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.

Got my Mechanicus book delivered Thursday but just had time to go through it this morning. I have been trying to avoid spoilers/previews for the codexes I use so that I can try to judge them w/out any undue bias having been formed ahead of time, and I must say I like a lot of what I see.

I was a little bummed out that they removed CORE from my Kataphrons, but they remain troops and I like what they did with the movement on them. Overall, quite an acceptable (and frankly probably needed) nerf without making the unit useless or unfun to play. I love the new Skitarii Marshal, and the "Not-Daedalosus" character too. Still a long way to go with it as I can already see this is going to be a complicated book to play, but I have to say, I'm pretty happy with it so far. Lots of good give an take with the power levels, and I feel like just about everything has potential.

I'm almost afraid to say it so early, but I feel like they did a really good job with this one! What does everyone else think so far?

They overtuned the ironstriders and the stack of buffs on basic troops could be a little OP, but apart from that it looks like a good dex.

I think they're doing a good job capturing the feel of the armies.

There are rough edges to trim so this thread will get dogpiled in short order.

I like what I'm reading for most of the sisters changes, too. Better internal balance overall.

Make sure to fire off an email to their 40k FAQ address to force them to defend/clarify the number of weapons in a Skitarii Vanguard/Ranger squad.

They overtuned the ironstriders and the stack of buffs on basic troops could be a little OP, but apart from that it looks like a good dex.

Was just looking at the Ironstriders. Typical GW. I built all mine as Dragoons. Thus ensuring it would be the OTHER build that got the love. lol/jk They do seem a bit on the high-end. Expecting that to get hit in the first FAQ round.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think they're doing a good job capturing the feel of the armies.

There are rough edges to trim so this thread will get dogpiled in short order.

I like what I'm reading for most of the sisters changes, too. Better internal balance overall.

I feel like that's especially true for this book. The little things like data tethers serving a real purpose, and the attention to detail in that regard that we haven't generally seen before are good signs imo. I didn't really like the DG codex (and I honestly can't tell you why - there's nothing wrong with it - I SHOULD like it). Just a personal quirk I guess but it doesn't "feel" right for me, so I'm pretty excited about this one. For everything that I'm a little bummed about (no Knights, the Kataphron change), I can see the logic in why they made the change, and I feel like the book "got" as much as it "lost".

Looking forward to seeing how the Skitarii perform under the Marshal!

I like most of this codex, it does however feel a little light on the CULT MECH CORE units. Maybe if say Kataphrons & Onager (I know they are Skitarii not Cult Mech), gained the CORE keyword in exchange for Ironstriders & Dragoons. this would feel like it would fit the fluff a little more, as well as distributing buffs around a bit, itwould also have made the combat partol box much better even for existing players - as all the units apart form the enginseer would be CORE. or maybe a different HQ could give Kataphrons (and only Kataphrons) CORE - say the Technoarchaelogist?

EDIT: to clarify I am fine with kataphrons being non-infantry, it is just lack of CORE really hurts them.

Eh. I wouldn't be shocked if whenever we get a Skitarii "army of legend" or whatever if Onagers get a way to become Core if they have a Data-Tether rather than Smoke Launchers.

Cult stuff was always going to be light on Core.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Make sure to fire off an email to their 40k FAQ address to force them to defend/clarify the number of weapons in a Skitarii Vanguard/Ranger squad.

People have actually been defending the fact it happened to Plague Marines, Blightlords, and Wyches, so chances are people are gonna defend it here.

I get that, my understanding though is that the wording on those 3 units are different to the wording we got.

Nothing ambiguous about "If this unit contains 9 or fewer models." A unit with 10 models does not contain 9 or fewer models.

Feel free to complain to the rules team that you don't like the rule, but it is not even a little bit ambiguous.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Nothing ambiguous about "If this unit contains 9 or fewer models." A unit with 10 models does not contain 9 or fewer models.

Feel free to complain to the rules team that you don't like the rule, but it is not even a little bit ambiguous.

Literally the moment it does not say "If this unit consists of less than 10 models", it's ambiguous.

Thanks for playing though!

I truly don't know what to say if you think that a unit of 10 or more models "contains 9 or fewer models."

The way you are reading it - besides doing violence to the English language - makes it quite literally mean nothing. If even units of 10+ "contain 9 or fewer models," every unit "contains 9 or fewer models" and there is no reason to mention "9 or fewer" at all.

Almost reads as if they should've left it with the old system LOL

yukishiro1 wrote:
I truly don't know what to say if you think that a unit of 10 or more models "contains 9 or fewer models."

The way you are reading it - besides doing violence to the English language - makes it quite literally mean nothing. If even units of 10+ "contain 9 or fewer models," every unit "contains 9 or fewer models" and there is no reason to mention "9 or fewer" at all.

There's no reason to mention "9 or fewer" at all, period, because it's a garbage statement for a unit enumerating its values in 10s and enumerating its squad sizes in 5s.

The wording should have been "If the unit contains fewer than 10 models..." and then there's no quandry at all.

Dollars to frigging donuts that the intended wording is "If the unit contains 9 or fewer Rangers/Vanguard models...".

While we're at it, I wouldn't be shocked if the "For every 10 models" was all supposed to be a single line, with an "or" between each of the weapon options.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The wording should have been "If the unit contains fewer than 10 models..." and then there's no quandry at all.

Uh...you think "If the unit contains fewer than 10 models" means something different than "If the unit contains 9 or fewer models?"

Wow. I am speechless.

As a non native english speaker this is making my brain hurt. This seems extremely clear for me...

Don't worry, it's not you. It is clear, you have to just actually read the words that are actually written there.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Don't worry, it's not you. It is clear, you have to just actually read the words that are actually written there.

And not fail at basic math and reasoning. Unfortunately, logic is generally a college level course in the US and... well...

yukishiro1 wrote:
Don't worry, it's not you. It is clear, you have to just actually read the words that are actually written there.

-If the unit contains 9 or fewer models, 1 Skitarii (Ranger/Vanguard)'s (Galvanic Rifle/Radium Carbine) can be replaced with one of the following: 1 arc rifle; 1 plasma caliver; 1 transauranic arquebus.
-For every 10 models in this unit, 1 Skitarii (Ranger/Vanguard)'s (Galvanic Rifle/Radium Carbine) can be replaced with 1 arc rifle.
-For every 10 models in this unit, 1 Skitarii (Ranger/Vanguard)'s (Galvanic Rifle/Radium Carbine) can be replaced with 1 plasma caliver.
-For every 10 models in this unit, 1 Skitarii (Ranger/Vanguard)'s (Galvanic Rifle/Radium Carbine) can be replaced with 1 transauranic arquebus.

You mean those words? There's ambiguity. They don't say for Serberys Sulphurhounds that if the unit is 3 or less models that 1 model can take a Phosphor Blast Carbine and Blast Pistol.
They straight-up just say "For every 3 models in the unit".

Servitors don't say "1 in 2 models can each have their servo-arm replaced with one of the following". It says "Up to 2 models can each have their servo-arm replaced".

Context and consistency matter for technical writing.

MrMcThrasher wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Make sure to fire off an email to their 40k FAQ address to force them to defend/clarify the number of weapons in a Skitarii Vanguard/Ranger squad.

People have actually been defending the fact it happened to Plague Marines, Blightlords, and Wyches, so chances are people are gonna defend it here.

And it happened to sisters too according to goons. So you can bet it's happening to everyone.

Best comment I've seen on the issue was that it's really bad for old players with existing armies, but it's great for new players just getting in, because they'll never be temped to buy multiple boxes for a another copy of a couple weapons in order to chase the meta. It does actually remove an element of "Pay to Win" if you look at it from a new player's POV.

Never felt like pay to win for us long beards who have been collecting since Rogue Trader in '89; after 32 years, you're going to have enough specials and heavies to optimize, without having to ever drop money on 6 boxes to actually make only 3 units, but without the change, someone buying in tomorrow WOULD have to do that in a tourney list.

ryzouken wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Don't worry, it's not you. It is clear, you have to just actually read the words that are actually written there.

And not fail at basic math and reasoning. Unfortunately, logic is generally a college level course in the US and... well...

Oh we want to talk about "basic reasoning" and "logic"?

Unit is fielded as 4 Rangers/Vanguard and 1 Alpha, minimum sized unit.
1 Ranger/Vanguard model, per your interpretation, can replace their basic weapon with any one special weapon.
1 Ranger/Vanguard model, per your interpretation, can take an Omnispex or Data-Tether but cannot replace their basic weapon if having done so.
The Ranger/Vanguard Alpha can replace their basic weapon with 1 of 3 pistol options and can additionally take 1 of 3 melee weapon options.

What happens at 10 models that makes it so bloody important that we need a whole new table of options? Nothing. Literally nothing. It doesn't change the unit composition outside of by adding bodies.

Additionally? Pages 76 and 83 both show the start of graphic designer Joel Martin's Crusade force...with 2 arqeubi at 10 models. Nowhere in the entire book do they show a 10 model squad toting 1 of each weapon. There's only one image in the entire book of a Ranger with a Plasma Caliver, and it's one of his shown in the background of the "assault" on the promethium platform.

So until GW definitively say one way or the other? I'm going to dig in on this and say if you feel differently, email GW and suggest they put a pin in it once and for all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

MrMcThrasher wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Make sure to fire off an email to their 40k FAQ address to force them to defend/clarify the number of weapons in a Skitarii Vanguard/Ranger squad.

People have actually been defending the fact it happened to Plague Marines, Blightlords, and Wyches, so chances are people are gonna defend it here.

And it happened to sisters too according to goons. So you can bet it's happening to everyone.

Best comment I've seen on the issue was that it's really bad for old players with existing armies, but it's great for new players just getting in, because they'll never be temped to buy multiple boxes for a another copy of a couple weapons in order to chase the meta. It does actually remove an element of "Pay to Win" if you look at it from a new player's POV.

If you could buy Skitarii in boxes of 5, you'd have a point.

It's a filthy lie that it would be "great for new players". It's great for those little Convocation chasing scrubs who did nothing but the War Convocation and its token force of Skitarii and did bits buys to get the squads of 10 with 3x calivers(because of course that's what those scrubs used).


I do, by the by, feel a bit bad for Sisters if this nonsense is in fact truly the way it is supposed to be. I do not believe that this is the intention.

Never felt like pay to win for us long beards who have been collecting since Rogue Trader in '89; after 32 years, you're going to have enough specials and heavies to optimize, without having to ever drop money on 6 boxes to actually make only 3 units, but without the change, someone buying in tomorrow WOULD have to do that in a tourney list.

Skitarii aren't Sisters. There is zero justification for this, unless they got feedback just from the ConvoScrubs. Which is definitely how it's feeling at this juncture.

 Kanluwen wrote:


What happens at 10 models that makes it so bloody important that we need a whole new table of options? Nothing. Literally nothing. It doesn't change the unit composition outside of by adding bodies.

What changes is that instead of having 1 special weapon, you can have 1 special weapon of EACH. Max 1 of each special weapon instead of max 1 of special weapons in total.
Because thats exactly what you get if you build the box! You obviously dont get 3 special weapons, a data tether/omnispex and an alpha for a 5 dudes squad.
So if you reach 10 models, you can use all the options thats in the box in that squad and double up on it with 2 boxes if you dont build the same wargear.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Additionally? Pages 76 and 83 both show the start of graphic designer Joel Martin's Crusade force...with 2 arqeubi at 10 models. Nowhere in the entire book do they show a 10 model squad toting 1 of each weapon. There's only one image in the entire book of a Ranger with a Plasma Caliver, and it's one of his shown in the background of the "assault" on the promethium platform.

its almost like they recycled the pictures of the older codexes they had lying around instead of shooting new pictures... A picture is not a rule.

 Kanluwen wrote:

So until GW definitively say one way or the other? I'm going to dig in on this and say if you feel differently, email GW and suggest they put a pin in it once and for all.

Honestly at this point you're the only one that doesn't get it and your insistence that literally everyone else gets it wrong should make you reconsider.
Either you're wrong or everyone else is wrong. Whats more likely?

 Kanluwen wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Don't worry, it's not you. It is clear, you have to just actually read the words that are actually written there.

-If the unit contains 9 or fewer models, 1 Skitarii (Ranger/Vanguard)'s (Galvanic Rifle/Radium Carbine) can be replaced with one of the following: 1 arc rifle; 1 plasma caliver; 1 transauranic arquebus.
-For every 10 models in this unit, 1 Skitarii (Ranger/Vanguard)'s (Galvanic Rifle/Radium Carbine) can be replaced with 1 arc rifle.
-For every 10 models in this unit, 1 Skitarii (Ranger/Vanguard)'s (Galvanic Rifle/Radium Carbine) can be replaced with 1 plasma caliver.
-For every 10 models in this unit, 1 Skitarii (Ranger/Vanguard)'s (Galvanic Rifle/Radium Carbine) can be replaced with 1 transauranic arquebus.

You mean those words? There's ambiguity. They don't say for Serberys Sulphurhounds that if the unit is 3 or less models that 1 model can take a Phosphor Blast Carbine and Blast Pistol.
They straight-up just say "For every 3 models in the unit".

Servitors don't say "1 in 2 models can each have their servo-arm replaced with one of the following". It says "Up to 2 models can each have their servo-arm replaced".

Context and consistency matter for technical writing.

Honestly not sure at this point what you are even trying to argue. The fact that it isn't written the way some other entries are doesn't make it ambiguous, it just means that GW can't decide on what wording it wants to use.

You just said that you think "If this unit contains fewer than 10 models" means something different than "If this unit contains 9 or fewer models," so for the life of me, I have no idea what you are even arguing because I do not see how you could possibly say that with a straight face.

"If this unit contains 9 or fewer models" means it does not apply if the unit contains 10 or more. Period. You can insist that 2+2=5 and demand that GW include a FAQ saying that no, 2+2=4, but I am not going to embarrass myself by sending such a ridiculous question to the rules team, and I hope nobody else does either.

 Kanluwen wrote:


It's a filthy lie that it would be "great for new players". It's great for those little Convocation chasing scrubs who did nothing but the War Convocation and its token force of Skitarii.

What? Why?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, (and please do explain how if I am) but how is having weapon options in a squad, limited to precisely what is available in the sold box, bad for new players? It means surely they can use the unit they purchased, on an exactly equal basis to a more established player, from day one.

I fully understand the frustration of legacy players who have min-maxed specific weapon options, but lowering the barrier to entry in this game can be nothing but good for new player uptake.

 Thairne wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


What happens at 10 models that makes it so bloody important that we need a whole new table of options? Nothing. Literally nothing. It doesn't change the unit composition outside of by adding bodies.

What changes is that instead of having 1 special weapon, you can have 1 special weapon of EACH. Max 1 of each special weapon instead of max 1 of special weapons in total.
Because thats exactly what you get if you build the box! You obviously dont get 3 special weapons, a data tether/omnispex and an alpha for a 5 dudes squad.
So if you reach 10 models, you can use all the options thats in the box in that squad and double up on it with 2 boxes if you dont build the same wargear.

Then you have a wasted Data-Tether or Omnispex at 10 models. If your whole argument is based upon "that's exactly what you get if you build the box"?

You have wasted options. So which is it?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Additionally? Pages 76 and 83 both show the start of graphic designer Joel Martin's Crusade force...with 2 arqeubi at 10 models. Nowhere in the entire book do they show a 10 model squad toting 1 of each weapon. There's only one image in the entire book of a Ranger with a Plasma Caliver, and it's one of his shown in the background of the "assault" on the promethium platform.

its almost like they recycled the pictures of the older codexes they had lying around instead of shooting new pictures... A picture is not a rule.

There's more new pictures in this book than there are old.

 Kanluwen wrote:

So until GW definitively say one way or the other? I'm going to dig in on this and say if you feel differently, email GW and suggest they put a pin in it once and for all.

Honestly at this point you're the only one that doesn't get it and your insistence that literally everyone else gets it wrong should make you reconsider.
Either you're wrong or everyone else is wrong. Whats more likely?

That you're all wrong, frankly.

And you have wasted Galvanic Rifles or Radium Carbines. And 10 wasted vangard/ranger heads.

At this point I honestly think you are neither willing nor able to see reason.
Please, at least do not derail further threads with your interpretation and insistence on a FAQ.

 StrayIight wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


It's a filthy lie that it would be "great for new players". It's great for those little Convocation chasing scrubs who did nothing but the War Convocation and its token force of Skitarii.

What? Why?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, (and please do explain how if I am) but how is having weapon options in a squad, limited to precisely what is available in the sold box, bad for new players? It means surely they can use the unit they purchased, on an exactly equal basis to a more established player, from day one.

Cool, so here's the deal:

At this point in time? You're looking at Skitarii as default being 5 OR 10 model squads for "new players".
"New players" aren't going to be fielding 20 model blobs of Vanguard/Rangers. That's tourney mathhammer trash...and from all the mathhammering? They ain't taking specials on either, since like FRFSRF it degrades with the more options you take in the squad when you want to huck rounds downrange using the stratagems that affect Galvanic Rifles(Galvanic Volley Fire grants Rapid Fire 2) or Radium Carbines(Enriched Rounds gives unmodified Hit rolls of 4+ autowounding vs non-Vehicle units).

If they had truly wanted to do it in a way that would help new players?
It would have been situating the concepts/upgrades in multiples of 5. Because they have sold hard on the whole idea of the squad building Rangers OR Vanguard OR a mixture of the two.
It would have locked specific weapon options to specific unit types.

The Vanguard/Ranger box is not a Marine box. It is not the same sprue, duplicated. It's three distinctive sprues to make those 10 models, with 2 of the profile options(Arc Rifle and Plasma Calivers) having two distinctive body options to choose from.

I fully understand the frustration of legacy players who have min-maxed specific weapon options, but lowering the barrier to entry in this game can be nothing but good for new player uptake.

As an established player who did not "min-max" gak and just built what he had, based upon the actual rules and how the army played?

I ended up with multiple units toting triple weapons. Because that's how the units worked. You didn't want to put an Arc Rifle in with a Transauranic Arqeubus despite both being anti-tank. You didn't really want to throw Plasmas on Rangers, since they had a pseudo-sniper role.


I played Skitarii as they dropped in 7E. This change has ZERO to do with "helping new players" and has EVERYTHING to do with the constant whining from the metachasing scrubs who have whined and whined for the past two editions about how "BUT MUH PLASMA IS SO EXPENSIVES" and how "NONE OF THE OTHER WEAPONS ARE GOOD!" while fielding bare minimum Skitarii units to cram as much plasma in as possible.


New players are a copout. Tourney scrubs are the real reason. That's where the $$$$ is going to be from. They have to rebuy boxes or tear apart things just to get basic weapons on models again "to stay top tier".

 Kanluwen wrote:

I played Skitarii as they dropped in 7E. This change has ZERO to do with "helping new players" and has EVERYTHING to do with the constant whining from the metachasing scrubs who have whined and whined for the past two editions about how "BUT MUH PLASMA IS SO EXPENSIVES" and how "NONE OF THE OTHER WEAPONS ARE GOOD!" while fielding bare minimum Skitarii units to cram as much plasma in as possible.

I don't think I'm convinced. I do wonder if your quote above and 'scrub' comments earlier is being entirely fair to other people. If not more than a little insulting.

When you have a competitive meta, certain options will always rise to the top. Anyone who takes such things seriously will attempt to maximise those options. Historically, this generally meant (in the case of Skitarii) packing as many Plasma weapons as possible in your units.
Given you only get one per box, you needed multiple boxes for per legal unit.

Now you do not.

Surely, by any leap of logic, this is good for a new player - they are not forced to spend 2-3x the amount on one unit, in order for it to be equally as viable? The barrier to entry is objectively lower.
I can't see any evidence to suggest that this is a reaction to complaints from 'meta-chasing scrubs'. But if you can back that statement up, I'd like to see the proof. I mean, you're literally using a derogatory term to describe the element of the community you're blaming for something. I'm not sure you can claim a balanced, reasoned argument after that.

I suspect people would have been more inclined to listen to your point (a point you seem to care about making) had you expressed it differently. I would have been.

I don't think it has to do with anything other than GW's new policy for troops choice. It's generally not worth the points to take two special weapons anyway with the 9th edition codex, you just want more skitarii instead. Making Kan's crusade against the meaning of the words "contains fewer than" especially quixotic.

I don't know why GW adopted its new policy on troops choices and special weapons, but if I had to guess, it's probably more about trying to undermine the 3rd party bits market than anything else.

 StrayIight wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

I played Skitarii as they dropped in 7E. This change has ZERO to do with "helping new players" and has EVERYTHING to do with the constant whining from the metachasing scrubs who have whined and whined for the past two editions about how "BUT MUH PLASMA IS SO EXPENSIVES" and how "NONE OF THE OTHER WEAPONS ARE GOOD!" while fielding bare minimum Skitarii units to cram as much plasma in as possible.

I don't think I'm convinced. I do wonder if your quote above and 'scrub' comments earlier is being entirely fair to other people. If not more than a little insulting.

I could be a lot of insulting, if you'd like. I have a looooooooot of words for the people who continually whined about how underpowered Cult was without the Skitarii bodies in War Convocation.

When you have a competitive meta, certain options will always rise to the top. Anyone who takes such things seriously will attempt to maximise those options. Historically, this generally meant (in the case of Skitarii) packing as many Plasma weapons as possible in your units.
Given you only get one per box, you needed multiple boxes for per legal unit.
Now you do not.

Do you know what the "War Convocation" was?

Seriously. Do you? Because that's kind of importantly relevant to the whole discussion at hand. That one stupid White Dwarf formation affected GW's design philosophy for 8E AdMech. It's the WHOLE STUPID REASON that Doctrina Imperatives got shoved into Stratagems. It was a massive, massive crutch and skewed so bloody hard simply by dint of there being a Knight with Canticles.

Surely, by any leap of logic, this is good for a new player - they are not forced to spend 2-3x the amount on one unit, in order for it to be equally as viable? The barrier to entry is objectively lower.

You would have a point...if Skitarii were not a main unit for the army and prominently used, repeatedly, in any bundle/discount deal and additionally did not see their unit size increased to double what the previous cap was.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven and reeks of interference from the tourney twerps. This is the kind of thing that we SHOULD have gotten a frigging heads up about months in advance via that garbage Warhammer Community article about our special weapons changing.

I can't see any evidence to suggest that this is a reaction to complaints from 'meta-chasing scrubs'. But if you can back that statement up, I'd like to see the proof. I mean, you're literally using a derogatory term to describe the element of the community you're blaming for something. I'm not sure you can claim a balanced, reasoned argument after that.

I suspect people would have been more inclined to listen to your point (a point you seem to care about making) had you expressed it differently. I would have been.

I've done the balanced, reasoned argument before.

I got yukushiro1(someone who spends a good chunk of their time here on dakka whining about how poor the quality of GW's rules writing is) opting to try to sling crap at me in other threads. I got thairne coming up in here now trying to imply I'm an idiot who can't read numbers because I don't agree with his "IF THEN ELSE" approach to things.

Literally there's only one way for this unit wording to make sense in light of every other unit wording in the whole book. And it's the way that I'm putting it forward.

Who takes 6-9 model units of Skitarii? When the starting size is 4 Rangers/Vanguard and an Alpha? When they come in boxes of 10?

Who is going to waste their time or effort into doing that?!

And for that matter, it's not like it's hard to make use of the spare bits either. The bodies for the waist gunners(WHICH ARE FULL BODIES FYI!) of the Skorpius Dunerider are tailor-made to accept all 3 of the special weapon options from the Skitarii box.

So anyone who made a Skorpius Disintegrator has been able to add an additional 2 models to their squads with zero effort. No need for hunting down bits either, since the Arc and Plasma both include special backpacks just for them.

But yeah. Until GW themselves tell me 100 frigging percent, I'm done engaging with any of you on this. The two new pictures in the army book showing a doubled up Transauranic Arqeubus squad built literally for this book tell me that I do, apparently, have a leg to stand on.