From 6e46ad0909813bb018566aacad1176e55b59f2ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: slaguru666 <111923774+slaguru666@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2026 10:01:11 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] CLEAN GROUND v0.11.1: correct the mechanism under the first-blood swing Two wrong mechanisms in one sentence of my own v0.10 prose. The measured swing of 40 is unaffected -- what was wrong was the explanation I gave for it, which I wrote from intuition rather than from rules.mjs. 1. "every disable removes an attacker" -- it does not. locationEffectsFor (rules.mjs:461) charges 30 points off physical for a ruined leg or manipulation for a ruined arm, and simulate.mjs:305 applies the manipulation penalty to melee and ranged attacks alike. A 40% attacker disabled is a 10% attacker, not an absent one: still swinging, still drawing attacks, still a target. A slope, not a cliff. 2. "both sides go down at half their maximum hit points" -- also wrong, and this one nobody flagged. Half maximum hit points is majorWoundFor, the MAJOR WOUND threshold, which feeds dyingLimitFor and decides how long a dying character lasts. It has nothing to do with leaving the fight. conditionFor (rules.mjs:1630) puts somebody down at 2 hit points or on a destroyed head, and that is the only thing that stops them acting. The paragraph now states the real loop and warns the GM off the wrong one, because playing disables as removals gets the fight wrong in the party's favour -- the direction that makes a party-ending encounter feel survivable. Credit where due: the first error was caught by a peer session correcting prose it had sent me twice. I found the second only because I verified the first against rules.mjs instead of taking it on assertion. npm run check: 14 guards, exit 0. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 --- docs/scenarios/CLEAN_GROUND.md | 11 ++++++++--- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/scenarios/CLEAN_GROUND.md b/docs/scenarios/CLEAN_GROUND.md index f5eb520..efd0ae9 100644 --- a/docs/scenarios/CLEAN_GROUND.md +++ b/docs/scenarios/CLEAN_GROUND.md @@ -724,9 +724,14 @@ losing. Both of the first two are live in this scenario. something. This row is not, and a GM who reads "2.31" as "a bruising fight" is reading the one outcome the table is least likely to deliver. - **It is decided by the first disabling blow, and that lands in round two.** Both sides - go down at half their maximum hit points — the same rule in both directions — so every - disable removes an attacker, thins the return fire, and makes the next disable likelier. + **It is decided by the first disabling blow, and that lands in round two.** Not because a + disabled fighter leaves the fight — **they do not, and a GM who plays it that way will + get the fight wrong in the party's favour.** A ruined limb costs **30 points** off what + that person can do (`locationEffectsFor`), which takes a 40% attacker to 10% and leaves + them still swinging, still drawing attacks, still a target. Nobody is out until **2 hit + points or a destroyed head** (`conditionFor`). So the loop is a **slope, not a cliff**: + the first disable does not remove a gun, it makes that gun about a quarter as likely to + land — and the side that lands the first one is the side more likely to land the next. Nothing pulls the fight back toward the middle once it has tipped. **Round five is where that becomes legible; round two is where it happens.**