Are Normal attacks worth it?

[Alcamtar]

It seems like killing attacks are more effective than normal attacks, for a given point cost.

 

For a given DC, killing attacks and normal attacks do the same BODY and STUN, except that the normal attack does +1 STUN per DC. That's a small bonus but could be significant in a large DC attack.

 

But killing attacks completely bypass normal defenses if you don't have resistant defense, while normal attacks always get PD+DEF against both Body and Stun.

 

So, if an opponent has no armor, he gets his full PD against both STUN and BODY of a normal attack, but no defense at all against a killing attack. The normal attack does get +1 STUN/DC more than the killing attack, but that gets soaked up by defenses.

 

If an opponent does have resistant defenses, the normal attack does do more STUN, but *way* less BODY.

 

It seems like the only time you'd want a normal attack is if you don't really want to hurt someone in armor? And in a heroic level game, the +4 to +6 extra STUN doesn't seem enough to worry about.

 

Am I missing something? Does it look bad on paper but is balanced in actual play? :-P Or are normal attacks really designed mainly for supers where you aren't supposed to seriously hurt each other?

 

Mike

[Zed-F]

Re: Are Normal attacks worth it?

 

Originally posted by Alcamtar

If an opponent does have resistant defenses, the normal attack does do more STUN, but *way* less BODY.

 

Well, it will do more body against lightly armoured targets. Many supers take enough resistant defenses to absorb a campaign-average KA's average body damage. That leaves the KA slightly behind in terms of average stun done, and not much better in terms of body damage.

 

Where the KA has the advantage is that it will occasionally spit out a 6 on the stun multiple die. With a decent body roll, that can blow through even strong defenses for the campaign power level pretty easily. Of course, sometimes it completely craps out as well. But if your firing off a 6d6 EB against someone with a 10 PD/10rPD, versus firing off a 2d6 RKA versus that same guy, your EB will probably barely faze him and never CON-stun him, whereas the RKA will usually do nothing and occasionally paste him with a good roll. If we're talking about an attack that has enough damage to significantly penetrate the target's defenses, however, the ability to consistently CON-stun an opponent with the extra stun from the EB is not to be underestimated.

 

KA's are especially popular in small damage cap games, since the variability factor becomes increasingly important as fewer dice are being rolled -- more dice tends to give a more even distribution. With larger campaign damage caps, the EB catches up a bit, as the amount of damage that can be done purely off the EB's KB starts to become significant. The KA rolls an extra die to reduce this so tends to lag in that regard.

[dugfromthearth]

basically no.

 

the mechanics are "broken" and ka are better then normal attacks. the reason to get a normal attack is if you want to avoid doing body.

 

now if you look at real life, weapons are designed to be killing attacks: guns, swords, axes, etc.

 

killing attacks are more effective.

 

so it may not be balanced, but it is realistic.

[Agent X]

Normal attacks are worth it. Sometimes you want to avoid the massive swings in damage that a killing attack provides. Of course, you sometimes don't want to kill.

 

And there is something really cool about rolling that many dice.

[Pattern Ghost]

Neither one is better, really. They both average out to about the same damage. Sometimes you win the STUN lottery with a KA, but sometimes you just get screwed. For that matter, half the time, you'll be getting a below average BODY roll, so normal attacks can be better in regards to dealing BODY.

 

The only advantage to KAs is at the extremes of defenses and the STUN lotto. If you're up against a character on the high end of the campaign's Defense limits, the KA will give you a chance to punch enough STUN through with a good Stun multiplier roll. It seems that this comes up as an issue more in heroic level fantasy, so KAs are the way to go.

[Pattern Ghost]

FWIW, I prefer Normal attacks for consistancy in supers games. =)

[Gary]

A good rule of thumb is that if the average damage of your normal attack is greater than or equal to the target's defenses + con, then normal attacks are better. Otherwise killing attacks are better.

 

For example, a 12d6 attack averages 42 stun. If def + con < 42, the normal attack is better. If def + con > 42, then the 4d6 killing attack is better.

 

This has implications when pushing powers or haymakers. For example, if the target has 25 def, 23 con and you have a multipower with both 4d6 RKA and 12d6 EB, the killing attack has a better chance of con stunning the target. The RKA is the preferable attack in this situation. However if you push or haymaker, then a 14d6 or 16d6 attack will have a better chance of stunning the same target compared to a 4.5d6 or 5d6+1 RKA. If you push, then pushing the normal attack is the better option.

 

There are other reasons to take normal attacks. Such as when you want to reliably do damage to the target. A 12d6 normal attack does 17 stun through 25 defenses on average. You can reliably expect to knock out many targets with 2 normal hits, and 3 will knock out virtually all nonbricks. Whereas with 2 or 3 RKAs, you have a decent chance of getting a bad stun multiple with all of them.

[cutsleeve]

quote:

But killing attacks completely bypass normal defenses if you don't have resistant defense, while normal attacks always get PD+DEF against both Body and Stun.

 

as i remember it the body from a normal attack like HA or energy blast go through normal defences. Body Damage is always resisted by resistant defenced not by regular pd and ed.

 

i feel they are about equal normal attacks do predictable body and stun killing attacks do predictable body but unpredictable stun therefor balancing it out sometimes you get high sometimes low.

[Talon]

If you don't care about killing people, KAs are better.

 

If your campaign uses the STUN lotto (er, the official STUN multiplier rules for KAs), then KAs are better against high defense targets.

[CrosshairCollie]

Hmm ... lemmee compare a 4d6 RKA and a 12d6 EB ...

 

12d6 EB averages 12 Body, 42 Stun, 5" Knockback

4d6 EKA averages 14 Body, 37 Stun, 3" Knockback

 

The thing to remember is that the StunX die is weighted; the die outcome is 1,1,2,3,4,5, not 1,2,3,4,5, so you're twice as likely to roll a 1 than any other result. The average multiplier is therefore 2.66666666 (etc) rather than 3.

 

Going simply off game mechanics, KAs do more Body, Normal Attacks do more Stun and Knockback. Going off game genre, it's usually a lot better to use Normal attacks because they don't seriously injure people as often. As far as 'high defense' targets go, I prefer to back up my Normal Attacks with an NND or Drain instead of a KA.

[Lord Liaden]

Having an attack that is less likely to kill your target can be a real advantage if you want to capture a prisoner for interrogation, stop someone you care about who's behaving aberrantly due to a curse/ mind control etc., or just avoid ticking off the authorities by indisciminately terminating their citizens. To some extent the conventions of the genre will influence the appropriateness of using Killing Attacks: in a medieval fantasy setting most weapons are Killing Damage, the attitudes toward killing tend to be more casual, and you often run into creatures that are just asking to be offed. OTOH most modern societies (and their laws) take a dim view of the casual use of lethal force. Futuristic settings may have effective non-lethal weaponry that's readily available, and so demand an extremely good justification for using a deadly weapon.

 

The really tricky thing about using a Killing Attack in a genre like super heroes is that you often can't be certain that an opponent has Resistant Defenses at all.

[Tech]

no comparison

 

For my money as a GM, normal attacks are better. I still haven't forgetten the GM'ing nightmare which lasted a little over a year where I kept rolling 1's or 2's (ending up as a 1) on the Stun multiplier. (shivers) Okay, I did roll a few more than a 1 or 2 but I just have to groan when rolling a KA and they know what happened. I even changed a few KA's over to normal attacks because of it.

[tesuji]

"For that matter, half the time, you'll be getting a below average BODY roll, so normal attacks can be better in regards to dealing BODY. "

 

Uhh, unless my math skils have so totally atrophied, normal attacks do less than average about half the time too.

 

:-)

 

Now for the guys who think killing attacks do less stun... once you figure in DEFENSES this remains no longer true. If the defenses run into the typical ranges, say 20/10r defense or more vs a 60 ap attack, the stun lotto actually ends up getting MORE STUN THRU after defenses. It would be fairly asy to run thru the numbers with a 1d6K vs 3d6 EB against say 5/2r defense.

 

While the RKA will be more variable, the average damage to target will be better and overall drop foes more quickly.

 

The only reason to not buy such is to avoid accidental kills, which of course can come from non-killing attacks too. Ideally, a pair of attacks, one RKA and one stun only (perhaps avld or nnd) would may a good choice.

[Agent X]

Not to mention the autofire 3 RKA. Heh.

 

 

Whoops. I just mentioned it.

[John Desmarais]

Re: Are Normal attacks worth it?

 

Originally posted by Alcamtar

It seems like killing attacks are more effective than normal attacks, for a given point cost.

 

For a given DC, killing attacks and normal attacks do the same BODY and STUN, except that the normal attack does +1 STUN per DC. That's a small bonus but could be significant in a large DC attack.

 

But killing attacks completely bypass normal defenses if you don't have resistant defense, while normal attacks always get PD+DEF against both Body and Stun.

 

(clip)

 

Mike

 

On the average, Killing attacks do more Body, but normal attacks do more Stun.

 

In a Super Hero level game, where most character have at least a moderate amount of resistant defence (and have more DEF than the average body rolled) the fact that KAs ignore normal def is moot. Normal attacks are more effective.

 

In a Hero level game, where most character have no or little resistant defence (little being less than the average body rolled), KAs are more effective.

 

John Desmarais

[Agent X]

Re: Re: Are Normal attacks worth it?

 

Originally posted by John Desmarais

On the average, Killing attacks do more Body, but normal attacks do more Stun.

 

In a Super Hero level game, where most character have at least a moderate amount of resistant defence (and have more DEF than the average body rolled) the fact that KAs ignore normal def is moot. Normal attacks are more effective.

 

In a Hero level game, where most character have no or little resistant defence (little being less than the average body rolled), KAs are more effective.

 

John Desmarais

I think what he's arguing is that when you roll a good stun mulitiplier you get a lot of stun over the threshold and that the stun over the threshold of these two attacks is what you need to compare.

[BNakagawa]

What nobody really focusses on is the distibution curve.

 

While it's true that for equal active points, a normal attack will generate more stun, what is rarely realized is that once you've subtracted defenses, the reverse is often true.

 

Consider: you could either take an attack that always does 35 stun or an attack that does either 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 Stun with equal frequency.

 

Both do 35 Stun on the average. Which does more damage once defenses are introduced?

 

Well, if you're hitting somebody with 20 defenses, the first attack averages 15 stun per hit and the random one averages (0+0+10+20+30+40)/6 or about 17 points per hit. Not a huge difference. If you bump the defenses to 30, then the first attack averages 5 points per hit and the other one averages 10 per hit. Lastly, if you jump to 40 defenses, then the first attack is useless and the second one averages 5 points per hit.

 

In addition to this, if you're interested in achieving a Con Stun result (and who isn't) then you're almost always better off with the second type of attack. If your opponent has an 18 Con, then if he has a 20 def, then the first attack has no chance to stun him, while the second attack has a 50% chance to stun him.

 

So, in actual usage, it can be shown that Killing Attacks actually average more damage per hit than an EB of equal size once defenses are introduced to the equation. I don't know about you guys, but I rarely find myself attacking things with 0 defenses.

 

In addition to doing more damage, it does them in bigger chunks. This can be a tactical advantage in that an opponent can adjust their tactics when being nibbled away with a steady barrage of normal attacks. Once they are low on stun and within a few hits of going under, they can start to dodge, shift levels, use missile deflection or whatever to buy some time. If you're using the Stun Lottery and you bounce one or two attacks and then Con Stun them, they don't have an opportunity to go defensive. They're now at 1/2 DCV with no force field. buh-bye.

 

Killing Attacks also benefit from the extremely cheap +1 Stun Multiple. There is no corresponding advantage for the EB.

 

Killing Attacks are superior to Energy Blasts. (assuming you want to do damage versus targets with defenses)

[Gary]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

What nobody really focusses on is the distibution curve.

 

While it's true that for equal active points, a normal attack will generate more stun, what is rarely realized is that once you've subtracted defenses, the reverse is often true.

 

Consider: you could either take an attack that always does 35 stun or an attack that does either 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 Stun with equal frequency.

 

Both do 35 Stun on the average. Which does more damage once defenses are introduced?

 

Well, if you're hitting somebody with 20 defenses, the first attack averages 15 stun per hit and the random one averages (0+0+10+20+30+40)/6 or about 17 points per hit. Not a huge difference. If you bump the defenses to 30, then the first attack averages 5 points per hit and the other one averages 10 per hit. Lastly, if you jump to 40 defenses, then the first attack is useless and the second one averages 5 points per hit.

 

In addition to this, if you're interested in achieving a Con Stun result (and who isn't) then you're almost always better off with the second type of attack. If your opponent has an 18 Con, then if he has a 20 def, then the first attack has no chance to stun him, while the second attack has a 50% chance to stun him.

 

So, in actual usage, it can be shown that Killing Attacks actually average more damage per hit than an EB of equal size once defenses are introduced to the equation. I don't know about you guys, but I rarely find myself attacking things with 0 defenses.

 

In addition to doing more damage, it does them in bigger chunks. This can be a tactical advantage in that an opponent can adjust their tactics when being nibbled away with a steady barrage of normal attacks. Once they are low on stun and within a few hits of going under, they can start to dodge, shift levels, use missile deflection or whatever to buy some time. If you're using the Stun Lottery and you bounce one or two attacks and then Con Stun them, they don't have an opportunity to go defensive. They're now at 1/2 DCV with no force field. buh-bye.

 

Killing Attacks also benefit from the extremely cheap +1 Stun Multiple. There is no corresponding advantage for the EB.

 

Killing Attacks are superior to Energy Blasts. (assuming you want to do damage versus targets with defenses)

 

I have to disagree that the KA does more stun net of defenses than normal attacks in general. It all depends on the size of the defense.

 

For 1d6 KA vs 3d6 normal, the break even point is 6 def where both attacks do roughly equal net stun. Less than 6 def, the normal attack is better. Greater than 6 def, the KA is better.

 

For 2d6 KA vs 6d6 normal, the break even point is 13 def.

 

For 3d6 KA vs 9d6 normal, the break even point is 20 def.

 

For 4d6 KA vs 12d6 normal, the break even point is 27 def.

 

For 5d6 KA vs 15d6 normal, the break even point is 34 def.

 

For 6d6 KA vs 18d6 normal, the break even point is 41 def.

 

Also, the ability to reliably do damage has it's own advantages. With normal attacks, you know that you're taking down the typical enemy in 2-3 hits. With KAs, there's a decent chance that the enemy will still be up after 2-3 hits.

[badger3k]

Originally posted by cutsleeve

quote:

But killing attacks completely bypass normal defenses if you don't have resistant defense, while normal attacks always get PD+DEF against both Body and Stun.

 

as i remember it the body from a normal attack like HA or energy blast go through normal defences. Body Damage is always resisted by resistant defenced not by regular pd and ed.

 

i feel they are about equal normal attacks do predictable body and stun killing attacks do predictable body but unpredictable stun therefor balancing it out sometimes you get high sometimes low.

 

?

 

Normal PD & ED stops stun and body from non-killing attacks (Fred p 24 - "characters subtract their PD from the STUN and BODY damage done by Normal Damage physical attacks" for example.

[dugfromthearth]

"Consider: you could either take an attack that always does 35 stun or an attack that does either 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 Stun with equal frequency. "

 

Stun x is d6-1

 

so the killing curve should be 10, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50

[Pattern Ghost]

Originally posted by tesuji

"For that matter, half the time, you'll be getting a below average BODY roll, so normal attacks can be better in regards to dealing BODY. "

 

Uhh, unless my math skils have so totally atrophied, normal attacks do less than average about half the time too.

 

 

True, but you're more likely to get an 'average' result over a larger sample group, which is what I meant. EDIT: removed comments on STUN, forgot what I was talking about in the quote that Tesuji was quoting.

 

Also, you're counting BODY differntly on the two types of attack. You consider the whole range of 1 to 6 on the killing attack BODY damage, which is a normal bell curve, but normal attacks are, well, normalized. You only have a 1 in six chance, per die, of getting a below or above average result. There's a lot less variance in BODY on a normal attack. So, no, you don't really get a below or above average BODY result half the time.

 

[tomd1969]

Re: no comparison

 

Originally posted by Tech

For my money as a GM, normal attacks are better. I still haven't forgetten the GM'ing nightmare which lasted a little over a year where I kept rolling 1's or 2's (ending up as a 1) on the Stun multiplier. (shivers) Okay, I did roll a few more than a 1 or 2 but I just have to groan when rolling a KA and they know what happened. I even changed a few KA's over to normal attacks because of it.

 

You've got to remember that due to that little rule concerning the Stun Multiplier, you actually have a 1 in 3 chance of rolling a x1 Stun Multiplier if you're using the 1d6-1 method.

 

Personally, I prefer using the Hit Location chart for the Stun Multiple. Here is how the percentages suss out when using the Hit Location Chart:

 

Stun Mult       Percent
=========       =======
1		6.481481481
2		31.01851852
3		36.57407407
4		21.2962963
5		4.62962963

 

This table was determined by finding the permutations on 3d6 that would result in a particular Stun Multiple and dividing by the total number of permutations on 3d6 (216). For example, the Hit Location Table gives a x5 multiple for rolling 3,4, or 5. There is a total of 10 permutations to roll a 3, a 4, or a 5 (one permutation for 3, 3 permutations for 4, and 6 permutations for 5). 10 / 216 = 0.0462962963 = 4.63%.

 

The bell-curve is more attractive to me, particularly when some PCs roll a 6 nearly every single time, and other PCs can't roll anything above a 1. (don't ask )

 

But it also levels the playing field on the other end of the spectrum, too; using the 1d6-1 method, you have a 16.6% chance of rolling a x5 multiplier. Using the Hit location chart, you only have a 4.6% chance.

 

YMMV

[Zed-F]

I think you'll average higher stun from KAs using that method, compared to the regular method, however.

 

Stun Mult Percent

========= =======

1 6.481481481

2 31.01851852

3 36.57407407

4 21.2962963

5 4.62962963

Average: ~2.866 Stun multiple

 

Compare that with:

Stun Mult Percent

========= =======

1 33.3

2 16.7

3 16.7

4 16.7

5 16.7

Average: ~2.666 Stun multiple

 

That's about 7.5% higher stun on average using the hit location method. That would continue to contribute to KAs being more popular than normal attacks, especially since you still have a fairly good chance to roll high body and a reasonably high stun multiplier. Not saying this is necessarily a bad way to go, if you accept the tradeoff.

 

Some other posibilities: If one is worried about people using KAs too much, especially regarding the 6 on the stun multiple, you could always house-rule how the stun multiple works (e.g. use a straight d4, averages out to 2.5) or use the standard effect rule.

[Farkling]

Let's look at the numbers::

First, assume target has 20/r10 PD, Supers

Let's crunch it with Standard Effect and drop the "lotto" for the analysis::

SE

 

4) 6d6 EB - 6 BOD, 24 STUN => 0 BOD, 4 STUN, 0" KB

4) 2d6 RKA - 8 BOD, 24 STUN => 0 BOD, 4 STUN, 0" KB

%) 6d6 EB - 6 BOD, 19 STUN => 0 BOD, 4 STUN, 0" KB

%) 2d6 RKA - 7 BOD, 18 STUN => 0 BOD, 4 STUN, 0" KB

3) 6d6 EB - 6 BOD, 18 STUN => 0 BOD, 4 STUN, 0" KB

3) 2d6 RKA - 6 BOD, 12 STUN => 0 BOD, 0 STUN, 0" KB

 

4) 9d6 EB - 9 BOD, 36 STUN => 0 BOD, 16 STUN, 1" KB

4) 3d6 RKA - 12 BOD, 36 STUN => 2 BOD, 16 STUN, 0" KB

%) 9d6 EB - 9 BOD, 31 STUN => 0 BOD, 4 STUN, 2" KB

%) 3d6 RKA - 11 BOD, 28 STUN => 1 BOD, 8 STUN, 0" KB

3) 9d6 EB - 9 BOD, 27 STUN => 0 BOD, 7 STUN, 3" KB

3) 3d6 RKA - 9 BOD, 18 STUN => 0 BOD, 0 STUN, 0" KB

 

4) 12d6 EB - 12 BOD, 48 STUN => 0 BOD, 28 STUN, 4" KB

4) 4d6 RKA - 16 BOD, 48 STUN => 6 BOD, 28 STUN, 4" KB

%) 12d6 EB - 12 BOD, 42 STUN => 0 BOD, 28 STUN, 3" KB

%) 4d6 RKA - 14 BOD, 35 STUN => 4 BOD, 15 STUN, 3" KB

3) 12d6 EB - 12 BOD, 36 STUN => 0 BOD, 16 STUN, 3" KB

3) 4d6 RKA - 12 BOD, 24 STUN => 2 BOD, 4 STUN, 3" KB

 

4) 15d6 EB - 15 BOD, 60 STUN => 0 BOD, 40 STUN, 7" KB

4) 5d6 RKA - 20 BOD, 60 STUN => 10 BOD, 40 STUN, 8" KB

%) 15d6 EB - 15 BOD, 53 STUN => 0 BOD, 40 STUN, 7" KB

%) 5d6 RKA - 18 BOD, 45 STUN => 10 BOD, 40 STUN, 8" KB

3) 15d6 EB - 15 BOD, 60 STUN => 0 BOD, 40 STUN, 7" KB

3) 5d6 RKA - 15 BOD, 30 STUN => 5 BOD, 10 STUN, 8" KB

 

4) 18d6 EB - 18 BOD, 72 STUN => 0 BOD, 52 STUN, 10" KB

4) 6d6 RKA - 24 BOD, 72 STUN => 14 BOD, 52 STUN, 12" KB

%) 18d6 EB - 18 BOD, 72 STUN => 0 BOD, 52 STUN, 10" KB

%) 6d6 RKA - 21 BOD, 53 STUN => 14 BOD, 52 STUN, 12" KB

3) 18d6 EB - 18 BOD, 72 STUN => 0 BOD, 52 STUN, 10" KB

3) 6d6 RKA - 24 BOD, 48 STUN => 14 BOD, 28 STUN, 12" KB

 

 

Hmmmm. And versus 10/5 defenses (Heroic Level)

4) 3d6 EB - 3 BOD, 12 STUN => 0 BOD, 2 STUN, 0" KB

4) 1d6 RKA - 4 BOD, 14 STUN => 0 BOD, 4 STUN, 0" KB

%) 3d6 EB - 3 BOD, 11 STUN => 0 BOD, 1 STUN, 0" KB

%) 1d6 RKA - 4 BOD, 10 STUN => 0 BOD, 0 STUN, 0" KB

3) 3d6 EB - 3 BOD, 9 STUN => 0 BOD, 0 STUN, 0" KB

3) 1d6 RKA - 3 BOD, 6 STUN => 0 BOD, 0 STUN, 0" KB

 

 

 

4) 6d6 EB - 6 BOD, 24 STUN => 0 BOD, 14 STUN, 0" KB

4) 2d6 RKA - 8 BOD, 24 STUN => 3 BOD, 14 STUN, 0" KB

%) 6d6 EB - 6 BOD, 19 STUN => 0 BOD, 9 STUN, 0" KB

%) 2d6 RKA - 7 BOD, 18 STUN => 2 BOD, 8 STUN, 0" KB

3) 6d6 EB - 6 BOD, 18 STUN => 0 BOD, 8 STUN, 0" KB

3) 2d6 RKA - 6 BOD, 12 STUN => 1 BOD, 2 STUN, 0" KB

 

4) 9d6 EB - 9 BOD, 36 STUN => 0 BOD, 26 STUN, 1" KB

4) 3d6 RKA - 12 BOD, 36 STUN => 7 BOD, 26 STUN, 0" KB

%) 9d6 EB 9 BOD, 31 STUN => 4 BOD, 21 STUN, 2" KB

%) 3d6 RKA - 11 BOD, 28 STUN => 6 BOD, 18 STUN, 0" KB

3) 9d6 EB - 9 BOD, 27 STUN => 0 BOD, 17 STUN, 3" KB

3) 3d6 RKA - 9 BOD, 18 STUN => 4 BOD, 8 STUN, 0" KB

 

 

I'm tired....somebody else compute the averages...

 

I think I'll make a spreadsheet (adds to list of things to do once I have time)

 

Observation and intuition say that at SE 4, Killing attacks do more BODY and the same STUN. At SE 3.5 or lower, they do more BODY and less STUN. It is interesting to note that Killing Attacks do NOT do less knockback on average...the extra 1d6 is to compensate for the average additional BODY damage on the attack, and ading to the variability.

 

Then consider wild rolls remembered by STUN lotto participants::

4d6 RKA, 6,5,5,6 SM = 2 <=> 22 BOD, 22 STUN

. 1,2,1,2 SM = 6 <=> 6 BOD, 30 STUN

 

MAybe some qizard can run the numbers in aspreadsheet...though I would bet that somewhere Steve and company have one made up already...

[Farkling]

Hmmm...those % signs are supposed to be 3.5 or A's .... what was I thinking?