Why is it that when firearms or other forms of advanced weapons are brought up or introduced there is a sudden...

That was during the age of backloaded cartridge rifles and the Maxim gun, which effectively allowed for the colonization of Africa by ensuring that 1000 Europeans could take on literally hundreds of thousands of tribesmen. In such a world monsters would be extinct. 16th century handguns that use a standard and a fuse and fire about a shot a minute? Not so much. Even when we get Napoleonic muskets that utterly supplant melee weapons for anyone not on horseback (and some people on horseback, see chasseur à cheval) we don't have the guarantee that monsters will be exterminated. That's still 3-5 shots a minute. And all that is before we get into such things as magic and thick scales and whatnot.

>Destructive to the point of being self-sabotaging
>Somehow manage to survive to fuck things up for everyone yet again
Yeah, Prussian Orcs does fit a lot.

>That was during the age of backloaded cartridge rifles and the Maxim gun, which effectively allowed for the colonization of Africa by ensuring that 1000 Europeans could take on literally hundreds of thousands of tribesmen. In such a world monsters would be extinct.

But, there are still African Tribesmen.

inb4 WE WUZ FANTASY MONSTERS AN' SHEEEIT

But really. What would monster races do if they got their hands on gunpowder?
>Goblins with small firearms and ambush teams
>Kobolds using them in their traps like it's Vietcong Smissmas
>Gnolls going full African Warlord

This is implying that any goblin is smart enough to manufacture it for use in combat or that they would be able to ever begin repairing or creating firearms. >but what if they steal the weapon?
Then they have stolen weapons which is the same as goblins wielding magical +2 shortbows.

In a gunpowder setting races like kobalds or goblins could steal a pseudo-cannon that they wheel around on a cart and fire ball bearings out of, it makes little sense that they would have a large number of complicated firearms, whereas if they've stolen a single cannon as a shock - ambush tactic it is more realistic.

To not die to a firearm monster should have one of the following qualities:

-Incorporeal
-No vitals
-Armor
-Stealth

-Incorporeality assumes magic. But say in TES world could be easily overcome with silver bullets.
-No vitals is effective. Demons, magically powered zombies and other automatons that don't care about heads are more or less immune to firearms and piercing damage. You need either siege or slashing weapons to cut them into pieces.
-Armor that can stop firearms means that, unless we are in a really high fantasy, all other weapons are ineffective against them too. Such juggernauts should be stopped with traps and not weapons.
-Stealth probably needs some kind of intelligence to back it up or incredibly powerful physical body. Or it won't carry the monster far enough.

Vampire is a good example of a monster that is hard to kill with firearms. It has stealth, a number of abilities supplementing it and its vitals have certain limitations on what can affect them.

On the other hand giants, ogres, even trolls and say manticores will die really fast to firearms. Being big and having a physical body becomes a disadvantage.

Because of insecure macho idiots, who hate the idea that their precious guns might not actually be all-powerful in every possible situation. They will cry foul of any scenario in which guns are useless, calling it contrived bullshit and the like, while praising to high heaven any scenario that presents guns as godlike, allowing the user to slaughter any and all fantasy creatures with ridiculous ease.

This despite both scenarios being equally contrived, because that's how fiction works.

Actually in a setting with D&D races I could see goblins rising up. They don't have penalties to intelligence and like to sneak around. Due to their tribal nature they may have some trouble at the start but one of the tribes will get their paws on firearms and subjugate their neighbours.

In fact the relationship between orcs and goblins will probably be reversed. With goblins ruling over orcs and using them as dumb meatshields and shock troops.

We'll call it something like "Rise of the goblin Genghis Khan"

Or just, y'know, being immune to firearms specifically.

I mean, if you're allowing incorporeal entities and robots, why not allow magic that is symbolically opposed to firearms? You're already way outside the realms of realism.

If we go with sympathetic and symbolic magic firearms will probably never even exist. Such world will be too different even from D&D type fantasy.

Because the average Veeky Forums goer only thinks in pseudo(read pretend) realist D&D rules setting.

Guns in whfb did jackshit to chaos and monsters.
Guns and even fucking deathrays do little to monsters in anima.
Guns do little to monsters in coc/delta green.
Guns in hunter the vigil arent enough to kill high level monsters.
Etc... Etc...

Read up more systems and settings familia.

What are you talking about?

Magic is fiction. Fiction can be whatever its creator wants. Creators are under no obligation to make fiction that is any way realistic, or which adheres to existing ideas.

if a creator says that their setting has guns, but they don't work against monsters for a specifically magical reason, then that's just how their fictional world works, "realism" be damned.

Because this
>Because bullets cemented mankinds supremacy IRL over beasts, by letting us engage them easily from a distance.
And this
People expect guns to work like a super death ray in any setting regardless of if it makes sense in that setting, they do it because people know guns or at least think they know guns and know that is you shoot something you have a better than 50/50 chance of killing it. People also know that guns IRL meant a hell of a lot of animals went fucking extinct or were brought damn close to it so they assume that would mean that once black powder was invented dragons would be wiped off the face of the earth regardless of the power of said dragons or the basic tone and metaphysics of the setting.

If you are okay with worlds crafted like this I can only pity you.

It's not about realism it's about verisimilitude and internal consistency.

Not the user you are responding to but I can only assume that you are either trying to bait an argument because you have nothing better to do or you actually are just that autistic and can't accept that people don't subscribe to your narrow ass definition of what is and is not acceptable in an RPG setting
This being Veeky Forums I'm gonna hedge my bets and say both

Probably.

I just really dislike when authors put things labelled "just because".

arrows

>gee bill, how come your mom lets you have two hammers?

>"just because".
>a specifically magical reason
Hmm.

>I just really dislike when authors put things labelled "just because".

my problem with this too. If you handwave shit with "magic" at least handwave it properly.

>advanced weapons
This is the operative word. Once you get into breech loading rifles and automatic weapons (even something as simple as a Maxim or Gatling), the power of firearms skyrockets into absurdity. You can just do a crazy amount of damage with bullets; WWII machine guns were knocking limbs off of people.

That said, firearms as we know them today probably wouldn't develop, or at least develop nearly as quickly, with mages and sorcerers running around because someone who can throw fire or lightning from his fingertips is suddenly insanely dangerous to any black powder line. Or at least moreso than normal.

I actually found a mediocre LN series that dealt with something like this. Instead of deploying large amounts of riflemen or whatever, black powder was pretty much limited to rarely deployed mortars. They'd get one or two volleys off while the enemy was unaware of them and then ditch the weapons before the enemy mages could mount a counter attack and blow them to hell and back. Since no one could figure out a reliable way to guard the powder from magical attacks, firearms never made it into mainstream use.

Of course in lower magic settings this doesn't usually hold up as well, but something to consider anyway.

/thread.

A world contrived story-first usually has a lot more interesting stuff going on in it than a world contrived setting-first. There's usually a lot more odd errata and strange things in the margins, because in building their world around the contrivances of their plot, writers are forced to use a good deal of innovative thinking to justify their narrative.

Letting your plot dictate your worldbuilding is the best, because it will often lead you to interesting and unique ideas that you never would have come up with otherwise.

Here's a thought for you: everything in fiction is there "just because". It's all contrived. All of it. Stories are not windows into other worlds; they are artifacts of creative endeavour. "Why is there something here instead of nothing?" The answer is, "because the author decided there should be". It is absurd to expect any other answer.

The root of "death ray guns" problem is basic RPG assumption of "Hit points = meat points".

Swords are a thing of the past, so we have no problem thinking that they remove relatively small number of "meat points" because we aren't really exposed to how damaging they were historically (and heroic fantasy/swashbuckling media only reinforces the erroneous belief).

Guns, however, are much more recent, much more dangerous and to see how damaging they are we just need a cursory look at the internet (or news if you are murrican). Therefore, in games, they are treated as in real life, while swords don't have such courtesy.

So, the solution to instant death guns is actually simple:

1. Get rid of meat points and DESCRIBE YOUR COMBAT BETTER. There's many ways to explain away loss of HP - exhaustion, being stuck in unsafe position, even glancing injuries and scratches. Move away from "let's hack at it till it dies combat.
2. Action movie combat. Usually our games aren't accurate simulations, so why guns should follow the real life rules? Remember cheesy-ass 80s-90s action movies and employ everything from them - the near-misses, the magazines emptied around action hero, the action hero being shot and removing the bullet from the wound, the whisky flask of shielding... you have a huge library of tricks to make guns narratively cool and not overpowered, do not default to boring "instant death to meat points" bullshit.

It really should've been
Every time this topic is brought up it is always because guys are either jacking themselves off over their precious guns, assuming that a Hill Giant would essentially work like a bipedal elephant and therefore be killed in the same ways, or defaulting to a specific system usually D&D or specific setting usually Forgotten Realms or their own dumbass aspie homebrew

>any goblin is smart enough to manufacture it for use in combat or that they would be able to ever begin repairing or creating firearms
If Africans could do it why not goblins. They've had a burgeoning firearms industry since the 17th century.

>just because
Well for starters it had to mesh well with the FUN of the group in question. I would kick my DM in the nuts if he'd make effeminate traps the main race in a setting just because.

>basic RPG assumption of "Hit points = meat points".
Because 90% of the time they are. Yes even in D&D we all know D&D is the default system for any fucking argument on this board dick head because let's face it D&D past 5th level isn't anything more than a superhero setting draped in a "medieval" fantasy veneer

Yes, and?

I don't see how that contradicts my argument. A world contrived for the sake of an RPG group's enjoyment is no less contrived than a world contrived for the sake of its creator's fetishes. It's all contrivance, all the way down.

The sooner you stop complaining and just accept the unreality of it all, the happier you'll be for it.

Well why don't you concede the point, just because? Because I mean why not?

that's cool and all, but this seems like an easily fixable problem. There's nothing in the rules preventing you from not treating hit points as meat points.

>aspie hmebrew
You mean
>its all Veeky Forums troupes but supper dark and gritty
>we still use MY FIXED I PROMISE version of d&d

>Yes even in D&D

It's outright stated in the book that they aren't meat points.

It didn't take too long to wipe out some monsters in the americas.

Are you high? Guns in WHFB were very much pretty effective at wiping out big monsters that would tear apart battleline with ease.

I don't even like guns, but their proponents do have a point - make monsters dangerous enough to not fear them and you don't fucking have a setting because they wipe out civilization long before guns can be invented. Why would a dragon immune to guns simply not eat humans (who compete for food with him, so win-win) until there are none left? It's the drooling morons who contrive whatever reasons the guns don't work who have the burden of proof the setting would still work on them.

As for black powder weapons being useless, please. As if dragon breath or fireball isn't vastly more effective against a pike square than it is against loose skirmish line full of cheap guns (that are by the way vastly cheaper than good sword or bow and require fraction of training). Does your dragon have eyes and/or throat? Then eating 20 mm lead ball to either with a force strong enough to knock a knight off his saddle will make it not a problem very quickly. Lack of vital organs is not a problem, mummy or zombie hit with musket ball would be torn to shreds.

Does your mage needs a line of sight? Then good luck surviving being pelted with hundreds of bullets from outside typical spell range. Even if medieval guns are not that accurate, the numbers do add up and someone will eventually hit. Congratulations, your wizened old spellcasterwho spent 50 years learning the arcane ways was just killed by 18 year old peasant #2356 after two weeks of drill. And that's why, muh-technolgy-iz-bad crowd, is why guns would fucking dominate magical battlefields very quickly. Because if you contrive enough reasons why guns don't work, nothing else will and there will be no civilization in that setting at all, just groups of cavemen hiding away in dark corners.

>battleline
>formation
>hundreds of bullets

I want all people who confuse single/small party combat and formation combat to painfully die of explosive diarrhea.

>I don't even like guns
I don't believe you.

Here are some simple ways of fucking over guns without raping the setting:
>Protection from normal missiles
It's a third-level spell, if your wizard can cast fireball, he can probably make himself immune to arrows and bullets too.
>monsters are immune to damage from lead
Doesn't stop you using steel, iron, or copper shot, but those are all worse for the barrel than lead. The next one does, though.
>monsters are immune to non-edged metal weaponry
So you can't hit them with metal clubs. What a world-shattering tragedy.

My problems is mostly with the fact that 90% authors who put plot first never bother with implications of things that they introduce for it to work. They use plot device number X and then drop it. And it never again resurfaces in any other circumstances even if even most retarded of characters could see how it would have benefited them in such situation.

Plot first is also bad for tabletop RPG games due to the fact that players have tendency to drift or suddenly become obsessed with some seemingly miniscule detail. When you have at least basic guidelines for your setting it's much easier to improvise when players inevitably come up with something new and unpredictable.

Oh yes! They are great at FIGHTING them not genociding them.
Chaos demons still exists.
Orcs and gobos still exists.
Ogres still exists.
Giants still exists.
Lizardmen still exist.
Skaven still exists.

I can go on fuccboi. Go get bleach.

Chaos demons - don't have real vitals and more or less immortal.
Orcs and goblins - have inhuman physiology and breed faster than rabbits.
Ogres - use their own bigger guns
Lizardmen - Slanns are more or less best magic users in the world and they live on another continent
Skaven - have their own guns

This is another thing to consider. It seems like when the topic of how fighting is done in a setting is it done from the perspective of two military forces in setting fighting each other or a group of random individuals with even more random skill sets and no obligation to adhere to or use military tactics fighting together against, usually, single targets?

I feel like the question of practicallity hits a wall here because what may work for an individual obviously isn't going to work very well on a large scale (maybe) So while an army of Guts isn't reasonable or even desireable one guy who is Guts in a mixed group certainly would be

>Mobilizing a battalion to kill a single wizard
wew

In D&D I would gladly trade a division of soldiers vs one level 20 wizard.

It all depends on the setting.

Because guns represent human advancement.

In Princess Mononoke, the guns were just too strong for the beasts. They literally couldn't handle bombs and guns and cannons, they couldn't understand what was happening. Humans are too smart and 'guns' is the point where that intelligence gives them an unbeatable edge over simple creatures.

No idea, it is the first time I heard of this assumption myself. And it doesn't seem believable.

Seems the kind of thinking of people that think a single factor can be so decisive that nothing else matters, really.

>Action movie combat. Usually our games aren't accurate simulations, so why guns should follow the real life rules? Remember cheesy-ass 80s-90s action movies and employ everything from them - the near-misses, the magazines emptied around action hero, the action hero being shot and removing the bullet from the wound, the whisky flask of shielding... you have a huge library of tricks to make guns narratively cool and not overpowered, do not default to boring "instant death to meat points" bullshit.
So like GURPS with the action and gun-fu splatbooks?

I mean, the church IRL mobilized entire hit squads to kill peasants/suspected witches.

If you have a dangerous enough threat why not bring backup?

Because people are dumb.

Seriously, in a world where MAGIC already exists why would black powder firearms be what wipes out the owlbear?

>but muh access to the common man

Give a normal man a musket to hunt with and see how well he does. Even people good with muskets have to take into account that misfires WILL happen, much less how to land a distance shot.

Meanwhile, depending on the setting a single wizard could tear apart a company of armed soldiers by manipulating weather, launching fireballs from hundreds of feet away while sneaking around or just fucking unmake them.

There is only ONE argument to make when it comes to firearms wiping out monsters; Magic Guns, and good ones. Even then, in a high magic world in particular I don't see it wiping out every single monster.

And regular dudes just burn to death when cooked by dragonfire. But with gunpowder, you can knock that bitch out the sky with a cannonball (or shell, depending on advances) and possibly panic and definitely hurt them with a volley of musketry

That said, I feel people mix things up when you talk from a narrative perspective versus a game mechanics perspective.

I mean, how do you accept the fact that a bow and arrow or a sword can miss it's mark every now and again but a gun always has to hit?

I mean, speaking purely from D&D I suppose you could fluff your AC as just tanking the bullets and them plinking off your armor (or your skin) or you could have dodge a shot that wasn't well aimed.

In order to even reach a level 20 Wizard's pinky toe in relative power scale, you'd need to have a planet's worth of soldiers at your disposal, each outfitted with their own anti-magic gear, and you'd have to mobilize them without alerting the wizard to your plan.

The logistics just aren't going to be in your favor.

Depends on how advanced your talking. An anti-tank rocket would fuck a dragon.

>guns in whfb do shit

Laughingdawi.rune

Because most monsters tend not to be sapient outside of d&d style kitchen sink settings. Guns provide a terrifyingly loud power advantage to whomever has them.

Any sapient monster isn't going to have the production to have their own guns. Hence why they're being refereed to as monsters and not just non-humans. I'd expect them to get on as well as the savages of old.

>I mean, how do you accept the fact that a bow and arrow or a sword can miss it's mark every now and again but a gun always has to hit?

I mean Pathfinder has sort of the opposite problem. Bows are almost superior in every way besides a firearm's almost guaranteed chance to hit...with 20-40 ft. of their target.

Other than that, firearms balance themselves. Black powder is good against heavily armored opponents, specifically at close range. However, they are not pinpoint accurate. Fast and agile opponents have no problem getting around them.

Furthermore, a gun's usefellness REALLY comes into question when magic and magical healing comes into play. Most people died from musket-fire due to fever and disease, not just vital shots. In worlds where more competent healers are available guns lose this lethal advantage over other ranged weapons.

>Furthermore, a gun's usefellness REALLY comes into question when magic and magical healing comes into play. Most people died from musket-fire due to fever and disease, not just vital shots. In worlds where more competent healers are available guns lose this lethal advantage over other ranged weapons.

Be that as it may, when has this ever became a thing in game? Never mind it entirely depends on what your fighting. Undead and Trolls arn't going to be terrible bothered or hindered by that sort of thing anyways.

That sounds awesome...

True, you only really have realistic wound systems in low or no magic settings anyways. I guess I was just talking from a world concept, not a game concept.

Because people are covinced that guns are ungodly death-rays that can kill literally anything with one shot.
Basically it's fucking pussies' faults for spreading this "one-hit-you-die" meme about anything remotely dangerous with their failure to acknowledge that life is a lot sturdier than they think.
I've had actual people ask me why anyone would play in a low-fantasy setting with just swords and shit "because your character would just die immediately."

>whut of we taek a homhom cooltur
>AND MAEK IT BOKOLDS!!!!11!ONE1
Never heard that one before!

Except for the fact that every attack that deals damage takes away a quantifiable amount of HP from your current total. You can give an okay description that tells you what you need to know, but at the end of the day, how it actually plays out is
>"Okay, roll an attack roll."
>"Okay...I rolled a 22."
>"Awesome, you hit, roll damage."
>"Okay...I rolled 12 damage, wait...I forgot to add my modifier(s) from X so...it's actually 19."
>"Okay cool, you [cut/bludgeon/stab] his [body part] in a gruesome fashion. Now, who's next on the initiative track?"
In any system where you track damage using numerical values, you're going to end up with meat points if the damage that you can take before dying easily eclipses that amount of damage that a single attack can perform.

No reason to feel frightened over 1d4+STR damage when you have over 50HP and a fuck-huge fort/CON save prevent death.

Y'mean like how it's outright stated in the book that a wizard and a fighter of equal level are equal in power?

Prose doesn't mean shit if the mechanics don't line up with the fluff.

Yeah but heres the problem with guns: They're the great equalizer.

Soon as the monster races gets their hand on them its over for humans.

I can't tell if this post is deliberately ironic or not.

Because idiots don't know what their talking about user

>you're going to end up with meat points if the damage that you can take before dying easily eclipses that amount of damage that a single attack can perform.
Not if you realise that the amount of physical damage dealt by an attack is actually meant to be related to the fraction of your total HP done by said attack. 5 HP out of 90? A scratch or bruise. 5 HP out of 6? A wound so grievous you're barely conscious.

>In any system where you track damage using numerical values, you're going to end up with meat points if the damage that you can take before dying easily eclipses that amount of damage that a single attack can perform.

not if you have/are a halfway decent GM.

Pretty much.

For all the flak GURPS gets here, it's really far better and easier to learn system than D&D.

>That said, firearms as we know them today probably wouldn't develop, or at least develop nearly as quickly, with mages and sorcerers running around because someone who can throw fire or lightning from his fingertips is suddenly insanely dangerous to any black powder line. Or at least moreso than normal.
I'm so tired of this bullshit.
Gun wizard would totally be a thing
You're a fucking wizard. You know shit. You know all sorts of alchemical shit. You know physics shit. You know metaphysics shit. You know that magic takes time to cast.
Once the nonmages invent rudimentary firearms, wizards are going to be ALL OVER THAT SHIT.
Don't have enough time to cast a spell? Didn't prepare any combat spells? Or simply don't want to waste the spell slot. bang. Bang. BANG.
Wizards already spend a lot of time preparing spells, might as well prepare some ammo as well.
You can't counterspell a bullet.

Saying "wizards won't bother with guns because they have spells" is like saying "armies won't bother with infantry because they have artillery".

>gun wizard

>Firearms
>being required to extinct animal species

There used to be lions in Europe and rhiozeros in China.

Not to mention elephants, who were exterminated as a centralised government policy because they kept getting in the way of farming.

Gun the slann moving the mountains away.

>all those exist still

Woah. So much for firearms killing all monsters you fucking retard.

Also
Tomb kings
Beast men
Elves
Chos warriors/barbarians
Vamp cunts

Seriously go get the bleach retard.

Also
>gobos
>inhuman anything but idiocy

Because you know what happens when a horde of dudes with short range or melee weapons charges a position held by men with guns?

The Somme.

>Level 1 characters are more fragile than a level 10 character.
Stop the presses senpai!

Also, if HP wasn't meat points and didn't eclipse the amount of damage that a single attack can perform, then wouldn't it mean that 5 damage would always deal the same level of injury no matter what?

Even the best GM isn't going to get around the fact that they need to tell you "okay, what happens is [flowery description] and you lose X damage."

It's just the way the game is designed.

And that's okay. I'm just saying that damage can be expressed in ways different that just slicing slabs of meat off the barbarian.

Compare:
>The skeleton swings its club at your Level 1 fighter. You barely manage to block it with your buckler, the aftershock of the hit surging through your forearm. You lose 5 HP.

>The skeleton swings its club at your Level 20 fighter. You barely register the threat, swatting it away with your shield. It still takes a token effort, however - lose 5 HP.

And i'm not even a good GM. Yet i can think of combat in terms other than "two guys stab each other until one falls.

>Silver bullet with runes/sigils scratched in
>The paper cartage is holy script or spell tags
>Blackpowder made-for-purpose
-Charcoal made from wooden relics, magic woods etc
-Sulfur from magically or demonically active locations
-Saltpeter made from the waste of magical creatures or holy people.

>but muh access to the common man
>Give a normal man a musket to hunt with and see how well he does.

...Pretty damn good actually, when it becomes cheap enough to part of modern culture. Hell, we get both nogunz and "high-speed-low-drag tacticool" chumps at my museum's musket range, and after a shot or two, they will regularly hit paper.

>Even people good with muskets have to take into account that misfires WILL happen, much less how to land a distance shot.

I literally shoot muskets every day for a living. Basic maintenance mitigates this problem to a near nonissue. Regular practice makes a 120-140 yard shot with about a nine-inch drift the norm. Aiming for center of mass means that missing isn't a huge problem.

Iron Kingdom's/Warmahordes gunmages are also a good example.

>my museum's musket range
>I literally shoot muskets every day for a living
Where the fuck do you work and what do you do? I call bullshit.

Crap is supposed to come out of one of the lower holes.

>But, there are still African Tribesmen.
Yeah, but don't think the Europeans couldn't have exterminated them if they really wanted to. It's just that they're more profitable alive. On the flipside, the only ones who don't get shit for genocide are the ones who succesfully complete it. There'd be less whining about 'muh reparationz' if there was nobody left to whine about it. Just something to get your noggin joggin.

they were all shot dummy

Because we have weapons so powerful that their only practical use is as a mutual deterrent to war, so in a world where monsters attack us what chance would they stand if they were unable to invent and create these weapons themselves?

>monsters attacking?
>nuke ourselves out of existence!
>that'll show 'em.

>implying we don't have smaller weapons

>Why is it that when firearms or other forms of advanced weapons are brought up or introduced there is a sudden assumption that all monsters are instantly up for being wiped out of existence?

Most monsters are balanced against primitive weapons, and guns > spears, so if spears = monsters, guns > monsters.

This isn't rocket science senpai.

Not to mention that if monsters are powerful enough to face evenly against guns, it's unlikely humanity would have survived long enough to invent guns in the first place.

Depends on how common those monsters are, and how much of their territory overlaps with humanity.

wew kid, calm down

>Most monsters are balanced against primitive weapons
"Primitive weapons" and literal magic including fireballs, disintegration, lightning and magical weapons not to mention superhuman ability to wield those weapons.
Especially considering the classic dungeon crawl setup close range weapons could be competitive with guns, have you never heard of the 21 foot rule?
>spears = monsters
A commoner with a spear isn't going to take down a dragon and they probably wouldn't do much better with a gun.

It's not rocket science but you're apparently too stupid to use logic properly.