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.

Funny, a Mod deleted my post just so he can win an argument. How childish can that be.

A mod deleted your post because it was off-topic and responding to a post that I had edited for inappropriate behaviour, and wasn't actually adding anything to the discussion. Any time you feel like contributing something useful and on-topic, go right ahead.

insaniak wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:If people read same as "Two different profiles /= THE SAME profile" then "Two different Bolt Pistols /= THE SAME Bolt Pistol" thus you have a group of 5 marines that are all their own model in a complex unit. Because if If people read same as needing to share a profile then they need read same as needing to share the same weapons (not two identical profiles and identical weapons).

This would only be true of the people disagreeing with you were claiming that the two models had to be the same physical model. Which they're not, as it's a patently adsurd claim.

The two bolt pistols don't need to be the same weapon. They just need to be the same weapon profile. Just as the two models don't need to be the same physical model... they just need to share a profile.

One bolt pistol is exactly the same as another bolt pistol.
One model with a profile labelled 'X' is not the same as a model with a profile labelled 'Y' however, even if their characteristics are identical... because it has a different name.

But under the interpretation of Share a profile, they would need to share weapons and wargear. but it does not say they need to share a profile, it just asks for the profiles to be identical in gaming terms (the way they interact with the game)

If you read it as meaning they need to share a profile, they also need to share weapons and wargear, which leads to a 5 man squad sharing one weapon. If you can show a Page # where it says they need to share a profile please find it for me. I can not find said page, if you can not either then they do not need to share a profile, just have two identical profile of 9 numbers.

And one profile is exactly the same as the other in the case of the Assault terminator/Assault terminator Sergeant.

However they only need be Identical in gaming terms, and a profile of characteristics does not include the name, since the characteristics are listed on P.6 below.

P.6 lists what Characteristics are (WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv) (note, no names are mentioned)

P.6 "To represent the different abilities of these creatures in the game, each model has a profile made up of nine numbers that describe the various aspects of their physical and mental make-up. These are called characteristics."

P.7 "Each model in warhammer 40k has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics" (Profiles list values of the 9 aforementioned characteristics, a name is not a value.)

P.25 under complex units:
"... Identical in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear."

profile of characteristics = a 'profile made up of nine numbers...called characteristics'
9 same/identical numbers = same profile of characteristics

I do not find name being a characteristic anywhere on P.6 where it describes the 9 characteristics. I would love to see you take a characteristic test and roll under Assault terminator Sergeant on a D6.

If this is not clear then I do not know how to explain it.

DR out :-)

DeathReaper wrote:...and a profile of characteristics does not include the name

Then how do you tell who that profile belongs to?

The names of the profiles are only there for reference, since the profile is made up of nine numbers that are called characteristics.

Question: Is an Assault terminator and an Assault terminator sergeant identical in gaming terms?

Assault terminator
W BS S T W I A LD Sv
4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+

Assault terminator sergeant
W BS S T W I A LD Sv
4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+

assuming both are armed with LC's and both have terminator armor.

Do these two models interact with the game in the same/identical way?

Do they both have the same/Identical values in their profiles that are made up of nine numbers that are called characteristics.?

The answers have to be yes, because they do exactly the same thing when it comes to rolling dice.

I would like the answer to this one question:

Since they say they need the same profile,rules, weapons, and wargear then If same profile means 'share a profile', then same weapons means 'share weapons' right?

I guess it can come down to whether or not you interpret the name as part of the profile or not. There isn't really any hard evidence that supports or denies that the name is part of the profile so until there is some kind of official ruling this will be settled by house rules, tournament organizers, and dice role-offs.

The most important thing is to not get angry over someone else's opinion as there are good points argued on both sides of this topic.

augustus5 wrote:I guess it can come down to whether or not you interpret the name as part of the profile or not. There isn't really any hard evidence that supports or denies that the name is part of the profile so until there is some kind of official ruling this will be settled by house rules, tournament organizers, and dice role-offs.

That's pretty much where this wound up the last time around, yes.

augustus5 wrote: There isn't really any hard evidence that supports or denies that the name is part of the profile

If names are not part of the profile then, how does one find the correct profile of characteristics?
If names are not part of the profile then, how does one tell if two models share the same profile of characteristics?
If names are not part of the profile then 'My ork boyz are "Ws6, Bs2, S5, T5, W4, ,I4, A5. Ld9, 2+" as that's what a profile of characteristics says.'

If names are part of the profile then, I can quickly and readily locate each models profile of characteristics by its name.
If names are part of the profile then I can tell which profiles are identical by looking for the same profile of characteristics

Consider a game where names were not part of the profile, how would you play this game?

DR:

Each model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics.

Note how it says the profile lists the characteristics, and not that the profile is the or a list of characteristics?

The Characteristics are not the only part of the profile, the name is as well. This is Why a terminator Sgt cannot take the heavy Flamer, Assault Cannon, or Cyclone Missile launcher; because his Profile has him as a terminator Sgt, not just a terminator.

Heck; turn to page 128 of the Space Marine Codex and look at the diagram/breakdown of the Army list entry. Look at #1 "Unit Profile". Now read the text: unit Name, The Profile of any models in the unit, and Points cost for base unit.

What is a profile? something that lists the value of its characteristics.
A value is a number, names are not values.

It is all right here:

P.6 "To represent the different abilities of these creatures in the game, each model has a profile made up of nine numbers that describe the various aspects of their physical and mental make-up. These are called characteristics."

The bold above tells us what a profile is: A profile (In gaming terms) is made up of nine numbers, not names, just numbers.

So profile of characteristics does not include the name.
How would you take a characteristic test and roll under Assault terminator Sergeant on a D6?

The names are there for reference and have no bearing on how you play the game.

If this is not clear then I do not know how to explain it.
DR out :-)

You are taking the definition of characteristics(which tells you where they are found), and applying that as the definition of Profile(where the characteristics are found); The definition of profile on the very next page does not limit the profile to just that line of characteristic(as i said earlier the profile lists the characteristics but is not only them).

Every Modern Codex has the Diagram for the Armylists, none of them tell you that the profile is just the characteristics; they all tell you it is the stats and the Name of the models.

I have 3 candles on my desk right in front of me; a Candle is 1 or more Wicks surrounded by paraffin or wax; all three are scented, 2 are apple spice, 1 is Pumpkin spice, 1 of the apple spice is a 3-wick candle. I ask you to light the single wick Apple spice: which do you light?

The only difference by the definitions I gave you is the name.

If the profiles are Identical in gaming terms that is all the game cares about. they need not be a shared profile, it only asks that they be Identical in gaming terms. names have no bearing on how you play the game.

The term 'profile' has a meaning outside of the 40K rulebook and that is:

"A set of characteristics or qualities that identify a type or category of person or thing."


In other words, a profile is a set of characteristics. In 40k 'characteristics' are clearly defined and the model's 'name' is not a characteristic (it is not defined as such in the section for characteristics). The same is true in the 'weapon' section, where the weapon's name appears with its profile, but 'name' is not then defined as a characteristic.

So a 'name' by definition is not a characteristic and by the definition of what a profile is we know that it is not part of the profile (as a 'profile' is a set of characteristics).

Furthermore to claim that because a profile always contains a name next to it this makes the name 'part' of the profile is ludicrous. Without a name next to the profile, the profile would be meaningless. The name is the description that tells us who that profile belongs to.

If a polling company takes a 'profile' of me, it would (assuming it isn't anonymous) have my name at the top of the page but then it would have a list of a bunch of other characteristics that define me...age, sex, race, etc.

My 'profile' is that of the characteristics on that page, NOT my name. If the polling company wanted to group all the people with the exact same profiles together they wouldn't say: 'sorry, we have no matching profiles because every one has a separate name on the top of the page.'

Finally, when a rule is unclear by the RAW (and this one most certainly is), then it doesn't hurt to take a step back and consider 'why' the rule exists in the first place. I hope we can all agree that the purpose of the complex unit rules is NOT to make a unit more durable...that just happens to be a side benefit. The point of the complex unit rules is to ensure that elements of the unit that have special rules have a chance to get killed before the unit is wiped out...as without it the models with the special rules would always be the very last models removed in the unit, and that would allow units to remain unrealistically potent until the very last model was killed.

So with that in mind, how do the complex unit rules implement this goal? They do so by forcing saves separately onto any model that is functionally different from another model in the unit.

In the case of a Tau team leader or any other model that has the EXACT same characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules as other members of his unit, there is literally no functional difference between him and any one of those other models in the unit. If he dies or if they die, nothing has changed in the unit except one more model has been removed. And that is how we can know that 'name' and name alone does not constitute a different profile because the name has no functional meaning. characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules are all functional elements of the game, whereas the name of the model is not.

OFF TOPIC ARGUMENT DELETED. HOWEVER, THE FOLLOWING NEEDS TO BE COMMENTED ON:

There is no need to be rude, but since you wish to be, I can easily respond in kind, as you will see in your statement in the thread I spoke of.


"RESPONDING IN KIND" TO RUDENESS IS A VIOLATION OF THE DAKKA DAKKA FORUM RULES. TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT. IF A POSTER VIOLATES THE RULES, HIT THE 'ALERT MODERATOR' BUTTON. DO NOT BREAK THEM YOURSELF, OR YOU TOO WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE WHEN WE REVIEW THE THREAD.

IF ONE SIDE IN AN ARGUMENT BEGINS TO RESORT TO RUDENESS OR PERSONAL ATTACKS, THAT PERSON NORMALLY MAKES CLEAR THEREBY TO THE AUDIENCE/OTHER READERS THAT THEIR POSITION IS WEAK. IF YOU RESORT TO RUDENESS YOURSELF, YOU LOWER YOURSELF TO THE SAME LEVEL, AND LOSE THE MORAL HIGH GROUND. FOR THAT REASON, IT IS ALWAYS IN YOUR OWN BEST INTEREST TO REMAIN POLITE.

No dragging an argument from another (locked) thread into this one. I am editing the above to remove off-topic comments.

Page 25 wrote:The rules for taking saving throws and removing casualties, as presented so far, assume that all the models in the target unit are identical in gaming terms. By this we mean that they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules, and the same weapons and wargear.

I agree with Insaniak that the name is part of the profile, as are the characteristics.

A Space Marine Sgt. is not "identical in gaming terms" to a regular SM in his squad.

Since a Sgt is not identical in gaming terms to a SM, and since they have differently-named profiles, with separate existences, it seems reasonably clear to me that they are different for purposes of wound grouping.

I think the new Gk book throws in a president here which seems to suggest that having different names can mean you interact with the game differently.

For instance a Grey Knight Terminator Justicar has identical numbers to a Grey Knight Terminator and identical wargear yet is clearly different in game terms. Ditto a Flame Champion (is it? or knight of the flame something like that) and Purifier...

This to me tells us that a name does indeed relate to different profiles and different interactions with the game even if the 9 numbers and wargear all match.

Mann the Sgt and the regular marine, in the case of assault terminators, have the exact same stats, the exact same weapons, rules, and wargear loadout.

How does an Assault terminator and Assault terminator Sergeant interact differently if all the stats, weapons rules, and wargear are identical?

"If he [Assault terminator] dies or if they [Assault terminator Sergeant] die, nothing has changed in the unit except one more model has been removed." -Yakface

I think yakface's coment is rock solid, I honestly can not understand the other side of the coin.

So what about the GK Terminator Justicar? He is fuctionally different to the other GKs yet by your definition he is not. So we get a contradiction by trying to apply your definition of hwat makes a model different...

Mannahnin wrote:I agree with Insaniak that the name is part of the profile, as are the characteristics.

In the previous thread I had argued that when the examples of profiles are given, the name is included and this indicates the name
should be part of the profile.

I'm flip-flopping.

Page 6, bold print: "...each model has a profile made up of nine numbers that ..."

Pretty unambiguous, to me at least. The profile is the nine numbers.

Edit: Of course this doesn't go any where near whether two sets of identical nine numbers are the 'same' profile.

kmdl1066, Would two sets of identical nine numbers be identical in gaming terms?

To me yes.

Librarian 5,4,4,4,2,4,2,10,3+
Chaplain 5,4,4,4,2,4,2,10,3+

Do they have the same profile? I'd say yes. Someone else might argue that one is the profile of a librarian while one is a profile of a chaplain so they're not the same profile.

Of course they'll never have the same equipment so it will never be an issue for would allocation. But it's a useful example of whether or not to consider the profile the same.

kmdl1066, Would two sets of identical nine numbers be identical in gaming terms?

Yes obviously. But would 2 profiles containing 9 identical numbers be identical in game terms?

GK Termmie Justicar says no...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:

kmdl1066, Would two sets of identical nine numbers be identical in gaming terms?

Yes obviously. But would 2 profiles containing 9 identical numbers be identical in game terms?

GK Termmie Justicar says no...

But that's not an issue for wound allocation. Because would allocation mentions special rules as a separate item from profile of characteristics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yakface wrote:
*snip*
In the case of a Tau team leader or any other model that has the EXACT same characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules as other members of his unit, there is literally no functional difference between him and any one of those other models in the unit.
*snip*

Unlike a Terminator Sergeant, an XV8 or Stealth team leader does not get their own listing of 9 characteristics with a label that says "Shas'ui Team Leader." It's just noted in the options that you can designate a model as team leader. You have to get another upgrade to turn the team leader into a Shas'vre and get them a separate listing of nine numbers. (In the case of the stealth team the Shas'vre numbers are the same as the Shas'ui.)

So depending on someone's predisposition this is either (a) proof that the name is utterly unimportant to deciding if identical numbers mean the 'same' profile or (b) proof that when a separate listing of identical numbers is provided it should be treated as a 'different but equal' profile.

Bill Clinton: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

kmdl1066 wrote:
Unlike a Terminator Sergeant, an XV8 or Stealth team leader does not get their own listing of 9 characteristics with a label that says "Shas'ui Team Leader." It's just noted in the options that you can designate a model as team leader. You have to get another upgrade to turn the team leader into a Shas'vre and get them a separate listing of nine numbers. (In the case of the stealth team the Shas'vre numbers are the same as the Shas'ui.)

So depending on someone's predisposition this is either (a) proof that the name is utterly unimportant to deciding if identical numbers mean the 'same' profile or (b) proof that when a separate listing of identical numbers is provided it should be treated as a 'different but equal' profile.

Bill Clinton: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Okay, so I'm assuming that everyone can agree that a Tau team leader is considered identical since he doesn't even have a separate 'profile' to argue about whether his name is different or not over? If so, then I'll move on to just addressing models that do have a different name but the same characteristics, wargear, weapons and special rules (like a Terminator Sgt).

FlingitNow wrote:

kmdl1066, Would two sets of identical nine numbers be identical in gaming terms?

Yes obviously. But would 2 profiles containing 9 identical numbers be identical in game terms?

GK Termmie Justicar says no...

It really depends on how you interpret models having the same 'special rules'...since Grey Knights share an army wide special rule that applies to the entire army, so if you're counting that by 'name' then yes, they all have the same special rules, but if you're counting that to mean functionality, then that special rule specifically grants Justicars a unique functionality from the rest of their unit. In other words, they have different special rules as there are army wide special rules that apply specifically to them.

As such, I would have no problem with someone allocating wounds separately to a Justicar, but I would also be okay with the stricter interpretation that he is functionally the same as the rest of his unit. Yes, Ld tests are taken using his Ld, but he has the same Ld as his unit (or else he'd already be functionally different) and if he dies the only other rule he has is that a perils of the warp attacks a random member of the unit instead of him...so I think the game works perfectly fine playing that the Justicar is functionally identical (by the complex unit criteria) to other members of his unit.

Mannahnin wrote:
I agree with Insaniak that the name is part of the profile, as are the characteristics.

A Space Marine Sgt. is not "identical in gaming terms" to a regular SM in his squad.

Since a Sgt is not identical in gaming terms to a SM, and since they have differently-named profiles, with separate existences, it seems reasonably clear to me that they are different for purposes of wound grouping.

Just to hash out what you're effectively saying is that it is categorically impossible for a profile to exist in which a 'name' is not part of the profile? Because I hope we all agree that all profiles have to have some sort of name to identify which models they apply to, correct?

But a 'profile' by definition is a set of characteristics, and while a name can certainly be considered a characteristic, it definitely isn't defined as one in the case of a 40K profile. So by definition alone, we know that the name is not part of the profile (as a 'profile' is a set of characteristics and 'name' is not a listed characteristic).

As such, I would have no problem with someone allocating wounds separately to a Justicar, but I would also be okay with the stricter interpretation that he is functionally the same as the rest of his unit. Yes, Ld tests are taken using his Ld, but he has the same Ld as his unit (or else he'd already be functionally different) and if he dies the only other rule he has is that a perils of the warp attacks a random member of the unit instead of him...so I think the game works perfectly fine playing that the Justicar is functionally identical (by the complex unit criteria) to other members of his unit.

The perils bit makes a difference. Say I cast Hammerhand in combat my justicar is placed so that he's not fighting an IC he dies to perils combat continues. However with randomn allocation my squad member in base contact with his IC could potentially take the wound removing the IC from the combat. Or I may have chosen to place the justicar next to eth IC so I coudl remove him from eth equation should I suffer a perils again I don't get that choice with randomisation.

Also say I caste a power at another time randomisation of who dies rather than a specific model can have a drastic effect on LoS, ranges and assault ranges.

But they all have Brotherhood of psykers. They all have that special rule and it is the same for all of them. However the game impact is dependant on the name...

FlingitNow wrote:
The perils bit makes a difference. Say I cast Hammerhand in combat my justicar is placed so that he's not fighting an IC he dies to perils combat continues. However with randomn allocation my squad member in base contact with his IC could potentially take the wound removing the IC from the combat. Or I may have chosen to place the justicar next to eth IC so I coudl remove him from eth equation should I suffer a perils again I don't get that choice with randomisation.

Also say I caste a power at another time randomisation of who dies rather than a specific model can have a drastic effect on LoS, ranges and assault ranges.

But they all have Brotherhood of psykers. They all have that special rule and it is the same for all of them. However the game impact is dependant on the name...

And like I said, I'm fine with that interpretation. GW obviously had to draw a line in the sand somewhere and define what they meant by two models being identical and what they went with was: characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules. Can this create a situation, such as you've noted where you have a model that is 'identical' per the the guidelines presented but still is affected differently because of his name in some cases?

Sure, but it doesn't break the game or make anything explode, it just means that the Justicar is a little more survivable when the unit suffers a few wounds (as you can choose not to kill him as long as there are other identical models remaining in the unit) but he's a bit more vulnerable when the unit takes a LOT of wounds (as you'll have to pull him off when the group of 'identical' models suffers too many unsaved wounds).

But just because the Justicar can be affected differently in some situations does not mean he ceases to be 'identical' by the standards laid out in the complex unit rules.

yakface wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:
The perils bit makes a difference. Say I cast Hammerhand in combat my justicar is placed so that he's not fighting an IC he dies to perils combat continues. However with randomn allocation my squad member in base contact with his IC could potentially take the wound removing the IC from the combat. Or I may have chosen to place the justicar next to eth IC so I coudl remove him from eth equation should I suffer a perils again I don't get that choice with randomisation.

Also say I caste a power at another time randomisation of who dies rather than a specific model can have a drastic effect on LoS, ranges and assault ranges.

But they all have Brotherhood of psykers. They all have that special rule and it is the same for all of them. However the game impact is dependant on the name...

And like I said, I'm fine with that interpretation. GW obviously had to draw a line in the sand somewhere and define what they meant by two models being identical and what they went with was: characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules. Can this create a situation, such as you've noted where you have a model that is 'identical' per the the guidelines presented but still is affected differently because of his name in some cases?

<snip>

But just because the Justicar can be affected differently in some situations does not mean he ceases to be 'identical' by the standards laid out in the complex unit rules.

The fact that the Justicar can be affected differently in any situation at all means he is clearly not "identical in gaming terms" as page 25 requires.

"The same profile of characteristics" is the heart of the interpretational difference, here. Are two things which have different names and are listed next to one another and separately, but contain identical numbers, identical or not?* IMO they are not, even if the only obvious and immediate difference is the name.

Another example of a situation when a terminator sergeant is not identical in gaming terms is in a Blood Angels army containing the Sanguinor. At the beginning of the game, one of the sergeants in the army, randomly determined, will get a stat boost. Only sergeants are eligible, and only their name serves to distinguish them from the other terminators in their squad. Yet this name is sufficient to be the determining factor for the Sanguinor's power, demonstrating that the terminator sergeant is not "identical in gaming terms" to his squad mates.

Theoretically GW could also introduce a special rule in a codex or expansion or special scenario like "Frag the Lieutenant" or "Assassins in the wire!" in which a randomly-determined Sgt. model in a given army is killed before the game begins, or at another time. Again, the sergeant is distinguishable purely by his name and game consequences can hinge on that.

*Real world parallel: I could set a Red Delicious and a Fuji apple of the same weight next to one another, and they may have the same nutritional values, but are still functionally different and distinguishable; in the name, in appearance, and in the non-numerically-measurable flavor.

Mannahnin wrote:

The fact that the Justicar can be affected differently in any situation at all means he is clearly not "identical in gaming terms" as page 25 requires.

"The same profile of characteristics" is the heart of the interpretational difference, here. Are two things which have different names and are listed next to one another and separately, but contain identical numbers, identical or not?* IMO they are not, even if the only obvious and immediate difference is the name.

<engage RAW lawyering mode>

Except that page 6 bold text tells us:
"Each model has a profile made up of nine numbers that ..."

By RAW I don't see how you can argue that the name is part of the profile. GW have very clearly told us what makes up a profile.

Page 25:
"..identical in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear."

GW have given us the criteria for evaluating whether or not a model should be considered identical in gaming terms. The fact that their definition should really have some more criteria listed is besides the point when it comes to RAW. If the Justicar is identical by the criteria given then by RAW Justicar is identical in gaming terms.

<disengage RAW lawyering mode>

(When playing I don't care which way it is played it as long as it is played the same way for the whole game.)

Page 25 does not say 'profiles containing the same characteristics' or anything to indicate that one should be comparing the 9 numbers in a profile.
It says 'they have the same profile of characteristics.' if one is looking at two different profiles (as identified by their name, otherwise one would know what one was looking at) then one can not be looking at 'the same profile of characteristics'. One is looking at two profiles, which contain the same characteristics... they aren't the same profile of characteristics.

I'll also point to page 7;
"Each model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics. At the back of this book, and in the Codex books for each army, you will find profiles for any races and creatures."Below are the profiles for an Ork Boy and a Space Marine of the Imperium:
WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
Ork Boy X Y Z .......... 6+
Space Marine P Q T...... 3+"


Each model has a profile, that profile lists it's characteristics, if one need to look at different profiles that list different models characteristic then one is not looking at the same profile profile of characteristics.

If names are not part of a profile why do both of these profiles have one included?

<shrug> You can't point to page 7 and ignore page 6. Page 6 says the profile is made up of the nine characteristics. Nothing on page 7 contradicts this statement. Therefore by RAW the profile is made up the nine characteristics. You are stating that because a name is shown with the profile it is part of the profile* and the very clear and unambiguous statement on page 6 about what makes up a profile should be ignored.

Now you might want to argue that by RAW "profile" is defined but "profile of characteristics" is undefined. But I don't think an argument that "profile" and "profile of characteristics" are different things will get much traction.

I think my favorite part about how much energy we're all putting into this argument is how little difference it actually makes whichever way you play it.

*Yes I realize this was the exact argument I made to DR in the other 8,000 page thread on this topic, but at that point I hadn't actually read the bold text on page 6 carefully.