Always use the biggest gun

[Sean Waters]

On another thread we were chatting about the fact that, although characters often have several attacks, in practice they usually determine which is most effective in a given situation and pound away with that as hard as they can.

 

It seems to me that is because that is the most efficient way to win a fight in the game: you find your most powerful weapon for that situation and bang away with it until someone falls over.

 

That is not how 'real' combat works. Take someone with a range of martial arts attacks. Going one on one against an opponent, it is a huge advantage to have a lot of manoeuvres you can use and to vary the techniques that you try. If you are constantly throwing a matrial strike, your opponent will anticipate this and use an effective countermeasure, putting you in a situation where you are vulnerable.

 

There are no manoeuvres that do this in Hero, with the marginal exception of BLOCK. There is no bonus to chosing an appropriate countermove. You can build powers to take advantage of an opponent's staid tactics (CSLs that activate sequentially every time an opponent repeats a move, for example), but there is nothing embedded in the system. There is no real penalty for the one-trick pony.

 

Now obviously new combat rules have the potential for slowing down combat, which is not desireable, so you might not want to do this except in 'high drama' duels, but a couple of ideas which spring to mind would be:

 

1. If you can guess which attack the opponent is going to use against you you get either +2 OCV on your next attack or +2 DCV on this attack.

 

2. If you can make an Analyse (combat style) roll you get a similar bonus. You apply a penalty equal to CP/5 where CP is the points that the opponent has in combat skills (CSLs, martial arts, tactics and analyse).

 

The only other way I could think of doing this was to set up a table cross referencing the effects of different attacks and counters, but I'm far too lazy to do that, and it would cause more arguments than it is worth.

 

Any comments or suggestions?

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

In basic principle, I like it. On further thought, and in practice...I dunno. I think it would work best in a martial arts game where everyone has plenty of manuevers, and even then perhaps with the caveat that you must have blocked that manuever by that person before in order to get the bonus.

 

I don't view manuevers, even martial ones, to be too-narrowly defined in most cases. There are plenty of ways to "Grab" or "Strike" someone, even to "Martial Grab" or "Martial Strike" them. I don't think someone who's got a 4pt Martial Strike can only do it as (for example) a short, right-handed punch delivered from a standing position.

 

Gets even more problematic when applied to supers/powers. "I guess the EP is going to blast me - I get a DCV bonus" hardly seems fair to the EP. Similarly, "I guess the brick is going to 'strike' me - I get a DCV bonus" regardless of whether the "strike" is defined as a backhand slap, an uppercut, a headbutt, forearm smash, knee lift, etc. all of which would be blocked differently.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

I don't view manuevers' date=' even martial ones, to be too-narrowly defined in most cases. There are plenty of ways to "Grab" or "Strike" someone, even to "Martial Grab" or "Martial Strike" them. I don't think someone who's got a 4pt Martial Strike can only do it as (for example) a short, right-handed punch delivered from a standing position.[/quote']The martial arts rules specifically state that the various maneuvers can represent multiple types of attacks. A Martial Strike may represent a snap kick, a karate chop, an elbow smash, or any number of maneuvers that do medium damage.

 

Gets even more problematic when applied to supers/powers. "I guess the EP is going to blast me - I get a DCV bonus" hardly seems fair to the EP. Similarly, "I guess the brick is going to 'strike' me - I get a DCV bonus" regardless of whether the "strike" is defined as a backhand slap, an uppercut, a headbutt, forearm smash, knee lift, etc. all of which would be blocked differently.

Obviously to make this idea work you (both players and their GM) have to make their combats far more descriptive. I never say "I Sacrifice Strike my opponent;" I say "I do a full power high spinning kick." The GM may or not ask me what the specific Martial Maneuver is, but just as often he won't, he'll just ask for the damage if my character hits. Not only is this kind of detail essential for providing a "guess the next attack" bonus, but it makes combat much more cinematic. In one fight, Zl'f cartwheeled down a rooftop in an attempt to locate the invisible bad guy. Sure, I could have just said "Zl'f runs 12" along the roof's peak to see if she runs into him" but that wouldn't have been nearly as cool. She hit the guy and bounced off (since she wasn't trying to do damage), and our brick, who had a Held Action, performed a Move Through on the spot where Zl'f bounced and took down the baddie.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

I was taking the original "problem" to be the character that always uses the same game-mechanic manuever over and over - always uses his Martial Strike, hardly ever bothers with his Martial Throw, Nerve Strike, etc.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

I was taking the original "problem" to be the character that always uses the same game-mechanic manuever over and over - always uses his Martial Strike' date=' hardly ever bothers with his Martial Throw, Nerve Strike, etc.[/quote']That probably makes for awfully dull combats. My PC Legsweeps, Martial Strikes, Shoves, Sacrifice Strikes and whatever else strikes my fancy, but I never describe it the same way.

 

Obviously a player who can't even be bothered to differentiate his or her PC's attacks to add a bit of color to the game isn't going to get the bonus. And if he doesn't ever use anything but "I Martial Strike him" then I think it's entirely fair to assume that he's always using the same punch or whatever and apply the bonus against him. It's not the GM's fault the bad guys are more imaginative.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

That probably makes for awfully dull combats. My PC Legsweeps, Martial Strikes, Shoves, Sacrifice Strikes and whatever else strikes my fancy, but I never describe it the same way.

 

Obviously a player who can't even be bothered to differentiate his or her PC's attacks to add a bit of color to the game isn't going to get the bonus. And if he doesn't ever use anything but "I Martial Strike him" then I think it's entirely fair to assume that he's always using the same punch or whatever and apply the bonus against him. It's not the GM's fault the bad guys are more imaginative.

 

Right, but it sounds like Sean's issue is with using the same game-mechanic manuever over and over, not the description. If a player determines that manuever X is the most effective, and does that over and over, sounds like that's Sean's problem, even if the player has 32 ways to describe manuever X and switches among them.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

Right' date=' but it sounds like Sean's issue is with using the same game-mechanic manuever over and over, not the description. If a player determines that manuever X is the most effective, and does that over and over, sounds like that's Sean's problem, even if the player has 32 ways to describe manuever X and switches among them.[/quote']There's something to that, but I think even having umpteen ways to describe Martial Strike or the like can establish an exploitable pattern of predictability. "He always uses medium power kicks and punches; never any throws or grapples. Let's see how he handles being thrown (Martial Throw or Legsweep) to the ground when he extends his arm (leg) to strike."

 

Of course, there's always the old GM standby of giving combat bonuses for surprise maneuvers. "Punch. Kick. Punch. Punch. Punch. Kick. Pu...Yow! A Legsweep? Master Fang wasn't expecting that! Kung Fu Kid gets a +1 OCV bonus for a surprise maneuver."

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

Of course, there's always the old GM standby of giving combat bonuses for surprise maneuvers. "Punch. Kick. Punch. Punch. Punch. Kick. Pu...Yow! A Legsweep? Master Fang wasn't expecting that! Kung Fu Kid gets a +1 OCV bonus for a surprise maneuver."

 

Overall, I think that's a better way to go. Similar with "Blast, blast, blast, blast, FLASH!" or a brick "punch, head butt, elbow, punch...roll him up in asphalt"

 

(But, if one-trick pony is really committed, all he has to do to counter the defender's bonus is put a few 2pt levels into his "trick".)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

Hello again.

 

To an extent (whilst acknowledging that a martial strike can be any number of things in practice) my concern is that you can do a pretty comprehensive martial arts package with Martial Strike, Martial Throw, Offensive Strike all for 12 points.

 

There seems to be very little points in bothering to buy a raft of other manoeuvres.

 

Moreover, in TUMA many of the individual manoeivres are named, so it implies that they relate to a specific action.

 

The system seems biased in favour of the martial arts package of just over 10 points that defines the manoeuvres 'generically' rather than specifically and against the (in theory far more effective) well rounded martial artist.

 

In real combat there is an ebb and flow - when an opponent moves into a certain position, a specific maneovre suggests itself and you react with that - not just lob your biggest punch every time. If you don't know many manoeuvres, your reponses are limited and predicatable. Simulating that within the rules is difficult but if anyone has any ideas...

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

To some extent I agree with the faction that puts this within the realm of roleplaying combats. A variety of interesting and appropriate descriptions for a combat maneuver, taking into account the special effects of the character's attacks and the circumstances that she's in, add a lot of spice to combat without changing it mechanically.

 

However, since Sean seems to be looking for game-mechanical incentives for varying one's maneuver choices, I'm going to suggest reversing the bonus for a Surprise Move... let's call it "Predictable Move." If an attacker keeps using the same Maneuver/weapon/Power to attack with time after time, without significantly and appropriately varying the description of it, the GM may grant the defender a DCV bonus of +1 - +3 against that attack. The bonus is negated if the attacker uses a different type of attack or comes up with a creative variant on his usual one.

 

You could also apply that bonus to the attacker's OCV if the defender keeps using the same defensive Maneuver or Power (Block, Dodge, Missile Deflection etc.).

[Trebuchet]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

However, since Sean seems to be looking for game-mechanical incentives for varying one's maneuver choices, I'm going to suggest reversing the bonus for a Surprise Move... let's call it "Predictable Move." If an attacker keeps using the same Maneuver/weapon/Power to attack with time after time, without significantly and appropriately varying the description of it, the GM may grant the defender a DCV bonus of +1 - +3 against that attack. The bonus is negated if the attacker uses a different type of attack or comes up with a creative variant on his usual one.

 

You could also apply that bonus to the attacker's OCV if the defender keeps using the same defensive Maneuver or Power (Block, Dodge, Missile Deflection etc.).

Great idea, LL. That ought to properly penalise PCs or villains who get too predictable. Think about it: Why is "Announces Intentions in Combat" a Disad? For the same reason always using the same attack/defense would be: knowing what the other guy will do next is half the battle.

[Chromatic]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

It sounds like the issue here is mixing up game mechanics with special effects.

 

Take two examples:

 

Martial artist with just martial strike and dodge

 

Blaster with energy blast and flight.

 

Both are very simple, they have bought a game mechanic for doing damage and for presumably avoiding it. Clearly the Blaster is a one hit wonder, but does he need to be? Couldn't he use that energy blast he paid points for to do a number of things--blast the bad guy, shoot the rope holding the piano over the bad guys head, blast the glass sky light and cause the glass to fall all over the thugs, etc.

 

The Martial artist is the same way, he might look like a one hit wonder, and you might have the urge to penalize him for not taking nerve strike, kick, fast strike, and leg sweep. But resist that urge, and instead encourage descriptions of the special effects of what that game mechanic has enabled him to do.

 

I suppose we could delve into a discussion about the relative costs of the martial artist having to spend only 4 points versus the blaster spending 40....but let's not

[GaryB]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

It sounds like the issue here is mixing up game mechanics with special effects.

 

Take two examples:

 

Martial artist with just martial strike and dodge

 

Blaster with energy blast and flight.

 

Both are very simple, they have bought a game mechanic for doing damage and for presumably avoiding it. Clearly the Blaster is a one hit wonder, but does he need to be? Couldn't he use that energy blast he paid points for to do a number of things--blast the bad guy, shoot the rope holding the piano over the bad guys head, blast the glass sky light and cause the glass to fall all over the thugs, etc.

 

The Martial artist is the same way, he might look like a one hit wonder, and you might have the urge to penalize him for not taking nerve strike, kick, fast strike, and leg sweep. But resist that urge, and instead encourage descriptions of the special effects of what that game mechanic has enabled him to do.

 

I suppose we could delve into a discussion about the relative costs of the martial artist having to spend only 4 points versus the blaster spending 40....but let's not

 

Thats hardly a fair way to present an argument. The blaster is CLEARLY using his power in a creative way to generate suprise attacks/effects. The Martial Artist is doing no such thing, instead opting to face an opponent with his old MA bag of tricks.

 

However, even if the blaster was able to shoot ropes and have piano's all the time, the manuever no longer has it's punch and people will eventually catch on...dont stand under the piano's!

 

Eventually, people who fight someone who uses thier big attack...all the time...are going to find people will develop a way to negate or make that attack less effective in future fights.

 

For the Martial Artist, eventually people will learn...hey...lets just stay away from him and shoot him from afar...or if they still have to face him, break or disable his arm early in the fight that he always makes his strong attack with.

 

Predictability can become a character's biggest disadvantage after a while...and they didn't even get points for it (whether by the player or GM as well). In order to fight a powerful enemy or a single type of powerful attack, all that has to happen is people will talk and your advantage becomes that disadvantage.

[Chromatic]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

I guess I should have elaborated for the marital artist:

 

Just because it says only Martial Strike doesn't preclude him from describing his attacks variously as: I chop the side of the thug's neck, or I aim for his solar plexus to knock the wind out of his lungs, or I'm going to kick him in the nose.

 

Any of those actions can have the game mechanic of "martial strike" and all have the same end result on success: 8d6 damage versus targets defense (PD in this case instead of ED for blaster above).

 

The game mechanic is not important aside from gaging scale, effect, and result. You do not need to have 7 different energy blasts any more than you need 7 different strength stats or 7 different martial arts attacks to have a colorful and descriptive combat scene.

[GaryB]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

True enough about the effects. But still, eventually in both cases if the character's big attack Martial Strike or Energy Blast of any SFX is going to be predicted by those they fight and as info is passed along the grapevine. The opponents they face will be able to find a way around that attack that seems to be taking out thier friends left and right.

 

Look at a basketball or football game. Team trainers and coaches go over hours of tape every season to see if they can punch a hole in the opposing teams strategy and develop something new to counter it. The same type of thinking is definately applicable in a Hero campaign.

 

Nothing is going to stop the character from using the attack over and over. But how effective the attack is going to be over the long run may just disappoint the player.

 

"What do you mean they developed a force field...cheaply...that deflects my Uber-Beam?! Why did all these agents have one?!"

 

"Roll up your UNTIL contact"

 

"Made it by 5"

 

"Well, you have killed 254 VIPER Agents with it in the past few months. And rumor has it people have seen and heard about guns that exploit your weakness to Cold. It seems that they are almost ready to mass produce these weapons and defenses to fight you specifically."

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

Along those lines, I would think a piece of equipment which Only Defends Against One-Trick-Pony Man's Uberattack should have a pretty hefty Limitation (read: price break) on it....

[Mike W]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

First, I find that you really want a large number of maneuvers in your martial arts package. If nothing else, the differing CV modifiers make a difference. Fast Strike is +2 OCV and +2D6 damage, Offensive Strike is -2 OCV and +4D6. I can use the Offensive strike on the opposing team's brick and have little worry of hitting him, I'll have enough CV advantage that the penalty won't be crippling. Now, trying to hit the opposing team's martial artist, especially if they are trying a maneuver with a DCV bonus(which is most actually), it probably won't work. But if I use the Fast strike, I've got a shot.

Quite frankly, I think you need at least two strikes(3 is better) a throw, dodge or block, and Escape as a minimum package. Legsweep, Defensive Throw, the dodge or block you didn't buy, and one of the NNDs are all very helpful.

 

Second, even with other types of characters(bricks, energy projectors, etc) if the GM is using good tactics and attempting to control the battlefield, simply blasting away won't get it done. As a GM I often deliberately give the villains a slight edge in power so that the difference will most likely be how the players work as a team. Simply blasting away will rarely be enough to get the job done.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

Like Sean said anything that provides what he wants (an incentive to use lots of different attacks rather than just the most effective one) increases the book-keeping.

 

I've got an idea buzzing round my head but can't nail it down. The vague suggestion would be to have a running total for each combatant. Each time they do something different, increase the total by one. Against an opponent with a lower score you can improve damage by one for every additional point in your score. Or perhaps additional points can be spent to maximise one dice per point spent (ie change any non-6 rolled to a six)

 

Can't figure out how I mean to do this and it does add to the book-keeping.

 

Perhaps just tick the powers used offensively and use that as a score?

 

Dunno, but still a good idea from Sean for a genre where the combat may be brought into greater focus than your usual supers game.

 

 

Doc

[Mike W]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

Maybe it's me or the games I run/play in. But I haven't really encountered this problem before. Players often have(and need) multiple tactical options as do NPCs. The "do that trick again and again and again" method just doesn't cut it. Even bricks usually end up having to grab scenery and try to use it(lamp posts, cars, whatever). If someone uses the same exact move more than twice in a row it is unusual and I almost start wondering what went wrong. Granted, everyone has their favorites, but you still need to mix it up to be effective.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

There's some really useful discussion here: keep it coming.

 

I'm all for the idea of describing combat and then fitting the manoeuvre to the description, so a straight forward strike, even for someone without martial arts can describe all kind of damaging attacks that do not have an effect on combat value. That's doozy. It makes combat more interesting, which is vital.

 

What niggles at me though (and I'm as guilty as anyone) is that characters have a tactic for each situation and stick by it. There was mention of 'offensive strike for bricks, martial strike for speedsters', and that is completely valid - it is what the rules are there for. What it doesn't 'do' though is simulate the flow of combat: sometimes the 'best' manoeuvre varies - it depends on the moves that have been made so far.

 

What I'm after is a bit nebulous, so bear with me. I'm not advocating any sort of general rule; in most cases that would slow combat unacceptably. For special combats, duels or the right sort of scenario (you're all Renaissance swordfighters, or even in a supers campaign with a heavy bias towards martial arts), some sort of enhancement rules might be appropriate.

 

Remember that scene from The Princess Bride, where Inigio Montoya and The Man In Black are fighting at the top of The Cliffs of Despair, there is an ongoing analysis of the moves and countermoves? I liked that: the idea that, if you're good enough, combat is almost like chess. In reality it isn't that clear cut BUT it is still very tactical if you have a couple of good proponents of a martial art. Moreover you might say that they were all just fancy names for the same basic manoeuvre: a valid point, perhaps; they could all be martial strikes and defensive strikes (when fighting unarmoured opponents with killing weapons the defensive strike is usually your best manouvre - see, I'm doing it NOW!)

 

How can we address my rather difficult and ill-defined problem? I see two basic approaches, either we need a specialised optional rule, or a bit more thought in design philosophy.

 

1: Optional rules. Here's a couple of ideas to think about.

 

1. Block: instead of getting initiative on the next phase, if it is shared, expand the options to include adding 1 OCV or DCV or 2DC instead if the next phase is shared. You could even make bonuses cumulative if you block for 2 or more phases successfully...
   
2. Analyse: allow an opposed roll, with success meaning that the opponent has to declare the manouvre they are using or the distribution of CSLs before you make your choice, whatever the relative intitiative
   
3. Acting: with a successful opposed roll you can feint in combat, making an opponent think that you have taken an attack action when, in fact, you are holding it
   
4. Guessing: a correct guess as to the opponent's next manoeuvre gives a combat bonus
   

 

2: Design philosophy: building a character to do what I want...

 

1. Limited CSLs: bonuses you can add if you use attacks that vary, with the limitation being based on how many different attacks you use, or using combinations of different attacks
   
2. Powers linked to the use of martial art manoeuvres limited to only work in response to certain manoeuvres by opponents, for example +2d6HA for a legsweep following a successful defensive strike (possibly a -1 limitation or even more given that it can only be used every other round and, in effect, requires two successful attack rolls to succeed)
   
3. The list could go on...
   

 

Never forgetting, of course - 3: Role Playing....

 

BTW, I have 4th ed TUMA (and Ninja Hero, for that matter) - is the new version substantially better/worth getting as well?

[CourtFool]

It's all about the description baby

 

I think the responsibility falls on the GM. You have to describe the combat and give the PCs lots of juicy options (terrain, objects of opportunity, openings). Also, I think you need to gain players' trust by not penalizing them when they try something crazy. You can also give some kind of in game reward for players who get creative in combat. Have people comment on the cool trick they pulled off to save the day.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

I note in passing that one of the reason HERO combat is so abstract is to make it +faster+. The more accurate/detailed you want it to be in describing what is happening game mechanic wise (rather than by sfx), the more charts and tables are involved and/or the longer the resolution of a combat action takes. *cough* RuneQuest and GURPS *cough*.

 

With that firmly in mind, I'd like to make the case that HERO combat is highly _abstract_, but not necessarily -simple- or non descriptive.

 

The maneuvers, particularly the Martial Maneuvers, have CV and sfx modifiers on them partially because of the issues you are bringing up. And then there is the increased flexibility allowed by CSLs...

 

Each of "I put all my CSL's on DCV", "I have my CSL's split 50/50 between OCV and DCV", "I put all my CSL's on OCV", or "I spend some CSL's to increase my DC and then put 'x' to OCV and 'y' to DCV...", etc, is supposed to represent a different way of doing any of the Standard (9), Optional (12), or Martial (14 just on the basic list...) Maneuvers. Unless a character is performing exactly the same maneuver with exactly the CSL mod's -and- it makes sense for the sfx to be the same, it's not "really" the same action.

 

If everyone keeps using the same action all the time, probably part of what is going on is that the GM needs to add more detail to the setting and the description of the combat. IME, the players will try to match the GM here. Generic combat settings and bare bones descriptions of opponent's actions will get similar responses from players. As the GM makes the environment and experience richer, the more the players will try to respond in kind.

 

To that end, what about using the optional Hit Location, Placed Shots, and Special Hit Locations (which is basically "generally" Placed Shots rather the standard "specific body part" Placed Shot)?

 

Using the Hit Location table "straight" means attacking whatever target-of-opportunity becomes available to you. No bonus's or minuses. After all, if you are attacking whatever becomes available there's no surprise on either side of a combat...

 

OTOH, Special Hit Locations and Placed Shots are a great vehicle for rewarding Surprise Maneuvers, punishing Predictable Maneuvers, and in general modelling opponents trying to outthink each other.

 

If one opponent is paying more attention to Hit Locations while the other is not, that opponent will have a better chance of making a Surprise Maneuver or of punishing a Predictable Maneuver ("this guy just kicks anything I give him to kick. OK...")

 

It also seems to make it easier to model any particular attitude toward combat. "Hulk Smash!" is very different from "There are 7 ways to respond in this situation...." (Quoting Batman).

[Gary]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

First, I find that you really want a large number of maneuvers in your martial arts package. If nothing else, the differing CV modifiers make a difference. Fast Strike is +2 OCV and +2D6 damage, Offensive Strike is -2 OCV and +4D6. I can use the Offensive strike on the opposing team's brick and have little worry of hitting him, I'll have enough CV advantage that the penalty won't be crippling. Now, trying to hit the opposing team's martial artist, especially if they are trying a maneuver with a DCV bonus(which is most actually), it probably won't work. But if I use the Fast strike, I've got a shot.

Quite frankly, I think you need at least two strikes(3 is better) a throw, dodge or block, and Escape as a minimum package. Legsweep, Defensive Throw, the dodge or block you didn't buy, and one of the NNDs are all very helpful.

 

Second, even with other types of characters(bricks, energy projectors, etc) if the GM is using good tactics and attempting to control the battlefield, simply blasting away won't get it done. As a GM I often deliberately give the villains a slight edge in power so that the difference will most likely be how the players work as a team. Simply blasting away will rarely be enough to get the job done.

 

Unless the GM enforces a CSL limit on MA, it's almost always better to buy a few maneuvers and do them well rather than lots of maneuvers at base level.

 

For example, instead of buying martial strike and fast strike for 8 points, it's much much better to buy martial strike and +2 OCV with martial strike for the same 8 points. Voila, your new 'maneuver' has +2 OCV and +2 DCV and +2d6 damage. The savings and efficiency increase when you purchase more than 2 strike maneuvers.

[Old Man]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

The other thing to consider is that sometimes, the biggest gun is the only gun you have.

 

I usually try to have a main attack and a supporting attack, just as a backup.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Always use the biggest gun

 

One aspect that seems to have been largely ignored in this thread is that biggest attacks often use biggest END. Many, if not most, EB's have a full power attack and another attack bought to half or zero END. While this usually doesn't affect MAs or bricks as much, it can still be a factor in an extended fight, especially if the character needs to Push.