I thought in Bloody Versus, part of the point was that you got your intent if you hit them and they didn’t hit you?
What I mean is, there’s no more Intent and Task in Bloody Versus than there is in Fight. Read what happens when your Attack beats the Defense in BV: you damage your opponent according to the normal weapon rules. If only one side is wounded, then the winning, unwounded side has the wounded side at its mercy—they can kill them, interrogate them, etc. But you can’t, for example, enter into Bloody Versus with the intent only to capture your foes—you could easily wind up accidentally killing them!
Matt
There’s absolutely Intent and Task in BV. You wound or get wounded in addition to whether or or not you achieve your Intent.
That what i tought, it realy make sense to me. Could you give me an exemple of a situation where you would choose the BVT insted of a Simple VS Test?
Simple Versus tests are entirely black and white; either character A gets exactly what he wants (and no more), or character B gets exactly what he wants (and no more). Regardless, the loser gets nothing. With Bloody Versus, we introduce the wrinkle that even though only one party to the test will get what they want, both might get something that they didn’t want (a wound).
I like Thor’s post here
In a Versus you can declare the stakes as “I kill him,” but so can they. In a BVT, you can’t kill him without the number of successes. So, BVT is a good way to resolve a fight when you don’t want to risk dying on a single roll, but are willing to risk wounds.
As for Task and Intent in BVT, remember task has to match the intent. So, sure you can get your intent, if it’s getable by being stabby.
Yeah man, BVT definitely has a task (beat the snot out of the other guys) and an intent (whatever you’re going for). You just also run the risk of taking some damage along the way.
In a Versus you can declare the stakes as “I kill him,” but so can they. In a BVT, you can’t kill him without the number of successes. So, BVT is a good way to resolve a fight when you don’t want to risk dying on a single roll, but are willing to risk wounds.
As for Task and Intent in BVT, remember task has to match the intent. So, sure you can get your intent, if it’s getable by being stabby.[/QUOTE]
It completly answer my questions thanks!
That’s odd…there’s an example in the book of using extra successes from a sword test versus an NPC to figure out what sort of wound you dealt. (The example that involves decapitation and Bruce Lee posing.)
I don’t have the book handy, but that’s probably an example of an open test, where the number of successes is determining how well you succeed. That’s totally legit. So is saying “loser dies” in a versus test.
That sounds right-ish.
Yeah, as soon as automatic wounding gets involved, you really don’t have normal Task+Intent anymore. That’s all I meant.
The overall concept of Task+Intent isn’t irrelevant, of course: both sides have to be armed/capable of fighting, willing to fight, etc. But if, say, I had a group of NPCs simply trying to capture the PCs and drag them off or something, I’d probably ask for a Versus test, though leave it open to the PCs if they wanted to escalate.
1000% agree…except for the caveat (that Thor mentions) that you may still be taking a very real risk of death via a Mortal (or a Traumatic death spiral). Depends on your PTGS, the weapons involved, number of dice they can muster to roll, and if they have Artha to spend.
So it is about laying a beatdown with a lower chance of death.
As for Intent, I’ve chosen to use it for things like “I want to get into Location X, even if I have to go through them.” The damage becomes only consequential of the goal, and killing another character a risk of that. So I don’t have to decide how much damage has to be done to get through, I let the dice handle that. Likewise for failure, though I will tack another outcome onto it like you are incarcerated or tossed out or so on.
If there’s Intent in Bloody Versus (beyond “I want to wound him!”), how do we know who wins? If we both hit, is it whomever gets more successes?
That’s how I’ve done it, most net successes laying in with the damage (regardless of actual wounds dealt out), Burning Heretic that I am. 
That advice maybe shouldn’t be in this particular subforum.
I grant whoever has the smallest wound penalty and is not hesitating the victory.
If both sides are wounded and neither fails Steel, then you (the person with the highest roll, as defined in the BV rules) get to continue Bloody Versus with another go or an alternative test (like Forte vs. Forte). I don’t think the overall intent resolves until we finish the conflict.
(I mean, consider a goal like “I want to drive the demon bear away.” Actually gaining that intent as the result of your first exchange would kinda preclude another exchange, wouldn’t it?)
I’m likely to tell the player “no problem. You get your intent. You get up the stairs or whatever. This here bloody versus is to see how many pieces you’re in when you get there.”
As a player why do I choose anything other than splitting the pools into max defence? That seems really problematic.
Burning Wheel Gold BV rules are actually much better than BWR, BWR had a fairly big hole left in describing who “wins”. The above borderline heretic description by me was crafted in response to BWR. Mine is only a slight tweak from BWG (well not really a tweak since my version predates BWG), and I’d probably never’d have bothered with it if BWR had BWG’s version. BWG’s doesn’t leave me scratching my head when reading it and I’ve liked the results the few times I’ve used it.
@Alex
An important caveat is that, assuming both hit and both pass any required Steel Test, the person that rolled the most [raw] defence successes chooses the Test for the next step of resolution (so not necessarily the GM). Recommended if it is another damaging BV round that each side choose a different Skill to roll (thus nearly certainly a different weapon, unless Boxing changes to Brawling or visa versa). Also, the Conflict ends if everyone can agree back down and just call it a draw (I think this implies nobody gets Intent but maybe horsetrading is allowed to get partial in return for agree to stop the Conflict???).
Because if you go max defense, your opponent is still standing and gets to beat on you again. That’s one answer. The other is that maybe it’s fine if you go full defense. Your goal is to get up the stairs, not kill a dude after all.
the sneaky answer is maybe you have a belief that I’m baiting. Maybe killing this particular dude wars with your desire to get up the stairs.