Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo






runboard.com       Register for a free global account (learn about it) | Log in: (), globally (lost password?)

 
OldWarrior Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God

Registered: 04-2006
Location: USA, Western hemisphere, earth
Posts: 1273
Reply | Quote
 The Issue of Damage OR Wounds


All through Warhammer Quest it seems that the words wounds, and damage (and sometimes even strength makes its way into the mix) are used as interchangeable terms.

At least three or four times in the last two to three months I have been faced with the difficulty that this causes in practical play of the game.

Specifically, often a player thinks that because something says that a spell, a weapon, or an ability causes a ceratin number of "wounds", that this means that armour and toughness are NOT to be deducted.

I believe that a thorough searching of the Rule Book, the RolePlay Book, the Adventure Book, and the various spell and character cards will reveal a pattern of usage in the WHQ system. The assumption seems always to be that Armour, Toughness, and any other ability (i.e. monster special rules, warrior skills, weapon bonuses, or magic items of other kinds) are to be applied -- are to modify the amount of damage done.

The main reason I take this position is that the whole WHQ system seems always to specify whenever this is NOT the case with such words as the following: "no modifiers for Toughness or armour", "Ignores Toughness and Armour", "Ignores the first 2 points of armour", "No modifier for non-magical armour", or "No modifiers whatsoever (including Toughness, Armour, Ignore Blows, Ignore Pain, and etc.)".

The above words may not be exact quotes in every case, but I believe such statements will be familiar to the WHQer. Such important details are added often whether the WHQ system is using the words wounds or damage.

Here is a quote from the Rule Book about the subject of wounds in combat (under the subtitle "Wounds"):

quote:

Once a combatant has hit his opponent, you must determine if he wounds him, and if so, how badly. To do this, roll 1D6 and add the attacker's Strength to the score. ... The total score is the number of Wounds the attacker has inflicted.



Notice here already that the Rule Book has used the word wounds as a verb showing the idea of damage done to an enemy, but then it immediately refers to wounds as a noun describing the total amount of damage that an attack has caused (or better, we might say has potentially caused -- clearly implied by the context).

This is in the Rule Book BEFORE any mention is made about subtracting the Toughness and Armour, which it proceeds to do immediately thereafter.

Then, while explaining about how toughness and armour are subtracted from the total amount of wounds inflicted, the Rule Book points out that there are exceptions with the following words:

quote:

Some special Monster attacks ignore Toughness and armour, for example Giant Spiders. When this is the case, it is indicated on the Monster card.



Notice the words "when this is the case, it is indicated..."

Very many examples could be given of how this pattern continues throughout all WHQ documentation, but I would assume that the Rule Book should be sufficient to make the point. This manner of dealing with wounds and modifiers is used consistently whether the attacker or defender is a monster or a warrior, whether applied to an object (as in a weapon) or a spell, or to some other ability or event.

If I am wrong about this, I will gladly retract this post. I am just hoping to help players with this sometimes easy to misunderstand usage of terms in WHQ.

Last edited by OldWarrior, 27/Jun/2006, 3:28 pm


---
Old Warrior

Check out Bible Notes
It is one of my favorite places on the Internet.
God bless you, everyone!
23/Jun/2006, 12:00 pm Link to this post Send Email to OldWarrior   Send PM to OldWarrior Blog
 
Littlemonk Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 07-2008
Posts: 431
Reply | Quote
Re: The Issue of Damage OR Wounds


I'm surprised that this post never received a response or a discussion. I believe it was warranted!

I have just now been dealing with this aspect since i am re-creating and "correcting" many of the original Warrior rules.

I have decided to use the term "Damage" when referring to damage caused before any deductions. I am using the term "Wounds" when referring to any final result that causes Wounds to be subtracted after all deductions have been calculated.

It was actually the Dwarf Trollslayer's Rune Axe Equipment Card and the Pit Fighter's Flail Equipment Card that got me thinking about this since both of those use the term Damage and not Wounds (although their Warrior Cards are the opposite).

As you said, Old Warrior, one could argue that when the rules state that "Wounds" are caused, then they MUST be deducted from the Monster's or Player's current Wounds score AFTER any Damage has been calculated - including Large Monster ability, etc. That would make the Warriors VERY powerful indeed!

There are many instances where the rules state "after Damage has been calculated" to make sure that the players don't abuse the terminology. But i think consistently using the terminology of "Wounds" and "Damage" would be so much easier.

It might take me awhile to go back and fix every instance of this, but since i'm recreating them anyway, i figure i might as well.

---
Warhammer Quest Fanpage

Warhammer Quest Customized

19/Dec/2019, 4:58 pm Link to this post Send Email to Littlemonk   Send PM to Littlemonk
 
OldWarrior Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God

Registered: 04-2006
Location: USA, Western hemisphere, earth
Posts: 1273
Reply | Quote
Re: The Issue of Damage OR Wounds


Sounds good, Littlemonk!

I will have to visit your board again and look more closely at all you are doing. You are one of my heroes! emoticon

---
Old Warrior

Check out Bible Notes
It is one of my favorite places on the Internet.
God bless you, everyone!
20/Dec/2019, 5:30 am Link to this post Send Email to OldWarrior   Send PM to OldWarrior Blog
 
Sith Kinks Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Hero

Registered: 09-2013
Posts: 45
Reply | Quote
Re: The Issue of Damage OR Wounds


I came to the same conclusion when I first looked into it. They use the words interchangeably. I always use the term "Damage" the same as littlemonk mentions above. I can't say I've intentionally ever used the word "Wounds" to refer to net damage caused, but guess it's kind of instinctive as it is literally the number of wounds that would be removed.

What i find a bigger problem though is Strength and Toughness being used in place of damage and armour. For me a battleaxe causes +2 damage, not +2 Strength. Arguably some magic items may provide additional Strength; Ogre Slayer? Giant Slayer? Deathsword? (Oppose to a blade of slicing that actually says +2 Wounds - I consider damage!) A difference that becomes important when faced with Armour of Cursed Iron

Likewise with toughness. Bograts Crown and Crown of Impunity I consider to add +2 Toughness, but due to the lack of clarity you could argue they provide armour.
31/Dec/2019, 12:45 pm Link to this post Send Email to Sith Kinks   Send PM to Sith Kinks Blog
 


Add a reply





You are not logged in (login)