Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: Re: Deadly Wou
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 16:06:56 +6000
Damion wrote:
> It means that if the attacker scores one more success than his victim, then
> nothing happens. 2 and the victim has an extra light wound assesed to his
> damage track (for 11 boxes total). 4 and he gets a moderate wound (13 total).
> 6 and he cops an extra serious (16 boxes total), and 8 extra will give the
> poor sod two deadly wounds (he'd better be a troll with a high high bod to
> survive that, 20 damage boxes in one hit). I guess if you scored 10 then you
> would start again, for 21 boxes.

Why so complicated? we just have a one to one ratio between successes and
boxes. So each success after a deadly wound is one more box. There is
no reason why the extra boxes per two success should fluctuate up and
down so - 8-10 extra is an extra 4 while 10-12 is an extra one?

Phil
<Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Message no. 2
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: Re: Deadly Wou
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 13:25:01 +6000
>> Once he reaches 10 boxes of Overflow, his chums had
>> better call a street doc to see how much he'll pay them for the lump of
>> troll meat they've got on their hands.
>> Why do you think that blond went down so fast, hm?
>
> You mean she was dead ? Woa, I though I did a deadly stun and a medium
> physical :)

This reminds me if I take a serious physical wound followed by a serious
stun wound - am I unconcious (or just unlucky.. :) )

This came up after a firefight in which a bad guy took 7 boxes of physical
damage but no stun damage. does this mean that when we go over to subdue
him with stun damage (read: beat him senseless) do we have to do all 10
or just 3 boxes of stun?

Phil
<Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Message no. 3
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Deadly Wou
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 15:32:17 +0200
> This reminds me if I take a serious physical wound followed by a serious
> stun wound - am I unconcious (or just unlucky.. :) )

He has a serious physical and a serious stun. This kinda sux as you
pointed out, but after closer consideration its not that bad after all
cause the penalties are cumulative. This means that the dude has
a +6 to all his TN, and I dont think that anyone not even good'ol
Halequin could do much with a permanent +6.

> This came up after a firefight in which a bad guy took 7 boxes of physical
> damage but no stun damage. does this mean that when we go over to subdue
> him with stun damage (read: beat him senseless) do we have to do all 10
> or just 3 boxes of stun?

As I said you have to give him a deadly stun.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+>++++ L+>+++ E--- N++ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 4
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Deadly Wou
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 11:47:23 +0200
>This reminds me if I take a serious physical wound followed by a serious
>stun wound - am I unconcious (or just unlucky.. :) )

You get a +6 to all your TNs, but you're not unconcious.

>This came up after a firefight in which a bad guy took 7 boxes of physical
>damage but no stun damage. does this mean that when we go over to subdue
>him with stun damage (read: beat him senseless) do we have to do all 10
>or just 3 boxes of stun?

Since he's only taken Physical damage, his Stun track is empty -- you'd have
to do 10 boxes of Stun damage to knock him out.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Is it?
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Deadly Wou, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!