playing on top of it.

Ice_can wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
Ima just say it: I really like CPs and Strats. They have changed the game for the better, and most factions now have a really fluffy way to impact the crunch of their playstyle. They're highly modular, so strats can be nerfed, reworded or retired according to game balance while keeping units the same.

The main problem before was disparity in access to CPs, with janky lists being rewarded and thematic lists getting curbstomped. I'm really optimistic that this edition has addressed this problem very seriously, and I'm excited to see what will emerge.

You should remove this statement because this edition STILL has this problem where armies that need at least 2 detachments to properly function EFFECTIVELY start the game with fewer CPs than ANYONE else (GSC, Guard, Orks and so on). Having a detachment limit and making people PAY for any detachment when CPs are fixed is outright stupid, incoherent and does not solve any issue (in fact it exacerbates even more the problem with many codices design), while also punishing any army that just needs a detachment REGARDLESS of the detachment being from the same codex (punishing mono armies the same way they would punish detachments from different armies).
It's bad on so many levels that I'm pretty sure they're gonna change it in few months (most likely by reducing all the detachment costs which are CRAZY HIGH right now).

No army outside of Drukari needs multiple detachments.

Also if you want to add some scions 2CP isnt exactly a massive cost.

Too many people have got too used to min maxing subfactions in 8th and they are going to have to suck it up for 9th.

I do hope the roumered CP cost for additional codex's does materialise.

No, these armies are outright bad without access to multiple HQs/different Chapter Tactics to perform superspecific role

I think that for some people having the option to play a very bad and unfun to play list, counts as having a list to play with. I could be wrong though.

Karol wrote:
I think that for some people having the option to play a very bad and unfun to play list, counts as having a list to play with. I could be wrong though.

But the same Marines army can be very effective with a single Detachment and have the maximum amout of CPs they can start with

Karol wrote:
Well for some faction something like lets say the elite section requires more then 6 slots. Same with HQ which require you to play with more then 3.

It really isn't people foult that GW designed their codex that way. Same as it isn't people foult that their codex didnt get updated in 8th ed, and they now get to enjoy playing 9th with a codex ment for 6th or 7th ed. And it gets double that, if the faction were some sort of a power house in 8th. I get GW wanting to nerf some good stuff, but they really don't have to nerf weak or weaker factions or ways of playing on top of it.

No-one is playing with a codex designed for 6 or 7th dude.

No-one needs 7+ elites or 4+ HQ's, you might want them but that doesn't mean that their shouldn't be a trade off.
Every codex has been updated for 8th and will recieve a Day 1 FAQ.

Ice_can wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well for some faction something like lets say the elite section requires more then 6 slots. Same with HQ which require you to play with more then 3.

It really isn't people foult that GW designed their codex that way. Same as it isn't people foult that their codex didnt get updated in 8th ed, and they now get to enjoy playing 9th with a codex ment for 6th or 7th ed. And it gets double that, if the faction were some sort of a power house in 8th. I get GW wanting to nerf some good stuff, but they really don't have to nerf weak or weaker factions or ways of playing on top of it.

No-one is playing with a codex desihned for 6 or 7th dude.

No-one needs 7+ elites or 4+ HQ's, you might want them but that doesn't mean that their shouldn't be a trade off.

"No one needs 4+ HQs".

HELLO I AM A GSC PLAYER WITH A LIMIT OF 1 TYPE OF CHARACTER PER DETACHMENT

HELLO I AM A T'AU PLAYER WITH A LIMIT OF 1 COMMANDER PER DETACHMENT

HELLO I AM A IG PLAYER THAT HAS TANK COMMANDERS AND COMPANY COMMANDERS IN THE SAME SLOT WITH COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BONUSES THAT AFFECT ONLY INFANTRIES OR VEHICLES


You're thinking using Space Marines logic if you REALLY BELIEVE that these factions are PLAYABLE with one detachment

Ice_can wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well for some faction something like lets say the elite section requires more then 6 slots. Same with HQ which require you to play with more then 3.

It really isn't people foult that GW designed their codex that way. Same as it isn't people foult that their codex didnt get updated in 8th ed, and they now get to enjoy playing 9th with a codex ment for 6th or 7th ed. And it gets double that, if the faction were some sort of a power house in 8th. I get GW wanting to nerf some good stuff, but they really don't have to nerf weak or weaker factions or ways of playing on top of it.

No-one is playing with a codex designed for 6 or 7th dude.

No-one needs 7+ elites or 4+ HQ's, you might want them but that doesn't mean that their shouldn't be a trade off.
Every codex has been updated for 8th and will recieve a Day 1 FAQ.

Well I don't know for what the GK codex was designed then, because it sure as hell wasn't designed for 8th. And GW faqs for my army leave me cold as far as improvements go. Each FAQ in 8th was a nerf to GK, and it is not like they were some evil army with too high win rates.

As someone already said about their armies, there very well are armies that require more then 3 HQs or more then 6 elites to run a proper army.
If GW gives psychic powers I can only use on characters and there is the rule of 3, in effect and I can't cast more then one of same psychic power other then baby smite. Then I very much need 4 HQs, and I am not trading anything. If I don't take them, then my army goes back to pre PA status, and pre that it was one of the worse armies, if not the worse, in game.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well for some faction something like lets say the elite section requires more then 6 slots. Same with HQ which require you to play with more then 3.

It really isn't people foult that GW designed their codex that way. Same as it isn't people foult that their codex didnt get updated in 8th ed, and they now get to enjoy playing 9th with a codex ment for 6th or 7th ed. And it gets double that, if the faction were some sort of a power house in 8th. I get GW wanting to nerf some good stuff, but they really don't have to nerf weak or weaker factions or ways of playing on top of it.

No-one is playing with a codex desihned for 6 or 7th dude.

No-one needs 7+ elites or 4+ HQ's, you might want them but that doesn't mean that their shouldn't be a trade off.

"No one needs 4+ HQs".

HELLO I AM A GSC PLAYER WITH A LIMIT OF 1 TYPE OF CHARACTER PER DETACHMENT

HELLO I AM A T'AU PLAYER WITH A LIMIT OF 1 COMMANDER PER DETACHMENT

HELLO I AM A IG PLAYER THAT HAS TANK COMMANDERS AND COMPANY COMMANDERS IN THE SAME SLOT WITH COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BONUSES THAT AFFECT ONLY INFANTRIES OR VEHICLES


You're thinking using Space Marines logic if you REALLY BELIEVE that these factions are PLAYABLE with one detachment

Yeah funnily enough I am a Tau player my current list for 9th is 1 detachment and I can add a patrol for 2CP for the additional commander.

Oh boo ho you cant have 3 tank commanders and 3 Company commanders without spending some extra CP. It would be nice to see a Guard army that isnt 3 regiments magically.

KurtAngle2 789533 10844806 wrote:
You're thinking using Space Marines logic if you REALLY BELIEVE that these factions are PLAYABLE with one detachment

I guess you are paying for that marine flexibility your army does not have. I say this is one of those changes like the rule of 3. Instead of making Hive tyrants 0-X, where X was smaller then 7, everyone got forced in to 3 non troop units. For some armies this ment they had to use some of their soup flyers, maybe some FW, and others stoped making sense as an army played out of 8th ed codex.

Ice_can 789533 10844811 wrote:

Yeah funnily enough I am a Tau player my current list for 9th is 1 detachment and I can add a patrol for 2CP for the additional commander.

Oh boo ho you cant have 3 tank commanders and 3 Company commanders without spending some extra CP. It would be nice to see a Guard army that isnt 3 regiments magically.

Why don't you adress the 1 per detachmant GSC HQs, or GK having their upgrades from PA put all in the elite and HQ section ? And it is not like GK are super point efficient like marines and go, well I will just take another battlion with my cheap troops and those extra HQs for a 2 CP hit. Because GK do not have the option to take 15 scouts or nurgling bases, the cheapest troops are costed like other army elites. Now I would love of course for apothecaries to be one elite slot, or all ancients or have my troops use psychic powers from the PA books. Would be great.

Karol wrote:

KurtAngle2 789533 10844806 wrote:
You're thinking using Space Marines logic if you REALLY BELIEVE that these factions are PLAYABLE with one detachment

I guess you are paying for that marine flexibility your army does not have. I say this is one of those changes like the rule of 3. Instead of making Hive tyrants 0-X, where X was smaller then 7, everyone got forced in to 3 non troop units. For some armies this ment they had to use some of their soup flyers, maybe some FW, and others stoped making sense as an army played out of 8th ed codex.

Ice_can 789533 10844811 wrote:

Yeah funnily enough I am a Tau player my current list for 9th is 1 detachment and I can add a patrol for 2CP for the additional commander.

Oh boo ho you cant have 3 tank commanders and 3 Company commanders without spending some extra CP. It would be nice to see a Guard army that isnt 3 regiments magically.

Why don't you adress the 1 per detachmant GSC HQs, or GK having their upgrades from PA put all in the elite and HQ section ? And it is not like GK are super point efficient like marines and go, well I will just take another battlion with my cheap troops and those extra HQs for a 2 CP hit. Because GK do not have the option to take 15 scouts or nurgling bases, the cheapest troops are costed like other army elites. Now I would love of course for apothecaries to be one elite slot, or all ancients or have my troops use psychic powers from the PA books. Would be great.

It's the fallacy of the new detachment system. We're already limited CP wise and Detachment wise, why are we suddendly having the necessity to further reduce CPs via Detachments and NOT through additional Codex cost? This effectively punishes mono armies the same way it does with "allies" since they both pay a hefty amount of CPs to just include a detachments that MIGHT BE a necessity for the mono codex player but could be a luxury for the Soup player...


It won't last like this for sure

Karol wrote:

KurtAngle2 789533 10844806 wrote:
You're thinking using Space Marines logic if you REALLY BELIEVE that these factions are PLAYABLE with one detachment

I guess you are paying for that marine flexibility your army does not have. I say this is one of those changes like the rule of 3. Instead of making Hive tyrants 0-X, where X was smaller then 7, everyone got forced in to 3 non troop units. For some armies this ment they had to use some of their soup flyers, maybe some FW, and others stoped making sense as an army played out of 8th ed codex.

Ice_can 789533 10844811 wrote:

Yeah funnily enough I am a Tau player my current list for 9th is 1 detachment and I can add a patrol for 2CP for the additional commander.

Oh boo ho you cant have 3 tank commanders and 3 Company commanders without spending some extra CP. It would be nice to see a Guard army that isnt 3 regiments magically.

Why don't you adress the 1 per detachmant GSC HQs, or GK having their upgrades from PA put all in the elite and HQ section ? And it is not like GK are super point efficient like marines and go, well I will just take another battlion with my cheap troops and those extra HQs for a 2 CP hit. Because GK do not have the option to take 15 scouts or nurgling bases, the cheapest troops are costed like other army elites. Now I would love of course for apothecaries to be one elite slot, or all ancients or have my troops use psychic powers from the PA books. Would be great.

I don't play GSC well enough to know them.
Multiple GK players have already mentioned to you that they dont need too take multiple apocothorys etc but you insist you do.
Also why are you obsessed with troops dude a patrol only needs 1 Troops thats way less than double battalion which gave 13 CP in 8th, a Battalion and Patrol is 10CP pregame with another CP per turn your using less troops tax more CP and your objection is I can't have 7 Elites in my list for free.

A Battalion plus Vanguard is 9CP currently, with no additional per turn.

You have More CP less troops and yet your still complaining.