Serious Injuries and how they interact

Several situations.

1. Your model has a Hand Injury, then subsequently loses an arm to amputation. Can you eliminate the hand injury? The rule book never says to determine which hand was injured.

2. If answer to above question is 'yes' or 'maybe, roll to see which hand had been injured' then what happens if you get a Multiple Injuries roll, and get both a amputated arm and a Hand Injury at same time?

I think the reason it is never determined which hand is injuried in the rulebook is because it would cause all sorts of problems trying to keep track of which hand was using what weapon, and having different weapon skills for different attacks, players claiming only one of their attacks needed to be dealt by the injured hand (the +1 for second weapon) and rest were from good hand, problems then handling models like possessed or ghoul heroes who have multiple attacks but not weapons, etc. Easier to just say the -1 WS applies to all attacks no matter what happens later.

3. Blinded in One Eye tells you to determine which eye. Does that mean if you get the result Blinded in one eye, you again determine randomly which eye? Can you be blinded in the same eye twice? Do you lose 2 BS and still keep the hero, since he's 'just a bit more blinded' in one eye? Or does being blinded in the same eye yield a null result on Serious Injury chart. Or, does rolling a second Blinded in One Eye mean an automatic complete blindeness and dismissal from warband.

Personally, I think it should be two of those results and the hero is gone. The way the rulebook states it however, seems like you could make a really good case that you could potentially get two Blinded in One Eye result and still have a viable warrior.

In the first instance, we determine after the arm is lost whether or not you also lost the hand-injury. Just roll a dice and on a 4+ you lost the injury too. We found this a good compromise between realism and book-keeping avoidance. Roll seperately for each hand injury the model has suffered.

For the eye thing, we play that the second result always blinds the model.

Where as I see what you are saying fluff-wise but I tend to think that a flaw shouldn't counter another flaw. If you house ruled it then that is cool. But I would think that you should stack the flaws, not use a flaw to remove another flaw.

The blinded rule is poorly worded, we have always played that if you rolled blinded twice then you have to retire the model. The odds on that are pretty slim about 0.027778 or 2.8% a little less than 28 out of 1,000 of getting the blinded result on an injury per roll on the injury chart. So getting it twice would be about 0.000772 or 0.077% or a little over 77 out of 100,000. The odds increase with more injusries, and if you factor in the multiple-injury result that could lead to a serious a blinded in one eye result (add a change of about 0.0015 per extra roll) I could calculate it out, but it would take a while. I would have to calculate the odds of all the possible out comes then add them together.

No one has bothered to ask which hand was injured in in 10 yrs. (Except for modeling purposes, we likes the hook hands matey. Yarr!) Logic wise I fail to see how losing the injured arm would IMPROVE a warrior's skill at weapons since the fighter would have to at least adjust his fighting style to compensate for the loss of the limb.

Some players will argue that if the amputated apendage or lost eye is lost again that this is the same as ignoring a killed result when rolling for multiple injuries. The injury has already been sufferred so the warrior should either ignore the injury (full recovery) or re-roll it. (I've heard it argued either way.) These arguements generally result in an improptue vote by the players within earshot who were paying attention (or not). So far no one has won the appeal.

Our campaigns have suffered numerous blinded warriors in the last 10 yrs. The oddest, which I sort of regret was a skeleton hero who suffered the blinded result in both eyes in less than a months time. Probably should have allowed the blind skeleton...

Von Kurst wrote:

Our campaigns have suffered numerous blinded warriors in the last 10 yrs. The oddest, which I sort of regret was a skeleton hero who suffered the blinded result in both eyes in less than a months time. Probably should have allowed the blind skeleton...

A blinded skeleton, that's hilarious. Skeletons shoud have a special rule ignoring blinded results since they have no fleshy parts left.

I would add Mummies and vampires to the list although I do think they should lose Balistic Skill all the same. I do think a blind vampire would be a terror.

If you roll the 'blinded in one eye' result twice then the warrior should be retired.

For warriors that don't see through eyes (such as the examples mentioned or the Augur in the Sisters of Sigmar warband), Da Bank said that this result should simply be treated as some sort of head injury and that a second result obviously doesn't blind the warrior but still requires the warrior who doesn't see to be retired from the warband.

I agree with Von Kurst in regards to the hand injury and arm amputation. If having a hand injury reduces the Weapon Skill by -1 then losing the entire arm with the injured hand isn't going to make the warrior a better fighter and so it makes no sense to raise the Weapon Skill back up by +1.

Although, interestingly, losing an arm that didn't already have a wounded hand doesn't drop your weapon skill. So, you have two warriors who both lose an arm during a fight, and the one who had previously lost a couple of fingers off of that hand is a less skilled fighter than the other fellow, even though both are equally handicapped. Kinda weird, when you think about it. So it is best not to think about it. One of the things I like about Mordheim is that the rules are not overly complicated.