[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Most locations aren't your brain.

who said they were, As I've said I'm not arguing for a x4 multiplier, you know the one we have for the brain.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Neither does the bleeding from the face in real life. Bleeding in general doesn't have a major effect on the timescale of most skirmishes, GURPS or otherwise - it's the longer term engagements on the scale of tens of minutes or hours where bleeding out usually is the resolution. Exception for major veinous or arterial bleeding, and even then you'd be amazed by some people sometimes.

Not sure how that addresses my point, which was that the advanced bleeding rules in MA didn't adequately model the effects of getting hit in these locations, just that they they modelled the fact you will bleed more form them. Not something I ever contested.

You get how if my question is 'I don't think the current rules for face and neck wounds reflect the immediate danger getting wounded often represents' the answer 'well it takes along time to bleed out even from areas were you bleed profusely from' isn't really that relevant.

Originally Posted by Bruno

No, and I never implied as such.

Actually when you argue that the wounding multipliers should be the same as they are for torso (or not materially different) you kind of are.

Originally Posted by Bruno

But when you set aside chance of brain injury (which you have) and bleeding (which you have)

No I haven't, what I've said is that if there are similar rules for the torso (which there are) then such rules don't distinguish between the two areas.

Originally Posted by Bruno

and disfiguring or long term injury (which you have)

In a question about the immediate (or very short term) effects of such wounds I don't think that is particularly odd?

Originally Posted by Bruno

all you have left as a difference is that getting punched in the face hurts more - which GURPS already covers by making it terribly easy to get stun/knockdown on the face.

That assumes that that is the only difference, which is exactly the point I'm making, I don't believe it is.

and that's fine for the face what about the neck.

Originally Posted by Bruno

.... That's the definition of a crumple zone, yes. Mostly empty space and some structural material to break or bend and thereby decelrate the impactor. In this case, the structural material is a pretty damn good bioceramic instead of steel, but breaking ceramics disipates a lot of energy.

Hence why I'm not advocating a straight x4 multiplier in order to show there is some stuff between you and the brain stem etc. Also crumple zones (if you really want to keep the metaphor going) are good against blunt impact, not so much against impaling cutting ones

Originally Posted by Bruno

That picture is from the front. The brain hit location is brain shaped in GURPS - the lower half of your brain is NOT your face. This is reflected in the rules in martial arts that note it's easier to hit the Brain from the back and harder to hit the face from the back (Because from that aspect, the brain is much bigger and the face is much smaller).

Look at the MRI I posted look at what's setting directly behind the soft palette. How well do you think you function with a sword in there? You seem very keen to make the brain the only target of value in the head with the rest just the same kind of general tissue we class the non vital parts of the torso as, brain's not worth much without a brain stem.

As to your point about front and back, that's fine but that's my point, from the front what would be a head hit from behind, becomes a face hit from the front, however the brain and all the rest of the vital bits and bobs doesn't actually change its position does it? It's still there isn't it? Put it this way say my head is inchs 8" from back to front at the point were my septum reaches my nose and I get shot by a bullet that penetrates say 6" (i.e not that much a low power hand gun, but certainly enough to go through the brain stem at that point) why would that bullet do 4x as much damage if it came from the back as it would if it came from the front?

Now you might argue I've set up a deliberately edge example to make my point there, but I had to make it edge because I had to avoid the counter "well you'll dead anyway" however that is my point hits to this area no matter the direction they come from a really dangerous, making the its a head shot from behind (x4) but a face one from the front (x1-1.5) moot.

What I would say is that because there is the intervening face form the front then it's not as bad as from behind, but I think 'not as bad' doesn't equate to 'same as the torso'. So I go back to my original point of making it bad but not x4 bad.

Originally Posted by Bruno

You're laboring under the impression that that would somehow still put it in the face. As noted, that puts it in the brain.

And that's your argument for not making hits in that area worse?

Are you saying that a spear thrust deep enough into the face to catch the brain stem is in fact a head hit and not a face hit? But a lighter spear thrust that enters the face in the exactly the same place and from the same angle but doesn't reach the brain stem is classed a face hit (and thus +2 easier to do)?

Originally Posted by Bruno

The brain, yes. You're getting repetitive - I suggest not asking someone the same question over and over again in the same post, because they can't respond to it at all until you hit the post button :)

So as above does a hit through the face suddenly become a head hit because it gets to the brain (or stem etc), or would it be fair to say hits that go through the face (not that hard as the face is pretty shallow and not particularly solid) are in fact pretty dangerous because of what they'll hit.

Basically your point seems to be more based more semantics than anatomy

As for Repetitive. You don't think constantly answering 'brain' to my post about why I think hits in this area particularly dangerous is not only repetitive but is also actually repeatedly making my point for me?