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.

It's too hard to be able to assure 3/1 odds the majority of the time. There are other factors such as an HQ hitting first at a higher initiative and better WS ignoring armor saves that when combined with a squad will place the odds significantly in your favor.

G

Phryxis wrote:

Offhand I'd say that the Tactical Sergeant with the Powerfist is unlikely to do anything before failing an armour save.

I couldn't resist further demonstration of the folly of your suggestion by showing that not only do you give bad advice around odds, but you're also pretty poor at oddsmaking.

The Chaos Raptors have 9 models with BP+CCW. With MoK, that's 4A on the charge, 37A total.

37A, 18.5 hit, 9.25 wounds to allocate.

So, rarely will you even have to allocate a wound to the PFist. A better "offhand" here would tell us that the PF Sarge will die before he can attack roughly one time in 12.

Is 11:12 "unlikely" in your estimation?

11:12 on average ain't bad, particularly since the Powerfist Sergeant will be limited, on average, to a single wound. A Power Weapon is still a better idea then. By the way, how do you get 9x4=37?

Since we're so kindly correcting each other today, let me correct what you've written. Nine Raptors with an Icon of Khorne and the charge has A4, A36 total.

A36, 18 hits, 9 wounds, 3 failed saves, on average.

So, on an idealized calculation considering only the averge the Powerfist will get two Attacks. One, on average, will hit, and most likely wound.

So what are the chances of the Raptor unit causing 10 failed saves? I'll leave that for someone else to figure out

The advice I've given is pretty good advice, so long as it isn't misconstrued so that a player imagines that the 3:1 odds are points or numbers of models, or that the 3:1 odds reflect the traditional wargaming odds rather than being specifically applied to the likelihood of winning a combat in 40k.

Most new players go into the game with their head full of The Art of War without know how to cut it to fit 40k, and end up being disappointed with their strategies since 40k is not a simulation. But if you know the principles that Master Sun used to expound the The Art of War then you can cut it to fit situations in 40k. Thinking 'formally' or structurally about any subject makes you think about how the layers of 40k fit together and stops you from getting distracted by stupid and irrelevant considerations like "Real-life Terminators wouldn't run away from Guardsmen!"

But I've been playing since Rogue Trader and I've aware that the 3:1 odds applies to the rules, not the fluff that the rules so crudely represent.

As you, and apparently two other posters, haven't noticed, the 3:1 rule of thumb isn't "you should always win". The 3:1 rule of thumb is if you want to win the combat. Remember that there are three ways in 40k to gain an advantage: material, spatial, temporal. Remember also how I pointed out one could gain an advantage in space and time using 1:1 and 2:1 odds by sacrificing material.

If you manage to fight at 3:1 odds for the whole battle though, somehow, it won't matter what your luck is, and you won't need to spend material on non-overwhelming odds. It's a goal.

Let's take a look at your baseball metaphor, applying the time/space/material rule to make it clear for you. In baseball you can think of space as bases, time as well, time, and material as batters. You goal is to win the game. The 3:1 rule here would not indicate "Hey dude, you should, like, try and win or something." The 3:1 rule would indicate that you order your batters so that they can load the bases before a heavy-hitter knocks on out of the park.

But hey, don't let that get in your dignified analysis of the topic, go ahead with your cute little crusade to discredit whatever I say. It's fun!

Phryxis wrote:Put it this way: the game itself is 1:1. What exactly are you going to do to turn a 1:1 balance into nothing but 3:1 in your favor?

USE TACTICS!!!

Abadabadoobaddon:

I'd missed that part of Phryxis' post. Thanks!

Using tactics is a very good idea, particularly since the game itself is never a 1:1 proposition in anything but points. Even if you take two identical armies, terrain, the mission, set-up, and the order of the turn sequence will turn it into an uneven match-up.

If you're going to consider the odds to determine which tactics will pay off best in the game it's best to be realist about what the odds actually are. 1:1 odds on points, for example, aren't 1:1 odds that you'll win, so it's unrealistic to consider the game itself to be 1:1 odds since the game is more than List-Hammer 40k.

As I mentioned, one way of turning 1:1 odds into 3:1 odds is to force the other player to choose between bad options and worse options. However, taking a Powerfist in a Tactical Squad is a strategic option rather than a tactical option, so simply taking a Powerfist as a deterrence is only going to work if you can play the deterrence on the board. Conversely, how well the tactics will work depends on the strategic options you've chosen to implement them with.

One tactic is to team your Tactical Squad with a Dreadnought so that if your Tactical Squad is going to be assaulted, then the Dreadnought will also be assaulted. This is essentially a double-deep u-shape around the Dreadnought's base. This does three things. Firstly, it means that as well as a Powerfist, you have a relatively cheap S10 Power Weapon attack (you need a Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon for this to work). Secondly it means that the Dreadnought will not retreat, will not suffer from No Retreat!, and will prevent a Sweeping Advance from getting in the way of a Combat Tactics initiated retreat. Thirdly, the Infantry can use the Dreadnought for a cover save from hostile shooting.

The principle of this tactic is mutual support. Mutual support means that you will always have units close by ('close by' here glossed as in range to shoot or charge) so that you can quickly even or extend the odds in your favour, which is important for Space Marines since their units tend to be generalists (particularly Dreadnoughts and Tactical Squads).

And don't forget, always bring the fist. It's a big scary world out there, and you never know when you'll need a big giant tool to push your way into and out of whatever deep, dark, scary and smelly cavern you may find yourself in.

In the interest of accuracy, I checked the odds of scoring 10 or more wounds with 36 BP+CCW Raptor attacks on a Tactical Marine. The odds are .412. Thus, the odds of the Sarge having a wound allocated and also failing his save, are .137. Much higher than the .083 my estimation produced, but still very likely that the Fist will get its attack (86% of the time he will).

Now, I don't want to try to squeeze blood from a stone here, but let's not forget what happened, Nurglitch. You said it was "unlikely" that the Power Fist would get its attacks. In reality, it will get its attacks 86% of the time. That's very likely. That makes you very wrong. Why not admit when you're wrong?

It actually ADDS to your credibility when you prove that you're willing to admit when you're incorrect.

For example, I have to admit I was surprised by the disparity between my estimate (92%) and the actual figure (86%). But I was off by only about 6%. I don't know what "unlikely" is, but I'd assume it was no more than 25%. Which would make you off by 61%, more than ten times what I was.

So, like I said, no point in trying to get you to admit when you're wrong, because you won't, but it's very hard to have a structured discussion when you think you're above admitting a mistake.

You seem to think it's a base assumption of any discussion that what you're saying is correct, and it's just a matter of the other idiots figuring out how. The reality is you're wrong. Frequently.

A Power Weapon is still a better idea then.

A Power Weapon is worth .75 wounds. A Power Fist is worth about .83. If you decrease the .83 by the odds of it getting picked off, you get .72.

So you're correct!

Based on your misunderstanding of the probabilities to this point, I think it's pure luck, simple repetition of your original point (broken clocks being right twice a day and all), but you're still correct. Against the Raptors, the Power Weapon will be more useful around 4% of the time.

If that's worth it to you, then buy a Power Weapon. I'd say the ability to kill MCs, Dreads, ICs, Nobs, etc. is worth more than that.

By the way, how do you get 9x4=37?

I get that, mistakenly, by forgetting the Champ has MoK, and doing 41A - 4A = 37A.

Master Sun used to expound the The Art of War

Classic. CLASSIC.

I read your posts, and I said to myself "this guy is such a total sophist, I bet he's one of these guys that read The Art of War, and thinks it makes him a 40K master."

And you TOTALLY are.

Here's the thing: I read The Art of War too. In fact, I read it when I was 15 years old, during the long flight to China, the first time I went. As a 15 year old kid, I was all excited to become a powerful marshall of men, just by reading that book. But, even at 15 years old, I remember thinking "jeez, this is all pretty obvious and vague." I can remember getting increasingly upset and disappointed as each page presented a new and useless suggestion like "suprise your enemy" or "try to make your enemy think you're doing one thing, then do another."

I'm not sure why we'd want to take military advice from a guy living in a country where the entire history is one of being invaded and subjugated by external forces.

So, that's you. Enamoured of your own tactical acumen, based on reading a book that failed to impress me when I knew half what I know now.

The 3:1 rule would indicate that you order your batters so that they can load the bases before a heavy-hitter knocks on out of the park.

Classic Nurglitchery. You say one thing, that thing gets debunked, so you decide you said some other thing.

What you actually said: "[Y]ou should only be assaulting with 3:1 odds anyhow."

Now, I took that to mean that you were saying that one should only be assaulting with 3:1 odds because those are the words you used. Apparently what you actually meant was that you should play the game such that the final deciding assault is 3:1 in your favor.

After all, the 3:1 assault is the home run. The ground balls to get on base are the 1:1 assaults. If you've loaded the bases, then you've fought some 1:1 assaults to get there, right?

Your new, heavily amended suggestion is certainly much better than your previous one, but it's still painfully devoid of substance. To continue my love of analogies, it's like telling a chess player "just trade pieces for a while, then get him in a checkmate." A slightly more realistic suggestion than to always hit home runs, but still totally devoid of substance or value.

One tactic is to team your Tactical Squad with a Dreadnought so that if your Tactical Squad is going to be assaulted, then the Dreadnought will also be assaulted.

NOW you're actually saying something. Everything you describe here is valid.

We could debate the utility of this particular tactic all day, so I'll just say this: A Dread costs at least 105 points. A Power Fist costs 25. There's a reason the Dread works better than the Power Fist. It's cause it costs over 4 times as much, plus a force org slot.

But hey, don't let that get in your dignified analysis of the topic, go ahead with your cute little crusade to discredit whatever I say.

Dude, I'm sorry. I don't really want to flame people, but when I'm confronted with such pompous sophistry as yours, I just have register my contempt for it. I see you posting a lot of really wrong, useless, overblown crap, and it just gets on my nerves.

It's not just me, either. I see a lot of flame threads with you as a primary player. Hell, this thread alone, a handfull of people came along to say your 3:1 thing was offbase. Nobody in support.

Is it all of us that have a problem, or is it you?

You're the one throwing out incorrect assessments of what's "unlikely." I'm the one who went and hacked out a quick computer program to run the numbers for me, so I would give everyone the right information.

So, yeah, I'm poking fun at you. But let's not sarcastically dismiss my "dignified analysis," when I'm thinking far more critically and emperically about this stuff than you are.

Maybe, JUST MAYBE, you should consider the possibility that you're not as incredibly smart as you think you are, just because you read a book that pretty much every nerdy teenager red the first time somebody mentioned it during their DnD night.

Maybe the things you think are great insights are actually kinda insulting to everyone's intelligence, and they're not speaking against you because they're dumber than you, but instead because they think you're talking down to them, and not actually saying anything smart?

Have a little more humility, and make a few less unsupported assertions. It'll make you a little more of the man you mistakenly think you are.

meh, I see the validity of the 3:1 assault.

maybe people would get they're hate on if it was phrased:
3n:n

where n would be an on-the-fly assessment of a target unit's strength
i.e. 1 marine squad vs 1 guard squad would fill this 3n:n requirement
but
1 marine squad vs 1 chaos marine squad would be 1n:n (on the charge)
while it would roughly take 1 assault marine squad and a tactical squad to fill the 3n:n against the same chaos marine squad

Phryxis:

You missed my point about Sun Tzu's The Art of War, which you brought up. I agree with you that read from a certain perspective, let's call it the content perspective, it's a dull bunch of obvious clap-trap. Complete, comprehensive, and dull.

From another perspective, the structural perspective I wrote about earlier, it's an interesting exercise in thinking about conflict in an organized and methodical fashion. The lesson of the Art of War is not that you should "surprise your enemy" or anything about the particulars of any ancient Chinese conflict, but that where you apply a system to conflict, such as the four-part ancient Chinese logic that Master Sun employed, you can expect certain results by that same system.

Again, the moral of the story is being systematic.

Of course, the moral that so many casual readers of Sun Tzu and other philosophers make is that the content can be swapped with any other content via simple substitution. So there's quite a few people out there treating business like a particular kind of ancient Chinese warfare between feudal states, rather than in the organized way one should treat business in the early 21st century.

The fact that one cannot "surprise your enemy" in 40k the way Master Sun's system suggests for ancient Chinese warfare should demonstrate the stupidity of such a simple substitution, since 40k is in no way a model of warfare.

Instead, Warhammer has its own rules. And since this is the early 21st century, we have access to far more sophisticated logics than Sun Tzu imagine (since, otherwise, he would have invented them...). Since 40k is a game, we can treat it according to its own logic rather than impressing a logic upon it.

In thinking structurally, we cannot cherry-pick quotes out of structures like books, article, and yes, forum posts. The content of posts can only be understood within its complete context. Hence in thinking structurally we don't miss the forest for the trees, and likewise don't let the forest distract from the trees. It's about the relationship between the individual trees and the collected forest.

I'm pointing this out because you might find it easier to follow what I'm saying if you pay attention to the structure that my words point at, rather than the denotations and connotations of the words I use to point. You may be pleasantly surprised. It may also help you to lose the tragic offense at my pointed finger if you look at what I'm pointing at.

With regard to the tactic with the Dreadnought I've suggested, I should really go to pains to point out that such a tactic combines the strategy of using a Powerfist in your Tactical Squad and using a Dreadnought. A Dreadnought isn't a Powerfist replacement, it's something that can be used to supplement and synergize with a Powerfist in that configuration.

So given that we have a logic of 40k, the rules, and we know how it combines given the placement of models, units, etc, on the table, I think it's useful to explore the difference between how the rules assign value to Powerfists and the value of Powerfists in a game - given their rules and their uses, when their actual value will meet or exceed their points value.

Notice that whether Powerfists are worth taking must, by necessity of the game, be hypothetical. They'll be worth taking if the player takes them in the right army, and then uses that army so that it meets the 3:1 rule of thumb, game-wise.

I think it's already been pointed out, fortunately by someone who isn't me, when you should take Powerfists. I believe he suggested that you should take Powerfists in a Tactical Squad when you don't have them available in other units. I'd add that you should consider not only whether you have Powerfists available in the rest of your army, but how you plan for your units to mutually support each other in combat.

So far I've suggested that it's worth taking Powerfists if you also have a Dreadnought to combine with a full Tactical Squad so that the entire grouping of units is both resistant to having the Powerfist killed before it can swing, so they can maximize use of Combat Tactics, etc.

Every squad of Marines I have ever run always have a power fist, except for the following:

Dev squads (not worth it since they are deployed far back and should never assault)

Emperor's Children (4e)

G

IMHO, 3:1 assaults are totally crap. Sure they happen, when you make mistakes. On top of that, why in the world would you want to PWN a unit on the charge just to be shot the up by the rest of your opponents army? Don't get me wrong here... if I absolutely want something to die i'll hit it with a full 30 boys but they still get A: shot up on the way and B: finished off after the 1 round wipe. Use something closer odds like 1.5 atks/ per enemy's atks and you should last 2 rounds of combat. Ergo, after your assault unit finishes off the nice little speed bump they can go after the next target without being left into the open.


Tactics... bah.
Everything will die to the CHOPPA.

Alphus:

Maybe you should wonder who would assault without taking measures to prevent being shot at in the opponent player' turn, such as pinning, engaging, destroying, or blocking whatever might return fire.

I mean, as Phryxis has shown, 3:1 assaults are as simple as hitting a Tactical Squad with a Raptor Squad.

From an Ork perspective, surely you're familiar with the necessity of Orks delivering charges rather than receiving them.

Nurglitch wrote:I'm pointing this out because you might find it easier to follow what I'm saying if you pay attention to the structure that my words point at, rather than the denotations and connotations of the words I use to point. You may be pleasantly surprised. It may also help you to lose the tragic offense at my pointed finger if you look at what I'm pointing at.

Wow. Talk about proving Phyrix's point. A small bit of advice, Nurglitch - when talking down to people it usually goes over a lot better if what you're saying isn't obvious. Or wrong.

Abadabadoobaddon:

This may be difficult for you to believe, but I'm not talking down to him.

This would be me talking down to him:

"Wow, Phryxis, you've gone ahead and piled stupid on stupid. Talk about proving my point. Here's a small bit of advice, you're too stupid to understand my point. Just give up and kill yourself, preferably where no-one can find your body so that they won't have to be embarrassed for you yet again."

But I haven't said that because it's not true, Phryxis is obviously intelligent enough to understand whatever I say, telling him to stop embarrassing himself has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, and the unwarranted advice is nothing more than a mean-spirited personal attack.

Instead I've offered my opinion to Phryxis, and suggested how we can deal with the usual misunderstanding I have to struggle with on this site everytime I post. Much like your own well-meaning and charitable advice to me.

3:1 is nice but there is no way to guarantee these odds on a consistent basis. Sure if you have a fast assault army like BA with lots of jump infantry it is possible against a slow shooty army. Like I said you should take along something to boost your odds such as a power fist or HQ hitting first with attacks that ignore armor saves.

G

"I'm pointing this out because you might find it easier to follow what I'm saying if you pay attention to the structure that my words point at, rather than the denotations and connotations of the words I use to point."

Translation:

Listen to what I'm saying, not how I'm saying it.

Is 'verbosity' in your vocabulary Nurgy? With statements like the above, 'talking down to people' clearly is.

More interestingly, how can we determined the denotations and connotations over the internet. It's text. If your meaning isn't clear, it's not the fault of the reader...

BYE

Again, the moral of the story is being systematic.

Systematic? Like, for example, actually running the statistics, rather than speculating blindly?

In thinking structurally, we cannot cherry-pick quotes out of structures like books, article, and yes, forum posts.

I would agree. And when I saw your 3:1 figure, it brought to mind a strategic recommendation, either from Sun Tzu or Napoleon (or somebody else I'm forgetting) which suggested that a 3:1 advantage in numbers was necessary before conducting a siege or assault.

I figured you were trying to shoehorn that same recommendation into 40K, so I referenced Sun Tzu.

A small bit of advice, Nurglitch - when talking down to people it usually goes over a lot better if what you're saying isn't obvious. Or wrong.

Exactly.

Nurglitch, please rest assured I'm not failing to understand your arguments. As always, you're wrapping suggestions of dubious novelty/veracity in a lot of complex language. It's all an excuse to use the word "temporal" and then snicker to yourself as you imagine us all having to google it to keep up with you.

You're like a squirrel scolding me from a tree. I'm well aware that the squirrel is saying "get out of my territory." The reason I'm not leaving is not that I'm too dumb to understand. It's that I'm a human, I actually own the deed to the property where the tree is located, and I don't have to humor squirrels, no matter how strong their convictions.

how we can deal with the usual misunderstanding I have to struggle with on this site everytime I post.

Again, I have to ask, what's more likely: Everyone but you is stupid, or you are?

You seem to have convinced yourself that the reason people don't respond positively to you and to your suggestions, is that they just don't get what you're saying. Why is that the only possibility you're willing to consider? Is it possible, as everyone is telling you, that you're just saying things that are not at all insightful, or just plain wrong?

But, ignore the previous, none of it matters, please just focus on this:

Let's go back to your initial suggestion that it was "unlikely" that the Power Fist would get to attack the Raptors. The actual likelihood is 86%.

Would you care to debate my figures there? Or am I right, and you were wrong?

Would you like to comment on how a person of your stunning intellect could be so dramatically wrong about something like this?

Given that you've given us a suggestion to only assault with 3:1 odds, how are we to implement this, given that it's apparently very difficult even for the most gifted minds to accurately determine odds?

Nurglitch wrote:"Wow, Phryxis, you've gone ahead and piled stupid on stupid. Talk about proving my point. Here's a small bit of advice, you're too stupid to understand my point. Just give up and kill yourself, preferably where no-one can find your body so that they won't have to be embarrassed for you yet again."

There, that's more like it! See, Nurgy - you can make a good post, if you try! Which brings me to another bit of advice - if you're going to be wrong it helps to at least be funny in the process. Funny > verbose. Keep on truckin'!

Nice to see this thread get derailed

Would love it if the "pissing contest" was kept in PM format.

Phryxis wrote:Again, I have to ask, what's more likely: Everyone but you is stupid, or you are?

Well that's the kicker isn't it? The correct answer is neither. We're all intelligent adults, so why is it so difficult for me to communicate with you?

Nice to see this thread get derailed

Yeah, well, the OP's question was answered as well as it's going ot be.

We're all intelligent adults, so why is it so difficult for me to communicate with you?

I gave my opinion on the subject. I think you communicate your points just fine, but when you don't get the result you think you should, and you assume you're not being understood.

On Topic:

I know you've pretty much made your decision, but I wanted to at least offer up my viewpoint to add to the variety of perspectives.

Your decision one way or the other depends on several different things:

1. Unit Objective/Purpose
2. Unit Size
3. The Rest of Your Army

1. If the unit you're equipping is destined for assault via Combat Squads (Taking the Sergeant and the Special Weapon and moving up the field while the other five Marines sit back and throw bullets/missiles), then you clearly require a special close combat weapon, and not just a CCW or Bolter sergeant.

If you're tank-hunting with a Meltagun, then you're better off taking a Fist and Meltabombs (the fist for AV12 or less should the Meltagun be insufficient, and the Meltabombs to follow up the Meltagun on AV13 or 14). If you're taking on infantry, a Power Weapon is a better bet. A lot of your decision should tie into the Special Weapon -- a Flamer and a Power Weapon make an excellent infantry-killer, while a Meltagun, Fist and Meltabombs make a decent tank-hunter.

If you've got a tiny unit, you may be concerned with your Sergeant getting to swing due to the Initiative 1 penalty. In a full 10-man squad, it's much less of an issue, as the units that can drop a 10-man Marine Squad have no business being allowed that close.

Are you fielding an assaulty army? Are you shooty? What tactics are you using in combat -- do you plan to blow them away at close range and then smash their countercharge, or are you mechanized and ranged? These are questions you should weigh in deciding.

The type of army you're fielding is important too. You're Crimson Fists -- I'm not entirely sure how they play, but I would imagine that they're pretty different compared to White Scars.

For me, it's pretty easy. I play Black Templars, and have access to the vow that gives my entire army Preferred Enemy. I also field Crusader Squads of 10 Initiates and 5 Neophytes. The sheer size of my squads (all 4 of them that are like this) coupled with the large quantity of Str4 Init4 attacks (most of which re-roll to hit) make a Power Weapon redundant. Despite my lack of access to a Veteran Sergeant, my single Power Fist attack stacks up as follows vs MEQ.

1 Attack >>> 1/2 Hit >>> 3/4 Hit (after re-roll) >>> 15/24 MEQ Kills (0.625)
As opposed to a Vanilla Marine Tactical Sergeant with a Fist
2 Attacks >>> 4/3 Hits >>> 20/18 MEQ Kills (1.111)

Not too great for me, right? Well, since the Vanilla Sergeant costs 51 points to outperform my 31-point Initiate by 44%, then I guess that's a close enough comparison (especially since my Initiate is only 6% overcosted compared to the Vanilla Sergeant.

In summary, I run a Meltagun with the Squad, and use the large number of short-ranged melta weapons and rerolling Fist attacks to act as a mild deterrent for enemy light armor and anything paying through the nose for an armor save. A squad costs 235 points, and I'm able to throw down three such squads with an Emperor's Champion and a Commander without a second thought. Ultimately, it makes for a pretty solid base to a Templar slogging army.

The point of all this? It depends on what you're trying to accomplish, and how you plan on going about accomplishing it. Take what you want -- if you use the wargear in the correct way, it won't disappoint.

Hope that helps.

CK

Nurglitch wrote:Alphus:

Maybe you should wonder who would assault without taking measures to prevent being shot at in the opponent player' turn, such as pinning, engaging, destroying, or blocking whatever might return fire.

I mean, as Phryxis has shown, 3:1 assaults are as simple as hitting a Tactical Squad with a Raptor Squad.

From an Ork perspective, surely you're familiar with the necessity of Orks delivering charges rather than receiving them.

actually from an ork perspective.... aka. MINE. I'd be perfectly happy sitting inside my nice little AV 10 open-topped trukks shooting you with all my shootas/flash gits/tank bustas with a KFF inside 6". Which means this: I don't assault unless I absolutely have to, because I'd rather enjoy the sensation of shooting my opponent off the board with orks. With the new rules anyways, how can you prevent ANYTHING from getting shot? If you can see it, you CAN shoot it, right? So what's the point in worrying about a unit getting pinned, shot up, or whatever because regardless of what you do you will get something shot up.

Nuff said.