Jump to content

Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Psychic Powers

Beta Rules

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
78 replies to this topic

#51
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

That would leave Grey Knight Purifiers still suffering the Smite nerf.  And as they now have the same stats as all other PA GK units, their 3" Smite is really the only reason they exist.

 

No one uses them currently because their 3" Smite is terrible.  A further nerf on top would relegate them to the bin permanently.


QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#52
Kallas

Kallas

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,145 posts
  • Location:Edinburgh, UK
  • Faction: Howling Griffons

That would leave Grey Knight Purifiers still suffering the Smite nerf.  And as they now have the same stats as all other PA GK units, their 3" Smite is really the only reason they exist.

 

No one uses them currently because their 3" Smite is terrible.  A further nerf on top would relegate them to the bin permanently.

 

In the specific instance of the Purifiers, they have a more powerful Smite, but get a shorter range. If they are in a position to use it, wouldn't it be tactically advisable to use them first, so as to not suffer any penalties to their test (and thereby have the best chance to go off, with their more powerful Smite)?

 

I don't see how the change particularly singles out Purifiers, because their short range actually makes their use of Smite/Purifying Flames more important (ie, Smites become harder, so use their d6 to inflict good damage early, rather than plinking away with multiple 1's).



#53
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
As said, no one uses Purifiers. Without the smite nerf thier 3" 'normal' smite is rubbish.

Tack The nerf on top and it only gets worse.

Purifiers do not need any nerfs. Anything else on top of them currently kill the unit dead.

The change was specifically to 1 damage smites so GK aren't effected.

But putting in an exception in this fashion still leaves GK purifiers effected.

That was how they were singled out.

Edit. And the relic banner. And possibly Stern.

Edit2.

Also The tactic of using them first means they will eat enemy denies. You can't bait denies with 1D smites on other targets first.

Edited by Gentlemanloser, 05 March 2018 - 07:57 PM.

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#54
Kallas

Kallas

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,145 posts
  • Location:Edinburgh, UK
  • Faction: Howling Griffons

As said, no one uses Purifiers. Without the smite nerf thier 3" 'normal' smite is rubbish.
[...]
Purifiers do not need any nerfs. Anything else on top of them currently kill the unit dead.

The change was specifically to 1 damage smites so GK aren't effected.
[...]
Also The tactic of using them first means they will eat enemy denies. You can't bait denies with 1D smites on other targets first.


I understand that Purifiers are rarely used, but I disagree that the Beta change (and the proposed mini-Smite exemption) would reduce their ability in any meaningful manner.

As you say, mini-Smites won't bait out Deny attempts (before or after any Beta change) so the exemption clause wouldn't do anything either way. The range of Purifying Flames means that only one, maybe two, unit(s) are really, practically, are going to be in any position to be usable in any given situation - while Deny attempts are reasonably likely to be aimed at PF, although that is a double edged sword: the enemy can (attempt) to Deny it, but then don't have that for other powers, like Gate or Sanctuary, which means it can be used for bait. It's either used early to inflict casualties on the unit they want to hit (and to prevent mini-Smites from removing units from range) or it's probably out of range.

Realistically, I don't see how the Beta change plus mini-Smite exemption impacts Purifying Flames. Point being that it does not buff it, nor will it negatively affect it in any practical manner (with the issue of Purifiers being a wholly separate topic).

#55
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
Of course it will negatively effect it.

If You run purifiers you run at last 3 units, with the relic banner and a BC for range.

The beta rules make this an even worse option to run.

Why do you think Purifiers should even be exposed to further weakness?

Edit. unless You support the beta rules as a tacic limit to the number of purifier unit's someone *should* take.

Don't take more than 1 unit. And no banner. Oh and don't combat squad. So you don't get effected by the beta rules.

And again, why? Why do the never used purifiers need a built in limit to the number of them that should be used?

Edited by Gentlemanloser, 06 March 2018 - 07:18 AM.

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#56
Kallas

Kallas

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,145 posts
  • Location:Edinburgh, UK
  • Faction: Howling Griffons

My point is that Purifiers will rarely ever get multiple 3" range PF Smites into range simultaneously, thereby making the actual, majority-case impact negligible while the minority-case impact will still be minimal. Even multiple 6" PF Smites will be minimally affected.

 

If one is able to run multiple Purifiers/Banner and get them all into range, then they'll have one or two with a WC6/7...which isn't actually that bad, considering the Brotherhood of Psykers rule gives them a +1 to cast, making them effectively WC4/5/6/7 - so up to four Purifier-Smites with a good-to-reasonable chance of success for all of them.

 

So even four units of Purifiers/Banner will be able to reliably cast 3-4 times, even with the Beta rules (since WC7 is pretty decent, especially if you can reroll a die, or roll three dropping the lowest).

 

 

To be clear:

  • I am not calling for a Purifier nerf
  • I believe that the Beta changes as they are will realistically affect Purifiers in any impactful manner
  • I believe that the Beta changes, with the suggested 1-damage mini-Smite exemption clause, will not realistically affect Purifiers in any impactful manner.


#57
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

If you run Purifiers, you run 3 x 5 in a Stormraven to deliver them, as they can't DS.

 

If 1 gets in range, usually all three do.

 

Plus the Banner you DSed.

 

The Beta rules are a nerf, even if you claim you can still get -3 casts off, as it makes it easier for the enemy to Deny your super important (And the whole reason to use Purifiers) Cleansing Flame.

 

The Beta rules *will* totally effect Purifiers.  In a drastic and impactful manner.  Leading them to be further sheveld and ignored.

 

Purifiers are an expensive setup to run, requiring an expensive transport to get them into place, and the otherwise useless Brother Captain (which is also never ever taken, unless you're running Purifiers).

 

Any additional nerfs to this specific, underused and expensive composition will render it even more unused and unplayable.

 

To be clear, this *is* a Purifier nerf.

 

Edit: Of the 25 Army Lists on the front page of the GK Army List sub forum (from Nov 17) there isn't a single Purifier Squad listed in any of them.

 

Nothing that makes Purifiers more difficult to use should be supported.

 

Also consider that it also makes taking allied Psykers harder with Purifiers.  Any Inquisitor you take (and generic Inquisitors, especially Greyfax, can be staples for GK lists, from effectiveness to fluff) plays badly with Cleansing Flame and the Beta rules.

 

Edit2.

 

At the end of the day, if you want to excuse GK from the Beta rules, you have to do this based on Faction Keyword.  You can't link it to Smite properties, or rules like Rites of Banishment, as they aren't generic enough.


Edited by Gentlemanloser, 06 March 2018 - 09:01 AM.

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#58
Kallas

Kallas

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,145 posts
  • Location:Edinburgh, UK
  • Faction: Howling Griffons

I don't think we can convince each other of anything here.

 

I think you may be overestimating the effect of the change. If you, or someone else, could playtest with Purifiers then that would provide some practical experience of the change - I do realise that there's some that can be simply mathhammered out, but the actual impact of the cumulative -1s and the knock on effect of Denies should be played, because Deny attempts are far from guaranteed, as well as the simple fact that they need to be in position and have sufficient volume.

 

One Deny vs three PF Smites isn't going to change the equation significantly: it means they're slightly more likely to Deny the second/third/fourth cast, but no difference to the first, and facing down three or four PF Smites, they'll wait for a reasonably low roll anyway to try and maximise their chances.

 

Further, it'd be worth paying attention to how the opponent prioritises their Deny attempts: are they focusing on the PF Smites? Are they ignoring them to try and deny other powers, like Gate or Sanctuary? A collaborative playtest would be useful - getting full feedback from the other player as to which seems more important at the moment, and whether the -1s impact their thinking.



#59
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

I agree, I don't think we'll convince each other.

 

I'm not sure what good playtesting is actually going to achieve.  You'd have to account for luck, and it would be best just to go by the mathhammer.

 

But does the 'degree' of the nerf actually matter?  If it's a 5% penalty, or an 11%?

 

The bottom line is this makes Purifiers harder and less attractive to use.  Whether the change makes you fail an extra 1 cast over what you normally would, or fail all of them.  It still makes Purifiers objectively *worse*.  And your enemy objectively *better* at stopping them.

 

And does a unit that is hardly ever to never used currently, need to be made worse, by any degree?  That's not something I can or will support.

 

As to what your opponent Denies, that depends too much on mission, current board position and opponent.  Are they Nids that want to make you cast on 1d6 to kill a unit?  Is there no one you need to Gate?  Would a 1D Smite be tactically superior by removing a lone mini from an objective, or freeing a unit from CC?

 

But I can assure you, from all the games I have played, that a cumulative -1 will make a profound effect.  Especially as my frequent opponents are just as Psychic as myself (Nids, TSons and Eldar) and will all be just as effected by the nerf.

 

I'd like to emphasis that at the beginning of 8th, my opponents were, awed, by GK 1D smites.  But as we all played Psychic Armies (the Nid player initially stated Zoanthropes are censored.gif.  No shooting, no CC and only a single psychic power) over many games, and play evolved and got used to 8th.  They simply don't care about GK smite.  And they are all, concerned, with the Beta rules and how it will effect them and change their list designs.


Edited by Gentlemanloser, 06 March 2018 - 09:49 AM.

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#60
Captain Idaho

Captain Idaho

    ++ ARGENTARIUS IRACUNDUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 16,708 posts
  • Location:Hampshire, England
  • Faction: Ultramarines
Of course playtesting matters. You're proposing that we only use Maths to determine game balance which is something people have complained and accused GW of for years.

The boost to Grey Knights shouldn't be at the expense of game balance. They need more than just a Smite spam exemption. Your opposition to any changes that might impact Grey Knights, even if impacting other armies too, is too intractable to progress.
  • battle captain corpus and Chaplain Dosjetka like this

#61
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

How many games Cap?  If I have one game and fail every cast of Smite, does that give enough evidence to stop the Beta rules?  If I have one game and pass every Smite cast that enough to pass them?

 

5 games?  20?

 

We simply don't need to playtest to see how the Beta rules effect Smite.

 

As I said above, playtesting would be better suited to highlight what isn't obvious.  Like units with 1 dice Smites, how enemy Denies are effected, and synergies with player and enemy Stratagems.

 

We know exactly what impact the Beta rule has on Smite itself.  No amount of playtesting will change or effect that.

 

And again, this Beta rule is wrong.  It's targeting the wrong thing.  Smite is not the problem, it's just a symptom.

 

Mortal wounds are the problem.  Address them and you address Smite in turn.

 

 

Edit: A Question Cap, do you think this Beta rule will do enough to stop people taking multiple 40/45 point Full Smite units?  Is it a large enough deterrence to styme the spam?

 

It *will* hurt armies that already use multiple expensive Psyker units (like Nids), but won't do anything to stop the expensive units being taken.  It will just make them less effective.

 

But will this discourage Spirit Seer or Primaris Psyker spam?


Edited by Gentlemanloser, 07 March 2018 - 11:17 AM.

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#62
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

What this Beta rule does to Smite;

 

Each successive cast after the first  gives you an ~9% cumulative increased chance of failure.

 

A normal 2 dice Psyker casting Smite has a ~73% chance to successfully cast Smite.  The second cast is ~64% for a successful cast.

 

Conversely, this also gives your opponent an ~9% cumulative increased chance to Deny for each successive Smite.

 

From the 4th Smite you cast (5th for units with +1 Cast) Smite is unable to deal 1d6 damage.

 

Edit: For example if you have 6 Psykers and want to cast Smite with all of them, you have an overall additional chance of failure of ~135%.


Edited by Gentlemanloser, 07 March 2018 - 01:39 PM.

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#63
InquisitorBlack

InquisitorBlack

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 204 posts

GML, while I agree that Purifiers don't need a nerf, I would rather *some* change to give GK some respite than none.

I think the logical and more elegant solution is to make units with RoB immune to the smite nerf, and perhaps other types of smite nerfs like the Warlock's 'destructor' rule. 

Purifiers essentially 'miss out' in this situation, but I think we can all agree that they need their own buff. A points reduction AND a return to 2 attacks would put them in a decent spot. Alternatively, buffing their smite to 6'' would make them MUCH better with brother captains.



#64
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

Do it by Keyword.  Anyone Faction GK (Or TSon) isn't effected.

 

Link it to RoB and you miss Stern, the Banner, Index Librarians, Crowe and Purifiers.


QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#65
InquisitorBlack

InquisitorBlack

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 204 posts

Tson? You can't make their full smites exempt right? Only the horrors and sorcerers ?



#66
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

To be fair I've not bothered to keep up with them once their new Codex dropped.  Just including them as earlier TSon posters had issue with the Beta rules.


QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#67
InquisitorBlack

InquisitorBlack

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 204 posts

They have a mix of single damage smite and regular smite. Doing it by keyword *only* works for GK I think, we're the only codex that has no access to the 'regular' smite that the beta rules are attempting to re-balance. 


  • Gentlemanloser likes this

#68
Captain Idaho

Captain Idaho

    ++ ARGENTARIUS IRACUNDUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 16,708 posts
  • Location:Hampshire, England
  • Faction: Ultramarines
@ Gentlemanloser: If Mortal Wounds were changed, as you said is the problem that needs changing, you'd protest that because it weakens your army.

You haven't addressed my point - Grey Knights need to be rebalanced outside of Mortal Wounds.
  • battle captain corpus likes this

#69
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

Not at all Cap.  I think Mortal Wounds are a problem (I even made a thread on it) and would support rebalance.  Which would include compensating Smite as part of it.

 

This beta rule has no compensation. It's a pure nerf.  And an unwarranted one.

 

Also this isn't the relevant thread to discuss rebalancing the GK Codex, I doubt there's anyone who doesn't think it's the weakest released Codex currently and needs a comprehensive overhaul.  There's many topics on this, and suggestions to fix the Codex, in the GK subforum.

 

Edit: And you haven't answered mine.  Do you think this Beta rule will address spamming full smite units?  What will this Beta rule actually address?


Edited by Gentlemanloser, 07 March 2018 - 04:15 PM.

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#70
Captain Idaho

Captain Idaho

    ++ ARGENTARIUS IRACUNDUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 16,708 posts
  • Location:Hampshire, England
  • Faction: Ultramarines
Yes, I do think it already has addressed the issue of Smite spam. Look at the tournament lists using the beta rules and you can see the positive change in this regard.

***

The problem we have here is your position is impractical. You are of the position that ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGES can be implemented for the betterment of the game if Grey Knights don't get an overhaul. You'll protest this isn't the case but Smite spam needed this change. So what, we can't have progress because Grey Knights don't like it?

Like it or not, Grey Knights are a niche army that aren't played by a majority of the player base. Why should a single faction hold back good progress?

#71
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
Your right I'll protest it. Because it's not true.

This beta rule isn't needed and isn't the right way to go. That's why i don't support it.

Also i think tournaments are skewed too much by Ynarri Reapers to be any sort of sounding board for a smite change.

Why bother with smite spam when you can go unbeaten with ynarri reapers.

Changes Can be made for the betterment of the game. These changes do not need to come in a way that mashes the GK worse.

Why do you support the worst codex in the game being made worse, to cater for a rule that makes nothing better?

Sorry Don't think i was clear. That this rule negatively effects the gk isn't the sole or even main reason i don't support three rule. But it is *a* reason.

Especially when there is a simple tweak to make it not effect the gk.

Why are you so set that this rule *must* apply to the gk? What tournamets have they dominated? And is the domination down to thier baby smite that warrants the nerf?

I Don't think there's any support for either.

So This beta rule can both be active and not effect the gk.

And everyone wins.... apart from the rule being bad of course.

Edited by Gentlemanloser, 07 March 2018 - 09:17 PM.

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#72
Captain Idaho

Captain Idaho

    ++ ARGENTARIUS IRACUNDUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 16,708 posts
  • Location:Hampshire, England
  • Faction: Ultramarines
I have no reason to support it at the expense of Grey Knights. A simple amendment COULD work for Grey Knights but that's just patching the army when it need an overhaul. Grey Knights aren't winning tournaments before the Beta rules, after all.

Logically the Grey Knights will require work with or without the Beta rules, so why complicate a a generic rule like Smite with an army specific amendment?

Therein lies the logic most people are in favour of. GW has made 40K more accessible for many people and part of that is straightforward core rules. Change core rules to help the game and change Codex books to help individual factions.

#73
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
Because the GK won't get an overhaul.

And again, smite isn't the problem. What armies have you seen that this beta rule has actually changed the composition of?

I have no illusions that the LVO winning lists would have looked any different if they hadn't been using the beta smite rules.

So where was Smite spam actually dominating?

Edited by Gentlemanloser, 07 March 2018 - 11:00 PM.

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#74
Captain Idaho

Captain Idaho

    ++ ARGENTARIUS IRACUNDUS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 16,708 posts
  • Location:Hampshire, England
  • Faction: Ultramarines
My regular Tyranid and Death Guard opponents have changed their composition and utilised other powers more often, for a start. The tournaments myself and my friend have played has seen a dramatic drop in Psyker spam. Previously Mortal Wound spam from Psykers was prevalent.

You have gone back to my earlier point - you are resisting a change to the core rules on the grounds that Grey Knights won't get fixed. So your position is that GW can't fix the game for the rest of us because of 1 faction.

Which is why you're the only one fighting this change and the reason GW will ignore your position and implement it.

#75
Dam13n

Dam13n

    ++ CÆLATOR ALTRICES ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 2,378 posts
  • Location:Poole, UK
  • Faction: The Scions
Another point to remember in all this is that the process of balancing the game is a step wise process.

In this case GW have (rightfully) determined that smite-spam is a problem and needs fixing.

They've proposed a fix (that arguably isn't perfect in itself) and once it's been refined a version of the fix will find itself inserted into the Rulebook Errata / FAQ.

Once that problem has been fixed, the impact on the individual armies (like GK) can be addressed in turn and dealt with.

If this fix does have the kind of impact that you (GML) believe it will have (essentially seeing armies that depend on psychic powers become absent from the competitive scene), then that can / may prompt a fix for those armies.

A while back I tried to steer this topic towards proposing alternative suggestions to what GW was proposing in order to deviate this thread away from being predominantly negative and into something constructive. It seems now to have gone full circle, unfortunately.

At this point, if I had mod powers in this sub-forum I'd likely be terminating this thread, as it's now going nowhere. But alas, I do not.
  • WarriorFish likes this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Beta Rules

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users