How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

[GamePhil]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

There wasn't a single 4th edition character that I can think of that built a Damage Shield anything like Steve Long's notion.

 

Not a one. However, it is a very reasonable notion in my opinion. I would put Damage Shield as a reduction in cost for the Continuous Advantage, based on my own experiences with it, but I'm sure it's based on Mr. Long's own experiences. I just cut it down to suit my games and the Power it is being placed on. For example, EDM gets the full 1 1/2 treatment.

[TheEmerged]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

RE: Damage Shield tangent. Sorry for creating this one. To me the definitive argument that the current rule is a change and not a "clarification" the way I define that term is 4th Edition's Ninja Hero (and apparently 4th Edition's Ulimate Martial Artist, which I do not own and cannot speak of definitevly).

[Agent X]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Not a one. However' date=' it is a very reasonable notion in my opinion. I would put Damage Shield as a reduction in cost for the Continuous Advantage, based on my own experiences with it, but I'm sure it's based on Mr. Long's own experiences. I just cut it down to suit my games and the Power it is being placed on. For example, EDM gets the full 1 1/2 treatment.[/quote']I don't think his decision was based on his experiences. He has admitted on these boards that he doesn't play much of the Hero System.

 

I think his decision was based on some notion of consistency. However, this particular notion of consistency has proven to clash greatly with practicality. Practically speaking, buying a damage shield nowadays is akin to a gesture of sacrifice to show the player is a "true roleplayer." After all, not only is it not particularly cost effective, it's incredibly NOT cost effective. You gotta really, really love a character concept to throw your points into so little bang for the buck.

[ghost-angel]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I don't know if it's a throw away gesture to prove you're a "Real Role Player" ... On that note I have tossed it out of many character conceptions simply because the cost was prohibitive compared to what I needed/wanted.

 

Then again, I've gone to lengths to make it work in a character that should have it, I don't know if that shows I'm a "True Role Player" as you put it, or hell bent on making a design work, or crazy ... or any combination thereof.

 

I never did mess with Damage Shield in 4E, or a lot of constructs I've tried since 5E came out, so I can't speak for how it would have worked for 4E character concepts..

[zornwil]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

There wasn't a single 4th edition character that I can think of that built a Damage Shield anything like Steve Long's notion. The option of a multi-power attack is a little hard to read as it isn't a "points" thing.

I agree with you. That was kind of my point, though I failed to include that.

[tesuji]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

4e MPA presumption...

every character in 4e had a powers and tactics write up.

I got a lot of poundage of 4e stuff on my shelves.

i reado most of it and used a lot of it.

if i had ever seen one write up which mentioned as part of their powers and tactics using two non-linked attacks simultaneously, ever, just one... i might be inclined to think that this was "how it was in 4e".

 

5e damage shield... pricing damage shield so high as to make the wingnut off-defense DS point out high enough to not be abusive, at the expense of the normal "like you see in comics" damaging fire shields being priced way out of sync with their effectiveness, means that the only damage shields you will now see are the goofy HEROic ones. This is bad design for genre. One day, if we all clap our heels together, the designers will reach one of the one major epiphanies that HERO needs... that autofire is not the only advantage in the game where "goes vs normal defense base power" and "goes vs exotic or no defense base power" is worth a drastic change in the value/effectiveness of the limitation! It definitely applies to area of effect. it definitely applies to damage shield. There are likely as not, more. Any advantage that increases the number of "hits" you get to make per turn (autofire. area and damage shield are good examples) at the expense of DCs (for given value) needs to have two values... one for exotic or no defense and one for normal defenses.

 

just babbling...

[Kristopher]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Why not? Damage Shields are rather wimpy in FREd' date=' but that's not the case with MPAs. Did you try them and see if they were unbalanced?[/quote']

 

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that back before FREd, no one I know used MPAs, or even comtemplated that they might be legal. The idea of using two attacks powers, unlinked, simultaneously never even crossed our minds.

For me, it would have seemed entirely against the grain of the system.

[TheEmerged]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

One day' date=' if we all clap our heels together, the designers will reach one of the one major epiphanies that HERO needs... [b']that autofire is not the only advantage in the game where "goes vs normal defense base power" and "goes vs exotic or no defense base power" is worth a drastic change in the value/effectiveness of the limitation! [/b] It definitely applies to area of effect. it definitely applies to damage shield. There are likely as not, more. Any advantage that increases the number of "hits" you get to make per turn (autofire. area and damage shield are good examples) at the expense of DCs (for given value) needs to have two values... one for exotic or no defense and one for normal defenses.

 

Good example you missed -- Uncontrolled. This should have the same effect on Reduced END that Autofire has, IMO.

[DrFurious]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Good example you missed -- Uncontrolled. This should have the same effect on Reduced END that Autofire has' date=' IMO.[/quote']

 

I don't favor the "exception to the rule" for advantage costs. IMO you tend to begin accumulating all of these "exceptions" (as the above statement suggests and then you need to begin remembering all the exceptions.

[Agent X]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

4e MPA presumption...

every character in 4e had a powers and tactics write up.

I got a lot of poundage of 4e stuff on my shelves.

i reado most of it and used a lot of it.

if i had ever seen one write up which mentioned as part of their powers and tactics using two non-linked attacks simultaneously, ever, just one... i might be inclined to think that this was "how it was in 4e".

 

5e damage shield... pricing damage shield so high as to make the wingnut off-defense DS point out high enough to not be abusive, at the expense of the normal "like you see in comics" damaging fire shields being priced way out of sync with their effectiveness, means that the only damage shields you will now see are the goofy HEROic ones. This is bad design for genre. One day, if we all clap our heels together, the designers will reach one of the one major epiphanies that HERO needs... that autofire is not the only advantage in the game where "goes vs normal defense base power" and "goes vs exotic or no defense base power" is worth a drastic change in the value/effectiveness of the limitation! It definitely applies to area of effect. it definitely applies to damage shield. There are likely as not, more. Any advantage that increases the number of "hits" you get to make per turn (autofire. area and damage shield are good examples) at the expense of DCs (for given value) needs to have two values... one for exotic or no defense and one for normal defenses.

 

just babbling...

I believe Bruiser from the Corruptors of All is an example of a character who was obviously built to use the multi-power attack. He is pre-4th though.

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I think too many people are missing a basic point about Damage Shields: They are not supposed to be fight-enders. They are at least as much defense as offense. Their purpose is to penalize lightly defended characters who attack them in HtH combat, and thus provide disincentive to do so. It's an active rather than passive defense.

 

Look at the classic example of a Damage Shield from the comics, the Human Torch: While his flaming body causes pain and injury to anyone who touches him, if the character in question is willing to take that damage he can still hit or grab the Torch. The Thing has done this many times; his usual reaction is "Ow!" but it doesn't stop him from doing it.

[tesuji]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I think too many people are missing a basic point about Damage Shields: They are not supposed to be fight-enders. They are at least as much defense as offense. Their purpose is to penalize lightly defended characters who attack them in HtH combat, and thus provide disincentive to do so. It's an active rather than passive defense.

 

Look at the classic example of a Damage Shield from the comics, the Human Torch: While his flaming body causes pain and injury to anyone who touches him, if the character in question is willing to take that damage he can still hit or grab the Torch. The Thing has done this many times; his usual reaction is "Ow!" but it doesn't stop him from doing it.

 

Ok, lets say i take your premise as the truth.

 

Damage shield is intended to only be a deterrent to lightly armored HTH guys and not intended to cause any significant damage to the tough guy types like the brick.

 

OK, lets say i do buy that.

 

First off, does a 4d6 flaming Eb DS continuous for 60 ap do that? 4d6 wont make the typical brick (let use their numbers and say 20 total defense on our brick, shall we?) 4d6 does not cause him an "ow" at all. So we seem to miss the boat. heck, if i recall the viper guys as having 10 def... a typical viper guy can grab the torch and hold on taking an average of 4-6 stun per phase.

 

So, i dont know if a damage shield in the normal power ranges is going to come close to even doing what you claim it is for.

 

But, lets also, for the sake of argument pretend that it does. lets pretend and imagine, play makebelieve, and think that the bricks have less than 14 defense and so they say "ow" and that the viper guys are worried about 4-6 stun per round. We all have vivid imaginations...

 

So now we have our 60 pts 4d6 damage shield flaming body and it causes "ow" to bricks and causes viper agents wanting to hth you some concern.

 

Are those gains woirth anything close to 60 ap? Is 6 end per phase in anticipation of the possibility of Viper grapples and Viper punches wrth it?

 

Are you going to get out of that damage shield "active defense" anything close to what you would have gained from 20/20 force field at 0 end or 12d6 EB or any other 60 ap power or +10 Dexterity (assumes half-price for powers and full price for characterists)

 

I would suggest that, maybe 99 hero players out of 103 would take any one of those powers, if told to make a choice, as a better investment of 60 ap than 4d6 damage shield.

 

I would suggest that the rather limited "what damage shield is for" scope you chose to see is not worth 60 ap for 4d6. That amount of damage will succeed at what you want against so weak a foe as to not really be worth that many points.

 

So, even if i think "its only for these few things" i do not think many people would see 4d6 worth as worth it at 60 ap.

 

Do you disagree?

 

*************

 

Now, the counter point is that, at 60 ap for say 8d6 damage flaming Eb damage shield (using the 4e +1/2), now we have something that does, for 60 ap, what you were describing. Weak def hth guys have to fear the blast and the brick who has only 20 defense will take an average of 8 stun... thats an "ow" to a brick.

 

I have seen characters take 60 ap damage shields at +1/2. It was not at that level a "fight ender" as you say, no more than any 8d6 attacj would be.

 

But at least they felt they were getting something worthwhile for their points.

[tesuji]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I don't favor the "exception to the rule" for advantage costs. IMO you tend to begin accumulating all of these "exceptions" (as the above statement suggests and then you need to begin remembering all the exceptions.

 

I prefer accuracy. An easy to remember formula that produces wrong results is not, IMO, preferable to a formula i need to look up that produces more accurate ones.

 

YMMV

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I think too many people are missing a basic point about Damage Shields: They are not supposed to be fight-enders. They are at least as much defense as offense. Their purpose is to penalize lightly defended characters who attack them in HtH combat, and thus provide disincentive to do so. It's an active rather than passive defense.

 

Look at the classic example of a Damage Shield from the comics, the Human Torch: While his flaming body causes pain and injury to anyone who touches him, if the character in question is willing to take that damage he can still hit or grab the Torch. The Thing has done this many times; his usual reaction is "Ow!" but it doesn't stop him from doing it.

 

Tesuji hits the nail on the head with his response - the old +1/2 permitted a reasonably effective damage shield. The new costing makes the power pretty ineffectual.

 

I agree with your comments, above. Damage shields are especially useful when dealing with low DEF, high DCV Martial Artists. I can't hit you, but you'll take damage if you hit me.

 

Assume we have a 60 AP type range, so we get 8d6 (old rules) or 4d6 (new rules). Our Human Torch will have, say, 25 PD with his force field and 35 STUN (fairly light, but he had to buy all those cool fire powers). Our Martial Artist does 10d6 damage, has say 10 ED and also has 35 STUN.

 

OLD RULES: Every hit inflicts 10 STUN on Torch and 13 on MA. The damage shield is an effective deterrent - MA will be out after three hits, while Torch would still be conscious, albit with only 5 STUN.

 

NEW RULES: After 4 hits, Torch is down. MA has taken a whopping 16 STUN, and is still good to go. Not much of a deterrent.

 

The above seems to assume in Torch's favour. He gets PD at the top of the range for "normal supers" and the martial artist gets a very low ED. Take Torch down to, say, 20 and give MA a 12 and the results shift to 15/11 per hit under the old rules. Torch is out after 3 hits and MA remains barely concious with 2. Given the variability of damage rolls, there's a considerable risk MA will end up KO's with, or even before, Torch.

 

New rules? Three hist takes Torch out on average. MA takes a whopping 2 STUN per hit, on average. Much more favourable to the Martial Artist.

 

Has anyone priced out the Damage Shield under the DH Trigger article? Would it be any better?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I don't favor the "exception to the rule" for advantage costs. IMO you tend to begin accumulating all of these "exceptions" (as the above statement suggests and then you need to begin remembering all the exceptions.

 

As opposed to remembering the rest of FREd (and the FAQ?), which is simple. I don't think adding another variable or two would kill the system. While we're at it, Charges as an advantage should cap at the same cost as 0 END on the power.

 

I'm not sure this is the right answer for Damage Shield, but it's a thought. I also like the DH Trigger article, which allows damage shields toi take the "No Range" limitation. At present, an adjustment power seems the optimal Damage Shield choice, since it's not going to have any Range anyway.

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Tesuji hits the nail on the head with his response - the old +1/2 permitted a reasonably effective damage shield. The new costing makes the power pretty ineffectual.

 

I agree with your comments, above. Damage shields are especially useful when dealing with low DEF, high DCV Martial Artists. I can't hit you, but you'll take damage if you hit me.

 

Assume we have a 60 AP type range, so we get 8d6 (old rules) or 4d6 (new rules). Our Human Torch will have, say, 25 PD with his force field and 35 STUN (fairly light, but he had to buy all those cool fire powers). Our Martial Artist does 10d6 damage, has say 10 ED and also has 35 STUN.

 

OLD RULES: Every hit inflicts 10 STUN on Torch and 13 on MA. The damage shield is an effective deterrent - MA will be out after three hits, while Torch would still be conscious, albit with only 5 STUN.

 

NEW RULES: After 4 hits, Torch is down. MA has taken a whopping 16 STUN, and is still good to go. Not much of a deterrent.

 

The above seems to assume in Torch's favour. He gets PD at the top of the range for "normal supers" and the martial artist gets a very low ED. Take Torch down to, say, 20 and give MA a 12 and the results shift to 15/11 per hit under the old rules. Torch is out after 3 hits and MA remains barely concious with 2. Given the variability of damage rolls, there's a considerable risk MA will end up KO's with, or even before, Torch.

 

New rules? Three hist takes Torch out on average. MA takes a whopping 2 STUN per hit, on average. Much more favourable to the Martial Artist.

I agree the 5th edition DS are ineffective. The real question is were the 4th edition version perhaps too effective?

 

While your example above is accurate so far as it goes, it leaves out one very critical element: Counterattacks. Sure, if the Torch just stands there and lets Kung Fu Boy beat on him without responding he's going to get his head handed to him. However, assuming it's an actual fight then Kung Fu Boy may be in a world of hurt. Not only is he taking damage every single time he hits the Torch (Thus making a high OCV a bane rather than a boon) but on the Torch's Phases he gets hit (or at least shot at) again. In effect the character with the DS is using the attacker's OCV as a weapon against its owner.

 

Replay the above fight between a typical SPD 5 Energy Projector and a SPD 6 Martial artist when the MA is taking damage not only on all his own Phases but also on at least some of the EB's Phases. The result is substantially different. The difference becomes even more pronounced if the DS does BODY or attacks unusual defenses; say if it's bought as a Killing attack or Drain. I know my own lightly defended MA has changed targets after hitting an opponent with a DS.

 

My biggest gripe with FREd's version of Damage Shield is the disallowing of the -½ Limitation "No Range" on whatever Power is used to create the DS. Were that to be restored I think the 5th Edition DS rules would work as written.

[Agent X]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I agree the 5th edition DS are ineffective. The real question is were the 4th edition version perhaps too effective?

 

While your example above is accurate so far as it goes, it leaves out one very critical element: Counterattacks. Sure, if the Torch just stands there and lets Kung Fu Boy beat on him without responding he's going to get his head handed to him. However, assuming it's an actual fight then Kung Fu Boy may be in a world of hurt. Not only is he taking damage every single time he hits the Torch (Thus making a high OCV a bane rather than a boon) but on the Torch's Phases he gets hit (or at least shot at) again. In effect the character with the DS is using the attacker's OCV as a weapon against its owner.

 

Replay the above fight between a typical SPD 5 Energy Projector and a SPD 6 Martial artist when the MA is taking damage not only on all his own Phases but also on at least some of the EB's Phases. The result is substantially different. The difference becomes even more pronounced if the DS does BODY or attacks unusual defenses; say if it's bought as a Killing attack or Drain. I know my own lightly defended MA has changed targets after hitting an opponent with a DS.

 

My biggest gripe with FREd's version of Damage Shield is the disallowing of the -½ Limitation "No Range" on whatever Power is used to create the DS. Were that to be restored I think the 5th Edition DS rules would work as written.

And Damage shield guy had to buy two attacks and spend the endurance to do that to the martial artist. This seems fair to me, especially if the martial artist has a higher combat value and a higher speed. Anyway, not every character is supposed to balance against every character.

 

Yep, Damage Shield is too expensive to do what it needs to do.

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

And Damage shield guy had to buy two attacks and spend the endurance to do that to the martial artist. This seems fair to me, especially if the martial artist has a higher combat value and a higher speed. Anyway, not every character is supposed to balance against every character.

 

Yep, Damage Shield is too expensive to do what it needs to do.

None of that counters my basic premise: DS is primarily a defensive Power and is not intended as a fight winner. It does exactly what it is intended to do, which is to make more lightly defended character reluctant to egage the DS character in HtH combat. I didn't imply the extra END and cost made it either unfair or unfair at all. The MA in the example combat paid character points for that higher SPD and CV too. (Every DS I can recall seeing was bought as 0 END anyway.)

 

DS is in fact particularly effective against those MAs who use Combat Luck as a defense since Combat Luck does not protect from damage caused by a Damage Shield. Considering probably a full third to half of 5th edition MAs now use Combat Luck as at least part of their defenses that is a significant protection for the possessor of a DS.

 

DS does exactly what it is intended to do. Whether it is more expensive than it ought to be is at least debatable and would be worthy of further discussion. But it's effectiveness as a defense IMO is not debatable. It works just fine as is.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

While your example above is accurate so far as it goes' date=' it leaves out one very critical element: Counterattacks. Sure, if the Torch just stands there and lets Kung Fu Boy beat on him without responding he's going to get his head handed to him. However, assuming it's an actual fight then Kung Fu Boy may be in a world of hurt.[/quote']

 

My assumption is that KungFuBoy has a very good DCV. That's how he can survive combat having 10 defenses. Let's give him a DEX of 38 (13 OCV) and a martial maneiver that provides -2 OCV and +1 DCV. That's a 14 DCV, no levels. Torch has a 23 DEX and a couple of levels, so OCV 10. He'll hit on a 7-, or not very often. He'll have to be lucky to land one shot on the martial artist - or grind his damage down from, say, 12d6 to 8d6 in order to get a decent shot at connecting (which will still inflict 18 damage). Meanwhile, KungFuBoy has a 12 DCV and hits on 15 or less (90%+).

 

Taking 4 STUN per successful attack is a pretty minor deterrent. Consider what else our Torch character could buy for, say, 30 points (half price due to an EC). How about 6 skill levels with fire powers? That would level the field against KFB much more effectively - OCV 16 means he'll hit with most shots. Maybe 15" Flight to avoid being attacked by KFG at all while raining firebolts down on his head?

 

Treb, is it possible you're a bit biased because your character, Z'lf, is precisely the type of character a Damage Shield should render unconscious?

[tesuji]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Treb, is it possible you're a bit biased because your character, Z'lf, is precisely the type of character a Damage Shield should render unconscious?

 

Actually, from his last post, i think i see where we are disconnecting.

 

Treb, no one is arguing about the mechanics of how DS works. The mechanics did not change one bit from 4e to 5e. In both, whenever you get hit or grab, you apply the DS to the target.

 

So as far as "what it does" from a mechanical aspect, i do not know of anyone who has a problem with DS in 5.

 

Every complaint is about one thing... with the addition of the additional +!, it is priced soo high that you do not get your points worth. The Ap total skews so high and the RP s high that it no longer is worth the points, the end or the bother.

 

Under a game with limits, you are simply unable to buy enough to do what you see it as "for".

 

Under a game without limits, you **can** buy enough to be effective at what you describe, but you are sinking "good money after bad" as you still end up paying a lot more than its worth.

 

So, if you are in agreement that the cost is off, then there is really no disagreement here at all.

[Maccabe]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Proverbs 21:15. Agreed, but do people know the difference between Justice and Revenge/Vengeance ??

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Treb' date=' is it possible you're a bit biased because your character, Z'lf, is precisely the type of character a Damage Shield should render unconscious?[/quote']Quite possibly; I certainly won't deny the possibility. I think, however, that fact adds veracity to my argument. I'm speaking from actual experience.

 

In the past year Zl'f has engaged two opponents with Damage Shields. In the first case when she hit the opponent (a spiky demon) she took enough damage that she disengaged and spent the rest of the fight covering the team's mentalist so he could focus on attacks with his VPP. The second case had her take half her STUN from hitting a lightning-based villainess; to deal with that she was going to knock the villainess' nearby brother into said villainess to see how he dealt with it. Only the fact the two teleported away prevented her from completing her experiment. In both cases the DS served it's purpose: It caused the team's highest OCV character to change tactics in order to avoid knocking herself out. Given that Zl'f attacks 50% more often than any other PC on our team and also hits more regularly that's not a small advantage. DS is a defense against high OCV/low defense characters just as Mental Defense protects against mentalists.

 

If you consider DS as being more akin to a Continuous Uncontrolled attack than as an Instant one then the cost doesn't seem so out of line. It is expensive (And again, I'm open to honest discussion of whether it's overpriced in FREd), but as a Power that is quite uncommon in the comics it probably should not be particularly cheap. But if you consider it an active defense rather than a fight-winning Power it seems more reasonable.

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Every complaint is about one thing... with the addition of the additional +!, it is priced soo high that you do not get your points worth. The Ap total skews so high and the RP s high that it no longer is worth the points, the end or the bother.

 

Under a game with limits, you are simply unable to buy enough to do what you see it as "for".

 

Under a game without limits, you **can** buy enough to be effective at what you describe, but you are sinking "good money after bad" as you still end up paying a lot more than its worth.

 

So, if you are in agreement that the cost is off, then there is really no disagreement here at all.

Agreed. I would have no objection if DS cost +½ or +¾ instead of +1. I'd also like to see the removal of the prohibition on applying the "No Range" Limitation.

 

And under AP caps, I agree it's a problem. But then, we don't have those in my campaign. Maybe I'm on to something?

[tesuji]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

 

 

Agreed. I would have no objection if DS cost +½ or +¾ instead of +1. I'd also like to see the removal of the prohibition on applying the "No Range" Limitation.

See, then we are not too much in disagreement.

And under AP caps, I agree it's a problem. But then, we don't have those in my campaign. Maybe I'm on to something?

 

Well, even without AP caps forbidding the powers, the mismatched cost is still an issue. being "permitted" to spend more points than its worth beyond 60 ap is not solving the issue, merely making it a voluntary sacrifice. (which might get right back to the comment earlier about it now being a "sacrifice to roleplaying".)

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Well' date=' even without AP caps forbidding the powers, the mismatched cost is still an issue. being "permitted" to spend more points than its worth beyond 60 ap is not solving the issue, merely making it a voluntary sacrifice. (which might get right back to the comment earlier about it now being a "sacrifice to roleplaying".)[/quote']There is something to that point of view. But DSs are rare enough in the comic source material that I have to question why it needs to be significantly cheaper? I've seen player characters with DS basically seem to figure that should provide them with a "free" way to hit their opponent. Why bother with DEX or Combat Skill Levels if your DS will take out anyone who dares hit you? That's missing the point of DS; which is that even "overpriced" it protects pretty well against lightly defended HtH attackers like MAs and speedsters. And face it, that brick is doing to deck you even if the DS does 8d6. Our team's brick would totally ignore an 8d6 DS.