N18 xp from actions directly causing SI or OOA

[HugeSamples]

I was reading the core rule book while working on a campaign for the future and I was looking at the experience rules (page 148 core rule book):

1 xp if their action directly causes an enemy fighter to suffer one or more serious injuries.
2 xp if their action directly causes an enemy fighter to go out of action.

how does this apply to falling as a result of being pinned from a shot?
e.g.
shoot basic action -> hit -> no wound -> failed initiative test -> fall -> seriously injured

does that award xp to the shooter since the shoot basic action is directly responsible?

or does the shoot action end before the falling check is made, thus making the shoot action ineligible?

 

[Malevolent Pink Cat]

I'd say the shot directly caused the fighter to suffer one or more serious injuries.

If I push you and you fall off a ledge and break your leg, it's pretty difficult to say my push wasn't the direct cause of you breaking your leg, and that it was somehow only indirectly responsible. Same surely applies if you fall because of a gunshot.

 

[Ben_S]

I don't play N18, so this isn't based on rules, but my intuition is that you only get XP if the opponent is injured by the shot itself. Causing them to fall would be indirectly causing the injury, because the direct cause would be the fall (or rather the landing).

If you think causing a fall is still direct, then what is indirect?

 

[TopsyKretts]

Indirect could be something like blaze or insanity but that would go on past the action, so wouldn't make sense if it was during the action and indirect.

 

[HugeSamples]

I can see arguments for both interpretations.

I think the question this is teasing out is: "when does an action end?"

is it:

shoot basic -> hit -> pin -> no wound -> shoot basic end

then

initiative test -> fall -> serious injury

or

shoot basic -> hit -> pin -> no wound -> initiative test -> fall -> serious injury -> shoot basic end

I fall into the camp of agreeing with @TopsyKretts and @Malevolent Pink Cat that this would grant the xp. I was kind of hoping there was a consensus.

To answer the question of what would an indirect serious injury would be, it would be something like:

shoot basic -> hit -> pin -> no wound -> blaze -> shoot basic end

then

activate -> blaze wound -> serious injury -> resolve blaze -> activation end

 

[Ben_S]

I don't think it's to do with when the action ends, since an action can still be the cause of later effects after it's over. But the rules specify that it has to be the direct cause. That is, the immediate or proximate cause, as opposed to an underlying or more distant cause.

"the direct cause is that which usually leads immediately to the adverse effect, without any intervening events" - https://bizfluent.com/info-8755402-types-root-causes-direct-cause.html

"the immediate reason damage was caused by an act or omission" - https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=518

"The immediate event or circumstance that results in a particular consequence or outcome" - https://dictionary.justia.com/direct-cause

 

[Malevolent Pink Cat]

I don't think it's to do with when the action ends, since an action can still be the cause of later effects after it's over. But the rules specify that it has to be the direct cause. That is, the immediate or proximate cause, as opposed to an underlying or more distant cause.

"the direct cause is that which usually leads immediately to the adverse effect, without any intervening events" - https://bizfluent.com/info-8755402-types-root-causes-direct-cause.html

"the immediate reason damage was caused by an act or omission" - https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=518

"The immediate event or circumstance that results in a particular consequence or outcome" - https://dictionary.justia.com/direct-cause

Interestingly, the concept of legal causation was exactly the touch point I was reaching for as well.

I'd pay good money to see you try and win an argument in a court that shooting someone on a ledge who then fell off and died, but from the fall raher than the gunshot, meant the shooter wasn't the direct cause of the death...

 

[Ben_S]

I'd pay good money to see you try and win an argument in a court that shooting someone on a ledge who then fell off and died, but from the fall raher than the gunshot, meant the shooter wasn't the direct cause of the death...

I'm not a lawyer but I don't see why that argument would be relevant. As far as I know, you don't have to be the direct cause of death in order to be charged with murder, manslaughter, etc. The gunshot would be a substantial cause, even if not the direct cause.

 

[Malevolent Pink Cat]

Not an expert, but imagine could impact charges or sentencing in a criminal case, or level of liability in a tort case.

 

[Ben_S]

Perhaps there are circumstances where it might, but it need not make any difference. If the person died only because you shot him - he wouldn't have died otherwise - then I'm not sure it matters whether he died from the shot itself (directly) or from the subsequent fall (indirectly).

Anyway, we've established that neither of us really know what we're talking about when it comes to law, so perhaps we should stick to game rules. To be honest, I don't know much about N18 either (as I openly admitted in my first post), but I think direct cause precludes injuries from subsequent falls.

 

[HugeSamples]

the legal argument is an interesting one, but from a game design perspective I think the answer of "it depends" is a bit unacceptable.

from a game mechanics perspective I think the rule reads:

action -> result

in this case a result of seriously injured.

which is why I think the boundaries of an action are important.

for example, is it:

shoot action (basic) -> seriously injured

where the fall damage happens within the scope of the shoot action (basic).

or is it:

shoot action (basic) -> environmental triggers -> seriously injured

where the fall damage happens outside the scope of the shoot action (basic).

if it's the latter, how does that work with something like knockback or the skill hurl?

 

[Gdolkin]

I reckon the 'directly caused' clause exists solely to rule out xp in cases of going OOA from subsequent Serious Injury Recovery rolls. You shoot someone, they go SI, then later they roll OOA means no xp for the shooter. This would also cover Blaze or any other effects that persist across activations/turns, but anything like getting shot, pushed back by Knockback, falling off a ledge, bouncing into a meatgrinder and dying etc happens immediately as a continuous causal chain from the attack, and before any other fighter activates, so I reckon this 'immediately and before any other fighter activates' is what matters rather than the question of 'when does the attacker's activation officially end?' in determining if an attack 'directly caused' a casualty. Make sense?

 

[Aulenback]

Interestingly, the concept of legal causation was exactly the touch point I was reaching for as well.

A quick search on Ye Olde Inter Tubes brought up not just six years of roughly this question, but around thirty - the question of directly causing wounds or not [did this ram cause that wound? Did throwing the ganger off this bridge cause that wound by causing the fall?] came up for N95 and GorkaMorka too, it turns out. And in most of them, the exact hypothetical of "if I shoot you in the leg and you fall off the building" legal cause is brought up, debated, and used by each side to argue their point. The only concensus ends up being --- in your campaign make a call early, and apply it the same all the way through. Because the evidence, thirty years later, STILL doesn't tell us EITHER rules as written decisively, OR rules as intended decisively.

Edit: Oh, would it make a good question for the (April 2022) FAQ. It's been a frequently asked question for actual decades.

Edit again: just one case example, https://yaktribe.games/community/th...it-split-from-heavy-bolter-query-thread.4386/ which includes the question of whether a scattered blast marker gives any experience, or a stray shot gives any experience. Lots of discussions, over the years, on Yaktribe, on the Specialist Games forum, on the Yahoo Group, and on and on. And never actually officially settled. Just unofficially settled by different groups of players for their groups (such as by the NCE team).

 

[Beebopalulla]

I played necromunda since 1995, yes I m old. In each different edition i played with we understood that it is a direct consequence of an action and the results of a side effect. For example both the 1995 and 2003 edition had major and minor wyrd power. On of those power was " you can fly" your character persuade some enemy character that.. well he can fly and lead that character to fall and serous injure or out of action. The action of using the power was the source of the jump.


Same with the skill hurl and same with any weapon with knockback at range or close.

The one case that I will consider to be indirect is this :

Character A set a room on fire to block a passage for a turn.

Character B target enemy One with an action resulting with insanity.

Enemy one move randomly and end in the room set on fire by character A.

In this case I will consider that both A and B won an XP for side effect of their actions.

 

[Vonvilkee]

The intent with this is to make "tracking" easier, ie you don't need to track who hurt who for the eventual out of action. If you are able to see the SI or OoA within reasonable time of the cause give the exp. Don't use widgets or notes or memory for it.

Always been the best way to play it! Don't worry about direct or not, just did it happen while we were in the moment or did it happen later and we prolly forgot (or could forget) which exact model did what. Can't say activation or acting models action per say cuz of reaction strikes or disengaging strikes. No real good way to say it which is why there has never been an answer.

 

[Ben_S]

the question of directly causing wounds or not comes up for N95 and GorkaMorka too, it turns out.

Really? I don't remember it coming up, because I thought they both had xp for wounding hits. There are many questions about that, especially around weapons causing multiple hits or multiple wounds. Do people also argue that causing a fall counts as inflicting a wounding hit?

 

[Beebopalulla]

Really? I don't remember it coming up, because I thought they both had xp for wounding hits. There are many questions about that, especially around weapons causing multiple hits or multiple wounds. Do people also argue that causing a fall counts as inflicting a wounding hit?

Was the victim push? Hurl? Hurt by a knockback weapon? Then damage from the attack is apply if need be. The fall in itself may cause damage. The height, slow down capacity are taking into account.

The character fall by himself due to an unstable condition then only the damage from fall apply.

In the first case the logic at least the way I understand is simply a question of action and consequences.


Action A shoot/hurl/strike... B who suffers from it. Consequences. It doesn't matter how many steps between the action and the consequences.

 

[TopsyKretts]

In the first case the logic at least the way I understand is simply a question of action and consequences.

That argument doesn't prevent stuff like Blaze or Insanity?

 

[Beebopalulla]

That argument doesn't prevent stuff like Blaze or Insanity?

That's why I precise it in my previous argument.

The one case that I will consider to be indirect is this :

Character A set a room on fire to block a passage for a turn.

Character B target enemy One with an action resulting with insanity.

Enemy one move randomly and end in the room set on fire by character A.

In this case I will consider that both A and B won an XP for side effect of their actions