Augur and 'Blinded on one eye'

The topic pretty much explains... My Augur rolled blinded on one eye on the serious injury chart.. How to explain? Would your group re-roll it or make up some explanation that her face was smashed and thus Sigmar likes her less?

Lucky you I would say

I think that cause she is already blind it does not effect her.

Treat it as a head injury instead. The first time gives -1 BS still and if the Augur is injured again in the same place (e.g. twice in the 'right eye' 'right side of the head') then the Augur is too badly wounded and should be removed from the warband. I think that I remember this is the approach recommended by Da Bank (unfortunutely I cannot find any thread where he answered although did find a thread on the Mordheim email group http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/mordheim/message/47646).

Basically this is streching the fluff but keeps to the rules which avoids upsetting balance.

I know its come up before, but that's about it. Perhaps in the thread asking if multiple injuries stack?

RationalLemming'sanswer is, well, rational.

Alternatively, just is the vampire is immune to the Frenzy/Stoopid result on the serious injury table, you could say she is simply immune to this result. One eye was destroyed. Since she was blind, no biggie.

It has never come up in our games (the vampire one has, though), but I except we would treat it as a full recovery.

The Auger getting blinded has come up for us, but we always apply Madness to the Vampire despite his rule of being immune to Psychology. A drooling idiot or raving maniac vampire is too good to pass up. One of the changes I like in Warhammer is that immune to Psychology has been replaced with 'immune to Fear and Terror.'

With the Auger we treated it as a full recovery. Better watch what I say though since Playtable is fielding Sisters this round so its bound to come up.

While a Vampire being immune to the Frenzy/Stupid result on the serious injury table is a rules-explanation, an augur being immune to blindness is a fluff-explanation. Blinded in one eye is a result I really really dislike to roll, because if rolled again, the charakter can be gone quickly. So just making the augur immune to it is an advantage too big imo. I'd prefer RationalLemming's solution by just naming the result differently.

I've been playing Mordheim since it came out, and I don't think I have ever had a character hit that result twice. (Of course, now that I have said that, it will probably happen to someone in the next few games).

mweaver wrote:

Alternatively, just is the vampire is immune to the Frenzy/Stoopid result on the serious injury table, you could say she is simply immune to this result. One eye was destroyed. Since she was blind, no biggie.

This. If you have the advantage, it should not be taken away because of poorly written rules, and greedy players that want to imply their own logics on the game mechanics.

I'm inclined to agree with Rational. I believe that is the correct application for the effect.

Unless I am mistaken, if you roll the result twice (which is highly improbable in a campaign) then your blinded character gets pensioned off immediately! Regular Heroes are not hardcore, like Eltharion.

Regards,

Werekin

We've actually had an augur receive "blinded in one eye" twice in the same campaign before!

Little anecdote aside, I think RAW you can assume that the augur suffered some similar injury with the same effect, the way RationalLemming describes it, and just play it that way.

For our purposes, we house-ruled that she is immune to being blinded, but it's just that - a house rule. I don't think it gives her too big of an advantage because a) retirement by way of rolling "blinded in one eye" is such a rare way to go that immunity to it really isn't game-breaking, and b) she's only 1 member of 1 warband.