Or they both get +10. It's the same thing really on opposed tests.

Graspar said:

I see it as kind of the scale rules from the old Star Wars D6 system. If they are on the same scale (normal, X2, X3 or so forth) then there is no modifier. If one is of a unnatural scale and the other is not, then the unnatural one uses his or her unnatural bonuses as is. If they are both of an unnatural level, but at different scales (X2 against X3) then essentially the X2 is treated as normal, no bonus, where as the X3 is more or less treated as X2. They kind of offset one another.

I also see it as those with Unnatural scale abilities being able to try things normal characters cant. For example, breaking down a bulk head door. "Sorry Tim, even with your S55 its just impossible for you to crack the bulk head. But Harold the Ogryn with a S45 and Unnatural Strength (X2) can try."

I think it just goes back to being an old school DC Heroes GM and seeing scales a bit differently. I remember alot of people in the day being furious that Superman only had a STR 25, just 20 higher then Batman. They couldnt wrap their heads around the fact that this wasn't D&D and the scale was exponential but linear. To a linear mind set 25 STR Superman is only a little five times as strong as STR 5 Batman. In the exponential system he is actually around 1 million times stronger.

While it is true that in using a % system, it doesnt seem that STR 35 (X2) is actually stronger then STR 40 (X1) it doesnt have to be represented that way in the system. STR 35 (X2) has a higher bonus, which affects lifting, damage and such. Unnatural Characteristics suffer and benefit from difficulty modifiers differently and situation/circumstances differently.

And if you think it is too much work for a GM to make arbitrary calls on what modifiers a Unnatural Characteristic should get in a given situation, then perhaps you shouldnt be a GM at all?

Thats not a personal attack, but as GM you should be able to make on the spot judgement calls whenever necessary and as often as needed, not complain that its more work, cause it isnt. Heck, its easier to judge the use of Unnatural Characteristics then it is to follow all the other million traits and talents and their workings.

Taking the system into over 100 in character/creature characteristics is unnecessary and pointless. It creates the vacuum of never failing. And getting even more free successes then Unnatural Characteristics give. And they you might want to rewrite the max penalty/bonus rules, as a character with a ability of 160 or better will never fail unless you also add in an automatic fail number (99-00, 96+ whatever). And then you have to shift how characteristic increasements take affect. I mean, do you make the range wider so you can get +25? +30? Or higher? Or do those with unnatural characteristics just double the alue they buy? Making it not just more effective form of Unnatural Characteristics but also more unbalanced.

And if we expand Unnatural Characteristics to go over 100, how do you compensate for WS and BS which dont have a Unnatural Equivalent? Do they remain unchanged? And with Dezmund's proposal of stats in the 300s and what not, how does this affect things like say bonuses? If TB and SB begin to reach the 20s, the entire damage/wound/armouor system needs rvised. And then what? Up weapon damage and armour values? Increase starting wounds? Alter the lifting, carrying, running, jumping rules?

Unnatural Agility does not affect movement, but if you just double the stat instead of just the AB, doesnt that automatically modify movement speeds?

I will agree, Unnatural Characteristics is a brick someone shoved under the pyramid of the rules to boost one section of the rules pyramid. But as far as I see it, you yank that brick out and the whole pyramid collapses. And then you have to rebuild a new pyramid.

Simple modifiers are different. Treating the X# as a +#x10 (so X2 is +20) keeps the Unnatural rules in effect and still works. So if you see 45 (X2) you know it means that for test purposes the stat is 65 and for bonus purposes it is a 8 not a 4. Or that it allows a free reroll so you can roll characteristic teats 2 times at X2 and choose the best result.

But doubling or tripling the stat, that doesnt fit the system, style or flavour of GW RPGs.

I see it as kind of the scale rules from the old Star Wars D6 system. If they are on the same scale (normal, X2, X3 or so forth) then there is no modifier. If one is of a unnatural scale and the other is not, then the unnatural one uses his or her unnatural bonuses as is. If they are both of an unnatural level, but at different scales (X2 against X3) then essentially the X2 is treated as normal, no bonus, where as the X3 is more or less treated as X2. They kind of offset one another.

I also see it as those with Unnatural scale abilities being able to try things normal characters cant. For example, breaking down a bulk head door. "Sorry Tim, even with your S55 its just impossible for you to crack the bulk head. But Harold the Ogryn with a S45 and Unnatural Strength (X2) can try."

I think it just goes back to being an old school DC Heroes GM and seeing scales a bit differently. I remember alot of people in the day being furious that Superman only had a STR 25, just 20 higher then Batman. They couldnt wrap their heads around the fact that this wasn't D&D and the scale was exponential but linear. To a linear mind set 25 STR Superman is only a little five times as strong as STR 5 Batman. In the exponential system he is actually around 1 million times stronger.

Yes, you see it as . But all of that is house ruling. It never says it does any of those things anywhere.

While it is true that in using a % system, it doesnt seem that STR 35 (X2) is actually stronger then STR 40 (X1) it doesnt have to be represented that way in the system. STR 35 (X2) has a higher bonus, which affects lifting, damage and such. Unnatural Characteristics suffer and benefit from difficulty modifiers differently and situation/circumstances differently.

And if you think it is too much work for a GM to make arbitrary calls on what modifiers a Unnatural Characteristic should get in a given situation, then perhaps you shouldnt be a GM at all?

Thats not a personal attack, but as GM you should be able to make on the spot judgement calls whenever necessary and as often as needed, not complain that its more work, cause it isnt. Heck, its easier to judge the use of Unnatural Characteristics then it is to follow all the other million traits and talents and their workings.

Of course I, like you, can make up my own stuff and make it work. I have, if you looked a page back. But I shouldn't have to rewrite the rules and they should be easy to understand.

Do you or do you not agree that a creature with unnatural strenght (x2) might as well get a straight +10 to strenght? I think this is at the core of the argument, I don't see it as anything else and I've yet to come across a situation where there's actually a difference in outcome. Even your highly suspect interpretation that on opposed tests unnatural characteristics cancel eachother out it still doesn't matter. Opposed tests are about whoever succeeds the most so giving both combatants +10 won't make any difference what so ever.

Taking the system into over 100 in character/creature characteristics is unnecessary and pointless. It creates the vacuum of never failing. And getting even more free successes then Unnatural Characteristics give. And they you might want to rewrite the max penalty/bonus rules, as a character with a ability of 160 or better will never fail unless you also add in an automatic fail number (99-00, 96+ whatever). And then you have to shift how characteristic increasements take affect. I mean, do you make the range wider so you can get +25? +30? Or higher? Or do those with unnatural characteristics just double the alue they buy? Making it not just more effective form of Unnatural Characteristics but also more unbalanced.

A "Vacuum of never failing"? So a character with strenght 110 is going to succeed more often than a character with s90 unnatural (x3)? No, they would bahave identical if one adjusts the SB.

Also please note that an ogryn at s65 unnatural (x2) buying an increase in strenght would get only +5 to his actual value to succeed on stuff (it would become 80) whille his SB would increase with 2. Once again the only thing we need is to adjust the bonus. And the max penalty/bonus only applies in combat, right? I've never seen it mentioned elsewhere at least.

And if we expand Unnatural Characteristics to go over 100, how do you compensate for WS and BS which dont have a Unnatural Equivalent? Do they remain unchanged? And with Dezmund's proposal of stats in the 300s and what not, how does this affect things like say bonuses? If TB and SB begin to reach the 20s, the entire damage/wound/armouor system needs rvised. And then what? Up weapon damage and armour values? Increase starting wounds? Alter the lifting, carrying, running, jumping rules?

Now you're just making problems up. None of those are any different with the unnatural characteristic system. Sb and TB can already reach the 20's with spectacular ease, just not for player characters. Stop making **** up and think before you type.

Unnatural Agility does not affect movement, but if you just double the stat instead of just the AB, doesnt that automatically modify movement speeds?

I'm not going to just double the stat. I'm going to increase the stat slightly to separate the +10 permanent bonus due to unnatural agility and the increase to agility bonus. In any case, unnatural agility already doubles the AB which to the untrained eye would seem to increase movement. But those of us in the know noticed that it says it didnt, so it doesnt.

Once again, stop making problems up. Where i'll allow stats to go above 100 it will be where the effects are the desired ones. I'm not the one suggesting scores in the 300's, just making the scores what they in effect already are to increase transparancy.

I will agree, Unnatural Characteristics is a brick someone shoved under the pyramid of the rules to boost one section of the rules pyramid. But as far as I see it, you yank that brick out and the whole pyramid collapses. And then you have to rebuild a new pyramid.

Simple modifiers are different. Treating the X# as a +#x10 (so X2 is +20) keeps the Unnatural rules in effect and still works. So if you see 45 (X2) you know it means that for test purposes the stat is 65 and for bonus purposes it is a 8 not a 4. Or that it allows a free reroll so you can roll characteristic teats 2 times at X2 and choose the best result.

But doubling or tripling the stat, that doesnt fit the system, style or flavour of GW RPGs.

So you like my fix? Good, then why are you still telling me that i'm taking out the foundation of some form of rules pyramid?

Peacekeeper_b said:

But aren't you therefore advocating that unnatural traits only work if you houserule a further amendment of adding in GM applied modifiers to fix the problem that the unnatural characteristic introduces? EDIT: As Grasper pointed out in his post while i was typing this.

In your example above STR 40 (x1) IS stronger than 35 (x2), since it has a 5 percentile greater chance of achieving success in any unmodified STR test. Sure the 35(x2) will achieve a better success, although less often, but that in itself is a rules-induced flaw.

A flaw which you insist isn't there since a 'good' GM can simply end-around the unnatural trait end-around by applying relative modifiers - a solution that is conceptually flawed in itself. A modifier that is 'inherent' to the character's ability is not situational, which is what the modifiers in the system seem to be intended for.

Now then. The overriding issue is, if this system works for you and others, then no worries.

However, my players really balked at it and we had heated discussions about this, which is why personally i stopped using the Unnatural traits - they are too incongruous.

For me, your solutions are 'fixing the effect not the problem'.

The capped 1-100 scale simply isn't appropriate to model the 40k universe and everthing that might be encountered there.

The unnatural traits rule recognises that and puts in place a solution that creates as many problems as it solves.

To make this work, the individual GM has to come up with houserules (e.g. apply situational modifiers to an iherent characteristic to fix a perceived illogical rule outcome).

For me the debate then boils down to wether you're happy to stick your fingers in your ears and go 'lalalala' when dealing with this unnatural trait issue, accepting its broken and moving on to enjoy the game whatever...

Or wether you're happy to moan about it being broken and argue back and forth in an attempt to come up with a probably unattainable 'logical fix'.

Hence the debate...

Or you could 'go nuclear' like i did and simply remove unnatural traits, and avoid using anything that has them... ...something not too difficult to do given the human scale of Dark Heresy and its focus on human heresies...

This might be a little too math intensive, but the core problem is that it's hard to roll a D100 with a stat over 100 and get any meaningful kind of result. However using simple division you can retain the proportionate difference and still use a D100.

Divide by 2 if >100<200

Divide by 3 if >200<300

etc

So, A human (S47) is arm wrestling a carnosaur (S146). Divide both stats by 2 (as one of them is over 100, and division on both sides cancels each other out):

Human (S47/2=24) Carnosaur(S146/2=73) So they make their opposed rolls against 24 and 73 respectively. This retains the relative difference between them and keeps dice roll in a 01-100 range.

Now, personally, in my games, opposed tests like arm wrestling/grappling are won on degrees of DIFFERENCE rather than SUCCESS - say you both fail your tests, but one fails by 3 DoF, and the other 1 DoF. Well the 1 DoF beats the 3 DoF (he might have fumbled his grapple check, but the opponent fumbled SO much worse that even in his failure the other guy got the upper hand) and wins the opposed roll. Only in situations where failure has an immediate negative effect does this not work (like trying to grapple someone off a cliff, if you both fail then you both fall).

So although the carnosaur can fail by 2 Degrees, the human can only PASS by 2 degrees at best, so unless the human rolls a 4 or less, the carnosaur will tie or win.

The problem with just comparing DoS on stats over 100 is the creep of automatic DoS. A S190 creature receives an automatic 9 DoS on any test.

You CAN work this out if you have a set of difficulties that go on past -30. The thing is that -60 for 101-200 is not equal to -30 for 01-100, because of the automatic degrees of success. In order for a test to actually be affected by a modifer with a stat over 100 it needs to reduce the value BELOW 100 to put it back in the D100 range. So a strength 120 creature (say an ork warboss) can only be affected by tests with difficulties greater than -20. However, this is a relative difficulty level rather than an objective one because something with S130 can't be affected by difficulties less than -40, despite the 'name' of the difficulty being different (-30 is Very Hard for something with a strength in the 01-100 range, but for a Strength 130 creature, -60 might be Very hard, S180 -100 might be very hard etc).

Hellebore

I concede. The system is broken. Im just making **** up to create problems. Guess Im busted.

cause thats what I do, I make **** up. Thank you for pointing that out.

Allright, so that was a bit harsh. But you do realise that the problems you pointed out are in fact not problems, right?

Space Monkey said:

Hmmm..

But...

Hmm...

Well now. THAT is a very interesting idea. That might just be enough of fix to make me reconsider using UTs, since it does indeed give an appropriate advantage.

Have you playtested this solution yet? Let us know how it goes.

If i run another DH game i'll consider using this i think

OK, after reading this thread, the rules and talking to my players we came up with some thoughts...

First, this is a percentile game (0-100) and the rules are based around that framework. If you don't like that, change it (too many years of Palladium Rifts to even get into the problems with a finite system). The difference here is modifiers. Unless I missed something, modifiers can make your chances impossible to make or impossible to miss (skill 40 with a -60 will always lose and with a +60 will always win - at least one success).

Second, we really only find this problem on Opposed Strength Tests. This is a skill-based game with Talents to modify skills and situational modifiers. I think the system works because the skill rolls are all based against your own skill level with your own modifiers and then compared. As mentioned, Strength isn't completely about the ability to apply a force... arm-wrestling doesn't work, nor do any other contests because the variables can be limitless.... grip, leverage, footwear, etc. etc. all play a part. Rarely is there ever going to be a test of pure force against pure force. Grappling? Contortionist skill is used against Strength; the game is designed to use those +60/-60 modifiers since that is what raising a skill does (yep +20 in Contortionist is great against Unnatural Str!). Besides it should be about game play and not so much number play... my 28 Str Human arm-wrestles a 55 (x2) Str Ogryn and wins... Yep, I am smarter, used Physics, I held only his little finger, shouted "Look, The Emperor!" or simply because my character is the hero and the Ogryn in an NPC. Or... maybe arm wrestling is really an Opposed (unarmed) WS Test when my martial trained uber-ninja assassin takes on the ogryn.

Finally, a question... does this problem come up in any other test of an Unnatural Characteristic?

-Cynr

Graspar said:

No, I do think they are problems, Im just willing to drop it.

Because I dont think there is truly any real problem with RAW, we all just percieve them differently and either can accept them (as N0_1_h3r3 does), alter them slightly (as I believe both and you agree on) or totaly change the system (as Dezmund and those who support "doubling" suggest).

In the end I failed in this argument because I was unable to express myself in an adequate way to state my case, and I agree at times statements can be confusing or just poorly written.

But in the end, I stopped caring when responses became, in what I thought, were rude and disrespectful. So yes my reply was harsh.

I jsut dont care enough to argue with people who would rather use insults or rudeness against someone else. Id much rather you say "well that makes no sense, what are you trying to say, cause it sounds like you aren't sure yourself" instead "now you are making **** up. Think before you type."

So anyway, Id rather get invovled in threads that dont become insuling, harsh or vulgar, especially when the subject is something we really cant change anyway.

But the problems you pointed out exist with the unnatural characteristics in RAW aswell. One is not adressed and the other is as simple to fix as the single sentance "The increased Ab does not increase movement rate". If I've misunderstood somehow I'd like to know in what way.

Yeah, "making **** up" was over the line and we probably can't change things anyway and if that's reason enough to leave the discusson so be it.

Graspar said:

I think its just a broad misunderstanding. I harbor no ill will or feelings toward anyone or their ideas, I just disagree and I may be missing the point here and there. I agree.

Eh... alls fair in love and dark heresy.

Maybe the trait will receive a tweak in Creature's Anathema, or maybe in Rogue Trader!

I think this rule is important enough for us to try to get Ross' attention about in the hopes that they will clarify or change it in a future errata or other release.

Several people here have argued for the elimination of the Unnatural Characterisic Trait system.

I have to disagree. I find unnatural characteristics useful b/c each characteristic has essentially 2 parts. The % number for tests, and the bonus which does entirely different things.

Characteristic bonuses work on a straight open ended comparative system, not w/ a percentile chance of failure/sucess. (SB added to dmg, TB subtracted, AB determining yds movement, WPB dictating psyker power range, etc. etc.)

Characteristics work w/in a defined 1-100 percential roll vs. failure or sucess.

As a result the bonus and the characteristic function quite differently. As such doubling of such things functions differently as well. An increase of a characteristic from 30% to 60% is a much more drastic outcome change than incraseing a bonus from 3 to 6.

This difference in how bonus and characteristic tests function is why I drastically oppose those who suggest just a straight doubling of characteristic. (I.e. the 55 str (unnnatural x2) should just be 110 str crowd)

I use the extra DOS treated as as +10, and comparative degrees of success and degrees of failure, because this makes sense to me. (I know it is not technically RAW)

So in my game the result is:

Unnatural (x2) = double bonus; +10 modifier on % tests

Unnatural (x3) = triple bonus; +20 modifier on % tests

Unnatural (x4) = quadruple bonus; +30 modifier on % tests

It's not perfect but the effects on each the open ended bonus system and the closed characteristic test system scale in a way which is functional for me.

[so with the popular example of str 55 ogryn wrestling str 60 human, in my method ogryn rolls against 65 (55+10) and the human against 60, the ogryn only has a slight % advantage, but when he does win as the agressor (thus doing damage) he is going to do more damage than the human (1d5+7 for the ogryn, 1d5+3 for the human)]

I'm not going to jump in to the UC vs No - UC debate, but IIRC Unnatural Agility states that it does not affect movement, hence the Unnatural Speed trait. If I had a book near me I would look it up to give the page #.

Emprah_Horus said:

Thats correct, its even listed that way in the pre-errata BI copies.

When I argues that as part of the problem earlier, it was based on the notion of actually doubling the value instead of just the Bonus (Ag 35 Unnatural (x2) becomes 70) because then the AB is in itself modified as the value is modified.

Its all good now though.

Emprah_Horus said:

I am aware. I was only listing movement as part of my examples of how Characteristic and Bonus reflect different things that work different ways.

Did not intend to imply that Unnatural Agility would affect movement. (It does however affect initiative and how big an explosion you can dodge)

Sorry for the lack of clarity on that point.

RIght, but that's an inherent part of trying to model complex actions with simple rules, stuff is going to get lumped together with other stuff that might not always fit .

The problem isto strike the balance between simulation and game, and to realise that's what you're doing. The unnatural characteristic rules strike me as being an attempt at more simulation than is actually achieved without consideration for the game part of the equation. Yes, it does make sense to say that a creature may do huge damage in melee without also having a huge success rate at swimming. But to apply a fix that sets rigid rules as to how much it may be increased (the multipliers) while also including complicated rules about permanent bonuses to the swimming part and yet more exceptions to the normal flow of the game in the form of special rules for opposed tests is no good. If you want toincrease the bonus, increase the bonus, what's the need to also add in an effective increase in the very characteristic that was to be separated from the bonus AND new mechanics where the normal ones would work?

Is every creature that is stronger than a normal human also a bad swimmer in relation to their strenght? If not there should be characteristic scores above 100 tu supplement the ones below 100. Is every creature that is stronger than a human stronger by a set straight multiplier in relation to their swimming ability? Why cant an ogryn have their permanent +10 bonus applied permanently to their characteristic, other than an arbitrary limit of 100 to characteristics? And how come an ork arm wrestling a human can't work within the normal mechanics of opposed test, ie. the stronger character gets higher score to roll under instead of them getting bonus DoS when they succeed and only then? THey already get the ewuivalent +10 modifiers on every other scores so it's not because ork strenght+10 is game breakingly high.

Graspar said:

You appear to be assuming that the two options are mutually exclusive... it isn't a matter of "human scale + unnatural characteristics". Especially at the upper end (at least where I've used it), Unnatural Characteristics routinely build off of characteristic scores that are above those of humans in the first place.

Look at both the Ogryn in Disciples of the Dark Gods, and my Ogryn PC rules in Something Other Than Human - both have a strength in the mid-40s, a good 10-15 points above the human average... and then they have Unnatural Strength x2. Against an average human (all this comparison of a Strength 55 human vs Strength 55 Ogryn is a skewed and artificial example; Strength 55 is more difficult to achieve for a human than for an Ogryn, and isn't as close to the maximum achievable score), an average Ogryn simultaneously has a better chance of passing his Strength test and greater rewards for doing so.

Well, it's been a while since I posted, but in that time I've play tested the rule I suggested at the start of this thread. It was used multiple times between my Players and an Ogryn slaver.

The most memorable one was when one of the players and their companion NPC were trying to hold a large iron door closed, while the third looked for something to bar it shut. The slaver was shoulder-barging it from the other side while shouting angry taunts about "when I get me 'ands on you, I's gonna rip of ya legs so ya can't run away, and den beat ya to deff wiv 'em!" and other such nastiness.

With the Ogryns free 2 Degree's of success before he even rolled, it made the scene very frantic as the players desperation built, both knowing full well that it was only a matter of time before they lost. Each good roll by the Ogryn also loosened the door brackets, so it was coming away from the wall as all this was going on. The player holding the door thought it was going to fall on him and squash him flat! lol. Needless to say, many a Fate Point was spent that night, and the whole thing was enjoyed by all.

Summarisng, I have to say it worked a treat. I'll be sticking to these house rules from now on until something better comes along.

I know they won't be to everyones tastes, but as the saying goes "You can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time".

Such is life

This was a double post.

I rather like the way things work in HeroQuest (the glorantha RPG, not the GW game).

Score are expressed as XwY where X is the target number and Y is a mastery level - effectively a multiple of the max score on the dice.

So 350 would be 50w3

All rolls are contested, and mastery levels cancel out. so 50w3 vs 50w3 would be a straight 50 vs. 50 roll. But if one side has mastery levels left after cancelling, its result is bumped up a level - with a fail becoming a success and a success a critical, and then any extra levels bumping down the opponents roll.

And theres a quick table for results - what a success vs. a failed roll means.

Typical resistances for lifting might be 50-75 to lift a man. 50w3 to lift a car and 75w6 a shuttle (and a feat for the mightier of Space Marine heros).

Then use Heroquest

Space Monkey said:

Something I'd like to reiterate that's relevant here, because nobody seems to have paid it any attention the last time...

...this is how opposed tests tend to show up in the majority of situations. Not single rolls that determine winner and loser there and then, but rather tests where one side attempts to perform an action and the other is attempting to prevent it (the wrestling rules are built this way, and similar can be seen with Perception against Concealment or Silent Move). That distinction alone makes all the difference - a human trying to fend off an Ogryn who's grappling him can't "win". The best he can accomplish is to escape the Ogryn's grasp.

Same with trying to hold a door against a stronger enemy - the most you can accomplish is holding off the aggressor.

With that in mind, a chance of failure for even very strong creatures isn't actually as big a problem as many people seem to be claiming - afterall, if you've got a Chaos Space Marine attempting to break down a door and you're trying to stop him, nothing you do will make him "fail"... rather, the best you can do is stall him. That's a big deal, often overlooked, because it means that the context of the opposed test is just as important as the participants.

Also remember that if both sides fail, then the stalemate can (if the GM deems it appropriate for the test - personally, I go this way with most opposed tests, see below) force a re-roll for both sides until somebody passes (the other alternative is a stalemate where neither side does anything, but realistically, that resolution doesn't make sense in regards to most opposed tests, or you end up with noisy assassin, deaf guard syndrome). Resultantly, we can flat-out ignore the chances of both sides failing - because you re-roll those tests until someone does pass.

Average human (Str30, SB3) facing an average Ogryn (Str45, SB8, +2 DoS) in an opposed Strength test... the human will win less than 17% of the time (if the Ogryn passes, the human can't generate enough degrees of success to win, as the Ogryn's higher SB means he wins ties). What that pass means is determined by the test itself, but even so, a roughly 1-in-6 chance of winning an opposed strength test seems entirely appropriate.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Doesn't have Space Marines.

Then again, neither does dark heresy...

That said, a Marine game with the ethos of Exalted and the rules of Heroquest would suit me to a T.

(The full rules of heroquest - (and noting that I don't really understanding most of them - just use the conflict resolution stuff essentially) - might be too weird for a GW audience though, but elements of it could certainly be adopted)

(And if anything HeroQuest is EVEN MORE po-faced than CoC, so one need not fear for ones cherished feelings of superiority)