Iren's PbP - Fantasy Rules

[asf]

with 18 luck all my rolls should be nat 20 automatically

[Irenaeus]

I think it's fair to have a concentration skill check for interruption, not automatically being interrupted from damage alone. Do you guys have any other suggestions for the magic system? I'm open for changing anything if there's consensus.

As for cantrips, that is, weaker versions of level 1 spells, I'm thinking of allowing the use per day of 2 + double the INT bonus of the magic user. How about that?

So we are still having to designate spell use on Initiative for all spells? This is incredibly limiting.

I do not see the point of cantrips in this setting, just use a weapon instead so I am actually opposed to cantrips after talking about this in the other thread.

I thought most people had agreed that cantrips being weaker versions of main spells were a cool idea.

I don't understand the first question, what is "designate spell use on Initiative for all spells?"

Nevermind, just checked the ACKS rulebook. Yeah, forget about that. You cast what you want when it's your turn, don't worry about choosing a spell before initiative. I didn't even see this rule before. You can also move and cast a spell.

[Oyster Sauce]

I think it's fair to have a concentration skill check for interruption, not automatically being interrupted from damage alone. Do you guys have any other suggestions for the magic system? I'm open for changing anything if there's consensus.

As for cantrips, that is, weaker versions of level 1 spells, I'm thinking of allowing the use per day of 2 + double the INT bonus of the magic user. How about that?

So we are still having to designate spell use on Initiative for all spells? This is incredibly limiting.

I do not see the point of cantrips in this setting, just use a weapon instead so I am actually opposed to cantrips after talking about this in the other thread.

Dude just be a ******* fighter this is exhausting

[Irenaeus]

I think it's fair to have a concentration skill check for interruption, not automatically being interrupted from damage alone. Do you guys have any other suggestions for the magic system? I'm open for changing anything if there's consensus.

As for cantrips, that is, weaker versions of level 1 spells, I'm thinking of allowing the use per day of 2 + double the INT bonus of the magic user. How about that?

So we are still having to designate spell use on Initiative for all spells? This is incredibly limiting.

I do not see the point of cantrips in this setting, just use a weapon instead so I am actually opposed to cantrips after talking about this in the other thread.

Dude just be a ******* fighter this is exhausting

The game is focused on exploration, avoiding dangers, and finding loot, with combat just being one of the options. It's not a hack-n-slash.

[Kalarion]

It would only be equal if there is a 50% chance every round for it to happen. Because the Argument was that a weapon that is massively limited in use, deals the same damage as any other weapon is OP when it can also not disabled after having to declare that you use it.

This wasn't the argument made for magic at all. Stop constantly equating your magic to a weapon, it's silly. It can be a weapon. It can also be a lot of other things; a radar (Detect Evil) or a cloak (Resist Cold) for instance. Or an oracle (Commune). Or a pocket healer (Cure Light Wounds). It's a potpourri. That's what everyone is getting at.

It's not powerful because you can do d6 damage once per day (which is itself disingenuous, considering what kind of raw damage it can put out at later levels). It's powerful because it can do that, or something else, as almost any situation demands. You trade the restriction on how often you can do it per day for its immense flexibility and its ability to swing a situation via levers vice raw physical power.

EDIT: ****, ignore this post. Riva ninja'd me, I should have paid attention to Already Posted when I was submitting

[Irenaeus]

Going to put up my setting thread soon. We can continue clear doubts and finesse the rules here, but I want to already start discussing the setting there.
And then finally launch the game!

[Lord of Riva]

I'm not entirely sure if this is going to be fun is most people don't even understand what the rule is I am refering to and when the problem ends up being irrelevant when after two pages the GM says "Oh I did not even realize that was in the rules, yeah we don't have to do that".

• Declaration: A spellcaster must declare their intention to cast a specific spell and which spell will be cast before the initiative dice are rolled in a combat round.
• Interruption: If the spellcaster takes damage or fails a saving throw before their initiative comes up in the round they are attempting to cast, the spell is disrupted and lost. The spell still counts against the character's daily limit as if it had been cast.

Things that were btw, mentioned when I asked about how spellcasting works in this setting. It seems also that people are offended when I give feedback about rules in the thread about giving feedback about rules.

[Irenaeus]

I'm not entirely sure if this is going to be fun is most people don't even understand what the rule is I am refering to and when the problem ends up being irrelevant when after two pages the GM says "Oh I did not even realize that was in the rules, yeah we don't have to do that".

I said from the beginning we were going to be play by simplified rules as this is my first time playing Play-by-post and I have a feeling it is much slower than tabletop and combat, which is already slow in tabletop, would be even slower in Pbp. I imagine it's going to be closer to CYOA/visual novel, just with more dice-rolling, due to slowly nature of posting every 2 or 3 days.
Please give me the benefit of the doubt and wait until we have some experience with playing to see if this is fun and something you want to to do. If you're not interested and all this discussion is annoying you, hey no problem. You can sit this one out and if you change your mind, you can hop back in. No harm done and we're still friends.

[Lord of Riva]

I'm not entirely sure if this is going to be fun is most people don't even understand what the rule is I am refering to and when the problem ends up being irrelevant when after two pages the GM says "Oh I did not even realize that was in the rules, yeah we don't have to do that".

I said from the beginning we were going to be play by simplified rules

No problem, I just want to point out that it's part of the rules you told me we use ITT

[Irenaeus]

I'm not entirely sure if this is going to be fun is most people don't even understand what the rule is I am refering to and when the problem ends up being irrelevant when after two pages the GM says "Oh I did not even realize that was in the rules, yeah we don't have to do that".

I said from the beginning we were going to be play by simplified rules

No problem, I just want to point out that it's part of the rules you told me we use ITT

You're right, I hadn't checked that rule from spellcasting. I think that rule is a bit weird, imo, but I can see where the ACKS developers were going with it, making the magic-user commit to a spell before their sequence as a way of simulating longer casting times.

[Stack of Turtles]

• Declaration: A spellcaster must declare their intention to cast a specific spell and which spell will be cast before the initiative dice are rolled in a combat round.
• Interruption: If the spellcaster takes damage or fails a saving throw before their initiative comes up in the round they are attempting to cast, the spell is disrupted and lost. The spell still counts against the character's daily limit as if it had been cast.

I actually really like this but for the sake of player enjoyment the spell likely shouldn't "count" and be wasted (although if it ends up being very rare that it happens at all, which it should, then it would be okay). It can only work if you're going to have proper screening / back ranks rules so that the other players can affirmatively protect their high value targets.

[Lord of Riva]

• Declaration: A spellcaster must declare their intention to cast a specific spell and which spell will be cast before the initiative dice are rolled in a combat round.
• Interruption: If the spellcaster takes damage or fails a saving throw before their initiative comes up in the round they are attempting to cast, the spell is disrupted and lost. The spell still counts against the character's daily limit as if it had been cast.

I actually really like this but for the sake of player enjoyment the spell likely shouldn't "count" and be wasted (although if it ends up being very rare that it happens at all, which it should, then it would be okay). It can only work if you're going to have proper screening / back ranks rules so that the other players can affirmatively protect their high value targets.

In context of P&P this is often resolved by either the GM having a mean streak when he want something not to happen or by randomness by diceroll neither is fun.

The issuue here is that this kind of game is not really a tactical game, if we were to play it like one, with proper positioning, ranges, cover or as you say back ranks and all *then* the rule is perfectly suitable and tactically engaging. Not so much in a situation where it is completely narratively driven.

EDIT: I had games before where one of the players just one-shotted the well prepared and story relevant Boss, out of the Blue (for example with a sniper in Shadowrun) before we encountered all the "well-prepared" story beats and the planned boss encounter. That is exactly when such rules are invoked, the player castrated to be a deus ex machina.

[Stack of Turtles]

• Declaration: A spellcaster must declare their intention to cast a specific spell and which spell will be cast before the initiative dice are rolled in a combat round.
• Interruption: If the spellcaster takes damage or fails a saving throw before their initiative comes up in the round they are attempting to cast, the spell is disrupted and lost. The spell still counts against the character's daily limit as if it had been cast.

I actually really like this but for the sake of player enjoyment the spell likely shouldn't "count" and be wasted (although if it ends up being very rare that it happens at all, which it should, then it would be okay). It can only work if you're going to have proper screening / back ranks rules so that the other players can affirmatively protect their high value targets.

In context of P&P this is often resolved by either the GM having a mean streak when he want something not to happen or by randomness by diceroll neither is fun.

The issuue here is that this kind of game is not really a tactical game, if we were to play it like one, with proper positioning, ranges, cover or as you say back ranks and all *then* the rule is perfectly suitable and tactically engaging. Not so much in a situation where it is completely narratively driven.

EDIT: I had games before where one of the players just one-shotted the well prepared and story relevant Boss, out of the Blue (for example with a sniper in Shadowrun) before we encountered all the "well-prepared" story beats and the planned boss encounter. That is exactly when such rules are invoked, the player castrated to be a deus ex machina.

I didn't get the impression that this game was meant to be "completely narratively driven" at all.

[Irenaeus]

I actually really like this but for the sake of player enjoyment the spell likely shouldn't "count" and be wasted (although if it ends up being very rare that it happens at all, which it should, then it would be okay). It can only work if you're going to have proper screening / back ranks rules so that the other players can affirmatively protect their high value targets.

In context of P&P this is often resolved by either the GM having a mean streak when he want something not to happen or by randomness by diceroll neither is fun.

The issuue here is that this kind of game is not really a tactical game, if we were to play it like one, with proper positioning, ranges, cover or as you say back ranks and all *then* the rule is perfectly suitable and tactically engaging. Not so much in a situation where it is completely narratively driven.

EDIT: I had games before where one of the players just one-shotted the well prepared and story relevant Boss, out of the Blue (for example with a sniper in Shadowrun) before we encountered all the "well-prepared" story beats and the planned boss encounter. That is exactly when such rules are invoked, the player castrated to be a deus ex machina.

I didn't get the impression that this game was meant to be "completely narratively driven" at all.

Dice results will decide many fates.

[Lord of Riva]

I actually really like this but for the sake of player enjoyment the spell likely shouldn't "count" and be wasted (although if it ends up being very rare that it happens at all, which it should, then it would be okay). It can only work if you're going to have proper screening / back ranks rules so that the other players can affirmatively protect their high value targets.

In context of P&P this is often resolved by either the GM having a mean streak when he want something not to happen or by randomness by diceroll neither is fun.

The issuue here is that this kind of game is not really a tactical game, if we were to play it like one, with proper positioning, ranges, cover or as you say back ranks and all *then* the rule is perfectly suitable and tactically engaging. Not so much in a situation where it is completely narratively driven.

EDIT: I had games before where one of the players just one-shotted the well prepared and story relevant Boss, out of the Blue (for example with a sniper in Shadowrun) before we encountered all the "well-prepared" story beats and the planned boss encounter. That is exactly when such rules are invoked, the player castrated to be a deus ex machina.

I didn't get the impression that this game was meant to be "completely narratively driven" at all.

Well, I don't think that Iren is starting a Roll20 or TT simulator game where we can simulate a situation in which certain rules work well. From my perspective all P&P, which is mostly based in written or spoken text is "narratively driven", maybe the word is unsuitable but that may me not being a native speaker, for example DnD 4th edition was not, it was to be played like a wargame.

[rusty_shackleford]

@Irenaeus since I'm not participating, I hope you don't mind me critiquing you from the outside. I'm unsure if you've run a game before, it's meant to be friendly advice.

[Irenaeus]

@Irenaeus since I'm not participating, I hope you don't mind me critiquing you from the outside. I'm unsure if you've run a game before, it's meant to be friendly advice.

Not at all. You have always a wise advice to give, you know more about RPGs than I do. In fact, many here do. I'm open to suggestions, like that one from @Acrux of using the system without modifying it. I have run two DCC long campaigns in the past (the first had people like Night Goat, Orma and Excidium as players lol). The second ended in 2020 also with codexers. Then, I had two CYOAs in a row at the codex that I linked in the intro (links here and here) for people to check my style of DMing in a forum (it's harder than it looks), so people can see if they like my style of writing and deciding based on player input. I hope it all bodes well for the game!

[Acrux]

Just to be clear, the intention of my comment wasn't toward you. I meant to encourage the players who were complaining about some of the rules you proposed to try them out before deciding they don't work.

[Irenaeus]

@Lord of Riva @TKVNC @maidenhaver @DemoGraph @Stack of Turtles and whoever else wants to discuss the missile weapons rules, get in here.

This is what the ACKS rulebook says, when making a missile attack, the following rules apply:

• Range: Missile attacks can only be made against opponents who are more than 5' away.
• Number of Attacks: A combatant normally makes only one missile attack per round.
• Attack Throw: To determine if a missile attack hits, the attacker rolls 1d20 and applies modifiers.
◦ Dexterity Adjustment: The attacker adds their Dexterity bonus or subtracts their Dexterity penalty from the roll.
◦ Magical Bonuses: Magical missile weapons provide bonuses to both attack throws and damage rolls (e.g., an arrow +1 gives a +1 bonus to damage, while a bow +1 gives a +1 bonus to attack).
◦ Range Penalties: There are penalties for attacking targets at a distance:
▪ Short Range: No bonus or penalty.
▪ Medium Range: A -2 penalty on the attack throw.
▪ Long Range: A -5 penalty on the attack throw.

► Show Spoiler

• Short Bow:
◦ Short Range: Up to 50'
◦ Medium Range: Up to 100'
◦ Long Range: Up to 150'
• Medium Bow:
◦ Short Range: Up to 70'
◦ Medium Range: Up to 140'
◦ Long Range: Up to 210'

◦ If an opponent is further away than the weapon's long range, they cannot be hit at all.
◦ Armor Class (AC): The target's Armor Class is added to the attacker's attack throw value needed to score a hit.
◦ An unmodified roll of 20 is always a hit, and an unmodified roll of 1 is always a miss.

• Cover: If an opponent is entirely behind a barrier, they cannot be hit. The Judge may apply a penalty of -1 to -4 to the attack throw if the target is only partly under cover.
• Vision and Light: Combatants suffer a -4 penalty to their attack throw if firing blind, in darkness, or at an invisible foe.
• Helpless Targets: Attacks on sleeping, paralyzed, or otherwise helpless targets automatically hit. A standard damage roll is made.
• Precise Shooting: Characters without the Precise Shooting proficiency cannot attack opponents engaged in melee with missile attacks.
• Special Missile Attacks:
◦ Oil Flasks: Lit oil flasks can be thrown. A direct hit deals 1d8 damage for 2 rounds, plus splash damage (1d3 to target and those within 5', save v. Blast to avoid splash). Misses deviate randomly. Unlit oil does no damage but can be lit later. Poured oil burns on the ground.
◦ Holy Water: Thrown vials of holy water damage undead as burning oil but are harmless to other creatures.
After a successful hit, damage is rolled based on the weapon type.

The stats related to missile shooting in the Adventurer Conqueror King System (ACKS) are:

Character Abilities and Traits:

• Dexterity: Your Dexterity score directly influences your ability to hit with missile weapons. The Dexterity bonus (or penalty) is added to your attack throws with missile weapons.

• Precise Shooting: This proficiency allows you to make missile attacks against opponents engaged in melee at a -4 penalty to your attack throw. Without this proficiency, you normally cannot attack opponents in melee with missile weapons. Taking multiple ranks in this proficiency reduces the penalty by 2 per rank.
• Weapon Focus (Bows & Crossbows, Slings and Thrown Weapons, Spears and Polearms): When using your favored type of weapon (chosen when you select the proficiency), you are capable of devastating strikes. On an unmodified attack throw of 20, you inflict double normal damage.
• Fighting Style (Missile Weapon): This proficiency grants a +1 bonus to attack throws with missile weapons.
• Sharp-Eyed: This trait grants a +1 bonus to attack throws with missile weapons.

In summary, to be effective with missile attacks, a character should have a high Dexterity score, consider the Precise Shooting and Weapon Focus proficiencies, the Sharp-Eyed trait, and if applicable to their class, the Fighting Style (Missile Weapon) proficiency.

Example: Ranger with DEX 14 shooting a 0-level man with leather armor at 30' distance.

► Show Spoiler

Here's an example of a Ranger with DEX 14 shooting a 0-level man with leather armor at 30' distance:
1. Ranger's Attack Throw: At 1st level, a Ranger has a base attack throw value of 10+.
2. Ranger's Dexterity Bonus: With a Dexterity of 14, the Ranger has a +1 bonus to attack throws with missile weapons.
3. Range: The target is at 30' distance. For a short bow (which a Ranger can use), 30' is within short range, incurring no penalty to the attack roll.
4. Target's Armor Class: A 0-level man wearing leather armor has an Armor Class (AC) of 2 [92, from conversation history using 193].
5. Modified Attack Roll Needed: To hit, the Ranger needs to roll equal to or greater than their base attack throw plus the target's AC, adjusted for range and Dexterity.
◦ Base Attack Throw: 10
◦ Target AC: +2
◦ Range Penalty: +0
◦ Ranger's Dexterity Bonus: -1 (to the target number, as a bonus helps)
◦ Total Target Number: 10 + 2 - 1 = 11+
6. Example Attack Roll:
◦ The player rolls 1d20.
◦ If the result is 11 or higher, the Ranger hits the 0-level man.
◦ If the result is 10 or lower, the Ranger misses.
Damage:

► Show Spoiler

Supposing that ranger has STR 10, the damage they would inflict if they hit with a missile attack would be the base damage of the bow used plus their damage bonus.
• Rangers increase their base damage roll from successful missile and melee attacks by +1 at 1st level. This bonus applies regardless of their Strength score.
• A Strength score of 10 has a modifier of 0 for damage rolls. Therefore, the Ranger's Strength will not add or subtract from the damage in this case.
The total damage would be:
Base damage of the bow + 1
For example, if the Ranger is using a short bow, which has a base damage of 1d6, the damage on a hit would be 1d6 + 1.

With that stated, we can discuss modifying the system to our liking, including or removing rules. What are your suggestions?

[maidenhaver]

18 STR is +2 on my damage roll, because I won my attack roll?

So I do 3 dmg?

No, its 4, because short bow is +1.

[Irenaeus]

18 STR is +2 on my damage roll, because I won my attack roll?

So I do 3 dmg?

No, its 4, because short bow is +1.

18 STR gives a +3 bonus, the short bow does 1d6+1, so you do 1d6+4. If I did the calculations correctly.
We can change this stuff if there's good suggestions and consensus. Those are the base rules.

[maidenhaver]

That's fine, the system is good, but I didn't find what the traits or skills do in the system book.

I was just off on the Ranger's STR modifier, the system is fine.

[Irenaeus]

That's fine, the system is good, but I didn't find what the traits or skills do in the system book.

The book doesn't have traits or skills, I made that up. It's all proficiencies or class abilities.

[maidenhaver]

I like the STR mod because we can only shoot once per round, and my first attack roll was ****.

[Stack of Turtles]

18 STR is +2 on my damage roll, because I won my attack roll?

So I do 3 dmg?

No, its 4, because short bow is +1.

18 STR gives a +3 bonus, the short bow does 1d6+1, so you do 1d6+4. If I did the calculations correctly.
We can change this stuff if there's good suggestions and consensus. Those are the base rules.

Seems fine to me I guess.

[Irenaeus]

I'll let you guys (and myself) ponder on this for a while, then we can conclude about it later today.

Any other suggestions, comments or questions about other rules should go here as well, please.

[Humbaba]

Seems alright, best not to complicate things.

[DemoGraph]

@Lord of Riva @TKVNC @maidenhaver @DemoGraph @Stack of Turtles and whoever else wants to discuss the missile weapons rules, get in here.

Again, sperging here.

• Range: Missile attacks can only be made against opponents who are more than 5' away.

That's dumb. Shooting in melee is perfectly ok. An outstretched hand with a bow has lower reach than spear or twohander, but maybe longer than a sword. If you don't penalize spears/pikes in melee, you shouldn't penalize bows, crossbows and darts.
Maybe throw a concentration check for archers in melee or something, but even that shouldn't be needed for professional soldiers who're accustomed to fighting.
Slings are okay to be banned in melee completely. They do need swing space.

◦ Dexterity Adjustment: The attacker adds their Dexterity bonus or subtracts their Dexterity penalty from the roll.

Again, in the ideal world I'd make dex-wis-int mods, depending on the weapon type. But I don't insist, of course.

• A Strength score of 10 has a modifier of 0 for damage rolls. Therefore, the Ranger's Strength will not add or subtract from the damage in this case.

Again, I find this premise for bows dumb. IRL you can't "overcharge" the bow. If you really do, you'll just rip the string. Bows should be fixed damage, like crossbows or guns. The only difference between them is that crossbow string is pulled by mechanics while bow string is pulled by meat.
I'm ok for dmg+str for darts and possibly slings. And, of course, for crits (headshot should kill).

◦ Range Penalties:

Ok.

◦ Armor Class (AC): The target's Armor Class is added to the attacker's attack throw value needed to score a hit.

Maybe make armor deduct from damage? Because ballista (or cannon or meteorite) shot doesn't really cares whether you wear an armor or not.
Same goes for the next one.

• Helpless Targets: Attacks on sleeping, paralyzed, or otherwise helpless targets automatically hit. A standard damage roll is made.

What if I'm sleeping in full plate and/or covered by the tower shield? Am I as easy to hit as a naked sleeper?

• Cover: If an opponent is entirely behind a barrier, they cannot be hit. The Judge may apply a penalty of -1 to -4 to the attack throw if the target is only partly under cover.

Am I in cover behind tower shield? In testudo? What about ballistic shield (shield on wheels), they were widely used in ancient world.

• Vision and Light: Combatants suffer a -4 penalty to their attack throw if firing blind, in darkness, or at an invisible foe.

I'd say -10, and maybe -5 if you had "blindfight" training and aren't obstructed (say, you're taught to shoot by sounds and it's quiet, so you can orient by said sound).

[TKVNC]

• Range: Missile attacks can only be made against opponents who are more than 5' away.

That's dumb. Shooting in melee is perfectly ok. An outstretched hand with a bow has lower reach than spear or twohander, but maybe longer than a sword. If you don't penalize spears/pikes in melee, you shouldn't penalize bows, crossbows and darts.
Maybe throw a concentration check for archers in melee or something, but even that shouldn't be needed for professional soldiers who're accustomed to fighting.
Slings are okay to be banned in melee completely. They do need swing space.

I always assumed the reason bows had a minimum range was because it is impractical to draw a bow while someone is actively moving to strike you. It's not a particularly safe pose to hold when being attacked, as you open your self to so many potential lethal attacks depending on your armour (exposed belly, throat, chest, armpits, upper arms, face). You're also a lot easier to knock off balance as you're not well positioned to react to incoming blows.

Slings it's fairly logical, they need minimum arms length to get any real speed.

• A Strength score of 10 has a modifier of 0 for damage rolls. Therefore, the Ranger's Strength will not add or subtract from the damage in this case.

Again, I find this premise for bows dumb. IRL you can't "overcharge" the bow. If you really do, you'll just rip the string. Bows should be fixed damage, like crossbows or guns. The only difference between them is that crossbow string is pulled by mechanics while bow string is pulled by meat.
I'm ok for dmg+str for darts and possibly slings. And, of course, for crits (headshot should kill).

Well for bows, a strength element is appropriate, a warbow is pretty much a 80-100lb draw weight, with some going up to 160lbs. That's not an insignificant weight to draw back, though admittedly, the idea of people being misshapen freaks is entirely false.

You need to be able to put the bow under full tension, or you lose a lot of the force in the arrow. You can shoot a bow with less than full draw, but naturally it won't apply as much force.

Darts are the least likely for strength to matter, slings similarly too as the sling itself is a force multiplier that requires less strength than it does technique.

• Helpless Targets: Attacks on sleeping, paralyzed, or otherwise helpless targets automatically hit. A standard damage roll is made.

What if I'm sleeping in full plate and/or covered by the tower shield? Am I as easy to hit as a naked sleeper?

Well, if we're talking about the setting being post-Rome, plate harness didn't exist, and shields were overwhelmingly round. Mail is far less effective against arrows than you might think. So I doubt it would really matter.

• Cover: If an opponent is entirely behind a barrier, they cannot be hit. The Judge may apply a penalty of -1 to -4 to the attack throw if the target is only partly under cover.

Am I in cover behind tower shield? In testudo? What about ballistic shield (shield on wheels), they were widely used in ancient world.

Moving shields are called mantlets, but really, they're effective because they're very thick. Shields themselves not so much.

• Vision and Light: Combatants suffer a -4 penalty to their attack throw if firing blind, in darkness, or at an invisible foe.

I'd say -10, and maybe -5 if you had "blindfight" training and aren't obstructed (say, you're taught to shoot by sounds and it's quiet, so you can orient by said sound).

This is fair, any form of ranged combat requires so many senses working together that doing it blind is basically just magic.

[Lord of Riva]

I have no issue with the rules about ranged combat. We do need ranges for slings (and Javelins) though.