Solution: Intermixing Units and Mutual 4+ Cover Saves

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.

**MajerBlundor**

There's a thread in the tactics section entited: "Intermixing Units and Cover Saves in 5e". The first author proposes that intermixing two units provides both with a 4+ cover save.

You'll notice that the author himself uses the term intermixing to describe the relationship between the two unit and NOT intervening. In other words, to argue for the premise that both units receive a 4+ cover save the author and others actually change a key term from intervening (which does appear in the rules) to intermixing (which does not appear). The most simple solution to the question is to use the actual term in the rules, ie intervening, and ignore the term being pushed by advocates for making dense units in the open harder to hit. But some in the DakkaDakka community seem set on ignoring the RAW and instead want to add the term "intermixing" to the rules.

So, here's another solution.

Imagine you're the GW staffer with the absolute power to settle the question. What you say is the law and your decision is final. Even if you need to re-word the related text to better conform to how you think this should work, you have that power and are not bound by the specific current text. With that understanding, please answer this poll question.

Remember, the question is NOT what you think the current RAW means with respect to mutual 4+ saves. The question is what you think the rules SHOULD mean and whether or not as grand poobah rules writer you would allow such formations to confer mutual 4+ saves. That distinction is central to answering the question accurately. In either case, you should probably explain/clarify your answer in greater detail below.

**brado**

Well for some realism, no they shouldn't. The justification for the "intervening save" comes from the inability of the firing unit to get the target in their sights through the intervening unit. If the units are mixed in with one another then the firing unit can just go to town.

**TommyStriker**

I would say no for the simple reason it just doesn't make sense. If someone stopped a bullet meant for you with his body, logic dictates that he should suffer some adverse affects.

**mikhaila**

Imagine you're the GW staffer with the absolute power to settle the question.

For me, it's a reality. I own the stores, it's my call. I see this as a rules perversion that will cause endless arguements, and slow down the game. 98% of the people coming in want to play 40k, not some rules-lawyer version of the game and endless RAW arguements. Our house rule is that if the units are so intermixed that it's not obvious which one gets the cover save from the other, then neither one does. This puts the responibility on the controlling player to set up his models correctly, to gain the cover save.

**Kallbrand**

mikhaila wrote:Imagine you're the GW staffer with the absolute power to settle the question.

For me, it's a reality. I own the stores, it's my call. I see this as a rules perversion that will cause endless arguements, and slow down the game. 98% of the people coming in want to play 40k, not some rules-lawyer version of the game and endless RAW arguements. Our house rule is that if the units are so intermixed that it's not obvious which one gets the cover save from the other, then neither one does. This puts the responibility on the controlling player to set up his models correctly, to gain the cover save.

You mean they dont get to play by the real rules? Setting up correctly actually includes this ridiculous formation until FAQed. I also think this rule is crappy and would prefer to not have it in but it is there at the moment and removing rules for personal flavor actually seems like cheating to me.

**sebster**

Kallbrand wrote:For me, it's a reality. I own the stores, it's my call. I see this as a rules perversion that will cause endless arguements, and slow down the game. 98% of the people coming in want to play 40k, not some rules-lawyer version of the game and endless RAW arguements. Our house rule is that if the units are so intermixed that it's not obvious which one gets the cover save from the other, then neither one does. This puts the responibility on the controlling player to set up his models correctly, to gain the cover save.

You mean they dont get to play by the real rules? Setting up correctly actually includes this ridiculous formation until FAQed. I also think this rule is crappy and would prefer to not have it in but it is there at the moment and removing rules for personal flavor actually seems like cheating to me.

**Red_Lives**

DaBoss wrote:
MajerBlundor wrote:
Kallbrand,

1. Cite the specific RAW that states that two intermixed units in the open confer 4+ cover saves on one another.

2. Cite the common sense real-world example that would indicate that a massed target in the open is MORE difficult to hit

3. Cite the 40K 5E design notes / WD article about that would support the idea that the authors intended that two intermixed units confer a 4+ save on one another.

I can cite the specific rule that confers a 4+ save on a unit if another unit is intervening between it and a shooter, but can't find any reference to intermixed units. I can cite many historical examples of massed targets being easier to hit rather than harder to hit (eg it was easier to kill larger number of Chinese soldiers in human wave attacks during the Korean War, large number of Russian soldiers in human wave attacks in the ETO, and large number of Japanese soldiers in human wave attacks in the PTO). And in the most recent WD GW staff explicitly state the 5E will require gamers to be better sports, more intuitive, and less abstract/legalistic.

Slow down there, partner. The real world has nothing to do with table top gaming, so those kinds of examples are moot in this debate, so leave that stuff at the door. Second, you cannot expect the rules to anticipate every single possible formation combination out there. So, the fact that you cannot find the word "intermixed" does nothing to strengthen your point, because there are a lot of words they failed to include. What they did leave us with was a basic set of rules using easy to understand words which should illustrate the intent of the authors. In cases where this becomes unclear, its best to simply talk it over with the persons you are playing with so the game can run smoothly. As I have stated before, you really need to stop trying to forcibly convince others of your logic, because it simply won't happen.

If you really want my opinion and the logic behind it, its as follows.
PG 21 of the rulebook. "If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by other models, it receives a 4+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain"
PG 22 of the rulebook. "Sometimes, a unit will only be partially in cover";"If half or more of the models in the target unit are in cover (SEE ABOVE), then the entire unit is deemed to be in cover..."
PG 22 of the rulebook. "If a model fires...through the gaps between models in an intervening unit..."

It seems clear they are referring to LOS based upon models, not by units as a whole. Again, hidden from LOS "by other models". So, if a model is in the way, its intervening (its in between the firer and target).

So, using my illustration from earlier, the Orks in green do not get cover while the ones in red are LOS blocked by the Grots, but since 50% or more still are in cover, the entire unit gets the 4+.
1. They are hidden by the grots, both by obscuring the Orks and by the following...
2. The SM are shooting "through the gaps between models in an intervening unit" (meaning, in the way) While this doesn't apply to the front Sluggas, it does apply to all the rest.
3. 50% or more are fitting this criteria

Should be noted that the Orks, both the Sluggas and the Grots, would also grant the SM's a 4+ cover, citing the "Firing through units or area terrain" on pg 22 if they chose to fire with more than just the front row models in the units (pg 16 allows for this). Not that they'd use it.

Posted in other thread that oddly enought this troll started

**Martndemus**

Eh can i comment that the 2 middle orks can be clearly seen by a space marine?
Models from the same unit dont provide cover save.
So more then 50% of the unit is visible both units dont ge a cover save...

Bla bla bla

Edit: illustration

**Aduro**

This is what, the FOURTH thread you've started on this topic?

**Battlekai**

Voted no, 'cause it's just slowed for anyone to do this.

In the past when have you intermixed units? Why start doing it now to exploit the rules in your favour so you can win a couple more games then normal but in doing so decrease your already dwindling number of friends?

/Rant over lol

**Red_Lives**

Martndemus wrote:Eh can i comment that the 2 middle orks can be clearly seen by a space marine?
Models from the same unit dont provide cover save.
So more then 50% of the unit is visible both units dont ge a cover save...

Bla bla bla

Edit: illustration

You are drawing line of sight through a unit of grots that are in unit cohesion

The op is WRONG and is just bitching about it.

And now that i think about it that bottom orc should be red too.

**Khorneflakes**

Refuse to vote at all, since the 'intent'-question really is a no-brainer for me.

1. I do not know what GW intended, y should I guess?

2. Neither would it matter even if I knew... I'm paying 50€ for a product that that's called a rules set, I have a certain right to get a well written product. If GW once more failed at this, then it's not my job to make up for it.

3. WE ARE DAKKA (YMDC). Really, those intent questions don't belong here for the most part. Go to B&C or the like, there are plenty of fluff and intent - forums out there. Dakka YMDC is the one place where one can argue about the actual RAW, I refuse to actively undermine this effort by myself, so maybe you should, too?

**whitedragon**

MajerBlundor, you are very close to spamming on this topic. Let it go.

**MajerBlundor**

Khorneflakes wrote:Refuse to vote at all, since the 'intent'-question really is a no-brainer for me.

1. I do not know what GW intended, y should I guess?

2. Neither would it matter even if I knew... I'm paying 50€ for a product that that's called a rules set, I have a certain right to get a well written product. If GW once more failed at this, then it's not my job to make up for it.

3. WE ARE DAKKA (YMDC). Really, those intent questions don't belong here for the most part. Go to B&C or the like, there are plenty of fluff and intent - forums out there. Dakka YMDC is the one place where one can argue about the actual RAW, I refuse to actively undermine this effort by myself, so maybe you should, too?

This is not a question about "intent" in any way. It's PURELY about what YOU would rule if you had the absolute power. GW's original intent does enter into the poll in any way, so feel free to vote and then explain why you voted the way you did.

What's most telling so far is that it appears that those who voted "no" have been perfectly willing to state why they did so (generally because they feel that allowing intermixed units to confer mutual 4+ saves is silly). I don't see any "yes" votes being explained/defended.

**MajerBlundor**

Kallbrand wrote:

You mean they dont get to play by the real rules? Setting up correctly actually includes this ridiculous formation until FAQed.

Actually, the formation is contrary to the published rules. I know that a lot of glitchers jumped all over it when it was first discussed and I was even taken aback by it. My first response was, "What was GW thinking?!" And then I actually read the rules and it's clear it's not legal.

And since that point nobody has been able to defend the formation using the complete RAW. Defenders must leave out key rules and change/add words to the RAW to justify what is a patently illegal formation (leaving aside it's absurdity). So now we've come full circle and it appears that people are upset that what they thought was an airtight glitch is nothing more than cheating at this point, especially since the OP clearly defines the formation as "intermixing" rather than "intervening".

So a FAQ is not needed unless players insist on warping the rules and changing/adding words by using this formation and claiming a 4+ save.

Out of deference to Whitedragon I won't reply again on the issue, but as a heads up to those who insist on trying to use this formation and claim a 4+ cover save. Do try to be a good sport and cite ALL of the RAW and when doing so refrain from adding words or changing words.

Most importantly use "plain english" and common sense. Think of it this way. Take three piles of berries, blueberries, strawberries, and rasberries:

BBBBB > SSSSS > RRRRR

Clearly, the Strawberries are intervening between the Blueberries and the Rasberries. A small child could explain this. Now, to use the term of the OP, intermix two piles:

BSBSBSBSBS > RRRRR

The strawberries are no longer intervening between the blueberries and the rasberries as they are now intermixed with the strawberries. Common sense, plain english, and simple enough for anyone to understand. Ask anyone if the two situations are different and the answer is obvious: those are two different situations. In game terms only a cheater would try to claim intermixing (OP word) and intervening mean the same thing (they don't, look them up) or would try to add the word intermixing to the RAW.

That second intermixed formation is clearly BS ad nauseum!

**Spellbound**

The problem comes in that the words aren't exclusionary. If I and a bunch of my friends stand in front of AND amongst all your friends, meaning you can't get to them, are we intervening? We certainly are. We happen to also be intermixed with them. So? We've satisfied condition A) - to be intervening. What happens after that is irrelevant.

However what this means is that you'll only ever get one unit benefiting from the cover. the ABABABAB line doesn't work as nobody's intervening - I can "get to" both of the units just fine, and neither is clearly intervening between me and the other.

BBBBBB
ABABABABABAB
ABAABAAA

This here is different. There's plenty of B that's just standing between us, intervening. It's also mixed, but who cares.

Now though, one might say that if B had enough models "in the back" mixed in with A that it would get a cover save too- wrong. A isn't intervening. A also isn't intervening if it was the ABABAB line, they're all the same distance from me without anything in the way.

So you can mix and be intervening, but not for both units.

**Kallbrand**

Yeah, if you type it enough times it migh become true. Why do you think you have pretty much no support for your idea?

There is nothing to make mixxed units not intervening. You can actually be both since its only 50% that needs to be intervening in this case. And there is nothing in your arguments changing this, except that you seem to think that one excludes the other. You also seem to think that everything in the unit has to be entervening, I guess that part about 50% eludes you. Its actually plain english and simple enough for most to understand.

**DaBoss**

Martndemus wrote:Eh can i comment that the 2 middle orks can be clearly seen by a space marine?
Models from the same unit dont provide cover save.
So more then 50% of the unit is visible both units dont ge a cover save...

Bla bla bla

Edit: illustration

Red_Lives is correct in the interpretation of my diagram from the other thread. Since pg 22 states that since you are shooting through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the unit that is being targeted is counted in cover. According to Red's updated diagram, he marks in light blue where these gaps are designated and why they hide the orks in the last two rows.

Even if this was not the case, which I strongly doubt, PG 21 also states in Intervening Models that enemy or friendly models from a different unit only have to hide any part of the target model's body to count it as hidden and in cover and with the 50% rules, the unit is still in cover.

To MajerBlundor, this thread is the third in a series of nearly duplicate threads which seem only bent on the intention of trolling and I would seriously give thought on continuing this line of action because this forum does have rules about it and its only a matter of time before a MOD begins to take notice.

How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate wrote:"That's Not How it Works in the Real World!"

Real world arguments are immediately irrelevant. This is a game of abstractions, and whether or not those abstractions make any sense, the rules depend on them to function. As an aside, these arguments are often flimsy at best anyway. These are games of Science Fiction and Magic. To make arguments that ray guns and mind bullets would work in a certain manner in the real world is silly.

The above quote is from the forum's own FAQ on debate regarding rule disputes. Please read it MajerBlundor.

**MajerBlundor**

DaBoss wrote:

To MajerBlundor, this thread is the third in a series of nearly duplicate threads which seem only bent on the intention of flaming and I would seriously give thought on continuing this line of action because this forum does have rules about it and its only a matter of time before a MOD begins to take notice.

Allow me to explain: my first two related threads were posted in different sections simply because I didn't see a specific cross-post function on the forum and there were related topics in those two areas. Trying to jury-rig a cross-post is not flaming as my posts have been detailed and responsive to posts by others. Others have engage in stereotypical internet trash talking using terms such as "Troll" and flaming while I've refrained from engaging in such a brawl. I encourage you and others to remain constructive instead of name calling, etc.

This third thread is not the same as the other two and, in fact, your reply is very much off-topic (please stay on topic and address the issue at hand instead of arguing points more appropriate for other threads). The point of the poll precisely in line with the section's header "You Make Da Call". It places respondants in the role of GW rule arbiter and allows them to make the call as to how the related rule(s) should work. You may not like the results but that's not the point. I would be interested in how you voted and, more importantly, why.

Best Regards,

MB

**Spellbound**

Unless one unit has models clearly in front of the other, I'd say it's not an intervening unit.

Apparently the rulebook actually says that it's a unit, not the models, that intervene.

Once you're intervening, you're right - only 50% of the models must have LOS partially blocked. But you've got to be intervening first.

A more apt question would be how many of you intend to USE the tactic? I for one am not going to continue to argue it in my gaming circle, but true or not I don't plan on attempting to grid my units up like this. Are any of you? It just seems like too much of a hassle. Did any of you try to use the unassaultable grid in 4th?

**DaBoss**

MajerBlundor wrote:
DaBoss wrote:

To MajerBlundor, this thread is the third in a series of nearly duplicate threads which seem only bent on the intention of flaming and I would seriously give thought on continuing this line of action because this forum does have rules about it and its only a matter of time before a MOD begins to take notice.

Allow me to explain: my first two related threads were posted in different sections simply because I didn't see a specific cross-post function on the forum and there were related topics in those two areas. Trying to jury-rig a cross-post is not flaming as my posts have been detailed and responsive to posts by others. Others have engage in stereotypical internet trash talking using terms such as "Troll" and flaming while I've refrained from engaging in such a brawl. I encourage you and others to remain constructive instead of name calling, etc.

This third thread is not the same as the other two and, in fact, your reply is very much off-topic (please stay on topic and address the issue at hand instead of arguing points more appropriate for other threads). The point of the poll precisely in line with the section's header "You Make Da Call". It places respondants in the role of GW rule arbiter and allows them to make the call as to how the related rule(s) should work. You may not like the results but that's not the point. I would be interested in how you voted and, more importantly, why.

Best Regards,

MB

MB, since you are not debating a current rule, as your original post in this thread has states, you are no longer debating anything. You specifically stated that you are not arguing current RAW, but are proposing the thoughts of others on what they would do in constructing their own rule on the subject. This is the wrong forum for that, and that is why I referred to it as trolling (originally posted flaming by mistake). Please take this kind of Poll to the 40K Proposed Rules forum. From the perspective of most involved, you are simply restarting the same argument in a different format in the hopes of only sparking further debate about something two duplicate forum posts were already set out to do. I would suggest petitioning a MOD to move this thread to the correct forum if your intentions are truly what you say they are.

**Valhallan42nd**

mikhaila wrote:I see this as a rules perversion that will cause endless arguements, and slow down the game. 98% of the people coming in want to play 40k, not some rules-lawyer version of the game and endless RAW arguements. Our house rule is that if the units are so intermixed that it's not obvious which one gets the cover save from the other, then neither one does. This puts the responibility on the controlling player to set up his models correctly, to gain the cover save.

QFT. Some cheese-

mother-

actually sat down and thought this out? This is the same arguement that people used to deny charges in 4th. "oh, you can't get with an inch of this model, since it's right next a model that you didn't charge."

You want to play ruleshammer? Fine, play it with someone else. Me, I'm playing Warhammer, where "intervening" means "between", not "right next to". How much clearer can you get?

**MajerBlundor**

DaBoss wrote:

MB, since you are not debating a current rule, as your original post in this thread has states, you are no longer debating anything. You specifically stated that you are not arguing current RAW, but are proposing the thoughts of others on what they would do in constructing their own rule on the subject. This is the wrong forum for that, and that is why I referred to it as trolling (originally posted flaming by mistake). Please take this kind of Poll to the 40K Proposed Rules forum. From the perspective of most involved, you are simply restarting the same argument in a different format in the hopes of only sparking further debate about something two duplicate forum posts were already set out to do. I would suggest petitioning a MOD to move this thread to the correct forum if your intentions are truly what you say they are.

It's the right section currently since the RAW precludes intermixed units from confering mutual 4+ saving rolls. As I write in the OP "Imagine you're the GW staffer with the absolute power to settle the question." The question being how should the rule be implemented regardless of the text since some are trying to modify or ignore the actual text. In other words, what do you believe the intended current rule should be. That's not the same thing as proposing a new rule. "rule as written" literally means "as written" or "the words used". That's different from the intent or objective of the rule which can remain constant regardless of the text used to describe or implement that objective. So, in this case, we're dealing with an existing rule (4+ saves for intervening units) and asking whether or not the objective of the rule expands to include intermixed units as well as intervening units. In other words, you make the call on an existing rule which provides for 4+ saving throws for intervening units. I probably should have used the phrase "expand understanding of the current rule to include intermixed units" in the poll question.

In fact, if one were to propse that intermixed units confer mutual 4+ saving throws, that would clearly be a new rule since the text doesn't include such a formation or tactic currently.

I have already asked the mods to consolidate or cross-link the other two threads.

MB

PS That previous post to Da Boss was supposed to be a PM. Sorry for the mis-click! Doh!

**DaBoss**

The original discovery of this rule dispute. Fully discussed.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/212725.page

The second thread to talk about the implementation of this tactic. Fully discussed.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/213879.page

Your first (second) posts on the subject. Fully discussed.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/214182.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/214181.page

Please understand MajorBlundor, I'm really not here to hound on you, but as you can see, this has been ultimately discussed, discussed again, beaten to death, burned, beaten some more. This is why I, and others, have said that this is simply trolling, whether you are intending to do so or not. I think its clear that no one person on any forum can truly say whether or not this is legal or not, but must remain up to the individuals playing, or until an FAQ can sort things out.

Anyways, this is it for this subject, for me at least. PM me if you want, but this has been done to death.

**MajerBlundor**

DaBoss wrote:

Please understand MajorBlundor, I'm really not here to hound on you

Would still like to see how you voted and why you voted the way you did. I think that would be far more constructive and useful for the other members.

**Voodoo Boyz**

Valhallan42nd wrote:
QFT. Some cheese- mother- actually sat down and thought this out?

I happen to be the "cheese-

mother-

" who came up with this, purely by accident while going over different ways to run multiple mobs of Orks. You can see exactly where I came up with it right here. I then made the subsequent YMDC threads explaining the formation.

What would you rather have happen?

#1) This come up randomly in a shop or tournament and then have the RAW present the person using the formation with the 4+ cover save.

OR

#2) Have this identified as a rules hole before the game comes out so Tournament Organizers and store owners like mikhaila can squash it before it starts.

You want to play ruleshammer? Fine, play it with someone else. Me, I'm playing Warhammer, where "intervening" means "between", not "right next to". How much clearer can you get?

Unfortunately the models in the formation are still "between" the firing unit and the majority of the models in the target unit. It's pretty much 100% clear that this does work per the RAW - but it's yet another one of many cases where RAW is slowed and the rules need to be amended either by GW FAQ or by House/Tournament Rules (see Goblin Slingshots, Miner Congalines, Teclis not being a High Elf Archmage, etc for other examples of RAW stupidity being overcome by house rules or a FAQ).

Hell, I brought this up at my local GW store and proposed a house rule to the Manager and the other veterans in the shop so if it comes up, generally someone there will not let it fly.

**whitedragon**

MajerBlundor wrote:Would still like to see how you voted and why you voted the way you did. I think that would be far more constructive and useful for the other members.

It makes no difference because the poll and the RAW are different things. What you vote in the poll based on what you feel the solution should be is not the same as what the rules actually say, which I notice is not a choice on your poll.

As competetive players that play in the tourney circuit (Sanctioned and Sponsored by GW), we are very interested in exactly what the rules allow and disallow. Whether or not you think it is "rules-lawyering" is irrelevant. If it is in the rulebook, it is something that we would like to discuss, and perhaps come to an agreement as a community. (Reference the Adepticon FAQ) In this regard, your arguments of "common sense" and "realism" and "intent" have no bearing, because they do not relate to what the rules state, and they muddy the discussion for those of us that are trying to discern what the rules are telling us.

MB, your assumptions on the rules and GW are false. There is no right or wrong way to play 40k, and regardless of how GW wants us to use "common sense", we all know (using common sense) that what is "common sense" for me, may not be "common sense" for you. In a competetive environment, would you really feel that you were taking the high road by demanding that someone that used this against you is a poor sport? They could equally call you a poor sport, (and be supported by the rules). That is why we discuss these things so vigorously, so that we can find all facets of a particular situation before we decide one which (if any) has more merit, or which to avoid all together.

The other thread clearly proves that your assumptions about this rule are wrong, MB, and you have only to concede the point and state that you feel it should be played the other way. We may even agree with you. But to continue to combine your feelings on how the rule should be played with your jugdement of what the rules say leads you to not only the wrong conclusion, but a very close minded way to approach the 40k hobby.

**Valhallan42nd**

Voodoo Boyz wrote:

What would you rather have happen?

#1) This come up randomly in a shop or tournament and then have the RAW present the person using the formation with the 4+ cover save.

OR

#2) Have this identified as a rules hole before the game comes out so Tournament Organizers and store owners like mikhaila can squash it before it starts.

You want to play ruleshammer? Fine, play it with someone else. Me, I'm playing Warhammer, where "intervening" means "between", not "right next to". How much clearer can you get?

Unfortunately the models in the formation are still "between" the firing unit and the majority of the models in the target unit. It's pretty much 100% clear that this does work per the RAW - but it's yet another one of many cases where RAW is slowed and the rules need to be amended either by GW FAQ or by House/Tournament Rules (see Goblin Slingshots, Miner Congalines, Teclis not being a High Elf Archmage, etc for other examples of RAW stupidity being overcome by house rules or a FAQ).

Hell, I brought this up at my local GW store and proposed a house rule to the Manager and the other veterans in the shop so if it comes up, generally someone there will not let it fly.

Sorry, this made me blow a gasket when I read it. I put this idea right up there with using clipping errors to your advantage in FPS's. And you are right. It's better to have this cleared up and/or house ruled on prior to a tourney. Mea culpa.

**DaBoss**

MajerBlundor wrote:
Would still like to see how you voted and why you voted the way you did. I think that would be far more constructive and useful for the other members.

Read my posts in the other thread and even in this one. I've broken down completely what my stand is on the subject and have cited rules which I have used to build my arguement. The members don't need my vote on a hypothetical question.

**MajerBlundor**

post moot...see next post!!!

MB