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.

Aside from their finicky habit of running when the going gets tough, and biting off more than they can chew. They hit harder, but they're more brittle even when they take Icons of Tzeentch or Nurgle.

Let's see:

CSM 2 attacks base
Can take 2 special weapons
Rhino can have Havoc missile launcher (big +)

looks a lot better to me.

G

Green Blow Fly:

Yes, that's some of the capabilities they have, but what about tactically?

It's apples and oranges man. All the good analysis in this thread would have been better served in two portions, without the polemics. What is the point of comparing them, unless you are deciding on a new army, and therefore comparing armies?

sourclams wrote:If 6e Space Marines retcon Land Raiders into being AV13 all around, would you say that the older version isn't "so much better"?

It is nit picking to the extreme isn't it? The difference is that AV10 is super easy (How can you not score a penetrating hit? Depending on the gun you need to roll a 1 or a 2 not to penetrate), AV11 and 12 are moderately easy (More than half to half the dice results will penetrate), AV 13 is moderately difficult (This is where lascanons become less effective by a good margin, because the dice results to penetrate drop below half), and AV14 is a pain in the butt (Especially when its on all four sides. There's a kid at my LFGS that fields like three of these things in apocalypse games. Annoying as they are). And its not just that the Chimera is AV12 front, its that its AV12 front, 10 side, has a huge side profile, and costs twenty more points than a rhino.

If this were true, then Space Marine players would rarely take casualties. A BS4 lascannon has less than a 50% chance of getting a damage table result against a Chimera.

How does BS factor into a discussion about penetrating armor? If you miss that sucks but whether or not you miss has nothing to do with the vehicles AV. Assuming you don't miss, what is the major improvement of AV12 over AV11? In both cases half the dice results can cause a penetrating hit. AV13 is where this turns around because the chances to penetrate drop below half the possible dice results which is why I draw a line there. 10 sucks, 11 and 12 are nice bonuses and definitely better than 10, 13 is annoys the shooter, and 14 is painful without melta.

In general my Chimera wall is rarely vulnerable to side shots, and opponents are stuck with a hard choice of dedicating significant firepower to breaking my mech infantry or neutralizing the gun platform vehicles that are hanging out on my table edge.

Then what good does AV12 do you? If they're not being shot at they might as well have AV10. Again. Its not a merit of the vehicle's AV value that your opponent decides to shoot at something else. The point is that if the other player chooses to shoot your Chimera, having AV12 isn't a huge improvement over AV11. Its not just a matter of AV itself but what weapons are being used. Lascanons start suffering against AV >=13, and really struggle against AV14. Plasma and Krak start to suffer around AV12, so your Chimera is pretty secure against those, but there is a gun you find in abundance and that's melta, and lascanons seem pretty popular too (where I am their actually more popular than melta's). Lascanons and Melta's both have good chances to penetrate against AV12. It is better than AV11, but 50% is still good odds for dice rolls in my book, especially since a lot of units can pack more than one one these weapons. And thats still assuming a random unit won't catch your AV10 side armor. What I'm saying is that if I want your transport dead, AV12 still leaves me with nice odds I can do it.

To say AV12 front, at -1 side armor, slightly improved armament (coupled with a BS3), more fire points, fewer access ports, and a 63% points increase is "better" is silly. And it is. There's no armor net gain. 12 + 10 + 10 = 11 + 11 + 10. Your basically paying to get some better guns on your Chimera and more fire ports in exchange for moving around some armor points and losing two access ports. Advantages yes, but It doesn't seem like enough to make it "better" than a Rhino.

This is heuristic thinking that isn't backed up by simple math.

Well I do suck at math (I just finished the last math class I will ever have to take, praise the lord ). Heuristic would describe my problem solving pretty well though XD. That's how I got awesome scores on my SAT . By certain irony however, your "simple math" is called statistics, which has elements of heuristics by its own merits.

A good general runs a lot of comparisons.

Nurglitch except for combat squading and combat tactics CSM can do anything tacticals can.

G

Green Blow Fly:

Chaos Space Marines can't rally if they're below 50% unit strength, evade getting wiped out via Sweeping Advance, and if they do then they will have counted as moving. They also cannot take a Drop Pod, a Multi-Melta, or a Plasma Cannon.

Being able to rally under 50% unit strength makes Tactical Space Marines considerably tougher (read: less brittle) than their Chaos Space Marine opposite numbers. Being able to rally automatically is very useful, especially because they can then fire any Heavy Weapons they've been toting. Likewise resistance to Sweeping Advance means that Tactical Marines are much better suited to losing assaults.

Both Troop choices are tactically flexible, but Tactical Space Marines are more flexible, tougher, at the cost of the power that Chaos Space Marines bring to the field. I find this enormously fluffy since it makes fielding Chaos Space Marines a riskier proposition than fielding Codex Space Marines.

But it also affects the kind of tactics you'll use in the field. For example, putting a unit of Chaos Space Marines in front of a Chaos Dreadnought is stupid. But putting a unit of Tactical Space Marines in front of a Venerable Dreadnought is a very good idea because the Dreadnought can cover their tactical retreats, extricate them from combats, and generally keep them moving and shooting. Chaos Space Marines, on the other hand, will do better following a Chaos Dreadnought up the field so they can avoid fratricide, and they can pile into combat after it for a crushing assault. Chaos Space Marines move best towards the enemy, while Tactical Space Marines want to move away or perpendicular to the enemy.

I mean if you're going to use Tactical Space Marines like Chaos Space Marines, then Chaos Space Marines will be better at what they do. Likewise Chaos Space Marines can't do what Tactical Space Marines can do thanks to their suite of special rules.

The point is touting AV12 as being "so much better" than AV11 is silly.

There's two problems with this.

First is the fact that nobody has actually said this, except you, twice.

Second is the fact that AV12 actually IS considerably better than AV11.

As has been pointed out, it's statistically better to the same extent that a 2+ save is better than a 3+, etc.

Of course, there's also a question of what weapons are out there, and I'd argue that being immune to S5 is a pretty big deal, since there are a LOT of S5 weapons out there (Tau and HBolters alone are "a lot").

You're both exaggerating how impressed people are with AV12, and downplaying how useful it actually is.

Hitting the flanks of a AV10 vehicle with a long profile is a piece of pie once the chaos has ensued.

Not if the IG player has a plan around this, is a smart player, and isn't trying to let it happen.

In some cases this is as simple as flanking, and pointing the Chimeras to center at the end of their moves.

Barring that, you can run them line abreast with something hard on the inside of the line. Say, for example, a Hellhound chassis, which has AV12 sides, and can move the full 12" and shoot. Nobody is going to regret taking a Devil Dog or two in their list.

I'd put them equal. They both get the job done. They get the troops where they need to go. The Chimera gets them there easier but then its kind of screwed.

So, basically, not equal? These are transports. Their goal is to get their cargo somewhere so it can do its job. If the Chimera is better at getting there, than it's the better transport.

Also, while I agree that Rhinos are less sensitive to side threats, and thus survive better when things start to get mixed up, who really cares? It's a Storm Bolter at that point. By comparison the Chimera is a HFlamer and a Multi-Lazor.

This is where lascanons become less effective by a good margin, because the dice results to penetrate drop below half

You're treating perception as emperical math. As has been pointed out, each step on a D6 is equivalent to 16.67%. When that step happens to pass over 50%, it has no real meaning, except to your perception.

How does BS factor into a discussion about penetrating armor?

Because it puts it in context. We don't live in a world where there are just hits. You have to roll to hit, to penetrate, then on the damage table. He's showing that for all your talk of "moderately easy" it's actually less than 50/50 to effect a Chimera with a BS4 Lascannon shot at front armor.

Then what good does AV12 do you? If they're not being shot at they might as well have AV10.

The opponent has some number of Lascannons to shoot. He can shoot at the firebase, or he can shoot at the Chimeras coming on the flank. Which one is more profitable to him?

As we just discussed, each Lascannon shot has less than 50% likelihood to do anything to AV12. That makes shooting at the Chimeras less appealing.

That's how you win this game. You give your opponent nothing but poor choices to select from. If the Chimeras were only AV10, that would immediately become the easy choice, and he could blast away with confidence.

So, what good does AV12 do you? It makes shooting at the transport less useful.

Its not a merit of the vehicle's AV value that your opponent decides to shoot at something else.

This is total nonsense. If the new Necron Codex has a AV24 Monolith, would you say it's not actually a merit, because nobody bothers to shoot at it?

No, you'd say it was ridiculously overpowered, and so would everyone else.

The goal of armor is to protect the vehicle. If the armor is good enough that nobody even bothers to shoot it, I'd say it's working.

Urglitch I stated that CSM don't have combat tactics or the ability to split.

G

It seems to me like we need to have a better framework for how to make the judgements we're making in this thread...

I'd suggest that we think of it in terms of "which troop choice do you want in your Codex." If you're building a Codex of all the "all stars" from the current Codices, and this is the only Codex you can use, which Troops choice would you want? Tac Marines, Chaos Marines, Veterans?

No question all of these units have merits. No question Tactical Marines have a lot of tricks around morale, leaving combat, rallying, etc. No question this is useful. But is it more useful than having a BP+CCW and 2x Special Weapons? Is it more useful than being dirt cheap, BS4, and having 3x Special Weapons?

What Troops choice would you want to build your list around?

Reen Low Ly:

Indeed you did. But you failed to give due credit to And They Shall Know No Fear, the wider dedicated transport choices, and the Heavy Weapons. I pointed out the significant advantages And They Shall Know No Fear conveys in relation to their armament and strategic purpose.

Phryxis wrote:...stuff I agree with...

Good show Phryxis.

I'd suggest that we think of it in terms of "which troop choice do you want in your Codex." If you're building a Codex of all the "all stars" from the current Codices, and this is the only Codex you can use, which Troops choice would you want? Tac Marines, Chaos Marines, Veterans?

I'd take CSM any day of the week. 2x specials with IoCG, I'm ready to rock. Basic CSM have served me well at all levels of competition. ATSKNF/Combat Tactics can be useful for assault denial, fleeing combat, and setting up rope-a-dope maneuvers but it's just fancying up running away. The reality is Tac Marines have very little punch in close combat and while they can bog one down for quite some time, they have trouble winning it. CSM are a much better hammer and only a slightly worse anvil that fit my agressive playstyle.

My second choice is Vets, although in an "ideal" army I would actually have a mix of CSM and Vets (or line platoons for PCS/SWS). Even when I play my SW army I have a few squads of Inquisitorial Troopers with dual melta; the merits of a cheap scoring unit that can kill Land Raiders speaks for itself, in my opinion.

I would pick veterans. Generally speaking, a lot of their drawbacks can be removed by other things in a codex if you want that to be. There are standards you can take for morale, or you can make them have a better cover save. I like them as a basic troop choice. I do agree that they are less flexible and quite squishy, but the cover rules have made them the superior ranged shooty unit imo.

The key balancing point is hth, especially in a game where hth is so powerful. Vets are garbage in hth. Marines die slowly. Chaos marines might win. Vets just die.

Nurg

sourclams has said it very well. Learn.

G

scuddman wrote:

The key balancing point is hth, especially in a game where hth is so powerful. Vets are garbage in hth. Marines die slowly. Chaos marines might win. Vets just die.

Which, when considering how the army is constructed, is a very, very good thing. In general CSM players are okay with their CSM being in a big combat for a few turns because they're probably winning it. IG players are okay with their suicide units dying in HtH because they're almost assuredly not going to win it, and keeping it in existence is simply denying the IG player turns to shoot. Same with Marines, only there's no guarantee that they're going to successfully flee combat and ATSKNF can keep them stuck forever as they get whittled away.

CSM players don't want their guys to die and they often don't.

IG players [in this case] do want their guys to die, and they often do.

SM players don't want their guys to die, except sometimes, and then they still want them to live so they can run away, but if they can't run away, they're better off dead, but probably not quickly enough.

Green Blow Fly:

Yes, he's agreeing with me. He wants a unit that will fit his aggressive strategy and Chaos Space Marines fit the bill. I have them in my Chaos Space Marine army for exactly the same reason. I need troops in my Chaos Space Marine army that are tactically flexible and capable of carrying the assault. Conversely I need troops in my Codex Space Marine army that are tactically flexible, capable of escaping assaults, and capable of carrying a short-ranged firefight.

If I was building an "All-Star" army I'd have both in a mix of four Chaos Space Marine squads and two Codex Space Marine squads following my 2:1 Full:Combat squad ratio. I'd leave the Imperial Guard Veterans at home though, because after fitting in all those Space Marines I wouldn't have any Troop choices left.

Phryxis wrote:You're treating perception as emperical math. As has been pointed out, each step on a D6 is equivalent to 16.67%. When that step happens to pass over 50%, it has no real meaning, except to your perception.

I know this. If you'd rather I grab a calculator every time I come here and give you the exact percentage I can do that, but it is rather inconvenient. I'd rather just used the dumbed down one for the purpose of simplicity.

I am aware it is perception based as well, but when it comes to statistics we all draw a line for what is acceptable and unacceptable risk. 50% is the difference between being more or less likely to meet with success. So yeah, something actually does happen once you drop below the 50% point. It is perception based but its also based on reason.

Because it puts it in context. We don't live in a world where there are just hits. You have to roll to hit, to penetrate, then on the damage table. He's showing that for all your talk of "moderately easy" it's actually less than 50/50 to effect a Chimera with a BS4 Lascannon shot at front armor.

Not the point I was making. How is a shooters BS value a merit of the vehicle being shot at? Its like saying that your knight moving like an L is an advantage for the pawn your taking. I know there are hits and misses but that's not a merit for the target that the shooter might miss. Its a pointless line of discussion. We aren't discussing the merits of a shooter hitting his target we're talking about the merits of a vehicle surviving being hit. Hmmm. Kind of have to assume a hit to discuss that. It defeats the purpose of discussing the survivability of armor if we assume the shooter misses.

The opponent has some number of Lascannons to shoot. He can shoot at the firebase, or he can shoot at the Chimeras coming on the flank. Which one is more profitable to him?

I probably should have just said moot point.

If the choice is between shooting at infantry or a vehicle, the same can be said of a Rhino's AV11 armor. Strength 9, AP2?

Infantry: All you have to do is hit the target and not roll a 1.
Rhino: All you have to do is hit the target and roll at least a 2 to glance 3 to penetrate.

I'd do the math but I'm almost certain I'd do it wrong and make myself look more silly than I already am . In general infantry are always an easier target for a lascanon even when you have an AV10 target.

The point remains. AV12 is helpful but the chances to kill it are still pretty good, and it still has those AV10 sides, and there are still the other attributes of the vehicles to consider other than their AV.

This is total nonsense. If the new Necron Codex has a AV24 Monolith, would you say it's not actually a merit, because nobody bothers to shoot at it?

This goes down to targeting priority. Do we pick our targets based on whether or not it's easy to kill or whether or not it is a threat compared to other targets. If your fireline is made up of 10 BS3 guardsmen, am I more threatened by your AV12 Chimera with its Veteran squad and their three meltas coming up on my flank?

Do I have maybe a predator with an autocanon lying around to shoot at the Chimera, maybe a GoI Librarian going this way and that with a meltagun in the squad who could go kill it? Maybe I can try destroying that Chimera and then gunning down the veterans inside with a bike squad I have....

What have we learned here... oh right. This is a pointless line of discussion because we can't easily quantify the possible situations that can arise infinitum. It is not a merit for your Chimera that I decide not to shoot at it. AV12 is a merit that can be quantified and compared. That I chose to shoot my multi-melta at the Leman Russ coming towards me instead of at a Chimera with a squad of guard in it is not.

EDIT: I actually wonder now why we're still talking about transports -.-.

LordofHats wrote:
Do I have maybe a predator with an autocanon lying around to shoot at the Chimera

Dakka Predator versus Rhino:
2 AC shots and 6 HB shots
# Pens .44
# Glances .22+.66 = .88

Avg 1.33 vehicle damage result rolls.

Dakka Predator versus Chimera:
2 AC shots and 6 HB shots
# Pens .22
# Glances .22 + 0 = .22

Avg .44 vehicle damage result rolls.

Using your example, the single point of AV reduces vehicle damage table rolls by almost 75% and penetrating hits by 50%. It's like shooting at a Rhino compared to shooting at a Rhino in cover that ignores glancing hits. One is clearly better, and "a lot better".

What have we learned here... oh right. This is a pointless line of discussion because we can't easily quantify the possible situations that can arise infinitum.

Actually, we can. You are simply ignoring the quantifiable proofs in favor of your gut instinct. I love playing against guys like you because invariably you end up cursing the dice gods when your lascannon *doesn't* penetrate my Chimera's front plate while I wouldn't even bother unless I had two to dedicate to the task.

Nurg I have to be honest. sourclams has provided a lot of indepth discussion. If you want to ride on his coat tails fine but give the man credit.

G

Green Blow Fly:

Are we reading the same thread?

I love playing against guys like you because invariably you end up cursing the dice gods when your lascannon *doesn't* penetrate my Chimera's front plate while I wouldn't even bother unless I had two to dedicate to the task.

Nah. I'll just blame Khorne. He's had it in for me for years ever since I claimed Yoda could beat him in a fight, cause Yoda is awesome

Conversely I need troops in my Codex Space Marine army that are tactically flexible, capable of escaping assaults, and capable of carrying a short-ranged firefight.

Yeah, but do you REALLY?

I'm not saying you don't, I'm just wondering if you're describing what you really WANT in a C:SM army, or if you're just describing what Tacticals are, and thus what they do for C:SM, and how you play them successfully.

Put it all another way: Let's say you could take C:SM and replace the Tacticals with Chaos Marines or Vets. Would you? Not mix and match, just replace.

I think I'd take Chaos Marines over Tactical. You can play clever with Combat Tactics all day long, but there's no substitute for twice as many CC attacks and twice as many special weapons. It's... Well... Twice as awesome.

50% is the difference between being more or less likely to meet with success.

I'm not asking you to provide actual percentages all the time, though its nice to do so.

But math is emperical, interpretation of it is not. In your posts I get a strong sense that, while you can understand the Mathhammer, you're not really comfortable with it, and ultimately you're just going with a gut feeling of what's what.

You've just lumped AV11 and AV12 into "moderately easy" and that's how you've decided it is.

But it's not.

A12 is as much better than AV11 as T4 is than T3. I think sourclams has shown pretty clearly how big the difference can be.

You've also decided that 50% is some sort of relevant measure. Again, it's not. Very few weapons kill vehicles more than 50% of the time with a single shot. That's why we take things like 3x Melta squads, Exorcists, dual Las Sponson Preds, etc. etc.

The 50% pretty quickly gets rolled up into other calculations, other decisions. Being able to point to a single sub 50% chance in an entire tree of binomial distributions is not actually of any use.

It's all a matter of return on investment. Let's say you've got a Lascannon with a 30% chance to kill one tank, and a 25% chance to kill another. Are you just not gonna shoot it this turn, cause it's not 50%? No. You're gonna shoot something, and all else being equal, it'll be the 30% odds you take. But then, what if the 30% tank is off doing nothing, but the 25% tank is in your face, potentially taking the win from you?

50% means nothing in a vacuum. What matters is how it compares to the other options.

Its like saying that your knight moving like an L is an advantage for the pawn your taking.

And this is like a strawman. Nobody is saying that the shooter's BS has anything to do with the target's AV. The BS4 was simply used as a starting point to put things in context, and understand what we're really talking about.

In order to understand what shooting at a Chimera really means, it's nice to know what the big picture is. That's why this was brought up. You're using vague terms like "moderately easy." It's a lot more helpful to know what the actual percentages are, rather than just fudging terms that can change meaning later.

I don't know what "moderately easy" means. And on top of that, I'm willing to bet that the meaning will change as you need it to, to make your argument. But 50% means something everyone undertands in the exact same way.

Put simply, people are trying to put actual numbers around things you seem to prefer to view as vague feelings. Since you prefer vague feelings in the first place, you're resisting the rigor and being obtuse as to the value of being emperical.

This goes down to targeting priority.

Exactly. And how easy it is to kill something has direct implications on whether it is selected for shooting. The relative threat of the target is also a factor, but not the only one. If two things are of equal threat, the one that is easier to kill is selected. In some cases one might elect to target the lesser threat simply because the odds of killing it are high enough.

Phyxis:

It's not so much the Combat Tactics, which are cool, but the Combat Squads and the And They Shall Know No Fear. If I want hard-hitting assault troops, I have access to stuff like Assault Terminators, though I prefer Assault Marines. Tactical Marines are there to shoot stuff and stay alive.

I would take csm's or IG vets over tac squads.

You might as well throw in grey hunters as well.

It's not so much the Combat Tactics, which are cool, but the Combat Squads and the And They Shall Know No Fear.

Sure, but again, you're just describing what's good about Tacticals... The more interesting question is if you REALLY want them more than CSMs or Vets?

Maybe you're saying you do, I'm not sure.

It's a different question to ask yourself which you REALLY want in your Codex than to just defend them for what they do well. We all know the metagame changes, the trends shift with each new release... If you were going to have a Codex to survive now and into the future, which of these troops choices would it have in it?

You might as well throw in grey hunters as well.

Probably true, but even more confusing. I think I'd take GHs if I could get a Wolf Guard, but since that's not technically a Troops choice, I'm still leaning towards the CSMs.

All the tricks Tacticals offer are nice, but at the end of the day the CSMs rule in the raw numbers that really matter. Cheap, BP+CCW, 2 Special Weapons. And still pretty hard to break them.

Phryxis wrote:Probably true, but even more confusing. I think I'd take GHs if I could get a Wolf Guard, but since that's not technically a Troops choice, I'm still leaning towards the CSMs.

Maybe, but I would take ld8 and ATSKNF over ld9.

Is this rhino vs chimera?

That is what it has turn into, however I like tactical squads. Its a marginal difference as in which is better but it is clearly the tactical squads.

The problem is that people are using marines incorrectly in my opinion. I know that is a bold statement but when the majority of players say that their special rules are useless that is the obviously the correct conclusion.

Instead of building list that take advantage of their strengths which is there special rules we try to make marines into minature veteran squads.

Marines are not guard it should not be about the number of guns we bring but the fact that our guns last longer. Maxing out on rhinos and melta weapons is not how marines win thats well IG.

Veterans are amazing because they can do what IG want bring alot of weapons which is what you want in a IG list.

A marine list should hit you hard and fast then use their durability to survive to the end. Drop pods, razorbacks, combat squads, and they shall know no fear, the list goes on are all things that can be use to win games.

Marines are jack of all trade army not a specialist army and lately thats what the marine players are trying to do thats why they are underperforming in tournaments.

Or atleast thats my accessment of the tourney scene and the list I see.

Nurlitch let us not forget the SM ability to choose to fail a moral test. As long as w leave the special chars whom alter the chapter tactics out of it, the ability to leave a combat and open up an oppenent to further shooting and possibly a charge from the same unit is awsome. Choas SM sit there and go, Man I hope I win on his turn so I don't get shot.

Actually there's something pretty interesting about Combat Tactics that occurred to me today.

Something I like about 5th edition 40k is the way they've re-introduced the seminal Warhammer concept of co-relative degrees (WS vs WS, etc), much of which has been lost in the 3rd and 4th editions. Fearless, for example, no longer exempts a unit from the risk of losing a combat, and becomes more or less useful depending on the unit's Armour Save and Initiative. If a unit can easily evade a Sweeping Advance, regular morale or And They Shall Know No Fear is better. If a unit cannot easily evade a Sweeping Advance, then having a good save is better, and so on.

Having Combat Tactics in combination with Combat Squads leverages Combat Tactics for a Tactical squad because as sourclams pointed out earlier in the thread a full Space Marine squad isn't that bad at combat. In other words a squad of Tactical Marines can run away if it loses, but isn't all that likely to lose, not like a Chaos Space Marine squad is to win, or an Imperial Guard squad is to die and expose their enemies to retaliatory fire.

But a Combat Squad will probably lose a couple of members and have something like 5-7 attacks back, depending on whether there is a Sergeant and whether he's carrying anything interesting. The Combat Squad is much more likely to lose the combat, and hence escape.

There are lots of units that will cut through tactical Marines like a sharp knife through paper. Genestealers and Berzerkers come to mind immediately. I think a good SM player will try to keep their tacticals out of close combat unless they either have numerical superiority or go up against something like Fire Warriors or guardsmen. I have seen a lot of SM players state they eschew the power fist since it's one less attack now and costs 25 points. A full 10 man squad with a power fist is not a great assault unit but at least it can kill stuff.

G