[FAQ] Can an Assassin deploy 'hidden' in scouting Shades?

[Daeron]

The 7th edition book is also the only example of a comparable rule in Warhammer

I'd like to nominate Ambushers, p.79 and Reerves, p.149, as examples of units which do not deploy during deployment phase.

I don't see your point with these two. I was referring to the hidden rule. But note that for Ambushers, I don't think a character without the rule is permitted to deploy with an Ambusher unit. Or is that wrong?
As for the pg149 Reserves rule, note that for every character it is rolled whether or not they come up as reserve. The roll decides.

it doesn't negate that he is deployed (no explicit notion of it!

Disagree: "A hidden Assassin is not placed on the table during deployment" is explicit.
If deployment is not about setting up units on the table, please explain where it is defined and quote the sentences telling what it means.

First line of the hidden rule "An Assassin can choose to deploy "hidden" within another friendly DE infantry unit". The word deployment is never countered in the same rule ever. It is a bizarre deployment, granted, but a deployment RAW.

The point is that if he deploys in (or nominates) a unit, it has to be a unit on the table just like any other character.

Not RAW.
The only requirement is infantry (not harpies).

GW may have slip ups, but they can still be right... sometimes

Assuming like you do that GW wanted to rule out Harpies and Shades, please explain why they did exclude Harpies but did not exclude Shades.
Please consider in your answer that no character may join flyers anyway.

That one is actually simple. The rule is a special rule and defines which units are selectable for the Assassin's deployment. If it wouldn't explicitly exclude Harpies, RAW it would be permitted to include Harpies because AB > BRB. Hence it had to be specifically noted.
Why not the Shades? Your very example of scenarios. It's even highlighted in the BRB rules pg 79 "It should be noted that deployment special rules are not permitted in some scenarios. Where this is the case the unit can still be used, but it must instead deploy in the same manner as the rest of the army".
In case Shades deploy like a regular unit, they become a viable target for the Assassin.

The Assassin doesn't have the scouting special rule, and that should be the only indication needed. Saying that he can still scout ...RAI he isn't meant to scout

Please, read the rules p.79 about scouting: "Scouts are set up...".
Hidden assassins are not set up during deployement. Therefore you cannot claim that they did scout, even hidden in a shade unit.

Let's take the line then. Pg 79, BRB:
"Scouts are set up after all other non-Scout units from both armies have been deployed."
First sentence of "Hidden":
"An Assassin can choose to deplouy 'hidden' ..."

Sorry for reiterating this point. You really have me pour over the rules again and again Calisson. But I still find nothing wrong with how I constructed my arguments (well.. grammar and spelling aside).

I deployed my shades 8" outside deployment zone to stop enemy vanguard
Then I moved them back into deployment zone.
Next turn I reveal an assassin in that unit of shades. He's now deployed in my deployment zone.
Bear in mind the assassin was at no point "scouted" as he wasn't on the table and models not on the table don't participate in the game.
Was that move legal?.

Hehe! For what it's worth, you had me smile at your creativity. Alas, it wouldn't be a legal trick according to the interpretation from the rules I proposed. The reason is that the Assassin has to be deployed in a unit (infantry if hidden, but not Harpies) before the Shades are deployed. The choice to put them in the Shades is never offered unless the Shades would already be deployed when the characters have to deploy, for example if they deployed as a regular unit.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the depth of the arguments and the manner in which they are presented. I'm just.. convinced.. of the other point of view I suppose.

[Dalamar]

I think the point where we disagree is timing.
For you, assassin is "deployed" at the same time as other characters.
For me, when he's physically placed on the table.

[Daeron]

Yes, that would the point of disagreement. I build my view on it based on the words "deployment" in the first line of the Hidden rule, and "revealed" being used when he is placed on the table. I think that is a very deliberate choice of words.

[Dyvim tvar]

There is nothing in the Hidden rule that requires the Assassin to be hidden in a unit that is already on the table.

As a result, the timing issue is a non-issue in my mind.

[Calisson]

Assuming like you do that GW wanted to rule out Harpies and Shades, please explain why they did exclude Harpies but did not exclude Shades.
Please consider in your answer that no character may join flyers anyway.

That one is actually simple. The rule is a special rule and defines which units are selectable for the Assassin's deployment. If it wouldn't explicitly exclude Harpies, RAW it would be permitted to include Harpies because AB > BRB. Hence it had to be specifically noted.
Why not the Shades? Your very example of scenarios. It's even highlighted in the BRB rules pg 79 "It should be noted that deployment special rules are not permitted in some scenarios. Where this is the case the unit can still be used, but it must instead deploy in the same manner as the rest of the army".
In case Shades deploy like a regular unit, they become a viable target for the Assassin.

Please, don't let your demonstration unfinished!
Let's find out in which actual scenario Shades might deploy like a regular unit.
#1 nothing specific for deployment.
#2 "Scouts do not roll on the table, and deploy using their own special rules"
#3 only reinforcement are affected, not scouts.
#4 nothing specific for deployment.
#5 only reserves are affected, not scouts.
#6 nothing specific for deployment.

Sorry for your argument, but the only scenario affecting scouts, that's to allow them to keep their special rule.
Your explanation "In case" is not validated.


Would you allow me now to transpose your sentence about Harpies, and translate it for Shades?
That one is actually simple. The rule is a special rule and defines which units are selectable for the Assassin's deployment. As it didn't explicitly exclude Shades, RAW it is permitted to include Shades because AB > BRB.

-=-=-

Sorry for your many repetitions. Note that you force me to repeat as well.
When you say "The word deployment is never countered", well, as I said, there is the sentence telling that the hidden assassin is not on the table.
If deployment is not about setting models on the table, could you define what it is? You did not reply to that question yet.

Or said otherwise,
would you really consider sending a FAQ clarification to GW, asking:
"Is a 'hidden' assassin deployed during deployment?"

[Daeron]

This is almost becoming a daily coffee talk.

Please, don't let your demonstration unfinished!
Let's find out in which actual scenario Shades might deploy like a regular unit.
#1 nothing specific for deployment.
#2 "Scouts do not roll on the table, and deploy using their own special rules"
#3 only reinforcement are affected, not scouts.
#4 nothing specific for deployment.
#5 only reserves are affected, not scouts.
#6 nothing specific for deployment.

Sorry for your argument, but the only scenario affecting scouts, that's to allow them to keep their special rule.
Your explanation "In case" is not validated.

Very well.. a more down to earth example then. We have people still trying to make Shadestars:
- http://druchii.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t= ... =shadestar
- http://druchii.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t= ... =shadestar
- http://druchii.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t= ... =shadestar
Limited by regular characters deploying in them. It is possible to deploy them like a regular unit then, is it not?

I'm saying that the Assassin can join the Shades and make a Shadestar even.. just not combine it with them scouting. The Assassins are no longer restricted to a single Assassin per unit after all (which they were in 7th).

Sorry for your many repetitions. Note that you force me to repeat as well.

As long as we can keep the debate in good spirit, it's all good I value your respect more than the outcome of this rule.

When you say "The word deployment is never countered", well, as I said, there is the sentence telling that the hidden assassin is not on the table.
If deployment is not about setting models on the table, could you define what it is? You did not reply to that question yet.
would you really consider sending a FAQ clarification to GW, asking:
"Is a 'hidden' assassin deployed during deployment?"

Deployment: action during deployment phase. The reason I say it is isn't countered is because the rule uses the word "deployment" to denote it is a deployment. Of course, it doesn't bring the model on the table. It wouldn't be "hiding" if you'd be forced to put him on the table. So it's an odd way to deploy, but a deployment never the less because the rule states that it is a deployment.

If we look at Ambushers which you referred to, then it also speaks of "bringing them on the table" with specific rules. It doesn't use the word "deploying" when they are brought on the table after the deployment phase. The distinction between 'deployment' and 'putting it on the table' is made at more than one occasion. But I wouldn't over emphasize this point because the rule itself states it considers it a deployment even though it also states the model isn't placed on the table. While I sense the conflict you point at, I think we must accept it the way it is written and to disregard it as a deployment, is to disregard a part of the rule.

2) I have no idea of what the intent may be. I think it's generally pointless to to try to ascertain intent and doubly so to make interpretation arguments based on presumed intent.

While I agree it's thin ice, I feel confident it was intended unless dropping the "scout" rule was an error. Until an errata fixes that error, we have to assume it was intended. I would see no other reason for them to drop "scout" from the profile unless it was to prevent the Assassin from scouting.

There is nothing in the Hidden rule that requires the Assassin to be hidden in a unit that is already on the table.
As a result, the timing issue is a non-issue in my mind.

I understand your point Dyvim Tvar, but I disagree that the hidden rule trumps every deployment restriction. Deployment rules are a collection of restrictions, not an "all or nothing" set. Desployment is described as a process "this player deploys a unit then that player deploys a unit", "units are deployed with these restrictions" (scenario specific), "characters are deployed last", "then come scouts".
If the rules of a special character would say "this character must deploy in a unit", would you immediately assume it can be deployed in any unit regardless of any restrictions and deploy at any time, out of sequence?
Unless it explicitly casts aside all deployment rules (eg: it could have said 'instead of deploying normally you can do this...') we must assume it builds on top of the existing deployment rules.

Or to use the words of a wise player who once stated it very clearly:

the warhammer ruleset is a permissive one. Meaning if the rules don't tell you you can do something it means you can't.

[Calisson]

You can count on a ever high spirited discussion with me!

-=-=-

I'll go back to the argument that you brought, telling that Shades were not excluded "in case" they would not scout.
You did not provide any example about when it would ever happen in a GW scenario. No wonder. To my best knowledge, Shades are always forced to scout.

In the 7th AB, the list was a closed list, including Shades. When 8th ed was written, the list was changed to an open list, excluding Harpies, but not excluding Shades.
There is no way that the GW rule writer could have forgotten to specify Shades if that was the intention.
The argument that GW intended to exclude scouts, but not necessarily Shades, does not stand, because Shades are always deployed as scouts.

That' exactly the opposite: it is clear that GW intended deliberately to include shades as possible deployment for hidden assassins.

-=-=-

Deployment: action during deployment phase.
OK. Let's take this as the definition of deployment.
With that definition of yours, the deployment zone is not a necessary part of deployment.
A geographical limitation will come only from an additional sentence, such as the one for characters set up on the table (which obviously does not apply to hiding assassins).

-=-=-

About "scout" rule being allegedly necessary,
imagine I hide my assassin inside a unit of shades.
The shades are next deployed outside of my deployment zone. At this stage, my assassin is still in my carrying box.
In my first turn, the assassin is revealed. Only then do I place him on the table.

Question:
which sentence exactly in the "scout" rule p.79 do you accuse me to have used, despite the assassin not being a scout?
Please quote the relevant sentence integrally.
If no sentence from the "scout" rule was ignored, it means that "scout" was not necessary!

-=-=-

The warhammer ruleset is a permissive one. Meaning if the rules don't tell you you can do something it means you can't.
... and if the rules tell you that you can do something, it means you can!

[Dyvim tvar]

There is nothing in the Hidden rule that requires the Assassin to be hidden in a unit that is already on the table.
As a result, the timing issue is a non-issue in my mind.

I understand your point Dyvim Tvar, but I disagree that the hidden rule trumps every deployment restriction. Deployment rules are a collection of restrictions, not an "all or nothing" set. Desployment is described as a process "this player deploys a unit then that player deploys a unit", "units are deployed with these restrictions" (scenario specific), "characters are deployed last", "then come scouts".
If the rules of a special character would say "this character must deploy in a unit", would you immediately assume it can be deployed in any unit regardless of any restrictions and deploy at any time, out of sequence?
Unless it explicitly casts aside all deployment rules (eg: it could have said 'instead of deploying normally you can do this...') we must assume it builds on top of the existing deployment rules.

I generally agree with what you are saying, but it doesn't change the analysis. The "Hidden" rule contains specific provisions about when and where the Assassin is placed on the table. Those specific provisions take precedence over general rules regarding deployment.

Or to use the words of a wise player who once stated it very clearly:

the warhammer ruleset is a permissive one. Meaning if the rules don't tell you you can do something it means you can't.

Absolutely. And here, the Warhammer ruleset specifically permits the assassin to be hidden in friendly Dark Elf infantry unit with the only restriction that the unit not be harpies. Hiding in a unit of Shades is within the scope of that permission.

The gist of your argument is that since the Assassin does not have the Scout rule, the Assassin is not permitted to Scout and therefore cannot be deployed in a unit of Shades.

However, the presence or absence of the Scout rule is completely irrelevant. The Scout rule concerns placement of models on the table during the deployment phase. Since an Assassin is not placed on the table during the deployment phase, the Scout rule has no bearing on an Assassin.

[Fr0]

The way I look at it, the assassin no longer has scout *grumble, grumble* so he can be hidden with them if they are deployed as normal, but not when they are scouting. I think it was an indirect nerf to him to exclude scout from his profile.

Slightly OT, I can't believe we still don't have a FAQ yet! Here's to hoping he gets scout again.

[Daeron]

That' exactly the opposite: it is clear that GW intended deliberately to include shades as possible deployment for hidden assassins.

Agreed, but there is a coflict with the scouting. The reason is this:
- The Scouting unit isn't deployed. Aside from being on your army roster, the Shades not even in the game.
- The Assassin is "deployed" as explicitly mentioned in the rules. It is brought "in the game", but not on the table. There is no reason to assume this can be done in a unit that has not yet deployed. Rules that deviate from this normal restriction explicitly mention how to handle this, such as the deployment for reinforcements.

With that definition of yours, the deployment zone is not a necessary part of deployment.
A geographical limitation will come only from an additional sentence, such as the one for characters set up on the table (which obviously does not apply to hiding assassins).

Deployment zones are explicitly described for every scenario as part of the rules for a deployment.

About "scout" rule being allegedly necessary,
imagine I hide my assassin inside a unit of shades.
The shades are next deployed outside of my deployment zone. At this stage, my assassin is still in my carrying box.
In my first turn, the assassin is revealed. Only then do I place him on the table.

Question:
which sentence exactly in the "scout" rule p.79 do you accuse me to have used, despite the assassin not being a scout?
Please quote the relevant sentence integrally.
If no sentence from the "scout" rule was ignored, it means that "scout" was not necessary!

Well I don't like to "accuse" you (we're not talking crime here! ) but I will debate that you did not follow the scout rule that explains that scouts are deployed after all non scouting units have been deployed. The first sentence of "Hidden" says the Assassin is deployed. Hence, he is deployed. Before any scouts.

The warhammer ruleset is a permissive one. Meaning if the rules don't tell you you can do something it means you can't.
... and if the rules tell you that you can do something, it means you can!

Agreed. But I see a conflict between the rules and the step-by-step process you explained to deploy the Hashidin in the Shades for reasons as stated above.

The "Hidden" rule contains specific provisions about when and where the Assassin is placed on the table. Those specific provisions take precedence over general rules regarding deployment.

Indeed, but it doesn't mean deployment in general is removed. If I were to have a magic shooting weapon with special firing rules, would I assume I can fire it at any time, any place without any restriction? Probably not.

The deployment isn't a single special rule but described as a proces. The Hidden rule builds on top of this proces by making an exception: namely that he is not put on the table, but he is still considered "deployed". That one word is very important, I believe. Until a FAQ tells us otherwise, we must assume that it was called a deployment intentionally.
It then continues to explain how that deployment deviates:
- Must be in an infantry unit (but not harpies)
- Is done without putting the model on the table, with special rules for revealing him.

Hiding in a unit of Shades is within the scope of that permission. The gist of your argument is that since the Assassin does not have the Scout rule, the Assassin is not permitted to Scout and therefore cannot be deployed in a unit of Shades.

However, the presence or absence of the Scout rule is completely irrelevant. The Scout rule concerns placement of models on the table during the deployment phase. Since an Assassin is not placed on the table during the deployment phase, the Scout rule has no bearing on an Assassin.

Deployment and putting models on the table is not 100% the same thing. This difference is explicitly mentioned in the Hidden rule. The question isn't if you can deploy an Assassin in a unit that's not on the table, but if you can deploy him (hidden) in a unit that has not yet been deployed.

We are rule-mongering aren't we? But I can't help feeling it's wrong to leverage a rule "Hidden" to effectively make a model scout. Because, in essence, that's what's being defended here, that the Assassin can scout regardless of whether or not he actually has the rule Scout. And this while the special rule Scout was removed from the model.

[Calisson]

@ Fro
Nice to see you back in there!

-=-=-

About "scout" rule being allegedly necessary,
imagine I hide my assassin inside a unit of shades.
The shades are next deployed outside of my deployment zone. At this stage, my assassin is still in my carrying box.
In my first turn, the assassin is revealed. Only then do I place him on the table.

Question:
which sentence exactly in the "scout" rule p.79 do you accuse me to have used, despite the assassin not being a scout?
Please quote the relevant sentence integrally.
If no sentence from the "scout" rule was ignored, it means that "scout" was not necessary!

Well I don't like to "accuse" you (we're not talking crime here! ) but I will debate that you did not follow the scout rule that explains that scouts are deployed after all non scouting units have been deployed. The first sentence of "Hidden" says the Assassin is deployed. Hence, he is deployed. Before any scouts.

Of course, you cannot quote which part of the scouting rule the Assassin had to use!
Let me quote it for you:

p.79 "Scouts are set up after all other non-Scout units from both armies have been deployed. They can be set up either in their controlling player's deployment zone, or anywhere on the battlefield more than 12" away from the enemy."
Having deployed my assassin hidden in the Shades, he did not do anything mentioned here.
He was not set up in the deployment zone. He was not set up anywhere on the battlefield. He was not set up at all, as he is still in the carrying box.

He may have been deployed, but you cannot dispute that he never had to follow anything written in the scout rule.
Therefore, the scout rule was not necessary.

-=-=-

You also keep failing to demonstrate how he could be deployed in non-scounting shades,
or if you believe he cannot, you fail to explain why GW did not exclude shades when they did exclude harpies, who suffer too from a prohibition (characters cannot join flyers).

-=-=-

Overall:
- Shades are in the list of legitimate units for the assassin to be hidden
- When an assassin hides in shades, who must always scout (it is never an option), the assassin does not use anything in the scout rule.
- therefore, the assassin needs not to have "scout" special rule to be hidden in shades.

[Daeron]

p.79 "Scouts are set up after all other non-Scout units from both armies have been deployed. They can be set up either in their controlling player's deployment zone, or anywhere on the battlefield more than 12" away from the enemy."
Having deployed my assassin hidden in the Shades, he did not do anything mentioned here.
He was not set up in the deployment zone. He was not set up anywhere on the battlefield. He was not set up at all, as he is still in the carrying box.

He may have been deployed, but you cannot dispute that he never had to follow anything written in the scout rule.
Therefore, the scout rule was not necessary.

I do not agree with this logic. If you discard the requirement that a character being deployed must choose a unit that's already deployed or "set up", then why is the Assassin any different from a Master or Dreadlord?
The Assassin's rules explicitly state that the Assassin has to be deployed in a unit. Can a character be deployed in a unit that's not "set up" or "deployed"? No. And there is no explicit mention that the Assassin can negate that requirement.

You also keep failing to demonstrate how he could be deployed in non-scounting shades,
or if you believe he cannot, you fail to explain why GW did not exclude shades when they did exclude harpies, who suffer too from a prohibition (characters cannot join flyers).

The deployment special rules explicitly state that the deployment special rules may not always apply (and have the unit deploy like any other without the special rule). As such we should assume that there may be cases where the Shades do not scout.

If Shades are always forced to scout, and none of the 6 regular scenarios force Scouts to deploy like regular units, then we could debate if such a case ever presents itself. As far as the rules are concerned, though, we should assume this is possible. It's written so explicitly.

We seem to have reached a point of repitition. Our arguments go in a circle.

Could it be that we see this differently because of the language used in the rulebook?
Should we bring it down to a vote?
Can we summarize this discussion in a few lines such that other communities or members of our community can pick up our arguments quickly without needing to read 2 pages of text?
If we can't reach the same conclusion, how do we proceed?
I would love more input from other members as well.

[Calisson]

Daeron,

we should assume that there may be cases where the Shades do not scout.
If Shades are always forced to scout, and none of the 6 regular scenarios force Scouts to deploy like regular units, then we could debate if such a case ever presents itself. As far as the rules are concerned, though, we should assume this is possible.

Stop assuming, please check, that's how we can make progress.
- There exists no scenario where Shades can select not to scout. I checked. Shades must always scout and scouting is always mandatory.
The theroetical case where Shades would not scout, that you argue to justify your position, never exists actually.

Can a character be deployed in a unit that's not "set up" or "deployed"? No.

Wrong.
- In scenario #2, "state that the character will join the unit before rolling to see where the unit and character will deploy"
i.e. it happens that characters do join a unit not yet deployed on the table.
Why would that be impossible for assassins? Only in your mind.

- In scenario #5, how do you fulfill your wish to limit the hidden deployment in a unit actually deployed on the table, when any unit might be in reserve, i.e. not deployed?
What if the assassin is held in reserve and the single infantry unit is deployed?
What if the single infantry unit is held in reserve and the assassin is deployed?


Really, your reluctance to deploy an assassin hidden in a unit in reserve only creates problems and solves nothing.

[Dalamar]

Since clearly there is no consensus I would urge to err on the side of caution and disallow assassins joining scouted shades.

[Calisson]

Sorry Dalamar, but how can you conclude that we should stick to the side
- which is not RAW,
- which justifies itself with false assumptions and scenario that never exist?

[Dalamar]

If that were the case Daeron wouldn't be able to construct a logical argument to support it.

I only subscribe to a side that will cause less controversy and less cries of "druchii.net faq is blatantly biased and keeps ruling in dark elf favor, but what else would you expect from them?"

I think the issue is insignificant enough (who truly still uses assassins with shades now that rending stars are gone?) that we can let it be.

[Calisson]

Logical?
He says that if a unit is not on the table, an assassin cannot hide in it.
Where is the logic?

That's a rule he made up by himself, that he cannot justify, and you want to reward that?

[Dalamar]

I don't want to reward anything. Just to finish the argunent with a consensus that will not raise cries of cheese from the community.

I agree with your side Calisson, but if I were to look at this as say... warriors of chaos player I would see a fan made FAQ that favors the army for which the faq is written. Often emotions are stronger than logic and a single cry of cheese from a name known in the community can spell doom to the entire project.

[Calisson]

Then why don't we adopt the same "anti-DE" stance for other issues?
- hatred against ethnic HE only, not dragons/eagles/phenixes
- no magic armour for 'sass
- forbidden poisons are poisons (that's how they are called, isn't it?), therefore cancel regular poison and cannot coat magic weapons
- Will of Gods applies only to infantry units and prohibits any combat reform
- Feast of Bones cannot target a R&F model because no rule allows to target a R&F model
- ToF spells must be chosen before randomizing other spells

All of these rulings (except hatred) are more likely to make the opponent protest "cheese" than 'sass in shades, for which the only issue was to allow them to charge, which we disallowed already.
All other rulings in our FAQ are either already against DE or undoubtly RAW.
Before changing the ruling for 'sass in Shades, there are 6 other more pressing issues that we should modify for the very same reason.
Do we have to abide by the least likely and the least RAW argument only because it is anti-DE?

Sass in Shades is nothing powerful. What do you fear that forces you to curb down a possible creative alternative? Don't you like variety?


Again, 'sass in shades, that is RAW. I see no necessity to rule that out, I see no consensus to rule that out, I see no cries of "cheese" elsewhere.
Daeron is ashamed because the clear rule for 'sass deployment allows them to hide in scouting units when they don't scout themselves. That is perfectly compatible with RAW, but not with what Daeron has in mind, for a reason he fails repeatedly to prove.

[Daeron]

Well.. that.. heated up in a short time. Discussion of the question itself aside for a moment, I didn't want to push a consensus just yet. I felt that Calisson and I were iterating the same arguments. If my point, however clear it may feel to me, fails to convince him and vice versa, then I thought it might be best to take a step back and focus on managing this situation instead of filling another page with the same arguments being repeated.

I'm not sure if anyone will cry cheese over this one though. I don't think Assassins are competitive enough to let any outcome of this discussion become a concern. I hope, at least, that this discussion will deliver enough evidence for the FAQs answer than the simple "yes" or "no".

[Dyvim tvar]

I am on Calisson's side, and have fully articulated my position. I dropped out of the conversation since I did feel it was not covering new ground.

I'm not sure if anyone will cry cheese over this one though. I don't think Assassins are competitive enough to let any outcome of this discussion become a concern. I hope, at least, that this discussion will deliver enough evidence for the FAQs answer than the simple "yes" or "no".

I also agree with this statement by Daeron (even though he reaches a different conclusion on the rule itself). Assassins are still a sub-optimal choice even with the ability to hide in scouting Shades, so cries of cheese don't worry me.

[Calisson]

Well.. that.. heated up in a short time.

Sorry for adding to Global Warming and Naggarctic meltdown.
I meant to be stubborn, not unbreakeable.