A10.62 Dm

Michael R

Minor Hero
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
4,622
Reaction score
4,162
Location
La Belle Province
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
This rule talks about "taking the possibility of Cowering into account". I have always interpreted that to mean "assume your attack will cower", followed by "do you still inflict an NMC with a result of two?".

My opponent recently decided that it means "if your attack Cowers, check the new FP column to see if you still have an NMC with a result of two".

I found nothing in the Q&A compendium to support either argument. I think that my interpretation is correct. What does everyone else think?

TIA
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
Both interpretations are actually wrong, since both of them can lead to not inflict DM when the target actually should become DM. :)

The correct one is to see if any hypothetical DR could result in an NMC or better. But as with the real DR, you must apply cowering if your unit is subject to it and the only hypothetical DR that could otherwise inflict a NMC is snakes.

So it is really as simple as saying before the actual attack: "Is there a theorethical possibility of getting a NMC (or better) with this attack?" If the answer is "yes", the broken target becomes DM regardless of what you roll.


With your interptetation Michael, the following attacks would (incorrectly) not inflict DM (assuming all are subject to cowering):
1) A unit firing on the 1 FP column with <= +1 DRM
2) A green/conscript unit firing on the 2 FP column with <= +2 DRM
3) A green/conscript unit firing on any column, if an original DR of 3 would result in an NMC (since a DR of 2 would cower two columns and result in a PTC).

Your opponent's interpretation is also incorrect for the same reason as yours, with the difference that the above three situations would not inflict DM only if the attack roll was actually doubles.
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
70
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
I have to disagree with you Boe, the "taking the possibility of cowering..." clause seems to support Michael R's version.

Any unit subject to cowering on the 1 chart has the possibility of cowering "off the chart" and getting no result at all. Same thing for non-led Green/Conscripts on the 1 or 2 chart. All units that are subject to cowering will do so 6 in 36 DR combinations, or 1 in 6. The DRM don't come into play as I understand it at these low columns where you would cower to nothing.

Now, I think if you do manage to get a result without cowering, then the unit is DM again from the result. The "possibility of cowering" only comes into play if you roll high enough to miss a result on the chart.

My understanding is that you look down as many columns as you would go if you cower, look at the 2+DRM result and if it's still a NMC or better, DM the units. Even if you didn't actually cower and didn't get a result. If you can't cower (Leader led, most Commonwealth units, etc.) then don't worry, check the chart you start on with the DRM.

The game mechanic (pseudo reality) argument seems to be "am I motivating those broken units to run away some more with this volume/accuracy of fire?". They are already broken and presumably in rally terrain to have removed the DM status, can you convince them to move out of this safe terrain by shooting at them enough. If I'm shooting uncoordinated green/conscript units then the broken unit may not feel threatened enough unless they get a result.
 

McFinn

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
860
Reaction score
5
Location
Santa Fe
Country
llUnited States
I think I'm in agreement with PWard,

I've always played it,

Did you get a result with your final DR on your original column on the IIFT?

If yes, then DM the target

If no, Then would you have gotten a result if you had rolled 1,1 (thus cowering if you are subject to cowering) taking the DRM 's of the shot into account?

If yes, then DM the target.

If no, then the target is not DM

Thus any unit (subject to cowering) that misses with its final DR on the 1 column will not DM the target because it will cower off the IIFT (to the zero column), the same is true for a conscript that cowers on the 2 column.

I will consult the ASLRB tonite to see if I've played it correctly.
 

Bret Hildebran

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
4,884
Reaction score
1,279
Location
NE OH
Country
llUnited States
Come on now - you guys should know better than questioning Ole on something like this. Ole is correct. If there's any conceivable roll you can make which results in an NMC or better, while accounting for the possibility of cowering, the target is DM. In Ole's example of a 1(+1), a 3 of course doesn't cower & is an NMC so the unit is DM, no matter what the actual roll of the dice results in - it could have been a 3 so DM applies...

I will give you guys creativity points though for actually making ASL more complex than it actually is - seldom is that possible!

Bret Hildebran
damavs@alltel.net
www.aslok.org
 

griffitz62

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego, CA
Country
llUnited States
Here is my take on this.
Before I make the actual DR I ask myself:
1) With my current DRM's, and if I cower (assuming that the unit is capable of cowering), is there any DR that could still result in a NMC?
2) Yes=DM
3) No= No DM
3) Roll the dice and apply the result. If the actual DR inflicts a NMC or better and the unit is not DM, then apply a DM.
 

Flarvin

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
106
Reaction score
3
Location
Florida
Country
llUnited States
McFinn said:
Did you get a result with your final DR on your original column on the IIFT?

If yes, then DM the target

If no, Then would you have gotten a result if you had rolled 1,1 (thus cowering if you are subject to cowering) taking the DRM 's of the shot into account?

If yes, then DM the target.

If no, then the target is not DM

Thus any unit (subject to cowering) that misses with its final DR on the 1 column will not DM the target because it will cower off the IIFT (to the zero column), the same is true for a conscript that cowers on the 2 column.
This is incorrect. If you did not get a result with your final DR and the “if rolled 1,1”, you missed if you rolled a 1,2. If you had a final roll of 1,2 you would not cower and could get a NMC (or better). The rules states that you have to take cowering in to account, but not that you can only use cowering results when determining DMing. Using your way it is possible to cause DM on an actual final roll of 1,2, but if your actual final roll was higher you would not cause a DM. This is because you only look at the actual final roll and a possible final roll of 1,1. Causing DM is independent of the actual final roll.

The way I check it is that I look at possible rolls of 1,1 and 1,2. If either one causes a NMC or better then the unit is DM. :)


Flarvin
 
Last edited:

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
70
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
Rules quote

BTW the rules don't say anything about looking at the 2 result, nor do they specify the mechanics of determining the "possibility"...

A10.62 Desperation Morale (DM): ... or enough FP (taking the possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least a NMC result on the target. ...

In order to account for cowering, I believe that all the DRMs must be checked against the lower column. Start at a 2 original DR, and work up with the DRMs, if you can still have a NMC result, DM.

Boe's and Flarvin's method seems to make you check at the lower column for snakes, the original column for DR 3. (Further checks would be redundant.)

Why would the "possibility of cowering" have to be taken into account if you can stay on the same column and look for a result there at DR 3? If the intent had been "if you cower or not, check and see if you could have gotten a result on the effective column", I believe the rule would have been written that way, or would have left out the part in parentheses.
 

Flarvin

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
106
Reaction score
3
Location
Florida
Country
llUnited States
pward said:
BTW the rules don't say anything about looking at the 2 result, nor do they specify the mechanics of determining the "possibility"...

A10.62 Desperation Morale (DM): ... or enough FP (taking the possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least a NMC result on the target. ...

In order to account for cowering, I believe that all the DRMs must be checked against the lower column. Start at a 2 original DR, and work up with the DRMs, if you can still have a NMC result, DM.

Boe's and Flarvin's method seems to make you check at the lower column for snakes, the original column for DR 3. (Further checks would be redundant.)

Why would the "possibility of cowering" have to be taken into account if you can stay on the same column and look for a result there at DR 3? If the intent had been "if you cower or not, check and see if you could have gotten a result on the effective column", I believe the rule would have been written that way, or would have left out the part in parentheses.
You do not cower on a roll that is not double, so they are not treated as cowering when checking to see if you can cause a NMC or better.

Cowering is considered when a 1,2 does not result in NMC or better and on the lower column (for cowering) 1,1 does not result in NMC either. But 1,1 on the orginal column would result in a NMC or better.

Flarvin
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
70
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
For experienced units (not Green nor Conscript) the results of my method work without checking the chart in two places.

For example, a 4FP attack will cower to the 2 chart, if the DRM are +3 or less, even if you cower you still get a NMC (5 on the 2 chart). A DR of 3 which would not cower still nets you a NMC (6 on the 4 chart). Any larger DRMs would mean that the target isn't DMed because you can't get the NMC on the original column to begin with.

For the Green and Conscript troops, it doesn't work out like that because of the 2 column shifts. I still see my method as penalizing the inexperienced units in accordance with their 2 column shift when cowering.

The other example that should be noted would be a 1FP attack cowering off the chart. By my reasoning if you're not throwing enough FP at the broken unit, they don't notice the incoming fire above their already demoralized broken status.
 
Last edited:

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
70
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
Flarvin said:
You do not cower on a roll that is not double, so they are not treated as cowering when checking to see if you can cause a NMC or better.
You are correct; you don't cower when you roll other than a doubles. When you look on the full FP column, you aren't taking cowering into account. Cowering can happen on six different dice combinations, and the DR itself is not considered in the DM equation.

Flarvin said:
Cowering is considered when a 1,2 does not result in NMC or better and on the lower column (for cowering) 1,1 does not result in NMC either. But 1,1 on the original column would result in a NMC or better.

Flarvin
The only instance where the 1,2 on the original column would result in an NMC and the 1,1 for cowering does not would be with Green/Conscript units and their 2 column shift. (See my previous post) What is the idea of penalizing them 2 column shifts for cowering, then saying that they are just as good at inflicting DM on a broken unit (shooting) as an experienced unit? That seems inconsistent to me.
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
pward said:
BTW the rules don't say anything about looking at the 2 result, nor do they specify the mechanics of determining the "possibility"...
Agreed, so there's nothing that demands that only the DR of 2 is to be checked, thus 3 (or higher) may be checked as well.

In order to account for cowering, I believe that all the DRMs must be checked against the lower column. Start at a 2 original DR, and work up with the DRMs, if you can still have a NMC result, DM.
Why do you check a "3" against the lower column? If you roll a 3, there is no cowering, so why do you treat it as an automatic cowering even with a DR that has no possibility of cowering? That doesn't make sense - at least not to me.

Boe's and Flarvin's method seems to make you check at the lower column for snakes, the original column for DR 3. (Further checks would be redundant.)
That is correct - simply because that is how results are determined in ASL. You use your original column unless you cower, and you never cower on a DR of 3, so why not use the correct column?


Why would the "possibility of cowering" have to be taken into account if you can stay on the same column and look for a result there at DR 3?
I assume that without the "possibility of cowering" part, some players would say that a 1+2 attack (with a final DR of 4) or a 2+3 attack etc. can result in an NMC - i.e. they would disregard the fact that the attack was subject to cowering, so the clause was added to remind them that the possible NMC calculation would be subject to normal cowering rules.

And normal cowering rules is that a unit never cowers when the DR is 3.

If the intent had been "if you cower or not, check and see if you could have gotten a result on the effective column", I believe the rule would have been written that way, or would have left out the part in parentheses.
I agree that the rule is not very well written, but I'm sure that if the intent had been to treat the attack as an automatic cowering if possible, then it wouldn't say in a paranthesis to take possibilty of Cowering into account. Note that "possibility" is in italics - IMHO to signify that it is a possibility and not automatic.

Let me use the rule ("attacked by ... enough FP (taking the possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least a NMC result on the target") as a basis for a couple of yes/no questions when you make a 1+1 attack with a squad that can possibly cower:

1) Can the attack possibly inflict a NMC?
2) Is this true even when you consider that the unit may cower (if it rolls doubles)?

If you answer yes to the above two questions, the requirement in question is fulfilled - and I don't see how you can answer no to any of those when making a 1FP +1DRM attack.


You also wrote in your previous post:
pward said:
Now, I think if you do manage to get a result without cowering, then the unit is DM again from the result.
Assuming that your interpretation is otherwise correct, this one is wrong.

A10.62 says: "DM is a condition which afflicts any unit during the Player Turn it breaks (even if it breaks voluntarily) or any already broken unit which is subsequently attacked by CC/WP, or enough FP (taking the possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least a NMC result on the target."

The unit in question is already broken from a previous turn so the first part obviously doesn't apply, and according to you, the second part doesn't apply for (say) a 1FP flat attack. If you then actually roll 3, the effect is a 1MC but the unit would not become DM even if it failed the MC and got reduced to a HS. I think such a situation shows pretty well that your interpretation is not the correct one...


Finally, there is a Perry sez with the following wording:

Perry sez said:
If a unit capable of cowering takes a 1 +1 shot at a broken unit does the broken unit become DM?

Yes
I know this isn't official, but at least shows that Perry reads the rule the same way. :)
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Ole,
Thanks for this clarification. Now that you state it, this makes perfect sense to me. -- jim
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
70
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
Ole Boe said:
I agree that the rule is not very well written, but I'm sure that if the intent had been to treat the attack as an automatic cowering if possible, then it wouldn't say in a paranthesis to take possibilty of Cowering into account. Note that "possibility" is in italics - IMHO to signify that it is a possibility and not automatic.
My understanding if the parenthesis part of the rule is interpreted:
When the attack cowers, can you still inflict a NMC or better?

Ole Boe said:
Let me use the rule ("attacked by ... enough FP (taking the possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least a NMC result on the target") as a basis for a couple of yes/no questions when you make a 1+1 attack with a squad that can possibly cower:

1) Can the attack possibly inflict a NMC?
2) Is this true even when you consider that the unit may cower (if it rolls doubles)?

If you answer yes to the above two questions, the requirement in question is fulfilled - and I don't see how you can answer no to any of those when making a 1FP +1DRM attack.
With any attack, the attack may cower on six different dice combinations. You can answer no to question 2 in this case, because the result would cower off the chart.

Ole Boe said:
You also wrote in your previous post:

Assuming that your interpretation is otherwise correct, this one is wrong.
You are correct, there isn't anything in the rules for DM about inflicting an actual result, just in the possibility of a NMC result.

Ole Boe said:
A10.62 says: "DM is a condition which afflicts any unit during the Player Turn it breaks (even if it breaks voluntarily) or any already broken unit which is subsequently attacked by CC/WP, or enough FP (taking the possibility of Cowering into account) to possibly inflict at least a NMC result on the target."

The unit in question is already broken from a previous turn so the first part obviously doesn't apply, and according to you, the second part doesn't apply for (say) a 1FP flat attack. If you then actually roll 3, the effect is a 1MC but the unit would not become DM even if it failed the MC and got reduced to a HS. I think such a situation shows pretty well that your interpretation is not the correct one...
Ok, but the rule says nothing about any DR results. It says "...enough FP..." if you don't look to see where you will be when you cower, how can you take into consideration "the possibility of Cowering". The only way to avoid looking at the lower column IMO would be to be imune to cowering by one of the various methods (Fanatic, British, etc.).

Ole Boe said:
Finally, there is a Perry sez with the following wording:

I know this isn't official, but at least shows that Perry reads the rule the same way. :)
Then I await a more formal erratta to settle this semantics argument. It's hard to change 5+ years of my opinion on this rule.

Another example:
Conscript squad firing at 4 FP +3 can secure a NMC if they roll a 3. If they cower then they don't get the NMC even if they roll snakes. I see this as a prime example of the inaccurate fire the inexperienced troops would generate not being "enough FP", even though they started at 4FP. It seems a fine penalty to levy against these inexperienced troops, commensurate with their 2 column shift for Cowering. (An experienced unit in this situation would get the DM because they only get the 1 column shift.)

My interpretation of the 1FP+1 not getting the DM result is similar. The TEM provided to the target gives them that measure of protection so they aren't made desperate from the incoming fire.

My algorithm works great for experienced units, as shown in the previous post. It also keeps the penalty for inaccurate fire from Cowering inexperienced units a factor. See Chapter A footnote 26.
 

Treadhead

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
3,140
Reaction score
216
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
Hmm...

If I make this attack, and it Cowers, is it still possible for me to inflict a NMC?

Yes or no?

It's that simple.

[Edit: Um, no, that's not quite right...]

Regards,
Bruce Bakken
 
Last edited:

Treadhead

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
3,140
Reaction score
216
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
Bret Hildebran said:
If there's any conceivable roll you can make which results in an NMC or better, while accounting for the possibility of cowering, the target is DM.
If all you had to do is check if there is any conceivable roll you can make which results in a NMC or better, then it is never necessary to take into account the possibility of cowering. Cowering always makes the results worse.

Therefore all you would have to do is take account of the original column.

Well, that's not correct, because we are told to take into account the possibility of cowering.

Which means, we must ask ourselves, "if this attack cowers, is it still possible to inflict a NMC?"

If the answer to that question is "yes", then DM. If the answer to that question is "no", then no DM.

That simple. Not complicated at all.

[Edit: Er, still not quite there... what was I thinking about when I wrote this?...]

Regards,
Bruce Bakken
 
Last edited:

Treadhead

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
3,140
Reaction score
216
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
Ole Boe said:
1) Can the attack possibly inflict a NMC?
2) Is this true even when you consider that the unit may cower (if it rolls doubles)?

If you answer yes to the above two questions, the requirement in question is fulfilled - and I don't see how you can answer no to any of those when making a 1FP +1DRM attack.
Well, let me see.

1. If I make a 1+1 attack, can the attack possibly inflict a NMC?

Why yes, yes it can.

2. If I make a 1+1 attack, can the attack possibly inflict a NMC if it cowers?

Why no, no it cannot.

So taking into effect the "possibility of cowering", a 1+1 attack is not "enough FP" to inflict DM.

If you don't take into account what would happen if the unit cowers, then there is no reason for the instruction: "taking the possibility of Cowering into account".

We are explicitly told: to determine whether the FP is enough, we must take the possibility of cowering into account. The only way to do that is to ask ourselves what would happen if the unit cowers.

If the unit cowers, is it still possible? (Possible,mind you, not necessarily probable.)

Your logic is flawed for this reason: If all you have to do is ask whether a NMC is possible or not, then there is no reason whatsoever to even mention the possibility of cowering. (I utterly reject the argument that the mention is there as a reminder that a DR of 1,2 does not Cower... I mean, sheesh.)

No, in order to determine if the FP is "enough" FP, you have to ask yoursef what would happen if that FP happened to Cower. If it Cowers, is it still enough FP to possibly inflict DM status?

That's the proper question.

[Edit: No, that's still not it... three strikes and you're out, or is the fourth time the charm?]

Regards,
Bruce Bakken
 
Last edited:

Treadhead

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
3,140
Reaction score
216
Location
Michigan
Country
llUnited States
Major Retraction

I am retracting my previous replies to this thread, because my reasoning was overly simplistic and incorrect. (I was going to just delete my posts outright, but I left them there in fairness to those who want to blast me...)

Let me start over.

Consider your FP, DRM, etc., and ask youself these questions:

Is the only possiblity of inflicting a NMC also going to result in a Cower? If the answer is "no", then: inflict DM.

If the answer is "yes", then: Would that specific Cower result also cause a NMC? If the answer is "yes", then DM. If the answer is "no", then no DM.

I believe Ole pointed out that this really only comes into play when the only possibility of a NMC is on an Original DR of "2". If you need an Original "2" to have any hope of NMC, then you have to take into account that the DR of "2" may Cower, in which case there really is no possibility of inflicting a NMC under that circumstance.

I'm not sure why I replied initially the way I did, because I know the rule. I guess I didn't find the various arguments and counter-arguments to be very clearly expressed, for some reason.

By the way, this particular rule would probably be better expressed with some variation of, "if the only possibility of causing a NMC would also result in a Cower, then the attack does not cause DM status." -- because it wouldn't, seeing as a lower column would produce a lower result on the same DR and DRM.

At any rate, at least now I hope that my response is more clear. Which, by the way, happens to agrees with Ole's. (See, we don't always disagree.) At least, I think we agree in this case. Though, I didn't quite understand what Ole was saying at the time...

Regards,
Bruce Bakken
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
pward said:
My understanding if the parenthesis part of the rule is interpreted:
When the attack cowers, can you still inflict a NMC or better?
I understand that, but your interpretation is equal to treating the attack as an automatic cowering, which is not what it says.

I wrote:
1) Can the attack possibly inflict a NMC?
2) Is this true even when you consider that the unit may cower (if it rolls doubles)?
pward said:
With any attack, the attack may cower on six different dice combinations. You can answer no to question 2 in this case, because the result would cower off the chart.
The rule is only talking about the possibility of getting an NMC, and you must agree that a 1 flat attack has the possibility of getting an NMC even if the unit is not immune to cowering.


pward said:
You are correct, there isn't anything in the rules for DM about inflicting an actual result, just in the possibility of a NMC result.
Yes, and in this case the actual result (after applying all relevant rules, and taking possible cowering into account) was an NMC. I think the fact that the attack actually inflicted an NMC proves that the attack was with enough FP to inflict an NMC ;)


pward said:
Ok, but the rule says nothing about any DR results. It says "...enough FP..." if you don't look to see where you will be when you cower, how can you take into consideration "the possibility of Cowering".
You take the possibility of cowering into account just as you do it when you make the actual attack - cowering applies if you roll doubles. So if the only possible DR that could inflict an NMC is a 2, you must take cowering into account and check if the 2 DR is an NMC even if the unit cowers.

I.e. if you don't take cowering into account, a 1+2 attack can inflict an NMC, but if you do take it into account, you know that the maximum DRM that can result in an NMC is +1 (still on the 1 FP column).

Anyway, I think the bottom line is that when you take the possibility of cowering into account, you must also take the possibility of not cowering into account too. If you don't do that, you treat it like an automatic cowering result, which is not what the rule says.
 

Ole Boe

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
12
Location
there...
Country
llNorway
Thanks for a somewhat convoluted support, Bruce - at least if you haven't changed your mind again :p

I'm quoting something from the post where you disagreed, though I assume your final opinion is somewhat differenet - anyway:
bebakken said:
Your logic is flawed for this reason: If all you have to do is ask whether a NMC is possible or not, then there is no reason whatsoever to even mention the possibility of cowering. (I utterly reject the argument that the mention is there as a reminder that a DR of 1,2 does not Cower... I mean, sheesh.)
I believe the reason for mentioning the possibility of cowering is to be a reminder that a 1 +2 (or a 2 +3 etc.), which needs a 2 DR for a NMC result, will not result in DM anyway because such a DR would cower to the lower column and result in a PTC instead.

I believe the sourec of confusion is not the cowering part of the rule itself, but how the rule only mentions FP and not DRM. 2 FP is enough FP to inflict an NMC even vs a stone building in Smoke if you disregard DRM, but that's obviously not how the rule is supposed to work. So instead of "attacked by ... enough FP ... to possibly inflict at least a NMC result on the target." it would be better to say "attacked by ... an attack that could possibly inflict at least a NMC result on the target". IMHO, that text is clear enough in itself, since everyone know that a 1+1 attack could possibly inflict a NMC while a 1+2 could not for a unit that is not immune to cowering - thus the part about cowering is not necessary.
I think that is better than the current wording, because it makes it clear that it's not the FP in itself that is important, but the actual attack with its combination of FP and DRM. Sometimes I doubt that what I write is as clear as I think though, so I'm happy to get some feedback. This could be a possible item for an errata in an upcoming Journal if Perry think so, but it's (of course) important to make sure to have a text that is clear if it's going to be a clarification...
 
Top