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.

The relevant rules section that you are asking for is on pg 62 under Vehicles and cover section:

"At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted... needs to be hidden.."

There are two ways to read this section.

1) The whole vehicle is being targeted, if over 50% of the one facing is obscured then the vehicle has cover, the amount of the other facing(s) that are covered doesnt matter to this rule oddly enough but it is the entire vehicle thats being targeted.

2) This rule points out that it is only the one facing of the vehicle that is the target. The rest of the vehicle (and its other facings av and cover status) are not involved with this shooting attack.


Under view 1 then los merely has to be traced to any portion of the vehicle, and the shot is resolved against the facing that you are in no matter what.

Under view 2 then los must be traced to the target facing, if the target facing cannot be seen then it cannot be shot at.



Either view could be correct, if their reading of the rules is correct.

However, there is the entire additional rule aded to allow a shot to be taken against another facing of the vehilce. The existence of this rule lends its weight to the reading of the rule in view 2 to be correct. Otherwise there would be no use for the alternate facing rule to exist.

Two possible readings of the ruls, support needs to be checked for each in the rest of the body of rules.



Sliggoth

This is true, the wording of that section is a little at odds with the other sections - they don't seem to be able to decide quite how to write this.

However, we already have an explicit permission to target a vehicle from LoS to any part of hull or turret.

I should note again, I do not believe that there should be any choice in the matter when the facing you are in is obscured. However, there really doesn't seem to be any cast iron RAW to support that.

Personally, if I was editing at GW (assuming that GW UK pulled it's head out of it's bottom and took on an editor) that "may" would have been changed to "must" and everything would have been clear.

Soup and a roll wrote: You don't seem to understand that a vehicle facing is not a target rather than the vehicle itself. Further more you are making rude statements contradicting the points put forth without quoting any relevant RAW. Unless you can back up your argument (without saying 'lol I have'), you are just trolling.

I'll say this one last time, the rules are permissive, the onus is on you to find some rule that permits you to assert the rules allow you to draw LoS to any part of the vehicle (qua: that you may target any facing of the vehicle, i'll quote this) and anything else you assert.

Ok so I mixed you and Scott-s6 up, but what Scott said:

Scott-S6 wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:Again, it gives you a condition for shooting in order to determine where your shot lands, i.e. it tells you figure out which av arc youre in, then says that is where the shot lands.

No, it tells you that's the AV value you use - you can draw los to, and presumably hit, any part of the vehicle.

You cannot draw LoS to and hit any part of the vehicle...

To continue:

I've already quoted the rules that state that the shot can only come from one arc, the arc the model is in; you only measure to the closest part of the hull and that RAW has only one possible understanding and that is you can only shoot at the arc you are in in normal circumstances; then, in abnormal circumstances, as the rules explicitly state, if you are in a facing arc that is 100% obscured, (the RAW states you may only shoot at that which you can see, as I quoted before) then, instead of not shooting at all because they set up a specific rule which only allows shots to be taken at the facing you are in and you can not see that facing and you cannot shoot at what you cannot see, in this specific circumstance, you are now permitted to shoot at a different facing violating the vehicle shooting rule they added to the overall shooting rules in order to allow you to actually roll dice in this rare circumstance wherein you would not have been able to roll any if this extraordinary claim did not exist thus permitting you to shoot at another arc but that arc gets a 3+ cover save. Again, and this is not rude, this is just a possible fact, I am not attacking you, if you dont understand the rulebook as it is written, it is not my fault. The onus is on you to demonstrate a rule which PERMITS you to do something other than I just clearly, exhaustively and decisively described above.

Permissive, the shot comes from the arc where the firing model is, you just agreed to this, the rules clearly state this as I will quote one last time.

P60 BRB wrote:Armour Values
for individual vehicles also vary depending on which
facing of the vehicle the shot comes from – its front,
sides, or rear, as explained in the diagram.

If a unit has firing models in two different facings of a
target vehicle (some models in the front and some in
the side, for example), shots are resolved separately for
the two facings.

QED... again...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soup and a roll wrote:You added the underlined word. When you add tour own words you can dramatically change the working of the rules. This is either a mistake or you are lying to make up for your lack of evidence.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not lying nor adding anything nor making any mistakes...

I think I've come across the complete error Soup and Scott are making, you guys are not reading the section that clearly demonstrates that shots come from the facing arc that the firer is in, you may be seeing the words, but you're not reading it. This section is very important, it is the part of the raw that demonstrates the permission to shoot at the facing arc you are in, again, permissive rules give you permission to do things. I continue on, only to help those who are still confused how this works according to RAW:

1) You are given permission to shoot at the arc your model is in

...which facing of the vehicle the shot comes from...as explained in the diagram.

The diagram then demonstrates (crudely but effectively enough) that there are 4 arcs or sections of the vehicle and each of these section may have a different AV values. Then, in order to be in one of these arcs, the players must extend these lines out to find out which arc the firer is in, then the shot is resolved against that AV and no other because you can only shoot at the arc the model is in.

2)

thebetter1 wrote:In all that, you still never managed to find any rule requiring that you draw line of sight to the facing you are in to shoot at it.

Thats because it is redundant and encompassed to other things I've already quoted and to common knowledge.

Scott-S6 wrote:Exactly - you are in the side arc so you can resolve the shot against the armour value of the side arc. (note, not shoot at the side arc you shoot at the vehicle, not a specific facing) That is entirely my point.
Also, note that LoS is drawn to the vehicle, not the facing - LoS to facing is used to determine eligibility for a cover save, not eligibility for taking a shot.

I'll handle your other point in number 3.

At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is
being targeted (i.e. its front, side or rear) needs to be
hidden by intervening terrain or models from the
point of view of the firer for the vehicle to claim to
be in cover.

The facing is being targeted, yes, the facing of the vehicle is the target... not the vehicle... the front, side or rear... The facing is 50% or more obscured... point of view of the firer... PoV to what? to the vehicle? no, to the facing... Please pay attention, this is pure RAW.

In order to select an enemy
unit as a target, at least one model in the firing unit
must have line of sight to at least one model in the
target unit.

Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of
the enemy – they must be able to see their foe
through, under or over the tangle of terrain and other
fighters on the battlefield

The game works on TLOS

Warhammer 40,000 uses what we call ‘true line
of sight’ for shooting attacks. This means that you
take the positions of models and terrain at face
value, and simply look to see if your warriors have
a view to their targets.

3) Thus the rules for shooting at a vehicle are set up, you must shoot at the facing you are in because you are only given permission to shoot at the arc you are in, now what happens if you cannot see the facing arc you are in? Well the rules quoted above would say that you are completely unable to shoot at that vehicle; the rulebook goes on, however, to allow something else:

It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any
part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but
they can still see another facing of the target vehicle.
In this case they may take the shot against the facing
they can see, but to represent such an extremely
angled shot, the vehicle receives a 3+ cover save.

The rules move on to allow you to roll dice in a situation wherein you would not be able to roll any at all because the firer "Cannot see any part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but they can still see another facing of the target vehicle." This is vital because it demonstrates, yet again, that the firer is shooting at the facing it is in. The "Target vehicle" phrase gets tossed around but that is because the facing is on something, it is on a vehicle, the facing of the vehicle is the target (as they keep saying (front,side or rear) for a reason but some players keep ignoring this) and thus the vehicle is targeted because the facing is on it...

As I tried to point out, this RAW extraordinary claim quoted in 3) clearly demonstrates that there would be no dice rolling in this situation because TLOS is required in order to shoot at a target... In this case, a target facing of a vehicle.

My final point is about the very important but often ignored or misunderstood: "In this case they may take the shot against the facing they can see". The phrase "In this case" is just so ridiculously important but is just so completely ignored... Which case? The case wherein the firer cannot see the target facing... TLOS for vehicles and infantry both explicitly state that when a firer cannot see its target, it cannot shoot, thus, "In this case" the firer would not be able to shoot, but they "may take --->the shot<--- against the facing they can see".

This is the only way RaW can be understood according to, ironically enough, RaW. Any other position is ignoring some part(s) of the above and is invalid. If you're still having trouble with this, please PM me or please pay attention to the permission that the rules give you, this goes for any situation but paying attention to what you're given permission to do seems particularly difficult for some in this interaction.

visavismeyou wrote:
I'll say this one last time, the rules are permissive, the onus is on you to find some rule that permits you to assert the rules allow you to draw LoS to any part of the vehicle (qua: that you may target any facing of the vehicle, i'll quote this) and anything else you assert.

How about being allowed to draw LOS to the hull or turret? See page 60. All the other references add to this permission, nothing takes away from it.

visavismeyou wrote:
The facing is being targeted, yes, the facing of the vehicle is the target... not the vehicle... the front, side or rear... The facing is 50% or more obscured... point of view of the firer... PoV to what? to the vehicle? no, to the facing... Please pay attention, this is pure RAW.

No. Seriously, you target vehicles, not facings of vehicles. The fact that the facing must be 50% obscured to grant cover applies only to cover.

thebetter1 wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:
I'll say this one last time, the rules are permissive, the onus is on you to find some rule that permits you to assert the rules allow you to draw LoS to any part of the vehicle (qua: that you may target any facing of the vehicle, i'll quote this) and anything else you assert.

How about being allowed to draw LOS to the hull or turret? See page 60. All the other references add to this permission, nothing takes away from it.

The provision you are talking about is clarifying that banners and decorative elements do not constitute the hull. Your point is invalid.

thebetter1 wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:
The facing is being targeted, yes, the facing of the vehicle is the target... not the vehicle... the front, side or rear... The facing is 50% or more obscured... point of view of the firer... PoV to what? to the vehicle? no, to the facing... Please pay attention, this is pure RAW.

No. Seriously, you target vehicles, not facings of vehicles. The fact that the facing must be 50% obscured to grant cover applies only to cover.

Please pay attention to the prepositional phrase. Every time the concept of targeting comes into the discussion about shooting at vehicles, the prepositional phrase will demonstrate to you whether you target the vehicle or the facing OF the vehicle. Your point is erred.

visavismeyou wrote:
The provision you are talking about is clarifying that banners and decorative elements do not constitute the hull. Your point is invalid.

No, tells you what you DO shoot at and THEN tells you what not to shoot at. YOUR point is invalid.

visavismeyou wrote:
Please pay attention to the prepositional phrase. Every time the concept of targeting comes into the discussion about shooting at vehicles, the prepositional phrase will demonstrate to you whether you target the vehicle or the facing OF the vehicle. Your point is erred.

So when you succeed in penetrating the facing and you roll an immobilized result, you immobilize the facing? Do you have to destroy a weapon on that side if you get a weapon destroyed result? How do you handle a wrecked side?

Damage is resolved against your target. If the facing is the target, you cannot resolve the damage.

thebetter1 wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:
The provision you are talking about is clarifying that banners and decorative elements do not constitute the hull. Your point is invalid.

No, tells you what you DO shoot at and THEN tells you what not to shoot at. YOUR point is invalid.

When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its
hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle’s gun barrels,
antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.).

RaW disagrees with you.

thebetter1 wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:
Please pay attention to the prepositional phrase. Every time the concept of targeting comes into the discussion about shooting at vehicles, the prepositional phrase will demonstrate to you whether you target the vehicle or the facing OF the vehicle. Your point is erred.

So when you succeed in penetrating the facing and you roll an immobilized result, you immobilize the facing? Do you have to destroy a weapon on that side if you get a weapon destroyed result? How do you handle a wrecked side?

Damage is resolved against your target. If the facing is the target, you cannot resolve the damage.

Factious comments will not avail you. As I said, it is the facing on the target. You are now completely dropping context and reason.

The general LoS rules require sight to the model. This is backed up by the vehicle rules which require sight to the hull or turret.

You are basing all your argument on a single ambiguous usage of the word "targetting" in a paragraph on cover saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

visavismeyou wrote:Please pay attention to the prepositional phrase. Every time the concept of targeting comes into the discussion about shooting at vehicles, the prepositional phrase will demonstrate to you whether you target the vehicle or the facing OF the vehicle.

More exageration and half-truths.

The normal shooting rules use target to refer to the unit being fired at.

The vehicle rules mention "target vehicle" twice on P60.

On P62, it mentions "the facing of the vehicle being targetted" which could be read either way. (the facing being targetted or the facing of the vehicle which is the target)

P62 also uses "target" to refer to the vehicle unit (as a facing cannot suffer a glancing/pentrating hit).

So, out of four uses of "target/targetting" in the vehicle rules you have three that definately refer to the vehicle and one that may refer to the facing. Given the context (i.e. the other three uses) it seems likely that the same meaning was intended. Yet you make this claim about "every time"....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

visavismeyou wrote:Factious comments will not avail you. As I said, it is the facing on the target. You are now completely dropping context and reason.

And now you contradict yourself yet again. If the facing is on the target, i.e. the vehicle is the target, then you have no point at all since the general LoS rules you've been referring to only require LoS to the target.

If this was a court case then this would be my cue to say "Your honour - admission of guilt!"

Soup, thebetter, well argued.

Vis, you've argued your point passionately and I've been impressed by the effort you've put in but the emotional tone of your posts detracts from the point you're making. Especially when you start adding small points: "still roll some dice" or exagerating: "every time" or getting snarky: "could do with a laugh". If you can learn to make your point in a more level manner your debating will be much improved.

This thread is becoming a bit infected, but I'll try to summarize how shooting at a vehicle in case of cover work, in the order as written in the rules. I write "try" because I am currently unable to quote the rules exactly.

1. Declare which unit is targeting what vehicle.
2. Trace line of sight from the shooting unit's eyes to any part of the vehicle's hull or turret mount (not the turret itself, nor decorations)
3. Determine what facing the shot is coming from
4. Determine if the facing you are in is covered 0-49%, 50-99% or 100%.
5. If the facing is covered 100%, determine whether you'd rather shoot at a different facing that you can draw line of sight to.
6. Roll to hit.
7. If successful, roll for penetration on the AV of the facing it has been determined you are shooting against.
8. Roll on damage table if facing is penetrated or glanced.
9. Roll no cover save if 0-49% obscured, appropriate cover save if 50-100% obscured, or 3+ if you are shooting at a facing you are not it.

If any of this is faulty, please quote the exact lettering which makes it faulty. Remember that the nature of how rules are written, a rule which deals with cover of a facing has absolutely nothing at all to do with the rule which determines whether a shot, any shot, is legal on the vehicle.
The rules are written in sequence. Something giving permission for a cover save has no impact on something giving permission to shoot in the first place. A criteria to even check for facing is that you're allowed to shoot at the vehicle.

While the rules are relatively clear on what they imply or what they are meant to be read as, those particular rules aren't written down.

P.s. Yes, I've probably left some step out, but I think I've covered the important ones.

Careful Mahtamori, or you may get 100 lines+ of quotes that don't really show anything and this thread will hit 10 pages.

Looks about spot-on to me.

Which makes more sense?

1) If the facing you are in is 100% blocked from LoS but you can see another facing then you take a much more difficult shot at the facing you can see.

2) If the facing you are in is 100% blocked from LoS but you can see another facing then you take a much more difficult shot at the facing you can see...or just choose to shoot at the facing you can't see with absolutely no negative at all.

The ability to choose causes the rule to make no sense, which to me invalidates this option altogether. Is it poor rules writing? Yes. Is it unclear? Obviously or we would have come to a consensus on page 1. However the fact that one interpretation causes the rule to lose all meaning is a big red flag that it might be the wrong interpretation.

zeshin wrote:Which makes more sense?

1) If the facing you are in is 100% blocked from LoS but you can see another facing then you take a much more difficult shot at the facing you can see.

2) If the facing you are in is 100% blocked from LoS but you can see another facing then you take a much more difficult shot at the facing you can see...or just choose to shoot at the facing you can't see with absolutely no negative at all.

The ability to choose causes the rule to make no sense, which to me invalidates this option altogether. Is it poor rules writing? Yes. Is it unclear? Obviously or we would have come to a consensus on page 1. However the fact that one interpretation causes the rule to lose all meaning is a big red flag that it might be the wrong interpretation.

We can spend ages discussing how the rules should be used or what makes sense, but this isn't really the thread for that.

A rule which provides you with an option doesn't necessarily invalidate the rules. The rules writer may have been in full intention that you get to choose to discourage the use of cheap tactics* where you hide a facing you know your enemy has to shoot at or where you hide a facing you don't want shot at.
We can only speculate that point forever, however.

What we don't want is arguments we've seen earlier in the thread where rules on p62 are used to cause limitations on rules on p60, etc. So I think it's a clear cut "no it doesn't make sense, but yes it works this way, no you can live with it, be a nice chap to your opponent or the TO and you'll do fine"

* What is cheap and not is subject to interpretation

Zeshin, I agree entirely that the rule should not work that way and I certainly would not play it that way.

However, this is about examining what the rules actually say and they do seem to give you the choice.

I'm not trying to argue abstracts or intentions, I'm saying that half the rule doesn't do anything if the choice is the players. 'If the target facing is 100% blocked from LoS you can still shoot at it as if it were only 50% blocked'. What would this portion of the rule do? If instead the choice is not the players than the rule actually accomplishes something.

It also makes no sense that a vehicle covered 50% has the same chance of saving as a vehicle 75% covered, but that's the system we're using.

We've all said throughout this thread that, as you have said, the rule being optional is probably an oversight and goes against how we would chose to play it if the situation occurred. Unfortunately there are loads of situations in the writing of 40k where rules are so badly written or redundant you wouldn't expect anyone to play them literally. This doesn't mean, however, that the rules are wrong, per se, and hence we are currently arguing for what the rules say, not what they should say.

Scott-S6 wrote:The general LoS rules require sight to the model. This is backed up by the vehicle rules which require sight to the hull or turret.

You are basing all your argument on a single ambiguous usage of the word "targetting" in a paragraph on cover saves.

I'm going to stop you right there, you're wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mahtamori, If you're interested in me being very precise in my criticism of your post, read on, if not, do not read what I have to say, I'm going to be exacting.

Mahtamori wrote:2. Trace line of sight from the shooting unit's eyes to any part of the vehicle's hull or turret mount (not the turret itself, nor decorations)

You have to note that each model is drawing LoS to the Vehicle, not just the unit, a single unit of 5 models may be firing at two facings.

If a unit has firing models in two different facings of a
target vehicle (some models in the front and some in
the side, for example), shots are resolved separately for
the two facings.

Thus, this is out of order already, but I'll continue.

Mahtamori wrote:3. Determine what facing the shot is coming from

Again, you should have said "facing(s)" and 3 is redundant.

Mahtamori wrote:4. Determine if the facing you are in is covered 0-49%, 50-99% or 100%.

Technically, determine if the facing each firing model is in is covered.

Mahtamori wrote:5. If the facing is covered 100%, determine whether you'd rather shoot at a different facing that you can draw line of sight to.

You're not the first to misunderstand the usage of the word may, and you're not going to be the last. May simply gives permission, it does not give choice, huge difference. The rules saying you "may", as I already explained and quoted, simply refers to the fact that the models would not be able to fire without this extraordinary claim. Please reread my previous posts.

Mahtamori wrote:7. If successful, roll for penetration on the AV of the facing it has been determined you are shooting against.

again, each model, not "you" and "facing(s)"

Mahtamori wrote:9. Roll no cover save if 0-49% obscured, appropriate cover save if 50-100% obscured, or 3+ if you are shooting at a facing you are not it.

As I already explained and quoted, 50-99% get 4+ cover, 3+ in the extraordinary situation.

Mahtamori wrote:While the rules are relatively clear on what they imply or what they are meant to be read as, those particular rules aren't written down.

You, too, have misused the word imply, the rules set up a series of events and you are misunderstanding vital key words which I've already quoted and explicated; please feel free to refer to my posts as they are exhaustive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soup and a roll wrote:Careful Mahtamori, or you may get 100 lines+ of quotes that don't really show anything and this thread will hit 10 pages.

Nice failed attempt at an insult. Glad you're not talking about me or else my feelings might have been hurt!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soup and a roll wrote:It also makes no sense that a vehicle covered 50% has the same chance of saving as a vehicle 75% covered, but that's the system we're using.

We've all said throughout this thread that, as you have said, the rule being optional is probably an oversight and goes against how we would chose to play it if the situation occurred. Unfortunately there are loads of situations in the writing of 40k where rules are so badly written or redundant you wouldn't expect anyone to play them literally. This doesn't mean, however, that the rules are wrong, per se, and hence we are currently arguing for what the rules say, not what they should say.

please stop confusing permission with option... its quite disturbing how very simple your error is...

"May I pour you a glass of wine?"
"Yes, you may"

There isn't an option... its giving permission...

If the waiter went on to say: "Well I choose not to! HAH!" that would make no freaking sense, he is asking for permission to do so... not seeking a choice in the matter. Please... stop your incessant errors.

visavismeyou wrote:
please stop confusing permission with option... its quite disturbing how very simple your error is...

"May I pour you a glass of wine?"
"Yes, you may"

There isn't an option... its giving permission...

If the waiter went on to say: "Well I choose not to! HAH!" that would make no freaking sense, he is asking for permission to do so... not seeking a choice in the matter. Please... stop your incessant errors.

This example is flawed. If the waiter had just asked "May I pour you a soft drink?" before asking this, then "may" would have given the waiter a choice between soda and wine.

visavismeyou wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:2. Trace line of sight from the shooting unit's eyes to any part of the vehicle's hull or turret mount (not the turret itself, nor decorations)

You have to note that each model is drawing LoS to the Vehicle, not just the unit, a single unit of 5 models may be firing at two facings.

So you admit yet again that line of sight is drawn to any part of the vehicle's hull or turret?

visavismeyou wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:5. If the facing is covered 100%, determine whether you'd rather shoot at a different facing that you can draw line of sight to.

You're not the first to misunderstand the usage of the word may, and you're not going to be the last. May simply gives permission, it does not give choice, huge difference. The rules saying you "may", as I already explained and quoted, simply refers to the fact that the models would not be able to fire without this extraordinary claim. Please reread my previous posts.

If there were a rule preventing them from firing, this would be true. You yourself have said that you draw LOS to the vehicle. If the facing is the target, as you usually say, then you have to resolve damage against the target, which would be that facing, which makes no sense at all.

visavismeyou wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:
The provision you are talking about is clarifying that banners and decorative elements do not constitute the hull. Your point is invalid.

No, tells you what you DO shoot at and THEN tells you what not to shoot at. YOUR point is invalid.

When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its
hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle’s gun barrels,
antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.).

RaW disagrees with you.

The fact that you are unable to explain your position beyond repeating the rule I used pretty much shows you are wrong.

visavismeyou wrote:
Factious comments will not avail you. As I said, it is the facing on the target. You are now completely dropping context and reason.

So the vehicle is the target. I will keep bringing up this quote until you acknowledge you said it.

vis wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:5. If the facing is covered 100%, determine whether you'd rather shoot at a different facing that you can draw line of sight to.

You're not the first to misunderstand the usage of the word may, and you're not going to be the last. May simply gives permission, it does not give choice, huge difference.

Yes, may gives permission. If you already have permission to do something else then may creates a new optional permission. Must would create a new mandatory permission.

vis wrote:The rules saying you "may", as I already explained and quoted, simply refers to the fact that the models would not be able to fire without this extraordinary claim. Please reread my previous posts.

Your previous posts have never come close to proving this. You've simply implied that it was so. Then you tried your facing=target argument which was incorrect.

thebetter1 wrote:This example is flawed. If the waiter had just asked "May I pour you a soft drink?" before asking this, then "may" would have given the waiter a choice between soda and wine.

No... it wouldnt have... please dear god please go look up the word may... your mistakes are so simple...

visavismeyou wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:2. Trace line of sight from the shooting unit's eyes to any part of the vehicle's hull or turret mount (not the turret itself, nor decorations)

You have to note that each model is drawing LoS to the Vehicle, not just the unit, a single unit of 5 models may be firing at two facings.

thebetter1 wrote:So you admit yet again that line of sight is drawn to any part of the vehicle's hull or turret?

Yes, any part which is closest, as the rulebook says. When you measure to the hull... you've measured to the hull... You dont keep looking for the hull once you've found it. You never measure to the turret, again, you, along with many others, are mixing up the sections of the rules, the section you're talking about is:

When a unit fires at a vehicle it must be able to see its
hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle’s gun barrels,
antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.).

This has nothing to do with what you say it does.

thebetter1 wrote:If there were a rule preventing them from firing, this would be true. You yourself have said that you draw LOS to the vehicle. If the facing is the target, as you usually say, then you have to resolve damage against the target, which would be that facing, which makes no sense at all.

rules are permissive, again, you don't understand the things you talk about. The word may confers permission not a choice, you dont resolve damage against a facing, you resolve it against the vehicle (i.e. vehicle damage chart), the facing is on the vehicle, the only thing that doesnt make sense is your completely erred interpretation of the rules and of the facts I have been stating.

thebetter1 wrote:The fact that you are unable to explain your position beyond repeating the rule I used pretty much shows you are wrong.

No, it doesn't, the fact that I'm repeating myself only demonstrates that there is nothing else which needs to be said to prove you wrong, the RAW disagrees with you 100%.

thebetter1 wrote:So the vehicle is the target. I will keep bringing up this quote until you acknowledge you said it.

Yes, the vehicle, which has a facing, is the target, the model is in one facing, the model shoots only at the facing it is in... the model targets the facing of the vehicle (targets the vehicle, note the prepositional phrase, there is no functional difference between targeting the facing of a vehicle and targeting the vehicle) RAW is quite simple, please go reread it and please look up the word may, at no time are you given any choices you are only permitted to fire in a situation which you would not be allowed to fire otherwise.

I think more clarification may be needed, I have no problem with people using the imprecise phrasing of "targeting a vehicle" whatever, sure, however, nowhere in the rulebook does it give permission for a model in the front arc to fire at the rear arc, again, you need to have TLOS on the target facing of the vehicle in order to shoot at it, if you are right, then a model in the front arc of a vehicle can shoot at the rear arc, this explicit permission is not in the RAW, furthermore, if you are right, then the model may measure distance to a vehicle by measuring to the rear arc even though it is in the front arc, again, this violates the rules as written, the rules as written clearly state you measure to the hull, that means you extend your measuring tape out from the model until it touches the hull of the vehicle, once it touches the hull you have measured to the hull, you are, again, mistaken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:Yes, may gives permission. If you already have permission to do something else then may creates a new optional permission. Must would create a new mandatory permission.

Swing and a miss.

Scott-S6 wrote:Your previous posts have never come close to proving this. You've simply implied that it was so. Then you tried your facing=target argument which was incorrect.

Swing and a miss, strike 2... (actually like strike 42 but who is counting?)

It may rarely happen that the firing unit cannot see any
part of the facing they are in (front, side or rear), but
they can still see another facing of the target vehicle.
In this case they may take the shot against the facing
they can see, but to represent such an extremely
angled shot, the vehicle receives a 3+ cover save.

The first "may" demonstrates possibility and is a different use of the word than later in the paragraph, I bring this up because if you look through the definition of the word may you learn that there are several usages, the may of possibility (It may rarely happen, it may rain) the may of contingency (I may go to the mall but I havn't decided yet) and then you see a section about permission, this demonstrates the last usage in the paragraph quoted above. "Cannot see any part of the facing" but can still see a different part of the vehicle. As I quoted, if you cant see what you're shooting at, normally you cannot fire at it. Since the rules fully explicate that you cannot shoot at what you cannot see, the rules would restrict you from firing at a vehicle until you read the next sentence which gives you an extraordinary situation where you "May" fire even though (as the previous line says) the firer cannot see the facing.

Finally, "optional" permission, when I say "You may pour my wine" I am not saying "You may pour me wine or soda" I am saying "You are allowed to pour me wine and wine only". You are correct that this is still entirely optional, the waiter could, of course, say "Screw you" and walk away. He could refuse to follow through with the action which he requested permission for but if he chose anything else (as in pouring me soda) he would be violating the permission I gave him and the permission he asked for. Thus, if your quote above about optional permission is correct, all you are saying is that we have the option to fire at the 3+ facing or not; we would have the option of firing at the 3+ facing or not rolling any dice whatever; you are wrong if you think that the optional permission is between the option of firing at the 3+ facing or firing at the 4+ facing, this disjunction only exists in your head, it does not exist in the RAW...

What Scott-S6 (and those who agree with him) would need in order to be right:

1) He would need a disjunction, there is no disjunction in the quoted paragraph.
2) He would need to demonstrate explicit permission to make a choice between shooting at the facing the model is in OR (disjunction) shooting at the facing the model can see.
3) He would need to demonstrate that the rulebook gives permission to fire at a facing which the firer cannot see, he has not demonstrated this and he cannot demonstrate this (again the rules are permissive, if it were the case that we could fire at facings which we could not see, the rulebook would have to give us explicit permission to do so, I have yet to see this permission quoted by Scott or anyone else).
4) He would need to provide an argument which demonstrates that the word "May" in the context of the paragraph above somehow gives a choice between the 2 different facings when the word and the context do not do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mahtamori wrote:A rule which provides you with an option doesn't necessarily invalidate the rules.

No option is given.

Multi-Quote feature didn't work in Opera so I'll do it manually...

visavismeyou wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mahtamori, If you're interested in me being very precise in my criticism of your post, read on, if not, do not read what I have to say, I'm going to be exacting.

Then I'll be exacting right back at you, nearly to the point of being petty. Keep in mind that I didn't ask you to be exacting, I asked you to back your statements up.

visavismeyou wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:2. Trace line of sight from the shooting unit's eyes to any part of the vehicle's hull or turret mount (not the turret itself, nor decorations)

You have to note that each model is drawing LoS to the Vehicle, not just the unit, a single unit of 5 models may be firing at two facings.

If a unit has firing models in two different facings of a
target vehicle (some models in the front and some in
the side, for example), shots are resolved separately for
the two facings.

Thus, this is out of order already, but I'll continue.

I'm not writing a rules text, I'm writing a descriptive text. At the very least do note I wrote "eyes" being a plural statement.
Also, that quote has nothing to do with permission to shoot. That's from the determine facing section.

visavismeyou wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:3. Determine what facing the shot is coming from

Again, you should have said "facing(s)" and 3 is redundant.

One shot can only come from one facing. It's not redundant since facings are determined separately from whether or not you are allowed to shoot on the vehicle. Read the rules in sequence.

visavismeyou wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:4. Determine if the facing you are in is covered 0-49%, 50-99% or 100%.

Technically, determine if the facing each firing model is in is covered.

No it is not technically covered since you have not at this point examined whether the model is in cover or not. You have only determined whether you are able to draw line of sight to the vehicle, not how much of the specific facing you are shooting on is in cover.

visavismeyou wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:5. If the facing is covered 100%, determine whether you'd rather shoot at a different facing that you can draw line of sight to.

You're not the first to misunderstand the usage of the word may, and you're not going to be the last. May simply gives permission, it does not give choice, huge difference. The rules saying you "may", as I already explained and quoted, simply refers to the fact that the models would not be able to fire without this extraordinary claim. Please reread my previous posts.

Scott has already covered this one, but I'll chime in. Using your own words regarding permission - I already have permission to shoot at the facing I am in, this gives me further permission to shoot on a different facing. Please quote me the rules where the permission to fire on the facing I am in is withdrawn.

visavismeyou wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:7. If successful, roll for penetration on the AV of the facing it has been determined you are shooting against.

again, each model, not "you" and "facing(s)"

This is arguing semantics.
Each shot is resolved separately, but can be rolled en masse, through the necessity of a unit being able to shoot several different types of weapons and on several different facings. I have at point 3 stealthily gone from dealing with a unit to dealing with a model, but then again, I'm not writing a rules text.

visavismeyou wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:9. Roll no cover save if 0-49% obscured, appropriate cover save if 50-100% obscured, or 3+ if you are shooting at a facing you are not it.

As I already explained and quoted, 50-99% get 4+ cover, 3+ in the extraordinary situation.

No. 50-99% covered get a cover save as appropriate to the cover which ranges from 6+ to 3+. If the tank is sitting in high grass, it certainly doesn't get 4+ cover save!

visavismeyou wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:While the rules are relatively clear on what they imply or what they are meant to be read as, those particular rules aren't written down.

You, too, have misused the word imply, the rules set up a series of events and you are misunderstanding vital key words which I've already quoted and explicated; please feel free to refer to my posts as they are exhaustive.

Your texts aren't exhaustive, or I wouldn't have posted the guidelines for shooting at a covered vehicle. You quote rules from pages 60 and 62 without paying attention to their order. You can't use a rule at bottom of page 62 where it asks you to look at the amount of cover on a facing in order to append restrictions to rules on page 60 which aren't even dealing with facings!

visavismeyou wrote:"May I pour you a glass of wine?"
"Yes, you may"

There isn't an option... its giving permission...

If the waiter went on to say: "Well I choose not to! HAH!" that would make no freaking sense, he is asking for permission to do so... not seeking a choice in the matter. Please... stop your incessant errors.

No, that is the waiter making an offer, acquiring permission, generating an expectation from the customer of acquiring the service. The waiter is under no legislative obligation to fulfill his offer as the customer and the waiter has not signed a contract or exchanged money or services in order to acquire the service. The waiter is, put simply, only under a social expectation to fulfill his offer.

Permission is given by a green light to cross the street while walking on the curb. I chose not to cross the street and turn left at the intersection instead.

You're confusing "permission" with "obligation".

End of this semantic debate. If you could please back your statements up, rather than arguing words (that aren't part of the rules being discussed), please.

visavismeyou wrote:

Soup and a roll wrote:Careful Mahtamori, or you may get 100 lines+ of quotes that don't really show anything and this thread will hit 10 pages.

Nice failed attempt at an insult. Glad you're not talking about me or else my feelings might have been hurt!

I was talking about you (I recognise your sarcasm but I'll defend my point). You are managing to author vast reams of text which show a loose grasp of the RAW

the onus is on you to find some rule that permits you to assert the rules allow you to draw LoS to any part of the vehicle

Baseless or insulting antagonism

Swing and a miss, strike 2... (actually like strike 42 but who is counting?)

or that are simply very hard to understand

I think more clarification may be needed, I have no problem with people using the imprecise phrasing of "targeting a vehicle" whatever, sure, however, nowhere in the rulebook does it give permission for a model in the front arc to fire at the rear arc, again, you need to have TLOS on the target facing of the vehicle in order to shoot at it, if you are right, then a model in the front arc of a vehicle can shoot at the rear arc, this explicit permission is not in the RAW, furthermore, if you are right, then the model may measure distance to a vehicle by measuring to the rear arc even though it is in the front arc, again, this violates the rules as written, the rules as written clearly state you measure to the hull, that means you extend your measuring tape out from the model until it touches the hull of the vehicle, once it touches the hull you have measured to the hull, you are, again, mistaken.

Whilst I congratulate your enthusiasm for the subject nothing that you are saying is backing up your argument and much of what you are saying is counter-intuitive. Our argument is based on the fact the the word 'may' can be permissive and that it is not compulsive. You have either conceded or failed to disprove this. Your entire argument rests on the premise that a vehicle's facing is targeted rather than the vehicle as a whole. You have since conceded this point. The outcome, or 'function', is irrelevant as this is RAW and we are interested in the words themselves.

Yes, the vehicle, which has a facing, is the target, the model is in one facing, the model shoots only at the facing it is in... the model targets the facing of the vehicle (targets the vehicle, note the prepositional phrase, there is no functional difference between targeting the facing of a vehicle and targeting the vehicle

Factious comments will not avail you. As I said, it is the facing on the target

You have no argument. See if you can prove me wrong in less than 20 lines of text.

Vis, if you already have permission for something and you are given permission to do something else is the first permission lost?

Look at the rulebook for other examples of this usuage of "may". The rulebook is quite consistent on this, may is optional "may move all his models" whereas must is imperative "must declare if he wants his unit to try to enter difficult terrain".

You know, I'm just skimming the rulebook here and I'm seeing lots of usuage of "may" for things that are optional ("may take an invulnerable save" - you don't have to use that save you can use another one that you have permission for; "may move all his models" - but you don't have to move them; "may then take a psychic test to use the weapons power" - or just resolve the hit normally)

I'm not seeing "may" used in the way you describe at all. Are you suggesting that it is used in that manner in only this one instance?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

visavismeyou wrote:What Scott-S6 (and those who agree with him) would need in order to be right:

1) He would need a disjunction, there is no disjunction in the quoted paragraph.
2) He would need to demonstrate explicit permission to make a choice between shooting at the facing the model is in OR (disjunction) shooting at the facing the model can see.
3) He would need to demonstrate that the rulebook gives permission to fire at a facing which the firer cannot see, he has not demonstrated this and he cannot demonstrate this (again the rules are permissive, if it were the case that we could fire at facings which we could not see, the rulebook would have to give us explicit permission to do so, I have yet to see this permission quoted by Scott or anyone else).
4) He would need to provide an argument which demonstrates that the word "May" in the context of the paragraph above somehow gives a choice between the 2 different facings when the word and the context do not do so.

1&4) The rulebook is consistent in it's use of May and Must - do you have any examples to support your suggestion of how it's being used.
2) An explicit permisison is not required - permission for one course of action is already given. Optional permission for a second course of action is then given, creating choice. Again, this structure is used in other places in the rules. For example, you are given permisson to resolve CC attacks in the normal manner. The force weapon rules tell you that you may take a psychic test and resolve them in a different manner. Choice is created.
3) Permission to shoot at the vehicle is given irrespective of facings being obscured. It is never rescinded due to obscuration rendering that permission entirely redundant. Permissions are linked. The rulebook never says "A guard veteran sergeant may fire his bolt pistol at an ork" - that permission is derived from the wargear rules, the shooting rules, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

visavismeyou wrote:Swing and a miss.

Extremely mature debating.

Soup and a roll wrote:You have no argument. See if you can prove me wrong in less than 20 lines of text.

I already have and you have yet to quote any RAW which states you are permitted to draw LOS to any facing but the facing the model is in. Before the extraordinary claim which I have quoted and explicated over and over there must be an explicit permission to do so in order for you to be right. Continuing to sidestep this necessity only further admits that you are misrepresenting RAW.

Soup and a roll wrote:Baseless or insulting antagonism

Swing and a miss, strike 2... (actually like strike 42 but who is counting?)

Not unlike the tripe that has been thrown at me

The only thing that is confusing is that you guys assume that the "May" on page 62 is about what to shoot at. The 4+ save or the 3+. I read it as telling me that if it's 100% cover taking LOS away from the side I am in, then I may shoot at the side I can see.

This is such a rare thing to see, and very heated. I think you should agree with your friends when you play, ask any judges to make the call at Tourneys(and not fight about it), and enjoy the game. As of this point I think that's the best way to go. My friend and I debated about it but turns out no one is right here and I hope everyone realizes that and can have some fun.

visavismeyou wrote:
I already have and you have yet to quote any RAW which states you are permitted to draw LOS to any facing but the facing the model is in. Before the extraordinary claim which I have quoted and explicated over and over there must be an explicit permission to do so in order for you to be right. Continuing to sidestep this necessity only further admits that you are misrepresenting RAW.

We already quoted the rule permitting this (drawing line of sight to the hull or turret mount). You continue to say it is wrong, simply because "the RAW disagrees." You keep claiming you have already proven your point, yet post after post I do not see any proof.

Scott-S6 wrote:Vis, if you already have permission for something and you are given permission to do something else is the first permission lost?

Look at the rulebook for other examples of this usuage of "may". The rulebook is quite consistent on this, may is optional "may move all his models" whereas must is imperative "must declare if he wants his unit to try to enter difficult terrain".

May move all his models, is not may move his models or the terrain... Your reading is the latter... may fire at the 3+ facing is may fire at the 3+ facing or may not fire at all, yes there is an option, to do what you're given permission to do or not; you are not given permission to fire at a facing you cannot see. Again, you are avoiding your mistake and your failure; quote where you're permitted to fire at something you cannot see and you win.

Soup and a roll wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:What Scott-S6 (and those who agree with him) would need in order to be right:

1) He would need a disjunction, there is no disjunction in the quoted paragraph.
2) He would need to demonstrate explicit permission to make a choice between shooting at the facing the model is in OR (disjunction) shooting at the facing the model can see.
3) He would need to demonstrate that the rulebook gives permission to fire at a facing which the firer cannot see, he has not demonstrated this and he cannot demonstrate this (again the rules are permissive, if it were the case that we could fire at facings which we could not see, the rulebook would have to give us explicit permission to do so, I have yet to see this permission quoted by Scott or anyone else).
4) He would need to provide an argument which demonstrates that the word "May" in the context of the paragraph above somehow gives a choice between the 2 different facings when the word and the context do not do so.

1&4) The rulebook is consistent in it's use of May and Must - do you have any examples to support your suggestion of how it's being used.
2) An explicit permisison is not required - permission for one course of action is already given. Optional permission for a second course of action is then given, creating choice. Again, this structure is used in other places in the rules. For example, you are given permisson to resolve CC attacks in the normal manner. The force weapon rules tell you that you may take a psychic test and resolve them in a different manner. Choice is created.
3) Permission to shoot at the vehicle is given irrespective of facings being obscured. It is never rescinded due to obscuration rendering that permission entirely redundant. Permissions are linked. The rulebook never says "A guard veteran sergeant may fire his bolt pistol at an ork" - that permission is derived from the wargear rules, the shooting rules, etc.

1&4) yes, I do, the definition of the word and the context it is used. The word itself is proof that I am right, the RAW is proof that you are wrong as you cannot quote anything to support that you can fire or measure to any facing which you cannot see. Keep sidestepping this fact.
2) Yes it is. Force weapons is an explicit permission... You're proving my argument correct and invalidating your own, thanks, I wish I thought of force weapons while I was writing my last post! To further clarify why this is a death knell for your argument is that the force weapon gives you the EXPLICITLY STATED choice between using the weapon as normal or using the psychic power of force weapon... Again, this is the death knell of your argument, thanks!

As I said, in order for you to be right, you would have to find some RAW in the vehicle section which explicitly states the option, instead, all we have is permission to do something other than you normally would be allowed to do, again, the game works off of TLOS, we are permitted to use TLOS, we are never permitted to do as you propose.

3) Explicit permission does not require minutiae as you state, a guard does not need permission to fire at an ork... that is pure nonsense... The rulebook is permission based and a model (any model) is given permission to fire at any model it can see (with a few other provisions such as firer not pinned/gone to ground etc), guard and orc fit into those variables, simple explanation to refute your completely erred response.

Permission to fire at a vehicle is given with the provision that the facing is able to be seen, again, the rules must be taken as a whole and as the rulebook often does, it starts out with simple concepts and gets more involved, the vehicle section starts out by saying that the model must be able to see the hull or turret in order to even shoot at the vehicle, this is not the section where the explain armor facings and LOS to vehicles, this is done later... Then the rules go on to explain, as promised, armor facing arcs... wherein it says the shot comes from the arc the model is in... you are only given permission (right at this point) to shoot at one armor facing... This does not, however, explain LOS to vehicles... Thus we move on. Then on P62 the rules, as promised, explain what is required in order to shoot at a particular vehicle, the rules explain the concept of obscured etc... This is where LOS is explained and not a moment earlier... what do we do if the facing is 100% obscured? Well, we dont know yet because the rules have not explained them to us... Then, the rules explain to us that if the unit cannot see the facing they are in (and they already spent several pages explain TLOS and firers needing to see their targets) but they can see another facing, they may shoot at the second facing instead of not firing at all...

Again, TLOS is required to fire, the rulebook gives permission to fire at the facing that the model is in, the rulebook demonstrates that TLOS is required in order to fire, whenever a model cannot see its target, (and dont fool yourself, the target is the facing) it cannot fire, then it moves on to give explicit permission to fire at a second facing even when the arc the model is in cannot be seen and normally the model can only fire at the arc it is in, thus they set up an extraordinary claim which states that if a second facing can be seen that the model may breach the normal rules and fire at this second facing... Again... Simple...

One last note, your position does not explain what happens when the model can only see one facing... Because if a model can only see one facing then the extraordinary claim does not enter in and your misunderstanding of the word "May" never comes into play and you then dont have a choice to shoot at the arc the model is in... So... Your position is:

If a model is in an arc that is 100% obscured but the model can still see a second facing, the model may fire at the 100% obscured facing, but, if the model is head on a vehicle, as in the vehicle is moving directly towards the firer but there is a tree giving it 100% obscurity... then your position breaks down... So it only works some of the time... interesting...

Again, no option is given, if one was given it would have to be explicit like Force Weapons, since you cannot quote this explicit permission like with force weapons, you are wrong.

visavismeyou wrote:
May move all his models, is not may move his models or the terrain... Your reading is the latter... may fire at the 3+ facing is may fire at the 3+ facing or may not fire at all, yes there is an option, to do what you're given permission to do or not; you are not given permission to fire at a facing you cannot see. Again, you are avoiding your mistake and your failure; quote where you're permitted to fire at something you cannot see and you win.

We already did show that you can fire at the vehicle even if you cannot see the particular facing. You yourself have said that the vehicle is the target, and measuring has absolutely nothing to do with this.

visavismeyou wrote:
Permission to fire at a vehicle is given with the provision that the facing is able to be seen

Again, I point out that you are given permission to draw line of sight to the vehicle's hull or turret mount.

visavismeyou wrote:(and dont fool yourself, the target is the facing)

Then why have you said otherwise so many times?

visavismeyou wrote:
If a model is in an arc that is 100% obscured but the model can still see a second facing, the model may fire at the 100% obscured facing, but, if the model is head on a vehicle, as in the vehicle is moving directly towards the firer but there is a tree giving it 100% obscurity... then your position breaks down... So it only works some of the time... interesting...

In the latter scenario, the model could not have drawn line of sight to the vehicle's hull or turret mount, as no part of the vehicle is visible.

thebetter1 wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:
I already have and you have yet to quote any RAW which states you are permitted to draw LOS to any facing but the facing the model is in. Before the extraordinary claim which I have quoted and explicated over and over there must be an explicit permission to do so in order for you to be right. Continuing to sidestep this necessity only further admits that you are misrepresenting RAW.

We already quoted the rule permitting this (drawing line of sight to the hull or turret mount). You continue to say it is wrong, simply because "the RAW disagrees." You keep claiming you have already proven your point, yet post after post I do not see any proof.

Again, that section is too early in the rules... Ok, this is how I'm going to play from now on...

MODIFYING DICE ROLLS
Sometimes, you may have to modify the result of the
dice roll.

I'm going to add 1 to every die roll because the rules say I can modify some die rolls...

A model is considered to occupy the area of its base, so
when measuring distances between two models, use
the closest point of their bases as your reference points.

I'm only going to measure to the base of every model, if a model does not have a base then I cannot measure to it... because the rules do not permit me to do so...

Again, you're taking this out of context and saying it means you're right... The rules move on to say that models without bases you measure to the closest point of the hull, if I stopped reading before that permission I would not understand the rules, just like you're doing, you say you can see 100% of the turret... therefore the vehicle does not have cover... This is nonsense (and you havn't explicitly stated this but this is coterminous with what you've said).

Also, the modifying dice, the rules move on to say that you only modify them when the rulebook says so, so if you stop reading too soon (as you're doing in the vehicle section) this makes no sense, the rules are not severable, they are holistic taking one rule out of context is an error on your part.

Certain pieces of wargear or special rules may modify a
model’s characteristics positively or negatively, by
adding to it (+1, +2, etc.) or even multiplying it (x2, x3,
etc.). However no modifier may raise any characteristic
above 10 or lower it below 0.

So you can never have attacks over 10?

Infantry move up to six inches (6") in the Movement
phase.

So infantry can move through other models?


Do you see what happens when you stop reading too soon in a rules section? The rules dont make any sense... So stop doing it... admit you're wrong... the rules as they are written... taken as the "Rules" and not just one line... are as I have explicated, Scott and Soup, you're wrong.