Injury Points

blackshoe's picture

As I understand it, in the basic rules, once you determine net impact of a strike, that net impact is the injury points applied. So if you make an edge strike with a net impact (after considering armor) of 5, the target accrues a minor cut of 5 injury points.

Now suppose you include the optional injury effect determination rules (Players Edition, Combat 10). This refers you to the Injury Table, which among other things seems to suggest that for a minor injury, Injury points are determined by rolling 1d10 (bottom of the table, the yellow line). So the actual IPs accrued might be more or less than in the basic system. Have I got this right? Reason I ask is that I can't find anywhere that actually *says* "roll 1d10".

Balesir's picture

I think you are confusing two separate things: effective impact and injury points. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that effective impact transfers directly into injury points; although that might just about work with fire or frost impact, it causes several issues with other damage aspects. The idea as I understand it is that the hit location, effective impact and aspect combine (via the injury table) to give an injury seriousness (indicated by cell colour) and additional effects (indicated by letter codes in the cell). The injury seriousness then gives the number of injury points (by way of a die roll); the injury points determine the injury penalty and healing time.

blackshoe's picture

Strike Delivery, Combat 10 in the Players Edition: "The number of injury points inflicted by this strike equals the effective impact."

On that same page, step 4, "Injury Effect Determination" is an optional rule. If you're not using the optional rule, doesn't the rule I quoted above apply? If not, why not?

As I said, if you include the optional rule, Injury points are determined by the Injury Table, and those injury points may be more or less than the effective impact which, using the optional rule, is no longer necessarily equal to the injury points (or vice versa, if you prefer). I see the line on the injury table that says 1d10 (for a minor injury).

The last three sentences of my original post are "So the actual IPs accrued might be more or less than in the basic system. Have I got this right? Reason I ask is that I can't find anywhere that actually *says* "roll 1d10"." Is the first of those true or is it false?

Balesir's picture

Right - the "injury points = effective impact" is in the "Effective Impact" section, I see now. Thanks for the directions!

I think my take comes in part from HM1 (which is what I was weaned on, sithee...) where it explicitly says "For each aspect (blunt, edge, etc.) there are three basic levels of damage: Minor (yeIlow), Serious (orange) and Grievous (red). lnjury points for each level are noted on the Injury Table." In HMG it looks like these are intended to be optional effects, with a default of IP = effective impact. I think this needs to come with a caveat, though (as is the case with most optional rules variants, to be honest), because using the default will have the effect of lessening the importance of hit locations considerably. For example, using the IPs from the injury table, hits to the elbows and knees are considerably worse than those to forearm or calf, with a higher chance of disabling the limb temporarily and taking longer to heal. Likewise, hits to abdomen and eyes are worse than those to face, shoulders or thorax (unless by an edged weapon). In addition, because of the way the injury table is set, using the default will result in slightly fewer IPs from edge aspect and considerably more (on average) from point aspect.

These differences might be something you are happy to ignore, but they will effect the relative desirability of certain armours, weapons and so on. There is nothing particularly wrong with the abstraction - you can even go to the BattleLust system for a simpler wound system, for example - but it will be a different game at the granular level.

blackshoe's picture

One of these days, I'll go through all the rules and see if there's any optional rules I don't want to use. ;-)

Balesir's picture

Heh, yes. I'm not running HM currently, but when I do I have a tendency not merely to use optional rules but to make up more of my own! :-D

In a sense, though, I think that may be part of the point of HMG. Over the last several years I have been noticing the range of profoundly different things that RPG rules can be designed for. Some are good at what they do: 4e D&D I think is excellent as a tactical fantasy game, Apocalypse World Engine games excel at generating stories involving all players, but I think HMG tries to do something different, which is to provide players with a tool that allows exploration of the world setting. There's a sense in which optional rules are a part of this; they allow exploration of the way in which different mechanisms to represent the "reality" of Kethîra change that world. The key aspect is the character's lived experience, and the 'point' of the system is how it affects that. The game world exists as a set of emergent properties that flow from the players, the setting, the in-game situation and the rules; exploring how the emergent properties change as those factors are manipulated is the 'point', I think.