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.

Karol wrote:
As I never really saw something like this happen before, does happen often with GW?

Every single ork release in the last decade has invalidated or removed models.

this is GW, were a new Edition means that you basically get a new game and you need to start from scratch

every army you build is just for the very moment, a FAQ/Codex/Edition change can alter it irrelevant and the people will blame you for building it in the first place (because only WAAC players have used those options anyway)

I have a TS army that went from medicore to illigeal to WAAC to illegal and now to medicore again without touching it since 3rd

this is also a reason why lot of people have more than one army and playing marines has an advantage

there will always be a Marine list were you can use your collection without changing anything and people will be angry because you play on a budget and saved money by just changing the chapter instead of buying all the new stuff necessary to be legal again

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:
As I never really saw something like this happen before, does happen often with GW?

Every single ork release in the last decade has invalidated or removed models.

ha so there are good sides to not being updated. who knew.

I actually view major updates as a negative. Relaunching a product should be a last resort for when the product is not good enough and cannot be easily fixed.
However, for 40k it's standard operating procedure.

I'm not that familiar with other games, but I can't think of another major game that's on higher than the 4th edition.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I actually view major updates as a negative. Relaunching a product should be a last resort for when the product is not good enough and cannot be easily fixed.
However, for 40k it's standard operating procedure.

I'm not that familiar with other games, but I can't think of another major game that's on higher than the 4th edition.

Part of that is because GW is pretty old for a gaming company, although DnD of course is older, and is at its fifth edition. But one problem that miniature games run into is that the main market is the minis, and, of course, the whole issue that most sales are around new releases. That however requires constant updates, and there are only so many 'even more space marines' books you can sell.

And I have the feeling that some editions go really fast for some reason.

6th and 7th went very quickly, because they were pretty botched. Especially with the campaign books being like a second wave of codexes for factions.
8th continued with the second wave of codexes with the Psychic Awakening stuff.

Although I do agree that the reason is because they make money off of the rules-churn and the subsequent model sales.
But that's a negative for the consumer and why I would prefer to give my money to more stable games.
That way I can spend my money on collecting new stuff rather than just retreading old ground every third year.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I got started in 40k as a 12yr old, I know people who started younger. I think this is quite common.
There's often a dip at ~university age when girls and booze capture people's interest.
And then people return to 40k once they've matured and settled down.

So I think appealing to children is a profitable endeavour for GW.

Phases taking forever because of ridiculous bloat is nothing new to 40k though.
When shooting you've got to consider your stratagems and 3 different buffs so you're rerolling half your dice and some are exploding. Then you need to roll a second handful because you can't fit enough dice from your basic grunt squad in one hand.

The thing is how much were you spending as a 12 year old on GW product on a monthly basis.
I'm not saying appealing to younger players is a bad thing, but I really don't think the people genuinely driving sales are the kids buying their army 1 kit a month.
Yeah new blood is key but realistically the players buying up a nee army every year arn't the 10 to 16 year olds with mummy and daddies money.

As to the dice issue. Rerolls are crazy but have you ever timed a comp list shooting phase vrs a casual 1 or 2 of each special weapon in each unit shooting phase.

Each addition weapon profile per unit slows the game down significantly. I'd hate to have to play against 3 havoc squads with 1 of each weapon plus rerolls. It's bad enough when your opponents atleast rolling 4 cannons or bolters simultaneously. Having to roll for 5 weapon profiles per squad is needlessly counter productive rules because some middle manger wants to make a name for themselves.

Ice_can wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I got started in 40k as a 12yr old, I know people who started younger. I think this is quite common.
There's often a dip at ~university age when girls and booze capture people's interest.
And then people return to 40k once they've matured and settled down.

So I think appealing to children is a profitable endeavour for GW.

Phases taking forever because of ridiculous bloat is nothing new to 40k though.
When shooting you've got to consider your stratagems and 3 different buffs so you're rerolling half your dice and some are exploding. Then you need to roll a second handful because you can't fit enough dice from your basic grunt squad in one hand.

The thing is how much were you spending as a 12 year old on GW product on a monthly basis.
I'm not saying appealing to younger players is a bad thing, but I really don't think the people genuinely driving sales are the kids buying there army 1 kit a month.
Yeah new blood is key but realistically the players buying up a nee army every year arn't the 10 to 16 year olds with mummy and daddies money.

Maybe not, but keep in mind that that group is the one most likely to turn into big spenders a couple of years later. It's a variation on the typical getting them young lots of brands try for. And, of course, plenty of kids have parents who are perfectly willing to spend a bit on gifts for their kids.

 Blackie wrote:
Weapons all work with different ranges, which is big for a glass cannon unit. Some want the bearer to get close (18'' assault + melta Heat Lances or 12'' assault Shredders), some prefer the mid range (36'' rapid fire Splinter Cannons or 18'' assault Blasters), Dark Lances (36'' heavy 1) are for long range with a penalty if the bearer moves.

So it wouldn't actually invalidate the unit (ie. make them suddenly illegal/non-workable within the framework of the rules as they exist), it would just make them a useless unit.

 Blackie wrote:
... while Plague Marines don't really care if they lost a few special weapons...

If you've been keeping up, the players certainly care.

 Blackie wrote:
Devastators would work much better with mixed weapons as they all have mid to long range, except for multi meltas. A unit with lascannons, heavy bolters, plasma cannons and missile launchers will still be very functional as everything is heavy 36'' or more. And yet they kept freedom of choice for the unit's wargear.

A Dev squad with rando-mixed weapons would not function all that well.

Karol wrote:
Also about WAAC thing, isn't it just efficiency? I don't think anyone would want to run a unit with mixed load outs. If someone wants anti horde or anti tank they don't want to have one heavy bolter and one multi melta in the squad. Unless it is super cheap or something.

This discussion has brought up a sub-set of Dakkanauts who think that "trying" in any capacity is the same as being a WAAC player.

Ice_can wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I got started in 40k as a 12yr old, I know people who started younger. I think this is quite common.
There's often a dip at ~university age when girls and booze capture people's interest.
And then people return to 40k once they've matured and settled down.

So I think appealing to children is a profitable endeavour for GW.

Phases taking forever because of ridiculous bloat is nothing new to 40k though.
When shooting you've got to consider your stratagems and 3 different buffs so you're rerolling half your dice and some are exploding. Then you need to roll a second handful because you can't fit enough dice from your basic grunt squad in one hand.

The thing is how much were you spending as a 12 year old on GW product on a monthly basis.
I'm not saying appealing to younger players is a bad thing, but I really don't think the people genuinely driving sales are the kids buying there army 1 kit a month.
Yeah new blood is key but realistically the players buying up a nee army every year arn't the 10 to 16 year olds with mummy and daddies money.

Older people might get a full second hand army though and stick with that forever, I know players that did that. Kids typically can't invest large sums in a single transaction.

12yo players also will likely paint their models very badly and when they grow up they'll probably want to start a new army, maybe even the same one. I know that, as I started at 11 and my painted models were absolute gak. My history with 40k is exactly like the one described by Kirotheavenger, starting as a kid and leaving in my mid-late teens, then I came back in my early 20s. I don't think I'd have been interested in 40k without my hobby experience as a kid.

Some kids were certainly big spenders (or rather their parents were). Always the most obnoxious ones for some reason as well.

Regardless, I think the point is more of an investment. If you get the kids interested, they'll come back to 40k later when they do have big money.

They obviously churn out editions to push sales. The fact that 40K is on edition 9 when it has existed for 13 fewer years than Dungeons and Dragons which is on edition 5 is pretty telling.

Ice_can 795404 11032175 wrote:
I'm not saying appealing to younger players is a bad thing, but I really don't think the people genuinely driving sales are the kids buying their army 1 kit a month.
Yeah new blood is key but realistically the players buying up a nee army every year arn't the 10 to 16 year olds with mummy and daddies money.

I can definitly say that this is a case. Only dude under 30 I know who have more then one army, are those whose either brothers or fathers play or played w40k or fantasy

 Da Boss wrote:
They obviously churn out editions to push sales. The fact that 40K is on edition 9 when it has existed for 13 fewer years than Dungeons and Dragons which is on edition 5 is pretty telling.

Easiest way to monetise the veterans of the game.
recurring monetisation.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I actually view major updates as a negative. Relaunching a product should be a last resort for when the product is not good enough and cannot be easily fixed.
However, for 40k it's standard operating procedure.

I'm not that familiar with other games, but I can't think of another major game that's on higher than the 4th edition.

other companies use a new Editon to correct mistakes or to add new stuff that was previously in a different book

a 2nd Edition for a lot of games is just a re-print of the 1st Edition including FAQ/Errata and a 3rd Edi includes rules found in a Scenario/Campaign book

That a new Edition is more of a new Game that shakes everything up and were changes are there for the sake of change without addressing the problems is more a GW exclusive and part of their buisness model

usually you have 2 Editions that are similar and can be considered as the same game and the 3rd is something new (for 40k there is 2nd, 3rd/4th, 5th , 6th/7th, 8th/9th and you can expect 10th to be more different again)

 Dolnikan wrote:

Part of that is because GW is pretty old for a gaming company, although DnD of course is older, and is at its fifth edition. But one problem that miniature games run into is that the main market is the minis, and, of course, the whole issue that most sales are around new releases. That however requires constant updates, and there are only so many 'even more space marines' books you can sell

Constant updates to sell minis does not mean to make a new game all 3-4 years but can also mean to add new faction, have campaigns or new settings, or a simple progress in the story

compare it to Battletech, the game is around for 37 years now and the core rules are still the same
with the changes in the publisher they also stopped naming the Editons after 4th, but it would be now in its 9th edition as well

comparing 2nd Edi 40k with 9th and 2nd Edi BT with 9th, for 40k those games have nothing in common any more except for some names, while for BT it is the same game that saw improvements

 Blackie wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I got started in 40k as a 12yr old, I know people who started younger. I think this is quite common.
There's often a dip at ~university age when girls and booze capture people's interest.
And then people return to 40k once they've matured and settled down.

So I think appealing to children is a profitable endeavour for GW.

Phases taking forever because of ridiculous bloat is nothing new to 40k though.
When shooting you've got to consider your stratagems and 3 different buffs so you're rerolling half your dice and some are exploding. Then you need to roll a second handful because you can't fit enough dice from your basic grunt squad in one hand.

The thing is how much were you spending as a 12 year old on GW product on a monthly basis.
I'm not saying appealing to younger players is a bad thing, but I really don't think the people genuinely driving sales are the kids buying there army 1 kit a month.
Yeah new blood is key but realistically the players buying up a nee army every year arn't the 10 to 16 year olds with mummy and daddies money.

Older people might get a full second hand army though and stick with that forever, I know players that did that. Kids typically can't invest large sums in a single transaction.

12yo players also will likely paint their models very badly and when they grow up they'll probably want to start a new army, maybe even the same one. I know that, as I started at 11 and my painted models were absolute gak. My history with 40k is exactly like the one described by Kirotheavenger, starting as a kid and leaving in my mid-late teens, then I came back in my early 20s. I don't think I'd have been interested in 40k without my hobby experience as a kid.

Maybe I'm not communicating my point correctly.

I'm not against getting kids into the hobby and that most of the guys in their 20-30's playing 40k did play as a kid and that's why they come back to it in their 20's to 30's.

But what I don't get is how arbitrarily deciding to restrict units to the options in 1 box helps anyone be it little timmy building his army 1 box at a time or Dave the tournament flavour of the month dude going through a commission painted meta army every 6 months.

This feels like someone who has never actually played 40k outside of as a distraction while drinking with mates thibks this is a great idea and is not prepaired for the backlash.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

For those unaware, more stuff from the Death Guard codex has been revealed, and basically you're limited to whatever is in the kit for Plague Marines. Not only is this stupidly wordy and complex, it's asinine and takes away from various builds that have been done before, all in the name of "write the rules for the kit". Apparently their Terminators suffered a similar fate as well.

These rules writers are on drugs. I don't know what kind, but anything that would make this seem like a good idea would not be good for for brain.

This isn't new if you're an Age of Sigmar player. Stormfiends suffered the same change a few years ago with the latest Skaven Battletome. All Age of Sigmar kits are now basically 'Build as the box', and if there are options, limited to what the box can build. Kharadron Overlords recently had this come into effect with their latest battletome too.

looks like the model vs rules philosophy, which exists in AoS, is crossing over to 40k. Especially in kits where there are not interchangeable parts. If this process continues, I could certainly see a point where Power Level becomes more relevant, especially if folks are building kits in more consistent ways. As Someone who plays AoS, army building in that game is so much easier than 40k, and I'd love 40k to be at a stage where Power Level becomes the norm.

Not Online!!! wrote:

WAAC =/= Competitive.

WAAC isn't necessarily competitve, all he want is to win, but not in a way that requires necessarily skill. He is just as happy crushing noobs with his net list as he is cheating in tournaments for the win. Basically the win is all that matters to him.

Competitve players also want to win, but for them the challange of getting that win, fair and square is the actual draw. The challange with the goal to win is what matters to him.

yep, i try to win my games even though i don't bring optimal lists. I still play to win instead of just play the fluffy way. A casual can still be competitive, just as a casual can still be waac

Honestly this is such a non issue for me in regards to regular infantry or even elite infantry units. I really couldn't possibly care less.

I only am annoyed by loss of options for characters but that ship already sailed. For instance, no Primaris Iron Hand can take the Iron Hands relic axe. It's literally impossible because there is no Primaris Iron Hands character with a "power axe" (the new tech Marine has a differently named axe FYI, and the lieutenant with an axe is space wolves only)

Won't stop me from converting something though.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I actually view major updates as a negative. Relaunching a product should be a last resort for when the product is not good enough and cannot be easily fixed.
However, for 40k it's standard operating procedure.

I'm not that familiar with other games, but I can't think of another major game that's on higher than the 4th edition.

Part of the problem lies in the fact that GW never really knew if they wanted to make a roleplaying game or a wargame. Other wargames are really strict about what you can put on your soliders/vehicles or whatever. GW, however, kinda wanted to create a personalized roleplaying game in the form of a wargame so they decided to add options, especially for what they considered the player class(Space Marines).

In later years new options/weapons has become GW's default method in trying to get people to buy the new models which just contributes to the mire that is the Warhammer hobby. They have been slightly better at this in AoS making different weapon layouts act more like separate units rather than just being an option you can take on a singular unit. Unless it is Kharadron Overlords, then they've kinda lost it with options again.

Omnissian Power Axe is still a Power Axe...no Primaris Raven Guard can use the jump pack or lightning claws.

I’m split.

It’s irritating for folks with specialised squads, whether from 2nd hand purchases or getting handy with conversions.

But on the other hand? It does somewhat mitigate “pay to win” mechanics, such as where a certain combination of equipment is super effective, but costs more to put together.

Precedent wise it is worrying. Consider the humble Havoc squad. Since forever, they and their loyalist equivalent have had the choice to super specialise, or mix up the weapons. Generally, specialisation is more desirable, as you’re less likely to wind up with wasted shots/points (though freely splitting fire has mitigated somewhat).


But, if this is implemented for that squad? You could only ever choose between....

- 2 autocannons
- 2 heavy bolters
- 2 lascannons
- 2 missile launchers
- 1 reaper chaincannon

That’s....not particularly desirable. And yes whilst I said freely splitting fire does mitigate, it’s still making decisions for the player when it really doesn’t need to.

Likewise Chaos Terminators. With a free choice of combi-weapons (which aren’t tricky to convert at all), the squad can be properly specialised. But if they follow suit to “only the options in one box”? You can’t have more than one combi-plasma, two combi-flamer and two combi-melta.

That’s not a particularly desirable mix either, as you’re definitely winding up in target selection issues where only a couple of weapons are going to pull their weight.

If there's anything that says simple and elegant design, it's needing a wall of text to tell you what weapons a basic troop unit can have.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

My question is, should I start ripping the arms off my Dark Eldar and Black Legion now? or should I wait until their codex drops to see what they've invalidated.

*Looks at GW's history of deleting DE models and units outright*

Mate, you're not going to need clippers; you're going to need a dustpan and brush.

 Dolnikan wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I actually view major updates as a negative. Relaunching a product should be a last resort for when the product is not good enough and cannot be easily fixed.
However, for 40k it's standard operating procedure.

I'm not that familiar with other games, but I can't think of another major game that's on higher than the 4th edition.

Part of that is because GW is pretty old for a gaming company, although DnD of course is older, and is at its fifth edition.

Higher than that. D&D has more editions than just the numbered ones. There were, I believe, 2 editions before 1st edition, the Mentzer Basic/Expert/Champion/Master/Immortal version, 3rd had 3.0 and 3.5 (which was basically errata and a revamp of a whole swath of rules, replacing all the books), 4th edition had the 'Essentials' rewrite after just two years and a complete overhaul of their planned product line, where all the original classes were re-written and the monster math was redone (and the skill challenge system was rewritten upwards of six times during the course of 4th edition, and still a failure every time). So more like 10 editions, give or take some quibbling.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So it wouldn't actually invalidate the unit (ie. make them suddenly illegal/non-workable within the framework of the rules as they exist), it would just make them a useless unit.

Yeah, I could definitely see it. The Scourges come with regular guns also, and it would be more justifiable to limit the datasheet than it was for the Plague Marines as there are not a huge amount of relatively new Scourge minis that came from different boxes. And the Terminators can take one of each combi weapon as there is one of each in the box. So for 9E they might become a mediocre, Swooping Hawks style harassment unit instead of flying Devastators. Sounds fun!

For myself, I can either just add 3 men to each of my PM squads and make them legal (but lose the ability to put a character in their Rhino), or switch guys around and have a bunch of eclectic squads that don't excel at anything. I'd rather have different loadouts for different purposes, but either way they'll probably be pretty good. The power of the book is not the issue.

War of the Spider came out less than a year ago and some of the cults you can pick incentivize melee. Theres got to be at least a few people that made a bunch of dual knife guys and never even got to play them. Thankfully, I didn't do that or make any plasma terminators. I can understand ignoring or retiring older kits, but all the Dark Imperium+ Dg stuff seems far too new to do that. The Death Guard Heroes literally just came out!

I'm not one to complain or always be negative, but this one seems worth complaining about. I'm concerned about how this will play out going forward as it could hit my other armies very hard.

What worries me is the fact of unit or even armies viability with changes like that. If termintors are good, when they have the same set of combi weapon on most or all models, then if that option is taken away, people will stop playing the unit, and if the unit is a corner stone of an army, then there is a risk that a faction won't be played at all.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I actually view major updates as a negative. Relaunching a product should be a last resort for when the product is not good enough and cannot be easily fixed.
However, for 40k it's standard operating procedure.

I'm not that familiar with other games, but I can't think of another major game that's on higher than the 4th edition.

Battletech comes to mind. It's a pretty stable system overall but every few years they reissue the core book. And sometimes there are minor changes lurking within the pages.
And in a few more years I predict that Flames of War will get a 5th edition.

And of course there's RPGs - D&D etc. Some of them have 4+ editions

ccs wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I actually view major updates as a negative. Relaunching a product should be a last resort for when the product is not good enough and cannot be easily fixed.
However, for 40k it's standard operating procedure.

I'm not that familiar with other games, but I can't think of another major game that's on higher than the 4th edition.

Battletech comes to mind. It's a pretty stable system overall but every few years they reissue the core book. And sometimes there are minor changes lurking within the pages.
And in a few more years I predict that Flames of War will get a 5th edition.

And of course there's RPGs - D&D etc. Some of them have 4+ editions

A big difference between something like D&D and 40k is that you can still play older editions of D&D without too much difficulty. It's much easier to get a group for 3.5 D&D than it is to get 4th edition 40k, for instance.

Voss wrote:

Higher than that. D&D has more editions than just the numbered ones. There were, I believe, 2 editions before 1st edition, the Mentzer Basic/Expert/Champion/Master/Immortal version, 3rd had 3.0 and 3.5 (which was basically errata and a revamp of a whole swath of rules, replacing all the books), 4th edition had the 'Essentials' rewrite after just two years and a complete overhaul of their planned product line, where all the original classes were re-written and the monster math was redone (and the skill challenge system was rewritten upwards of six times during the course of 4th edition, and still a failure every time). So more like 10 editions, give or take some quibbling.

Yes, there's at minimum 7 editions. After that it becomes an exercise in splitting hairs/opinion.
1) What's now known as "OD&D" - the original stuff launched in '74. This is a very rough un-polished product. And virtually required you to have a copy of the miniatures game (Chainmail) that it grew out of. How this thing survived to spawn the hobby/industry is a testament to the strength of the concept....
2) The Holmes/Moldvay/Mentzer versions of the game - this is a source of much hairsplitting. But it's essentially all the same thing. And, to some confusion, this product line ran concurrently with AD&D 1e & 2e.
3) Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Known as 1e once the next entry on this list was launched.
4) Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition - this is where the edition #ing started.
5) 3rd edition (and 3.5)
6) 4th ed
7) 5th ed

If your count reaches 8+ for D&D editions your just venturing into hair splitting territory.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

yeah, and people were asking for the exact opposite of what GW did. We wanted the kits to have all the weapons options, not the options to be stripped out.

Yea, man. I get it. You should be able to do that if you're crazy enough to tackle that project and GW might yet change its mind. But I do think it might be unfair to those without the same means to accomplish those conversions.

The horse left the barn a while ago with the mono-pose stuff. It seems to me that DG got the shaft in that regard, because a lot of other new kits haven't had that same treatment. GW may have had to push stylized out kits fast for the release of 8th.

I do not look forward to CSM Terminators and chain axes ( the lack of monopose may save them - we'll see soon enough I suppose ).

Where is it written it has to be fair in terms of capability ? I know plenty of people so rich they just toss money at any issue, even this game. I can't hope to keep up with all the variety and having like 3 of any unit in every configuration expertly painted for them. For them, this is no issue at all. If we all have the wargear options, we at least have the choice to scrounge up the bits, do the hobby work for our units and make them what we want. Equality of opportunity not equality of outcomes. I have been behind the 8 ball because I don't put limitless funds into the game but I have put in time and patience to search for those options I wanted, when I can.

Defending these dumb choices is really daft to me. They make the squad feel lame, it feels bad and it's overly penalizing for no reason other than someone feeling we are unable to find, get, craft or otherwise understand how to make the units we want. Disrespecting time, effort and desire. Like you still end up with two specials in 5-9 man squads, but it can't be the same one because, someone would feel bad I found another plasma and they didn't ? So why can't these same people get two boxes and and then run one with 2 blight launchers and one with 2 plasma at 7 man ? Is that really over the top amazing ?

It's a dumb idea they had, and people are right to be annoyed, me included.

I'm not posting to remove your right to be annoyed. I just oppose the histrionics and chicken little assertions paraded as fact.

This isn't the first some valid loadouts ( or models ) got axed and if they change them back it won't be the first time they do that, either.

In regards to fairness - the Blightlords kit has four regular combis. There is a fairly small percentage of folks who would buy jewler's saw and then have the knowledge to cast the bits from the sprue to get something that fits the model appropriately. In the present situation If a poor hobbyist buys Blightlords and a rich one buys them and has them painted - they're both still operating under the same guidelines where previously the rich hobbyist could afford the tools and knowledge it takes to make those conversions. I'm not asserting this to be GW's motive. It is just my own thought.

Would the game be massively up-ended by PG PMs? I don't know. I don't have the book to process everything else it has.

I can see that 5 PMs with 3 PG creates a unit that is stupidly great. With Ferric Blight they'll be Intercessors that move and double tap ( bolters ) and have AP4 PGs. That unit would do 4 wounds to Primaris for 135 and Intercessors would do 1 back for 100 points. If Primaris had the same loadout they'd do just about the same damage as with bolters, so....yea. That isn't even considering 1/10 of the book.

So here's my prediction. This book is so fething cool and fun that literally no one is going to give a gak in a month.