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.

Yeah...vets aren't even bad - compared to an infantry squad they are bad but infantry are obviously 5 point models not 4 lol.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah...vets aren't even bad - compared to an infantry squad they are bad but infantry are obviously 5 point models not 4 lol.

they're mostly bad because you take them as special weapon spam units and you've got

-Scion-prices on their two best specials
-You can just take Command Squads, which are priced identically per model and can just all take special weapons. So instead of a 10-man squad where 6 are 100% stuck with expensive lasgunners to get you three specials, you can have a 4-man squad with just the specials
-You want to take them in a transport, which is basically spending even more good points after bad units because chimeras are really expensive and not great.
-Scions and Infantry squads are also right there, and in the troop role so they get you more command points.

Veterans are both internally and externally not good. If they were troops, I'd probably agree that they're just internally not good, but they are elites.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah...vets aren't even bad - compared to an infantry squad they are bad but infantry are obviously 5 point models not 4 lol.

they're mostly bad because you take them as special weapon spam units and you've got

-Scion-prices on their two best specials
-You can just take Command Squads, which are priced identically per model and can just all take special weapons. So instead of a 10-man squad where 6 are 100% stuck with expensive lasgunners to get you three specials, you can have a 4-man squad with just the specials
-You want to take them in a transport, which is basically spending even more good points after bad units because chimeras are really expensive and not great.
-Scions and Infantry squads are also right there, and in the troop role so they get you more command points.

Veterans are both internally and externally not good. If they were troops, I'd probably agree that they're just internally not good, but they are elites.

Filling elites is actually a benefit if you want to complete brigades. You don't even need to put a single special weapon on them - they are great for FRFSRF.

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah...vets aren't even bad - compared to an infantry squad they are bad but infantry are obviously 5 point models not 4 lol.

they're mostly bad because you take them as special weapon spam units and you've got

-Scion-prices on their two best specials
-You can just take Command Squads, which are priced identically per model and can just all take special weapons. So instead of a 10-man squad where 6 are 100% stuck with expensive lasgunners to get you three specials, you can have a 4-man squad with just the specials
-You want to take them in a transport, which is basically spending even more good points after bad units because chimeras are really expensive and not great.
-Scions and Infantry squads are also right there, and in the troop role so they get you more command points.

Veterans are both internally and externally not good. If they were troops, I'd probably agree that they're just internally not good, but they are elites.

Filling elites is actually a benefit if you want to complete brigades. You don't even need to put a single special weapon on them - they are great for FRFSRF.

They're not though. Taking naked veteran squads as elites on foot and trying to use them for FRFSRF is just objectively points inefficient, especially in a guard army presenting those same toughness targets in the troop slot but less effective for less points. The vets are just going to die before they fire.

If I said "Tactical marines are only bad because you're taking them in transports with special weapons - they're great if you just walk them up the field with bolters in a captain aura!" you'd quite rightly just laugh at me. If they were the only option in the elites slot, you'd take them just to fill brigades, but they'd be a tax. Currently they're competing with command squads, scion command squads, commissars, priests, bullgryn, ratlings, platoon commanders and astropaths and they're just never going to win that fight because they are a below-average unit in the context of the rest of the armies currently in the game and they're in a codex filled with average to amazing stuff.

Wait.. 60 pts per squad is a complain-able tax? wow.. i mean.. you are truly taxed and oppressed.

Yes, there are better units for that slot within your codex, but FRFSRF firing 4 shots each at 12", hitting 2/3rd the time, 40 shots 26 hits. 4 to wounds on a 6+ to wound.. out of 60 points of tax is something i think a few codexes/indexes would like to have words about

How quickly the IG becomes the Eldar.

 pumaman1 wrote:
Wait.. 60 pts per squad is a complain-able tax? wow.. i mean.. you are truly taxed and oppressed.

Yes, there are better units for that slot within your codex, but FRFSRF firing 4 shots each at 12", hitting 2/3rd the time, 40 shots 26 hits. 4 to wounds on a 6+ to wound.. out of 60 points of tax is something i think a few codexes/indexes would like to have words about

60+30 for the commander you just used to give them four shots. Also, it's 37 shots at 12", the sarge just has a pistol.

For 1 point more per model, I can have a Skitarii Ranger, who has

-Troop slot
-30" range, S4 rapid fire gun that gets -1AP when it wounds on a 6
-4+ armor, 6++
-Canticles of the Omnissiah, which does not require me to use points to purchase an officer to use them
-Pretty much universally better and cheaper special weapons
-Minimum squad size 5 and no mandatory sarge melee gear

and THOSE are considered bad. So yeah, 60 points for a vet squad that might be useful if I manage to get them within 12" and in order range to rapid fire something that cares about S3 AP-, I'm unimpressed.

 pumaman1 wrote:
Wait.. 60 pts per squad is a complain-able tax? wow.. i mean.. you are truly taxed and oppressed.

Yes, there are better units for that slot within your codex, but FRFSRF firing 4 shots each at 12", hitting 2/3rd the time, 40 shots 26 hits. 4 to wounds on a 6+ to wound.. out of 60 points of tax is something i think a few codexes/indexes would like to have words about

Except its not just 60pts, you have to purchase an officer, and have them nearby (and a target within 12"), making that a minimum of 80pts (or 75pts if you want to include an HQ officer and split its cost among the two units it can issue orders to). Against a 6+ to wound, assuming a 3+ save (most anything T6+ is going to have a 3+ save), we're averaging 1.4 wounds for 75/80pts.

Thank you for noting the sarge does only have las pistol, that is a legitimate mistake. but for 5 points you can get a bs3+ plasma pistol, and plasma is pretty rockin'

Rangers are bad because they have to foot-slog, they don't have a standard way of getting across the board quickly/deep-striking. They don't even have the option for an overpriced chimera to take them "safely" across the board to camp in cover with a las cannon and 8 ablative wounds, with cadian to re-roll 1s sitting still.
Agreed you do have better for elites, but for the "terri-bad, never take," impression that i am getting, i don't think its earned. And you get 2 per necron warrior, and i think most people would like 2 vets over 1 necron warrior

 master of ordinance wrote:
The exact same way the Imperial Guard handled Tau over the last two editions:
learn your opponents army, learn how to play, get good and get lucky.

Ironic isn’t it? I remember a time when Tau players would smoke armies easily... Tau once were a very very tough army to play against. I feel it’s a lot more balanced now.

It's hilarious to see people dismiss 75% of the Guard codex as overpriced and unviable, even tho it's all better or on par with options in other codexes. Every other model in the game is overpriced if you compare it with the "viable" IG options.

Sedraxis wrote:
It's hilarious to see people dismiss 75% of the Guard codex as overpriced and unviable, even tho it's all better or on par with options in other codexes. Every other model in the game is overpriced if you compare it with the "viable" IG options.

^That. IG is insanely powerful right now, and it has an absolute ASSLOAD of good choices and combos available. This is not in question.

Most people would just give the vet sarge a bolter which is only 1 point a little worse to the same in about every situation as the double shooting lasgun.

Also you don't factor the cost of a 30 point co commander into the cost of the unit because you have to take it anyways to make a brigade cheaply. The standard setup for an IG brigade gives you 6 orders for 6 infantry squads and 3 vet squads. Considering you are going to lose some infantry over the course of the game so it's actually efficient to not have a commander for every unit or you'll have commanders running around doing nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sedraxis wrote:
It's hilarious to see people dismiss 75% of the Guard codex as overpriced and unviable, even tho it's all better or on par with options in other codexes. Every other model in the game is overpriced if you compare it with the "viable" IG options.

What you are meaning is it is funny to see how even mediocre AM units are better than just about everyone elses units that are considered good.

usmcmidn wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
The exact same way the Imperial Guard handled Tau over the last two editions:
learn your opponents army, learn how to play, get good and get lucky.

Ironic isn’t it? I remember a time when Tau players would smoke armies easily... Tau once were a very very tough army to play against. I feel it’s a lot more balanced now.

Yeah, and I question how much of the problem with Tau is simply people not adapting their armies to 8th edition meta.

The best Tau army I have seen was Fire Warriors and drones. Blew away Orks left and right. Not perfect, but was certainly not horrible.

 techsoldaten wrote:

usmcmidn wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
The exact same way the Imperial Guard handled Tau over the last two editions:
learn your opponents army, learn how to play, get good and get lucky.

Ironic isn’t it? I remember a time when Tau players would smoke armies easily... Tau once were a very very tough army to play against. I feel it’s a lot more balanced now.

Yeah, and I question how much of the problem with Tau is simply people not adapting their armies to 8th edition meta.

The best Tau army I have seen was Fire Warriors and drones. Blew away Orks left and right. Not perfect, but was certainly not horrible.

t7/8 3+ 14w is a bit different than massed t4 5+ 1w... But in this very specific and very common application (versus armor guard, or heavy armor supported infantry), Tau feels a bit short on answers. And in general from Tau players, and people who've faced tau regularly, yes Tau are in a bad way. we've got 1 "reliable" trick, deepstriking quad-fusion commander, that is well known and easily shut down.

 techsoldaten wrote:

usmcmidn wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
The exact same way the Imperial Guard handled Tau over the last two editions:
learn your opponents army, learn how to play, get good and get lucky.

Ironic isn’t it? I remember a time when Tau players would smoke armies easily... Tau once were a very very tough army to play against. I feel it’s a lot more balanced now.

Yeah, and I question how much of the problem with Tau is simply people not adapting their armies to 8th edition meta.

The best Tau army I have seen was Fire Warriors and drones. Blew away Orks left and right. Not perfect, but was certainly not horrible.

Saying Tau do well against Orks and are therefore not terrible is not a very persuasive argument due to the kicking that the orks have endured for several editions when it comes to them getting good rules from GW.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Most people would just give the vet sarge a bolter which is only 1 point a little worse to the same in about every situation as the double shooting lasgun.

Also you don't factor the cost of a 30 point co commander into the cost of the unit because you have to take it anyways to make a brigade cheaply. The standard setup for an IG brigade gives you 6 orders for 6 infantry squads and 3 vet squads. Considering you are going to lose some infantry over the course of the game so it's actually efficient to not have a commander for every unit or you'll have commanders running around doing nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sedraxis wrote:
It's hilarious to see people dismiss 75% of the Guard codex as overpriced and unviable, even tho it's all better or on par with options in other codexes. Every other model in the game is overpriced if you compare it with the "viable" IG options.

What you are meaning is it is funny to see how even mediocre AM units are better than just about everyone elses units that are considered good.

...you do have to factor him in, because he does cost points and usually the standard ig brigade actually fills that slot with 2 commanders and a psyker. Unless in the Skitarii conversation you want to factor in a TPD, which I did not because he's not free either.

And it is funny, but mostly because of how people like you are sitting there just willing something to be true no matter how ridiculous it is.

Look at the reply from the guy who bothered to even address the Skitarii comparison. Skitarii are bad because they can't get across the board. And we're comparing them, saying that they are worse somehow than a unit with shorter range, lower armor, no shroudpsalm, and lower minimum squad size because....you want it to be?

You're saying that vets are better than others' good units. I'm saying that they're worse than Skitarii in almost every measurable way, which are considered a bad unit. Which good units then are they so much better than?

Is sad to see how people look at a codex and in 15 minutes they discard 90% of the codex as "overpriced crap" even without trying anything.

I have seen it with the Tyranid Codex. I have a good friend that has played Tyranids since 2nd edition, that is basically 100% tournament player. For him, this new 8th Tyranid Codex has just some units that are not optimal, but the rest of the codex goes from decent/balanced to pretty good.
But then, reading any kind of thread about Tyranids you'll find that if something isn't literally THE BEST AT EVERYTHING is just crap.

The black and white mentality of the min/maxer sucks all the fun out of this.

Vets are in the "ok" category within the IG codex. They can synergize very well with other units, and their options for kitting them out with special/heavy weapons makes them a flexible unit. 80 pts to put a vet squad with a lascannon team really isn't bad when you consider doctrines and orders that synergize well with them. My typical build with them is cadian veterans with 3 snipers and a lascannon. You have 5 ablative wounds before you lose any meaningful firepower, have the range to sit still and get the free rerolling 1's, and can be ordered to reroll all misses instead, or 1's to wound or both (w/laurels). They don't have an officer tax like the command squads do either.

An alternate take is running a few Tallarn squads of these guys. Moving, advancing, and still getting to fire all their plasma is pretty nasty. Or ambush 2 vet squads with 3 plasma guns and a plasma pistol with an officer (with a plasma pistol because why not) and you have a relatively inexpensive force that will cause the opponent a headache, especially if you can ambush them into cover. It's not as cheap as 2 command squads, but 2 command squads has less than half the durability, and every casualty they take is a dead plasma gun vs the vets that can take some casualties without becoming a non-threat.

I don't feel like people value the ablative wounds enough. They are by far not the best unit in the codex, but you guys are making it out like there is some ridiculous gap in power between them and other units.

 Galas wrote:
Is sad to see how people look at a codex and in 15 minutes they discard 90% of the codex as "overpriced crap" even without trying anything.

I have seen it with the Tyranid Codex. I have a good friend that has played Tyranids since 2nd edition, that is basically 100% tournament player. For him, this new 8th Tyranid Codex has just some units that are not optimal, but the rest of the codex goes from decent/balanced to pretty good.
But then, reading any kind of thread about Tyranids you'll find that if something isn't literally THE BEST AT EVERYTHING is just crap.

The black and white mentality of the min/maxer sucks all the fun out of this.

What? Most of the nids book is really good and balance, IDK anyone that says most of the book is over priced crap, only a few units.

Look at DE if you want to see some Over priced crap, Heat Lance, Blaster Pistols, Reavers, Hellions, Talos, Cronos, Bloodbrides, Grots, literally all the Named HQ's. etc...

usmcmidn wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
The exact same way the Imperial Guard handled Tau over the last two editions:
learn your opponents army, learn how to play, get good and get lucky.

Ironic isn’t it? I remember a time when Tau players would smoke armies easily... Tau once were a very very tough army to play against. I feel it’s a lot more balanced now.

Eh, Tau shouldn't be paying for last edition's sins. Hopefully their codex, which I would hope is soon, improves them and cuts prices where necessary. From what I hear, they need maybe all of 1 thing nerfed, and just about 1/2 of the rest of their stuff buffed.

chrispy1991 wrote:Vets are in the "ok" category within the IG codex. They can synergize very well with other units, and their options for kitting them out with special/heavy weapons makes them a flexible unit. 80 pts to put a vet squad with a lascannon team really isn't bad when you consider doctrines and orders that synergize well with them. My typical build with them is cadian veterans with 3 snipers and a lascannon. You have 5 ablative wounds before you lose any meaningful firepower, have the range to sit still and get the free rerolling 1's, and can be ordered to reroll all misses instead, or 1's to wound or both (w/laurels). They don't have an officer tax like the command squads do either.

An alternate take is running a few Tallarn squads of these guys. Moving, advancing, and still getting to fire all their plasma is pretty nasty. Or ambush 2 vet squads with 3 plasma guns and a plasma pistol with an officer (with a plasma pistol because why not) and you have a relatively inexpensive force that will cause the opponent a headache, especially if you can ambush them into cover. It's not as cheap as 2 command squads, but 2 command squads has less than half the durability, and every casualty they take is a dead plasma gun vs the vets that can take some casualties without becoming a non-threat.

I don't feel like people value the ablative wounds enough. They are by far not the best unit in the codex, but you guys are making it out like there is some ridiculous gap in power between them and other units.

The problem with Veterans is in several layers - they pay for Scion's sins, they are competing in the Elite slot rather than Troops, and in order for them to be effective, you need to sink a lot of points into them.

What I mean by Scion's sins is that they pay the same price for weapons as the unit that can deep strike accurately and dump their salvo into the foe. For any instance where you think on taking Veterans, you can just look and realize for a few points more you can take Scions and be that much more effective. I've suggested it before, but simply cutting the price of the special weapons 3 points (on 3+ units), and then actually making scions pay 3-4 points for their deep strike ability (which would become optional) would give Veterans a new breath of life. The options would be Veterans for cheaper bodies, Scions for the heavy infantry, and then deep strike scions for the heavy strike but at higher cost.

Being in the Elite slot, they are competing with other units that can be more useful. A Chimera is not the best thing in the world, so loading up on units other than Veterans could be a more efficient use for the transport - a Bullgryn taxi, fully kitted Command Squads, or heck, even stuffing 2 special weapons squads for the special weapon overload could be more useful investment. Note that all of those are in the Elite slot as well, and can perform at their job better than Veterans.

For the last point - you can equip Veterans up and make them killy, but by that point the points invested in them could have been better spent elsewhere. If you want to move them up the board without simply being killed off, you need a transport (Taurox or Chimera), to use those juicy orders you need an officer (20/30 points minimum) and likely a vox caster (10 points for 2), and then to spend the points to kit them out. A 3x melta squad in a Chimera with a Platoon Commander backing them up ends up running a minimum of 224 points. Meanwhile, within the same codex, you can just dump two squads of Scions with 4x melta between them without having to risk them on board while they advance for a total for 164 points (though why you'd use melta over plasma on them is up for debate).

And for the comment of "just filling Elite slots for brigade" - there are cheaper options for that as well.

I'd rank them as "below average" - just a little love and they would definitely be worth it, but as is they are just falling short of other options.

And I'd say the Guard dex is probably 1/5 below average/bad, 2/5 average, 1/5 good, and 1/5 too good. Tweak the highest performers and the lowest performers and it would be great. I think a good suggestion I heard that would fix a good chunk of issues is a general rule that makes indirect fire hit at a -1 unless it has direct line of sight. Combine this with an appropriately costed "spotter" unit that foes can target out, and you would get far more tactics and interesting interactions out of artillery combat.

You don't even need a spotter: give vox casters a purpose. Make them 10pts and allow indirect fire to enrmy units within 18" of a model with a vox.

I'm not sure why Vets are being discussed here... but they're inferior to both Infantry Squads and Scions for their purpose within a Guard Army.

And there are more useful options in the elite slot, like Masters of Ordnance, Harker, pretty much anything.

Vets want a transport. At that point, you could buy 20 scions with 8 specials, instead of 10 Vets with 3 Specials and a Chimera. [Ballparking, here.]


Also, Vets don't support board control like Infantry / Scions do. They're just inferior for the purposes that Guard would put them towards. They might be good in other armies, but they're not terribly useful to Guard.

B.O.A.R.D Control. Know it. Do it. Love it. Win it.

A Fire Warrior is basically an IG Infantryman with a 2 point weapon upgrade a 2 point armor upgrade and the greater good as it's special order.

They'll only get better when the codex introduces their faction abilities.

 techsoldaten wrote:

usmcmidn wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
The exact same way the Imperial Guard handled Tau over the last two editions:
learn your opponents army, learn how to play, get good and get lucky.

Ironic isn’t it? I remember a time when Tau players would smoke armies easily... Tau once were a very very tough army to play against. I feel it’s a lot more balanced now.

Yeah, and I question how much of the problem with Tau is simply people not adapting their armies to 8th edition meta.

The best Tau army I have seen was Fire Warriors and drones. Blew away Orks left and right. Not perfect, but was certainly not horrible.

Chapter tactics podcast went in depth summing up the 2017 8th ed year and at launch Tau dropped 30% in usage and even with commander spam in the bottom tier of usage and 3rd worst army in the game. Dark Eldar and Deathwatch have it worse. As time went in and power creep and people adapted to the Tau’s one easy to counter list they dropped off even more and are now completely irrelevant and only a diehard 4.5% use them now.

There is no question they were bad at launch and are now terrible.

Thanks chapter tactics crew. They have complete access to all the ITC data which backs up my point.
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/12/18/chapter-tactics-50-year-in-review-and-which-factions-dominated-2017/

Of course as in previous editions I doubt all the logic and facts in the world will mean anything to most users here. They seem to like arguing with no sources or data and emotions first. Thankfully your local resident misanthrope has got you covered.

Thanks chapter tactics crew. They have complete access to all the ITC data which backs up my point.
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/12/18/chapter-tactics-50-year-in-review-and-which-factions-dominated-2017/

Of course as in previous editions I doubt all the logic and facts in the world will mean anything to most users here. They seem to like arguing with no sources or data and emotions first. Thankfully your local resident misanthrope has got you covered.

I really think your problem is AM is a really good faction and Tau are not (but you have hope that your codex will fix it)

Also, looking at the other thread as to how many competitive/tourney lists people on this forum face it's pretty clear that the majority of people are beer&pretzels here instead of hyper competitive metas.

But listening to these results it's clear that SM and guilliman needed a nerf and Chaos/IG/Eldar were perfectly fine...I'm sure CA was an attempt to balance the meta and not sell more primaris at all...

 adamsouza wrote:
A Fire Warrior is basically an IG Infantryman with a 2 point weapon upgrade a 2 point armor upgrade and the greater good as it's special order.

They'll only get better when the codex introduces their faction abilities.

But those upgrades make an individual Fire Warrior twice the cost of the Guardsman. Are they twice as effective?

They are not twice as durable:
3 AP0 wounds needed to kill 2 guardsmen vs 2 wounds to kill 1 Fire Warrior.
2.4 AP-1 wounds to kill 2 guardsmen vs 1.5 to kill 1 Fire Warrior.
2 AP-2 wounds to kill 2 guardsmen vs 1.2 to kill 1 Fire Warrior.

So the guardsmen are more durable.

Their damage output? Per shot fired:
Against T3: 2 Guardsmen equals 0.5 wounds, 1 Fire Warrior equals 0.33 wounds.
Against T4: 2 Guardsmen = 0.33 wounds, 1 FW = 0.33 wounds.
Against T5: 2 Guardsmen = 0.33 wounds, 1 FW = 0.25 Wounds.
Against T6: 2 Guardsmen = 0.167 wounds, 1 FW = 0.167 wounds
Against T10: 2 G's = 0.167 wounds, 1 FW = 0.083 wounds.
So the guardsmen are more damaging except against T4, at which point they are equal.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:



They are not twice as durable:
3 AP0 wounds needed to kill 2 guardsmen vs 2 wounds to kill 1 Fire Warrior.
2.4 AP-1 wounds to kill 2 guardsmen vs 1.5 to kill 1 Fire Warrior.
2 AP-2 wounds to kill 2 guardsmen vs 1.2 to kill 1 Fire Warrior.

So the guardsmen are more durable.

?!?! They are both bs4+ T3, FW has a 4+ save, the guardsmen has a 5+, care to show the math on this one?

 pumaman1 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:



They are not twice as durable:
3 AP0 wounds needed to kill 2 guardsmen vs 2 wounds to kill 1 Fire Warrior.
2.4 AP-1 wounds to kill 2 guardsmen vs 1.5 to kill 1 Fire Warrior.
2 AP-2 wounds to kill 2 guardsmen vs 1.2 to kill 1 Fire Warrior.

So the guardsmen are more durable.

?!?! They are both T3, FW has a 4+ save, the guardsmen has a 5+, care to show the math on this one?

AP0. 3 wounds in. In average 1 saves=2 dead. Firewarrior 2 wounds in, 1 saves, 1 dead. So 6 wounds toward guardsmen=4 dead, 6 wounds to firewarrior=3 dead. Against AP0 therefore you kill 4 guardsmen for every 3 firewarrior. How much more pricey firewarriors were? For 4 pts per guardsmen just on survivability firewarrior should thus cost 5,3333 pts. Of course then comes firepower and difference between firepower, mobility etc.

But durability isn't just stats. Price of model also factors in. If you can swamp models in that's durability as well. 20 guys T2 no save is easily more durable than 1 guy T5 2+ save.

tneva82 wrote:



But durability isn't just stats. Price of model also factors in. If you can swamp models in that's durability as well. 20 guys T2 no save is easily more durable than 1 guy T5 2+ save.

Right, but that wasn't stated. You just stated a Guardsman is more durable than a fire-warrior. You didn't demonstrate per point until the follow-up. But now that you have its is more clear, thank you.