Jesus, enough with the stupid stories already, get back on topic.

Aren't you the one who asked why indirect spells should be harder to cast ?

Because I pretty much think it is not unrelated to the way mana behave.

It depends if you care about the balance of the game system, or about some lame fluff that can be changed at a whim.

What happens if none of them seems affected by the current rules ?

Just keep trying things until something works, that's all. I'm not saying anything suggested here or elsewhere does or doesn't work, but only that it is possible to worry about balance first, fluff second. The fluff can always be used to support anything, especially with magic (cuz it's magic). So while it may be true that the current fluff says something exactly like 'indirect sucks and should suck', that's not necessarily what's best for the game.

But at which point things stop to be fluff and become real parts of the game universe ? When you look at the whole grimoire, it's pretty clear that the spells were all built on this fluff you want to take out at a whim.

Not that I care, but it just puzzles me when people change the drain code saying their solution makes sense relative to the game universe while they just addressed an (arguable) balance issue but countradicted the game universe.

There's no distinction in what you're asking. I *am* talking about changing 'the game universe' to make it more game-y, which is a very common situation. It's possible this is incompatible with something someone else said; I'm only speaking for me. There are *also* cases in which the RAW and fluff don't match up, and it's of course possible to alter the RAW (house rules) to bring things in line with fluff (as desired).

I wasn t specifically refering to you, but to people pretending they didn t change the game universe while doing so. If you're satisfied with it, go ahead ! Simply don t say it s shadowrun-y or that it makes sense til you modified the other spell drain (refering to neraph here).

Who cares how much or little he's house-ruled his home campaign? If it's working out and he and his players are having fun, why's it matter to you so much? Why latch on like a terrier and insist he acknowledge what a huge change they've made?

Do you realize that I said as long as it works out for him and his players it was a good thing ? Maybe two or three times ?

I'm just trying to understand people doing such minor changes to the rules and mechanics that are actually quite big to the general feel of the world (shadowrun has never been a fireball game). Because it's interesting, because they could just come up with some interesting views on magic, some new opinions on what the game should be in regard to it.

And I am plenty satisfied with the answer "we don't care, we just wanted to burn people rather than killing them in a blink". Simply, it is not anymore the same kind of magics as described in the world of shadowrun, and I point it.

Because channeling mana at all is a dangerous undertaking (Spellcasting), but even moreso when you channel it without form (Direct Combat Spell).

Then the finest the manipulation, the less drain ?

He said form, not complexity.

It's still just arbitrary, meaningless fluff. This is not an argument.

I don't care for that house rule myself, but he does show how to do it right - if you're changing things, change the rules and the fluff.

Also, be aware of unintended consequences. For example, the optional rule encouraged multicasting and overcasting. Making direct and indirect spells both difficult to use might cause mages to specialize other areas - you might see more mages focused on mental manipulation spells, or summoning, or on utility spells (healing or levitating people, but whipping out a shotgun for combat). Which is fine, if that's what you want, but not so good, if you didn't want that.

Glyph... that's exactly what I was about to point out. Why is it, that knocking out a target with stun damage is somehow so unbalanced... when you can instead change it's form, or make it your friend/puppet for far less drain.


Neraph's house rule is one of the worst I've ever seen and isn't even balanced by any metric. He's the only one advocating it as balanced in any way shape or form. Yet like you say now he's changing both fluff and the rules. Even the other posters +2/-2 is pretty damn bad. (I could understand doing one or the other or even +1/-1... but a 4 point swing is too much to maintain any semblance of balance or SR feel. It's been an intentional setting point that it's hard to produce elemental effects to differentiate SR magic from others for a long time). Similarly since so many people work 'off the averages' they don't realize a mere 1 point increase in drain or forcing people to make 2 drain checks instead of 1 results in a substantial increase in drain due to the assymetric bell curve. Especially if the combat lasts long enough for the caster to use the spell say 3-4 times.


The problem is his rules changes aren't balanced at all either. Just like you mention; why should I pay massive amounts of drain when I can just turn the damn thing to goo using another physical spell? Or one of Neraph's other favorites mind rape the subject using a direct mana spell and never suffer any of the social problems/stigma which comes in the setting if it's known that you commonly employ mindrape.

It all strikes me as patently illogical. Badly misinformed. And completely contrary to the shadowrun setting in any edition.


Not to say the drain codes as published can't be tweaked. I point at the street magic rules for crafting spells. Many of the spells as published are very close but don't match the calculated drain code. Direct area spells are a prime example... the drain modifier for going from single to area is supposed to be +2... but they're only +1 for no good reason. If you were going to start house ruling... I'd start there and use the one set of rules to rewrite the drain on the second set up VERY VERY SLIGHTLY... by a mere +1.

Similarly, some other spells such as 'influence' are also undercosted by that formula... mana(+0) mental manipulation(+0) LOS(+0) Permanent (+2). Total +2 drain instead of only +1 as published.


Massive shifts of +-2 are almost guaranteed to have large unintended consequences and overnerf things.

If the one's viewpoint is that the indirect spells are underpowered, why not just make them better, rather than make the direct spells worse?

Maybe the best thing to do is change the mechanics. I think it can be done without affecting the fluff too much, then keeping the feel of the game…

You could make them more hard to dodge, treating them as shotgun spread or full auto burst. This might make them mechanically attractive. One could even argue that they could reduce counterspelling too (half ?), as counterspelling is only affecting the carrying of dangerous matter, not its creation.

Tell us how you really feel, Falconer.
Typically, people primarily say that direct spells are overpowered, so it makes sense to do both.

I'm not sure how many times I can say this Falconer: I've only played SR4. You keep complaining how I'm changing the way SR has always been when I've only played 1 edition (MUSHing a 3rd ed doesn't count because I never really saw the mechanics). There's nowhere in the fluff of the books that describes how spells have been since 1st edition, so I don't know how those things are. Also, with my House-Rule, I've changed the fluff to how channeling pure mana is more dangerous than elemental effects, which alters the very fluff you're complaining about, so I don't see what's getting your panties all in a twist. If you don't like it then don't play in my games. If other people like it, they're free to either play in my games or use it at their tables (in fact I'd actually like this to happen so I can get feedback about how it actually affects gameplay - you can run numbers all you want but number-crunching is no substitue for playtesting).

The intent of my change was to make Indirect much more castable (F6 is only 4 drain) while keeping Direct spells as a viable option for a "needs to die so can only cast once" approach. Hell, most of the published enemy mages in the game tend to have Direct spells instead of Indirect (or at least the ones that I have to end up fighting).

Also, your problem with mind-magic issue seems petty to me: in a world of people who constantly break laws and tend to also murder people for money, it seems ridiculous that they'd have a strong moral line drawn in the proverbial sand about what amounts to jedi mind tricks.

I hoped you changed that for indirect combat spells then, since they were created with fluff saying that fatigue came from the quantity of mana you channeled. By this I mean they are from SR world where mana doesn't care if it will be used for murder or hauling a twenty tons truck above the ground. Now I guess hauling a twenty tons truck above the ground is easier, as you're not channeling pure mana, but just creating some distant kinetic effect.

What? I can't really make sense of what you're saying. The only mechanical change I've made is to Direct/Indirect combat spells, and the reasoning is that channeling pure destructive mana is more dangerous than mana that's been channeled into a spell-form. This has nothing to do with what you're saying at all. Also, the part of my statement that you quoted was additional problems with the way Direct/Indirect spells are handled in 4th Ed currently - NPC mages tend towards more Direct spells that deal stun damage than any other combat spell - a sign to me at least that something isn't right here. When there are spells that are simply the smarter choice (Stunbolt for anything that's not an object) then something has to be done to correct this imbalance.

Yes, so you're clearly implying that there is some dangerous mana, or some ways to manipulate mana that are dangerous (to the caster) only because of their effects rather than the task difficulty or the quantity involved. Before, mana was some entity that was exhausting and difficult to manipulate. Now it's an entity that is agressive if you channel it to kill someone, but you can fool it by channeling it into some dangerous matter that you then throw to kill someone.



I'm afraid this should rather be a sign to you that SR's magic isn't at all what you think it is. Admitting there's nothing in SR4 book about mana and fluff and you never played SR3, maybe you could understand when seeing all those people using stunbolt that SR's mana is easier to manipulate into less harming pure mana feats.

Yes, other spells are useful. When you want to kill someone from the distance without weapons, when you want to break something, when willpower+counterspelling can cancel your spell, and whenever stunball will not do the trick. Assault rifle will do the trick in most gunfight. But when you can't carry one in the place, you take a handgun you can conceal, and when you're too far, you take a sniper. OH MY GOD, WEAPONS ARE SO UNBALANCED NOW. I'M SORRY !

Maybe I am missing the point here but what do you mean when you say "NPC mages tend towards more Direct spells that deal stun damage than any other combat spell?" What spells are they throwing?

Deep breaths, guys. He stated the not-at-all-controversial claim that Stunbolt is 'too good' (compared to other *combat* spells), based on the fact that NPCs prefer it (and, of course, so does everyone else), and proposed that this a balance/variety issue that could be solved by making non-Stunbolt spells relatively more appealing. This is exactly what everyone says everywhere forever on Dumpshock, btw.

(Just for completeness: he then made a fluff change that *pure destructive* spells cause more Drain, somehow. It's arbitrary.)

And yes, freudqo, many people frequently say that Automatics are unbalanced for exactly the reasons you're trying to parody… except Stunbolt is as concealable as any other spell 'weapon', has the same range, etc., and yet actually costs less and is more effective at 'dropping' people.

Jesus. Seriously, it's still going on? How many of freudqo's 22 total posts are shrilly pointing out to Neraph that his house rule changes magic, now? Is it that big a deal, really?

And won't kill anyone, won't ram anything and is hardly going to set anybody on fire. Some of those tricks you might do with automatics.

OF COURSE, stunbolt should be the first choice of a magician who wants to defend himself. Like anybody else is going to take a pistol rather than a sniper rifle.

But the problem is elsewhere. When talking about balance issue, you generally blame conceivers for not playtesting correctly and evaluting possible problems. Now we're talking about something that has always been the same in all editions of shadowrun, that is clearly described in all the magic fluff, and that is even made clearer as NPCs obbey to this rule. Seriously, they come with gimped NPCs all the time and everyone say they don't understand their own game, but when they actually choose what everyone acknowledges as the most handy combat spell, you say that it is a proof of unbalancing ?

This has always been intended by the writers, since the begining, as a glaring part of the shadowrun world. Shadowrun magic revolves around the fact that it is easier to cast a stunning mana spell. This is exactly what every writer says and will say everywhere forever in the books.

I wasn't comparing Stunbolt to an automatic. I was comparing combat spells to firearms. The issue is that Stunbolt is not a sniper rifle (bigger, expensive, lower ROF, often less legal). As I said, it's equally or less cumbersome/dangerous than all other combat spells. A better comparison is to say it's like a legal, cheap light pistol that happens to do sniper rifle DV/AP and ranges; everyone would take it, and it would be imbalancing (and, crucially, boring).

Again, it doesn't matter what the writers, etc. say, because he's specifically altering that in the service of balance/variety. The fact that *everyone* knows it's "the most handy" (i.e., hands down the strongest in almost all situations) is evidence of imbalance, yes.

I didn't blame anyone of anything. I said I understand the argument of 'a game with more balanced choices is usually better', and 'fluff is arbitrary and easily changed'.

Alternatively, how broken would it be to let half impact armor on damage resistance rolls for the bolt line?

The comparison with automatics was a joke actually. The real point was that stunbolt wasn't going to kill anything nor ram anything neither nor have any actually physical effects.



Yes because 2070's mages are so blatantly stupid they should usually take more draining spells I guess. Or maybe it's just that in shadowrun world, pure mana less harmful spells are well known to cause little drain and stop the strongest in almost all situations. Hence only purely combat oriented mages should choose other spells for the cases where stunbolt just isn't enough. Or those who just want to kill outright rather than stun, or have you burnt, because it's their character concept. Do non-combat oriented mundanes carry rocket launchers with them ?

This is not a matter of variety or balance. Spells have different mechanical effects, and this is reflected in their drain code, according to the game world. You can house rule it so that you can cast fireball because it is so cool to have fire coming out of your hands, but saying it's a matter of balance is actual hypocrisy for justifying your need for cool special effects rather than shadowrun usual magics. And really, if you have fun, no one cares as long as you're not prentending sense or logic or game balance.

Now that you point it out I'm starting to think that a Certain Somebody specifically made that account to be a personal troll of mine.


Not necessarily so, but you'd have to justify changing the mechanics of how pure mana interacts with things. Would you also get partial armor for resistances or bonus dice from vision mods against Illusion spells, for example? I think a better fix is simply changing the drain codes.


Apparently you've never read the part about Physical Damage Overflow. You can multi-cast a decent-Force Stunbolt on somebody and reliably kill them in one Initiative Pass and take no drain from it.

In your second and third paragraphs you started devolving into nonsensical statements while at the same time proving the point that stun direct spells are unbalanced ("Yes because 2070's mages are so blatantly stupid they should usually take more draining spells I guess."). Your third paragraph in particular I cannot make any sense out of. It seems you're stating an opinion in such a way as if you're arguing with someone and trying to prove a point. This thread is actually dedicated to altering Direct/Indirect spell draincodes, so it actually is about adding in variety and balance, and the mechanical effects of this are directly related to this. I'd like to know how it's hypocritical to alter a setting for balance.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just make dodge test more difficult when facing indirect ?

Except that, Functionally, NOT EVERYONE takes Stunbolt/Ball. Since not everyone takes it, it is obviously not the best choice for everyone to have. It is preference. Nothing More.

The mage in my group also uses stunbolt if he wants to kill people - he just stunbolts them until they are unconscious and kills them afterwards.

Just because the mages you make don't take it doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority doesn't either. It goes beyond preference and straight to logical advantange - the same way that someone would take a sniper rifle over a holdout (assuming concealability isn't a factor). If you're going to take a spell to use in combat, the logically superior spell is Stunbolt, and since there is this glaringly superior spell, that's a balance issue.

From my experience, the overwhelming majority do not take stun spells. Maybe 50/50, in my experience. As such, it is obviously not the logical advantage you claim it to be. I will say that if you go with straight numbers, maybe, but I rarely create a character that even cares about the maximally superior numbers, since the character has no idea what that really means.

Yes, Spells Kill people, but many spells kill people.
Yes, Bullets kill people, but many bullets kill people.

Stunbolt is NOT glaringly superior. I actually prefer Powerbolt over Stunbolt any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Stunbolt has just too many weaknesses to compete with Powerbolt.

It IS ALWAYS about Preference, rather than maximal optimization. At least for me, and many of those I have gamed with at various tables.

Another way to "nerf" stunbolt is using drones as the setting implies - if a fully equipped combat drone costs 10.000nY and a metahuman guard costs 5.000nY PER MONTH (day job, 40hrs), i don't understand why anyone uses metahuman security as primary security.

1. The drone works 168 hrs/week
2. The drones has no bad moods and does not forget commands
3. The drones does not need vacations, brakes etc. (except for maintainance)
4. The drone does not get ill
5. The drone cannot be mind-controlled by a mage
6. The drone needs no (expensive) training
7. The drone needs zero salary

If your facility needs round the clock security, a drone can replace 4 regular grunts (168hrs/wk vs. 4x40hrs/wk), saving 20.000 nY in salaries per month. Assuming the drone costs 10.000nY, and assuming the training and equipment for one grunt costs 5.000nY (the training for 1 US marine costs 13300 USD), you save another 10.000 nY.

Now you can spend 10.000nY per month and per 4 grunts on additional Matrix and Magical security and spend 10.000 nY per month on something that boosts productivity.

Indeed... Which is why at our table, Stunbolt is not the first choice of combat spells.

You're not making sense, freudqo. Stunbolt (which is merely the best example of the direct/indirect issue) doesn't need to 'ram' things, because it's already awesome at dropping people (which is not 100% of all situations, but certainly many). There are comparatively few situations where 'stunbolt just isn't enough', and fewer still where an Indirect Elemental spell *is* a better option.

And no, they shouldn't take worse spells; the point is that other spells would ideally *be* rational choices. The problem under discussion is specifically that Stunbolt *is* the supremely rational choice. As NiL pointed out, Stunbolt is very frequently better for nonlethal *and* lethal, which is just one more point in its favor.

And, yes, it's 100% about variety and balance. The idea is that it's a waste when one option is vastly better than other options, to the point that they're barely used. This is not a controversial or novel idea. You're trying to trivialize it, but it *is* about fireballs being cool. They're cool enough that it would be nice if someone had an actual reason to use one.

TJ, your always-deviant experience notwithstanding ( ), it doesn't matter if literally 'everyone' takes it. It's false that the standard here is 'literally 100% of people'. The issue is that it's predominant (and it *is*), for clear mechanical reasons. It's not at all a 'preference' in the sense of 'all options are roughly the same, people can choose based on taste'. Again, the question is also *not* 'stunbolt or powerbolt'. We're talking about Direct and Indirect; Stunbolt is merely the best example.

To repeat: this is all optional, as everything is. If you do not share the ideal that one item, spell, category, tactic, etc. should not be overwhelmingly and mechanically predominant over its immediate peers, no one is making you change your rules or fluff. The OP, however, asked this exact, specific question: 'is the heavy drain for fireball, the light drain for stunbolt, coupled with their relative utility, a problem?'

Yes, drone security should be prevalent, but their flaws are more than sufficient that a facility of any interest with no metahuman 'boots on the ground' is making a big mistake.
But that's a whole other thread.

I've always thought that the Great Stunbolt Inequality could be solved (or at least mitigated) by making it possible, if difficult, to stay conscious with a full stun track. There was a rule for it in 3rd. Would address the armour-downgrades-to-stun preference too.

Some day I'll sit down and make this houserule.
Unless someone else already has ...?

Sure, but there should be about 3 or 4 drones for every metahuman.

That might be interesting, Aerospider. One thing I've fiddled with is that overflowing Stun inflicts something less than 100% boxes (1/2, 1/3, it depends), so that it's a little harder to stun someone to death. This rarely matters for the issue at hand, though, because obviously an unconscious enemy is already 'dropped'.

What does he do in the hundred situations that come to my mind where he cannot actually get close enough to kill them ? True, those situations won't be a majority. But they will happen.



No it doesn't need to ram things. This is why there are other spells actually, making variety. And since these spells, by the fluff and by their effects, deserve a higher drain, everything is fine and balanced. Stunbolt permits you to stun people. Flamethrower permits you to kill them, start fires, and break stuff. Yes, really making it the same drain as stunbolt is making so much sense from a balance viewpoint.



Too bad they cannot always be lethal and affect non-living stuff, then all other spells wouldn't be a rational choice.



Ok, so it should be balanced with other spells because it's *cool* ? Ok, we weren't saying the same thing about balance. My apologies.

Neraph:
No I'm not playing fast and loose with the setting you are. Read up the entry on 'Haze' in street legends. It's a magician who specializes in "mental manipulation and mind control". Nobody wants to run with him, nobody wants to be near him... nobody knows if they can trust him or if they've been mindfucked by him.

But that is a red herring... the problem is your treatment of DRAIN MECHANICS. You instaill a bad rule then try to defend it. Why should a stunbolt have grossly greater drain than an influence spell? Or a mana based illusion? etc. Especially when it's grossly at odds with the setting.

At least street magic puts forward a mostly coherent and working system to calculate what the drain of a spell should be.


Yerameyahu:
All your assertions are based on one faulty premise. That stunbolt is the be all and end all spell. It's useful but not useful enough by itself. As a combat mage, you really need about 3-5 different spells to have your destructive bases covered including at least one elemental spell.

There are numerous cases where either stun or manabolt are inferior spell picks to many others. (most of which are non-combat spells). Another mage is one situation(highly likely to have logic pumped up for drain/resistance reasons and have counterspelling).

Another is any time you need a physically damaging spell. Especially if you need a physically damaging spell with LOCALIZED damage! (powerbolt targets the whole... you can't blow a hole in a wall with powerbolt). Powerbolt will eventually bring the whole building down (after doing an absolutely ludicrous damage amount of damage... remember you need to do a certain amount just to make a 1mX1mX.1m dent in a wall. Now think how much all the walls/floors/ceilings have!

Another is anytime a pain editor is involved! +1 wil and your only option is to kill the guy by going completely through all his stun and physical track. In a similar note... the awaken spell... A mage can toss that out with 4 successes and the target won't go unconscious from stun damage just like a pain editor (very few things with more than 14 boxes of stun track).

Drones have been mentioned many times as well. Unless you have a ludicrously large casting pool... powerbolt is unreliable compared to an actual elemental spell.



Another problem is one of the spell schools themselves. Combat spells are actually the LEAST powerful and useful of all the schools! All they can do is blow things up and damage them... they can't redirect... they can't mindfuck... they can't reshape (outside of destructive reshaping)... they don't even shape the battlefield. If I had to pick the two most useful spell types it would be manipulations and health. With detection and illusion close behind. Combat would actually take last place. So all this bits about massively nerfing it's drain by +2 or more (which is a HUGE nerf) I don't fully follow.

It is one of those changes that would require a change in the fluff, too, since those spells are described as ignoring armor because they pump mana directly into an oponent. Also, direct combat spells are an opposed all-or-nothing test where the mage's hits (not net hits, but hits, period) are capped by the Force of the spell. Giving most opponents an extra success or two makes it all the more likely that the mage won't get any net hits. Remember, if a mage rolls 5 hits for his Force: 5 stunbolt and you roll 5 hits to resist it, you don't take the base damage of 5; the spell doesn't affect you at all.

So we are back to unintended consequences - mages going to manipulation and illusion spells, spirits, and even guns, since direct combat spells won't work except for the most min-maxed of builds.


Stimulant patches should be fairly common, and the Sideways genetic infusion should show up occasionally as a combat boost. Neither can keep someone going with a full stun track, but they can mitigate the damage for someone who has not been knocked completely unconscious.

The "-1 drain code for stun damage" mechanic does probably mean that if mages take only one combat spell Stunball is almost always the one they choose. Stunball will probably also be in most mages' repetoires if they have 2, 3 or more combat spells as well.

Saying that, there *are* times that Indirect Combat Spells shine, namely in affecting unseen targets, damaging drones, and (as hasn't been emphasized enough thus far) those secondary elemental effects. Going back to Falconer's Powerbolt/Flamethrower vs a combat drone example, only the direct damage from the spell was considered. For example ammo does not react well to fire, especially Magical fire, and might well explode. So, although the Powerbolt is a defeat-the-OR-all-or-nothing spell, the Flamethrower will pretty much always do *some* damage to the drone, and have a fair chance of causing all its ammo to explode (possibly causing it more damage and preventing it from firing back).

As Yerameyahu pretty much admits, most folk who balk at the drain of indirect combat spells are the guys who want to throw fireballs all day long and are allergic to taking drain, which for the most part they won't have to do when overcasting Stunbolts left, right and centre. Use a fetish, live a little and learn to live with drain sometimes!

If your GM remembers to take the secondary elemental effects into account, indirect combat spells are *not* nerfed IMHO. But as we can see from the length of this debate, YMWV.

Nope, as I said repeatedly. And if you're talking about non-combat, then you'd not talking about what I am. Manipulations and health have zero to do with this. And, again, I said 'most situations' (specifically, 'dropping people'), hardly 'all situations'. Luckily, mages have more than one spell.

Only if the Flamethrower is actually useful and usable for those extra tasks. Again, I'm talking about dropping people, not remodeling buildings or GM-fiating ammo explosions.

Indeed. Variety is cool, monoculture caused by mechanical supremacy isn't.

I don't think I was 'admitting' anything, but this is indeed the point: you can Stunbolt all day without taking drain. That's a big deal. Elemental effects aren't half as important as you're saying, but the whole point is that they should be.

Finally, and again, if you think things are already fine… no one's making you change anything.

I pretty much agree with you. As Aerospider said, drones are basically pretty dog-brained so you also want some metahuman security (not to mention the Spider running the drones), but considering salaries for security grunts drones should be fairly prevalent in the setting. Can keep the hacker gainfully occupied as well as making the mage sweat!

Adding +2 to the drain code, certainly (situationally at least) those secondary elemental effects *should* be spectacular. Fire can cause ammo and grenades to explode as well as setting stuff on fire, lightning can short out machinery and cause electrocution damage if there is water around, water and ice can knock people down, etc.

The one time one of my PCs had to burn Edge for Hand of God was when an NPC mage cast Fireball at the group. The sammie survived the spell damage well enough, but was sent into overflow by the EX-EX ammo in his primary and secondary weapons exploding.

Again, I fully agree: these spells, with much higher drain, *should* be much better. The premise is that they're not much better (or even as good), so therefore X changes should be made to bring them back into the running. If a given person or table doesn't agree with that premise, then they can just ignore any such house rules. I think you're describing extremely generous GM intervention to make the indirects better, which is of course another valid method of addressing the issue.