Face & Neck location damage multiplier

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

No. I've gone through the comparison of events, but you're still leaving some out. There is an entire extra roll that you're leaving out, which has a big result on the chance of immediate incapacitation.

which one?

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

To be active the next turn, the guy who lost a leg simply has to make a single HT roll for knockdown to avoid being stunned. The guy with the neck wound must make both a HT-5 roll for knockdown (And if he fails to even make his normal HT, he's immediately unconscious), as well as a HT roll the next turn to not fall unconscious. He's much less likely to make those rolls and be active than the guy with the leg wound. Even if he does luck out and makes both those rolls, he's still rolling HT every single turn he's active to avoid passing out, something the leg-wound guy doesn't have to worry about. That's a lot of immediate effects you're trying to skip over.

There's no -5 for the neck, but you're right he's in the -HP. However I beginning to think that what you say is rather more indicative that GURPS underplays the loss of limbs rather than is fine for necks (this is moving the goal posts though, so probably we should treat it is separate).

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

As pointed out, this is at least partially because GURPS avoids instant-kill effects, and partially because, while severed limbs are pretty well documented, the historic research folk around here haven't found many (If any) credible cases of decapitation in combat conditions.

As demonstrated by the increasing difficulty to it such areas, not the historical toughness of necks. Decapitation by execution was not unheard off (and not every occasion was some drunk sawing at the target).

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

In addition, he amount of damage dealt to a neck to cut it off would surely be lethal if delivered to the brain, but the brain location still gives rolls to survive, which would make a very strange disconnect that cutting into the neck is more lethal than burying that sword in their brain..

So maybe have the wound modifier for the neck as less than the brain, seems like someone suggested that earlier ;-).

However that said the brain's x4 multiplier is pretty damn lethal as is.

Also your arguing that one inconstancy must remain because otherwise another inconsistency would be thrown up?

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

If anything, I'd stay GURPS is too generous toward dismemberment, rather than too stingy toward decapitation.

You might be right, however the GURPS RAW has no rules of decapitation

So I'm arguing here not that it's too easy to chop of a leg in abstract, but that its too easy to chop of one in comparison to a head.

sorry will answer the rest later on (have to go to work)

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

In GURPS terms, they were still dead. Same as how failing a consciousness roll might leave a character semi-conscious, writhing in pain, but unable to act.

True, however my point was waiting for bleeding to kill you in multiples of 30 seconds is not death by decapitation.

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

And you're the one taking it too far by putting in the strawman argument of "muscle memory" and "spasms of reflex" as relevant to someone alive and conscious at -6 HP. Those might be relevant if he were decapitated, but by RAW, he isn't. If the rules did result in decapitation from that, then he'd be dead an not moving. None of the cases that anyone is proposing, including yourself, would result in the scenario you list here, which makes it look like a completely irrelevant cheap shot.

You missed my point. Your right by RAW he isn't, that's my point! A blow that can remove both legs at once is not enough to remove a head. It was cheap because the system justification makes it so.

Sorry the rest of your stuff is pretty rules orientated, I'm going to have to wait until I have my books in front of me.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

If it's anything less a very superficial hit (i.e low damage roll) or a hit that enters sideways into the face and exists from the other side of the face there's not many, especially if you're assuming an opponent standing in front of you. Now missile combat is slightly different but hand to hand, not so much.

...You think hand to hand involves lots of precisely stabbing lengthwise through people's heads as they hold them stiffly facing forward? I'm profoundly dubious of this.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

The reality might be 3-d, however the reality is also there not really much of the neck (as it is behind the face) that isn't either blood vessel, air way, nervous system or brain stem. You seem to saying that such items are small targets and can be missed, your right in abstract however if you've hit that area (at the -5 or -7 mod making you point) chances are you'll hit one of them making my point).

Actually the neck does contain a fair bit of muscle and tendon. It's got to do some pretty heavy supporting work keeping our grotesquely overgrown heads upright, and of course some soft-tissue 'armor' for the core components is a welcome feature.

However, the presumption that a face hit means a neck hit continues to be utterly baffling.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Only cutting and crushing has enhanced effects, bleeding is worse. Interestingly in MApg137 it actually says realistically bleeding out from arteries mean death in seconds, however then just relies on going -HP and failing a HT roll to model that.

Bleeding. Bleeding is the effect which is pretty damn dire. Bleeding of the sort which makes a pocket-knife wound grounds to rush to a hospital.

A wound does not need a high wounding factor to be dire. It needs a high wounding factor (or a knockdown modifier) to be a fast way to incapacitate.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I only said relative to the torso, I'm only arguing increasing the multiplier remember, a 2 pt light spear wound would still only be a 6 pts, no danger of instant death but a major wound however in terms of knock back etc

Which in no way addresses the question of whether there's any reason to believe neck wounds are better instant-stoppers than torso wounds.

If there isn't, why do you want more instant HP loss?

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Sorry, where in your body do you think your eye and skull is situated if it snot in you head?

...Eye and Skull are (at least in part) on the front of the head, but are not the Face. Therefore the Face is not the same thing as the front of the head. Is there something unclear about this?

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Well you just answered your own question, it more difficult to do then just hitting the torso, however plenty of MA teach striking to the head, not many sports one teach neck strikes (wonder why), lots of neck holds though.

I...what? No, I didn't answer my own question about whether stabbing people in the face is a thing. I indicated what forms of stabbing in the head I had ever seen as things, and how they were not examples of stabbing in the Face.

Many martial arts will cover striking to the head, probably both Face and Skull. 'Striking' and 'stabbing' are not the same word, though.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I was thinking about that when looking at Dan Howard's combined table, however you already have eye straight to the brain and nose straight to the brain, mouth straight to the brain might start getting a bit much in terms of that table (which is limited to only having 6 positions). However I think my general increase to damage to the face from certain attacks would be one way to abstractly model the chances of that.

I was not proposing that it appear on the table. I was not proposing it occur randomly. I think I was pretty explicit that I was talking about called attacks.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

No system can cover it all (or rather every combination of events), however my point was waiting multiples of 30 seconds to bleed out is not death by decapitation. (agin see MApg137) The point being for a system that has legs and arms flying off all over the place, it's strange it doesn't do the same for the head (via the neck)



fair enough, and I've read them, given the fact they had to start working on bracing modifiers etc, I think they made my point that necks seem to be unusually resistant to getting severed. Which would be fine, however legs and arms don't seem to be its the lack of consistency that puzzles me. Unless it is just a game balance thing.

This stuff has been addressed. You may disagree with the conclusions, but it's not like your doubts are novel here.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

I can list plenty of accounts where people had their arms or legs amputated in combat. There was one skeleton recovered from Wisby that apparently had both legs amputated with one blow! However, I can't recall many incidents where someone was decapitated in battle. There are a few, but not as many as severed arms or legs.

Does a duel count? In the book "By the sword," there's a post-duel photo of a decapitated foe.

[DanHoward]

There are plenty of accounts of decapitated foes but the vast majority of them occurred after the battle when the victim was defenceless. We need eyewitness accounts of decapitations that occurred during the battle. I've found a handful after hours of searching but I found countless examples of limb amputations during the same search. Add to this all the accounts of bungled beheading executions that occurred even when the victim was restrained. It seems very clear that it is a lot harder to decapitate someone - especially during a battle - than it is to sever an arm or leg.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

which one?

...The one in the very next paragraph. The paragraph you quoted right after asking this question.

(this is moving the goal posts though, so probably we should treat it is separate)

Hold up there. You base your argument that if target A is severed by X damage, than target B should be severed by X damage. You then say that because it doesn't function that way for B, then the treatment of B must be wrong. That's a fallacy, however, because it only suggests that one of them is wrong. It could be that the treatment of A is wrong, which would invalidate your argument. And I should stress "suggests"; all of this is assuming that the initial assumption (That A and B should require the same damage) is correct, which isn't a given either (And from the research folks, is rather in question).

That's not "moving the goal posts" in any way.

As demonstrated by the increasing difficulty to it such areas, not the historical toughness of necks. Decapitation by execution was not unheard off (and not every occasion was some drunk sawing at the target).

Decapitation by execution has the target solidly braced, gives the executioner plenty of time to perfectly place the attack on a non-resisting target, and often used heavier cutting weapons for extra damage. In game terms, it'd be an AoA (Strong), and considering the situation (Unresisting, braced target with plenty of time to line up the attack) it's considered appropriate to give them the same triple-damage bonus that they would on a perfect critical hit, since it's basically as good of a hit as you could possibly ever get. That's enough to give multiple death checks. And guess what? Even when perfectly set up, there are still plenty of occasions where the executioner failed to decapitate the target, even on occasions where he still inflicted an instantly-fatal wound.

You might be right, however the GURPS RAW has no rules of decapitation

Sure it does. If a person dies to a neck wound, the GM may rule that the person was decapitated.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

True, however my point was waiting for bleeding to kill you in multiples of 30 seconds is not death by decapitation.

More strawmen. Nobody has made any such argument, and bleeding has absolutely nothing to do with the case I was talking of. Death by decapitation (The case discussed here) involves failing a death check from a neck wound. Bleeding is irrelevant. You're the only one trying to suggest some sort of link between the two.

It was cheap because the system justification makes it so.

No, it was a cheap shot because it postulated a ridiculous result and then attributes it to the results from RAW, when the results from RAW are completely different. AKA, a strawman argument. You keep trying to link bleeding to death with decapitation, but they do not have anything to do with each other.


Now then, I could have sworn the neck got the same knockdown penalty as the face, but I'll rework the math for it to be correct:
(8-point cutting attack)
Chance to be unable to act next turn:
Leg: 50%
Neck: 75%
Face: 97.7%
Brain: 99.3%

Chance to be rendered unconscious or dead immediately:
Leg: 1.9%
Neck: 51%
Face:75%
Brain: ~99%

And if we want to compare long-term lethality:
Leg: 6 injury, HT-5 30-second bleed, risks death in ~20 minutes.
Neck: 16 injury, HT-5 30-second bleed, no First Aid possible, risks death in ~2 minutes.
Face: 12 injury, HT-2 60-second bleed, risks death in ~11 minutes.
Brain: 24 injury, HT-4 30-second bleed, no First Aid possible. 50% chance of being immediately dead or fatally wounded. Next death check in ~3 minutes.

Neck fits neatly in between the leg and brain for immediate effects, and is closer to the brain in lethality if you lack magical healing. Paramedics can easily stop the bleeding of the Leg wound (Base professional skill of 12, plus a medical kit (+2 quality) for a final chance of 37.5% per minute to stop bleeding), but the neck wound has probably already suffered a death check before the paramedics are even on scene, much less before any surgery can be done to save them.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

...You think hand to hand involves lots of precisely stabbing lengthwise through people's heads as they hold them stiffly facing forward? I'm profoundly dubious of this.

Certainly more that it involves even more precisely aimed thrusts through the side of the face and out the other yes.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Actually the neck does contain a fair bit of muscle and tendon. It's got to do some pretty heavy supporting work keeping our grotesquely overgrown heads upright, and of course some soft-tissue 'armor' for the core components is a welcome feature.

Not really, and definitely not compared to legs who have rather a lot more weight to carry.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

However, the presumption that a face hit means a neck hit continues to be utterly baffling.

Look at that MRI again, look at what sits behind the lower face, its airway, blood vessels, brain stem and spinal column. Your skull basically sits on top of your neck. You face is basically the front of you skull plus the jaw.

the face iust basically a collection of holes that give access to the skull and neck. and s supporting structure for the organs that fit in those holes.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Bleeding. Bleeding is the effect which is pretty damn dire. Bleeding of the sort which makes a pocket-knife wound grounds to rush to a hospital.

Not sure how that is relevant to what I posted, MA states that the reality of cutting the major arteries is death in seconds. Reality of bleeding rules in MA is not death in seconds, but death in minutes. Therefore bleeding rules in MA does not model the reality of such wounds, how do do we show the reality as stated in MA but not modelled by the rules.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

A wound does not need a high wounding factor to be dire. It needs a high wounding factor (or a knockdown modifier) to be a fast way to incapacitate.

Yes that's is my point. Although I'd argue not all dire wounds are immediately incapacitating , but most immediately incapacitating wounds are dire (except ones which leave you unconscious)

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Which in no way addresses the question of whether there's any reason to believe neck wounds are better instant-stoppers than torso wounds.

If there isn't, why do you want more instant HP loss?

Ok a couple Injuries to the vascular system occur in 25-56% of penetrating neck wounds, and injuries to the carotid and subclavian arteries are the most common cause of mortality.

Penetrating neck trauma has been a significant cause of injury and death for centuries. The advent of gunpowder and the subsequent widespread use of firearms have increased the incidence of these injuries and the mortality rate associated with them.

Neck trauma with 41% Mortality (78% when GSW)

direct comparison The mortality rate was significantly greater in patients with head and neck wounds (N = 271, 40.0%) than in those with injuries to the thorax (N = 163, 24.1%) and abdomen (N = 62, 9.2%; p < 0.01 for both).

If you average thorax and abdomen together you get a mortality rate of just under 17%, head and neck is 40%

Now these deal in end results, but it's pretty indicative of it being worse.

.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

..Eye and Skull are (at least in part) on the front of the head, but are not the Face. Therefore the Face is not the same thing as the front of the head. Is there something unclear about this?

Not sure if your serious here? The fact that the face does not entirely encompass the front of you head does not mean the face it not on the front of you head.

Is you point dependent on your face not being on the front of your head, I hope not? Is it on the side of you head, or on the back?

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I...what? No, I didn't answer my own question about whether stabbing people in the face is a thing. I indicated what forms of stabbing in the head I had ever seen as things, and how they were not examples of stabbing in the Face.

No the point was such strikes are rarer because they are more difficult.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Many martial arts will cover striking to the head, probably both Face and Skull. 'Striking' and 'stabbing' are not the same word, though.

Didn't say they were, however lots of martial arts do and historically have had stabbing in them.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I was not proposing that it appear on the table. I was not proposing it occur randomly. I think I was pretty explicit that I was talking about called attacks.

did say you were, I was just posting my though process on it.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

This stuff has been addressed. You may disagree with the conclusions, but it's not like your doubts are novel here.

OK.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

The only immediate difference between a 16-point injury and a 24-point injury to the neck is that the 24-point injury has a single additional roll in order to act on the next turn, and the HT rolls to stay conscious are at -1 each turn. For a HT10 person, that means he went from having a 2.3% chance of acting next turn to a 0.9% chance.

How do you get that figure?

16 pt major wound to the neck = HT roll to escape knockdown (50% chance), next round HT to stay concious (50% chance), chance to act next turn = 25%, following turn you have a 50% chance of falling unconscious and a 50% chance of recovering from stun if stunned = 62.5%, obviously multiple round compound.

24 pt major wound to the neck 62.5% chance of dying and then the above

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

Chances of being immediately incapacitated (Unconscious or dead) are 75% for the 16-point injury and ~90% for the 24-point injury. And even if they somehow make it into the unlikely category of staying active through that wound, they still have a 50% or 62.5% chance of passing out each turn. This is compared to a 50% chance of the guy with the leg wound being able to act next turn, and only a 1.9% chance of him being immediately rendered unconscious. He's more than 20 times more likely to be able to act immediately than if he got hit in the neck with that 8-point attack, and almost 40 times more likely to not be rendered unconscious.

Sorry can you show your working?

I'm not denying the neck wound is going to die.

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

I think you are drastically under-valuing the effects the neck and face locations have by not considering these things. They are far closer to vitals and brain hits than to regular torso hits in terms of immediate incapacitation and impairment.

neck is different form face here, necks doesn't have the -5 on the knock-down roll. However given that mod one wonders how long boxing matches go on for in GURPS given that even 1 pt punches cause a basic knock-down roll for face hits

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

(For reference, an 8-point damage blow to the brain, dealing 24 injury, would leave a 0.7% chance of the target being able to act next turn, and a ~99% chance of being immediately unconscious or dead, much closer to the results for the neck wound (2.3% and 75%) than the leg wound (50% and 1.9%))

Again you going to have to show me how you got there for he neck.

Because leaving aside bleeding, I can see no difference between a 8 pt impaling wound to the neck and and to the torso (both -16 hp, no mods for knock-down) only cutting and crushing, has a difference. 8pt cutting being 16 on the neck, and 12 on the torso, but even that has no difference except you'll bleed more and be closer to the -hp threshold

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Certainly more that it involves even more precisely aimed thrusts through the side of the face and out the other yes.

...this is why I suggested comparing the number of lines through the face that hit the neck to those that don't. I really don't think that stacks up how you think it does, and the MRI is not helpful unless you're attacking within the plane of the image.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Not really, and definitely not compared to legs who have rather a lot more weight to carry.

I'm not comparing anything to legs. I'm just saying the neck is not in fact 100% stuff which will kill you if broken, or even all that close to it. It's full of important things but I rather think you'd slipped a bit overboard.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Look at that MRI again, look at what sits behind the lower face, its airway, blood vessels, brain stem and spinal column. Your skull basically sits on top of your neck. You face is basically the front of you skull plus the jaw.

the face iust basically a collection of holes that give access to the skull and neck. and s supporting structure for the organs that fit in those holes.

The MRI is down the centerline of the head facing perfectly front. It is not completely irrelevant to the question of what gets hit when you stab or shoot someone in the face but it says a lot less than you seem to think.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Not sure how that is relevant to what I posted, MA states that the reality of cutting the major arteries is death in seconds. Reality of bleeding rules in MA is not death in seconds, but death in minutes. Therefore bleeding rules in MA does not model the reality of such wounds, how do do we show the reality as stated in MA but not modelled by the rules.

It's relevant to what you posted because you seem to keep insisting that neck wounds in GURPS are not, in fact, dire. Which is flatly wrong if you're using full wounding rules.

Your thing about bleeding out in seconds if your carotid artery or something is cut, on the other hand, is not relevant. Because exactly like my earlier 'aorta blown entirely out of your body' scenario, GURPS (quite explicitly) models that as a subset of 'you are dead'. A GURPS wound to the neck or neck arteries which does not cause an immediate failed death check is not representative of a gushing major artery wound nor is it supposed to be.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Yes that's is my point. Although I'd argue not all dire wounds are immediately incapacitating , but most immediately incapacitating wounds are dire (except ones which leave you unconscious.

How can that possibly be your point? You keep insisting that neck wounds need a higher wounding factor because they are dire. Which is exactly what "A wound does not need a high wounding factor to be dire" is contradicting.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Ok a couple Injuries to the vascular system occur in 25-56% of penetrating neck wounds, and injuries to the carotid and subclavian arteries are the most common cause of mortality.

Penetrating neck trauma has been a significant cause of injury and death for centuries. The advent of gunpowder and the subsequent widespread use of firearms have increased the incidence of these injuries and the mortality rate associated with them.

Neck trauma with 41% Mortality (78% when GSW)

direct comparison The mortality rate was significantly greater in patients with head and neck wounds (N = 271, 40.0%) than in those with injuries to the thorax (N = 163, 24.1%) and abdomen (N = 62, 9.2%; p < 0.01 for both).

If you average thorax and abdomen together you get a mortality rate of just under 17%, head and neck is 40%

Now these deal in end results, but it's pretty indicative of it being worse.

I don't even know what you think this has to do with the question, since these are quite obviously talking about consequences which include everything GURPS models under bleeding and possibly also the lasting wounds rules which, IIRC, have some 'you die' goodies for neck wounds.

Neck wounds (just neck, not neck arteries) in GURPS are way more deadly than torso (or abdomen) wounds as currently constituted. The only exception to that is when the torso wound is not a torso wound but rather a vitals wound.

And if your stats are mostly coming from soldiers wearing body armor (which at least one of your sources appears to be) you're going to see not so much getting shot in the vitals (body armor covers those first and foremost) and quite a bit of cutting shrapnel.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Not sure if your serious here? The fact that the face does not entirely encompass the front of you head does not mean the face it not on the front of you head.

Is you point dependent on your face not being on the front of your head, I hope not? Is it on the side of you head, or on the back?

It really helps when you keep track of the sub-threads. A few posts back you said: "The face is just the front of the head after all?"

Which it is not, in terms of GURPS terminology. I responded pointing that out. That is all there was.

I really don't know why you said "The face is just the front of the head after all?", since that doesn't seem to address whether or not face-stabbing is a thing, which was what you posted it in reply to.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

No the point was such strikes are rarer because they are more difficult.

Rarer than what? And what does that have to do with anything anyway since those are examples of not stabbing people in the face?

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Didn't say they were, however lots of martial arts do and historically have had stabbing in them.

...But do they stab people in the face to kill them? Is this just meant as a vague insinuation that surely they might have stabbed people in the face preferentially since they knew about both stabbing and faces?

(There are in fact styles in Martial Arts which include face-stabbing as a technique. The ones I recall, however, are battlefield styles which target the face as a way to avoid armor.)

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

...The one in the very next paragraph. The paragraph you quoted right after asking this question.

The roll to stay concious, sorry yes.

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

Hold up there. You base your argument that if target A is severed by X damage, than target B should be severed by X damage. You then say that because it doesn't function that way for B, then the treatment of B must be wrong. That's a fallacy, however, because it only suggests that one of them is wrong. It could be that the treatment of A is wrong, which would invalidate your argument.

Poor use of fallacy there, (A & B would need to be unrelated for it to be fallacy). More over since in this case B is more easily severed then A, it changes the weighting significantly.

And anyway is doesn't invalidate my argument, because my argument is not about how difficult it is to sever a leg, it's about how difficult it is to sever a neck. My comparison to the leg was to illustrate an inconsistency not to use it to prove one was right by dint of the other being wrong.

Yes you might me right if you say legs are too easily severed, but that's another discussion.

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

And I should stress "suggests"; all of this is assuming that the initial assumption (That A and B should require the same damage) is correct, which isn't a given either (And from the research folks, is rather in question).

You think necks are more difficult to sever than legs? (I must have thick legs)

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

Decapitation by execution has the target solidly braced, gives the executioner plenty of time to perfectly place the attack on a non-resisting target, and often used heavier cutting weapons for extra damage. In game terms, it'd be an AoA (Strong), and considering the situation (Unresisting, braced target with plenty of time to line up the attack) it's considered appropriate to give them the same triple-damage bonus that they would on a perfect critical hit, since it's basically as good of a hit as you could possibly ever get. That's enough to give multiple death checks. And guess what? Even when perfectly set up, there are still plenty of occasions where the executioner failed to decapitate the target, even on occasions where he still inflicted an instantly-fatal wound.

Yes I read the same threads, even with all that and more it just gets to enough for an instant decapitation. And yes we all know teh stories of drunk headmen reduced to sawing at their targets, they don't prove what they are cited prove. they prove that drunk people shouldn't play with swords and axes.

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

Sure it does. If a person dies to a neck wound, the GM may rule that the person was decapitated.

Only RAW that's death by failing a HT roll not death by your head no longer being on you neck. In the same way that having your arm chopped off loses you HP's and moves you closer to death, but also means you can't wield a sword with it any more.

Think of it like this we have specific rules for severing legs which require specific rules for the mechanical loss of a leg (your dancing skill takes a hit).

We do not have specific rules for severing a head, because we don't have specific rules for the mechanical loss of a leg (appearance drops, and visual penalties).

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

More strawmen. Nobody has made any such argument, and bleeding has absolutely nothing to do with the case I was talking of. Death by decapitation (The case discussed here) involves failing a death check from a neck wound. Bleeding is irrelevant. You're the only one trying to suggest some sort of link between the two.

It was a rhetorical point. And bleeding has very much been brought up as the mechanism that satisfies the need here.

But Ok we'll go back to my previous example, a twelve pot sword wound removes both legs automatically, but only has a 50% chance on a 10HT man of immediately killing (and as you say therefore being RAW eligible to be a decapitation).

In a way your right about bleeding vs. decapitation rule, but only in that you highlight the inconsistency I mention

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

No, it was a cheap shot because it postulated a ridiculous result and then attributes it to the results from RAW, when the results from RAW are completely different.

Show me as it it relates to my "stawman"

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

AKA, a strawman argument. You keep trying to link bleeding to death with decapitation, but they do not have anything to do with each other.

I agree, but its pretty bloody hard to decapitate some one RAW. Now look you can keep throwing 'stawman' out their if you want, but its bot a replacement for actually addressing a point.

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

Now then, I could have sworn the neck got the same knockdown penalty as the face, but I'll rework the math for it to be correct:
(8-point cutting attack)
Chance to be unable to act next turn:
Leg: 50%
Face: 97.7%
Brain: 99.3%

Agree, no neck though (I have it at 25%)

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

Chance to be rendered unconscious or dead immediately:
Leg: 1.9%
Neck: 51%
Face:75%
Brain: ~99%

Can you show me you workings?

And if we want to compare long-term lethality:....[/QUOTE]

not what I was contesting