Hi guys. We've FINALLY started our Warhammer campaign, and the first real fight threw up a situation where one of the players was hit for critical damage, but the damage didn't actually get passed his soak pool. It seemed a little odd to me that you can be critically wound by an attack that doesn't pierce your armour, so I ruled then and there that to inflict criticals you need to get passed the soak value.

Wondered what you guys thought of this? Do you see the fact that you can inflict crits on those with impossible soak (not that he has, incidentally) as a way to take down them down?

Or did I mis-interpret things and this is how it's supposed to work anyway?

As an aside, if you recall a previous post, one of the players was extremely concerned that it seemed too board gamey and components heavy. Anyway, now we've started, he actually completely loves it. To the point where he's been raving about it to another group. Just goes to show that trying it can (and does) alleviate fears...

All successful "hits" cause 1 wound regardless of soak / toughness / etc. Therefore a +1 Critical will take that wound and make it a Crit. If it is a +2 Crit it will cause one Crit for the damage caused by a successful attack and an extra normal wound for the excess of critical damage.

Hope that makes sense.

Alp

Page 59 of the core rules states:

Minimum Wound Result
If the difference is zero or a negative number, the attack still inflicts one normal wound – the minimum result for a successful attack. If one or more critical damage effects are triggered when the difference is zero or a negative number, then the attack inflicts a number of normal wounds equal to the total number of critical damage effects generated.
Even if an effect is triggered that would convert normal damage into critical damage, if the only wounds inflicted are due to the minimum wound result, the wounds are all normal wounds

New Zombie said:

Brilliant - I did think it was unusual to inflict minimum damage but it be a critical. Am I right in saying that I should have inflicted TWO wounds then - one for minimum damage, plus another one as it was 'critical' damage?

Thanks for the response.

Sausageman said:

New Zombie is correct.

Use the critical's severity as the number of normal wounds inflicted, and disregard the critical hit text. Reminder, this is in the situation where the original number of wounds is less than the targets soak, such that the initial calculated damage is 0 or less.

ex. I hit Throgg for 8 damage (plus one is a critical of severity of 3), but Throgg has a soak of 9. 8-9 = -1. Normally, this would inflict only 1 wound, but since there is a critical, the number of wounds 'auto-inflicted' is equal to the severity of the critical instead of the default 1. ie 3 in this instance.

Conversely, I hit Throgg for 10 damage, 1 of which is a critical. 10-9 = 1. Throgg only takes 1 wound, but also applies the critical effects of the critical wound card.

New Zombie said:

dvang said:

Hi, where is this quoted in the rules? This sounds like an optional rule for using criticals on henchmen, but where is it stated that this is what you do for PCs when their soak is too high? I was almost completely unaware of this rule.

cheers in advance

In fact here's a complete quote from the player's guide...The term used is effects, not severity??

Minimum Wound Result

If the difference is zero or a negative number, the attack still inflicts
one normal wound—the minimum result for a successful attack. If
one or more critical damage effects are triggered when the difference
is zero or a negative number, then the attack inflicts a number
of normal wounds equal to the total number of critical damage
effects generated.

Even if an effect is triggered that would convert normal damage
into critical damage, if the only wounds inflicted are due to the
minimum wound result, the wounds are all normal wounds.

Johann hits the same orc with a basic melee attack. Johann has a
Strength of 3 and is armed with a dagger, which has a DR of 4. He
has a total damage potential of 7, and the orc still has a total damage
reduction of 7. Johann’s damage potential is reduced to 0, but he still
inflicts 1 wound on the orc due to the minimum wound result rule. If
Johann had triggered a critical damage effect, the 1 wound would still
be a normal wound. If Johann had triggered 2 critical effects, the orc
would suffer 2 normal wounds

pumpkin said:

Thanks for this, I thought I was being a complete tool there. This clearly states that it's additional wounds equal to the number of criticals inflicted, not the severity. I may dabble with both, but using the 'inflicts severity' rule, it could mean you take a HUGE amount of damage - especially if more than one critical was inflicted - even though it didn't penetrate your soak. Course, some may like this ruling, and it definitely still means fights are risky for even the hardiest of folk.

wow - i misinterpreted critical effects as severity. apologies for for the misinformation.

I disagree.

It doesn't say "...equal to the total number of critical wounds generated ...", which is what it needs to say to mean the number of criticals is what is used.

It says "...equal to the total number of critical damage effects generated ..."

A critical wound's effects are its severity and the text. While I suppose you could 'add' a wound for each textual effect that a critical has as well, it is simpler and easier to just utilize the severity of each critical.

Hey guys,

I don't want to be rude, but there are far too many threats regarding this topic. Minimum Wound Result is by far to simple rule! Don't make it difficult please.

It is well explained in the Player Guide pg 82. For those who don't have it I will make the effort to copy the fragment here.

"Minimum Wound Result

If the difference is zero or a negative number, then the attack still inflicts one normal wound - the minimum result for a successful attack. If one or more critical damage effects are triggered when the difference is zero or a negative number, then the attack inflicts a number of normal wounds equal to the total number of critical damage effects generated.

Even if an effect is triggered that would convert normal damage into critical damage, if only wounds inflicted are due to the minimum wound result, the wounds are all normal wounds.

Johan hits the same orc with a basci melee attack. Johan has a Strength of 3 and is armed with a dagger, which has a DR of 4. He has a total damage potential of 7, and the orc still has a total damage reduction of 7. Johan's damage potential is reduced to 0, but he still inflicts 1 wound on the orc due to the minimum wound result rule. If Johan had triggered a critical damage effect, the 1 wound would still be a normal wound. If Johan had triggered 2 critical effects, the orc would suffer 2 normal wounds."

And NO, "critical effect" does not mean the "Severity Rating" of the critical wound, the Severity Rating is just that, the Severity Rating of the critical wound card. "Critical effects" means just the number of critical wounds inflicted, see for example Wounds & Critical Wounds chapter in the Player's Guide (pg 86-87).

This are the official rules, of course everybody can House rule this in the way you want.

Cheers

Yepesnopes said:

i think it is a confusing rule simply because FFG have used an inconsistent term in the description. critical effect. i read it as critical severity. you read it as critical wound. having had it pointed out during this thread i can see your interpretation, that makes this thread (all the posts in it) worthwhile. i prefer my interpretation and will stick with it, call it a house rule if you prefer.

I agree with you New Zombie, and for this I apologize. It is just that this topic has been previously widely discussed in the forums. Before posting one could spend a few minutes searching to see if his question has been previously posted and answered. But it is true, that something obvious to someone can be dense and obscure to some one else. So sorry for my tone on my previous post.

Additionally, it would not hurt neither if from time to time, a developer of the game would enter the forum to give a definitive "official" answer to recurrent topics of the forums such as like the "minimum damage and critical wounds" topic posted here. Although as New Zombie said, this does not matter too much since you can always house rule things and consider that "critical effects" are the severity rating or the number of letters that compose the name of the wound.

Yepesnopes said:

New Zombie said:

This FFG Forum has the rarity of it being one of the forums I follow that doesn't erupt regularly into flame wars. Everyone seems to be helpful and kind about it. Please squires keep my forum nice and shiney, no dents in the armor.

ouch. dissecting my post to highlight me in a rally against flame wars. don't think i deserved that. makes me sad. been posting here for years in what i thought was a constructive manner.

New Zombie said:

I was actually defending you, I guess my point didn't come across when I quoted the posts?

When bolding text here, it is not very apparent. If you look really close I bolded your, "call it a house rule if you prefer". I then bolded the sarcastic response to this of, "the number of letters that compose the name of the wound".

If the bolded text was more obvious, I think the point would have gotten across better. My intention wasn't to disect your text, just pointing out the saracastic response to your text. I was highlighting the other person actually, but didn't want to point such an obvious finger (that I guess I just did now).

I wasn't trying to say this was a flame war, very far from it. I just saw the saracastic response being made (to clarify - not by you) and figured this COULD erupt into a flame war. So, I put my 2 copper pieces with my best diplomatic abilities (which are apparently poor) hoping to keep it from heading that way. I guess I should leave such to the moderators until I get an Expertise die in Diplomacy to combat the Chaos Star I must have just rolled.

You did well Sturn, I got the point. There will be no war, we will keep on playing, posting and having fun!

See you around!

dvang said:

I disagree.

I believe a critical damage effect to be an entry on an ACTION card, and nothing to do with the wound card itself.

i.e. it is an entry on the action card that says something like "does critical damage" or "+1 critical" - each of those is a critical damage effect.

so in the end you deal one normal wound for each critical you would have inflicted (turned over a normal wound) but you never actually refer to the crtical side of any wounds cards at all, IMO.

(just trying to bring the discussion back on track, now we've all made friends again....)

Mainly what pumkin says is correct. A pity although that FFG does not clarified this point in the Errata and FAQ.

Yepesnopes said:

Well, as someone that frequents the forum nigh on daily, and has done for over a year, I haven't seen this question come up previously - and judging by the responses here, it's clear people have something to say on the subject.

It also keeps the forums active, and that's no bad thing, surely?

Anyway, I have my answer, and I'm eternally grateful to those that have helped me out in it.. Thank you all.

Dear Sausageman

I already apologized for the tone of my answer to your question in this post. Actually, by the time of my answer, pumkin had already answered your question by quoting the official rules, making my post useless (my fault).

You are quoting me now, the part I said that people could spend a few minutes searching in the forums, and you claim that you have not seen this question comming up previously, here you have some examples

Soak and criticals February 2010

Can my 1st level character kill anything? (Playtest) April 2010

Overcoming high soak (Ironbraker!) May 2010

Attack, Damage and Soak January 2011

Critical versus armour May 2011

Criticals Wounds.Again June 2011

... and yet experienced forum members have learned how this rule should be applied as per the rules, and others have had an insight into other interpretations from this thread.

i for one am glad that the thread exists.

if sausageman had found those pre-existing threads then i would be poorer for it.

bear in mind that threads on FFG forums expire and are lost. there is a wealth of knowledge that we have lost. having new threads started does nothing but enrich the community here.

New Zombie said:

Meh, I'm not sorry I made it. If there are people out there that want this forum to have LESS traffic, then fine. I'm not one of them.