BIV Query

[Molotov]

Hello Conclavers,

I realise this is a very basic question, but who better to ask? My group has had a bit of confusion over the Base Injury Value recently, and I just wanted to clarify it.

For the purposes of this thread, let us assume a character with a BIV of 7. Let us assume he is constantly and consistently being shot in the arm by another model.

If in one shot, the character sustains 1-7 points of damage, they are lightly wounded. If the character sustains 8-14 points of damage in one hit, they are heavily wounded. That much I'm completely clear about.

What we're a little uncertain of is this - if the character is wounded once for 1 point of damage, and then is considered to be lightly wounded, and is then wounded again for 1 point of damage, are they heavily wounded? Can you cripple a location by shooting it five times for one point of damage, whereas one shot of five points wouldn't get over its BIV value?

[Kasthan]

As I understand the damage caused has to be equal to or greater than the base injury value.

With your example the character would need to take 7 pts of damage to receive a light injury, if they took 14 damage this would cause a heavy injury, cont.

Damage is also added to their over all injury total as a tally or count.

Each hit counts as a separate attack. However if a location is on, for example, a light injury the next attack that takes it over the base injury value will take it up to the next level, in this example a heavy injury.

After each hit that causes a injury value to be reached apply the affect.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
 

[MarcoSkoll]

Sorry Kasthan, it's Molotov who's got it right. To quote from the Injury section of the rulebook:

If a hit inflicts damage up to the character's Base Injury value it does one level of damage, if it inflicts damage up to twice their Base Injury value it does two levels of damage, and so on.
(Example: Shyloque has Toughness 62, and so has a Base Injury value of 6. A bolter hit does 13 Damage points to his chest. The first 6 points of damage inflict a light wound whilst the second 6 Damage points take this up to a heavy wound and the remaining 1 Damage point knocks this over into a serious wound.)

As such, five hits of one damage each can cripple a location.

Of course, that's a pretty unlikely situation, and if a character taking a number of very minor hits to the same location happens in a game I was running, I'd usually step in after a while and fudge it a bit. After all, the GM is meant to deal with when the game throws up odd or unlikely situations.

[Kasthan]

But the rules statement says 'damage up to' and 'twice', however this could be typical GW with poorly written rules (at least this game is not RAW and competitive). And I did have the rule book in front of me before posting.

However the example is more in-line with yours and Molotov's point.   

[Kaled]

Yep, Marco is correct. I never thought that rule was poorly written, it seems pretty clear to me, yet I've come across quite a few people who get it wrong. And then of course there are the people who house rule injury to work differently -which occasionaly causes confusion at Conclave events...

[RobSkib]

I have to say Kasthan, I've played Inquisitor since it came out and have played more games since then than I've had hot meals and I have to say I'm with you. I too was under the impression that a BIV of 7 means 0-6 damage = nothing, 7-13 = light, 14-20 heavy and so on. It wasn't until Games Day a few years back (the one PO ran on that cool catacomb maze board) that I learnt the error of my ways, but TBH I still play that way. It's only at the Conclave events that I revert back to the "pew pew dead" rules of current.

But hey, we're a weird minority

[Alyster Wick]

I've generally played the RobSkib/Kasthan method, and I do think that the rulebook (somehow) managed to make it more ambiguous than I would imagine possible for something so tied to numbers.  They could easily have fixed it with a more complete example (saying "The first 6 points of damage inflict a light wound" could easily mean that it takes a full 6 points of damage to cause that wound rather than saying "the 1st point of damage causes a light wound, the 7th point pushes it into heavy and the 13th makes it serious"). 

That said, considering this is a game that's impossible to play without liberal fudging and house rules are the norm I would just say to play what you like.  I personally think the Marco/Kaled/Molotov way of playing makes the recovery phase more relevant, makes players more cautious and ads realism (if you get shot or take a glancing knife blow it's gonna leave a mark).

[Kaled]

The other thing I've seen people do in relation to injury is to track the injury total by location, rather then as a single number, but I can't remember the rationale behind that system...

[Kasthan]

That is a weird one for it is very clear in the rule book not to do that.

Rule book (electronic version): it is only the injury level which needs to be recorded on a location, not the individual Damage points inflicted.

[Kaled]

I forget who was doing that; maybe they'll post and tell us the reasoning for that house rule.

When it comes to the Spring Conclave we'll be using the rules in the online rulebook - however as always GMs are free to change things if they see fit...

[precinctomega]

If a hit inflicts damage up to the character’s Base Injury value it does one level of damage, if it inflicts damage up to twice their Base Injury value it does two levels of damage, and so on.

What's ambiguous about that?

The ambiguity in the LRB lies in the use of the terms "damage" and "injury" almost interchangeably.  The rules don't change substantially in INQ2, but "injury" refers to location effects, whilst "damage" refers to the running total.

R.

[Alyster Wick]

What's ambiguous about that?

The part that says "If a hit inflicts damage up to the character's Base Injury value it does one level of damage," is ambiguous.  It could easily be argued that "damage up to the character's Base Injury value" refers to damage at or above the character's BIV without covering damage that is less than the BIV. 

I think a closer reading of the overall rules offers clarity but I do think it falls short of concretely saying damage 1 through BIV results in one level of Injury, damage BIV+1 through BIVx2 results in 2 levels of Injury, damage (BIVx2)+1 through BIVx3 results in 3 levels etc. 

Again, I was a high school student with the attention span of a horse fly when I started playing Inquisitor and once I thought I had an understanding of the rules I never looked back to check on the basics.  I think clearly your interpretation is correct PO, but the rule book could certainly have phrased it more concretely.

[MarcoSkoll]

I can't really see how "damage up to the BIV" can be read as not including damage below the BIV. What else does "up to" (in this context) mean but including all the values below?

The only ambiguity I could see, at least without the example, would be whether "up to" was inclusive or not - in other words, whether 6 or 7 damage is needed to inflict two levels of injury on a BIV 6 character.
(The example nicely sets it out as inclusive, so you need to exceed the BIV, not just equal it, to cause two levels of injury.)

The other thing I've seen people do in relation to injury is to track the injury total by location

Yeah, I've seen that one too. It was done by the guys who I first saw playing Inquisitor (and thus the people that inspired me to get involved), and it left me a little confused when I first read my own rulebook, but I eventually* worked out that they'd made the mistake, not me.

*Hey, I was twelve at the time. I wasn't possessed of quite the same mental agility that I have today.

[Alyster Wick]

The problem is that "up to" can be modified heavily by saying "up to and including" or "at least up to."

I'm not arguing that a close reading reveals the intent, but I'm guessing that the common (and you have to admit it is very common) misreading has its roots in the belief that an injury level shouldn't be taken every time damage is incurred.  It's a bit of willful ignorance and I still maintain that while the rule book's intent is relatively clear there are ways of describing how BIV works that would be non-debatable.  My proof of this is in the common misreading that many gamers hold on BIV (and the fact that this isn't the first nor the last time it will probably come up).

[InquisitorHeidfeld]

Up to or up to and including Isn't a vastly important distinction TBH and it certainly doesn't lead to the situation where it's impossible to kill someong with reasonably high toughness with a knife unless you're Hercules or Hector...

In the first instance a character with a BIV of 7 would take one level from attacks causing 1-6 damage, 2 levels for 7-13 and so on because 1-6 < 7.
In the second they would take one level from attacks causing 1-7 damage, 2 levels from 8-14 and so on...

The ambiguity is minor and doesn't vastly impact things... It is then clarified in the worked example and the ambiguity disappears.