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.

Hello all!

I'm slowly working through the data on the X-cross edition survey that closed at the end of September. I promise more is coming soon (including the full data set), but I did crank through one analysis that I wanted to share, both in terms of feedback, and because I think it's interesting and one of the central questions I was hoping to dig into.

This first analysis is what I'm calling the Favorability Rating of each past edition of 40k assessed in terms of players that have played other editions. So for example, if someone has played 9th edition and also played 5th, what do they think of 5th edition?

What I did for this analysis was to determine what constitutes having "played a given edition". For each edition, players were asked to pick one of the following choices in the survey:

( 1 ) Never played the edition
( 2 ) Played a few games (less than 10)
( 3 ) Played a moderate amount (10-50)
( 4 ) Played Extensively (50+)
( 5 ) Played Extensively and Competitively

Keeping the pool larger, anyone that picked option 2-5 was counted as having "played" that edition.

Players were also asked, for each edition they had played, what they rated it, as follows:

( 1 ) Did not like it at all
( 2 ) Take it or leave it, some parts okay, some parts not okay
( 3 ) Decent but not perfect
( 4 ) Good overall, some minor quibbles
( 5 ) Loves it! A favorite edition!

After filtering out the non-responses (blanks, didn't play), and running pivot tables versus each edition played, we could get a picture of the % breakdown of ratings. I assigned a -2 to +2 value to the 5 rating options, and determined the sum based on the distribution of the responses to get to a "favorability" rating. The results are in the chart below:



Anything with a negative value tends towards being negatively viewed overall (or at least not very excited about it, e.g. the "take it leave it" option). Positive numbers are ones where people are, well, more positive about the game in question.

It is worth pointing out that there is overlap within the data set, such that people who have "played 9th edition" for example includes people who have played other editions as well. But it starts to show some general trends.

Overall, 5th edition is a clear winner, almost across the board. People that played 6th edition liked 5th the most, but it scores well across the board. I don't think this is any surprise to people involved in these sorts of old-edition discussions, and whenever the question comes up, anecdotally I feel that 5th gets the most positive accolades, but it's nice to see that backed up in the numbers.

Speaking of 6th edition, and extending it to 7th, its pretty clear that these are universally disliked the most. A side analysis I want to run is looking at the results for Horus Heresy 1.0 and 2.0, since I asked about people's perceptions to that as well - and it's much more favorable despite being based on 7th edition. I suspect (and they survey results can help us dig into it) that much of the dislike around 6th and 7th had to do with the codexes and army balance, and less about the core rules directly. But we'll see

Looking at 8th and 9th edition, 8th edition is seen more favorably - especially by 9th edition players. Although 9th edition players also liked 9th edition quite a bit more than players who had played other editions as well. I didn't pull out the data, but questions like how do people who "only played" 9th edition feel about 9th edition versus people who also played other editions might be worth asking, but I think the conclusion would be the same. That said, the decline in favorability from 8th to 9th edition can't be understated IMHO, and reflects some of the general tone and disgruntlement about the current state of the game.

Another interesting way of looking at it is to note (for example) that 3rd edition players liked 9th edition the least (-0.10). By the time you get to 7th edition players, 9th edition favorability is slightly positive (0.02). Might start to reflect things like people scarred from the era of 6th/7th found 8th/9th to be a welcome reprieve, whereas players with experience in earlier editions were more familiar with the "older good times" and hence were more critical of 8th and 9th (in particular).

Looping back to the start, people who played 1st edition (Rogue Trader), quite liked 2nd edition, but in contrast to almost everyone else, wasn't quite as keen on 3rd-5th edition. We can dig a bit into the detailed points of feedback to try and understand why.

Anyway, this is all for the moment. I wanted to get the conversation rolling and give a chance to ask any big questions about the data or things you'd like to see from the data as I move forward.

Thanks!

Nice work so far! I'm happy to see you do this.

Your results correspond well to my general impressions of the playerbase, but I'll fight them all on the 4th ed vs. 5th ed front, haha!

Another chart to go along with this thread.

This is just the full unfiltered ratings for each edition along with the % breakdown and chart display.

Couple of quick observations:

(1) People rated 2nd edition the most highly overall, which I think is interesting. 3rd-5th edition were all very close to 2nd as well (and close to each other). 6th & 7th nosedived as expected. And 8th/9th are quite a bit less favored overall compared to 2nd - 5th.

(2) The amount of people that "Love" 9th edition (16.4%) is pretty close to the amount that people loved 4th and 5th (14.4% and 18.4%). That's good news. However, the big thing that pulls 9th edition down is relatively high number of people that "Don't like it at all!" at 16.4%, right behind 6th and 7th edition for most disliked. So while there is a good number of people that like 9th edition, a solid number of people really dislike it. Overall, it's more of a "split result" with people either liking it or disliking. In comparison to 5th, only 3.6% don't like it at all for example.


I also made a quick chart on the number of respondents that have played the various editions:



Unsurprisingly, the numbers for 1st and 2nd edition are quite a bit lower, so take any 1st/2nd edition results with a grain of salt.

How powerful were the different space marines armies in 4th and 5th ed? If they were okeyish to good, it could explain the difference between them and the high number of dislikes for 9th ed from some people.

Karol wrote:
How powerful were the different space marines armies in 4th and 5th ed? If they were okeyish to good, it could explain the difference between them and the high number of dislikes for 9th ed from some people.

From memory, marines were almost always middle of the pack from a power point of view. One perk was they got a codex every edition, which was not the norm, so would often get a boost from that. And sometimes some builds/chapters would rise to the top. Like how 5th ed GK armies could abuse wound allocation, and spam mid S shots better then most.

Karol wrote:
How powerful were the different space marines armies in 4th and 5th ed? If they were okeyish to good, it could explain the difference between them and the high number of dislikes for 9th ed from some people.

Space marines for the most part were very much generalists in 4th and 5th edition. some codexes worked better at some aspects of the game as marine armies by nature of the lore based rules. armies with a steeper learning curve like Eldar were more finesse specialized armies that tended to be less forgivable if you made mistakes on the table but tended to hit harder.

In those previous editions the army build itself only got you so far. there were no gotcha shenanigans (stratagems/auras) to rely on the pull you out of the fire if you made a tactical mistake on the table.


Mezmorki-

Fantastic work, it pretty well matches my experience over the last 20 years. people who never played prior editions before 8th/9th VS those who played an older edition fall well into your results.

I have had overwhelmingly positive results teaching 5th ed games to the 8th/9th ed only experienced players.

Oh this is some super cool data points!

On Heresy, its probably in part because up until 2.0 it was a more niche game that didn't get as much flavor of the month broken stuff thrown into it as standard 40k. 6th/7th is the weakest of the 3rd-7th rulesets, but if you avoid some of the pitfalls of formations (well, the broken ones like "have 500 points of free Rhinos and Razorbacks" or "deep strike almost all of your army turn 1" or just the simplicity of the Necron one whose name I forget in spite of it basically becoming the fan name for busted formations.), the fun of drastically underpriced Wraithknights and swarms of Scatterbikes, and so on, then you can still make a decent game from it. It probably helps that there were fewer completely obvious broken things, and while they did exist, they weren't as prevalent or drastic as in 40k.

That would be my guess at least.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Nice work so far! I'm happy to see you do this.

Your results correspond well to my general impressions of the playerbase, but I'll fight them all on the 4th ed vs. 5th ed front, haha!

Yeah, my personal favorite would be a combination of the 2 editions. Line of sight and the like from 4th, vehicle durability buffs from 5th (without the bonus point cuts on several vehicles that came with it - off the top of my head I think the Chimera went down like 40 points, lost open topped when used as a firebase, and could take advantage of the durability buffs), etc. I'm playing very rarely at the moment, but when I do its either pushing for 4th, 5th, a bastardization of the two (I *still* need to fully parse through Prohammer...), or One Page Rules

Karol wrote:
How powerful were the different space marines armies in 4th and 5th ed? If they were okeyish to good, it could explain the difference between them and the high number of dislikes for 9th ed from some people.

About mid grade. They had amazing amount of unit role customization, though, and you could make about six to ten viable armies out of book, making list tailoring pretty much impossible. You actually had to consider what to take to have all comer army, instead of brainlessly netlisting stuff that counters most broken wombo combo being played now. This also made impossible to just mindlessly spam one 'best' weapon because you would be slaughtered walking into list that offered few targets to such spam.

GK alone had greywing (regular GK), all terminators, paladinwing with Draigo, purifierwing with Crowe, airborne lists with flyers acting as transports, and mechanized lists, all of which could be combined with dreadnoughts and dreadknights, as both were viable support units. Then there was all-Inquisition Coteazwing with just GK support, assassins, that was easily better GK book than all other GK books ever written put together.

Alas, then clowns writing 40K completely dumped that customization (which now lives in AoS lists, go figure) and ruined all fun you had building armies or theorycrafting new combos, all while leading to stale wombo combo spam we have now

 Nevelon wrote:
Like how 5th ed GK armies could abuse wound allocation, and spam mid S shots better then most.

This is just utterly and comically wrong. The only unit in GK range that could ""abuse"" wounds were paladins, that were both horrifically expensive and required huge character tax to field as troops (and also died like flies to anything S8+ and/or AP2). If anything, that "abuse" was what kept the unit still viable and on tables, as the book, you know, was written by actually competent designer for once. If anything, Ork nobz and bikerz were much higher on scale of 'abuse' of multiple wounds, but you won't hear that online because a lot of screeching about GK was juvenile 4chan drivel mudslinging the GK book author in particular with anything these monkeys could contrive.

And what, spam mid S shots better then most? One GK (cheapest) model was almost equal to two tactical marines in points and was inferior to them at short range in pretty much everything. In fact, Space Wolves could easily outshoot GK even at their best range, especially when their cheap as chips plasma/melta spam was considered. Beyond mid range, about everyone but orks could outshoot GK with ease (again, competent writer who made sure armies had both strengths and weaknesses so you needed to play to both). With 5th edition GK, you needed to show some real skill to know when to melee, when to shoot, when to redeploy to win. But again, old 4chan anti-GK rants found on the net just made up stuff and didn't care about any semblance of reality inside

 Irbis wrote:
If anything, Ork nobz and bikerz were much higher on scale of 'abuse' of multiple wounds, but you won't hear that online because a lot of screeching about GK was juvenile 4chan drivel mudslinging the GK book author in particular with anything these monkeys could contrive.

...Are you really suggesting nobody remembers and talks about Nob Warbiker wound shenanigans? That was the go-to example for how 5th Ed's wound allocation was broken.

I sincerely hope you stick around the thread, instead of this being another drive-by where you declare that something is 'laughable' or 'comically wrong', deliver a nonsensical hot take, and vanish again.

Personal request to please not to get wildly off-topic down a rabbit hole of unit-detail debates. Try to keep things higher level to the extent possible.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Personal request to please not to get wildly off-topic down a rabbit hole of unit-detail debates. Try to keep things higher level to the extent possible.

Gotcha. Plenty of other threads for that.

I forget, did you get data from the survey about what people’s main army is/was. Obviously that might switch per edition over time, but it might be fun to see the data on which army was people’s favorite in each edition. If you have the numbers.

Well if they were mid tier, it could explain it then. Right now and in 8th, aside for 2.0 times, being a marine player, chaos or imperial was not a fun time. Specialy for chaos the idea of chaos marine lists having as few actual chaos space marines in it left me wondering what GW is thinking durning their design team talks.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
Personal request to please not to get wildly off-topic down a rabbit hole of unit-detail debates. Try to keep things higher level to the extent possible.

Gotcha. Plenty of other threads for that.

I forget, did you get data from the survey about what people’s main army is/was. Obviously that might switch per edition over time, but it might be fun to see the data on which army was people’s favorite in each edition. If you have the numbers.

Thanks!

I did collect armies played by edition (it didn't specify "main" or not). I'll need to come up with a concise way to visualize that data, because it's pretty fine grained.

A lot of what I'm trying to do in the data analysis is normalize the results around the # of people that played a given edition. It should be no surprise that the raw number of votes tend to learn towards 9th edition, since that's what respondents have played the most (since its newer and current obviously) - so normalizing the raw numbers based on the number of times a given edition was played, and presenting the %'s give a little fairer picture looking back.

I'm curious for the reason of the increase of dislikes in 8th/9th, I'm assuming it's the shift to faster churn and/or competitive play leading the show. Other than that pretty much as expected, beyond some minor quibbles 5th likely deserves crown of most liked (outside of 2nd).

I wonder how much of the dislike of 7th was due to GW going full on "selling power" mode starting with the Necron codex vs dislike of the core rules at the beginning of 7th when codexes were a lot more restrained or still mostly 6th edition releases. I loved playing 7th (and still do whenever I can find something to play a game with) but even I found the direction GW went with its later 7th edition codex releases to be horrifically bad. It took an active effort to try and coordinate a somewhat level playing field with an opponent before putting models on the table to avoid one sided stomps due to how horrible the codex balance was.

I would say it likely boils down to the release of multiple Codexes with extremely powerful options that sat alongside books that were at best a minor annoyance to these factions. Combined with the plethora of Supplements that either locked specific armies into a single powerful (but boring) playstyle or just buffed others to the extreme (cough*Ynarri*cough) and the difference between early 7th books having different formations to the later ones and the fact that there were still 6th books in play that needed a Supplement to even get formations, and it did not make for a fun version of the game.
Many in our gaming group simply refused to play anyone with any form of Eldar after the Ynarri came out while shenanigans with formations meant armies like Admech and Marines got refused a lot as well. It didn't help that certain powerful formations were web bundle exclusives that some people just pirated until the GW store staff found out and banned their use.

Dudeface wrote:I'm curious for the reason of the increase of dislikes in 8th/9th, I'm assuming it's the shift to faster churn and/or competitive play leading the show. Other than that pretty much as expected, beyond some minor quibbles 5th likely deserves crown of most liked (outside of 2nd).

Some of the dislike for the modern versions might be the lack of nostalgia goggles. We’ve not had enough time for memories to smooth off the rough edges in our minds.

Vankraken wrote:I wonder how much of the dislike of 7th was due to GW going full on "selling power" mode starting with the Necron codex vs dislike of the core rules at the beginning of 7th when codexes were a lot more restrained or still mostly 6th edition releases. I loved playing 7th (and still do whenever I can find something to play a game with) but even I found the direction GW went with its later 7th edition codex releases to be horrifically bad. It took an active effort to try and coordinate a somewhat level playing field with an opponent before putting models on the table to avoid one sided stomps due to how horrible the codex balance was.

6th and 7th did feel like the marketing and sales guys unabashedly held the reins. Tons of books, poor balance, and a pay-to-win feel. Lot of bad blood, at least in my experience. YMMV.

 aphyon wrote:

Karol wrote:
How powerful were the different space marines armies in 4th and 5th ed? If they were okeyish to good, it could explain the difference between them and the high number of dislikes for 9th ed from some people.

armies with a steeper learning curve like Eldar

LOL was that serious

6th gets a bad rep because assault was wreaked making some popular races and lists unplayable. Units could not disembark and charge, charge distances were random, and I think free Overwatch was first seen in 6th. Basically a massive overcorrection that ruined melee fun for many.

I was playing Necrons, mostly against SMs and Tao so we had a great time with 6th edition. I would be interested to see if the votes were polarized for 6th around the type of army people played. For example, Ork players have a great reason to hate 6th.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Nice work so far! I'm happy to see you do this.

Your results correspond well to my general impressions of the playerbase, but I'll fight them all on the 4th ed vs. 5th ed front, haha!

You won't be alone in that fight. It'd be pretty hard to convince any CSM player who was around for 4th edition that 5th was better.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Nice work so far! I'm happy to see you do this.

Your results correspond well to my general impressions of the playerbase, but I'll fight them all on the 4th ed vs. 5th ed front, haha!

You won't be alone in that fight. It'd be pretty hard to convince any CSM player who was around for 4th edition that 5th was better.

Heh. Yeah I'd mash those two books together . . . But by that I mean give CSMs Frag, Krak and Bolt Pistols as standard equipment as given in the late 4th-5th era book, and then change basically nothing else.

As someone who started in third I have to say this is pretty accurate to my experience.

I enjoyed 4th/5th more than any other editions, absolutely hated 6th/7th and just can't muster a damn to give about 8th/9th. I played a lot of 8th/9th but it is so sanitized and boring at this point with very little room for interesting builds, every game just feels like it plays out the same with utterly predictable results.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Nice work so far! I'm happy to see you do this.

Your results correspond well to my general impressions of the playerbase, but I'll fight them all on the 4th ed vs. 5th ed front, haha!

You won't be alone in that fight. It'd be pretty hard to convince any CSM player who was around for 4th edition that 5th was better.

Heh. Yeah I'd mash those two books together . . . But by that I mean give CSMs Frag, Krak and Bolt Pistols as standard equipment as given in the late 4th-5th era book, and then change basically nothing else.

We all know the 3.5 chaos codex was always the best, nothing since can hold a candle to it. in fact, i just did a game last weekend against a 3.5 word bearers list VS my 5th ed marines with allied demon hunters. it was great fun..the demonic incursion rules are real.

As far as mashing.....that is basically what we do. if you have checked any of the discussions Mezmorki and i have had. we play core 5th but "fix" a few problem rules or add good rules by pulling them from other editions.

from 4th specifically we pull the vehicle assault rules. sniper rifle hit/wound rules and wound allocation rules. as to your other point- per 5th we do just auto give every faction free basic grenades at no cost. it works well since any 3rd-7th ed codex is allowed to be used in our games.

Dudeface wrote:
I'm curious for the reason of the increase of dislikes in 8th/9th, I'm assuming it's the shift to faster churn and/or competitive play leading the show. Other than that pretty much as expected, beyond some minor quibbles 5th likely deserves crown of most liked (outside of 2nd).

A complete revamp of the rules can sometimes throw people off, but I'd wager that (especially with 9th) it's the continued adding of layers and layers of complication to Codices, where players need a damned checklist to run through each turn to make sure they're not forgetting all the overlapping buffs, auras, psychic powers, prayers, command abilities and strats. And the escalation of strats to the point of absurdity.

2nd Ed was a complex game, but it never felt as out of control as a game of 8th and especially 9th, not even during multi-unique multi-squad close combat rounds.

 catbarf wrote:
I sincerely hope you stick around the thread, instead of this being another drive-by where you declare that something is 'laughable' or 'comically wrong', deliver a nonsensical hot take, and vanish again.

Birds fly. Flowers bloom. And Irby drives by after telling everyone they're wrong whilst being wrong himself.

These are universal constants. Try not to fight them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I'm curious for the reason of the increase of dislikes in 8th/9th, I'm assuming it's the shift to faster churn and/or competitive play leading the show. Other than that pretty much as expected, beyond some minor quibbles 5th likely deserves crown of most liked (outside of 2nd).

A complete revamp of the rules can sometimes throw people off, but I'd wager that (especially with 9th) it's the continued adding of layers and layers of complication to Codices, where players need a damned checklist to run through each turn to make sure they're not forgetting all the overlapping buffs, auras, psychic powers, prayers, command abilities and strats. And the escalation of strats to the point of absurdity.

2nd Ed was a complex game, but it never felt as out of control as a game of 8th and especially 9th, not even during multi-unique multi-squad close combat rounds.

 catbarf wrote:
I sincerely hope you stick around the thread, instead of this being another drive-by where you declare that something is 'laughable' or 'comically wrong', deliver a nonsensical hot take, and vanish again.

Birds fly. Flowers bloom. And Irby drives by after telling everyone they're wrong whilst being wrong himself.

These are universal constants. Try not to fight them.

I mean, he just said Eldar were a high skill army so....

 Tokhuah wrote:
6th gets a bad rep because assault was wreaked making some popular races and lists unplayable. Units could not disembark and charge, charge distances were random, and I think free Overwatch was first seen in 6th. Basically a massive overcorrection that ruined melee fun for many.

I don't remember 6th as being particularly bad for melee. It may very well have been. I know it changed a bunch of stuff around melee like diversifying power weapons into sword, axe, maul and glaive (lance?) and introducing challenges. Overwatch existed in 2nd, but I don't know how similar it was to 6th. The change to power weapons had unintended side effects like punking Dante with the Axe Mortalis at I1. So he sat on the shelf.

The big changes in 6th to me were Allies (interesting idea, poorly implemented and therefore abused), Fortifications (please buy this bastion kit) and Flyers (terrible idea, unsuited to the scale of the game, but hey higher margin kits). Later in the edition they started introducing Dataslates. Anybody remember the $17 dataslate for a $17 Cypher figure? Then the 6th edition Nid codex came out in 4 parts in the winter of 2014. There was the codex itself and then 3 dataslates to make it actually work on the tabletop.

Late sixth was the time my favorite podcasts and blogs all started to fold as they got burned out. It was never one specific thing, it was just the weight of all the little things together that killed their passion.

Quick update, as I'm getting most of the way through the data analysis and pulling out results to share.

To give a head's up on what will be coming, the list below itemizes the major aspects of the analysis I'm working through:

(1) Assessment of the respondent "demographics" in terms of their community (reddit vs dakka vs other), self identified tendency towards competitive vs narrative play, and modeling/painting interest.

(2) Establishment of "cohorts" that put each respondent into a unique grouping based on the different combinations of editions they have played. These cohorts can be used to breakdown other survey responses based on cohort. For example, how does the opinion of 9th edition differ between someone that's played continuously since 1st/2nd edition versus someone that jumped into the game in 8th/9th.

(3) Following from the above, a detailed overall edition rating analysis based on a 5-point response scale. Much of the ratings and other analysis are normalizing the results based on the volume of applicable responses rather than reporting raw numbers. Helps paint a better picture and accounts for varying response rates.

(4) Detailed assessment of positive/negative opinions across 10 Game Aspects for each edition. Again normalized.

(5) Detailed specific rule and game mechanic opinions, for over 40 different mechanics, broken down by cohort. For example, what's the overall preference/attitude towards "pre-measuring allowed" and pre-measuring not allowed, and does that vary at all by cohort? Those sorts of questions.

-------------------------------------------------------
I'm mostly through the above - and this will be my focus of big post and the data release

The items below are pending / will be forthcoming
-------------------------------------------------------

(6) Assessment of faction/army popularity across editions

(7) Assessment of write-in responses and key trends / themes that emerge from those comments (there are a LOT of them)

We're getting there!

Thanks for putting in the work crunching the numbers. Always fascinating to see what comes out of the data.

For the curious, a bit below is the cohort breakdown.

Basically, I created five different "eras" of the game, based on combining one or more editions into an era. Then, I systematically worked through the data for each combination to see where the bigger patterns of edition plays seemed to land, and took those as a basis for determining cohorts.



Unsurprisingly, most people and most cohorts have played 8th/9th edition - and certainly there is some bias here as active players are the one's more likely to be in online 40k communities and apt to see the survey. So results for things do skew towards familiarity with 8th/9th edition.

The cohort descriptions are thus:

Legends: These are players that started with 1st or 2nd edition and have played across each era up to and included the modern 8th/9th ed era. Surprised to see so many 1st/2nd edition players

Oldtimers: Similar to above, but they missed out on 1st and 2nd edition. Players would've started in 3rd or 4th edition.

Veterans: Essentially the people that started in 5th edition and kept playing up through the current modern era.

Youngbloods: Started in 6th/7th edition (poor saps!) and stuck with it into the modern era.

Initiates: Started playing in 8th/9th. I'm surprised (but not surprised) that this cohort is as big as it is. There was a lot of buzz about 8th edition and big reset, and I think a lot of veteran players were roping newer players into the hobby.

Revivalists: This is a decent size cohort of people that are playing 8th/9th, but skipped 6th/7th after playing some combination of earlier editions/eras of 40k. Basically, it is older vets turned off by the churn and direction of 6th that dropped the game, only to come back in 8th or 9th edition.

Gap Yearists: People that played during 6th/7th and 8th/9th and in at least one or two other eras, but which had a "gap" somewhere in their history.

Classicists: These is the group of people falling into a range of different combinations (and is only 25 people in total) that haven't played 8th/9th edition at all, but have played some other combination of older editions that don't fall into any of the above categories.

There you have it!

I Am Legend.