Fixing Daemonhunters

[gil galed]

Eh, sorry if I came off a bit harsh.... your initial post came off as a bit insulting. *spreads hands*

 

I can for sure see how it did. Sorry about that. :)

 

Simply put: I think the insights in your posts were awesome. I came into this thread MAINLY for two reasons:

 

1) I've already discussed my views on GK and tactic

 

2) But to figure out how other people saw the new army I picked up.

 

Idk... I don't want to beat a dead point, because I feel it's been sufficiently stated, but I believe great ideas come with a "devil's advocate" attached, many times. :)

 

I completely agree, i'm a law student so i love playing Devil's Advocate, but that does mean you have to come up with a valid argument against whatever your opponent is arguing, i didn't see read your original post as exemplifying this quality as i read it as basically just saying that we were stupid and wasting our time. Hence my somewhat gruff response. Clearly however you agree it might have come off the wrong way and i do apologize on my part.

 

 

In your more recent posts you have refined this but the basic argument you offer i still feel is that "we picked the army so we should stick with the rules", I of course see the merits with this, but that doesn't mean that adaption of rules shouldn't take place. If you want to play an underdog army it's very easy to make a less competitive list or rather a more balanced list, i mean not every ork players runs nob bikers or every chaos list double lashes, but for those who have been playing GK for a while or who want a pretty/fluffy army that is also of reasonable strength it is fair to let them adapt rules. I don't see this as killing the 'honour' of grey knights, but simply opening then up to a wider player audience.

 

You say that we find them great in their current form, indeed i'm sure alot of people here still win their games, but alot will depend on who you are playing, in a tournament situation when games are going to be tailored for a meta game GK will be in a bad position most of the time, in the past few years you never see GK at official events. I would however love to hear your tactica, especially if you feel that Aidoneus' tactica is lacking certain elements / has flaws.

[Red Lost Soldier]

Glad that's amicably resolved. Back to the main topic.

 

Now that Codex: IG has been released to the general public, I think IST are up for debate. The topics are springing up in the forum, so we could either split off a new one or fire away in here.

 

I don't have the codex yet, but from internet chatter I know most of the changes. I'm concerned at changing the IST entry to exactly match the new IG ST entry. IST are not considered strong for their points at the moment, and new IG ST are yet to be play tested by the public fully, but initial reactions seem to be similar to the Space Marine Vanguard reactions.

 

First it was "They can do WHAT?"

Now it's "They cost WHAT?"

 

The new IG ST have some damn spiffy options, and are justifiably an elite choice. However as a troops choice, staying as squishy as our current IST and now costing as much as a Space Marine? It would seriously hurt a non GK list from remaining viable. Radical DH lists are not exactly horde lists as it is. Factor in the almost mandatory transport most people will take and we'll be having as many bodies as a pure GK list.

 

Which is why my initial thoughts are to leave IST as they are. Maybe give them the transport options of the new IG ST, and keep our interesting but overpriced armoury, but leave all else. It is minimalistic, slightly boring yes, but I think the alternative would do more harm than good. Perhaps we could add the new IG ST in as an ally option?

[Aidoneus]

Indeed, time to go back to our discussion.

 

I think RLS brings up an excellent point about Storm Troopers. I'd also like to add a comment made in the linked-to thread by Jakehunter, in reference to changing IST:

I think this is a bad idea. It doesn't make sense when you think about what the =I= mostly goes up against. The Hereticus is going up against badly equipped cultists and traitor PDF, the Xenos looks for things like Genestealer cults and Tau diplomats, which are also going to be protected by inconspicuous and thus, lightly armed guards/followers/etc. And the Malleus...most daemons don't even have armor. What would make better sense is that lot of Inquisitors are going to be encountering hostile cells in which they will be heavily outnumbered, so should equipt something that has a high rate of fire and mild armor busting capability. Thus, the hellgun. I think it is great right now and fits fluff.

 

As ready I was was to just transfer those rules over, I think RLS and Jakehunter are right. So as of now I think we should keep ISTs as they are, although I do think we should update their weapon costs (5pt flamer and 15pt plasma).

 

One option then would be to add the new IG Storm Trooper entry as an Elite choice, and call them Storm Trooper Commandos, or something of that nature. This might seem like a more-than-minimalistic change, but remember that we're changing all the ally rules to just having units in our codex, with appropriate restrictions for which can be taken with which others. In that context, perhaps adding IG storm troopers in their appropriate Elite slot wouldn't be all that out-there.

 

Thoughts?

[SoulReaver296]

what about having ISTs stay the same, but allow them to upgrade (like the new veterans) like replacing "hellguns" with "hot-shot lasguns"... since they ARE supposed to be 2 seperate things if i remember correctly, while being able to switch out with manstopper shotguns for free. idk what other "vet" upgrades they could get, or if they would need it

[! : ?]

hey,, i've started playing GK at about the same time that the dark heresy rpg came out,, i've been playing eldar for some 17 yrs. ,, 17 yrs- of painting a purple eldar army hmmmmm ,, anywho, if this discussion is still open for input i have a few somewhat fluffy ones ,,, one of the main reasons i started my GK army was that i wanted to paint fewer and more unique models,, i really like the inq henchmen models, but i'm slightly annoyed that only the Inq characters can take these,, why can't an ordinary GK or storm trooper squad have a servo skull ? it might be that i'm too fluff or rpg oriented when it comes to my GK army, but i always considered them more an adventuring (rpg) army than a battle force... also, the deathcultist are my all time favorites,, i have six fully painted dudettes of these but have yet to field them in a game 'cause of their ridiculous point cost and the comming of the 5th edition rules,,, if i were to change anything in the DH codex it would be that these gentleladies where able to join squads! i have four 8 man storm trooper squads and i'd just love to be able to place a DC in each of these.. also, that GK troops who choose to deep strike becomes a fast att. squad is just plain silly per 5th ed. rules ! oh, and that a GK hero has worse stats than a SM captain and cost more is nuts, a 6 in ws and bs would be more balanced.. Anywho,, in the battles i play amongst friends we always use the latest codex as the standard against the old ones, that is we use the new psychic hood rules, new vehicle costs, new storm troopers etc etc.. hey folks!

[jeffersonian000]

How about this: to reduce the over all impact while updating our options to the current standard, we could just use the IG entry for their Storm Troopers as an Elite choice, and replace our IST option with an IG Veteran squad? Is that a more reasonable compromise?

 

SJ

[Aidoneus]

Added a new link in the first post, to a new thread in the ordos forum: Playtesting New Grey Knights. Actually, it applies to all Daemonhunter lists made with the new rules; I just often use Grey Knight and Daemonhunter interchangeably.

 

Anyway, I played two games against my friend Agrab today, and I put the reports in the new thread. Go check 'em out and let me know what you think. Also, please please please try to start playtesting on your own, and report your results in the new thread.

 

On another note, I've got the IG codex from TJ. It's too late to look through it and start making changes now, but hopefully during this coming week I'll be able to start work on that.

[Wrath]

In the battle report thread you mentioned the Vindicare was terrible. You also specifically mentioned that cover saves prevented him from doing his job several times. Therefore it seems to me that the best solution is to give him some kind of Precise Shot or other such rule, one that would either ignore outright or with a die roll any cover saves available to the target (maybe a 4+ roll to ignore any cover saves with any given shot?). After all, if anyone is going to be able to put a bullet through a gap in cover and into somebody's eye socket it would be the Vindicare, no?

[Venerable Rhadamanthus]

In the battle report thread you mentioned the Vindicare was terrible. You also specifically mentioned that cover saves prevented him from doing his job several times. Therefore it seems to me that the best solution is to give him some kind of Precise Shot or other such rule, one that would either ignore outright or with a die roll any cover saves available to the target (maybe a 4+ roll to ignore any cover saves with any given shot?). After all, if anyone is going to be able to put a bullet through a gap in cover and into somebody's eye socket it would be the Vindicare, no?

 

 

 

The IG has an order that can force people to re-roll their cover saves. (precedent has been set) So an ability to give the Vindicare's shots a re-roll cover save option might work.

[gil galed]

Some assassins, the vindicare in particular have got worse and worse, they really need an update to make them the psychotic killers the once were, one of which would be to make a vindicare ignore cover saves, i mean come on, he is a sniper and he will only get about 5 shots a game!

 

Also on an unrelated point having PAGK FA choices that can just tele 12" (basically jump packs but teleing) would be a cool addition, unless of course the purg. squad already fills this roll as you don't 'need' to give them special weapons. This does mean that they can't assault though. It'd be nice to have a unit which could get into assault quickly.

[Corpse.]

Culexus + Psyker Battle Squad. He has his place.

Callidus + "A word in your ear" on a tank squadron, spinning the front tank backwards. (kill them like sentinels, hehe)

Vindacre, erm, telion/marbo wingman? Still gives my chaos champs issues from time to time.

Eversor + outflank = something's gonna die.

 

I think the assassins are still good. I still hate facing the Callidus and Vindacre, eversor and culexus still seem to need a little something.

[Grey Mage]

In the battle report thread you mentioned the Vindicare was terrible. You also specifically mentioned that cover saves prevented him from doing his job several times. Therefore it seems to me that the best solution is to give him some kind of Precise Shot or other such rule, one that would either ignore outright or with a die roll any cover saves available to the target (maybe a 4+ roll to ignore any cover saves with any given shot?). After all, if anyone is going to be able to put a bullet through a gap in cover and into somebody's eye socket it would be the Vindicare, no?

 

 

 

The IG has an order that can force people to re-roll their cover saves. (precedent has been set) So an ability to give the Vindicare's shots a re-roll cover save option might work.

You could always say if he rolls 4+ on the to hit roll the target gets no cover save.

[Red Lost Soldier]

How about this: to reduce the over all impact while updating our options to the current standard, we could just use the IG entry for their Storm Troopers as an Elite choice, and replace our IST option with an IG Veteran squad? Is that a more reasonable compromise?

As ready I was was to just transfer those rules over, I think RLS and Jakehunter are right. So as of now I think we should keep ISTs as they are, although I do think we should update their weapon costs (5pt flamer and 15pt plasma).

 

One option then would be to add the new IG Storm Trooper entry as an Elite choice, and call them Storm Trooper Commandos, or something of that nature. This might seem like a more-than-minimalistic change, but remember that we're changing all the ally rules to just having units in our codex, with appropriate restrictions for which can be taken with which others. In that context, perhaps adding IG storm troopers in their appropriate Elite slot wouldn't be all that out-there.

Both of these options could work. Having not seen IG veteran rules yet I can't comment on them, so I'd probably go for keeping the IST as they are with revised points and adding the new IG ST in as a separate entry so people can field them if they prefer.

 

On the topic of revised points, would the IST armoury points be getting a change? Seeing as we are matching their ranged weaponry with new points costs in line with IG codex, will we be looking at changing their points costs in regards to power weapons etc.?

 

Callidus + "A word in your ear" on a tank squadron, spinning the front tank backwards. (kill them like sentinels, hehe)

I'd just point out that this is incorrect. As the owning player of the unit you move, your opponent gets to choose the facing.

[gil galed]

Out of curiosity do we think that giving the PAGK a inv. save (like 5+) would be a good idea? I mean being super and all they should probably not die from general rounds plus even blood letters now a days have furious charge and power weapons, or/and a 3+ save which isn't negated by AP3 would be cool rather than bumping um to 2+ or something

[FunkyEntropy]

Shameless bump + sticky request. 7eAL's project is on its last legs, and I think this thread makes a nice, minimalist alternative to the massive changes they've got in there.

 

Edit:

 

I find myself in agreement with Aidoneus' most recent point. Allowing ourselves to take the IG ST as an elite option seems like the easiest compromise. I'm not happy with upping the costs of the plasma guns, but while it's ultimately something I can live with, consider this point: what is the function of plasma? It's strong against heavy infantry. As has been already noted, IST exist to take out massed light enemy infantry. Plasma runs counter their stated purpose. The IGST function mirrors that of plasma: taking out heavy infantry. There we see the increased point costs as justifiable because they coincide with the weapon mirroring the squad function.

 

Speaking of the new IG codex, one of the things I couldn't find in it was a specific points cost for Refractor Fields and the IG equivalent of IotJ. I once again submit that we start with the cost of one of the fancy new Marine codex Storm Shields and work our way back. IotJ should cost 15 points, as while it provides an inferior save it also doesn't take up a 1h weapon slot. From there, I think 5~10 points for the Refractor Field seems fair.

[Dilgar]

For the IST I don´t know if this was discussed but I really would like to see em become like the Stormtroopers that Techpriest had with him to that heretical techworld in the 2ed GK book...They were mind wiped and such, would fit the DH needs perfectly as they wouldn´t go mad that fast. Although the IST at the moment do have atleast according to fluff better protection against mind attacks. Heh, I get more and more opinions as I read more fluff :P

 

I also like to keep the "C:DH" as independent as possible, or atleast to have the option to choose unique units, while keeping the current "ally"-rules. I really love the fact that if u want u can go two ways with the C:DH, allying in IG or SM or then playing the codex alone ^_^

 

 

Sry to bring it up but I would like to express my view on this thread.

 

1) I see this as a way to see what is "wrong" in our codex, and hopefully atleast someone from GW would check it out :P

 

2) I too want to create "new", and who knows, these rules might get a wider spread then anyone here might guess.

 

3) I however also agree that a project like this might be done "in vain". The rules on how u play should be the same all over the world, otherwise even forums like this might loose there meaning as everybody would have a different "start" to a conversation. I however fully understand and like projects like these. In the end it doesn´t matter how u look at projects like this, or wether u like em or not, a discussion/project like this can never be a bad thing, there is just SO MANY positive things a project like this brings with it (I have drolled over the possibility to teleport in the first turn would someday become "reality" ;) ).

[Grand Master Tyrak]

Shameless bump + sticky request. 7eAL's project is on its last legs,

 

Still coughing up blood though, it's been six months since 7eAL disappeared and there's still signs of life. :huh:

 

Feel free to pillage any of our ideas though.

[JCarter]

I like the basic idea for the Vindicare of rolls of 4+ ignore cover saves. I think it woulld be improved if a roll of (7 minus the cover save of the model) would ignore the cover save and would also be in line with the to-hit rule of 7-BS.

[Aidoneus]

Yeah, I'm really sorry I haven't updated in a while guys. I feel like I'm letting you all down a bit. However, I'm in college, and finals are next week, so I'm busy finishing up stuff for that. Starting mid-to-late next week though I'll be totally free, and I assure you I'll be back to this. I've got TJ's IG codex now, and as soon as I have time to read through it I plan on updating this project.

 

Things I plan to update:

-Wargear costs

-Adding Valkyries (not sure about Vendettas. Might make those ally-only. We'll see)

-Changing Ally rules into within-codex unit choices

-Continue work on the Vindicare (maybe re-roll successful cover instead of -1 to cover? maybe -2 to cover instead?)

-Update costs/options based on playtesting experience

 

By the way guys, I haven't heard from a single one of you about playtesting. We absolutely NEED to get out there and play some games with these rules! A few posts up there's a link to a separate thread about playtesting results/batereps/issues/etc. Please ask your friends to play a few casual games with you to try out these rules. If we don't get enough playtesting experience, all of this work will have been in vain.

[Venerable Rhadamanthus]

By the way guys, I haven't heard from a single one of you about playtesting. We absolutely NEED to get out there and play some games with these rules! A few posts up there's a link to a separate thread about playtesting results/batereps/issues/etc. Please ask your friends to play a few casual games with you to try out these rules. If we don't get enough playtesting experience, all of this work will have been in vain.

 

 

I keep trying to playtest the rules. But I can't get any of the 5 people in the group to allow me to play the rules. There seems to be 1-2 rules they don't like and won't allow.

 

The main one is the "no wounds for Fearless". Most feel that is is modifying a core special rule in the book. 2 say no because they play Nids and Orcs...and constantly get hosed by that rule when someone assaults 2 of their units with one ...and attacks the weak unit (like gaunts or rippers) and totally hoses the stronger unit (like warriors) by forcing fearless wound saves on BOTH units. Ex; Warriors and Gaunts lose by 5 wounds. Both the W and G make 5 armor saves each. It's not divided up between the two. They say that taking wounds for GK's is not as bad as Nids...due to the fact that they have 3+ saves vs those wounds where Nids have a 5+ or 6+. Another plays Tau and wishes he had fearless units. Cause he gets a 3 man Broadside squad rolled by marines, after all they kill is a gun drone. Cause that -1 LD penalty means he fails 50% of the time and Marines catch them on the Initiative roll. So he feels that Fearless units need to have a penalty! Because not Fearles is so much worse.

 

Another won't allow re-roll teleports for GKT's and Heroes. His view is DS is supposed to have a "danger factor" and other elite Teleporting armies like Deathwing don't get rerolls. No army has that ability, so there is no precedent. But he is ok with teleport homers as it is a valid piece of wargear that has precedent and still requires the unit that carries it to DS without safety. Plus the other units have to DS near the homers, as opposed to anywhere they want. And having GKT's and Heroes with a homer and safe teleporting is too powerful. They get in no prob...then next turn so does everyone else, kinda thing.

 

On a positive note: They all feel True Grit should get attacks on a charge. One thinks Shrouding should be like Night Fighting or Stealth Suits for Tau. Cause there is already precedent for units to have it. They really like Purge as FA with GoI. They like the Incinerator upgrade on a LLR. And all squads having Psychic Powers.

 

They have some other suggestions/ability changes that didn't get put in your rules...but I won't list em unless you want me to.

[Grey Mage]

For the guy who thinks DS is all about the danger factor. Tell him to look at the new IG codex- they get rerolls on their Deepstriking.

[Venerable Rhadamanthus]

For the guy who thinks DS is all about the danger factor. Tell him to look at the new IG codex- they get rerolls on their Deepstriking.

 

 

I will have to go look that up. Thanks.

[Aidoneus]

But I can't get any of the 5 people in the group to allow me to play the rules. There seems to be 1-2 rules they don't like and won't allow.

Do they not understand what playtesting is? Unless some miracle occurred and we got everything 100% right on the first try (I guarantee you we did not), there will obviously be some problematic, and some overpowered rules. That's WHY we playtest. Try to make them understand that these games don't count for anything (reputation included), and that criticisms like these will have much more weight if they turn out to be valid based on in-game experience.

 

The main one is the "no wounds for Fearless". Most feel that is is modifying a core special rule in the book. 2 say no because they play Nids and Orcs...and constantly get hosed by that rule when someone assaults 2 of their units with one ...and attacks the weak unit (like gaunts or rippers) and totally hoses the stronger unit (like warriors) by forcing fearless wound saves on BOTH units.

First off, you should tell your friends to stop putting Rippers near Warriors. For that matter, stop taking Rippers. In an army with so many good Troop choices, why on earth would you take one that isn't Scoring? But I digress.

 

For our purposes, the point is that GKs are supposed to be super-elite warriors. However, they are not all-powerful killing machines. They don't charge forward mindlessly, like Orcs or 'Nids. Instead, they move forward implacably, slowly taking apart any resistance they come to. So we need to come up with rules that represent that. That's why we haven't given them more attack on the charge, or furious charge or anything like that. This rule is instead of those types of rules, as a way of making our army unique.

 

In point of fact, Orcs and Nids should be charging into melee headlong, and wiping the floor with their enemies. If they're losing combats, something is wrong. GKs, on the other hand, will not dominate CC in the same manner, but they ought to be capable of fighting on no matter what.

 

Lastly, point out to your friend how much more it sucks to lose a 25pt GK from an 8-man unit than it does to lose a 6pt boy from a 30-man unit. Just sayin'

 

Another won't allow re-roll teleports for GKT's and Heroes. His view is DS is supposed to have a "danger factor" and other elite Teleporting armies like Deathwing don't get rerolls. No army has that ability, so there is no precedent. But he is ok with teleport homers as it is a valid piece of wargear that has precedent and still requires the unit that carries it to DS without safety. Plus the other units have to DS near the homers, as opposed to anywhere they want. And having GKT's and Heroes with a homer and safe teleporting is too powerful. They get in no prob...then next turn so does everyone else, kinda thing.

Here, I think your friends might actually have a point. I don't agree that the re-roll is overpowered, but at the same time I can't remember how I justified putting it in there. It isn't necessary, and it breaks my mandate of minimalism. I think I'm going to remove that rule now, for minimalism's sake.

 

On a positive note: They all feel True Grit should get attacks on a charge. One thinks Shrouding should be like Night Fighting or Stealth Suits for Tau. Cause there is already precedent for units to have it. They really like Purge as FA with GoI. They like the Incinerator upgrade on a LLR. And all squads having Psychic Powers.

These changes would be FAR more powerful than the Fearless change! Precedent counts for something, but so does game balance and fluff. If your friends would be willing to play with these changes, I don't see how they can complain that the changes we have actually made are overpowered.

 

See if they'll let you just TRY the new rules. If they turn out to be as problematic as your friends fear, then stop using them. But they should at least give them a try first, before jumping to such conclusions. If it helps, I've already played 3 games with the new rules, and I'm 1/1/1 so far (although the loss was because I played a one-trick-pony list against an opponent who happened to be perfectly suited to beating it), and no one specific rule has overbalanced the army. If anything, universal Deep Strike has come close, but only in lists where I specifically abuse it, and even then it's still within reason (in my so-far limited experience).

 

They have some other suggestions/ability changes that didn't get put in your rules...but I won't list em unless you want me to.

By all means, go for it. I may not be able to address them adequately for the next week or so, but I'll get to 'em eventually, and the more input the better!

[Venerable Rhadamanthus]

Do they not understand what playtesting is? Unless some miracle occurred and we got everything 100% right on the first try (I guarantee you we did not), there will obviously be some problematic, and some overpowered rules. That's WHY we playtest. Try to make them understand that these games don't count for anything (reputation included), and that criticisms like these will have much more weight if they turn out to be valid based on in-game experience.

 

 

Yeah..I told em it's playtesting..but they said no to things after glancing over the rules, before we could even play. Kinda like the on-forum discussions you had here on B&C.

 

 

 

 

First off, you should tell your friends to stop putting Rippers near Warriors. For that matter, stop taking Rippers. In an army with so many good Troop choices, why on earth would you take one that isn't Scoring? But I digress.

 

For our purposes, the point is that GKs are supposed to be super-elite warriors. However, they are not all-powerful killing machines. They don't charge forward mindlessly, like Orcs or 'Nids. Instead, they move forward implacably, slowly taking apart any resistance they come to. So we need to come up with rules that represent that. That's why we haven't given them more attack on the charge, or furious charge or anything like that. This rule is instead of those types of rules, as a way of making our army unique.

 

In point of fact, Orcs and Nids should be charging into melee headlong, and wiping the floor with their enemies. If they're losing combats, something is wrong. GKs, on the other hand, will not dominate CC in the same manner, but they ought to be capable of fighting on no matter what.

 

Lastly, point out to your friend how much more it sucks to lose a 25pt GK from an 8-man unit than it does to lose a 6pt boy from a 30-man unit. Just sayin'

 

 

I brought up all those points actually. The whole not mindless thing. They use tactics, and fluff/codex states they are trained to take on overwhelming odds/outnumbered 2-1, etc...and win. And the whole losing expensive models. Their response it's not just losing one 6pt boy or gaunt. They lose way more...and 4 boys equals 1 Gk in points. And you are more likely to lose those boys than the GK due to the saves and the wounds dealt. Which in part, I can agree with. They say the 3+ save makes up for that. As for the rippers. He stopped taking them! lol But I hit his gaunts and warriors..and hosed him because most of my attacks were on his gaunts! Synapse and all.

 

Though one guy mentioned the Stubborn rule...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These changes would be FAR more powerful than the Fearless change! Precedent counts for something, but so does game balance and fluff. If your friends would be willing to play with these changes, I don't see how they can complain that the changes we have actually made are overpowered.

 

See if they'll let you just TRY the new rules. If they turn out to be as problematic as your friends fear, then stop using them. But they should at least give them a try first, before jumping to such conclusions. If it helps, I've already played 3 games with the new rules, and I'm 1/1/1 so far (although the loss was because I played a one-trick-pony list against an opponent who happened to be perfectly suited to beating it), and no one specific rule has overbalanced the army. If anything, universal Deep Strike has come close, but only in lists where I specifically abuse it, and even then it's still within reason (in my so-far limited experience).

 

 

The universal deep strike isn't their prob...Deathwing does it, etc. It's just the accurate re-rolls. But now that IG Stormtroopers have re-rolls...all bets are off.

 

But I'll pitch it the playtest again, see what happens.

 

 

 

 

By all means, go for it. I may not be able to address them adequately for the next week or so, but I'll get to 'em eventually, and the more input the better!

 

 

Will do.

[Prathios]

I can't for the life of me understand why you would rescind the deepstrike re-roll in the face of the IG getting it. I also don't understand why you think it isn't minimalist in the face of IG getting it. And finally it makes more sense for us than any other team in the game to get it. I think you put it in because almost everyone agreed we should get something like that.