[Question] Will it be easier to break enenmies than cut them?

[James Rye]

Regarding injuries my first thought was how awesome it would be to break a tough Orc's arm and thus make him unable to use that two-handed weapon he smashed my mercs with while he's still at half of his HP.

So my question is if blunt weapons will have an easier time than sharp weapons to deal their specific injuries. After all, even if you wear armor as long as that armor gets dented or the force of the smashes reaches your bone, it doesn't matter how still in piece that armor is, broken arm/leg/rib is broken arm/lef/rib.

Right now I really dislike using blunt weapons for my mercs, expect the two-handed hammer, their stun don't work on all enemies, they got no counter like sword or wall like spears and their damage could be better too. So i wondered if it will be easier for a blunt weapon user to inflict blunt weapon injuries whereas a sharp weapon like a sword would have to do way more work to cut off an arm or even a hand?
Would be nice to hear an answer in that regards, thanks.

[Elurion]

From the news update:

This applies to both your Battle Brothers and your enemies – it’s easier to inflict serious injury to fragile Goblins than sturdy Orcs, or to those of your men that have a lot of hitpoints. A select few enemies may also be immune to some or all types of injuries. The type of injury inflicted depends on the weapon used, with blunt weapons inflicting different injuries from cutting or piercing ones.

[rapsdjff]

Blunt type injuries are indirectly easier to inflict to armored enemies, but they aren't easier to inflict in general. Because injuries require a certain threshold of hitpoint damage to be applied, and blunt type weapons usually have a high direct damage value (i.e. they ignore a good bit of armor and apply hitpoint damage directly), they are effectively better than oher weapons at inflicting injuries to people who still have intact armor.

[espritcrafter]

Originally posted by rapsdjff:

Blunt type injuries are indirectly easier to inflict to armored enemies, but they aren't easier to inflict in general. Because injuries require a certain threshold of hitpoint damage to be applied, and blunt type weapons usually have a high direct damage value (i.e. they ignore a good bit of armor and apply hitpoint damage directly), they are effectively better than oher weapons at inflicting injuries to people who still have intact armor.

What is the hitpoint damage threshold for injuries? I'm having trouble finding reference to this, and with the new Crippling Strikes perk, injuries are sounding very fun.

[rapsdjff]

Injuries are inflicted if the damage to hitpoints with a single attack equals or exceeds 25% of maximum hitpoints for light injuries and 50% of maximum hitpoints for heavy injuries. The Crippling Strikes perk lowers these thresholds by 33% to 16.5% and 33% respectively.

[Denjanjeau]

Originally posted by rapsdjff:

Injuries are inflicted if the damage to hitpoints with a single attack equals or exceeds 25% of maximum hitpoints for light injuries and 50% of maximum hitpoints for heavy injuries. The Crippling Strikes perk lowers these thresholds by 33% to 16.5% and 33% respectively.

Thankyou for that information!

A follow up question would be that it might be hard to cause those injuries to the more dangerous opponents (like Orc Warriors) as they have a lot of hit points and the treshold is based on their starting hit points.

This isn't a bug or anything, just a reflection that the crippling strike + perk to boost damage against injured opponents are maybe less relevant vs. the opponents you really need boost against?

Not statistically tested.

[Denjanjeau]

Originally posted by rapsdjff:

Blunt type injuries are indirectly easier to inflict to armored enemies, but they aren't easier to inflict in general. Because injuries require a certain threshold of hitpoint damage to be applied, and blunt type weapons usually have a high direct damage value (i.e. they ignore a good bit of armor and apply hitpoint damage directly), they are effectively better than oher weapons at inflicting injuries to people who still have intact armor.

Doesn't this fact risk making hammers the ideal end game weapon (as I believe it already was in some sense)?

[espritcrafter]

I wonder how daggers will figure into the injuries count...

[laserg]

Originally posted by Denjanjeau:

Originally posted by rapsdjff:

Blunt type injuries are indirectly easier to inflict to armored enemies, but they aren't easier to inflict in general. Because injuries require a certain threshold of hitpoint damage to be applied, and blunt type weapons usually have a high direct damage value (i.e. they ignore a good bit of armor and apply hitpoint damage directly), they are effectively better than oher weapons at inflicting injuries to people who still have intact armor.

Doesn't this fact risk making hammers the ideal end game weapon (as I believe it already was in some sense)?

Yes, and I think hammers are a bit OP at the moment. In my 200's day on challenging I start thinking about equipping most of my brothers with hammers, they exceel 2H weapons considering that the only real danger are Orcs. Offhand free, hammer and a crippling strike is a way to go.

[Arch]

You're unlikely to injure an orc unless you're already almost done with him.