I'm also not familiar with the architecture of the system, but whichever would be the easiest and most cost effective way to do it, should have already been done. perhaps the entire site should be, for the time being, put on hold for new content, while something new is built from the ground up, that would be able to not only accommodate current users regardless the edition of the rules they use, but be able to be forward compatible with any future large scale changes that would affect the 2024 rules users. I've seen references to spaghetti code from the original development, and rebuilding the entire thing just might be the solution for all of it.
I don' t think putting the site on hold is the answer; that means everyone that has paid for and wants the rules updates they've purchased loses out instead and isn't any better than what everyone's complaining about currently. I do agree that they should've anticipated this being a problem for some because you can never please everyone BUT they're following their policy in updating the site to the latest rules so, at least from my perspective, this was always expected.
It sucks that so many are hurt by this update and I think my proposal is a quick, easy solution even if it's only a temporary one. I have no control over WotC or the DDB team, though, I can only offer my suggestions to help the situation.
Maybe I need to clarify what I meant by put on hold. I meant put on hold the addition of new content that would generate breakages for people using the 2014 rules. That would only apply of course, if they were to rebuild the whole thing better, without internal code that could otherwise break things for everybody. Sorry about that.
Right... So if they held on pushing the update, everyone that wants the update would not get the update and would, thus, be the ones throwing angry fits on the forums right now.
I don't think it's either or here.
The website already has a system for publishing new spells under an "Opt in" toggle. It's what we use when 3rd parties are added.
If we just had the original 5e spells added back through that function and the default set to the new edition then neither player group would have a reason to complain. Given the existence of the legacy system for races and feats I can't imagine I was alone in thinking that's what they were going to do.
I think if it was that simple they'd already do it. I don't know how their system was architected but they're hiring a manager to oversee a complete rebuild so I'm assuming it's not as versatile as they would like it to be and, thus, this toggle everyone keeps asking for is harder than it seems.
having past experience with online games that still have problems with spaghetti code, I can understand why they may be encountering issues. Glad to hear that a complete rebuild is being considered at the least. And like I said, all of that can be done offline, so as not to impact current users, however, if they can't fix the legacy spells and magic items issue prior to that, the damage may be too great.
That's exactly why I recommended a DDB Classic as an alternative. I have no power over WotC but it was the best idea I could come up with so hopefully they see it and like it. :D
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Grant K. Smith A+, Network+, MCP x 2, BSIT/VC, MIS
Software Engineer & Dungeon Master
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger." - J. R. R. Tolkien "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup" - Anonymous
I'm also increasingly concerned about how this looks for onboarding new players. We don't know when this switch is going to happen, and currently all physical game materials (unsurprisingly) use 2014 base mechanics/spells/etc. More importantly, the currently-available Starter Set, which isn't all that old, uses 2014 rules and is actively being promoted and sold. If I remember correctly, it includes advertising for D&D Beyond. What are those new players going to think when they get here and the core feature promoted (character sheets) have different information from what they just learned. Maybe it's just me, but I get spectacularly frustrated and demoralized when I've put effort into learning something, especially from an authority (official material), only to be told that it's wrong (by the same authority, no less)! Unless we expect new players to dig into the upcoming 2024 SRD and/or a complex and expensive new rulebook, they're going to feel pretty alienated.
(Educators are in a similar boat, btw. All the material that teachers or librarians will be using at the start of the school year for clubs is going to be 2014 rules.)
It's just bewildering that this change is happening at all (without a toggle), but especially before 2024 physical material is widely available. Severe disconnect.
The change is going to occur on 9/3 with the early release of the 2024 update, per the original Changelog post.
Thanks! I can't believe I missed that, whoops. Makes sense, but oof, I guess I've got to change my workflow faster than I expected for my library's teen group. We cannot switch to 2024 any time soon.
I'm also not familiar with the architecture of the system, but whichever would be the easiest and most cost effective way to do it, should have already been done. perhaps the entire site should be, for the time being, put on hold for new content, while something new is built from the ground up, that would be able to not only accommodate current users regardless the edition of the rules they use, but be able to be forward compatible with any future large scale changes that would affect the 2024 rules users. I've seen references to spaghetti code from the original development, and rebuilding the entire thing just might be the solution for all of it.
I don' t think putting the site on hold is the answer; that means everyone that has paid for and wants the rules updates they've purchased loses out instead and isn't any better than what everyone's complaining about currently. I do agree that they should've anticipated this being a problem for some because you can never please everyone BUT they're following their policy in updating the site to the latest rules so, at least from my perspective, this was always expected.
It sucks that so many are hurt by this update and I think my proposal is a quick, easy solution even if it's only a temporary one. I have no control over WotC or the DDB team, though, I can only offer my suggestions to help the situation.
Maybe I need to clarify what I meant by put on hold. I meant put on hold the addition of new content that would generate breakages for people using the 2014 rules. That would only apply of course, if they were to rebuild the whole thing better, without internal code that could otherwise break things for everybody. Sorry about that.
Right... So if they held on pushing the update, everyone that wants the update would not get the update and would, thus, be the ones throwing angry fits on the forums right now.
And I see I need FURTHER clarification, though I think it's more a you thing and not a me thing, in the understanding department.
I NEVER said pause DDB as it currently operates, meaning so that nobody could use it in the interim. What I do know about software development is that new versions can be developed offline at the same time the original operational piece of software is running. Windows is a perfect example literally everybody should understand. Your PC doesn't just stop working because they are working on the next version. Development of a new version of DDB, one free of the spaghetti code I have seen mentioned many times here and elsewhere, COULD definitely happen, should Hasbro/WotC determine it is worth money. Not time, because we all know money is their driving motivation. As far as holding off pushing the 2024 rules update, that might not be a bad thing, if they decide to listen to their customers, and add those 100+ spells and the magic items that are planned to be left off, to Legacy status. but I hadn't considered that until you brought it up.
To be honest, they should have seen this coming. They should have taken the time to implement it so that nobody was angry. But they didn't.
I understand your statements. I don't think preventing the people who have paid for and expect the update when it is scheduled to release (like me) from getting the update is any better than preventing the people that don't want the 2024 update from using the old rules in the ways the expect.
And, yes, they should've seen it coming because, how silly of them to assume that everyone would just use the latest version of the rules on their official toolset. That's why I offered the DDB Classic option as a quick and easy means of giving EVERYONE what they want. :)
What should we really expect from the people that brought us the OGL scandal, the Pinkerton scandal, BlurGate, the Apology Tour, and now this?
"Some people are okay with these changes, and some are not"
Let me correct that for you...
"A very, very, very small percentage of people are okay with these changes, while the overwhelmingly vast majority of people are not"
Semantics. People who have negative opinions are generally more vocal about their displeasure than those who are okay with something. Those who are okay with something, as I'm seeing here, are quick to be called 'shills', 'sheep', or any other negative moniker.
I've been following multiple threads on here the last few days and I have not seen anyone called names because they like the changes. The only ones I've seen called names are those that are insisting other people should like the new rules or trying to tell us we're not losing anything.
Can I also say how disappointing it is that the only response we've had from staff on here is one person dropping "clarifications" that ignore 90% of what the problems are, and the other saying that an issue where 99% of responses are against it is "some like it, some don't" and "it's just a vocal minority".
We're all aware that you and the team are usually as in the dark as us, and many of us have tried to make clear in our responses here and on the discord that we are not blaming or upset with the mods etc. But when you both come in and just ignore or dismiss our complaints like that it's hard trust that you're actually listening, or that you'll pass on our complaints fairly.
That's exactly why I recommended a DDB Classic as an alternative. I have no power over WotC but it was the best idea I could come up with so hopefully they see it and like it. :D
That's another great solution, I'm sure they dont want the main website to be the host for the old 5e content as it's not their current business model. But if they were to make the exact same website for all the pre 2024 stuff that'd be great for me too- Even if it didn't have an import function to take the sheets over.
I'm also increasingly concerned about how this looks for onboarding new players. We don't know when this switch is going to happen, and currently all physical game materials (unsurprisingly) use 2014 base mechanics/spells/etc. More importantly, the currently-available Starter Set, which isn't all that old, uses 2014 rules and is actively being promoted and sold. If I remember correctly, it includes advertising for D&D Beyond. What are those new players going to think when they get here and the core feature promoted (character sheets) have different information from what they just learned. Maybe it's just me, but I get spectacularly frustrated and demoralized when I've put effort into learning something, especially from an authority (official material), only to be told that it's wrong (by the same authority, no less)! Unless we expect new players to dig into the upcoming 2024 SRD and/or a complex and expensive new rulebook, they're going to feel pretty alienated.
(Educators are in a similar boat, btw. All the material that teachers or librarians will be using at the start of the school year for clubs is going to be 2014 rules.)
It's just bewildering that this change is happening at all (without a toggle), but especially before 2024 physical material is widely available. Severe disconnect.
The change is going to occur on 9/3 with the early release of the 2024 update, per the original Changelog post.
Thanks! I can't believe I missed that, whoops. Makes sense, but oof, I guess I've got to change my workflow faster than I expected for my library's teen group. We cannot switch to 2024 any time soon.
You can probably find most of the core changes in the SRD once the new one is published. If you're using DDB for the club, all of those changes will be immediately available when they do the update. But the SRD is free, aside from the paper and ink needed to print off copies. That should take some pressure off having to get approval to buy new books right away.
I'm personally indifferent to this change (I use D&D Beyond as an online compendium and e-book source, I might touch the character builder a few times a year) but it seems symptomatic of a bigger problem: it's the least-effort change.
This doesn't really strike me as WotC trying to maximize their profits, because it fails at that -- if you like the 2024 spell changes you get them for free, if you don't like them you need to put in effort, either way you aren't giving Wizards any money. Most likely what's going on is that there's no built-in version tags for spells on character sheets, they're just stored as names, so if they change the defaults for a given spell name to point to the 2024 version, any references to that spell get updated.
There are several ways of dealing with that which wouldn't update old character sheets, but they all have a common feature: they require extra work. From a technical standpoint, the way they're doing it is almost certainly the easiest.
I've sent inquiry on the support whether I would be eligible for a refund, if they make the update. Not really sure how it turns out, but my reasoning is that the changes they're planning are misleading with the premises on which the digital content was sold (i.e. 2014 spells not being available in the "official digital toolset".
Spells: When updated, Spell descriptions on character sheets will default to 2024 Core Rulebook descriptions. All users, regardless of whether they have purchased the 2024 Player’s Handbook, will be able to access these updated Spells for free if they previously purchased the 2014 Player’s Handbook. All 2014 versions of Spells will still be accessible in the D&D Beyond Compendium and available for players to access.
Marketing material: "Purchasing a digital copy of this book unlocks it for use in the D&D BEYOND compendium and toolset. D&D BEYOND is the official digital toolset for DUNGEONS & DRAGONS"
The one argument I can see for not having a 2014 and 2024 separated spell list and app functionality is that having twice the list means twice the server cost,. That and they really want to push people into buying 2024 books. Other than those two reasons, they shouldn't have lied to us and said everything was going to be backwards compatible.
It is objectively not better if you have no choice but to use the new content in the creator. Whether anyone wants to switch to 2024 or not, removing content in the creator we already paid for is not better in any sense. They aren't giving us free stuff. They are removing stuff WE ALREADY PAID FOR.
"Some people are okay with these changes, and some are not"
Let me correct that for you...
"A very, very, very small percentage of people are okay with these changes, while the overwhelmingly vast majority of people are not"
Semantics. People who have negative opinions are generally more vocal about their displeasure than those who are okay with something. Those who are okay with something, as I'm seeing here, are quick to be called 'shills', 'sheep', or any other negative moniker.
I've been following multiple threads on here the last few days and I have not seen anyone called names because they like the changes. The only ones I've seen called names are those that are insisting other people should like the new rules or trying to tell us we're not losing anything.
Can I also say how disappointing it is that the only response we've had from staff on here is one person dropping "clarifications" that ignore 90% of what the problems are, and the other saying that an issue where 99% of responses are against it is "some like it, some don't" and "it's just a vocal minority".
We're all aware that you and the team are usually as in the dark as us, and many of us have tried to make clear in our responses here and on the discord that we are not blaming or upset with the mods etc. But when you both come in and just ignore or dismiss our complaints like that it's hard trust that you're actually listening, or that you'll pass on our complaints fairly.
I think it's fair for the DnDB team to take time before they formulate a response. Actions taken in haste can never be taken back. In situations like this it is almost impossible to appease everyone involved. I'd rather the team analyze the situation and take a tactical pause.
WotC completely missed the mark once again. The whole point of Dndbeyond is to use the functionality that exists in the character builder and app with the content we've previously bought and already have, NOT to have a reference guide. If I wanted to have a reference guide, I'd just get a physical book or use google.
Also, homebrewing is not a solution because you have to subscribe to do so even though we already own the digital books. So just stop. Make a toggle or use legacy tags just as you've done previously. In the meantime, back to unsubbing I go until this change is fixed.
The reason your point about it "being better" does not apply to what they are saying is that, the thing you're saying is better is not changed in this post. I don't know why you'd be under the impression that suddenly the spells wouldn't work at all. They said in the initial release that they would all be "updated" to the new version. That means they would automatically shift, not break. What you're saying is better is the original announced change, ergo it's not better; it's the same.
This doesn't really strike me as WotC trying to maximize their profits, because it fails at that -- if you like the 2024 spell changes you get them for free, if you don't like them you need to put in effort, either way you aren't giving Wizards any money.
I'm not so certain, if you have low numbers of people taking up a new system a pretty good way to get people over is forcing them to dip their toe in.
Like if you join MTG Arena WotC gives you a ton of free cards to play with hoping you will buy more later. I don't like, automatically think its malicious but it's not something I feel is completely off the table for WotC to try as a strategy.
The one argument I can see for not having a 2014 and 2024 separated spell list and app functionality is that having twice the list means twice the server cost,. That and they really want to push people into buying 2024 books. Other than those two reasons, they shouldn't have lied to us and said everything was going to be backwards compatible.
Having twice the list is still cheaper than having every DM homebrew the spells. This could easily have been solved by allowing people to choose between 2014 rules and 2024 rules on a per character basis, just like other character sheet programs have done.
When everybody is demanding the same thing you can absolutely appease everyone involved easily. The consistent demand is we just want to continue to use the app, character builder and VTT features with 5E content.
"Some people are okay with these changes, and some are not"
Let me correct that for you...
"A very, very, very small percentage of people are okay with these changes, while the overwhelmingly vast majority of people are not"
Semantics. People who have negative opinions are generally more vocal about their displeasure than those who are okay with something. Those who are okay with something, as I'm seeing here, are quick to be called 'shills', 'sheep', or any other negative moniker.
This is alarmingly dismissive imo. People have valid concerns and I’m not sure how there’s a positive opinion about this when content is being forced upon people.
I would love to see a solid positive argument why this is good for anyone that isn’t just “it’s good for WOTC’s bottom line” because that’s the only reason I see for this.
I didn’t want the U2 album forced onto my iTunes; I don’t want 2024 content forced onto my character sheet.
When everybody is demanding the same thing you can absolutely appease everyone involved easily. The consistent demand is we just want to continue to use the app, character builder and VTT features with 5E content.
Unfortunately not EVERYONE is. There is clearly a number of folks who are wanting this, but there is no empirical data to support the amount of people for or against this. I see a survey in the distance.
I frankly don't care. There is maybe 4 spells from 2014 that I might consider still using. I think it's a waste of time for DnDB to legacy tag the old spells.
I'm also not familiar with the architecture of the system, but whichever would be the easiest and most cost effective way to do it, should have already been done. perhaps the entire site should be, for the time being, put on hold for new content, while something new is built from the ground up, that would be able to not only accommodate current users regardless the edition of the rules they use, but be able to be forward compatible with any future large scale changes that would affect the 2024 rules users. I've seen references to spaghetti code from the original development, and rebuilding the entire thing just might be the solution for all of it.
I don' t think putting the site on hold is the answer; that means everyone that has paid for and wants the rules updates they've purchased loses out instead and isn't any better than what everyone's complaining about currently. I do agree that they should've anticipated this being a problem for some because you can never please everyone BUT they're following their policy in updating the site to the latest rules so, at least from my perspective, this was always expected.
It sucks that so many are hurt by this update and I think my proposal is a quick, easy solution even if it's only a temporary one. I have no control over WotC or the DDB team, though, I can only offer my suggestions to help the situation.
Maybe I need to clarify what I meant by put on hold. I meant put on hold the addition of new content that would generate breakages for people using the 2014 rules. That would only apply of course, if they were to rebuild the whole thing better, without internal code that could otherwise break things for everybody. Sorry about that.
Right... So if they held on pushing the update, everyone that wants the update would not get the update and would, thus, be the ones throwing angry fits on the forums right now.
And I see I need FURTHER clarification, though I think it's more a you thing and not a me thing, in the understanding department.
I NEVER said pause DDB as it currently operates, meaning so that nobody could use it in the interim. What I do know about software development is that new versions can be developed offline at the same time the original operational piece of software is running. Windows is a perfect example literally everybody should understand. Your PC doesn't just stop working because they are working on the next version. Development of a new version of DDB, one free of the spaghetti code I have seen mentioned many times here and elsewhere, COULD definitely happen, should Hasbro/WotC determine it is worth money. Not time, because we all know money is their driving motivation. As far as holding off pushing the 2024 rules update, that might not be a bad thing, if they decide to listen to their customers, and add those 100+ spells and the magic items that are planned to be left off, to Legacy status. but I hadn't considered that until you brought it up.
To be honest, they should have seen this coming. They should have taken the time to implement it so that nobody was angry. But they didn't.
And, yes, they should've seen it coming because, how silly of them to assume that everyone would just use the latest version of the rules on their official toolset. That's why I offered the DDB Classic option as a quick and easy means of giving EVERYONE what they want. :)
They should have seen it coming because all the messaging from WotC and DDB has been that 2014 rules are still valid alongside the 2024 rules, that DMs can mix both rulesets and that both sets of rules. The first we've heard about 2014 rules being removed from the character builder was the changlog. Even now there's nothing on the front page of the site saying that 2014 rules are going, anyone not on the forums will be getting a nice surprise on the 3rd.
Also, can I just say how frustrating it is for people (and your not the only one) to keep saying that we should have expected it as they're new rules, as if it's our fault and we're being unreasonable in our expectations. Last time content was superceded, with MMotM, the old content was kept and put under a legacy tag, exactly what we were led to expect here. They've even done it with some features here, which shows that the standard isn't to delete content. They just need to finish the job.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's exactly why I recommended a DDB Classic as an alternative. I have no power over WotC but it was the best idea I could come up with so hopefully they see it and like it. :D
Grant K. Smith
A+, Network+, MCP x 2, BSIT/VC, MIS
Software Engineer & Dungeon Master
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger." - J. R. R. Tolkien
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup" - Anonymous
Thanks! I can't believe I missed that, whoops. Makes sense, but oof, I guess I've got to change my workflow faster than I expected for my library's teen group. We cannot switch to 2024 any time soon.
What should we really expect from the people that brought us the OGL scandal, the Pinkerton scandal, BlurGate, the Apology Tour, and now this?
I've been following multiple threads on here the last few days and I have not seen anyone called names because they like the changes. The only ones I've seen called names are those that are insisting other people should like the new rules or trying to tell us we're not losing anything.
Can I also say how disappointing it is that the only response we've had from staff on here is one person dropping "clarifications" that ignore 90% of what the problems are, and the other saying that an issue where 99% of responses are against it is "some like it, some don't" and "it's just a vocal minority".
We're all aware that you and the team are usually as in the dark as us, and many of us have tried to make clear in our responses here and on the discord that we are not blaming or upset with the mods etc. But when you both come in and just ignore or dismiss our complaints like that it's hard trust that you're actually listening, or that you'll pass on our complaints fairly.
That's another great solution, I'm sure they dont want the main website to be the host for the old 5e content as it's not their current business model. But if they were to make the exact same website for all the pre 2024 stuff that'd be great for me too- Even if it didn't have an import function to take the sheets over.
You can probably find most of the core changes in the SRD once the new one is published. If you're using DDB for the club, all of those changes will be immediately available when they do the update. But the SRD is free, aside from the paper and ink needed to print off copies. That should take some pressure off having to get approval to buy new books right away.
I'm personally indifferent to this change (I use D&D Beyond as an online compendium and e-book source, I might touch the character builder a few times a year) but it seems symptomatic of a bigger problem: it's the least-effort change.
This doesn't really strike me as WotC trying to maximize their profits, because it fails at that -- if you like the 2024 spell changes you get them for free, if you don't like them you need to put in effort, either way you aren't giving Wizards any money. Most likely what's going on is that there's no built-in version tags for spells on character sheets, they're just stored as names, so if they change the defaults for a given spell name to point to the 2024 version, any references to that spell get updated.
There are several ways of dealing with that which wouldn't update old character sheets, but they all have a common feature: they require extra work. From a technical standpoint, the way they're doing it is almost certainly the easiest.
I've sent inquiry on the support whether I would be eligible for a refund, if they make the update.
Not really sure how it turns out, but my reasoning is that the changes they're planning are misleading with the premises on which the digital content was sold (i.e. 2014 spells not being available in the "official digital toolset".
The one argument I can see for not having a 2014 and 2024 separated spell list and app functionality is that having twice the list means twice the server cost,. That and they really want to push people into buying 2024 books. Other than those two reasons, they shouldn't have lied to us and said everything was going to be backwards compatible.
It is objectively not better if you have no choice but to use the new content in the creator. Whether anyone wants to switch to 2024 or not, removing content in the creator we already paid for is not better in any sense. They aren't giving us free stuff. They are removing stuff WE ALREADY PAID FOR.
I think it's fair for the DnDB team to take time before they formulate a response. Actions taken in haste can never be taken back. In situations like this it is almost impossible to appease everyone involved. I'd rather the team analyze the situation and take a tactical pause.
Give it time.
WotC completely missed the mark once again. The whole point of Dndbeyond is to use the functionality that exists in the character builder and app with the content we've previously bought and already have, NOT to have a reference guide. If I wanted to have a reference guide, I'd just get a physical book or use google.
Also, homebrewing is not a solution because you have to subscribe to do so even though we already own the digital books. So just stop. Make a toggle or use legacy tags just as you've done previously. In the meantime, back to unsubbing I go until this change is fixed.
The reason your point about it "being better" does not apply to what they are saying is that, the thing you're saying is better is not changed in this post. I don't know why you'd be under the impression that suddenly the spells wouldn't work at all. They said in the initial release that they would all be "updated" to the new version. That means they would automatically shift, not break. What you're saying is better is the original announced change, ergo it's not better; it's the same.
I'm not so certain, if you have low numbers of people taking up a new system a pretty good way to get people over is forcing them to dip their toe in.
Like if you join MTG Arena WotC gives you a ton of free cards to play with hoping you will buy more later. I don't like, automatically think its malicious but it's not something I feel is completely off the table for WotC to try as a strategy.
Having twice the list is still cheaper than having every DM homebrew the spells. This could easily have been solved by allowing people to choose between 2014 rules and 2024 rules on a per character basis, just like other character sheet programs have done.
When everybody is demanding the same thing you can absolutely appease everyone involved easily. The consistent demand is we just want to continue to use the app, character builder and VTT features with 5E content.
Are the 2014 Spells not in the 2014 Core rules (wich are free and no one paid for)?
That question is rhetorical...
Buying the 2014 PHB is not the same as having the Free 2014 Core Rules.
This is alarmingly dismissive imo. People have valid concerns and I’m not sure how there’s a positive opinion about this when content is being forced upon people.
I would love to see a solid positive argument why this is good for anyone that isn’t just “it’s good for WOTC’s bottom line” because that’s the only reason I see for this.
I didn’t want the U2 album forced onto my iTunes; I don’t want 2024 content forced onto my character sheet.
Unfortunately not EVERYONE is. There is clearly a number of folks who are wanting this, but there is no empirical data to support the amount of people for or against this. I see a survey in the distance.
I frankly don't care. There is maybe 4 spells from 2014 that I might consider still using. I think it's a waste of time for DnDB to legacy tag the old spells.
Bur if they did, it wouldn't bother me either.
They should have seen it coming because all the messaging from WotC and DDB has been that 2014 rules are still valid alongside the 2024 rules, that DMs can mix both rulesets and that both sets of rules. The first we've heard about 2014 rules being removed from the character builder was the changlog. Even now there's nothing on the front page of the site saying that 2014 rules are going, anyone not on the forums will be getting a nice surprise on the 3rd.
Also, can I just say how frustrating it is for people (and your not the only one) to keep saying that we should have expected it as they're new rules, as if it's our fault and we're being unreasonable in our expectations. Last time content was superceded, with MMotM, the old content was kept and put under a legacy tag, exactly what we were led to expect here. They've even done it with some features here, which shows that the standard isn't to delete content. They just need to finish the job.