Injuries, Firearms, Shock and Major Wounds

[Pimpão]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

To 2.1, see this: "Shock: -HP of injury received last turn" (Campaigns 547).

Yeah, that's my main question here: what constitutes an injury in this case? Each individual resolution? The sum of resolutions from the same attack? Or is it the highest of them?

My guess would be -3, the sum of both. As it is loss the character suffered before his turn.
If he had suffered yet more damage from another source before his turn, this character would suffer a shock penalty of -4. Right?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Pimpão

Yeah, that's my main question here: what constitutes an injury in this case? Each individual resolution? The sum of resolutions from the same attack? Or is it the highest of them?

My guess would be -3, the sum of both. As it is loss the character suffered before his turn.
If he had suffered yet more damage from another source before his turn, this character would suffer a shock penalty of -4. Right?

That's what I think. Fred disagrees though, and I failed a quick text search to find anything definitive one way or the other.

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Pimpão

If he had suffered yet more damage from another source before his turn, this character would suffer a shock penalty of -4. Right?

What's the difference between being shot twice by one person or once each by 2 people. My interpretation is that injuries add for shock calculation.


From campaigns page 419...

• Whenever you suffer injury, reduce your DX and IQ by the number of HP you lost – to a maximum penalty of -4, regardless of your injuries – on your next turn only.

In your second scenario, the first shot imposes a -2 penalty and the second shot increases the penalty to -3. Note that it says, "...regardless of your injuries...".

You're the GM though so whatever way you want to do it is the right way.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

Note that it says, "...regardless of your injuries...".

Within the clause that specifies the -4 limit on shock, so it has no relevance elsewhere...

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Within the clause that specifies the -4 limit on shock, so it has no relevance elsewhere...

"Whenever you suffer injury..." (emphasis added)

There were 2 injuries.

"...regardless of your injuries..."

So, multiple injuries are included in the -4.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

"Whenever you suffer injury..." (emphasis added)

There were 2 injuries.

"...regardless of your injuries..."

So, multiple injuries are included in the -4.

I can't infer the argument here.

The cap applies regardless of your injuries, yes, but nobody is questioning that. The question is, does -2 and -2 make -4, or not? And I do think it does, but that fragment doesn't answer that.

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I can't infer the argument here.

The cap applies regardless of your injuries, yes, but nobody is questioning that. The question is, does -2 and -2 make -4, or not? And I do think it does, but that fragment doesn't answer that.

I doubt if the writers/editors diagrammed the sentence before publishing so, to me, it's not useful to approach it with such extreme level of pedantry.

"Whenever", ie each injury. If there's more than one injury they are all included, resulting in, "injuries".

"to a maximum penalty of -4, regardless of your injuries", ie, the max penalty is -4 regardless of whether or not the sum of the aforementioned, inclusive "Whenever you are injured", penalty is greater than that.

The word, "attack" is not mentioned anywhere in the section, only "injury/injuries" so separating a clause in the sentence and attempting to apply it as a possibility of such, is ridiculous.

A quick and obviously logical rewrite of the sentence to remove the offending clause...

• Each time you are injured in a turn reduce your DX and IQ by the number of HP you lost due to that injury - to a maximum penalty of -4, regardless of the sum of all injuries sustained in the turn – on your next turn only.

If the above is not the intent of the rule, 5 bullet hits from a single burst each causing 1 point of damage after DR is a shock penalty of -1 while 5 bullets from 5 people hitting you once each causing 1 point of damage after DR would be a shock penalty of -4. Which is just stupid.

But YMMV. If it's not obvious to you, you're the GM so you win and the RAW does NOT answer the question of whether or not shock penalties due to multiple injuries from a single attack roll are additive and you just choose to do so and you win the greatest pedant in the world trophy.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

If the above is not the intent of the rule, 5 bullet hits from a single burst each causing 1 point of damage after DR is a shock penalty of -1 while 5 bullets from 5 people hitting you once each causing 1 point of damage after DR would be a shock penalty of -4. Which is just stupid.

I'm pretty sure literally no one has suggested that interpretation, which has no possible basis in the text.

What is possible - though again not my own read - is that in both of those cases you have a shock penalty of -1, that being the highest shock penalty caused by any of the individual injuries.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

I doubt if the writers/editors diagrammed the sentence before publishing so, to me, it's not useful to approach it with such extreme level of pedantry.

. . .

But YMMV. If it's not obvious to you, you're the GM so you win and the RAW does NOT answer the question of whether or not shock penalties due to multiple injuries from a single attack roll are additive and you just choose to do so and you win the greatest pedant in the world trophy.

<Moderator>
Let's be a bit less antagonistic about this, please.
</Moderator>

[Pimpão]

I searched the Basic Set for "Injury", "Single Injury" and "Major Wounds", also searched something related to this case on google and could not find any definitive answer in here, reddit or the fandom.

IMHO shock penalty max is -4 in any case, though.
But I'm really not sure about the major wound... I guess it's really open for interpretation of maybe the phrasing regarding this is a little different than we are thinking or it is in another book.