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.

After calling and emailing a few GW stores, they are said that you follows the rules for shooting and therefor still scatter, sucks i know, RAI i think was meant no scatter, damn

Squig_herder wrote:After calling and emailing a few GW stores, they are said that you follows the rules for shooting and therefor still scatter, sucks i know, RAI i think was meant no scatter, damn

Please, its bad enough that this John Spencer is getting reverenced as hoyle. Redshirts are an auto-fail for rules questions.

Okay, after seeing all the arguments here so far I'm convinced that the RAW reading is that Eldritch Storm scatters.

The real clincher for me is that the ES description doesn't say anything about how to apply wounds, so it's obviously falling back on BGB rules for things not specified in its description. You can't cherry pick and apply the "templates cause wounds" rule while also arguing that the "templates scatter" rule is not in effect.

Also I seem to recall being on the other side of this argument in this forum like five or six years ago with third edition mind war...

I don't understand why this is suddenly a question. Nothing previously made Eldritch Storm roll to hit in 4th edition, and the only change on blast weapons was that the roll to hit was replaced by a scatter roll. What suddenly makes people think there is a change that makes a scatter roll necessary?

Also, why do all these arguments seem to come down to making Eldar powers/vehicles/whatever less useful than before? It gets tiring. I'd almost think people have an agenda.

Kyrolon wrote:Also, why do all these arguments seem to come down to making Eldar powers/vehicles/whatever less useful than before? It gets tiring. I'd almost think people have an agenda.

Careful there - I play Eldar, and I'm convinced that Eldritch Storm currently scatters.

What changed is that we now have some blanket rules: all "blast" weapons now follow the same rules (involving the scatter die), and all psychic shooting attacks follow the rules for regular shooting, barring specific exceptions. Eldritch Storm has a weapon profile, is a psychic shooting attack, and has the "blast" special rule.

Claims of "that's different from how it used to be" aren't especially useful - the entire underlying game changed. Unsurprisingly, a LOT of stuff in the old codexii was affected by the switch from 4th to 5th edition.

Kyrolon wrote:I don't understand why this is suddenly a question. Nothing previously made Eldritch Storm roll to hit in 4th edition, and the only change on blast weapons was that the roll to hit was replaced by a scatter roll. What suddenly makes people think there is a change that makes a scatter roll necessary?

Also, why do all these arguments seem to come down to making Eldar powers/vehicles/whatever less useful than before? It gets tiring. I'd almost think people have an agenda.

Eldar Players can get in line behind Daemonhunter players for that whine/rant.

I think that Eldritch Storm is not supposed to scatter, however, since its argueable as in I can see both sides nearly equally I scatter it when I play that power.

.. keep going.

...and going.

and going gah!

I didn't even think to scatter Eldritch Storm when I faced Eldar recently, but after reading this thread, I would agree with Yak's opinion:

No problem. Page 50, under "Psychic Shooting Attacks":

"Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon (an assault weapon, unless specified otherwise). So, for example, the psyker must be able to see his target unit, cannot be locked in combat, or must not have run in the Shooting phase if he wishes to use a psychic shooting attack."


Right there in black and white, using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon, and as with all ranged weapons in the game you follow the rules for shooting when doing so. They give some examples of what that means in the rulebook, but they are just examples. A psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon and therefore follows all the rules for doing so except where specified otherwise in the psychic power's rules.

It follows all standard rules for firing a ranged weapon, unless otherwise stated.
Anything with the "Blast" Special Rule has to roll for scatter.

(Yes, I am part of the Anti-Eldar conspiracy)

Kyrolon wrote:I don't understand why this is suddenly a question. Nothing previously made Eldritch Storm roll to hit in 4th edition, and the only change on blast weapons was that the roll to hit was replaced by a scatter roll. What suddenly makes people think there is a change that makes a scatter roll necessary?

Also, why do all these arguments seem to come down to making Eldar powers/vehicles/whatever less useful than before? It gets tiring. I'd almost think people have an agenda.

Also, the Eldar FAQ was released that fully clarified that Eldritch storm is indeed a 'psychic shooting attack' which means it definitely follows the rules for shooting except where noted otherwise.


Edit: Come to think of it, there is another big reason for this change with 5th edition. In 4th edition for blast weapons you rolled 'to hit' and then only if successful did you place the blast marker. That means if Eldritch Storm says to 'center the blast over an enemy model' that implies that you skipped the normal 'to hit' roll and just went ahead and placed the blast.

In 5th edition, players place the blast marker first and then roll for scatter. This inversion of the process means that you are now able to center the blast over an enemy model (which is slightly different from the normal rules for a blast in that normally you can put it anywhere over the base of the enemy model) and then roll for scatter, and by doing this you're following all the rules for Eldritch Storm and the shooting rules as you're supposed to do.

In other words, the specific rules for Eldritch storm now apply to a much more focused part of the shooting rules then they did in 4th edition.

My issue with Eldritch storm is that it tells us exactly what to do with the scatter dice, and none of it has anything to do with moving the 'storm'. In fact, the power explicitly tells us what the scatter dice is used for and it is for determining the facing of the units hit by it.

Pure RAW, yakface is right. But, I honestly believe that we (as players and tournament judges alike [I'm not a judge]) should remember that we can not and should not use RAW and nothing else as a determining factor. Even the INAT FAQ in some cases went outside RAW to make a clarification.

Heck, even GW has done this multiple times in their FAQs which are just GW's 'house rules'.

We all *know* the intent of this power (as 4th ed players), and can even rationalize that the power remains the same because it uses scatter but only to determine the facing direction of the target.

Hopefully commonsense in some of the cases like this one will win over the 'over lawyering of RAW'. No offense intended yakface and others, just a trend I am seeing in gaming groups both here and in many many boards.

just a disclaimer: I believe in RAW for solving issues, but where RAW fails or otherwise doesn't make sense, I throw a dash of commonsense into the mixture and hopefully come to a logical conclusion that is good for both parties.

But while I know its a unique power.. the changes to the blast rules are a blanket change to everything.

RAW is because it balances out everything.. it needs to say it doesnt scatter specifically in regards to the dyanmics of 5ed because normally it uses rules in 5ed.

padixon wrote:My issue with Eldritch storm is that it tells us exactly what to do with the scatter dice, and none of it has anything to do with moving the 'storm'. In fact, the power explicitly tells us what the scatter dice is used for and it is for determining the facing of the units hit by it.

Pure RAW, yakface is right. But, I honestly believe that we (as players and tournament judges alike [I'm not a judge]) should remember that we can not and should not use RAW and nothing else as a determining factor. Even the INAT FAQ in some cases went outside RAW to make a clarification.

Heck, even GW has done this multiple times in their FAQs which are just GW's 'house rules'.

We all *know* the intent of this power (as 4th ed players), and can even rationalize that the power remains the same because it uses scatter but only to determine the facing direction of the target.

Hopefully commonsense in some of the cases like this one will win over the 'over lawyering of RAW'. No offense intended yakface and others, just a trend I am seeing in gaming groups both here and in many many boards.

just a disclaimer: I believe in RAW for solving issues, but where RAW fails or otherwise doesn't make sense, I throw a dash of commonsense into the mixture and hopefully come to a logical conclusion that is good for both parties.

But the RAW doesn't fail here. It's not that it doesn't make sense; it's that you don't like that the effect has changed across editions.

Myself, I don't like that outnumbering is no longer weighed in determining close combat outcomes. That's a significant change, and invalidates some of the interesting wargear available to Tyranids. But the rules are clear.

Janthkin wrote:
But the RAW doesn't fail here. It's not that it doesn't make sense; it's that you don't like that the effect has changed across editions.

Myself, I don't like that outnumbering is no longer weighed in determining close combat outcomes. That's a significant change, and invalidates some of the interesting wargear available to Tyranids. But the rules are clear.

I don't care what the effects are as I am not an Eldar player nor do I even own a single Eldar unit.

And the rules are 'not' very clear, hence the split nearly right down the middle on how this power works. Heck, if it was 'clear' then even Mr. Spencer would of said, "of course it scatters, duh". But he didn't and even put his vote in that it doesn't scatter.

If this is 'clear' than it is as 'clear as mud' for sure. So, unless you are insinuating that myself, the many noble posters on this board, and Mr. Spencer can not discern what really makes a rule 'clear' than please understand what I previously posted as a valid point and that when rules (such as this one) are not 'clear' than we *have to* throw in a dash of common sense.

What is "common sense?" Because I disagree with you, do I lack it? Is there some impartial, objective source for common sense, such that it is consistent across state and national borders?

Try this as an exercise. Forget 4th edition entirely, as best you can. Read pg. 30 on how Blast Weapons work, as if this was a game you've never played before. Then read pg 50, under Psychic Shooting Attacks. Then, and only then, look at the wording for Eldritch Storm.

Eldrich Storm [pg.28]
this psychic power is used in the shooting phase instead of firing a weapon. the eldar player places the lager blast marker centered on an enemy model within 18". vehicles touched by the template suffer a hit with 2D6+3 armor penetration and are spun around to face in a random direction determined by the scatter dice - if a hit is rolled the eldar player may choose its facing

I did, and the way this is worded, I will still say it doesn't scatter.

Plus, I do not own the eldar codex, does the eldar codex list this power as a "TYPE" Assault, Heavy, whatever Blast in its profile? This is important as only 'blast' weapons are affected by the 'blast' rules as per page 30 second paragraph first sentence. I do not know if even this power can even be referred to as a 'blast weapon' either.

Next, the power follows all the hallmarks of a blast weapon per page 30 except that the power says to place the blast marker than it says if a vehicle touches the template than roll scatter to determine its facing. There is no insinuation of any scatter what so ever.

Again, this *is* common sense that I am showing you mixed in with rules which is how I believe all the rules for 40k is intended to be read. We can all agree this rule set is faaar from air tight and any discussions on RAW can be faulted from the beginning when working with flawed documents to begin with.

padixon wrote:Eldrich Storm [pg.28]
this psychic power is used in the shooting phase instead of firing a weapon. the eldar player places the lager blast marker centered on an enemy model within 18". vehicles touched by the template suffer a hit with 2D6+3 armor penetration and are spun around to face in a random direction determined by the scatter dice - if a hit is rolled the eldar player may choose its facing

I did, and the way this is worded, I will still say it doesn't scatter.

Plus, I do not own the eldar codex, does the eldar codex list this power as a "TYPE" Assault, Heavy, whatever Blast in its profile? This is important as only 'blast' weapons are affected by the 'blast' rules as per page 30 second paragraph first sentence. I do not know if even this power can even be referred to as a 'blast weapon' either.

Next, the power follows all the hallmarks of a blast weapon per page 30 except that the power says to place the blast marker than it says if a vehicle touches the template than roll scatter to determine its facing. There is no insinuation of any scatter what so ever.

Again, this *is* common sense that I am showing you mixed in with rules which is how I believe all the rules for 40k is intended to be read. We can all agree this rule set is faaar from air tight and any discussions on RAW can be faulted from the beginning when working with flawed documents to begin with.

Wait, you're arguing a "common sense" interpretation, without knowing what the rules actually say?
. . .
Eldritch storm has a typical weapon profile: Range, Strength, AP, Type (Pinning, Large Blast)

Pg. 50 wrote:Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon (as assault weapon, unless specified otherwise).

Pg. 30 wrote:When firing a blast weapon, models do not roll to hit, instead just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the blast marker with its hole over the base of the target model, or its hull if it is a vehicle.... Next, check if the shot has landed on target.

Eldritch Storm wrote:The Eldar player places the large blast marker centered on an enemy model within 18".

Both blast weapons and Eldritch storm are described as "placing the blast marker." Psychic shooting attacks operate using the shooting rules, except as specifically exempted. Nothing in Eldritch Storm specifically exempts it from following the shooting rules for blast weapons; in fact, the initial step is nearly identical, in spite of the different editions.

Regardless of the "tightness" of the ruleset as a whole, I don't see how a result can be common sense, if it begins with the premise of "my interpretation of how the rules are intended to be read." We CANNOT know how the rules are intended to be read. In this case, I'm not convinced we have to.

Eldritch Storm describes exactly how it works.

It does not scatter. If it explicitly stated that models partially covered were hit on a 4+ (it does not) that would still apply.

Were it like any other psychic shooting attack such as Vortex of Doom it would simply be a ranged attack of X inches using Y blast, no explanation of how to use it would be necessary.

Edit: Eldritch Storm, not Mind War.

Mr.Peanut wrote:Eldritch Storm describes exactly how it works.

It does not scatter. If it explicitly stated that models partially covered were hit on a 4+ (it does not) that would still apply.

Were it like any other psychic shooting attack such as Vortex of Doom it would simply be a ranged attack of X inches using Y blast, no explanation of how to use it would be necessary.

(Fixed your typo.)

If Eldritch Storm was a complete entry, it would explain a) how to determine which (non-vehicle) models were hit; b) how they were wounded; and c) how casualty removal works. It doesn't; those items are omitted, because the rules provide for how psychic shooting attacks are handled. The rule is NOT self-contained, and obviously doesn't describe "exactly how it works". It doesn't even provide the minimum basis for ignoring scatter - it doesn't tell us how to determine which models are hit!

Instead, it taps into the main rules. In 5th edition, we have to look at the rules for psychic shooting attacks, while tell us to treat it as a shooting attack, except where specified otherwise; this is how we get "to wound" rolls, saves, and casualty removal. It is a blast weapon (see pg. 30), which gives us how to determine which models are hit. Part of that determination, in 5th edition, involves scattering the blast template.

Yep you got everything right except for the fact that after you place the blast marker, the psychic power than tells you what to do with anything hit by it. To me, this *is* telling me that what it touches it hits and no need to roll scatter, and then later tells you to roll the scatter to determine its facing direction (if it was a vehicle).

I can't fault your logic Janthkin, but it is not that clear. If you follow the psychic power as written than the power does not scatter. Yet if you follow the rules on blast markers than a reader would feel he needs to roll for scatter. Can you not see the conflict? Obviously myself, others, and Mr. Spencer do.

Look, all I am saying is this isn't as clear as it should be, RAW *can* be read to be interpreted that Codex > rulebook and shouldn't scatter because the power tells you exactly what to do, and You can *prove* that RAW can be read that you must follow the all blast rules because the power doesn't say "don't roll for scatter. And why would it? We fortunately have hindsight on why it doesn't say that, because it was never meant to scatter in the first place.

And I have to disagree with you on intention. PURE RAW is often times very very wrong. Do you remember "rapid firing weapons" discussion years ago that even warranted a FAQ from GW? Pure RAW said if you even owned a Rapid fire weapon and fired a pistol, you could not assault. Common sense said you did because it is pretty easy to see the intention of Rapid fire weapons. You see that you can read rules with a dash of common sense and because of that come to an intended result.

Granted this is not something we do on every rule, I submit that this is something we do on rules where RAW fails us and the rule is not as clear as it should be.

And there is nothing wrong with doing this at your local gaming store either, and I can't see why you disagree with it so harshly. At official and tournament events, you read the FAQ (if there is one) ask the TO or judges on rules queries and play the game. These situations I bring up are for common games between respectful gamers. There is nothing wrong with using your 'local' common sense in these situations.

I truly applaud Janthkin and your logical conclusions make great sense! But, you must ask yourself sometimes, at what point should I take a step back and wonder if a RAW reading of a rule is truly the right one. Again, I lean toward it not scattering, and this is my interpretation, and you have yours, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing.

Yes, you do everything by the rulebook until the Codex says otherwise. That's why the Shokk Attack Gun describes how it works differently as a shooting attack, rather than explicitly stating every one of its functions including those that are unmodified from the rulebook.

padixon wrote:Yep you got everything right except for the fact that after you place the blast marker, the psychic power than tells you what to do with anything hit by it. To me, this *is* telling me that what it touches it hits and no need to roll scatter, and then later tells you to roll the scatter to determine its facing direction (if it was a vehicle).

I truly applaud Janthkin and your logical conclusions make great sense! But, you must ask yourself sometimes, at what point should I take a step back and wonder if a RAW reading of a rule is truly the right one. Again, I lean toward it not scattering, and this is my interpretation, and you have yours, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing.

I agree wiht Janthkin on this, you place the blast marker (as 5th insturcts) then you scatter said blast marker. Its as simple as that you can't mix 4th and 5th rules very effectivly - their like oil and water in many circumstances.

I guess Padixon - you and I will agree to disagree as well?

I feel the major problem most have with this power is the hold over from 4th ed.
In that rules set ES was quite different from shooting and other powers.
As an test I have had players that started the game in 5th ed look at the rule, all of them (ok , both of them)
said "oh ok just another blast weapon"

padixon wrote:Yep you got everything right except for the fact that after you place the blast marker, the psychic power than tells you what to do with anything hit by it. To me, this *is* telling me that what it touches it hits and no need to roll scatter, and then later tells you to roll the scatter to determine its facing direction (if it was a vehicle).

The problem, as I noted above, is that ES doesn't tell you how to hit anything besides vehicles - the rule goes directly from "place the blast marker." to "Vehicles touched by the template...." If the power is to have any use at all, it must interact with the core rules. The core rules it is interacting with have changed significantly.

I can't fault your logic Janthkin, but it is not that clear. If you follow the psychic power as written than the power does not scatter. Yet if you follow the rules on blast markers than a reader would feel he needs to roll for scatter. Can you not see the conflict? Obviously myself, others, and Mr. Spencer do.

I am convinced that the perceived lack of clarity is the result of applying hindsight. You know how it *used* to be, which prompts the question of whether it really was meant to change. If we could find an impartial observer (who wouldn't look at us strangely before easing away), and offered ONLY the ES rules, the PSA rules, and the Blast weapon rules, I am certain it would be a short conversation. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's going to have to deal with being covered in feathers.

Look, all I am saying is this isn't as clear as it should be, RAW *can* be read to be interpreted that Codex > rulebook and shouldn't scatter because the power tells you exactly what to do, and You can *prove* that RAW can be read that you must follow the all blast rules because the power doesn't say "don't roll for scatter. And why would it? We fortunately have hindsight on why it doesn't say that, because it was never meant to scatter in the first place.

Look, hindsight! Discard your hindsight; it's unnecessary baggage. (Aside: one of the better tourney players at my local store only realized last week, after I pointed it out, that a single scoring unit can hold as many objectives as it is in range of. Never even occurred to him, as 4e and 3e tournament rules banned such things.)

And I have to disagree with you on intention. PURE RAW is often times very very wrong. Do you remember "rapid firing weapons" discussion years ago that even warranted a FAQ from GW? Pure RAW said if you even owned a Rapid fire weapon and fired a pistol, you could not assault. Common sense said you did because it is pretty easy to see the intention of Rapid fire weapons. You see that you can read rules with a dash of common sense and because of that come to an intended result.

Granted this is not something we do on every rule, I submit that this is something we do on rules where RAW fails us and the rule is not as clear as it should be.

Here's where we have something of a philosophical difference. I'm a patent lawyer; by training and inclination, I treat the written word as complete in itself (because I have to). It is impossible to be certain of the "intent" of whoever wrote the words, unless they actually provide a statement of intent. Allowances can be made in cases which would produce an objectively absurd result (e.g., the "reduce by -1" language GW insists on including for various vehicle upgrades), as the intent is pretty clear there. But we have to be careful even then - remember the shock when we learned towards the end of 3e that GW didn't intend And They Shall Know No Fear to override the "enemy within 6 inches" rule for regrouping?

When dealing with complex rulesets, there are a couple standard conventions. First, "break no rule." If one interpretation allows you to follow all of the applicable rules, and another calls for ignoring some of them, the rules-compliant interpretation is likely to be easier to defend. Here, we have the interaction of two rules: Eldritch Storm and Blast Weapons. One interpretation applies both rules, without breaking any portion of them. Another interpretation breaks (or at least discards) a portion of the blast weapon rules, without a clear statement of allowance.

Second, as in statutory interpretation, the author is presumed to mean what he says, and to have said what he means. You don't get to questions of intent, unless the words are insufficiently clear on their face to apply them.

And there is nothing wrong with doing this at your local gaming store either, and I can't see why you disagree with it so harshly. At official and tournament events, you read the FAQ (if there is one) ask the TO or judges on rules queries and play the game. These situations I bring up are for common games between respectful gamers. There is nothing wrong with using your 'local' common sense in these situations.

By all means - the local norms of playing are far more important than what the words actually mean, at least if you want to play friendly games. But much of the value of Games Workshop's products, over the much-less-ambiguous rulesets available from competitors or in the historical wargame market, is that they are *portable.* People all over the world are playing the "same" game. Most of my gaming in recent years has been at annual national events like Adepticon; when many people from different "local" scenes come together, it is reasonably important that they are playing the same game; Warhammer 40,000, rather than 40k (California edition) vs 40k (Deutschland edition).

I truly applaud Janthkin and your logical conclusions make great sense! But, you must ask yourself sometimes, at what point should I take a step back and wonder if a RAW reading of a rule is truly the right one. Again, I lean toward it not scattering, and this is my interpretation, and you have yours, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing.

I think I answered that above - I don't get to that question until and unless applying the words results in an objectively absurd result. (This isn't to be equated with a "useless" result; we should all be used to GW including some useless stuff in every rulebook by now.)

Thanks for the civil discussion, though.

Kyrolon wrote:I don't understand why this is suddenly a question. Nothing previously made Eldritch Storm roll to hit in 4th edition, and the only change on blast weapons was that the roll to hit was replaced by a scatter roll. What suddenly makes people think there is a change that makes a scatter roll necessary?

Exactly. There never was a to hit roll, you just placed it, which is the reason for how it was worded. You still just place it. So there is no scatter in my opinion.

I've never played 4th ed. and started playing when 5th ed. was released.

I've always used eldritch storm to scatter. However,after reading all these post I'm not so sure.

This is a noob observation I would like to bring up. There seems to be a split in logic when trying to determine the rules. Some are word lawyers,RAW, and some are basing their logic after,RAI,the way GW comes up with these rules,fluff,real life like sequences etc.

On top of that there are special rules that are unique to a codex. The first army I purchased was Eldar. Now ,after reading various threads I am coming to realize that if mindwar and eldritch storm, among other rules,don't work in a unique way then the Eldar have nearly no rules unique to themselves.

I play against Orks,Necrons,Tyranids,and Space Marines often and I'm constantly having to sumit to their unique rules,with having little in the way of a unique response.

I hope this isn't viewed as whining,but rather a way to look at these Eldar rule disputes in a different light.

As it is the Eldar are seemingly out powered,remember I'm a noob,so I think RAI is the way eldritch storm should be used. So no scatter is my vote.

Blackarandras wrote:On top of that there are special rules that are unique to a codex. The first army I purchased was Eldar. Now ,after reading various threads I am coming to realize that if mindwar and eldritch storm, among other rules,don't work in a unique way then the Eldar have nearly no rules unique to themselves.

Wraithweapons, wraithsight, holofields, prism cannons, star engines, vectored engines, Eldar Missile Launchers, shurican catapults, Dire Avenger shuircan catapults, Autarchs, Fortune, Doom, Guide, Mind War, Mandiblasters, Harlequins, Shining Spear lances, Bright Lances, Guardian Heavy Weapons platforms, Swooping Hawks grenade packs, Phoenix Lords, Witchblades/Singing Spears, and the vast collection of Exarch powers are insufficiently unique for your tastes?

If you're a new player, odds are that every new opposing army you face will seem complicated. However, most of your opponents have likely faced Eldar, and so already learned most of the special rules involved. But don't take that to mean that Eldar are generic - they have more special rules than IG, SM, or CSM, as well as more unit choices. They are also quite competitive, but unforgiving.

I've never played 4th ed. and started playing when 5th ed. was released.

I've always used eldritch storm to scatter.

THIS is what I was getting at above. If you remove the emotional baggage of past editions, a simple reading of the rules as they currently stand doesn't lead to pages of debate.

Well I'm a rhetorician by training and inclination, and for me there's not much question about what the RAW says. Even though I don't like it as an Eldar player, I can't reasonably dispute the way the rule changes and interactions lead to the conclusion that ES scatters.

Questions of how it actually plays out on the tabletop or how different players decide to work it are separate from RAW questions, though. But I don't think there's much viable dispute about how the rules produce this result in this case.