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.

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
I'm not claiming a connection I'm claiming if you Miss your Shooting attack you Miss your shooting attack. I can find you various instances of a shooting attack missing that has special rules on how to deal with a miss, scatter ect, however I can't see any of those rules for PS, and you can't find me one either.

So still no rule denying the page 67 permission to resolve the power?

Cool story bro. Keep saying things like they're facts and you have nothing to prove.

How was your tournament which specifically says you roll to hit and then disregard the roll? You never did let me know if they have a web page or which LGS it was.

You are shooting at me with a power.

Yes or no.

If you miss you miss. Now after missing you are welcome to resolve the power against a random target since the shooting rules do not apply. Just not my models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
I'm not claiming a connection I'm claiming if you Miss your Shooting attack you Miss your shooting attack. I can find you various instances of a shooting attack missing that has special rules on how to deal with a miss, scatter ect, however I can't see any of those rules for PS, and you can't find me one either.

Yes, there is no to wound roll, as you haven't hit. Good job the permission on page 67 to resolve the power doesn't say missing the to hit roll has any effect on things which aren't to-wound

Cool story, keep making up new terms, not based in rules, when you can't cite relevant rules,

The only person making up rules is you. I just say if you miss with your shooting attack you. Miss. You're saying well Dan there isn't a rule saying my miss matters. I'm saying. Wait. What did you do. You missed. With an ability that is a shooting attack. What happens when we miss with shooting attacks normally?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because the Doom's Pulse is similar to a Nova Psychic Power, so precedent would dictate that you get a cover save against it.

However you get a cover save unless specifically disallowed (Like CC attacks specify).

Can you take a cover save against the Deff Rolla? (RAW, yes you can as they do not disallow a cover save).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormbreed wrote:
The 3D6 ability is fired at the target as a shooting attack,

Not quite, the power Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire.

if it misses I see no special permission for it to hit. I know what a miss is, nothing to prove.

Well, the roll to hit is irrelevant as there is no To Wound roll (Which demonstrably has been determined is what follows a To Hit roll), so you need to prove that a miss somehow stops you from rolling the 3d6-LD roll.

No argument against you. But regardless one FAQ says yes one says no. Dooms pulse may be similar to a Nova but it isn't

Okay so you say the to hit roll doesn't natter, I get that, except what about precision shots?

I think it's silly this hasn't been FAQ'd.

Should be a malediction or just a weird weapon /w a special wound ability.

It's one of the most popular powers out there because, generally, a successful hit isn't needed.

Whether you hit or not is irrelevant I feel, there isn't a profile available BUT witchfires require a BS test to be made.

RAW I think it's broken as we simply don't know how many dice to pick up to try and hit and at the same time the hit's/misses don't matter

Theres no way to argue it NEEDS to hit because ther's simply not a profile.

RAI/We play it, as a malediction in the shooting phase. Really it could go either way though with RAI, The powers really good.

What if it was 4d6 to wound and Assault 4 O: Interesting


Automatically Appended Next Post:

zhutch wrote:
Okay so you say the to hit roll doesn't natter, I get that, except what about precision shots?

Again theres no profile so there are no wounds to allocate taking into consideration 6's.

Precision doesn't work for special abilities

And just to be clear, I'm comparing the special ability of shriek to something like soul blaze in terms of not being part of the profile/not needing to hit's to be made.

I may not represent everyone else interpretation though.

Storm - so you're saying you can ignore page 67, AND make up a new rule, all without ever providing a single rule?

Cool story

The no connection side is proven, unless and until you provide the rules. Failure to do so in your next response will be considered to be concession that you are unable or unwilling to provide any such proof.

The shooting (to hit, to wound) missed. Good job the target doesn't alter, and page 67 tells me to continue resolving.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - so you're saying you can ignore page 67, AND make up a new rule, all without ever providing a single rule?

Cool story

The no connection side is proven, unless and until you provide the rules. Failure to do so in your next response will be considered to be concession that you are unable or unwilling to provide any such proof.

The shooting (to hit, to wound) missed. Good job the target doesn't alter, and page 67 tells me to continue resolving.

Actually I'm following page 68 resolve psychic power, which is more detailed and tells me to resolve the power according to its entry. Then page 69 explains how to resolve a Psychic Shooting Attack. Unless you can provide an allowance for you to resolve a miss with Psychic Shooting Attacks I will accept your concession.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aijec wrote:
I think it's silly this hasn't been FAQ'd.

Should be a malediction or just a weird weapon /w a special wound ability.

It's one of the most popular powers out there because, generally, a successful hit isn't needed.

Whether you hit or not is irrelevant I feel, there isn't a profile available BUT witchfires require a BS test to be made.

RAW I think it's broken as we simply don't know how many dice to pick up to try and hit and at the same time the hit's/misses don't matter

Theres no way to argue it NEEDS to hit because ther's simply not a profile.

RAI/We play it, as a malediction in the shooting phase. Really it could go either way though with RAI, The powers really good.

What if it was 4d6 to wound and Assault 4 O: Interesting


Automatically Appended Next Post:

zhutch wrote:
Okay so you say the to hit roll doesn't natter, I get that, except what about precision shots?

Again theres no profile so there are no wounds to allocate taking into consideration 6's.

Precision doesn't work for special abilities

And just to be clear, I'm comparing the special ability of shriek to something like soul blaze in terms of not being part of the profile/not needing to hit's to be made.

I may not represent everyone else interpretation though.

Agreed. This is a RAI argument and I'm fine playing it you don't need to hit, it makes since from a fluff stand point. I just don't agree with rolling to hit, missing and still forcing my opponent to take wounds.

Why is everyone arguing why it's broken according to RAW instead of the most acceptable RAI solution?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - so you're saying you can ignore page 67, AND make up a new rule, all without ever providing a single rule?

Cool story

The no connection side is proven, unless and until you provide the rules. Failure to do so in your next response will be considered to be concession that you are unable or unwilling to provide any such proof.

The shooting (to hit, to wound) missed. Good job the target doesn't alter, and page 67 tells me to continue resolving.

I accept your lack of proof as a concession. Thank you for not following the tenets, again, Nos.

SJ

Storm - the entry states you roll 3d6. Nothing states you have to successfully roll to hit first

Concession accepted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - the entry states you roll 3d6. Nothing states you have to successfully roll to hit first

Concession accepted.

Nos your common mistake is clear. You're going to page 67 and seeing "resolve power". But you missed page 68 which explains how to do so. It specifically shows the different ways of resolving the different types of powers. More over it specifically gives allowance for beams and novas to not roll to hit. An allowance which it doesn't give witch fire powers. Witch fire powers must hit to resolve.

I don't expect a concession. Nor should you at this point. Only one of us believes RAI you roll to hit, miss and then look your opponent in the eye and tell him the to hit roll didn't matter and you still resolve your power that missed.

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
I'm not claiming a connection I'm claiming if you Miss your Shooting attack you Miss your shooting attack. I can find you various instances of a shooting attack missing that has special rules on how to deal with a miss, scatter ect, however I can't see any of those rules for PS, and you can't find me one either.

So still no rule denying the page 67 permission to resolve the power?

Cool story bro. Keep saying things like they're facts and you have nothing to prove.

How was your tournament which specifically says you roll to hit and then disregard the roll? You never did let me know if they have a web page or which LGS it was.

Hasn't happened yet. Small store just getting a 40k environment started. Thanks for your concern though.

You are shooting at me with a power.

Yes or no.

Yes. See how simple answering a yes or no question is? Would you mind answering mine finally?

If you miss you miss. Now after missing you are welcome to resolve the power against a random target since the shooting rules do not apply. Just not my models.

When have I ever said the shooting rules do not apply? And why are you making things up?

The only person making up rules is you. I just say if you miss with your shooting attack you. Miss. You're saying well Dan there isn't a rule saying my miss matters. I'm saying. Wait. What did you do. You missed. With an ability that is a shooting attack. What happens when we miss with shooting attacks normally?

Normally shooting attacks have a profile. Have you found PS's profile yet? Since your argument hinges on it and all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormbreed wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - so you're saying you can ignore page 67, AND make up a new rule, all without ever providing a single rule?

Cool story

The no connection side is proven, unless and until you provide the rules. Failure to do so in your next response will be considered to be concession that you are unable or unwilling to provide any such proof.

The shooting (to hit, to wound) missed. Good job the target doesn't alter, and page 67 tells me to continue resolving.

Actually I'm following page 68 resolve psychic power, which is more detailed and tells me to resolve the power according to its entry. Then page 69 explains how to resolve a Psychic Shooting Attack. Unless you can provide an allowance for you to resolve a miss with Psychic Shooting Attacks I will accept your concession.

You've still not shown an actual connection that you keep saying is there. You've repeated over and over that a miss means you can't apply the rest of the rules for the power. You've failed to actually prove that however.

Agreed. This is a RAI argument and I'm fine playing it you don't need to hit, it makes since from a fluff stand point. I just don't agree with rolling to hit, missing and still forcing my opponent to take wounds.

Whatever, I'm done. Have fun with your failure to prove a point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormbreed wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - the entry states you roll 3d6. Nothing states you have to successfully roll to hit first

Concession accepted.

Nos your common mistake is clear. You're going to page 67 and seeing "resolve power". But you missed page 68 which explains how to do so. It specifically shows the different ways of resolving the different types of powers. More over it specifically gives allowance for beams and novas to not roll to hit. An allowance which it doesn't give witch fire powers. Witch fire powers must hit to resolve.

I'm sure you can quote a rule saying so. Since you keep asserting it and all.

Rigeld2 you say "I'm done"

then add in more, sigh.

I've proven my points and back them up with rules. Page 67 gives you the order of operations, which ends in resolve your power, then on page 68 it explains how to resolve individual powers based on their type. It even goes into detail on how Nova's and Beams don't need to hit, however it does not give such an exclusion for the witch fire powers.

Again we can't because we don't have a profile. We've agreed on that since page 1, no argument hinges on that, just because the rules do not work RAW doesn't mean there is a clear RAI to "Witch Fire Power Must Roll To Hit" and the conclusion of what happens if you "Miss".

Stormbreed wrote:
Rigeld2 you say "I'm done"

then add in more, sigh.

Yes. I get frustrated with your arguing for RAI and asserting facts as if you're arguing RAW.

I've proven my points and back them up with rules. Page 67 gives you the order of operations, which ends in resolve your power, then on page 68 it explains how to resolve individual powers based on their type. It even goes into detail on how Nova's and Beams don't need to hit, however it does not give such an exclusion for the witch fire powers.

Again you're failing to show a link between hitting and applying the effects of the power. It's like you have no idea what I'm actually arguing.

Again we can't because we don't have a profile. We've agreed on that since page 1, no argument hinges on that, just because the rules do not work RAW doesn't mean there is a clear RAI to "Witch Fire Power Must Roll To Hit" and the conclusion of what happens if you "Miss".

And yet you keep saying I'm incorrect. If you say it's not clear how can it be clear that your argument is correct and mine isn't?
Especially since you aren't proving what I'm saying wrong - you're making up an argument for me and disproving that. Ever heard of a straw man argument?

As above - storm, you haven't proven a single thing.

Prove that you cannot resolve the 3d6 effect when you miss. Page and para, with full wording. Nothing less will be accepted.

Until then, the default - that an unrelated roll has no effect on resolving the 3d6 - remains the default.

So since rolling to hit happens before resolving the power, doors that mean we have to roll to hit with Smite, before rolling to see if each shot hits?

 Happyjew wrote:
So since rolling to hit happens before resolving the power, doors that mean we have to roll to hit with Smite, before rolling to see if each shot hits?

Of course, wouldn't want to be inconsistent when making up rules...

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Rigeld2 you say "I'm done"

then add in more, sigh.

Yes. I get frustrated with your arguing for RAI and asserting facts as if you're arguing RAW.

I've stated outright that this is a RAI argument. I've also stated my LGS have ruled you simply do not roll to hit.

The way I believe RAI works. If you're going to roll to hit, or play somewhere that is forcing you to roll the one dice as it is one power.

1. Roll to hit.
2. Miss
3. You missed

The way you're arguing it works

1. Roll to hit
2. Miss
3. Explain to the person across the table you are still going to resolve the power you just rolled to hit with, but missed
4. Person argues you're wrong, you now spend a rather large chunk of time showing him how there is no link between the to hit roll and the powers effect happening.
5. TO comes over and says you rolled to hit and missed perhaps he even rules in your favor (again no major tournament, battle report or LGS I've been too has ever ruled this way)

In the already time crunched experience of a tournament I believe RAI I'm correct and you are wrong.

RAW I still don't see a permission for you to resolve a power that you must roll to hit with and you miss. Perhaps you're both right and I can admit it, however I just don't see a permission. If the argument is, "well we don't need to show permission because page 67 says to resolve the power" then what of page 68 which specifically tells you "this is how you resolve different powers" and witch fire specifically needing to hit.

RAW I'm not sold RAI I'm most certainly not sold. I'm not being stubborn, I'm not looking to make you frustrated I'm just looking for one line that says Witchfire spells with a to wound special effect can disregard their to hit roll.

Again, page 68 says you roll to hit. It does not say all non to wound effects depend upon this.

That is your claim, and I isn't clear when you're arguing RAW or just made up rules

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, page 68 says you roll to hit. It does not say all non to wound effects depend upon this.

That is your claim, and I isn't clear when you're arguing RAW or just made up rules

You have failed to prove that the 3d6-Ld mechanic is not a To Wound effect.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
a To Wound effect.

Citation needed, I am not sure what a 'To Wound effect' is using the 40k Rules. Page and graph please.

I see To Hit and To Wound, but not your assertation of a 'To Wound effect'

jeffersonian000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, page 68 says you roll to hit. It does not say all non to wound effects depend upon this.

That is your claim, and I isn't clear when you're arguing RAW or just made up rules

You have failed to prove that the 3d6-Ld mechanic is not a To Wound effect.

SJ

Is it found under the 'To Wound' section in the shooting rules? No.
Well, looks like you need to find some evidence of that claim that is not sheer speculation. You rationale for how it could work and make sense is not proof that it does or was even intended to work that way.

Such evidence is required before any other consideration to this theory needs be given.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
a To Wound effect.

Citation needed, I am not sure what a 'To Wound effect' is using the 40k Rules. Page and graph please.

I see To Hit and To Wound, but not your assertation of a 'To Wound effect'

Top of page 423, under "Psychic Shriek",

Roll 3d6 and subtract the target's Leadership - the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result.

I bolded underlined it, on the off chance you missed it. Note how the word "Wounds" is capitalized, just like "Wound" is capitalized on page 14 under Roll To Wound, or as seen under every rules entry that involves dealing wounds to a target? The capitalization denotes a mechanic, which in this case is listed as the effect of the Psychic power Psychic Shriek.

SJ

So to-hit rolls with plasma weapons, psychic tests, dangerous terrain tests, etc. are al, to Wound rolls?

Interesting statement. Completely against the actual rules, but min it surprised that you wrote it.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
a To Wound effect.

Citation needed, I am not sure what a 'To Wound effect' is using the 40k Rules. Page and graph please.

I see To Hit and To Wound, but not your assertation of a 'To Wound effect'

Top of page 423, under "Psychic Shriek",

Roll 3d6 and subtract the target's Leadership - the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result.

I bolded underlined it, on the off chance you missed it. Note how the word "Wounds" is capitalized, just like "Wound" is capitalized on page 14 under Roll To Wound, or as seen under every rules entry that involves dealing wounds to a target? The capitalization denotes a mechanic, which in this case is listed as the effect of the Psychic power Psychic Shriek.

SJ

That does not say 'To Wound effect'

You might want to read that one a bit closer...


It can cause Wounds, but that is not a To Wound...

Page 2 describes the Wounds characteristic.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
a To Wound effect.

Citation needed, I am not sure what a 'To Wound effect' is using the 40k Rules. Page and graph please.

I see To Hit and To Wound, but not your assertation of a 'To Wound effect'

Top of page 423, under "Psychic Shriek",

Roll 3d6 and subtract the target's Leadership - the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result.

I bolded underlined it, on the off chance you missed it. Note how the word "Wounds" is capitalized, just like "Wound" is capitalized on page 14 under Roll To Wound, or as seen under every rules entry that involves dealing wounds to a target? The capitalization denotes a mechanic, which in this case is listed as the effect of the Psychic power Psychic Shriek.

SJ

Perhaps you missed the variation in the term there. Specifically, 'To Wound' is not the same as 'Wound'.

'To Wound' is the given label of a mechanic(To Wound) that transforms Hits into Wounds per the BRB pg 14 in the Roll To Wound section where it details the process. This function requires
use of the To Wound chart so, unless otherwise noted, To Wound rolls require use of that process... Does PS note otherwise or have you roll on the To Wound chart? No.

'Wounds' caused to a unit are a mechanic that are detailed in the next section called Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties.

Please learn the difference. A unit does not suffer a number of 'To Wounds'... that would be suffering 'a number of charts'. While I'll admit charts can be deadly what they actually suffer are Wounds and they can come from any number of sources with no 'To Wound' roll needed.

Perhaps you are over thinking English as a language? I'm not going to post dictionary definitions, nor explain grammar, seeing as both of you are trying to be obtuse.

I stated that the effect of Psychic Shriek, the 3d6-Ld=wounds, replaces the To Wound mechanic found on page 14. You claim the 3d6-Ld is not "wounds", despite the fact that it is Wounds.

As you are not able to refute this with a rules based argument, I accept your concession on this matter.

SJ

You can not resolve a witch fire without a role to hit. Brb page 68.

You can now resolve the power according to its entry.

So we know we have to follow the rules for the type of power we want to resolve.

PS is a witch fire. Lets check how to resolve a witch fire.

Brb page 68. All psychic powers are organized into catagories to determine what the requirements are and any restrictions that apply with its type.

Brb page 69.

A witch fire power must roll to hit. This is a requirement. You don't hit you don't resolve.

You have no permission to resolve a witch fire unless you hit.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Perhaps you are over thinking English as a language? I'm not going to post dictionary definitions, nor explain grammar, seeing as both of you are trying to be obtuse.

I stated that the effect of Psychic Shriek, the 3d6-Ld=wounds, replaces the To Wound mechanic found on page 14. You claim the 3d6-Ld is not "wounds", despite the fact that it is Wounds.

As you are not able to refute this with a rules based argument, I accept your concession on this matter.

SJ

You have stated that because A leads to B and C leads to B that A=C, which is not logically sound. The effect does not determine the nature of the cause nor do correlations between the effects mean there are correlations between the causes. B cannot be used as a basis to compare A and C. The cause is not the effect. This means that even though the 3d6-Ld creates wounds and a 'To Wound' mechanic creates wounds, no further comparison can be drawn from that.

So yeah, they both cause wounds... And? That fact by itself does not mean anything. No other logical connection or comparison can be made between the two based on solely that piece of information.

Fires die.
People die.
Fires must be a replacement for people...

Stormbreed wrote:
A witch fire power must roll to hit. This is a requirement. You don't hit you don't resolve.

You have no permission to resolve a witch fire unless you hit.

Funny, neither of my rule books say this on any of pages 67-69. I'm sure I'm missing it - could you provide a quote? Or which paragraph and page it's on? I'm sure it's just me failing to find the rule you're asserting is there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Perhaps you are over thinking English as a language? I'm not going to post dictionary definitions, nor explain grammar, seeing as both of you are trying to be obtuse.

Considering to do so would violate one of the tenets, it might have been a better idea than breaking rule #1.

I stated that the effect of Psychic Shriek, the 3d6-Ld=wounds, replaces the To Wound mechanic found on page 14. You claim the 3d6-Ld is not "wounds", despite the fact that it is Wounds.

Well, no. We're not claiming that. You have literally zero evidence to support your claim and it's trivial to prove it is not a to wound roll.
How you ask?
The To Wound process is defined on page 14. You have no rule saying "instead of rolling to wound" or anything like that - instead you're inventing a link and pretending there is rules support while citing none. Again, not surprised you've done this.

As you are not able to refute this with a rules based argument, I accept your concession on this matter.

As soon as you come up with rules support I'll refute it. Until then you will not accept my concession as it's not offered. Please dont presume anything when it comes to that, especially when your argument is as flimsy as the one you've presented.
"It's totes a to wound roll. How do I know? Duh, I said it was!"
Yeah, solid reasoning there old chap.

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
A witch fire power must roll to hit. This is a requirement. You don't hit you don't resolve.

You have no permission to resolve a witch fire unless you hit.

Funny, neither of my rule books say this on any of pages 67-69. I'm sure I'm missing it - could you provide a quote? Or which paragraph and page it's on? I'm sure it's just me failing to find the rule you're asserting is there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Perhaps you are over thinking English as a language? I'm not going to post dictionary definitions, nor explain grammar, seeing as both of you are trying to be obtuse.

Considering to do so would violate one of the tenets, it might have been a better idea than breaking rule #1.

I stated that the effect of Psychic Shriek, the 3d6-Ld=wounds, replaces the To Wound mechanic found on page 14. You claim the 3d6-Ld is not "wounds", despite the fact that it is Wounds.

Well, no. We're not claiming that. You have literally zero evidence to support your claim and it's trivial to prove it is not a to wound roll.
How you ask?
The To Wound process is defined on page 14. You have no rule saying "instead of rolling to wound" or anything like that - instead you're inventing a link and pretending there is rules support while citing none. Again, not surprised you've done this.

As you are not able to refute this with a rules based argument, I accept your concession on this matter.

As soon as you come up with rules support I'll refute it. Until then you will not accept my concession as it's not offered. Please dont presume anything when it comes to that, especially when your argument is as flimsy as the one you've presented.
"It's totes a to wound roll. How do I know? Duh, I said it was!"
Yeah, solid reasoning there old chap.

I'm still waiting for you to prove Wounds =/= Wounds.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

I'm still waiting for you to prove Wounds =/= Wounds.

SJ

...

That has nothing to do with anything but... ok... You may wait for that if you like... It might be a while as you are the only on claiming anyone has claimed it... or that it might prove something...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Perhaps you are over thinking English as a language? I'm not going to post dictionary definitions, nor explain grammar, seeing as both of you are trying to be obtuse.

I stated that the effect of Psychic Shriek, the 3d6-Ld=wounds, replaces the To Wound mechanic found on page 14. You claim the 3d6-Ld is not "wounds", despite the fact that it is Wounds.

As you are not able to refute this with a rules based argument, I accept your concession on this matter.

SJ

...and a note on proper reading FYI

to Wound ≠ To Wound

You see any roll that might cause a wound could be considered a roll 'to Wound'. As opposed to a 'To Wound' roll, which is only ever made using the chart labeled 'To Wound' unless otherwise noted. As rigeld pointed out, PS does not ask you to make a 'To Wound' roll of any sort nor does it suggest a replacement of that specific function. Your insistence that you are rolling dice in order to Wound the unit has nothing to do with this.

Please be careful in the future when making disparaging suggestions regarding other peoples comprehensive reading abilities that you yourself fully comprehend the pertinent material.