S4 was WRONG about CT Combat!

[Supplement Four]

Well, I've never been one to hide when I found out I was incorrect about something I strongly believed. I figured those who were on the other side of the argument might get a kick out of this, so...Hans, Wil, Dan...for your viewing pleasure...


S4 was....wrong. I was WRONG. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Someone opens the door? I saw, "Wrong." Someone skoots down the hill? Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I was wrong. I've been wrong. I said it wrongly.

WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

Oh yeah, baby, I was sooooooo wrrooooonnnnngggg!

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.



Well, as it turns out, not that wrong.

After speaking with DonM, I was actually correct, but only about a single combat. Snapshot, even, is correct. But, Snapshot is used as a single combat.

In between combat, Dan and Wil and Hans are correct. Wounds are "reset" to their wounded levels, even though there's not a single word in the rules that instruct one to do this.

But, the clarifications are taking care of that.

On a trifecta of "rights", Dan, it turns out, is also correct about the use of the First Blood rule. According to Marc and the CT clarifications/errata, the rule is applied at the beginning of every combat--and not at the first time the character is wounded (as the rule reads).



I want to say that I'm glad I was wrong about the Wounding. I, too, think this is a better way of handling the situation. I would play it this way in my game too. I didn't state that before because I wasn't trying to speak about my personal preferences. I was only interested in how The Traveller Book read. Now, as the dust has cleared, I can say that I actually prefer the method that Wil and Hans and Dan were advocating. I do think it makes sense. I just didn't think that's the way the rules read.

As for the First Blood rule, though, I'm not sure I'm crazy about the artificial way the first wound in a combat can be so much more deadly than any other wound. I was sure I was correct with that one. The way Marc has it seems a bit "mechanic-y" to me.

But, hey, the decisions are out, and I lost on that one, too.



Yep, I was wrong.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Wrong about this. Wrong about that.

Wrong when I look up. Wrong when I look left.

Wrong about standing up. Wrong about sitting down.

Wrong with a upside down frown.

Wrong.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Wrong.

Yep, I was wrong.

Hell, I'm still, wrong.

I'm gonna be wrong.

Not Nancy Wong.

But, wrong.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Oh, so wrong.

Wrong.


Wrong.

 

[rust]

Well, I have to admit that I am glad.

Not because you were wrong, of course. Only because - in my view - the
clarification makes sense and makes CT combat a little more realistic, and
makes it a little bit easier for me to convince the players that Traveller com-
bat is meant to be as deadly as I intend to make it in our upcoming guerilla
war campaign (although that one uses MGT).

So, thank you very much for bringing up the subject.

 

[Supplement Four]

Well, I have to admit that I am glad.

As I state above, I'm glad too. I preferred the Hans/Wil/Dan take on things. I just didn't think that's how the rules read. I wasn't interested in how the game should be played. I was interested in what the CT rules actually said.

I think I said that a few times in the thread that was closed, too.

But, yes, I'm glad that the rules actually read the way I want them to--not how I thought they did.

The only think I don't quite agree with, because it feels a little too "mechanic-y" to me, is the clarification on the First Blood rule. I think I will house rule that one in my game to go the way I thought it read in the book: That the rule is applied the first time the character is wounded and not on each first round of each new combat.

 

[rust]

The only think I don't quite agree with, because it feels a little too "mechanic-y" to me, is the clarification on the First Blood rule. I think I will house rule that one in my game to go the way I thought it read in the book: That the rule is applied the first time the character is wounded and not on each first round of each new combat.

Yep, that one is a bit harsh.

For example, our new campaign will start with a kind of "Long March", with
the characters as members of an independence movement fleeing several
hundred kilometers through the forest to the mountains to avoid arrest and
execution, searched and hunted by the government forces.

I want to make that adventure very hard for the characters, but I also want
at least some of them to survive and to become guerilla fighters, and if I use
the First Blood rule as clarified the characters' chances to survive the adven-
ture (several skirmishes, no time to rest, almost no medical care ...) would be
almost nil.

 

[far-trader]

The only think I don't quite agree with, because it feels a little too "mechanic-y" to me, is the clarification on the First Blood rule. I think I will house rule that one in my game to go the way I thought it read in the book: That the rule is applied the first time the character is wounded and not on each first round of each new combat.

It's not a bad way to go. Retains the deadliness of that first contact but doesn't make a secondary contact a probable game killer.

The link to a 3D discussion in another thread had one poster there waxing nostalgic about how they rolled so many characters because they died every ten minutes in the game since combat was so deadly. I think they may have been applying the First Blood reset a little too liberally in/for a (I presume) more combat oriented game. Traveller, while dealing with combat, is geared to avoiding it if possible. Yeah, never really worked in our games either

I'd probably not change the rule though. May I offer S4 I would simply be very careful about where to draw the line between combats. I'd say as long as your character is still in fear of immediate combat they are still in combat (but apply a fatigue rule to how long that can last before your character is drained and exhausted).* A unit relieved and sent to the rear would be out of combat but one still under threat and holding ground could still be considered in the same combat. A unit retreating orderly might still be considered in the same combat until they feel they have disengaged. A unit routed and fleeing (failed morale maybe) could probably be considered out of combat and if it came under fire again would be treated as a new combat, and they'd be cut to ribbons.

And of course I'd point out until the players "got it" that combat is deadly at the best of times, and a killer if you're already wounded. Then mention they should always have a medic, some advanced drugs and kit, and patience, if they intend to get into firefights routinely.

* I think, based on some accounts of battle I've read and seen portrayed, I'd probably make it as long as hours, maybe 1 hour per End. Some extended firefights I've read were that long with little relief for those involved. Though not under continuous fire they were under threat of being overrun or an attack at any moment and managed to maintain their alertness, composure, and battle readiness; even the wounded. I'd even allow the treatment of injuries within that and still allow just the initial First Blood, until the circumstances changed (as outlined above) or exhaustion finally kicked in.

 

[Gadrin]

Q: "Why did you stop playing Traveller ?"

A: "We had six players. Two characters died in char-gen, three more
died in the first firefight. Fred's PC lived but was wounded and is already
120 days behind on the crushing debt trying to payoff his starship, from
his hospital stay."

:rofl:

>

 

[Supplement Four]

It's not a bad way to go. Retains the deadliness of that first contact but doesn't make a secondary contact a probable game killer.

Still, it's very "mechanic-y". Logic and real life doesn't fit it well. I can see players, new to Traveller, asking, "Now...why is it the first blood rule is used on EVERY first round of EVERY combat?"

I think the rule would be better suited if a random element were put into place--like rolling a "20" in D&D. A GM could houserule, say, that the First Bood rule is used whenever boxcars are thrown on the attack dice.

If one wanted to make even more deadly, use the rule everytime doubles are thrown and the attack is successful.

That random element makes more sense than the automatic applying of the rule every time combat starts.

Traveller, while dealing with combat, is geared to avoiding it if possible.

The goal, at least in my game, is to get into a lot of firefights, because they're fun...yet make it so the players still respect combat.

Avoiding combat ain't always fun, and the game is supposed to be fun.

I strive for a feel akin to that in the newest James Bond movies or in the Bourne movies. I want action that is a bit over the top that also seems realistic.

What I don't want is silly action like the older James Bond movies or in the prequel Star Wars movies or in the second Mission Impossible movie. That's too "super-hero" for me.

I want a balance that allows for lots of firefights with the firefights still seeming realistic.

May I offer S4 I would simply be very careful about where to draw the line between combats.

It's not ambiguous when one fight ends and another begins, is it?

I mean, if you're still fighting the same people, and you've never broke from them, it's the same combat even if you've moved from combat rounds to rpg scenes back to combat rounds.

If some significant time passes and you run into the same combatants again a day later, then it's a new combat.

 

[rancke]

Q: "Why did you stop playing Traveller ?"

A: "We had six players. Two characters died in char-gen, three more
died in the first firefight. Fred's PC lived but was wounded and is already
120 days behind on the crushing debt trying to payoff his starship, from
his hospital stay."

It's not that combat shouldn't be deadly. It's that in order to accurately emulate the fictional (and factional) stories that action/adventure roleplaying is based on, player characters should, somehow, survive 1-in-100 risks 9 times out of 10 (or more).

The exact distortion of the odds in favor of PCs is open for debate, but there really has to be some way to emulate the fact that protagonists of fiction (usually) have the author on their side and that real life accounts usually deal with the one in a thousand who survived the 1-in-1000 odds. Otherwise you either get unrealistically cautious heroes or unrealistically dead heroes.



Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

Besides randomizing the First Blood Rule (Critical Hit Rule) as mentioned above, I've been thinking of another house rule to use in the game.

I think rpgs aren't as interesting to play when the players automatically know the outcome of a throw. Classic Traveller is like this. The players roll an attack, and they instantly know if they've hit or not.

Do that, and some of the drama is lost in the game.

I remember old D&D games where I, as DM, wouldn't tell the players what their opponent's AC was. They'd roll to hit, and the hang on my every word to find out what happened.

Of course, I'd take that time to make the game dramatic and draw their imaginations into the world. I wouldn't say simply, "You hit. Roll damage." I'd say stuff like, "You raise your bow and knock back an arrow. You hold it a long while, aiming down the shaft. Just as you start to feel some strain in your fingers through the leather in your gloves, you let loose. The arrow shots across the field, almost too fast to see and implants itself in the Orc's neck. Blood spurts out. He drops his club, both hands flailing for the shaft. He drops to his knee, then collapses."

Going into that is a bit of a waist of time if the player already knew he hit and killed the target. But, keep the player hanging, waiting for your words on what happened, and you've got him.

The game is so much more enjoyable this way.



Now, I've tried stuff in the past to bring this to Traveller. For example, I wouldn't tell the player the type of armor the target was wearing unless it was immediately obvious (is that cloth armor? Or some type of leather? I can't tell). If the player didn't know the range, I wouldn't tell him the modifiers. Stuff like this--I'd just apply the negative DMs to the total of the throw, keeping it secret whether the player rolled 8+ or not.

Still, that's a bit clunky, and too often, players do know range and can see the target is in cloth or combat armor or jack.

I've got a neat idea, though, that I've used in several other games. I use it now in my d20 Conan game.

The random to-hit throw is matched against a random defense throw.

It works like this...



Attacker throws 2D:

DMs
...DEX Bonus/Penalty
...Weapon Skill
...Draw Penalty
...Vision Penalty



Then, the Defender throws defense 2D:

DMs
...Armor DM
...Range DM
...Evade DM
...Cover DM


I've turned the static 2D for 8+ throw into a dynamic opposed throw. The average on 2D is 7. So, the attack throw, in order to score a hit, must beat the defense throw (rolling an 8+, on average). But, note, any roll 3+ can score a hit, depending on the Defense throw.

Note that this system provides the exact same results, statistically, as Traveller RAW. On average, an 8+ throw is needed to hit.

Here's an example:

The Mercenary Second Officer (shown on pg. 30 of the Traveller Book) fires his Carbine at the ex-Naval character (also shown on pg. 30).

Attacker throws to-hit:

2D: 6, 4 = 10

+1 Carbine-1
+0 DEX bonus

Total Attack: 11



Then, the Naval character gets a defense throw.

2D: 3, 2 = 5

-2 No Armor
+2 Medium Range
+4 Under Cover

Total Defense: 9

So, the attack is successful and damage is thrown.



When I've used this type of thing in other games, the players have loved it. Yes, it's another throw that you may think would bog a game down. But, it doesn't bog a game down because the throw is important. The player is throwing for his life. He's sweating it. His defense throw has got to at least tie the attack, or his character is wounded.

Just a house rule suggestion to liven up games.

You may want to give it a try.

I find it makes fist fights quite fun, too.

 

[beowulf2044]

The rule that keeps the PC's having their bonus for STR and DEX while being shot up does keep the current fight moving along, but it does seem counter intuative to being wounded while in combat. The only fix I've used includes the 'roll under' type of skill use, where PC's add their skill bonus to their governing characteristic.

As an example, a Dex 9 PC with Handgun-2 has a ceiling of 11 to roll under (number of dice used depends upon difficulty). If the PC takes a 5 point wound, then on their next shot, they'd have a ceiling of 6 to roll under.

This takes wounds into account during combat, but I know many people do not care for the 'roll under' style of play.

 

[far-trader]

Still, it's very "mechanic-y". Logic and real life doesn't fit it well. I can see players, new to Traveller, asking, "Now...why is it the first blood rule is used on EVERY first round of EVERY combat?"

I don't see it as mechanic-y (I'm not quite sure what you mean though, so maybe you could clarify that?). Feels real and logical enough for me. Anyway here's how I answer that question...

It's shock and trauma. Your body is just minding it's own business, not a care in the world when suddenly... OW!! PAIN!! And suddenly your body is not in a happy place. After that first shock you're a little inured to further injury as your body is pumping adrenalin and happy mighty morphins. At least for a while. And that first shock may be enough to put you out, or kill you. Or it may only tick you off. After a while though, you calm down, your body runs out of chemical response and you begin to realize you're lucky to be alive and conscious. But it would be smart not to get hurt again and start that shock and trauma cycle again, especially as your body is probably low on the counter chemical responses. Best to heal up first.

I think the rule would be better suited if a random element were put into place--like rolling a "20" in D&D. A GM could houserule, say, that the First Bood rule is used whenever boxcars are thrown on the attack dice.

If I were to go anywhere down this road (and I wouldn't to be clear), I'd not make it based on the to hit. It should more be tied to damage. Like on a damage roll of 6 or more apply the First Blood rule for the shock effect. BUT, it's already factored in that way anyway. Think about it, a hit for little damage, say 3 points, is not likely to be a serious shock, and applied as a First Blood hit it will reflect that in the very unlikely event that it will reduce any characteristic to zero. While a lot of damage, say 12 points, is a serious shock and will very likely reduce a characteristic to zero. It works, imo.

Random personality "Well yeah but what if I get hit for 1 damage and First Blood for it and THEN I get hit for a serious 15 points of damage. Isn't that the bigger shock? Why do I get to decided how to split that damage?" Becuase the first shock, as mild as it was, is still enough to kick in the response of your body to the sudden injury. The subsequent injury while greater is not as incapacitating as your pumped up with mighty morphines and adrenaline.

Of course this is all predicated on another point of our disagreement. Is every damage assignment an actual cut or bullet penetration. I say yes, you were saying no. It's harder to rationalize if you think it isn't. My explanation doesn't work then.

The goal, at least in my game, is to get into a lot of firefights, because they're fun...yet make it so the players still respect combat.

That sounds like a hard line to walk When in doubt always go for what's fun for your group of course. But to me calling combat fun and deadly is an impossible goal. The two sets have no overlap. In D&D combat is fun (and rarely deadly). In Traveller combat is deadly (and never fun, exciting yes).

Your games sound more like Heroic while I prefer (and have always imagined Traveller is) the more Anyman reality. To use your movie analogy... like old Westerns (where if you got shot you didn't go flying backwards through the saloon window from the blowback and you generally died when you got shot).

It's not ambiguous when one fight ends and another begins, is it?

I think it is Hence my outlined circumstances, which are just my interpretation of course. The ambiguity means others might see different breakdowns. And that's a good thing, it helps tailor the deadliness while maintaining believeability. It will take some study to get a feel for what the reality is so you know how far from the line to stray. In your case, you want more heroics so you stretch the reality of it as much as required. Knowing the limits will help explain it. Perhaps Bond is special (and your player's characters share the trait) and recovers more quickly or has more capacity for pain response. Or simply a higher threshold of pain so he can ignore a level of damage for the purposes of First Blood.

I mean, if you're still fighting the same people, and you've never broke from them, it's the same combat even if you've moved from combat rounds to rpg scenes back to combat rounds.

Possibly. What kind of rpg scene?

A recall to a forward base for a quick (minutes) debriefing or report and then a run back to the line? A mad transport of wounded to the nearby field hospital and quick chat with a nurse before going back into the trenches? I'd call both of those a break in the combat.

A minutes long balling out by your superior for falling back from the assault while the enemy still fires over your head as you stand in the trench, ending with her telling you to jump up and do it again? A few minutes lying in a shell hole after charging half-way to the enemy line, you and your buddy sharing a quick smoke before jumping up to continue the assault. I call both of those the same combat.

If some significant time passes and you run into the same combatants again a day later, then it's a new combat.

Again it depends.

You are engaged by the enemy and fall back (orderly) as they follow and harrass. You retreat to defensive position later in the day and the enemy presses the attack again. Same combat in my opinion.

You are engage by the enemy and they fall back (orderly) and you hold the ground and dig in. Later that night after the occassional feint and sporadic unaimed fire from the enemy, they rush you in the dark. You've been expecting, even anticipating this all day. Still the same combat in my opinion, though some of you men may be near exhaustion.

Yes, there is much room for tailored calls on when one combat engagement ends and another begins imo.

 

[Supplement Four]

Another tweak I'm considering is to have Minor Wound heal much faster than indicated in the book.

Two stats at zero indicates a Serious Wound--a gunshot wound, deep stab, internal injury, and the like.

So, anything else can be minimized, allowing the character to get back to full health quickly. The game even allows this in 30 min if the character is seen by a medic.

If not seen by a medic, healing takes 3 days, by the book.



What I suggest is this (we're talking about Minor Wounds only)...

After the fight, put wounded stats at half way between their wounded level and full health level, just as if the character were revived from unconsciousness.

Then, have the character throw 2D for END or less every hour. A successful check means the character heals to full health (no waiting three days to be set back to full health).

Just a thought for more action-oriented games.

 

[Supplement Four]

I don't see it as mechanic-y (I'm not quite sure what you mean though, so maybe you could clarify that?).

Mechanic-y = Seemingly required by the game for purely mechanical reasons; the reasoning behind the rule is strictly from a mechanics perspective and not to model real life or apply logic.

For example, in AD&D 2nd edition, a Cleric cannot use a dagger or a longsword. This is more to balance the classes mechanically than it is to represent any logical reason in the game world.

If I were to go anywhere down this road (and I wouldn't to be clear), I'd not make it based on the to hit. It should more be tied to damage.

Perhaps. But a critical hit being 3 points or 18 should be possible.

Of course this is all predicated on another point of our disagreement. Is every damage assignment an actual cut or bullent penetration.

You say "Yes." Every successful attack from a gun means the target was hit with that bullet.

If that's the case, then the Traveller universe has some pretty weak bullets in those guns. Maybe they're made of rubber?


I'll show you this mathematically.

Average stats are 777.

Average damage is 3D, which averages to 10 points.

On average, the First Blood rule will knock somebody UNCONSCIOUS.

That person is 100% well in 30 minutes if seen by a Medic-1.



So, if we stick by your assessment--that every attack successful attack throw from a gun means that the bullets fired connect with the target--then, on average, a gunshot wound will do no more damage than to knock a victim unconscious for 10 min, and the bullet hole will be healed 100% in 30 min if the victim is treated by a paramedic.

Does that sound logical to you?

 

[far-trader]

So, if we stick by your assessment--that every attack successful attack throw from a gun means that the bullets fired connect with the target--then, on average, a gunshot wound will do no more damage than to knock a victim unconscious for 10 min, and the bullet hole will be healed 100% in 30 min if the victim is treated by a paramedic.

Not quite.

That one average gunshot wound may be a flesh hit, a clean through and through, and it only knocks you unconscious from the effects.

But in the scheme of things rather than seeing two or three such consecutive hits as all the same through and throughs (in which case you should still be only just unconscious with no more damage than the first) some are vital hits and you are seriously wounded or killed (as the addition of wound damage points models).

 

[Supplement Four]

Not quite.

That one average gunshot wound may be a flesh hit, a clean through and through, and it only knocks you unconscious from the effects.

You say "may be a flesh hit". I'm talking about the average hit--what's likely to happen, on average, when a character at full health is shot in this game.

Statistically, he's likely to be knocked unconscious rather than any other result.



Let me put this another way.

You've got a Carbine with 10 rounds.

Standing out in field, not too far away, are 10 prisoners, blindfolded. You've got an 100% chance to hit each of them. Each of the prisoners have average stats of 777777.

The MOST damage you can do is knock them unconscious with a serious wound, but it is MOST LIKELY that you'll only knock them unconscious (Minor Wound).

It is impossible for you to kill them with single bullet. Even if you hit them in the head or the heart.

And, it is MOST LIKELY, that each prisoner you hit will be 100% healed in half an hour if a paramedic treats them.



Given that, you still think that each of those men was struck with a bullet? None were killed. Most were knocked out?

And, even if they did suffer a flesh wound from a graze--a flesh wound would not heal, good as new, in only half an hour.



So...the logical thing to do is to dictate wounds in Classic Traveller based on damage and not on a successful attack throw.

Obviously, a successful attack throw does not necessarily mean that a bullet struck the target--if that were true, then there should have been a chance that some of the prisoners in the example above would have been shot dead (and, there's a 100% chance that they all will live, even if successfully attacked once).

 

[far-trader]

Let me put this another way.

You've got a Carbine with 10 rounds.

Standing out in field, not too far away, are 10 prisoners, blindfolded. You've got an 100% chance to hit each of them. Each of the prisoners have average stats of 777777.

The MOST damage you can do is knock them unconscious with a serious wound, but it is MOST LIKELY that you'll only knock them unconscious (Minor Wound).

It is impossible for you to kill them with single bullet. Even if you hit them in the head or the heart.

A poor example for your argument. A perfect example of the Coup De Grace rule though Each one is hit and killed by a single shot without a need to roll dice.

 

[far-trader]

And, even if they did suffer a flesh wound from a graze--a flesh wound would not heal, good as new, in only half an hour.

So who said it is healed good as new? It is only negated to a degree (characteristics reset halfway between injured and full) as an effect upon your characteristics and as a measure for taking more injury without treatment. Or you get medical attention and your characteristics are full again (for their measure as damage you can take and tasks you attempt). You still have a bandaged wound after that time but it's not bleeding or interfering with your performance thanks to the stitches and painkillers.

 

[sabredog]

You say "may be a flesh hit". I'm talking about the average hit--what's likely to happen, on average, when a character at full health is shot in this game.

Statistically, he's likely to be knocked unconscious rather than any other result.



Let me put this another way.

You've got a Carbine with 10 rounds.

Standing out in field, not too far away, are 10 prisoners, blindfolded. You've got an 100% chance to hit each of them. Each of the prisoners have average stats of 777777.

The MOST damage you can do is knock them unconscious with a serious wound, but it is MOST LIKELY that you'll only knock them unconscious (Minor Wound).

It is impossible for you to kill them with single bullet. Even if you hit them in the head or the heart.

And, it is MOST LIKELY, that each prisoner you hit will be 100% healed in half an hour if a paramedic treats them.



Given that, you still think that each of those men was struck with a bullet? None were killed. Most were knocked out?

And, even if they did suffer a flesh wound from a graze--a flesh wound would not heal, good as new, in only half an hour.



So...the logical thing to do is to dictate wounds in Classic Traveller based on damage and not on a successful attack throw.

Obviously, a successful attack throw does not necessarily mean that a bullet struck the target--if that were true, then there should have been a chance that some of the prisoners in the example above would have been shot dead (and, there's a 100% chance that they all will live, even if successfully attacked once).

I agree with Far-Trader that this is a poor example for your argument but it is the precise reason I switched to Striker for CT combat. That way the level of damage inflicted isn't just relative to hitting the target, but tied more to the damage potential the weapon has by actually penetrating the armor and then the target gets whats left over. It was far more logical and worked far better IMHO for simulating real life. As I tell recruits in classes, the guy with a .22 can be just as dangerous, if not more so, than you can be with a Desert Eagle.50 if the guy with the .22 knows how to use it and you don't.

But that said, I found the more realistic method was discouraging the players since they knew the outcome of almost any given fight before the dice even started rolling. And it was almost impossible to fudge the results myself to make things easier or harder as needed.

So now its back to the CT method to makes things more dramatic and fun again, and I'm ok with that. I go with the first blood rule for every new combat because I buy into the realistic concept that the first impact is going to be the one that makes your body respond the most violently - shock might develop slowly from blood loss but CT doesn't model bleeding out (though I had a house rule for that to further discourage players from playing) but really its that first gunshot or sword swing that really can make or break a fight.

After that you are running on adrenaline if you are still standing, or at least that's what I teach people - fight through it, if you can still remember whats going on and who you are after the first impact you are going to make it till medics get there. I think the first blood rule and differences in the minor/serious wounding models that pretty well enough for a game where I also like a lot of combat and danger.

 

[mike wightman]

Some house rules I've used for years now:

1. first blood rule goes away (it's totally unrealistic IMHO) to be replaced with a critical hit rule - roll a natural 12 and apply damage to 1 stat determined randomly

2. a character who is wounded but not rendered unconscious has all wounded stats raised to halfway between wounded and full at the end of the combat - medic 1 or 3 days rest returns them to full

3. an end throw to avoid becoming unconscious when 1 stat is reduced to 0 - if successful the stat is set at 1.

4. an end throw to avoid becoming unconscious when 2 stats are reduced to 0 - if successful the stats are set at 1.

Makes fights a bit more interesting.

 

[DonM]

Ok, S4 may not have been THAT wrong.

He's raised more questions, and I've been getting answers, and I'm going to explain it as I was told it.

"If you don't go unconscious in a combat, your characteristics are set to the halfway mark, just like if you did go unconscious but only had one characteristic reset. Those are both light wounds, so they get treated the same way."

Now, I've spent hours looking at all the CT rulesets on this, and I think there's a paragraph missing...

When any one characteristic is reduced to zero by wounds, the character is rendered unconscious. When two have been reduced to zero, the character has been seriously wounded. When all three have been reduced to zero, the character is dead. Once a characteristic has been reduced to zero, further points may not be applied to it; they must be applied to other (non-zero) characteristics.
[paragraph missing here????]
Unconscious characters (with at least one characteristic reduced to zero) recover consciousness after ten minutes (40 combat rounds) with all three characteristics temporarily placed at a value half way between full strength and the wounded level. The individual is considered to have sustained minor wounds. For example, a character with a strength of 8 who is wounded to a strength of 4 (and rendered unconscious through the zeroing of another characteristic) becomes strength 6 when he regains consciousness, and remains so until recovered. Round fractions against the character, A return to full strength for the character requires medical attention (a medical kit and an individual with at least medical-1 skill), or three days of rest.
Unconscious characters with two characteristics reduced to zero are considered seriously wounded and recover consciousness after three hours. Their characteristics remain at the wounded level (or 1, whichever is higher). Recovery is dependent on medical attention (a medical facility and an individual with medical-3 skill; recuperation to full strength without medical attention is not possible).

Anyway, the clairifications now are:

First Blood, p. 34, 47: The so-called first blood or critical hits rule applies to the first wound a character receives in a combat. Entering a combat wounded from a previous combat does not make you immune to the first blood rule.
Wounding and Death, p. 35-36, 47: Wounds from a second combat should be tracked separately from those from an earlier combat (since they will heal at a different times), unless the characteristic goes to zero; if that happens, just use the newest injury for healing times.
Effects of Characteristics, p. 36: The statement "wounds do not affect characteristics as they are used to influence blows, swings, or shots" applies only to a single combat. When a character is out of combat and has wounds applied, the resulting wounded levels do apply to any future combats after receiving such wounds. The intention of this rule was that during a combat, the game need not slow down to deal with such changes. The intention was not that already wounded characters could operate in future combats prior to recovery (or even treatment) as if they were uninjured.
Unconscious, p. 36, 47: Characters who are wounded when a combat ends but never go unconscious (because no characteristic ever is reduced to zero) have their characteristics reset to halfway between the wounded and full strength values. Unconscious characters with only one characteristic going to zero also get their characteristics reset to halfway between the wounded and full strength values after regaining consciousness. However, unconscious characters with two characteristics at zero, do not receive the halfway reset after regaining consciousness. In this case, the rule on p. 36 applies: "Their characteristics remain at the wounded level (or 1, whichever is higher). Recovery is dependent on medical attention (a medical facility and an individual with Medical-3 skill; recuperation to full strength without medical attention is not possible)."

I understand it. It makes a lot of sense. It also doesn't match the text unless there's a paragraph missing about getting hurt but not falling unconscious.