After wound threshold they're unconscious or incapacitated. The next hit can just flat out kill them, no?

True. What was I thinking?

After wound threshold they're unconscious or incapacitated. The next hit can just flat out kill them, no?

Technically it just does more damage (up to double WT) and a critical (increased by +10 per previous critical), so you may have to shoot them over and over again after they're down if you want to be sure they die.

"Dead yet?"

[weakly] "No. But I could do with some medical attention."

BLAM!

"How 'bout now?"

"No, but listen-"

BLAM!

"MY LEG! MY BEAUTIFUL LEG!"

BLAM!

"Best settle in guys, this may take a while..."

Black Knight.

The double WT max is actually a penalty for those with a high WT. Consider that a character with WT 24 will take longer to heal from being at max than a character with WT 12. If both characters are hit by a strafing TIE fighter, three stimpacks will get the guy with WT 12 back on his feet, but the guy with WT 24 can't even be brought around with five stimpacks!

It hit me when I had the players surrounded by (**** near) a garrison of troops wielding crossbows, all locked, loaded and pointed at the players, and the commander telling them to surrender. Did they surrender?

Frankly, it is good GMing practice to assume that no combat focused PC will ever willingly surrender. Use a different trope.

Sorry ErikB, but not everyone's campaigns are based on Star Wars: Clone Wars. In the Star Wars movies the main characters don't always fight to the death. They sometimes run away, or get captured.

"You can't win. But there are alternatives to fighting."

―Obi-Wan Kenobi

The double WT max is actually a penalty for those with a high WT. Consider that a character with WT 24 will take longer to heal from being at max than a character with WT 12. If both characters are hit by a strafing TIE fighter, three stimpacks will get the guy with WT 12 back on his feet, but the guy with WT 24 can't even be brought around with five stimpacks!

That's a good point, and it's something I'm not sure I'd want to handwave with, "Well, it looks like the big guy took the brunt of the attack."

In that specific scenario, I would probably fix the numbers so it doesn't look like the lightweight walks away while the big guy spends a week in Bacta. Thinking on the fly, I'd probably apply the same amount of damage to both of them by choosing one wound cap and applying that number of wounds to both. So it would be either:

1. Apply 24 damage to each of them. The lightweight hits his cap and is in for 3-4 days of bacta. The big guy limps away, but just barely. He might opt for a day or two in the tank himself.
2. Apply 48 damage to each. The big guy hits his cap and is in for 6-8 days of bacta. The lightweight fared even worse, and he'll be in the tank for 9-10 days.

That way, at least when two characters are wounded in the same blast, the wound cap isn't arbitrarily mitigating damage for low-threshold characters.

The double WT max is actually a penalty for those with a high WT. Consider that a character with WT 24 will take longer to heal from being at max than a character with WT 12. If both characters are hit by a strafing TIE fighter, three stimpacks will get the guy with WT 12 back on his feet, but the guy with WT 24 can't even be brought around with five stimpacks!

Under the "dead at double" both would be insta-killed by the Tie as it is doing 60 damage per hit.

I assumed that the implication of stopping tracking at double WT was that the character was dead, otherwise, as you say, having a higher WT has a very weird penalty to it.

How would you, as a player or GM, be with having a house rule that has instant death be the result of damage that exceeds twice a character's Wound Threshold?

Just to be clear, are you saying damage from one hit or the accumulated total of wounds?

How would you, as a player or GM, be with having a house rule that has instant death be the result of damage that exceeds twice a character's Wound Threshold?

Just to be clear, are you saying damage from one hit or the accumulated total of wounds?

How would you, as a player or GM, be with having a house rule that has instant death be the result of damage that exceeds twice a character's Wound Threshold?

I would never do this for PCs. That's what the critical system is for.

How would you, as a player or GM, be with having a house rule that has instant death be the result of damage that exceeds twice a character's Wound Threshold?

My group and I tend to play more lethal games (Hellfrost, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Cthulhu, etc...), so this element of “life” is something we all like and appreciate the nuances of…. It’s not for everybody though.

So my answer is... I'm actually alright with it provided it fits the event and story. Getting hit with a tank should be instant death, otherwise what good are tanks? Anything less does a disservice to the game. Death is a real thing, and provides an element of realism to the game. (I fully know it's a fake game, but we try to keep some constants in it).

I'm not saying a GM should get all George R.R. Martian, or Robert Kirkman, but if it happens I don't shy away from it.

That said, I take a lot of things into account here. 1) The player isn't acting like an idiot. 2) If the player goes down (acting in character), I actually still provide the xp for the session and allow the player's new character to come in with the same amount of total xp the dead one had, providing that's what the player would like (you'd be surprised how many don't take that offer because they want to start "new"). That keeps the group, semi-fresh, and interesting, it also keeps my players thinking and cautious, as they should be while poking hutts.

The rim, is a death sentence, the success stories are few and far between. Not many "moral compus'" make it out alive. As an element of the game, the players are regularly stepping into the ring with cartels/gangs/mafia types. No matter what you do in the game, you end up ticking off one side or the other and these aren't people to trifle with.

Anyway, as noted, it works for us, but wont for everyone. If you're a GM/player interested in this type of game, I highly recommend you speak with your table and see what they want/like.