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.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The +1 Hit strat is Vostroyan, unless you're talking about Overlapping Fields Of Fire, which requires you to first wound it with something else.

Yeah I mention that. I mention them being cadian and getting a cheapo wound through,

You mention Cadian. You don't mention getting a cheap wound through with another unit first.

But, assuming you do, you get...

Main cannon has 6 shots
35/6 hits
1,225/216 wounds
1,225/432 unsaved
8,575/432 damage, or 19.85 damage

Lascannons have 4 shots
35/9 hits
280/81 wounds
140/81 unsaved
490/81 damage, or 6.05 damage

Heavy Bolters have 30 shots
175/6 hits
875/54 wounds
875/108 unsaved
875/108 damage, or 8.10

Total damage is 34, assuming you manage to get a wound off beforehand AND have Old Grudges AND use Overlapping Fields Of Fire AND get first turn (no fight at top bracket for Baneblades).

Going to anydice, odds of killing are just over 3/4. Assuming you get that wound off ahead of time-how you doing that?

It's really not that difficult to stick a single wound on with Old Grudges around. And while not Cadian or Vostroyan, fight at top bracket technically exists for Valhallan Shadowswords.

You'll also notice that, especially with Old Grudges, Heavy Bolters outperform Lascannons against Castellans, point for point. (80 points of LC and 70 points of HB in the above example.) The most cost effective setup is the Arkurian pattern. Also, the HK missile is excellent value in this scenario.

castellan seems to be in the the right ballpark not, may need a few tweeks up or down, but between the points and the 4++ max it is still a strong option just not the go to hands down best option.

The shadowsword i hope gets an adjustment too in Chaper approved but that means it will be the new big bad on the table.

I really think GW needs to do points for competitive online and adjust at a higher frequency than annually and then the occupational emergency points increase in the annual FAQ that way they can do more incremental changes to get things right. with lots of community feedback alongside the ability to walk back or further change point values. warmachine/warmahordes style app where you track games would help a lot too so they get actual unit performance in thousands of games weekly.

In a way one has to say that IG are very lucky with the update schedule first they miss the update aka nerf to shadowswords, because GW is slow, then shadowswords don't pop up in the meta because castellans came. they get to play a year with them, and now that castellans get nerfed they can get back to using shadowswords they used before. that is like 2-3 years of having fun.

Karol wrote:
In a way one has to say that IG are very lucky with the update schedule first they miss the update aka nerf to shadowswords, because GW is slow, then shadowswords don't pop up in the meta because castellans came. they get to play a year with them, and now that castellans get nerfed they can get back to using shadowswords they used before. that is like 2-3 years of having fun.

Seriously the sky isn't falling. There are no Shadowswords dominating Meta, no one is suddenly kitting out SS lists, no one is even talking about how they are dropping Castellans. Castellans are not going away, they are still the top dog in the meta, for single model effectiveness. People are still going to base lists around them.

Now, if in the next 6-7 months every major sees three SS lists, then fine. But in the entirety of 8th, have we ever seen Baneblade lists in top 3 of any ITC major? Not a snarky ask, honest question. People are making this out to be OP, and I can see why, but not to the extent that everyone says it is.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Karol wrote:
In a way one has to say that IG are very lucky with the update schedule first they miss the update aka nerf to shadowswords, because GW is slow, then shadowswords don't pop up in the meta because castellans came. they get to play a year with them, and now that castellans get nerfed they can get back to using shadowswords they used before. that is like 2-3 years of having fun.

Seriously the sky isn't falling. There are no Shadowswords dominating Meta, no one is suddenly kitting out SS lists, no one is even talking about how they are dropping Castellans. Castellans are not going away, they are still the top dog in the meta, for single model effectiveness. People are still going to base lists around them.

Now, if in the next 6-7 months every major sees three SS lists, then fine. But in the entirety of 8th, have we ever seen Baneblade lists in top 3 of any ITC major? Not a snarky ask, honest question. People are making this out to be OP, and I can see why, but not to the extent that everyone says it is.

I doubt it will be tripple shadowswords, it's more likely to be a supreme comand with a shadowsword, the other option is a BA supreme comand of Smashfethers. That combined with the vigilous formations Guard are on the up.
Also a shadowsword without knights etc didn't have much to target, also a shadowsword still mugs 2 medium Vehicals itself.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Karol wrote:
In a way one has to say that IG are very lucky with the update schedule first they miss the update aka nerf to shadowswords, because GW is slow, then shadowswords don't pop up in the meta because castellans came. they get to play a year with them, and now that castellans get nerfed they can get back to using shadowswords they used before. that is like 2-3 years of having fun.

Seriously the sky isn't falling. There are no Shadowswords dominating Meta, no one is suddenly kitting out SS lists, no one is even talking about how they are dropping Castellans. Castellans are not going away, they are still the top dog in the meta, for single model effectiveness. People are still going to base lists around them.

Now, if in the next 6-7 months every major sees three SS lists, then fine. But in the entirety of 8th, have we ever seen Baneblade lists in top 3 of any ITC major? Not a snarky ask, honest question. People are making this out to be OP, and I can see why, but not to the extent that everyone says it is.

No I don't think the sky is falling. For me the FAQ changed nothing, other making me chuckle a bit, which I class as good, considering everything. I am just saying that some faction are lucky. I mean even the Inari nerf doesn't seem so ground breaking. Eldar players were already playing soups without Inari, and they worked. It is not like they are now left with no way to play.

And from what I remember IG with shadowswords wasn't winning big events, because Inari were a hard counter to them. Maybe now with them gone, the shadowsword are going to be more valid. It is not like they weren't placing high pre castellan. At least as far as soups go. No idea how mono IG with shadows did to be honest. But I don't think anyone plays mono IG, they are too flexible to not add some assasins or BA or custodes.

 G00fySmiley wrote:


I really think GW needs to do points for competitive online and adjust at a higher frequency than annually and then the occupational emergency points increase in the annual FAQ that way they can do more incremental changes to get things right. with lots of community feedback alongside the ability to walk back or further change point values. warmachine/warmahordes style app where you track games would help a lot too so they get actual unit performance in thousands of games weekly.

Yea I indicated 6 months on the survey. Any faster than that might be too chaotic.

I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.

This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?

A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.

a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.

So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?

I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:


I really think GW needs to do points for competitive online and adjust at a higher frequency than annually and then the occupational emergency points increase in the annual FAQ that way they can do more incremental changes to get things right. with lots of community feedback alongside the ability to walk back or further change point values. warmachine/warmahordes style app where you track games would help a lot too so they get actual unit performance in thousands of games weekly.

Yea I indicated 6 months on the survey. Any faster than that might be too chaotic.

as long as they are small changes done incrementally i think it would be fine to do monthly. you would not see 100 point swings. program it in for a maximum swing of 5% per month per unit and in the cases of most infantry it will take a long time to even see a unit go up or down a point. a 5 point unit woudl take 2 months to reach 6 points if it were overperforming and then it would have to keep over-performign to ever reach 7 points. even than a max 5% means it would have to have some insane win rate, like being present in a 75% win rate. set parameters and then adjust those perameters if they are too fast/slow. plus if it is in an app and tool on thier website boom we have a list building tool with up to date points.

Seabass wrote:
I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.

This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?

A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.

a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.

So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?

I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.

Because both a 3++ and a 4++ fail on a roll of 1 or 2.

So the only change is the loss of 3, so depending upon the way you work out the percentage change its a 25% reduction 4 results to 3 results are a save or 33% as its 1 additional results over the 3.

Seabass wrote:
I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.

This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?

A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.

a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.

So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?

I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.

they are basing 33% on it only losing wounds on a 1 or 2, and now losing wounds on a 1 2 or 3. they are using this math to make it seem worse than it is. you have it correct with 16.7% being the real number as it overall survives 16.7% less

Ice_can wrote:

Seabass wrote:
I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.

This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?

A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.

a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.

So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?

I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.

Because both a 3++ and a 4++ fail on a roll of 1 or 2.

So the only change is the loss of 3, so depending upon the way you work out the percentage change its a 25% reduction 4 results to 3 results are a save or 33% as its 1 additional results over the 3.

This doesn't make sense to me. Its math, there may be several ways to get to the correct answer, but there is only one correct answer. both fail on a 1 or 2, that's true. that's where the 33% failure rate comes from. 33% of the time, if the dice and averages are held to perfectly, you will get a 1 or a 2 on any given die roll. the 4+ fails 50% of the time under the same circumstances. the difference between the two is essentially 16 or 17% depending on how geeky you want to do the math. I cannot see anywhere where 25% or 33% less survivable even get close to this.

G00fySmiley wrote:

Seabass wrote:
I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.

This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?

A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.

a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.

So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?

I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.

they are basing 33% on it only losing wounds on a 1 or 2, and now losing wounds on a 1 2 or 3. they are using this math to make it seem worse than it is. you have it correct with 16.7% being the real number as it overall survives 16.7% less

OK. I was kind of curious as to the nature of that number. Funny things, those numbers.

With that math being correct then, it seems that the cost change to Castellans was quite needed, as just a 16% decrement to survivability would not have stunted or changed the risk in taking it in the army much at all, especially when considering how cost efficient AM units are on the whole.

Seabass wrote:
I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.

This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?

A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.

a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.

So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?

I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.

I made a similar mistake in thinking up above because I was in a rush. A single pip has a 16% chance of coming up on each roll of said die. That does NOT mean the probability of events tied to the die only shift by 16%.

So the easiest way to see the difference here is to consider 30 incoming wounds.

A 3++ will allow only (1/3)(30)=10 cleared wounds.

A 4++ will allow (1/2)(30)=15 cleared wounds.

33% of 15 is 5, which is the drop in cleared wounds going from 4++ to 3++.

Another even more depressing way to look at it is that the 4++ clears 50% more wounds than 3++.

it is honestly an issue of soup to an extent. we would not need as big of a nerf if cp were more limited. a 3++ catellan is bad but in a pure knights list that would cost most of your command points. and you would be doing little else with them. the issue lies in all the cp you can push into them with allies. guard or admech just fed them command points so cheaply and admech cna even buff and repair to the point of absurdety. I really hope chapter approved addresses and reworks soup somehow. I have 2 pitches here for gw that are nto new and many have stated them

1st would be all players get the same amoutn of CP per game turn and can spend on offense or defensive strats.
2nd the detachment that provided the cp can be the only thing those cp can be spent on.

I think I've learned more about statistics in this thread than an entire semester at college...

So, in effect, the defensive capability of the unit has been hit, but the method of use has not? Still hoping for a turn 1 blitz on the opponent to wipe major targets off the map?

I am just questioned whether or not this has actually changed anything. Past turn 1, sure. But not the basic 1 turn usage.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Seabass wrote:
I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.

This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?

A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.

a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.

So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?

I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.

they are basing 33% on it only losing wounds on a 1 or 2, and now losing wounds on a 1 2 or 3. they are using this math to make it seem worse than it is. you have it correct with 16.7% being the real number as it overall survives 16.7% less

No.

A 6++ is 16.7%.
A 4++ is 50%.

A 4++ is factually three times better than a 6++. It isn't (16.7% + 16.7%) 33% better.

16.7% * 1.33 = 22%
16.7% * 3.00 = 50%

 JNAProductions wrote:
Just for fun, let's do a Cawl's Wrath Castellan versus the Shadowsword!

Cawl's Wrath has 47/6 shots
329/54 hits
2,303/489 wounds
2,303/486 unsaved
2,303/162 damage, or 14.22 damage

Volcano Lance has 47/12 shots
329/108 hits
658/243 wounds
658/243 unsaved
4,606/243 damage, or 18.95 damage

Sigebreakers have 28/3 shots
196/27 hits
686/243 wounds
343/243 unsaved
2,401/729 damage, or 3.29 damage

Shieldbreaker has 1 shot
7/9 hits
49/81 wounds
49/81 unsaved
2,303/972 damage, or 2.37 damage

So with just the two main guns, the Castellan can easily wipe a Shadowsword. Anydice says with just the Plasma Decimator (given 8 shots) and the Volcano Lance (given only 3 shots) it's already got a greater than 60% chance of wiping a Shadowsword.

Add on the Shieldbreaker, and it goes to greater than 70%.

Totally. Which is why people moved to the Castellan from the shadowsword. With it being 100 more points though...Who knows what will happen. I still think the Castellan has a roll to play.

If nothing else, after the Castellan is done with it the SS is a mess, hitting on 6s and basically pointless.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Seabass wrote:
I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.

This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?

A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.

a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.

So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?

I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.

they are basing 33% on it only losing wounds on a 1 or 2, and now losing wounds on a 1 2 or 3. they are using this math to make it seem worse than it is. you have it correct with 16.7% being the real number as it overall survives 16.7% less

No.

A 6++ is 16.7%.
A 4++ is 50%.

A 4++ is factually three times better than a 6++. It isn't (16.7% + 16.7%) 33% better.

16.7% * 1.33 = 22%
16.7% * 3.00 = 50%

Correct. To make things simple.

Imagine 6 wounds getting through. Compared to a 6++/5++/4++ ect.

A 6++ lets 5 wounds through
A 5++ lets 4 wounds through
A 4++ lets 3 wounds through
A 3++ lets 2 wounds through
A 2++ lets 1 wound through

So how much better is a 3++ over a 4++? 3/2 = 1.5 = 50% How much better is a 3++ over a 5++? 4/2 = 2 = 100%.

To expand on this:
It takes 6 wounds to kill a model with a 2+.
The same 6 wounds would kill 2 models with a 3+.

Going from a 2+ to a 3+ only differs 16% of the time, but when only 16% of the time matters to begin with, that's a doubling.

Focusing on it only affecting 16% of the time, let's improve a 2+ to a 1+ and drop the "ones always fail" rule. The change *still* only matters 1 out of every 6 wounds. But you've gone from taking a lot of firepower to kill to being *literally unkillable*. Clearly, that was a bigger buff than going from always-dying (7+) to almost-always-dying (6+)?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, in effect, the defensive capability of the unit has been hit, but the method of use has not? Still hoping for a turn 1 blitz on the opponent to wipe major targets off the map?

I am just questioned whether or not this has actually changed anything. Past turn 1, sure. But not the basic 1 turn usage.

Yes, they are pushing blitz instead of fixing raven/cawls.

Starting to see Triple Crusader lists. I expect that is going to be the next hot spot, as the Castellan exited the scene.

One of them will be limited to 5++.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Seabass wrote:
I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.

This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?

A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.

a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.

So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?

I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.

they are basing 33% on it only losing wounds on a 1 or 2, and now losing wounds on a 1 2 or 3. they are using this math to make it seem worse than it is. you have it correct with 16.7% being the real number as it overall survives 16.7% less

You really need to learn to math better. It is exactly as bad as we say it is.

If it took 15 models firing to kill it on average before, it now takes 10. That's a 33% drop, not 16.7, going from 3+ to 4+.

Looking at it from the other side, going from a 4+ to a 3+ is a 50% increase in durability.

Looking at the chance of rolling a particular result on a die face is a terrible way to look at it and you should never, ever do that again. Next you'll be telling people that improving a unit's to hit from 6+ to 5+ increases it's firepower by 16.7% instead of 100%.

eldritchx wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Seabass wrote:
I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.

This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?

A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.

a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.

So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?

I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.

they are basing 33% on it only losing wounds on a 1 or 2, and now losing wounds on a 1 2 or 3. they are using this math to make it seem worse than it is. you have it correct with 16.7% being the real number as it overall survives 16.7% less

You really need to learn to math better. It is exactly as bad as we say it is.

If it took 15 models firing to kill it on average before, it now takes 10. That's a 33% drop, not 16.7, going from 3+ to 4+.

Looking at it from the other side, going from a 4+ to a 3+ is a 50% increase in durability.

Looking at the chance of rolling a particular result on a die face is a terrible way to look at it and you should never, ever do that again. Next you'll be telling people that improving a unit's to hit from 6+ to 5+ increases it's firepower by 16.7% instead of 100%.

Whoah! pump the hate brakes there Thanos...

Im the one that didnt understand the math, it was my mistake. no need to be quite that virulent. My error. I see where I made the mistake from and now that i have been reminded of probability 201, I get it.

I forgot this phenomenon myself in my hasty post above. D6 math is surprisingly swingy, which is why it's not such a great base for a game with so many units.

Reemule wrote:
Starting to see Triple Crusader lists. I expect that is going to be the next hot spot, as the Castellan exited the scene.

I fail to see how that would be a problem. It doesn't bring to the table even half of the AT firepower of a castellan, they are not ultrapropelled by the raven stratagem. Good luck taking out T7/T8 targets with 3 crusaders. You are talking about 1500 points, you have nothing else in your list except that and the loyal 32 (at 1750, at 2000 you can squeeze in something more, but still no brigade for you).

No, i don't see 3 crusaders as being a problem ever. Too skewed, not enough firepower.

The shadowsword too is being vastly blows out of proportion in this thread. It is not going to replace the castellans in the lists, for the following simple reasons:

1) No invul, so dependent on going first.
2) No way to ignore brackets, so only useful on turn 1.
3) Not nearly as good against anything which isn't a titan. There doesn't exist only knights in the game. Especially with less castellans around, be ready to see a lot more medium/heavy vehicles. A shadowsword can only take out one per turn, and it isn't even guaranted to do so if the target has an invul save.
4) Cannot defend in melee.

If what truly happens is that the lists will just switch from Castellan to SS, then this means that this FAQ was ultra succesful, since it dropped by a lot the power of top lists.

TLDR: Shadowswords are poor man's castellans.

Seabass wrote:

eldritchx wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Seabass wrote:
I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.

This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?

A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.

a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.

So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?

I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.

they are basing 33% on it only losing wounds on a 1 or 2, and now losing wounds on a 1 2 or 3. they are using this math to make it seem worse than it is. you have it correct with 16.7% being the real number as it overall survives 16.7% less

You really need to learn to math better. It is exactly as bad as we say it is.

If it took 15 models firing to kill it on average before, it now takes 10. That's a 33% drop, not 16.7, going from 3+ to 4+.

Looking at it from the other side, going from a 4+ to a 3+ is a 50% increase in durability.

Looking at the chance of rolling a particular result on a die face is a terrible way to look at it and you should never, ever do that again. Next you'll be telling people that improving a unit's to hit from 6+ to 5+ increases it's firepower by 16.7% instead of 100%.

Whoah! pump the hate brakes there Thanos...

Im the one that didnt understand the math, it was my mistake. no need to be quite that virulent. My error. I see where I made the mistake from and now that i have been reminded of probability 201, I get it.

And I didn't respond directly to your post because I wasn't responding to the math. It should be quite clear that I was responding to the accusation that people were using math in some malevolent way. In addition, your post left it as sort of an open question, which is fine. His didn't.

BTW, the only one name-calling here so far, is you.

I thought quoting Deadpool would be a fun way to open the statement. My bad. no offense was intended.