What are the requirements and benefits that ammunition actually provides? Which of those remain intact under your reading of the infusion? Why is the ammunition property not simply voided by saying so instead, like the other relevant weapon property, loading?
These are questions that reasonable people may disagree on the answers to, using the current wording of the three relevant game features.
Since "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack" and nowhere in the infusion is it stated where the ammunition is created ("If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."), it is reasonable that one could interpret this that the magical ammunition created wherever you normally draw it from, and you still need to do that part of the attack -- since the ammunition property says that drawing the ammunition from its container is part of the attack.
"We are back to what I have been saying over and over again with respect to 5e. At least a smidgen of common sense and basic logic is assumed." ~Kotath
A reminder that this is the Rules & Game Mechanics forum. Common sense does not exist here, and logic does not apply outside of the strict letter of the rules. "This is the only reasonable interpretation of the language" is not even remotely a valid argument in a world where V/S spells are significantly more difficult to cast than V/S/M spells.
The intent of the Repeating Shot infusion is crystal clear. The wording of the infusion is a terrible snarled mess. It is a table-by-table decision whether one still requires a free hand for any given Repeating Shot item, regardless of J-Craw's opinion.
it is reasonable that one could interpret this that the magical ammunition created wherever you normally draw it from, and you still need to do that part of the attack -- since the ammunition property says that drawing the ammunition from its container is part of the attack.
What is wrong with that interpretation?
Not really because a quiver or quarrel case are separate pieces of equipment. In addition, there are some quivers that generate their own ammunition and do not eliminate the need to load the weapon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Since "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack" and nowhere in the infusion is it stated where the ammunition is created ("If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."), it is reasonable that one could interpret this that the magical ammunition created wherever you normally draw it from, and you still need to do that part of the attack -- since the ammunition property says that drawing the ammunition from its container is part of the attack.
What is wrong with that interpretation?
What's wrong with it is that it makes no sense in context of the use of the infusion explicitly involving you not loading the weapon. If the ammunition is created wherever you normally draw it from, and you don't load the weapon, how does the weapon get loaded?
That said, that doesn't actually affect the mechanics of it. As I said, the reductio ad absurdum is fine. Let's say you do still need to draw ammunition from the quiver, case, whatever. You still don't load it (because that's what the infusion says), so you don't need a free hand (because loading it is the only thing the Ammunition property says you need a free hand for). What that actually looks like is a mystery; it doesn't make any sense to me, which is why I dispute that a reasonable person could conclude that this is how it works. But is it a textually-supported conclusion? Sure, if you suspend common sense.
None of this leads to the conclusion that you still need a free hand. The only way to conclude that is to say that you still need to load the weapon, which necessarily involves ignoring the infusion's description.
Why is the ammunition property not simply voided by saying so instead, like the other relevant weapon property, loading?
Because the infusion doesn't void the ammunition property. That'd mean your bow no longer shoots anything. And since you can't throw it either, your bow is now useless.
Since "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack" and nowhere in the infusion is it stated where the ammunition is created ("If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."), it is reasonable that one could interpret this that the magical ammunition created wherever you normally draw it from, and you still need to do that part of the attack -- since the ammunition property says that drawing the ammunition from its container is part of the attack.
The weapon only creates ammo if you don't load. If it made ammo appear in your hand or quiver or whatever you'd be loading it.
Why is the ammunition property not simply voided by saying so instead, like the other relevant weapon property, loading?
Because the infusion doesn't void the ammunition property. That'd mean your bow no longer shoots anything. And since you can't throw it either, your bow is now useless.
Firing ammunition isn't actually something that the ammunition weapon property provides -- it is assumed. By skipping the prerequisite questions, you've jumped to a conclusion that is wrong.
Since "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack" and nowhere in the infusion is it stated where the ammunition is created ("If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."), it is reasonable that one could interpret this that the magical ammunition created wherever you normally draw it from, and you still need to do that part of the attack -- since the ammunition property says that drawing the ammunition from its container is part of the attack.
The weapon only creates ammo if you don't load. If it made ammo appear in your hand or quiver or whatever you'd be loading it.
That interpretation requires you to surmise that drawing the ammunition from its container is part of loading the weapon, but the text actually only says that it is "part of the attack."
That interpretation requires you to surmise that drawing the ammunition from its container is part of loading the weapon, but the text actually only says that it is "part of the attack."
That verbiage is used because otherwise they would have to define loading as an action or bonus action. Like drawing your sword can be included in your attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
That interpretation requires you to surmise that drawing the ammunition from its container is part of loading the weapon, but the text actually only says that it is "part of the attack."
That verbiage is used because otherwise they would have to define loading as an action or bonus action. Like drawing your sword can be included in your attack.
But it still uses that verbiage, right? It still says that drawing the ammunition is part of the attack... which... makes drawing ammunition is part of the attack, right?
Ammunition says that you are required to have ammunition on you, that you expend a piece of ammunition each attack that you make, that drawing the ammunition is part of the attack, that you need a free hand for 1-hand weapons with this property, and that you can recover only half of your expended ammunition. The infusion makes clear that you cannot recover any of the magical ammunition created by it, makes clear that you do not load the weapon when using the benefit of the infusion, makes clear that this occurs when you attack with the weapon, makes clear that it gives you a +1 to attack and damage, and makes clear that you can ignore the loading property. That's it.
The rest of ammunition should still apply. You still need ammunition, you still expend ammunition (though you can expend your magical ammunition), drawing ammunition is still part of the attack, you can still only recover half of any recoverable expended ammunition, etc.
Firing ammunition isn't actually something that the ammunition weapon property provides -- nothing in the ammunition property actually says that you are firing the ammunition via the weapon.
Ammunition. You can use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to fire from the weapon.
That interpretation requires you to surmise that drawing the ammunition from its container is part of loading the weapon, but the text actually only says that it is "part of the attack."
Yes, the writers assume the reader is a human being that can make simple logical inferences.
Firing ammunition isn't actually something that the ammunition weapon property provides -- nothing in the ammunition property actually says that you are firing the ammunition via the weapon.
Ammunition. You can use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to fire from the weapon.
Yeah, what I said there isn't quite right. But again, I was pointing out your hyperbole about a ranged weapon firing nothing without ammunition, rather than without ammunition. The weapon property isn't strictly required for firing ammunition at a target, it is mentioned in the general ranged attack rules.
That interpretation requires you to surmise that drawing the ammunition from its container is part of loading the weapon, but the text actually only says that it is "part of the attack."
Yes, the writers assume the reader is a human being that can make simple logical inferences.
Like that you need a free hand to use a 1-handed weapon with the ammunition property? But beyond that, you're saying that you can infer that the rules mean something different than is written?
It's not hyperbole. The ammunition property is what tells you a weapon fires ammo in the same way the two-handed property is what tells you it requires two hands and the thrown property is what tells you it can be thrown.
There's a big difference between inferring something different than what is written and inferring something obvious that was left unsaid.
It's not hyperbole. The ammunition property is what tells you a weapon fires ammo in the same way the two-handed property is what tells you it requires two hands and the thrown property is what tells you it can be thrown.
It must have been hyperbole since the weapon property only requires that you have ammunition to fire, it doesn't tell you that you are firing it when you make the attack.
There's a big difference between inferring something different than what is written and inferring something obvious that was left unsaid.
As in "part of the attack" means "part of loading the weapon"?
It must have been hyperbole since the weapon property only requires that you have ammunition to fire, it doesn't tell you that you are firing it when you make the attack.
It doesn't say that because its obvious. The ammo doesn't spontaneously combust.
As in "part of the attack" means "part of loading the weapon"?
Anyway, I don't think this is getting anywhere. My point with all of this is that if you're making a strict reading, the rules don't make sense. You probably have to fudge the text. If you're going to fudge the text in one direction, why would you expect that someone else might not just fudge it in the other?
Well yeah. If you approach the rules like it's legalese or computer code a lot of things aren't going to make sense. The game's lead rules designer has said multiple times the rules are written in plain english, with all the nuance and complexity that implies. That's exactly why I said this on page 1.
There's a joke about a programmer that's going to the supermarket, and after being told by his wife "Buy a gallon of milk, and if there are eggs, buy a dozen" comes back with 13 gallons. The rules aren't written for that guy.
We both know what the wife in the joke meant. If you wouldn't insist on a strict reading there, don't approach the rules like that either.
And i used to think that coming up with a short, well reasoned argument that supported my position (hint, i think you probably don’t need a free hand with a 1-h weapon and this infusion) was the end-all, be-all to the rules & mechanics forum. I used to look up to posters who I thought did this well. Now, after reading the rules, and realizing the way the rules are written don’t often support this, I think that anyone who can’t concede that the rules might be read differently by someone else is certainly wrong in that and therefore probably not “correct” in their rules argument.
And i used to think that coming up with a short, well reasoned argument that supported my position (hint, i think you probably don’t need a free hand with a 1-h weapon and this infusion) was the end-all, be-all to the rules & mechanics forum. I used to look up to posters who I thought did this well. Now, after reading the rules, and realizing the way the rules are written don’t often support this, I think that anyone who can’t concede that the rules might be read differently by someone else is certainly wrong in that and therefore probably not “correct” in their rules argument.
I think all of us will concede that the rules might be read differently, but most of us would concede that no matter how well the rules were written. Misreading happens. However what is less clear is why go on for pages and pages defending an argument that you, yourself, probably do not support.
I will clarify: I like to think that in at least some cases (material components, specifically) mechanical requirements set by the rules are requirements that need to be met regardless of their justification. It could be interpreted that the idea that ‘you require a free hand to load a one-handed weapon’ is a requirement of having a free hand that is simply justified by the fact that 1-h ranged weapons require loading. That interpretation, I think, is where the other side comes from.
And i used to think that coming up with a short, well reasoned argument that supported my position (hint, i think you probably don’t need a free hand with a 1-h weapon and this infusion) was the end-all, be-all to the rules & mechanics forum. I used to look up to posters who I thought did this well. Now, after reading the rules, and realizing the way the rules are written don’t often support this, I think that anyone who can’t concede that the rules might be read differently by someone else is certainly wrong in that and therefore probably not “correct” in their rules argument.
I think all of us will concede that the rules might be read differently, but most of us would concede that no matter how well the rules were written. Misreading happens. However what is less clear is why go on for pages and pages defending an argument that you, yourself, probably do not support.
I will clarify: I like to think that in at least some cases (material components, specifically) mechanical requirements set by the rules are requirements that need to be met regardless of their justification. It could be interpreted that the idea that ‘you require a free hand to load a one-handed weapon’ is a requirement of having a free hand that is simply justified by the fact that 1-h ranged weapons require loading. That interpretation, I think, is where the other side comes from.
First of all, is this your opinion, or have you been spending multiple posts defending some hypothetical other persons opinion. Either own it or don't, but If you don't actually hold this opinion then quit playing devils advocate and let someone who actually holds this opinion come in and make their case; all you seem to want is an acknowledgement that other people might disagree, which is not an arguable point, of course others might disagree (they might also be wrong)
Second, if there is a legitimate "other side" which holds this point of view, that point of view entirely contingent on a computer-like slavishness to an interpretation of the language based more on "code" or "legalese" than plain english or even logic,. To refute it, you would want an explicit statement nullifying the 'ammunition' property, but as many others have said, the intent of the infusion is not to nullify the property, but to add an additional option that, by default interpretation of the language (and RAI, per the JC response), would nullify only one portion of the property if chosen. Do you see the disconnect there? Even logically using if then statements, there is not an interpretation that allows for this point of view. Follow this logic starting with first order;
If you fire a weapon with the ammunition property, then you must load it (you can load it either well before using the weapon, or as part of firing it.)
The rule then states the next order of logic, and a second if/then, following from the first:
If you load ammunition into a one handed weapon, then you need a free hand to do the loading.
The infusion gives you an option that overrides the first logical if/then, as you are no longer required to load the weapon ("if you don't load the weapon..."), so the second is never reached. if the second is never reached, then its conclusion (" you need a free hand") is also never reached, and logically no longer applies if the option is pursued. By not fully nullifying the overall ammunition property, you still have the option of following the general rule (which you may want to do to fire poisoned or "+X" magical ammunition), but if you choose not to, then the rest of that portion of the general rule never comes into play.
To say otherwise is to say that the text of the rule by itself (devoid of logic or interpretation) overrides the interpretation and application of the rule. This would be true of computer code or legalese, but the rules were not written that way, so intent and application matter.
Ammunition. You can use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon). At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield.
Okay, so you need ammo to fire, and ammo is indeed fired/shot from the weapon. That's what "expended" means in this instance. To say otherwise is to fail at basic reading comprehension for a person of age 12 or older. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
Loading. Because of the time required to load this weapon, you can fire only one piece of ammunition from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.
This is a plain restriction that only really applies on a character's turn when they take the attack action with the Extra Attack feature. Maybe we'll come back to that.
Repeating Shot
Item: A simple or martial weapon with the ammunition property (requires attunement)
This magic weapon grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it when it’s used to make a ranged attack, and it ignores the loading property if it has it.
If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it. The ammunition created by the weapon vanishes the instant after it hits or misses a target.
Okay, so this ignores the loading property. This means is it can be fired faster than normal and can use a character's full Extra Attack feature. Good? Good. Moving on, we also see the weapon produces its own ammunition. This means a couple of things:
The character doesn't need to carry ammunition or search a battlefield after a fight to recover expended ammunition. The weapon produces its own ammunition, which also eliminates the need for a quiver or case. The how is up to the artificer's chosen trappings. But we do know that one-handed weapons, like the light crossbow, no longer need a free hand to be loaded. With this infusion, a character can fire a hand crossbow and wield a shield at the same time. No rules are broken.
The character can still elect to carry and use ammunition. The reason the ammunition property is not removed is to allow the wielder to still use specialty ammunition. Because that's a thing which exists. In fact, you can even combine the numerical bonus of ammunition with those of the weapon. But even if you don't have that, a Bolt of Slaying is always an option.
This isn't that hard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What are the requirements and benefits that ammunition actually provides? Which of those remain intact under your reading of the infusion? Why is the ammunition property not simply voided by saying so instead, like the other relevant weapon property, loading?
These are questions that reasonable people may disagree on the answers to, using the current wording of the three relevant game features.
Since "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack" and nowhere in the infusion is it stated where the ammunition is created ("If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."), it is reasonable that one could interpret this that the magical ammunition created wherever you normally draw it from, and you still need to do that part of the attack -- since the ammunition property says that drawing the ammunition from its container is part of the attack.
What is wrong with that interpretation?
"We are back to what I have been saying over and over again with respect to 5e. At least a smidgen of common sense and basic logic is assumed."
~Kotath
A reminder that this is the Rules & Game Mechanics forum. Common sense does not exist here, and logic does not apply outside of the strict letter of the rules. "This is the only reasonable interpretation of the language" is not even remotely a valid argument in a world where V/S spells are significantly more difficult to cast than V/S/M spells.
The intent of the Repeating Shot infusion is crystal clear. The wording of the infusion is a terrible snarled mess. It is a table-by-table decision whether one still requires a free hand for any given Repeating Shot item, regardless of J-Craw's opinion.
Please do not contact or message me.
Not really because a quiver or quarrel case are separate pieces of equipment. In addition, there are some quivers that generate their own ammunition and do not eliminate the need to load the weapon.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
What's wrong with it is that it makes no sense in context of the use of the infusion explicitly involving you not loading the weapon. If the ammunition is created wherever you normally draw it from, and you don't load the weapon, how does the weapon get loaded?
That said, that doesn't actually affect the mechanics of it. As I said, the reductio ad absurdum is fine. Let's say you do still need to draw ammunition from the quiver, case, whatever. You still don't load it (because that's what the infusion says), so you don't need a free hand (because loading it is the only thing the Ammunition property says you need a free hand for). What that actually looks like is a mystery; it doesn't make any sense to me, which is why I dispute that a reasonable person could conclude that this is how it works. But is it a textually-supported conclusion? Sure, if you suspend common sense.
None of this leads to the conclusion that you still need a free hand. The only way to conclude that is to say that you still need to load the weapon, which necessarily involves ignoring the infusion's description.
Because the infusion doesn't void the ammunition property. That'd mean your bow no longer shoots anything. And since you can't throw it either, your bow is now useless.
The weapon only creates ammo if you don't load. If it made ammo appear in your hand or quiver or whatever you'd be loading it.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Firing ammunition isn't actually something that the ammunition weapon property provides -- it is assumed. By skipping the prerequisite questions, you've jumped to a conclusion that is wrong.
That interpretation requires you to surmise that drawing the ammunition from its container is part of loading the weapon, but the text actually only says that it is "part of the attack."
That verbiage is used because otherwise they would have to define loading as an action or bonus action. Like drawing your sword can be included in your attack.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
But it still uses that verbiage, right? It still says that drawing the ammunition is part of the attack... which... makes drawing ammunition is part of the attack, right?
Ammunition says that you are required to have ammunition on you, that you expend a piece of ammunition each attack that you make, that drawing the ammunition is part of the attack, that you need a free hand for 1-hand weapons with this property, and that you can recover only half of your expended ammunition. The infusion makes clear that you cannot recover any of the magical ammunition created by it, makes clear that you do not load the weapon when using the benefit of the infusion, makes clear that this occurs when you attack with the weapon, makes clear that it gives you a +1 to attack and damage, and makes clear that you can ignore the loading property. That's it.
The rest of ammunition should still apply. You still need ammunition, you still expend ammunition (though you can expend your magical ammunition), drawing ammunition is still part of the attack, you can still only recover half of any recoverable expended ammunition, etc.
Yes, the writers assume the reader is a human being that can make simple logical inferences.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Yeah, what I said there isn't quite right. But again, I was pointing out your hyperbole about a ranged weapon firing nothing without ammunition, rather than without ammunition. The weapon property isn't strictly required for firing ammunition at a target, it is mentioned in the general ranged attack rules.
Like that you need a free hand to use a 1-handed weapon with the ammunition property? But beyond that, you're saying that you can infer that the rules mean something different than is written?
It's not hyperbole. The ammunition property is what tells you a weapon fires ammo in the same way the two-handed property is what tells you it requires two hands and the thrown property is what tells you it can be thrown.
There's a big difference between inferring something different than what is written and inferring something obvious that was left unsaid.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
It must have been hyperbole since the weapon property only requires that you have ammunition to fire, it doesn't tell you that you are firing it when you make the attack.
As in "part of the attack" means "part of loading the weapon"?
It doesn't say that because its obvious. The ammo doesn't spontaneously combust.
Yes.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Anyway, I don't think this is getting anywhere. My point with all of this is that if you're making a strict reading, the rules don't make sense. You probably have to fudge the text. If you're going to fudge the text in one direction, why would you expect that someone else might not just fudge it in the other?
Well yeah. If you approach the rules like it's legalese or computer code a lot of things aren't going to make sense. The game's lead rules designer has said multiple times the rules are written in plain english, with all the nuance and complexity that implies. That's exactly why I said this on page 1.
We both know what the wife in the joke meant. If you wouldn't insist on a strict reading there, don't approach the rules like that either.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
And i used to think that coming up with a short, well reasoned argument that supported my position (hint, i think you probably don’t need a free hand with a 1-h weapon and this infusion) was the end-all, be-all to the rules & mechanics forum. I used to look up to posters who I thought did this well. Now, after reading the rules, and realizing the way the rules are written don’t often support this, I think that anyone who can’t concede that the rules might be read differently by someone else is certainly wrong in that and therefore probably not “correct” in their rules argument.
I will clarify: I like to think that in at least some cases (material components, specifically) mechanical requirements set by the rules are requirements that need to be met regardless of their justification. It could be interpreted that the idea that ‘you require a free hand to load a one-handed weapon’ is a requirement of having a free hand that is simply justified by the fact that 1-h ranged weapons require loading. That interpretation, I think, is where the other side comes from.
First of all, is this your opinion, or have you been spending multiple posts defending some hypothetical other persons opinion. Either own it or don't, but If you don't actually hold this opinion then quit playing devils advocate and let someone who actually holds this opinion come in and make their case; all you seem to want is an acknowledgement that other people might disagree, which is not an arguable point, of course others might disagree (they might also be wrong)
Second, if there is a legitimate "other side" which holds this point of view, that point of view entirely contingent on a computer-like slavishness to an interpretation of the language based more on "code" or "legalese" than plain english or even logic,. To refute it, you would want an explicit statement nullifying the 'ammunition' property, but as many others have said, the intent of the infusion is not to nullify the property, but to add an additional option that, by default interpretation of the language (and RAI, per the JC response), would nullify only one portion of the property if chosen. Do you see the disconnect there? Even logically using if then statements, there is not an interpretation that allows for this point of view. Follow this logic starting with first order;
If you fire a weapon with the ammunition property, then you must load it (you can load it either well before using the weapon, or as part of firing it.)
The rule then states the next order of logic, and a second if/then, following from the first:
If you load ammunition into a one handed weapon, then you need a free hand to do the loading.
The infusion gives you an option that overrides the first logical if/then, as you are no longer required to load the weapon ("if you don't load the weapon..."), so the second is never reached. if the second is never reached, then its conclusion (" you need a free hand") is also never reached, and logically no longer applies if the option is pursued. By not fully nullifying the overall ammunition property, you still have the option of following the general rule (which you may want to do to fire poisoned or "+X" magical ammunition), but if you choose not to, then the rest of that portion of the general rule never comes into play.
To say otherwise is to say that the text of the rule by itself (devoid of logic or interpretation) overrides the interpretation and application of the rule. This would be true of computer code or legalese, but the rules were not written that way, so intent and application matter.
Oh, for crying out loud...
Okay, so you need ammo to fire, and ammo is indeed fired/shot from the weapon. That's what "expended" means in this instance. To say otherwise is to fail at basic reading comprehension for a person of age 12 or older. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
This is a plain restriction that only really applies on a character's turn when they take the attack action with the Extra Attack feature. Maybe we'll come back to that.
Okay, so this ignores the loading property. This means is it can be fired faster than normal and can use a character's full Extra Attack feature. Good? Good. Moving on, we also see the weapon produces its own ammunition. This means a couple of things:
This isn't that hard.