Simon

I don't think it was teh bunneh...to give a bit of credit here, this is likely just advanced planning on Trump's part, though it is giving away his intentions in regards to the Mexican-American War (we never said we'd protect the southwestern states forever).  Once he renegotiates the peace treaty and pulls our troops out, Mexico will have control over Texas, Arizona, Utah, California, New Mexico, and Nevada.  It is to be assumed that western Colorado will be used as a bargaining chip by Pence during the cease fire negotiations.

I don't think it was teh bunneh...to give a bit of credit here, this is likely just advanced planning on Trump's part, though it is giving away his intentions in regards to the Mexican-American War (we never said we'd protect the southwestern states forever).  Once he renegotiates the peace treaty and pulls our troops out, Mexico will have control over Texas, Arizona, Utah, California, New Mexico, and Nevada.  It is to be assumed that western Colorado will be used as a bargaining chip by Pence during the cease fire negotiations.

I don't think it was teh bunneh...to give a bit of credit here, this is likely just advanced planning on Trump's part, though it is giving away his intentions in regards to the Mexican-American War (we never said we'd protect the southwestern states forever).  Once he renegotiates the peace treaty and pulls our troops out, Mexico will have control over Texas, Arizona, Utah, California, New Mexico, and Nevada.  It is to be assumed that western Colorado will be used as a bargaining chip by Pence during the cease fire negotiations.

I don't think it was teh bunneh...to give a bit of credit here, this is likely just advanced planning on Trump's part, though it is giving away his intentions in regards to the Mexican-American War (we never said we'd protect the southwestern states forever).  Once he renegotiates the peace treaty and pulls our troops out, Mexico will have control over Texas, Arizona, Utah, California, New Mexico, and Nevada.  It is to be assumed that western Colorado will be used as a bargaining chip by Pence during the cease fire negotiations.

I don't think it was teh bunneh...to give a bit of credit here, this is likely just advanced planning on Trump's part, though it is giving away his intentions in regards to the Mexican-American War (we never said we'd protect the southwestern states forever).  Once he renegotiates the peace treaty and pulls our troops out, Mexico will have control over Texas, Arizona, Utah, California, New Mexico, and Nevada.  It is to be assumed that western Colorado will be used as a bargaining chip by Pence during the cease fire negotiations.

I don't think it was teh bunneh...to give a bit of credit here, this is likely just advanced planning on Trump's part, though it is giving away his intentions in regards to the Mexican-American War (we never said we'd protect the southwestern states forever).  Once he renegotiates the peace treaty and pulls our troops out, Mexico will have control over Texas, Arizona, Utah, California, New Mexico, and Nevada.  It is to be assumed that western Colorado will be used as a bargaining chip by Pence during the cease fire negotiations.

Really?  Do I need to remind folks (again) to read the rules?

For Killing Attacks:
    1 DC = +1 pip
    2 DC = 1/2d6
    3 DC = 1d6
 
With a +1/4 Advantage on an HKA, you're looking at 6.25 points of STR per DC.  15 STR will get you 2DC (you'd need to increase to 19 STR before you had enough for 3DC).

I think it's just the HERO rounding rules coming into play. Increase the Thickness to "+2 1/2".  Notice the APs and Real Cost are now 67 when you increase the Flash Defense to 7.
 
Turning it around:  When Flash Defense is 6, increasing the Thickness from "+2 1/4" to "+2 1/2" does not cost any more APs.  Again...rounding.

I'm continually amazed that folks will acknowledge Russian interference in the 2016 election as if it's the dumbest thing in the world to question it...and then continue to parrot the misinformation that they were fed by said interference. The Russians didn't interfere by altering votes/hacking voting machines -- they interfered through social engineering...guiding and controlling public opinions and discourse.

The Russians took a page directly from our playbook -- they did the modern/online equivalent of what we did with Yeltsin.
 
For those continuing to parrot the "Hillary is the devil" lines...or "Hillary stole the nomination from Sanders"...please read the rules of this thread and do some research.  Hillary did not steal the Democratic nomination -- she won both the popular vote and the delegate vote, which is kind of the way it's supposed to work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries). She was an extremely competent and experienced politician who became the target of one of the largest smear campaigns in modern history (the most direct/tangible result of the Russian interference in the election process).

Flying blind now, since I can't get the issue to replicate any longer...but there's a new update posted that should fix it.

I've got the problem fixed, but the hosting provider for the forums is having a bit of an issue with file uploads at present....once they fix that problem, I'll get the update posted.

Please describe the steps you took that caused the error so others can see if it is reproducible. Thanks.

First and foremost:  what Ternaugh said...x1000.  Too many people think that "defending" starts when you're under active attack -- it's too late then.  At that point, you're hoping that you're better than your attacker.  There's no magic, no mystery -- you are either better than your attacker or you're willing and able to take things further than your attacker is willing to go (e.g. your attacker is just in it as a "simple" bar fight...and you're taking it to the gouging of eyes, stabbing, imminent death level -- that's a whole 'nother fight that they're likely not in for).

Before talking defenses (beyond what Ternaugh hit upon), let's talk about guns...since there's a LOT of misinformation and misconception about them.  A gun is pretty danged effective as an offensive weapon...from about 8 feet on.  Inside of 8 feet, it's non-ideal.  If you don't have the weapon drawn and your attacker is 8 feet away, forget about it.  We would routinely train police in exactly that point -- having a beginning student with a pool noodle run across the entire dojang floor and whap them over the head with it while they were fumbling for their sidearm (airsoft, in those cases).  All they had to do was move, but they were fixated on their gun.
 
Inside of 6 feet and it doesn't matter if you have the gun drawn -- they're too close.  IF you have it trained on them and they're inside of 6 feet, maybe you stand a chance...but again, you're back to are you better than they are....and are they not fully committed to the attack. If you're trying to draw or raise your weapon and someone is inside of 6 feet, you're more likely to have it used against you than you are to actually bring it into play against your attacker.
 
So...guns: great at distance, horrible close up.   

Keep in mind what Ternaugh posted -- if you're unaware of your situation to the point that you get attacked (maybe they were actively in hiding -- this isn't a knock on the person attacked), then you're dealing with an attacker that is well within that 6 foot radius.  You're in HTH range and need to handle it as such.  And by "handle it" I'm not referring to taking the fight to them...that just goes back to who's better trained and more committed to the fight.  De-escalating and avoiding a fight entirely should be your goal...and it's really not that hard (hint: a gun ALWAYS escalates, that's it's main purpose -- showing that one side is willing to take the fight to the lethal level).  A common/believable situation we often used to highlight de-escalating:
 
You're in a bar hanging out with friends, beer in hand.  The bar's pretty crowded...a big guy is walking by and bumps into you, causing you to spill your beer.  Gets mainly on you, but a little splashes on him.  He loses it and starts berating you, clearly angling for a fight.  You've done nothing wrong...you can yell back (escalating things) and hope that he backs down (he's not willing to take it to a fight)...you can actively escalate it to the point of a fight (ala Joe Pesci)...or you can try to de-escalate -- calm him down.  "Whoa, I am so sorry....I didn't see you.  Let me get something at the bar to dry you off.  What are you drinking?  I'll get your next round."  You've gone from your night being over (should a fight have broken out) and likely having some rather expensive medical bills (even if you won) to being out $6 and most likely not even that once the guy calms down...and they almost always do.  
 
You can apply similar in most situations.  Being mugged?  Unless you have thousands on you, give them what they're after -- you're already at a disadvantage (you didn't see them until it was too late) and you're likely going to get injured in a fight, even if you win and keep your stuff.  The cost of those injuries is going to vastly outweigh whatever it is that you're carrying in most cases.  

Too often we're more concerned with what's "fair" or "right" and end up escalating things needlessly.

First and foremost:  what Ternaugh said...x1000.  Too many people think that "defending" starts when you're under active attack -- it's too late then.  At that point, you're hoping that you're better than your attacker.  There's no magic, no mystery -- you are either better than your attacker or you're willing and able to take things further than your attacker is willing to go (e.g. your attacker is just in it as a "simple" bar fight...and you're taking it to the gouging of eyes, stabbing, imminent death level -- that's a whole 'nother fight that they're likely not in for).

Before talking defenses (beyond what Ternaugh hit upon), let's talk about guns...since there's a LOT of misinformation and misconception about them.  A gun is pretty danged effective as an offensive weapon...from about 8 feet on.  Inside of 8 feet, it's non-ideal.  If you don't have the weapon drawn and your attacker is 8 feet away, forget about it.  We would routinely train police in exactly that point -- having a beginning student with a pool noodle run across the entire dojang floor and whap them over the head with it while they were fumbling for their sidearm (airsoft, in those cases).  All they had to do was move, but they were fixated on their gun.
 
Inside of 6 feet and it doesn't matter if you have the gun drawn -- they're too close.  IF you have it trained on them and they're inside of 6 feet, maybe you stand a chance...but again, you're back to are you better than they are....and are they not fully committed to the attack. If you're trying to draw or raise your weapon and someone is inside of 6 feet, you're more likely to have it used against you than you are to actually bring it into play against your attacker.
 
So...guns: great at distance, horrible close up.   

Keep in mind what Ternaugh posted -- if you're unaware of your situation to the point that you get attacked (maybe they were actively in hiding -- this isn't a knock on the person attacked), then you're dealing with an attacker that is well within that 6 foot radius.  You're in HTH range and need to handle it as such.  And by "handle it" I'm not referring to taking the fight to them...that just goes back to who's better trained and more committed to the fight.  De-escalating and avoiding a fight entirely should be your goal...and it's really not that hard (hint: a gun ALWAYS escalates, that's it's main purpose -- showing that one side is willing to take the fight to the lethal level).  A common/believable situation we often used to highlight de-escalating:
 
You're in a bar hanging out with friends, beer in hand.  The bar's pretty crowded...a big guy is walking by and bumps into you, causing you to spill your beer.  Gets mainly on you, but a little splashes on him.  He loses it and starts berating you, clearly angling for a fight.  You've done nothing wrong...you can yell back (escalating things) and hope that he backs down (he's not willing to take it to a fight)...you can actively escalate it to the point of a fight (ala Joe Pesci)...or you can try to de-escalate -- calm him down.  "Whoa, I am so sorry....I didn't see you.  Let me get something at the bar to dry you off.  What are you drinking?  I'll get your next round."  You've gone from your night being over (should a fight have broken out) and likely having some rather expensive medical bills (even if you won) to being out $6 and most likely not even that once the guy calms down...and they almost always do.  
 
You can apply similar in most situations.  Being mugged?  Unless you have thousands on you, give them what they're after -- you're already at a disadvantage (you didn't see them until it was too late) and you're likely going to get injured in a fight, even if you win and keep your stuff.  The cost of those injuries is going to vastly outweigh whatever it is that you're carrying in most cases.  

Too often we're more concerned with what's "fair" or "right" and end up escalating things needlessly.

Just being aware is 95% of self defense.  
 
It's very rare that someone is out there just looking to fight some random dude on the street - there's always a goal and that goal is almost always best met (by the attacker) by avoiding physical conflict.  Physical conflicts are risky...and noisy.
 
Put yourself in the mind of, say, a mugger.  You're not in this to fight, you're in this to find a target that you can take off guard, get their stuff, and get away with minimal commotion.  Get in, get your stuff, get out.  That guy who's walking down the street with his head down as he texts on his iPhone?  Great target.  Barely has the self awareness to avoid a pot hole much less see you coming up behind him.  That woman walking along with her purse over the opposite shoulder (not easy to take off), head up, and aware of where she is?  Not a great target...likely going to make a huge racket even if she doesn't actively fight back.  That's just initial target selection, but that self-aware woman stopped things before they ever moved past that.

First and foremost:  what Ternaugh said...x1000.  Too many people think that "defending" starts when you're under active attack -- it's too late then.  At that point, you're hoping that you're better than your attacker.  There's no magic, no mystery -- you are either better than your attacker or you're willing and able to take things further than your attacker is willing to go (e.g. your attacker is just in it as a "simple" bar fight...and you're taking it to the gouging of eyes, stabbing, imminent death level -- that's a whole 'nother fight that they're likely not in for).

Before talking defenses (beyond what Ternaugh hit upon), let's talk about guns...since there's a LOT of misinformation and misconception about them.  A gun is pretty danged effective as an offensive weapon...from about 8 feet on.  Inside of 8 feet, it's non-ideal.  If you don't have the weapon drawn and your attacker is 8 feet away, forget about it.  We would routinely train police in exactly that point -- having a beginning student with a pool noodle run across the entire dojang floor and whap them over the head with it while they were fumbling for their sidearm (airsoft, in those cases).  All they had to do was move, but they were fixated on their gun.
 
Inside of 6 feet and it doesn't matter if you have the gun drawn -- they're too close.  IF you have it trained on them and they're inside of 6 feet, maybe you stand a chance...but again, you're back to are you better than they are....and are they not fully committed to the attack. If you're trying to draw or raise your weapon and someone is inside of 6 feet, you're more likely to have it used against you than you are to actually bring it into play against your attacker.
 
So...guns: great at distance, horrible close up.   

Keep in mind what Ternaugh posted -- if you're unaware of your situation to the point that you get attacked (maybe they were actively in hiding -- this isn't a knock on the person attacked), then you're dealing with an attacker that is well within that 6 foot radius.  You're in HTH range and need to handle it as such.  And by "handle it" I'm not referring to taking the fight to them...that just goes back to who's better trained and more committed to the fight.  De-escalating and avoiding a fight entirely should be your goal...and it's really not that hard (hint: a gun ALWAYS escalates, that's it's main purpose -- showing that one side is willing to take the fight to the lethal level).  A common/believable situation we often used to highlight de-escalating:
 
You're in a bar hanging out with friends, beer in hand.  The bar's pretty crowded...a big guy is walking by and bumps into you, causing you to spill your beer.  Gets mainly on you, but a little splashes on him.  He loses it and starts berating you, clearly angling for a fight.  You've done nothing wrong...you can yell back (escalating things) and hope that he backs down (he's not willing to take it to a fight)...you can actively escalate it to the point of a fight (ala Joe Pesci)...or you can try to de-escalate -- calm him down.  "Whoa, I am so sorry....I didn't see you.  Let me get something at the bar to dry you off.  What are you drinking?  I'll get your next round."  You've gone from your night being over (should a fight have broken out) and likely having some rather expensive medical bills (even if you won) to being out $6 and most likely not even that once the guy calms down...and they almost always do.  
 
You can apply similar in most situations.  Being mugged?  Unless you have thousands on you, give them what they're after -- you're already at a disadvantage (you didn't see them until it was too late) and you're likely going to get injured in a fight, even if you win and keep your stuff.  The cost of those injuries is going to vastly outweigh whatever it is that you're carrying in most cases.  

Too often we're more concerned with what's "fair" or "right" and end up escalating things needlessly.

Try this: http://www.functionalselfdefense.org/awareness-prevention
 
 

Just being aware is 95% of self defense.  
 
It's very rare that someone is out there just looking to fight some random dude on the street - there's always a goal and that goal is almost always best met (by the attacker) by avoiding physical conflict.  Physical conflicts are risky...and noisy.
 
Put yourself in the mind of, say, a mugger.  You're not in this to fight, you're in this to find a target that you can take off guard, get their stuff, and get away with minimal commotion.  Get in, get your stuff, get out.  That guy who's walking down the street with his head down as he texts on his iPhone?  Great target.  Barely has the self awareness to avoid a pot hole much less see you coming up behind him.  That woman walking along with her purse over the opposite shoulder (not easy to take off), head up, and aware of where she is?  Not a great target...likely going to make a huge racket even if she doesn't actively fight back.  That's just initial target selection, but that self-aware woman stopped things before they ever moved past that.

First and foremost:  what Ternaugh said...x1000.  Too many people think that "defending" starts when you're under active attack -- it's too late then.  At that point, you're hoping that you're better than your attacker.  There's no magic, no mystery -- you are either better than your attacker or you're willing and able to take things further than your attacker is willing to go (e.g. your attacker is just in it as a "simple" bar fight...and you're taking it to the gouging of eyes, stabbing, imminent death level -- that's a whole 'nother fight that they're likely not in for).

Before talking defenses (beyond what Ternaugh hit upon), let's talk about guns...since there's a LOT of misinformation and misconception about them.  A gun is pretty danged effective as an offensive weapon...from about 8 feet on.  Inside of 8 feet, it's non-ideal.  If you don't have the weapon drawn and your attacker is 8 feet away, forget about it.  We would routinely train police in exactly that point -- having a beginning student with a pool noodle run across the entire dojang floor and whap them over the head with it while they were fumbling for their sidearm (airsoft, in those cases).  All they had to do was move, but they were fixated on their gun.
 
Inside of 6 feet and it doesn't matter if you have the gun drawn -- they're too close.  IF you have it trained on them and they're inside of 6 feet, maybe you stand a chance...but again, you're back to are you better than they are....and are they not fully committed to the attack. If you're trying to draw or raise your weapon and someone is inside of 6 feet, you're more likely to have it used against you than you are to actually bring it into play against your attacker.
 
So...guns: great at distance, horrible close up.   

Keep in mind what Ternaugh posted -- if you're unaware of your situation to the point that you get attacked (maybe they were actively in hiding -- this isn't a knock on the person attacked), then you're dealing with an attacker that is well within that 6 foot radius.  You're in HTH range and need to handle it as such.  And by "handle it" I'm not referring to taking the fight to them...that just goes back to who's better trained and more committed to the fight.  De-escalating and avoiding a fight entirely should be your goal...and it's really not that hard (hint: a gun ALWAYS escalates, that's it's main purpose -- showing that one side is willing to take the fight to the lethal level).  A common/believable situation we often used to highlight de-escalating:
 
You're in a bar hanging out with friends, beer in hand.  The bar's pretty crowded...a big guy is walking by and bumps into you, causing you to spill your beer.  Gets mainly on you, but a little splashes on him.  He loses it and starts berating you, clearly angling for a fight.  You've done nothing wrong...you can yell back (escalating things) and hope that he backs down (he's not willing to take it to a fight)...you can actively escalate it to the point of a fight (ala Joe Pesci)...or you can try to de-escalate -- calm him down.  "Whoa, I am so sorry....I didn't see you.  Let me get something at the bar to dry you off.  What are you drinking?  I'll get your next round."  You've gone from your night being over (should a fight have broken out) and likely having some rather expensive medical bills (even if you won) to being out $6 and most likely not even that once the guy calms down...and they almost always do.  
 
You can apply similar in most situations.  Being mugged?  Unless you have thousands on you, give them what they're after -- you're already at a disadvantage (you didn't see them until it was too late) and you're likely going to get injured in a fight, even if you win and keep your stuff.  The cost of those injuries is going to vastly outweigh whatever it is that you're carrying in most cases.  

Too often we're more concerned with what's "fair" or "right" and end up escalating things needlessly.

First and foremost:  what Ternaugh said...x1000.  Too many people think that "defending" starts when you're under active attack -- it's too late then.  At that point, you're hoping that you're better than your attacker.  There's no magic, no mystery -- you are either better than your attacker or you're willing and able to take things further than your attacker is willing to go (e.g. your attacker is just in it as a "simple" bar fight...and you're taking it to the gouging of eyes, stabbing, imminent death level -- that's a whole 'nother fight that they're likely not in for).

Before talking defenses (beyond what Ternaugh hit upon), let's talk about guns...since there's a LOT of misinformation and misconception about them.  A gun is pretty danged effective as an offensive weapon...from about 8 feet on.  Inside of 8 feet, it's non-ideal.  If you don't have the weapon drawn and your attacker is 8 feet away, forget about it.  We would routinely train police in exactly that point -- having a beginning student with a pool noodle run across the entire dojang floor and whap them over the head with it while they were fumbling for their sidearm (airsoft, in those cases).  All they had to do was move, but they were fixated on their gun.
 
Inside of 6 feet and it doesn't matter if you have the gun drawn -- they're too close.  IF you have it trained on them and they're inside of 6 feet, maybe you stand a chance...but again, you're back to are you better than they are....and are they not fully committed to the attack. If you're trying to draw or raise your weapon and someone is inside of 6 feet, you're more likely to have it used against you than you are to actually bring it into play against your attacker.
 
So...guns: great at distance, horrible close up.   

Keep in mind what Ternaugh posted -- if you're unaware of your situation to the point that you get attacked (maybe they were actively in hiding -- this isn't a knock on the person attacked), then you're dealing with an attacker that is well within that 6 foot radius.  You're in HTH range and need to handle it as such.  And by "handle it" I'm not referring to taking the fight to them...that just goes back to who's better trained and more committed to the fight.  De-escalating and avoiding a fight entirely should be your goal...and it's really not that hard (hint: a gun ALWAYS escalates, that's it's main purpose -- showing that one side is willing to take the fight to the lethal level).  A common/believable situation we often used to highlight de-escalating:
 
You're in a bar hanging out with friends, beer in hand.  The bar's pretty crowded...a big guy is walking by and bumps into you, causing you to spill your beer.  Gets mainly on you, but a little splashes on him.  He loses it and starts berating you, clearly angling for a fight.  You've done nothing wrong...you can yell back (escalating things) and hope that he backs down (he's not willing to take it to a fight)...you can actively escalate it to the point of a fight (ala Joe Pesci)...or you can try to de-escalate -- calm him down.  "Whoa, I am so sorry....I didn't see you.  Let me get something at the bar to dry you off.  What are you drinking?  I'll get your next round."  You've gone from your night being over (should a fight have broken out) and likely having some rather expensive medical bills (even if you won) to being out $6 and most likely not even that once the guy calms down...and they almost always do.  
 
You can apply similar in most situations.  Being mugged?  Unless you have thousands on you, give them what they're after -- you're already at a disadvantage (you didn't see them until it was too late) and you're likely going to get injured in a fight, even if you win and keep your stuff.  The cost of those injuries is going to vastly outweigh whatever it is that you're carrying in most cases.  

Too often we're more concerned with what's "fair" or "right" and end up escalating things needlessly.

I think that throughout our society there is a general use of guns as defensive weapons that is both pervasive and misleading.  They are not good at self defense -- there are much better ways to defend oneself from an attack.  The presentation of guns as defensive is extremely pervasive throughout our society and a large part of the reason (IMO) that we can't get past the 2A (and we really only pay attention to the second half of it) to actually address the problem that the US has with firearms.

Part of it is that it's those that are most in need that are not being taken care of (often).  As you say, if you're insured and in generally good health, there's little issue (though out of pocket can still be pretty high...and insurance costs, even when half is footed by the employer, are VERY high compared to other countries).  It's when you're in need that things change (for the worse).  A friend of mine had been fighting cancer for years...very expensive treatments.  His insurer decided to cut him off/decline coverage.  The insurer's gamble was sound -- it would cost a large chunk of money for my friend to go after them in court and make them pay...and the insurer's legal fees were already covered by the lawyers they kept on retainer.  So they could cut him off and worst-case (for them) be forced to pay out after a lengthy court battle.

The flip side to this (and part of the reason for doctors' reluctance to take Medicare patients) is that we're a VERY litigious society. This drives up rates across the board, doctors paying higher malpractice insurance, insurers having higher rates due to payouts and legal, etc.  This is why it's not an easy solution -- any change in coverage (single payer, etc.) needs to be matched with protections for doctors (and, in turn, the insurers) from litigation. Not immunity, but protection.

Part of it is that it's those that are most in need that are not being taken care of (often).  As you say, if you're insured and in generally good health, there's little issue (though out of pocket can still be pretty high...and insurance costs, even when half is footed by the employer, are VERY high compared to other countries).  It's when you're in need that things change (for the worse).  A friend of mine had been fighting cancer for years...very expensive treatments.  His insurer decided to cut him off/decline coverage.  The insurer's gamble was sound -- it would cost a large chunk of money for my friend to go after them in court and make them pay...and the insurer's legal fees were already covered by the lawyers they kept on retainer.  So they could cut him off and worst-case (for them) be forced to pay out after a lengthy court battle.

The flip side to this (and part of the reason for doctors' reluctance to take Medicare patients) is that we're a VERY litigious society. This drives up rates across the board, doctors paying higher malpractice insurance, insurers having higher rates due to payouts and legal, etc.  This is why it's not an easy solution -- any change in coverage (single payer, etc.) needs to be matched with protections for doctors (and, in turn, the insurers) from litigation. Not immunity, but protection.