Saldiven wrote:
Is there really a legitimate in-game point as to why this thread is 10 pages long or that tempers have gotten this high?

In-game point for a forum post? Shouldn't it be after/before a game? I play with Tomb Guard; it comes up.
Tempers high?

My not conceding to people's incorrect assertions is not odd, nor indicative of anger.

Maybe some of the others?

I find it funny that people are willing to argue that being immune to a wound means the model cannot be slain - but only in this one single instance and for no actual reason.
Just that it offends their sensibilities.
That seems a _really_ funny line for people to be drawing.
_THAT'S_ the part of this game that is too much for you to suspend your disbelief? Really?
The rules really are clear. KB slays. Ethereal models are not immune to being slain - by anything.
Pick up and. . .Stuff in a bag works.
KB works.
Unstable works.
If you could non-magically reduce most any of their stats to 0 it would work.


I get that people mis-read things. That is not what this is.
This is people deliberately obfuscating things.

Maybe that's what they do for fun.
/shrug

Keeps me entertained.

Warpsolution wrote:
p.51 Roll to Wound "Roll a D6 for each attack that hit."

p.68 Ethereal"...Ethereal creatures can only be wounded..."

p.72 Killing Blow "...rolls a 6 to wound...he automatically slays his opponent, regardless of the number of wounds..."

@Peasant: it kinda' looks like you're forced to roll on the To Wound table, regardless of whether you'll ever be successful or not. The only reason you're allowed to skip it is because, normally, there's no point, so you might as well save some time. Like fast dice-rolling. Can you offer evidence that shows otherwise?

So roll to wound. If you have no magic you can't wound ethereal so you are wasting time.
Those that believe KB works need to show where it does NOT cause a wound.
The term slays has been established that it has many uses and is not descriptive enough to use as a reason KB doesn't wound.
Those that say KB breaks game process need to show where it deviates.
The idea that it doesn't cause a wound is contrary to the game process that you are told to follow.
What is the point of rolling to wound if it is not to wound?
Boomer has shown you always use KB, it never stops, so what happens when you roll that 6 to wound a model that is not affected by KB?
What rule tells you NOT to follow the game process?
Where does it say you do NOT wound.?
The game process of rolling to wound says you are attempting to wound.

This is why I typed the game structure with 3 similar models.
KB is a wound process just like multiple wounds.
Your '6' on certain models, just gives you added effects. It does not take away the wound roll.
You have no instruction to stop or change normal game process.

All this has been said over and over because there is really nothing left to add.
Looking at both sides there is not enough evidence that KB does NOT wound.
If people choose to play it that way, this up to them.
I believe it breaks both RAW and RAI and I like I said I hope they let there opponent roll all their poison attacks at ws 0. (that's a similar topic I believe to be incorrect as well)

@Peasant: let's keep it concise, huh?

Three things:

- You asked where it says Killing Blow says you don't wound.
I would point out that, in a permissive system, you're told what you're allowed to do, not what you're prohibited from doing. So, unless Killing Blow says you wound, you don't.

- just because you can't wound doesn't change the rules, "roll a D6 for each attack that hit". You have to roll on the table for each hit. You just know the results ahead of time, if you don't have a way to bypass Ethereal.

- finally, I don't think anyone is going to try and play it this way. It is beyond silly. It's just a thought exercise.

(And here is where I mutter under my breath about how the last three posts demonstrate my point that neither side is willing to make any concessions and further discussion is a waste of time.)

Niteware wrote:

The fact that you can construct a scenario where two different rules seem to act in a similar way does not mean that they are the same. KB does not consult the to wound table at all - that step usually comes after rolling to wound (as in Roll, then check result on table by comparing s to t). As Warp said (and as many others have said), following the rules forces you to roll for every hit, regardless of the likelihood of a positive result. KB then explicitly tells you what to do. There is no loophole to say "but KB can't hurt me because of X", unless X explicitly says that it makes you immune to KB, or because KB says that it is not effective.

I am not constructing a scenario. I am showing that the game process remains the same because it is supposed to.
Are my examples inaccurate? Are they breaking rules? Other than the creation for your opinion on KB.
KB doesn't have to consult the chart. The dice roll of a six does. You are never told to ignore the wound. It does not say discard the wound and remove from play. There is no text indicating that you ignore the game process which is rolling to wound.
When do you ignore your dice when rolling to wound.?. Why would you roll to wound and NOT compare to the chart?? When you wound automatically. Which happens to be precisely when KB does not work. Rolling to wound and checking the chart are all part of the same game process.
Rolling to hit and rolling to wound are separate.
Rolling to wound tells you what to do...roll to wound.
KB does tell you explicitly what to do. Ignore armour saves, take a ward if you have it and slay regardless of the number of wounds.
This is not complicated.

Given that you have said that you wound as well as KB, do you think that after saving KB you should have to save the wound? In a challenge, do you also save the wound to determine overkill? If not, why do you stop following the rules for wounding, since KB doesn't tell you to?
The only logical conclusion is that KB happens instead of a wound, ergo KB does not wound, so ethereal is irrelevant.

You are saving the wound AND KB at the same time if you have a ward. It's all or nothing. I am following the rules for wounding and the rules for KB.
The rules are clear for KB in challenges
If your model has 1 of 3 wounds left and you rolled the 6, KB grants you 3 wounds not 1. But you are still saving the 1 wounding dice roll.
Just like multiple wounds. you save the one dice roll, if you fail you get d3(d6)
If you roll 2 '6's you could get 6 wounds..but you still save twice. (once for each dice)
If you roll 2 wound with multiple wounds you can take up to 6 wounds, but you still roll saves against 2 dice.
If your model has 1 wound total and you roll the 6 you get 1 wound.

You think KB and wounding are separate, that is how you are justifying them with ethereal.
I say KB is not a separate part from wounding, they are parts of the same process.
You are not rolling to wound and to KB. (just like multiple wounds, you don't roll separately to wound and to multiple wound)
You are not saving from a wound and KB. (just like multiple wounds, you don't roll saves separately to wound and to multiple wound)
You are saving a wound that is a killing blow..( you are saving a wound that is multiple wounds)
Ergo, KB is part of the wounding process...without magic you can't KB ethereal
I have been saying this all along.

@Saldiven: I am curious and like to stretch my brain by forcing it to think at weird angles. And I think precise language is a useful skill to develop.
I've already made up my mind as to how I'll play this: the obvious way. Any of my Mmodels with Killing Blow will not wound Ethereal units. Because that's silly.
But I am interested in how we might work out what the RAW state.
If it really is that big of a concern for you, just walk away.

@Peasant: Now this is interesting!
Can anyone offer proof that the rules for Killing Blow replace the standard To Wound rolls? Because, as of now, it kind of seems like it does this:

Roll a D6 for each attack that hit. Consult the chart to see if it wounds. Also, on a 6, the model is removed as a casualty, regardless of wounds.

...so, technically, it seems like, on a 6, you scored a Killing Blow. But the standard rules for wounding are still in effect, so also wounded normally.

Weird and silly. But interesting.

Read DukeRustfield's KB during challenges description.

The rules straight up break if Peasant's text is used instead.

How do you wound a slain model is a simple question.

Not to mention the can of worms that erupts when you score the combat resolution from KB AND wounding.

Roll to wound process is; Roll a d6 then compare to chart. KB interrupts this because it tells you to do something different on the roll of a 6. That is why there is no wound.

As far as point goes, implications for poisoned attacks and for KB against botwd have come up, as well as the op. Thought exercises expand the mind and lead to contemplation of fresh nuances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and I would not insist on this rule ever, unless I was playing Peasant. ^.^ As I have said several times, I think it is silly, even though it is correct.

Poison bypasses KB. You wound automatically if you score poison and KB specifically says attacks that wound automatically are discounted.

roll hit
poison
hit
roll wound
kb
wound

Each one of those steps can be short-circuited. By [edit] not hitting, for instance you short-circuit everything after that roll. If you poison, you jump past Hit, Rolling to Wound, KB.

So, if there is a rule that activates on HITS, successful poison would bypass it. Because it's not hitting. It's poisoning.

Warpsolution wrote:
@Saldiven: I am curious and like to stretch my brain by forcing it to think at weird angles. And I think precise language is a useful skill to develop.
I've already made up my mind as to how I'll play this: the obvious way. Any of my Mmodels with Killing Blow will not wound Ethereal units. Because that's silly.
But I am interested in how we might work out what the RAW state.
If it really is that big of a concern for you, just walk away.

@Peasant: Now this is interesting!
Can anyone offer proof that the rules for Killing Blow replace the standard To Wound rolls? Because, as of now, it kind of seems like it does this:

Roll a D6 for each attack that hit. Consult the chart to see if it wounds. Also, on a 6, the model is removed as a casualty, regardless of wounds.

...so, technically, it seems like, on a 6, you scored a Killing Blow. But the standard rules for wounding are still in effect, so also wounded normally.

Weird and silly. But interesting.

Not weird or silly. Its the same as multiple wounds. Only all the wounds on the profile. It just requires the '6'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
How do you wound a slain model is a simple question.

Not to mention the can of worms that erupts when you score the combat resolution from KB AND wounding.

You don't wound a slain model.
You do a wound and he is slain. The wound is all the wounds on the profile.
We know how KB works for combat res.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:
Roll to wound process is; Roll a d6 then compare to chart. KB interrupts this because it tells you to do something different on the roll of a 6. That is why there is no wound.

.

It never tells you to ignore anything.
It gives you additional rules on the 6.
If you meet criteria you ignore armour saves and potentially slay regardless of the number of wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And where do the rules break?

Warpsolution wrote:
@Saldiven: I am curious and like to stretch my brain by forcing it to think at weird angles. And I think precise language is a useful skill to develop.
I've already made up my mind as to how I'll play this: the obvious way. Any of my Mmodels with Killing Blow will not wound Ethereal units. Because that's silly.
But I am interested in how we might work out what the RAW state.
If it really is that big of a concern for you, just walk away.

That's perfectly fine. The issue is that the people on the opposing side have also already made up their mind how they're going to play it. Neither side has conceded an inch on the subject. That was readily apparently five pages ago in this thread. The only significantly new viewpoint that's been added in that time was HawaiiMatt's introductio that things can be killed by KB on a wound that does not even actually wound that thing.

I predicted five pages ago that this thread was going to go the exact same way as the thread discussing what is 25% of a 1999 point army, and I have been proven correct. It's a discussion far longer and far more heated than warranted by the actual impact on the game. Thread should've been locked a while ago for being an exercise in spinning in circles.

I wish I had a "Someone on the internet is wrong" meme picture to post.

Ah, the joys of RAW vs.RAI arguments.

I could make an argument that under certain circumstances KB might be less about martial prowess and more about channeling a small portion of the winds of magic to do the trick. Specifically Grave Guard - magically animated extensions of their Master's will - and the DE Cauldron of Blood blessing come to mind as potential examples.

But instead I'll just point out a rule we all play RAI... even the most hard-core RAW supporter.

Specifically the rule about running down a fleeing unit that was facing the unit that charged it. We all do it; the two units face off, the strong one charges, the weak one opts to flee, it pivots to flee, and the chargers move straight up to catch it and wipe it out.

But by the rules, when two units start out front to front you can't do that. We'll go through it step by step.

First, the charger must determine which arc of the target unit he is charging. BRB p.21, last sentence of the second paragraph under 'flank and rear charges' header. "Whether a charger is in the front, flank, or rear of it's intended target is determined before charges are declared..." Front to front this means the charger is charging the target unit's front arc.

Next, the charge is declared. Then the charged unit declares and resolves its charge reaction. If it chooses to flee, you "Immediarlty turn the unit about it's centre so that it is facing directly away from the center of the charging enemy unit..." (BRB p.17, first sentence after the first bullet point under the 'Flee!' Header)

Thus putting that front arc on the opposite side of the unit from the charger, in addition to moving the target unit some distance away.

Now we move the chargers. But wait! On BRB p.20, second sentence of the second paragraph under the 'Move Chargers' header it reminds us "You are free to make this wheel in order to place pplace your unit wherever you like against the FACING OF THE ENEMY UNIT BEING CHARGED..."

In short, you still have to hit that facing.... which is now facing the other way. And the first sentence of that same paragraph tells yo that you only get ONE 90-degree wheel to do it in. Which is a geometric impossibility, with that arc on the other side of the target unit.

And since there is no provision anywhere I've looked that changes that target arc when a unit flees...

Well, the rule on BRB p.23, first paragraph under the 'Charging a fleeing unit' header allowing you to 'run down' the fleeing unit is contingent upon completing the charge... which you cannot do RAW.

Now we all understand that this is not the way GW intended these rules to be played, so none of us play them that way. To do otherwise risks turning us into 'that freaking guy' who is no fun at all to play.


Remember, playing RAW is not carte-blanche to be 'TFG.'

@Peasant: so, since KB gives additional rules on a 6, instead of replacing them, you agree that, on a 6, you score a KB as well as a normal wound, so you have to make one Ward save to avoid being slain, and then an armour/Ward/Regen. save to avoid taking a wound. Is that right?
...how is that not both weird and silly?

@DukeRustfield: what is the scenario with KB in a challenge again? I can't find it in this jungle of texts.

@Saldiven: I agree with you entirely. But I can safely dismiss any especially grumpy posts and look for the facts therein. Until this thread is locked, I'll take what I can from it. Which is not much, but it's something.

@Vulcan: Genius.

Saldiven wrote:
I predicted five pages ago that this thread was going to go the exact same way as the thread discussing what is 25% of a 1999 point army, and I have been proven correct. It's a discussion far longer and far more heated than warranted by the actual impact on the game. Thread should've been locked a while ago for being an exercise in spinning in circles.

You posting I told you this would be a long thread, isn't remotely helpful or works in any way to make it shorter. This is actually the 2nd time the thread came up and I knew what the arguments would be and said it on page 1. The cool thing about the internet is there is nothing on earth preventing you from not reading this thread and even less from posting in it.

Warp,
The section on KB on challenges is under challenges/overkill. It specifically says you can multi KB the same dude in terms of scoring points.

They do it for balance purposes. Otherwise you would challenge some badass guy even if you knew you were going to lose, to ensure he scores (a lot) less combat resolution. So if your unit champ is in Tomb Guard and an enemy Saurus Oldblood is in a group of Skinks (!) you could challenge the Oldblood and your TG could outkill the Skinks easily, and you win combat just by sacrificing a champ.

And normally, the way KB works, you slay someone and they're dead so you can't slay them any more (or cause wounds). So KB could actually become a penalty to have if you're fighting a challenge. Because if you just had normal attacks you could score all his wounds and +5 overkill. But if you KB'd once, you could only score his remaining wounds. So they made it you could KB as many times as you like. Which makes KB able to score the +5 overkill just like normal attacks. In the overkill section they again use the verbiage that KB scores the wounds on the profile, because it's a combat resolution ruling.

Warpsolution wrote:
@Peasant: so, since KB gives additional rules on a 6, instead of replacing them, you agree that, on a 6, you score a KB as well as a normal wound, so you have to make one Ward save to avoid being slain, and then an armour/Ward/Regen. save to avoid taking a wound. Is that right?
...how is that not both weird and silly?.

Incorrect.
You roll one time for everything. The roll to wound that shows the '6' negates your armour and becomes a wound multiplier just like multiple wounds

With the roll of '6' your single wound kills. You get full combat res for the profile

Just as you don't roll for the wound and the d3 for multiple wounds. You roll once.

GW writes their books attempting to make the book entertaining to read as opposed to being a law book where there would just be repetition of the same quotes.
This then leaves opportunity, for those that are willing, to begin interpreting language with it's multiple meanings, that often go outside the scope of what is written, to twist the rules often for their own benefit. Hence the entire portion in this discussion on 'slays'. Then they throw RAW vs RAI.

If we take an honest look at KB and remove ethereal from the equation, would anyone have ever stated that KB does not wound.?
I seriously doubt it.
It goes against the rules. Rolling to hit, to wound, taking the wound and killing the model. Every time you roll 'to wound' in this game it is for the purpose of wounding. The rule is written just as it is.
Then take Ethereal without KB. No magic, no wound, no problem. The rule is written fine.
Now ethereal gets thrown in with KB and all of a sudden the lack of the words 'wound' in KB and the presence of the word 'slays' in KB and 'wound' in ethereal, start to take on a whole new meaning that were never an issue before, so we create an issue. Human nature wants to find connections.
So we step away from the RAW that many swear on, create a RAI and try to pass it off as RAW because we can pick up a few key words. So we use the intent to create the RAW.
So the intent becomes a discussion on how to get around ethereal, passed off as RAW goes around ethereal.
Sadly it is an unfortunate problem as people attempt to separate RAW and RAI. When they are both equally dependent upon each other, especially in the game we choose to play.
As Vulcan put the example...if we don't take RAW and RAI and play them together everything falls apart.
It makes sense, as human nature tends to seek a black and white answer to everything. But even law has had to accept that intent is important as well.
Maybe I'm just old, but I have learned nothing is as simple as black and white.
Tis a vicious circle

 Peasant wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:
@Saldiven: I am curious and like to stretch my brain by forcing it to think at weird angles. And I think precise language is a useful skill to develop.
I've already made up my mind as to how I'll play this: the obvious way. Any of my Mmodels with Killing Blow will not wound Ethereal units. Because that's silly.
But I am interested in how we might work out what the RAW state.
If it really is that big of a concern for you, just walk away.

@Peasant: Now this is interesting!
Can anyone offer proof that the rules for Killing Blow replace the standard To Wound rolls? Because, as of now, it kind of seems like it does this:

Roll a D6 for each attack that hit. Consult the chart to see if it wounds. Also, on a 6, the model is removed as a casualty, regardless of wounds.

...so, technically, it seems like, on a 6, you scored a Killing Blow. But the standard rules for wounding are still in effect, so also wounded normally.

Weird and silly. But interesting.

Not weird or silly. Its the same as multiple wounds. Only all the wounds on the profile. It just requires the '6'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
How do you wound a slain model is a simple question.

Not to mention the can of worms that erupts when you score the combat resolution from KB AND wounding.

You don't wound a slain model.
You do a wound and he is slain. The wound is all the wounds on the profile.
We know how KB works for combat res.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:
Roll to wound process is; Roll a d6 then compare to chart. KB interrupts this because it tells you to do something different on the roll of a 6. That is why there is no wound.

.

It never tells you to ignore anything.
It gives you additional rules on the 6.
If you meet criteria you ignore armour saves and potentially slay regardless of the number of wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And where do the rules break?

It doesn't give you additional rules for a 6, it gives you different rules for a 6. Else you would need to save both wound and KB and both would count for CR.
Editing to add: Your suggestion that you could save both with one roll has no basis in rules, it is just you trying to find a way for your misinterpretation to work. Any ime that additional rules cause wounds, you save them as well, separately. Multiple woundsnis totally diffeent, as it is explicitly off unsaved wounds (ie, after saves have been attempted).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peasant wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:
@Peasant: so, since KB gives additional rules on a 6, instead of replacing them, you agree that, on a 6, you score a KB as well as a normal wound, so you have to make one Ward save to avoid being slain, and then an armour/Ward/Regen. save to avoid taking a wound. Is that right?
...how is that not both weird and silly?.

Incorrect.
You roll one time for everything. The roll to wound that shows the '6' negates your armour and becomes a wound multiplier just like multiple wounds

With the roll of '6' your single wound kills. You get full combat res for the profile

Just as you don't roll for the wound and the d3 for multiple wounds. You roll once.

GW writes their books attempting to make the book entertaining to read as opposed to being a law book where there would just be repetition of the same quotes.
This then leaves opportunity, for those that are willing, to begin interpreting language with it's multiple meanings, that often go outside the scope of what is written, to twist the rules often for their own benefit. Hence the entire portion in this discussion on 'slays'. Then they throw RAW vs RAI.

If we take an honest look at KB and remove ethereal from the equation, would anyone have ever stated that KB does not wound.?
I seriously doubt it.
It goes against the rules. Rolling to hit, to wound, taking the wound and killing the model. Every time you roll 'to wound' in this game it is for the purpose of wounding. The rule is written just as it is.
Then take Ethereal without KB. No magic, no wound, no problem. The rule is written fine.
Now ethereal gets thrown in with KB and all of a sudden the lack of the words 'wound' in KB and the presence of the word 'slays' in KB and 'wound' in ethereal, start to take on a whole new meaning that were never an issue before, so we create an issue. Human nature wants to find connections.
So we step away from the RAW that many swear on, create a RAI and try to pass it off as RAW because we can pick up a few key words. So we use the intent to create the RAW.
So the intent becomes a discussion on how to get around ethereal, passed off as RAW goes around ethereal.
Sadly it is an unfortunate problem as people attempt to separate RAW and RAI. When they are both equally dependent upon each other, especially in the game we choose to play.
As Vulcan put the example...if we don't take RAW and RAI and play them together everything falls apart.
It makes sense, as human nature tends to seek a black and white answer to everything. But even law has had to accept that intent is important as well.
Maybe I'm just old, but I have learned nothing is as simple as black and white.
Tis a vicious circle

You are actually wrong about both of those.
Ethereal is obvious - no magic doesn't stop a giant killing them with put in a hag.
KB is more nuanced; As KB doesn't wound, botwd probably doesn't protect against it, since it specifies that it is a ward against wounds. Again, this is RAW not RAI

Niteware wrote:
It doesn't give you additional rules for a 6, it gives you different rules for a 6. Else you would need to save both wound and KB and both would count for CR.

Different rules that come into effect and then don't effect Monstrous Infantry or Monstrous Cavalry meaning that on a 6 you do nothing to those targets. As I have proved with direct quotes from the BRB.

If you make it work as a replacement effect, that is what happens. End of.

I've shown and proved exactly how it works, now all we can do is wait until they update the FAQ and you end up looking a stupid and apologising for the abuse.

If you want to play it like that, fine. Anybody who tries to pull that on me will be discarding those 6's against MI and MC because it doesn't say at any point in the BRB or any FAQ that Killing Blow is not in effect against them.

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:

Niteware wrote:
It doesn't give you additional rules for a 6, it gives you different rules for a 6. Else you would need to save both wound and KB and both would count for CR.

Different rules that come into effect and then don't effect Monstrous Infantry or Monstrous Cavalry meaning that on a 6 you do nothing to those targets. As I have proved with direct quotes from the BRB.

If you make it work as a replacement effect, that is what happens. End of.

I've shown and proved exactly how it works, now all we can do is wait until they update the FAQ and you end up looking a stupid and apologising for the abuse.

If you want to play it like that, fine. Anybody who tries to pull that on me will be discarding those 6's against MI and MC because it doesn't say at any point in the BRB or any FAQ that Killing Blow is not in effect against them.

Lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Boomer, it has to be additional or replacing.
If it is additional, you save bith seperately and the KB can still kill Ethereal.
If it is replacing, you only save KB and it can kill Ethereal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What happens with MI and MC depends on your interpretation of no effect. The rational interpretation would be that replacing rule steps is an effect, so against some unit types KB does not replace the rules.
You are free to continue to try and justify your weird position on that point.

Niteware wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Boomer, it has to be additional or replacing.
If it is additional, you save bith seperately and the KB can still kill Ethereal.
If it is replacing, you only save KB and it can kill Ethereal.

If it is additional effect you have an extra wound to make save for etc. Clearly it is not this, as that would be ridiculous.

If it replaces then you have replaced the wound you would have done on a 6 with the "Killing Blow Effect" and being as this effect only works on Infantry, Cavalry and Warbeasts you would do nothing to other targets on a 6.

What happens with MI and MC depends on your interpretation of no effect.

No it doesn't. That language doesn't appear in the BRB.

All it says is that

"Killing Blow is only effective against infantry,
cavalry and war beasts "

Not "not in effect.".

The rational interpretation would be

Really? A person arguing that a non magic weapon suddenly gets the ability to lop the head off a ghost due to high level of skill is going to lecture me on being rational?

At least you've given me a laugh.

that replacing rule steps is an effect, so against some unit types KB does not replace the rules.

BRB rule section for this please?

You are free to continue to try and justify your weird position on that point.

I'll bet you 500 quid that GW rule in my favour on my "weird" position.

Any takers?

DukeRustfield wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
I predicted five pages ago that this thread was going to go the exact same way as the thread discussing what is 25% of a 1999 point army, and I have been proven correct. It's a discussion far longer and far more heated than warranted by the actual impact on the game. Thread should've been locked a while ago for being an exercise in spinning in circles.

You posting I told you this would be a long thread, isn't remotely helpful or works in any way to make it shorter. This is actually the 2nd time the thread came up and I knew what the arguments would be and said it on page 1. The cool thing about the internet is there is nothing on earth preventing you from not reading this thread and even less from posting in it.

What would make it shorter would be locking it as it should have been 5+ pages ago. Continued argument on this topic is an exercise in futility. Neither side has even accepted that the other has made a reasonable argument at any point during this thread. At this point, the entire argument has devolved to "yes it is," "no it isn't" repeated ad nauseum.

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:

Niteware wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Boomer, it has to be additional or replacing.
If it is additional, you save bith seperately and the KB can still kill Ethereal.
If it is replacing, you only save KB and it can kill Ethereal.

If it is additional effect you have an extra wound to make save for etc. Clearly it is not this, as that would be ridiculous.

If it replaces then you have replaced the wound you would have done on a 6 with the "Killing Blow Effect" and being as this effect only works on Infantry, Cavalry and Warbeasts you would do nothing to other targets on a 6.

What happens with MI and MC depends on your interpretation of no effect.

No it doesn't. That language doesn't appear in the BRB.

All it says is that

"Killing Blow is only effective against infantry,
cavalry and war beasts "

Not "not in effect.".

The rational interpretation would be

Really? A person arguing that a non magic weapon suddenly gets the ability to lop the head off a ghost due to high level of skill is going to lecture me on being rational?

At least you've given me a laugh.

that replacing rule steps is an effect, so against some unit types KB does not replace the rules.

BRB rule section for this please?

You are free to continue to try and justify your weird position on that point.

I'll bet you 500 quid that GW rule in my favour on my "weird" position.

Any takers?

Taking the last bit first, you bet £500 that GW would say that because KB is ineffective on MI they are unharmed? I would take that bet.
As I said, your argument depends on interpretation of language, not of rules. "KB is only effective against" - what does effective mean? You are choosing a position meanng that you can do it but it does not do anything to. Another, more reasonable interpretation, is that KB does not come in to play against. Both are literal translations of the written words (look at a dictionary if you don't believe me), but one works and makes sense.
As far as mundane weapons killing ghosts with KB, it makes as much sense as many things in game.
You asked for a page number for "replacing rules being an effect of a rule". I was referring to cause and effect; KB causes a change to the normal rules, ergo the change it caused is an effect of KB. You do not need a page number for basic English.
As you admit ahove that KB replaces the normal wounding rules on a 6, you would presumably agree that you should follow those rules? As written? Like, on the roll of a 6, the model is slain.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
I predicted five pages ago that this thread was going to go the exact same way as the thread discussing what is 25% of a 1999 point army, and I have been proven correct. It's a discussion far longer and far more heated than warranted by the actual impact on the game. Thread should've been locked a while ago for being an exercise in spinning in circles.

You posting I told you this would be a long thread, isn't remotely helpful or works in any way to make it shorter. This is actually the 2nd time the thread came up and I knew what the arguments would be and said it on page 1. The cool thing about the internet is there is nothing on earth preventing you from not reading this thread and even less from posting in it.

What would make it shorter would be locking it as it should have been 5+ pages ago. Continued argument on this topic is an exercise in futility. Neither side has even accepted that the other has made a reasonable argument at any point during this thread. At this point, the entire argument has devolved to "yes it is," "no it isn't" repeated ad nauseum.

You are ignoing the peripheral things which have come out.
If you object to the theead, ignore it.

 Peasant wrote:
You roll one time for everything. The roll to wound that shows the '6' negates your armour and becomes a wound multiplier just like multiple wounds

I agree with you, obviously. Any other interpretation is silly. But I don't think the rule, in the most technical and literal sense, support that interpretation. Can you find any textual evidence? I've got nothing.

 Peasant wrote:
...for those that are willing, to begin interpreting language with it's multiple meanings, that often go outside the scope of what is written, to twist the rules often for their own benefit...So we step away from the RAW that many swear on, create a RAI and try to pass it off as RAW because we can pick up a few key words. So we use the intent to create the RAW.

I'm not sure if I follow. I mean, I totally agree that the idea of Killing Blow (or a Giant's pants, for that matter) is capable of dispersing the ectoplasm that makes up a ghost's form is utterly ridiculous. It is very clear that GW did not intend for such nonsense.
But I always thought the term "RAW" was used to describe what the rules technically, according to the most precise form of grammar and so on, where "RAI" is used to describe the way things are supposed to work, regardless of what they, due to an odd clause or an ambiguous word, "actually" say.
It seems like you're saying that the act of determining the RAW is an incorrect approach to the game. Is that right? I mean, I agree with you. I don't think many people are going to argue that their Executioners can kill Carin Wraiths.
I guess my point is: if you're arguing that a strict, grammatical adherence to the rules is incorrect, I think the debate is done. Because on one side, you've got people saying, "technically, KB can take out Ethereal, lullz", and the others saying, "being that strict in your reading is damaging to the game", and those can both be right at the same time.

...or am I just totally off-base, here?

No your not off base, almost anyone who has said that KB works on Ethereal also says they don't play that way, but in terms of a RAW it does work. This is just a thread arguing whether or not it works, and right now there are two people saying it doesn't work, but they keep only copy pasting the same thing over and over again when it keeps being shown that what they are saying doesn't work. Since why some of us are ignoring them and calling them trolls, because they are not making any clear arguments against KB working. Half the time they list a rule and completely make up stuff base off a rule that no way relates to the issue at hand. Which is "does KB work on Ethereal?" and in the rules breakdown "does KB cause wounds?"

Right now we have seen at least 10 sources and examples from the BRB and Army books that show that KB doesn't cause wounds (except for Combat resolution for determining scoring on who won combat, it even has its on thing on it stating as such) and even though its stupid it works on Ethereal.

The prime example that clearly shows it works is the whole spell that increases KB to work on a 5+, and no these attacks are not magically

The example.

20 Tomb Guard with Hand weapon and shield, and the the 5+ KB spell on them attack a unit of halberdiers and a captain of the empire with the +4 toughness spell on them.
The TG hit 12 times, then they go to the to wound phase in which they need a 6 to wound them str 4 vs To 7 and To 8
of the 12 hits, they roll 4x 3's, 4x 5's and 4x 6's
The 3's do not wound, but the 5's and 6's KB even though they needed 6's to wound.
Thus KB is only based on the roll of the dice not whether or not it wounds.
And KB specifically says it "Slays" and not wounds.

It is a pretty clear cut case for it working, because you could just substitute the empire guys with a unit of Cairn wraiths and the same thing would happen.

Niteware wrote:

It doesn't give you additional rules for a 6, it gives you different rules for a 6. Else you would need to save both wound and KB and both would count for CR.
Editing to add: Your suggestion that you could save both with one roll has no basis in rules, it is just you trying to find a way for your misinterpretation to work. Any ime that additional rules cause wounds, you save them as well, separately. Multiple woundsnis totally diffeent, as it is explicitly off unsaved wounds (ie, after saves have been attempted).

What is a wound with no armour save, if it is not an unsaved wound? When wounded, what happens when you fail your ward?
There is no instruction to ignore the wound that you rolled for. Only your assumption. Can you name any instance in this game that you roll to wound for another purpose? (of course outside of your interpretation of KB)
Your roll to wound causes the wound, KB multiplies it.
None of this breaks the system, and follows process.

You are actually wrong about both of those.
Ethereal is obvious - no magic doesn't stop a giant killing them with put in a hag.
KB is more nuanced; As KB doesn't wound, botwd probably doesn't protect against it, since it specifies that it is a ward against wounds. Again, this is RAW not RAI

Ethereal is obvious.
We are not talking about a giant.
KB is obvious.
It is your assumption that KB does not wound that is causing your difficulty.
Since KB wounds the discussion should be over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:

Taking the last bit first, you bet £500 that GW would say that because KB is ineffective on MI they are unharmed? I would take that bet.
As I said, your argument depends on interpretation of language, not of rules. "KB is only effective against" - what does effective mean? You are choosing a position meanng that you can do it but it does not do anything to. Another, more reasonable interpretation, is that KB does not come in to play against. Both are literal translations of the written words (look at a dictionary if you don't believe me), but one works and makes sense.
As far as mundane weapons killing ghosts with KB, it makes as much sense as many things in game.
You asked for a page number for "replacing rules being an effect of a rule". I was referring to cause and effect; KB causes a change to the normal rules, ergo the change it caused is an effect of KB. You do not need a page number for basic English.
As you admit ahove that KB replaces the normal wounding rules on a 6, you would presumably agree that you should follow those rules? As written? Like, on the roll of a 6, the model is slain

You question the interpretation of 'effective', yet you are interpreting the lack of the word 'wound' in KB (even though you are told to roll to wound) as it not causing wounds.
Which is more reasonable?
Your interpretation of KB is restructuring, the roll to wound (because you are ignoring it), the game process of rolling to wound (because you claim it becomes irrelevant) and the game process of checking the chart. (because you assume it ignores the chart)
Our interpretation negates armour, as stated in the rules and reduces wounds to zero, ergo slain (because you rolled to wound). All aspects of the game remain the same.
which is more reasonable?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warpsolution wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
You roll one time for everything. The roll to wound that shows the '6' negates your armour and becomes a wound multiplier just like multiple wounds

I agree with you, obviously. Any other interpretation is silly. But I don't think the rule, in the most technical and literal sense, support that interpretation. Can you find any textual evidence? I've got nothing.

Other than the text in KB itself, no. The other side has nothing new either. That is why we are so many pages in. It is really down to interpretation and at this point most reasonable.
As stated permissive system does not give you any instruction to ignore the roll to wound. Slain is a descriptive term not a game action.
There is no other time you roll to wound, other than to wound.

 Peasant wrote:
...for those that are willing, to begin interpreting language with it's multiple meanings, that often go outside the scope of what is written, to twist the rules often for their own benefit...So we step away from the RAW that many swear on, create a RAI and try to pass it off as RAW because we can pick up a few key words. So we use the intent to create the RAW.

I'm not sure if I follow. I mean, I totally agree that the idea of Killing Blow (or a Giant's pants, for that matter) is capable of dispersing the ectoplasm that makes up a ghost's form is utterly ridiculous. It is very clear that GW did not intend for such nonsense.
But I always thought the term "RAW" was used to describe what the rules technically, according to the most precise form of grammar and so on, where "RAI" is used to describe the way things are supposed to work, regardless of what they, due to an odd clause or an ambiguous word, "actually" say.
It seems like you're saying that the act of determining the RAW is an incorrect approach to the game. Is that right? I mean, I agree with you. I don't think many people are going to argue that their Executioners can kill Carin Wraiths.
I guess my point is: if you're arguing that a strict, grammatical adherence to the rules is incorrect, I think the debate is done. Because on one side, you've got people saying, "technically, KB can take out Ethereal, lullz", and the others saying, "being that strict in your reading is damaging to the game", and those can both be right at the same time.

...or am I just totally off-base, here?

 Peasant wrote:

Niteware wrote:

It doesn't give you additional rules for a 6, it gives you different rules for a 6. Else you would need to save both wound and KB and both would count for CR.
Editing to add: Your suggestion that you could save both with one roll has no basis in rules, it is just you trying to find a way for your misinterpretation to work. Any ime that additional rules cause wounds, you save them as well, separately. Multiple woundsnis totally diffeent, as it is explicitly off unsaved wounds (ie, after saves have been attempted).

What is a wound with no armour save, if it is not an unsaved wound? When wounded, what happens when you fail your ward?
There is no instruction to ignore the wound that you rolled for. Only your assumption. Can you name any instance in this game that you roll to wound for another purpose? (of course outside of your interpretation of KB)
Your roll to wound causes the wound, KB multiplies it.
None of this breaks the system, and follows process.

You are actually wrong about both of those.
Ethereal is obvious - no magic doesn't stop a giant killing them with put in a hag.
KB is more nuanced; As KB doesn't wound, botwd probably doesn't protect against it, since it specifies that it is a ward against wounds. Again, this is RAW not RAI

Ethereal is obvious.
We are not talking about a giant.
KB is obvious.
It is your assumption that KB does not wound that is causing your difficulty.
Since KB wounds the discussion should be over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:

Taking the last bit first, you bet £500 that GW would say that because KB is ineffective on MI they are unharmed? I would take that bet.
As I said, your argument depends on interpretation of language, not of rules. "KB is only effective against" - what does effective mean? You are choosing a position meanng that you can do it but it does not do anything to. Another, more reasonable interpretation, is that KB does not come in to play against. Both are literal translations of the written words (look at a dictionary if you don't believe me), but one works and makes sense.
As far as mundane weapons killing ghosts with KB, it makes as much sense as many things in game.
You asked for a page number for "replacing rules being an effect of a rule". I was referring to cause and effect; KB causes a change to the normal rules, ergo the change it caused is an effect of KB. You do not need a page number for basic English.
As you admit ahove that KB replaces the normal wounding rules on a 6, you would presumably agree that you should follow those rules? As written? Like, on the roll of a 6, the model is slain

You question the interpretation of 'effective', yet you are interpreting the lack of the word 'wound' in KB (even though you are told to roll to wound) as it not causing wounds.
Which is more reasonable?
Your interpretation of KB is restructuring, the roll to wound (because you are ignoring it), the game process of rolling to wound (because you claim it becomes irrelevant) and the game process of checking the chart. (because you assume it ignores the chart)
Our interpretation negates armour, as stated in the rules and reduces wounds to zero, ergo slain (because you rolled to wound). All aspects of the game remain the same.
which is more reasonable?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warpsolution wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
You roll one time for everything. The roll to wound that shows the '6' negates your armour and becomes a wound multiplier just like multiple wounds

I agree with you, obviously. Any other interpretation is silly. But I don't think the rule, in the most technical and literal sense, support that interpretation. Can you find any textual evidence? I've got nothing.

Other than the text in KB itself, no. The other side has nothing new either. That is why we are so many pages in. It is really down to interpretation and at this point most reasonable.
As stated permissive system does not give you any instruction to ignore the roll to wound. Slain is a descriptive term not a game action.
There is no other time you roll to wound, other than to wound.

 Peasant wrote:
...for those that are willing, to begin interpreting language with it's multiple meanings, that often go outside the scope of what is written, to twist the rules often for their own benefit...So we step away from the RAW that many swear on, create a RAI and try to pass it off as RAW because we can pick up a few key words. So we use the intent to create the RAW.

I'm not sure if I follow. I mean, I totally agree that the idea of Killing Blow (or a Giant's pants, for that matter) is capable of dispersing the ectoplasm that makes up a ghost's form is utterly ridiculous. It is very clear that GW did not intend for such nonsense.
But I always thought the term "RAW" was used to describe what the rules technically, according to the most precise form of grammar and so on, where "RAI" is used to describe the way things are supposed to work, regardless of what they, due to an odd clause or an ambiguous word, "actually" say.
It seems like you're saying that the act of determining the RAW is an incorrect approach to the game. Is that right? I mean, I agree with you. I don't think many people are going to argue that their Executioners can kill Carin Wraiths.
I guess my point is: if you're arguing that a strict, grammatical adherence to the rules is incorrect, I think the debate is done. Because on one side, you've got people saying, "technically, KB can take out Ethereal, lullz", and the others saying, "being that strict in your reading is damaging to the game", and those can both be right at the same time.

...or am I just totally off-base, here?

I'm sorry that wasn't as clear as I had hoped. It did sort of ramble.
Let me try a more concise ramble.
KB, you roll to wound. Would you ever make an assumption after rolling to wound that you didn't wound?
When playing, the RAW would tell you that you wounded and killed the model. Game process, wound, fail save, die.
RAW for ethereal you need magic to wound.
But now the intent becomes the issue. They no longer want KB to wound so the interpretation gets changed.
Raw is not incorrect it's what is on the pages.
Since language is, for lack of a better word, 'flexible' we change RAW into RAI and back again as we see fit and try to claim it as gaming gospel and try to thro the term RAW/RAI for strength.
Ergo the rules as written must be played as intended. They require each other. Both equally important.
Nite plays his way, I play mine. We disagree. If we can iron it out during game great, if not it's time to find a new player.
This has been done for a while because there is no additional information to give. There hasn't been in pages. That is why these topics show in You make da call..because we take the RAW and explain our RAI and hope we can sway people to our side.
And of course this entertains me.

First off, a wound is not an "unsaved wound" until you have taken any ward saves that you have, so a wound with no armour save is just a wound with no armour save.
Secondly, lets look at the actuql rule for wounding.

P 51Roll to Wound
Roll a d6 for each attack which hit. Compare the Strength of the attacker with the Toughness of the defender to find the score required to wound.

So you roll a d6, then compare the s to t, then consult the table. Only at that point is the wound extant.
KB substitutes alternative instructions;

On a To Wound roll of a 6, the target is slain

You do not reach the comparison of s and t, so you do not reach the to wound table, so no wound exists.
You claim that I am assuming there is no wound, but I have shown that there is no wound.
The meaning of the word "effective" is far more ambiguous, but I am 100% confident that GW would not say that the presence of KB meant that MC and MI are not wounded on a roll of a 6. That suggests that my interpretation of effective is more useful than Boomer's.

Okay, I think we've pretty well exhausted this.

Just like the 'catching fleeing units' rule, I think it's pretty clear that KB was not INTENDED to be a way to bypass ethereal. Even those that are arguing that RAW it could, don't intend to play that way because it would make them TFG.

So... why are we still arguing this? Isn't it about time to let this thread just die?

 Vulcan wrote:
Okay, I think we've pretty well exhausted this.

Just like the 'catching fleeing units' rule, I think it's pretty clear that KB was not INTENDED to be a way to bypass ethereal. Even those that are arguing that RAW it could, don't intend to play that way because it would make them TFG.

So... why are we still arguing this? Isn't it about time to let this thread just die?

We are still arguing it because we are pedants who like to make their point
Why do you want the thread to die?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We've passed the 5k views point, so one of the most viewed questions of the last 2 years. Good going.

It will not die

 HoverBoy wrote:
It will not die

Theads that won't die rule:
Roll of D6 for each page of circular logic. On a 2+, add another page of circular logic and roll again.
It's like the Red Fury of pointless arguments.

-Matt

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 HoverBoy wrote:
It will not die

Theads that won't die rule:
Roll of D6 for each page of circular logic. On a 2+, add another page of circular logic and roll again.
It's like the Red Fury of pointless arguments.

-Matt

On a 2+ roll again, reroll 1s surely...

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 HoverBoy wrote:
It will not die

Theads that won't die rule:
Roll of D6 for each page of circular logic. On a 2+, add another page of circular logic and roll again.
It's like the Red Fury of pointless arguments.

-Matt

Can I sig that?

Niteware wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Okay, I think we've pretty well exhausted this.

Just like the 'catching fleeing units' rule, I think it's pretty clear that KB was not INTENDED to be a way to bypass ethereal. Even those that are arguing that RAW it could, don't intend to play that way because it would make them TFG.

So... why are we still arguing this? Isn't it about time to let this thread just die?

We are still arguing it because we are pedants who like to make their point
Why do you want the thread to die?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We've passed the 5k views point, so one of the most viewed questions of the last 2 years. Good going.

He wants it to die because no matter how much he hates it, he still keeps coming back and reading it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:


First off, a wound is not an "unsaved wound" until you have taken any ward saves that you have, so a wound with no armour save is just a wound with no armour save.
Secondly, lets look at the actuql rule for wounding.

Ridiculous. So if you have a s10 with a d3 multiple ounds, then wound your opponent and they have no ward... you don't get to do d3 wounds because its not an 'unsaved wound??
It's just a wound with no armour save.
This is more of the overthinking that I have been talking about.

P 51Roll to Wound
Roll a d6 for each attack which hit. Compare the Strength of the attacker with the Toughness of the defender to find the score required to wound.

So you roll a d6, then compare the s to t, then consult the table. Only at that point is the wound extant.
KB substitutes alternative instructions;
On a To Wound roll of a 6, the target is slain
You do not reach the comparison of s and t, so you do not reach the to wound table, so no wound exists.
You claim that I am assuming there is no wound, but I have shown that there is no wound.

Well, apparently someone rolled that 2+....

 Peasant wrote:

Niteware wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Okay, I think we've pretty well exhausted this.

Just like the 'catching fleeing units' rule, I think it's pretty clear that KB was not INTENDED to be a way to bypass ethereal. Even those that are arguing that RAW it could, don't intend to play that way because it would make them TFG.

So... why are we still arguing this? Isn't it about time to let this thread just die?

We are still arguing it because we are pedants who like to make their point
Why do you want the thread to die?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We've passed the 5k views point, so one of the most viewed questions of the last 2 years. Good going.

He wants it to die because no matter how much he hates it, he still keeps coming back and reading it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:


First off, a wound is not an "unsaved wound" until you have taken any ward saves that you have, so a wound with no armour save is just a wound with no armour save.
Secondly, lets look at the actuql rule for wounding.

Ridiculous. So if you have a s10 with a d3 multiple ounds, then wound your opponent and they have no ward... you don't get to do d3 wounds because its not an 'unsaved wound??
It's just a wound with no armour save.
This is more of the overthinking that I have been talking about.

P 51Roll to Wound
Roll a d6 for each attack which hit. Compare the Strength of the attacker with the Toughness of the defender to find the score required to wound.

So you roll a d6, then compare the s to t, then consult the table. Only at that point is the wound extant.
KB substitutes alternative instructions;
On a To Wound roll of a 6, the target is slain
You do not reach the comparison of s and t, so you do not reach the to wound table, so no wound exists.
You claim that I am assuming there is no wound, but I have shown that there is no wound.

Edits to try and fix quotes...failed..

Even your example shows you to be incorrect.
Where are you told not to compare that 6 to the chart?
Where is the instruction to substitute.
The 6 to wound and the 6 to KB work together.
Slain regardless of the number of wounds. Not just one wound which would slay a single model, but all the profile which is required to slay any that meet criteria. It makes no sense through the rules that KB does not wound.
Where have you shown no wound? I missed it.
You've assumed as you did in your example that you skip but it is just your intent.

First off, adding in "no ward save" would make a wound with no armour saves an "unsaved wound", but that was not what you had originally sttated. I would appreciate you retracting that "Ridiculous" as that partof my post was undenyably ccorrect.
Secondly, multiple wounds work from automatic wounds, KB does not, so they are clearly different.
Thirdly, there are lots of things that the rules don't tell you not to do. This is because the rules tell you what to do. KB would need to tell you to consult the wound table as well. Except that that would be stupid, becaus the target is being Killing Blowed instead of wounded.
Finally, the instruction to substitute is the same as it is for every other rule. They tell you how to do things normally. Occasionally, you get exceptions to these rules, which take the same input but give you different rules for what to do. Poison is a good example; it says on a roll of a 6 you hit. It does not go on to say that you do not need to look at the to hit table. Similarly, KB tells you to do something exceptional on the roll of a 6.

 Peasant wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
You roll one time for everything. The roll to wound that shows the '6' negates your armour and becomes a wound multiplier just like multiple wounds

I agree with you, obviously. Any other interpretation is silly. But I don't think the rule, in the most technical and literal sense, support that interpretation. Can you find any textual evidence? I've got nothing.

Other than the text in KB itself, no. The other side has nothing new either. That is why we are so many pages in. It is really down to interpretation and at this point most reasonable.
As stated permissive system does not give you any instruction to ignore the roll to wound. Slain is a descriptive term not a game action.
There is no other time you roll to wound, other than to wound.

So you agree that, when you roll a 6 to wound, you both successfully wound and score a Killing Blow. Since these're two separate rules, and nothing stated allows us to assume that one replaces the other, they both occur at once. Roll Ward versus Killing Blow. If successful, roll armour/Ward/Regen for the normal wound.

Silliness! But yeah, I guess that's what it technically says. Good thing it's not something any tournament organizer would ever OK.

 Peasant wrote:

I'm sorry that wasn't as clear as I had hoped. It did sort of ramble.
Let me try a more concise ramble.
KB, you roll to wound. Would you ever make an assumption after rolling to wound that you didn't wound?
When playing, the RAW would tell you that you wounded and killed the model. Game process, wound, fail save, die.
RAW for ethereal you need magic to wound.
But now the intent becomes the issue. They no longer want KB to wound so the interpretation gets changed.
Raw is not incorrect it's what is on the pages.
Since language is, for lack of a better word, 'flexible' we change RAW into RAI and back again as we see fit and try to claim it as gaming gospel and try to thro the term RAW/RAI for strength.
Ergo the rules as written must be played as intended. They require each other. Both equally important.
Nite plays his way, I play mine. We disagree. If we can iron it out during game great, if not it's time to find a new player.

So, at this point, I would say the true focal point of the debate is as follows:

- is the term "slain" a mechanical game term?

If it is, we don't need to assume anything about wounding, and Killing Blow, for some comically stupid reason, can take out ghosts.
If it isn't, we need to assume something. Since we're rolling on the to-wound table, the easiest assumption is that we are wounding.

Again, thugh, I don't think anyone here would actually play this rule as they're claiming it. If I ever run a giant, you can be damn sure that he won't be stuffing Tomb Banshees down his pants.

Warpsolution wrote:
If I ever run a giant, you can be damn sure that he won't be stuffing Tomb Banshees down his pants.

All giants need their pants modeled as bags.

Slain is a game term. It is used across the BRB for death/removed from game/killed/casualties. Which are all synonyms that are used interchangeably. (See shooting remove casualties vs. CC remove casualties vs. spell death vs. attribute death.)

You can see the first example on page 4.

"If at any time a model's S, T or W are reduced to 0 [snip] it is slain and removed from play."

The next time (I think) is p.51 under Remove Casualties.

"With saving throws made or failed, you now need to remove the slain."

"It is a good idea not to immediately remove models that are slain from the table, but instead temporarily place them next of their unit -- you will need to know how many casualties have been caused when working out who won the combat."

Under shooting they use the words killed, remove from play, casualties.

You can't cause wounds to something that is slain. The only exception (and stated as the only exception in the BRB) is in a challenge for combat resolution.

As soon as you roll a 6, (or 5+ in case of a buffed TG or such) KB is activated. Target takes a ward save if they have one, if failed they are slain immediately. The rule doesn't say to wait and see what other good stuff happens. Whatever they were going to do after is gone. They can't be wounded, they can't take armor saves, they can't move, they can't wave to their moms, they are slain.

This all has been stated at least twice in this thread. It took some time to put it all together but it's pretty well established now. If you want to join the thread late, that's fine, but I recommend at least reading it.

DukeRustfield wrote:
This all has been stated at least twice in this thread. It took some time to put it all together but it's pretty well established now. If you want to join the thread late, that's fine, but I recommend at least reading it.

Was this directed at me? Because at this point, I agree with your stance on the subject.
But since at least one person on this thread still doesn't see "slain" as a game term, there's obviously something missing. It might be a piece of your argument, it might be an ability for your opponents to admit they're wrong. But it's something. I'm just trying to figure out what, exactly, it is, and get everyone to focus on it, instead of quoting other people's quotes of other people's quotes of pages upon pages of text. Because that gets us nowhere even slower than normal debates, and is a real pain to read.

Niteware wrote:

First off, adding in "no ward save" would make a wound with no armour saves an "unsaved wound", but that was not what you had originally sttated. I would appreciate you retracting that "Ridiculous" as that partof my post was undenyably ccorrect.
Secondly, multiple wounds work from automatic wounds, KB does not, so they are clearly different.
Thirdly, there are lots of things that the rules don't tell you not to do. This is because the rules tell you what to do. KB would need to tell you to consult the wound table as well. Except that that would be stupid, becaus the target is being Killing Blowed instead of wounded.
Finally, the instruction to substitute is the same as it is for every other rule. They tell you how to do things normally. Occasionally, you get exceptions to these rules, which take the same input but give you different rules for what to do. Poison is a good example; it says on a roll of a 6 you hit. It does not go on to say that you do not need to look at the to hit table. Similarly, KB tells you to do something exceptional on the roll of a 6.

First..really?
You said ' Multiple woundsnis totally diffeent, as it is explicitly off unsaved wounds (ie, after saves have been attempted).' That was your comment.
I am still saying... If you roll a six to wound and have no armour it is an unsaved wound. That is what happens in this game. I guess again I have to type every step. This is why you are struggling with the concept I am trying to explain to you.

Second. Yes they are different. Multiple wounds is all the time, KB is only on a wound roll of six against specific targets. Multiple wounds does d3/d6/2 whatever it is. KB does all the wounds on the profile. Yet they take place similarly by following the same steps.

Third, Why? Why does KB need to tell you to consult the chart? When have you ever rolled to wound, not to consult the chart? Everything that does not consult the chart gives you a different description/chart/stat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warpsolution wrote:


So you agree that, when you roll a 6 to wound, you both successfully wound and score a Killing Blow. Since these're two separate rules, and nothing stated allows us to assume that one replaces the other, they both occur at once. Roll Ward versus Killing Blow. If successful, roll armour/Ward/Regen for the normal wound.

Silliness! But yeah, I guess that's what it technically says. Good thing it's not something any tournament organizer would ever OK.

Not quite, as I have stated many times, the 6 does wound. It has to because that is what the roll to wound is.
If the criteria is not met you cause 1 wound (failing armour and/or wards)
If criteria is met you'll get wounded with no armour save and if you have none/fail ward it will multiply to all the wounds on the profile. Just like d3/d6/2 wounds.
It has it's own category because it is dependent on a dice roll and criteria.
It doesn't break any part of the game system.

So, at this point, I would say the true focal point of the debate is as follows:

- is the term "slain" a mechanical game term?

If it is, we don't need to assume anything about wounding, and Killing Blow, for some comically stupid reason, can take out ghosts.
If it isn't, we need to assume something. Since we're rolling on the to-wound table, the easiest assumption is that we are wounding.

Again, thugh, I don't think anyone here would actually play this rule as they're claiming it. If I ever run a giant, you can be damn sure that he won't be stuffing Tomb Banshees down his pants.

I'm not quite sure if this is directed my way..but...
Again, not quite. It is easy to establish that slain is a description, not a game mechanic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
Slain is a game term. It is used across the BRB for death/removed from game/killed/casualties. Which are all synonyms that are used interchangeably. (See shooting remove casualties vs. CC remove casualties vs. spell death vs. attribute death.)

Yes, it is a game term but not a game mechanic. If someone says 'slay that model' you have to ask how. Remove wounds, remove as casualty, toughness test, initiative test etc.
With KB how are you 'slaying' the model.?
By removing all the wounds remaining on the profile.
Pretty clear that that is wounding.

You can't cause wounds to something that is slain. The only exception (and stated as the only exception in the BRB) is in a challenge for combat resolution.

As soon as you roll a 6, (or 5+ in case of a buffed TG or such) KB is activated. Target takes a ward save if they have one, if failed they are slain immediately. The rule doesn't say to wait and see what other good stuff happens. Whatever they were going to do after is gone. They can't be wounded, they can't take armor saves, they can't move, they can't wave to their moms, they are slain.
.

You are working backwards.
You roll to wound in order to slay. You don't slay to cause wounds.
How did you slay the model?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Nite- You never answered which is more reasonable?

@Warpsolution- I can't put things any more basic than I have. Let me know if you want me to type it again. The whole crux to this is whether or not KB wounds. Once we all accept that it does, which there is no logical gaming sense that it does not, the KB vs. Ethereal problem is solved.

Niteware wrote:

Taking the last bit first, you bet £500 that GW would say that because KB is ineffective on MI they are unharmed? I would take that bet.

Either you're being facetious or you've highlighted why this is giving you such an issue; reading comprehension.

As I said, your argument depends on interpretation of language, not of rules.

Isn't the whole basis of your argument the word "slain"? A word which is used most often throughout the manual as a description of models that have lost all their wounds and left the table as I have shown with direct page references from the BRB?

"KB is only effective against" - what does effective mean? You are choosing a position meanng that you can do it but it does not do anything to.

A perfectly reasonable assumption and the more correct parsing of that sentence.

Another, more reasonable interpretation, is that KB does not come in to play against. Both are literal translations of the written words (look at a dictionary if you don't believe me), but one works and makes sense.

Sorry... aren't you the guy arguing that something that happens when you roll to wound, is described in the BRB as inflicting wounds, that says...

"the ward save prevents all
damage from the Killing Blow"

...with damage being defined in the BRB as wounds (BRB p3), is being unreasonable in my interpretation? When yours is based around the word slain meaning "instant kill" when it doesn't use the word slain in the description of instant kills and doesn't reference Killing Blow at all? OK.....

Also note in the previous that it does not say prevent the effect of Killing Blow, it says "prevent all damage"

As you admit ahove that KB replaces the normal wounding rules on a 6, you would presumably agree that you should follow those rules?

Just like multiple wounds you mean?

As written?

Like where it says "prevents all damage"? And damage as defined in the BRB on p3

QUOTE
"WOUNDS (W)
This shows how much damage a creature can
take "

Like, on the roll of a 6, the model is slain.

Yes, just like a model that has 1 wound is slain when it takes 1 wound or a model with 3 is slain when is a 4 is rolled on the d6 for a multi wound hit.

I would love to use Peasant's interpretation of KB, simply to abuse his rules.
KB in challenges is ridiculously more broken as he states than it is the way the rules do, and the Ethereal interaction is also just about infinitely more rare.

 kirsanth wrote:
I would love to use Peasant's interpretation of KB, simply to abuse his rules.
KB in challenges is ridiculously more broken as he states than it is the way the rules do, and the Ethereal interaction is also just about infinitely more rare.

How is it broken? How do you abuse it? Overkill caps you at +5.

And getting to that +5 much easier isn't abuse?

 HoverBoy wrote:
And getting to that +5 much easier isn't abuse?

This doesn't answer how it's broken or abused.

 Peasant wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:


So you agree that, when you roll a 6 to wound, you both successfully wound and score a Killing Blow...

Not quite, as I have stated many times, the 6 does wound. It has to because that is what the roll to wound is.
If the criteria is not met you cause 1 wound (failing armour and/or wards)
If criteria is met you'll get wounded with no armour save and if you have none/fail ward it will multiply to all the wounds on the profile. Just like d3/d6/2 wounds.

Warpsolution wrote:
you wound and also trigger Killing Blow. Since neither replaces the other, like Multiple Wounds replaces normal wounding, they both occur when you roll a 6.

But KB does replace the whole wounding process--if it's successful. Because we have to do operations in order. We aren't multi-tasking CPUs. When a 6 is roll on the to wound that is the very first start of the entry point of KB. That happens immediately. You have not exited the to wound table. Evaluated it. Done anything other than roll 6 (or 5 if modified). That triggers a special rule. Which you then follow. As it happens it has a sub-rule that says you roll a ward save. The To Wound operation is frozen in time waiting for this Special Rule (KB) and sub-rule to conclude so it can figure out if the target was wounded. If the ward fails, however, the target is slain. You can't do anything to slain models because they're slain. That is exactly wording used in close combat for casualties and removed from play. You don't even come back to the to wound roll because everything you were going to do is irrelevant because the model is no only a counter for combat resolution. You can turn him on his side or otherwise move him away. His wounds (or movement or armor or whatever) are all of no concern. If the ward save DID succeed, you jump out of the entire KB Special Rule and check your to wound roll as if KB never happened. The two, by their very definitions, are mutually-exclusive.

The only place they are not is in combat resolution in a challenge. If you're fighting a 4 wound lord and he takes 1 wound and then is KB'd, he would contribute +5 to combat resolution. In this case, even if you KB'd first, you could still do wounds or KB again. As laid out in the section on challenges. And where it explicitly states this is the only place it can happen.

@DukeRustfield: I feel like you've agreed with me, but in such a way that it sounded like you didn't.

I get the idea that, once someone is dead, you can't wound them any more. That's not what I'm saying.
My point is: when you roll a 6 to wound, you trigger Killing Blow. So you have to roll your Ward or die.
But, since Killing Blow doesn't ever say "instead", you continue following the CC rules after that, so, if you fail to kill your opponent, you might wound them.

I guess it's not as stupid a concept as I originally thought; it could make sense. But it's complicated enough that I'll still assume that GW didn't mean for it to work that way.

 Peasant wrote:
He wants it to die because no matter how much he hates it, he still keeps coming back and reading it.

I just wonder why certain people here keep proving they are TFG by continuing to argue the point.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
He wants it to die because no matter how much he hates it, he still keeps coming back and reading it.

I just wonder why certain people here keep proving they are TFG by continuing to argue the point.

I do it for entertainment. Gives me something extra to do and my group already knows how we play it. Share the knowledge.

Do you classify as TFG that stands there listenening, asking why we don't shut up, instead of just walking away.

Peasant is not being TFG. He is wrong, but arguing in a reasonable way. Also, other threads confirm that he is articulate and often correct.

Warpsolution wrote:
I guess it's not as stupid a concept as I originally thought; it could make sense. But it's complicated enough that I'll still assume that GW didn't mean for it to work that way.

I don't think it's very complicated. We only made it complicated because we were lazy and extrapolated that not being able to be wounded means we're not going to bother with any of the steps that come before, one of which generates KB. It's a noble thought to speed the game up, but not when it throws away actual results. Every single rule, subrule, sub sub rule, and bit of wording everywhere in the book points that it works. In this entire mega thread of doom there hasn't been one page and rule cited that states otherwise. Just a lot of teeth gnashing and trollery that it shouldn't work because ghosts are ghosty, and combat resolution seems wound-like.

As for complicated, ITP isn't Unbreakable and isn't Steadfast and isn't Stubborn and doesn't have Fear/Terror and isn't Undead and isn't Daemonic. That's a lot of variations on LD rules. But you have to read them all and see where they don't overlap. You don't just go, meh, he's Unbreakable so he can never fail any LD tests. A casket of souls can still zap him. And a giant can still smash an ethereal. As for it making sense, people are reloading black powder rifles in 3 seconds, aiming and firing; having a boulder from a catapult land on their head and surviving; having a damn comet hit them and not only living but staying in formation and holding their position until the general says move. Maybe giants, formerly titans, still retain some magic. Maybe they're just so damn big they punch shockwaves through the realm of chaos.

Warpsolution wrote:


Again, I agree. But since neither of us can offer any proof to the otherwise, the most rigid reading of the rules would say that, on a 6, you wound and also trigger Killing Blow. Since neither replaces the other, like Multiple Wounds replaces normal wounding, they both occur when you roll a 6.

Remember though, multiple wounds multiplies the caused wound it does not replace it.
KB slays regardless of the number of wounds on the profile.
This is really the only way to write a number that can vary so much.

Warpsolution wrote:



@Peasant: And as far as whether or not Killing Blow wounds, that seems to hinge upon whether or not rolling on the to Wound table and triggering a rule separate from it (Killing Blow) causes wounds. Right?
I can see where you're coming from. And, from a logical, outside-the-game perspective, I agree with you. But I'm just not quite there as far as what's technically "true".

I guess it depends on your viewpoint. I don't see anything that separates that '6' from the roll to wound. Wounding is wounding.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:
Peasant is not being TFG. He is wrong, but arguing in a reasonable way. Also, other threads confirm that he is articulate and often correct.

Well thank you. And I respectfully disagree Because I believe that you are incorrect


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:
I guess it's not as stupid a concept as I originally thought; it could make sense. But it's complicated enough that I'll still assume that GW didn't mean for it to work that way.

I don't think it's very complicated. We only made it complicated because we were lazy and extrapolated that not being able to be wounded means we're not going to bother with any of the steps that come before, one of which generates KB. It's a noble thought to speed the game up, but not when it throws away actual results. Every single rule, subrule, sub sub rule, and bit of wording everywhere in the book points that it works. In this entire mega thread of doom there hasn't been one page and rule cited that states otherwise. Just a lot of teeth gnashing and trollery that it shouldn't work because ghosts are ghosty, and combat resolution seems wound-like.

As for complicated, ITP isn't Unbreakable and isn't Steadfast and isn't Stubborn and doesn't have Fear/Terror and isn't Undead and isn't Daemonic. That's a lot of variations on LD rules. But you have to read them all and see where they don't overlap. You don't just go, meh, he's Unbreakable so he can never fail any LD tests. A casket of souls can still zap him. And a giant can still smash an ethereal. As for it making sense, people are reloading black powder rifles in 3 seconds, aiming and firing; having a boulder from a catapult land on their head and surviving; having a damn comet hit them and not only living but staying in formation and holding their position until the general says move. Maybe giants, formerly titans, still retain some magic. Maybe they're just so damn big they punch shockwaves through the realm of chaos.

I have never made the ghostly ghost argument we play a fantasy game with magic and ratmen.
I have always followed the steps.
Following game processes You have your model you roll to hit then roll to wound. No magic, no wound. Stop. You are done there.
The KB crowd wants to skip part of the process by trying to bypass the actual process written into the rule. Rolling to wound.
You said "It's a noble thought to speed the game up, but not when it throws away actual results" But you want to throw away the game process of rolling to wound.
Your rulebook must be different to mine. Nothing ever tells me to wound not to wound.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Slain is a game term. It is used across the BRB for death/removed from game/killed/casualties. Which are all synonyms that are used interchangeably. (See shooting remove casualties vs. CC remove casualties vs. spell death vs. attribute death.)

Being that you have me on ignore because... well because you couldn't answer my arguments and rather immaturely decided to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la not listening" I don't really feel the need to be tremendously polite, nonetheless I am going to try... well at least a little.

Anyways, this is complete and total bollocks. Slain is not a game term, it has never been a game term, it is not listed in any index, glossary, subheading, or FAQ as one and has zero rules attached to the term at any point or in any way in WFB. End of.

Killing Blow does not even use the term slain, it uses slay just as a heads up. Yes, I know slain is the past participle of slay.

Do you want to know where else slay comes up? Page 3 under the description of WOUNDS

QUOTE BRB p3
"Large monsters and mighty heroes are often
able to withstand several wounds that would
slay a smaller creature"

Or for War Machines

QUOTE BRB p82
"or even slay fearsome monsters with a single,
well-placed shot."

Do War Machines have some mythical slay special rule that I am not playing properly? a Special slay effect?

You can see the first example on page 4.

"If at any time a model's S, T or W are reduced to 0 [snip] it is slain and removed from play."

No actually you can see the first example of slay on page 3 under wounds where it explains that "Large monsters and mighty heroes are often
able to withstand several wounds that would slay a smaller creature". You know where it says removing somethings wounds would slay it, after which we would refer to it as having been slain.... are you keeping up there?

You can't cause wounds to something that is slain. The only exception (and stated as the only exception in the BRB) is in a challenge for combat resolution.

No, causing wounds to something causes it to become slain. Also the exception you are talking about, is that the one that tells you how to add up the "wounds inflicted by Killing Blow"?

This all has been stated at least twice in this thread. It took some time to put it all together but it's pretty well established now. If you want to join the thread late, that's fine, but I recommend at least reading it.

It's been established you don't like facts that don't support your point of view.

Tell me, being that a "ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow", what damage am I trying to prevent? Being that damage is wounds in this game as defined on p3 of the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
Every single rule, subrule, sub sub rule, and bit of wording everywhere in the book points that it works. In this entire mega thread of doom there hasn't been one page and rule cited that states otherwise. Just a lot of teeth gnashing and trollery that it shouldn't work because ghosts are ghosty, and combat resolution seems wound-like.

You are suffering under one of the worst cases of confirmation bias and delusion I've ever seen. I've shown how neither of your assumptions even work in game and nobody has even made a stab at answering that except Niteware to his credit. Very poorly admittedly and without realizing that attacking my strictly correct reading of "only effective against", when the whole basis of your argument lays in trying to twist the word slays into your own contextual meaning, which it simply doesn't have, and isn't backed up in the BRB, oozes hilariously unintentional irony...

Niteware wrote:
Peasant is not being TFG. He is wrong, but arguing in a reasonable way. Also, other threads confirm that he is articulate and often correct.

+1 and exalted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:
Tell me, being that a "ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow", what damage am I trying to prevent? Being that damage is wounds in this game as defined on p3 of the BRB.

See above (i.e. any of the 12 pages have examples for you).
There are many ways to do what anyone would call damage (including the rules) without a wound.

Do you think unit is not damaged by a giant stuffing a model into its bag?
(Note: Nothing in the rules dealt wounds. Yet there are rules stating the model is slain, which is damage - NOT WOUNDS - to the unit, via the removal of models.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait.

Are you trying to say that the removal of models without wounding them is wounding a unit?

That would almost make sense, it seems, except for the exceptions that allow it - naming the rules for KB.
(I am literally struggling to understand the basis of your disagreeing with the rules as written in a RAW debate. A roll to wound that causes a new effect to occur is not able to be ignored on the basis that the effect that it is replacing could be ignored. If I can re-roll misses, I do not get to reroll any 3 because it could have been a miss. In this case you are claiming exactly that. I want to ignore the to-wound roll of 6 even though that is not related to the rule we are discussing? Ethereal does not make them immune to anything non-magical that rolls to-wound.)

Maybe I misread again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Curious.
Poison worked in the previous editions versus models with a Toughness too high to possibly wound right?
(Half wondering if it is side-note legacy that, being as rare as we all know, no one really thought to update.)

There are no toughnesses too high to possibly wound. S1 can still wound T10. Poison has to hit. It specifically has rules that say if you can't hit, you can't poison. KB does not have that language that if you can't wound, you can't KB. It has language that says if you auto-wound you can't KB, likely because KB is a 1:6 chance of happening and if you auto-wound, you never roll that die. So would you auto-KB? That would be insanely powerful.

I meant previous BRB editions.
I know that S1 v T10 was impossible to wound prior to the current edition (maybe not all, but at least the last), but my question was whether poison (et al) worked in these cases - my impression was yes.

That was where I read it as the ball being dropped - assuming people think it was not a deliberate exception despite the literal fact that it made it to being written in the printed rules.

 kirsanth wrote:

See above (i.e. any of the 12 pages have examples for you).
There are many ways to do what anyone would call damage (including the rules) without a wound.

Do you think unit is not damaged by a giant stuffing a model into its bag?
(Note: Nothing in the rules dealt wounds. Yet there are rules stating the model is slain, which is damage - NOT WOUNDS - to the unit, via the removal of models.)

You are even stating here that 'slay' does nothing to help your argument. 'slay' in no way suggests that KB does or does not wound. It is just describing the fact that the model will be dead
The thing about this is that no one is saying there are no other ways to slay a model. Toughness tests kill models..probably more often than killing blow, except from those damn grave guard with great weapons...back on topic..
Giants are a whole different ball game as I stated long ago. As much as I dislike the giant idea, they 'may' work by RAW on ethereal, though we would probably agree with 'no' in our group..but that's enough on that because it is a whole other topic that really has no relevance to KB. A thread, if opened, that I will NOT be joining

Wait.

Are you trying to say that the removal of models without wounding them is wounding a unit?

That would almost make sense, it seems, except for the exceptions that allow it - naming the rules for KB.
(I am literally struggling to understand the basis of your disagreeing with the rules as written in a RAW debate. A roll to wound that causes a new effect to occur is not able to be ignored on the basis that the effect that it is replacing could be ignored. If I can re-roll misses, I do not get to reroll any 3 because it could have been a miss. In this case you are claiming exactly that. I want to ignore the to-wound roll of 6 even though that is not related to the rule we are discussing? Ethereal does not make them immune to anything non-magical that rolls to-wound.)

Maybe I misread again.

As stated..Rolling to wound and checking the chart are all part of the same process. They are not separate. KB does not have a separate process
If KB said to roll a dice and on a six you KB, then I would be inclined to agree.
But it doesn't. It says to roll to wound. I'm unable to find anything that suggests that the game process becomes irrelevant.
Some weapons ignore armour saves.
KB has a trigger effect on 'to wound of 6'
Some weapons have multiple wounds.
KB triggers on 'to wound of 6'
No instruction to change standard game process

A triggering on a 'to wound of 6' is an instruction to change standard game process. Literally.
Standard rules have nothing trigger on a 'to wound of 6'.

editing to add for the obtuse:
A roll of 6 is in the standard rules causes a wound.
Full stop.

Nothing is triggered.
KB, pick up and . . . stuff in a bag, et al are not causing wounds not matter what table is rolled.
Claim that different books make the difference and we will find KB in armies with giants.
The rules are the same.

They are not ignored by Ethereal which ignores wounds.



Still.

Again - if this ever actually comes up and people disagree with RAW, my army is about 20% BETTER. (editing to add: more like 10%, but still! it is vs. the parts I am weak against.)
I would love to be wrong.

 Peasant wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
He wants it to die because no matter how much he hates it, he still keeps coming back and reading it.

I just wonder why certain people here keep proving they are TFG by continuing to argue the point.

I do it for entertainment. Gives me something extra to do and my group already knows how we play it. Share the knowledge.

Do you classify as TFG that stands there listenening, asking why we don't shut up, instead of just walking away.

Intriguing that you throw that my way, since from my point of view you're the primary offender.

But you make a valid point. I shouldn't keep coming back and looking at your 'I'm TFG!!!!11!!1!1!' posts. I'll be leaving this thread now.

Have fun trolling, but don't think for a second it makes anyone think any better of you, or your position on the point in question.

 kirsanth wrote:
A triggering on a 'to wound of 6' is an instruction to change standard game process. Literally.
Standard rules have nothing trigger on a 'to wound of 6'.

editing to add for the obtuse:
A roll of 6 is in the standard rules causes a wound.
Full stop.

Nothing is triggered.
KB, pick up and . . . stuff in a bag, et al are not causing wounds not matter what table is rolled.
Claim that different books make the difference and we will find KB in armies with giants.
The rules are the same.

They are not ignored by Ethereal which ignores wounds.

You are correct.
Roll to 6 you cause a wound.
If you meet the criteria that '6' does cool extra stuff. Ignores armour saves, and slays regardless of the number of wounds. The whole idea that KB does not wound is obsurd IMO.
'The worst thing about this is there really is no other way to write this. It is already self explanatory.
The 'book' reference was a jab at the 'RAW' Sarcasm never really transmits well in text.
KB and giants are totally different.
I must say that the repletion is growing tiresome.
You'll play your way, we will play ours. We will both say we are right until GW FAQ's it.

Still.

Again - if this ever actually comes up and people disagree with RAW, my army is about 20% BETTER. (editing to add: more like 10%, but still! it is vs. the parts I am weak against.)
I would love to be wrong.

You don't have to worry...you are wrong and your army is 10% better Couldn't resist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:


Intriguing that you throw that my way, since from my point of view you're the primary offender.

But you make a valid point. I shouldn't keep coming back and looking at your 'I'm TFG!!!!11!!1!1!' posts. I'll be leaving this thread now.

Have fun trolling, but don't think for a second it makes anyone think any better of you, or your position on the point in question.

Not really that intriguing.
I am not an offender I am party in a discussion.
We are having a discussion...though it is a veeeerrrrryyy long one..with two parties, maybe a few more, stating opinions, sometimes backed with rules in an attempt to draw agreeable conclusion.
It's pretty standard debate.
Each side believes themselves to be correct and is not willing to give ground...again, pretty standard.
And you have poked in commenting about why we are still talking about it, whilst offering nothing. Take part. Learn. Share. Don't just stand on the side saying you guys are dumb.
As I said, I do this for fun. . I have a rather egotistical personality already with sparks of narcissism, so I don't need the internet to make me feel better, I can take care of that myself.

 Peasant wrote:
The whole idea that KB does not wound is obsurd IMO.

Yet the idea of Ethereal is OK?

I mean literally.
The rules are not based on verisimilitude. That is irrelevant.

The rules disagree with your statements.
Really.

The fact - yes fact - that you are not OK with that is fine.
No one cares that you are wrong.
It is just strange you feel the need to propagate your deliberate mis-interpretation.

Many rules are "obsurd"[sic] - but that does not mean that it is within the rules to ignore those rules.

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
The whole idea that KB does not wound is obsurd IMO.

Yet the idea of Ethereal is OK?

I mean literally.
The rules are not based on verisimilitude. That is irrelevant.

The rules disagree with your statements.
Really.

Ah, once again taken out of context.
Everything in the KB text and game process leads to the conclusion that it wounds.
It is your bias that has led you to believe that you are correct. Nothing else. You have created a jagged, complicated and illogical flow chart to come to your false conclusion.
...The rules disagree with your statements....
...Really...
I can say it as well. Doesn't change much does it?

The fact - yes fact - that you are not OK with that is fine.
No one cares that you are wrong.
It is just strange you feel the need to propagate your deliberate mis-interpretation.

Many rules are "obsurd"[sic] - but that does not mean that it is within the rules to ignore those rules.

I have yet to ignore a single rule or part of a rule. Can you show me one that I have ignored?
But again your bias shows. Taking parts of rules out of context and building connections based on parts of the whole does not make you correct.

And as a bit of friendly advice..
Remember we are having a discussion in a public forum about a game, not discussing philosophy, so when you begin to throw terms outside of the layman you suffer in several areas
1. People don't understand so they stop listening for fear of being labeled 'unintelligent'...which they are often not.
2. People begin to believe less of what you say because your sudden expansive vocabulary shows weakness.
3. People stop listening because the words make the speaker come across as pompous and demeaning to the listeners.
People debate with their hearts as well as their minds, and often more so by heart. If you damage the heart, you lose the mind, so you must tread carefully
It is a common problem amongst the educated (yes I am calling you educated) and philosophers. In their attempts to help and prove their knowledge they confuse and alienate the very people that they are trying to help.

I think the rule I argued hardest with that "didn't make sense"™ was Slaughtermasters using armor. It specifically said in the fluff they didn't even wear gutplates, just relying on their god, but they're going to wear platemail? I felt a little justified when they came out and said, woops, we didn't mean it, but it can stay--sorta. But it's RAW vs. RAI.

Everything fluff said they shouldn't have armor. They even admitted it wasn't RAI. And they said hey, you shouldn't, like, in tournaments use it. But it's still RAW so everyone doesn't care.

It's been stated ad nauseum how it can't possibly cause a wound. It's literally not possible. You're either wounding a dead model (Ima kill you in heaven!) and you're getting double combat resolution for "killing" the same guy twice.

You know what happens when someone is slain. You take a guy from the back and they step up. If you run up and do impact hits, you don't then attack and kill the same guys again. Impact hit, then KB, then wound, then stomp. Kill the same non-character model 4 times? DIE DIE DIE DIE.

 kirsanth wrote:
See above (i.e. any of the 12 pages have examples for you).

Ah the "it's there somewhere in the last twelve pages, you just have to look... but it's definitely there!" argument. I'm fully aware of what's been said. I'm also aware of whats being conveniently ignored.

There are many ways to do what anyone would call damage (including the rules) without a wound.

Actually no, damage is only used to describe anything that does wounds. Would you like me to list every single place damage is used in the manual?

Do you think unit is not damaged by a giant stuffing a model into its bag?

No I do not think that. I know it is "removed as a casualty" as that's what the rule says. It doesn't use the term damage. I know this because I spent time finding every single usage of the word damage in the BRB

(Note: Nothing in the rules dealt wounds. Yet there are rules stating the model is slain, which is damage - NOT WOUNDS - to the unit, via the removal of models.)

No there are not. There are rules stating the model is "removed as a casualty", damage is only used throughout the book for wounds.

Quote BRB p72 Killing Blow
"the ward save prevents all
damage from the Killing Blow"

It doesn't say "prevent the effect" it says "prevents all damage". All damage. Not prevent the effect, but prevent the damage. Damage is defined as wounds (BRB p3). I have a list here of all the times the word damage comes up in the BRB, would you like to go through it with me?

Slay is not a game term. Slay, slaying and slain come up many times in the manual. The vast majority of times it is used is in conjunction with something that removes wounds slaying them. Would you like me to go through the BRB with you showing every time slay, slaying or slain comes up?

There is a section in the BRB called "instant Kills". This section does not use the word slay, slaying or slain. This section uses the terminology "removed as casualties" (like the giant) and "remove the model from play" This section does not reference Killing Blow. Killing Blow does not reference this section.

The rules on Killing Blow are quite simple enough as stated in the manual. I don't know where you are getting all this extra stuff from that killing blow does.

Mine says:

1. roll to wound
2 Regardless of the number of wounds, meaning it is wounding and not "removing as casualty" or "remove from play". You're still regarding wounds here, you are disregarding the number of them to do whatever the number of wounds the target has.
3. and a "ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow" with damage being defined in the BRB as wounds and I don't use a ward save to "prevent the effect".

Wait.

Are you trying to say that the removal of models without wounding them is wounding a unit?

That would almost make sense, it seems, except for the exceptions that allow it - naming the rules for KB.
(I am literally struggling to understand the basis of your disagreeing with the rules as written in a RAW debate. A roll to wound that causes a new effect to occur is not able to be ignored on the basis that the effect that it is replacing could be ignored. If I can re-roll misses, I do not get to reroll any 3 because it could have been a miss. In this case you are claiming exactly that. I want to ignore the to-wound roll of 6 even though that is not related to the rule we are discussing? Ethereal does not make them immune to anything non-magical that rolls to-wound.)

Maybe I misread again.

No and yes you did.

Also, as the above listed parsing of the killing blow rules should make obvious "I am literally struggling to understand the basis of your disagreeing with the rules as written in a RAW debate".



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:


Intriguing that you throw that my way, since from my point of view you're the primary offender.

But you make a valid point. I shouldn't keep coming back and looking at your 'I'm TFG!!!!11!!1!1!' posts. I'll be leaving this thread now.

Have fun trolling, but don't think for a second it makes anyone think any better of you, or your position on the point in question.

Have fun going away and shutting up, but don't think for a second that it makes anyone think any better of you, or your position of adding nothing to a discussion except your bizarre whining about people having a discussion about rules, on a discussion forum, in the subsection for discussing rules.

As much as people have got up my nose on this thread, not a single one has acted like as much of a douchebag as you've just managed. Good Job

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:
See above (i.e. any of the 12 pages have examples for you).

Ah the "it's there somewhere in the last twelve pages, you just have to look... but it's definitely there!" argument. I'm fully aware of what's been said. I'm also aware of whats being conveniently ignored.

There are many ways to do what anyone would call damage (including the rules) without a wound.

Actually no, damage is only used to describe anything that does wounds. Would you like me to list every single place damage is used in the manual?

Do you think unit is not damaged by a giant stuffing a model into its bag?

No I do not think that. I know it is "removed as a casualty" as that's what the rule says. It doesn't use the term damage. I know this because I spent time finding every single usage of the word damage in the BRB

(Note: Nothing in the rules dealt wounds. Yet there are rules stating the model is slain, which is damage - NOT WOUNDS - to the unit, via the removal of models.)

No there are not. There are rules stating the model is "removed as a casualty", damage is only used throughout the book for wounds.

Quote BRB p72 Killing Blow
"the ward save prevents all
damage from the Killing Blow"

It doesn't say "prevent the effect" it says "prevents all damage". All damage. Not prevent the effect, but prevent the damage. Damage is defined as wounds (BRB p3). I have a list here of all the times the word damage comes up in the BRB, would you like to go through it with me?

Slay is not a game term. Slay, slaying and slain come up many times in the manual. The vast majority of times it is used is in conjunction with something that removes wounds slaying them. Would you like me to go through the BRB with you showing every time slay, slaying or slain comes up?

There is a section in the BRB called "instant Kills". This section does not use the word slay, slaying or slain. This section uses the terminology "removed as casualties" (like the giant) and "remove the model from play" This section does not reference Killing Blow. Killing Blow does not reference this section.

The rules on Killing Blow are quite simple enough as stated in the manual. I don't know where you are getting all this extra stuff from that killing blow does.

Mine says:

1. roll to wound
2 Regardless of the number of wounds, meaning it is wounding and not "removing as casualty" or "remove from play". You're still regarding wounds here, you are disregarding the number of them to do whatever the number of wounds the target has.
3. and a "ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow" with damage being defined in the BRB as wounds and I don't use a ward save to "prevent the effect".

Wait.

Are you trying to say that the removal of models without wounding them is wounding a unit?

That would almost make sense, it seems, except for the exceptions that allow it - naming the rules for KB.
(I am literally struggling to understand the basis of your disagreeing with the rules as written in a RAW debate. A roll to wound that causes a new effect to occur is not able to be ignored on the basis that the effect that it is replacing could be ignored. If I can re-roll misses, I do not get to reroll any 3 because it could have been a miss. In this case you are claiming exactly that. I want to ignore the to-wound roll of 6 even though that is not related to the rule we are discussing? Ethereal does not make them immune to anything non-magical that rolls to-wound.)

Maybe I misread again.

No and yes you did.

Also, as the above listed parsing of the killing blow rules should make obvious "I am literally struggling to understand the basis of your disagreeing with the rules as written in a RAW debate".



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:


Intriguing that you throw that my way, since from my point of view you're the primary offender.

But you make a valid point. I shouldn't keep coming back and looking at your 'I'm TFG!!!!11!!1!1!' posts. I'll be leaving this thread now.

Have fun trolling, but don't think for a second it makes anyone think any better of you, or your position on the point in question.

Have fun going away and shutting up, but don't think for a second that it makes anyone think any better of you, or your position of adding nothing to a discussion except your bizarre whining about people having a discussion about rules, on a discussion forum, in the subsection for discussing rules.

As much as people have got up my nose on this thread, not a single one has acted like as much of a douchebag as you've just managed. Good Job

I love how you dismiss slain as a game term, but keep rying to use damage as a game term.

You still have never managed to poin out the hit of ext in the KB rule which says "on a roll to wound of 6, the model is slain UNLESS..." It simply isn't in my copy of he book. Claiming that other rules implicitly add an unless is making assumptions which are not based on text; they are not RAW.
Nothing else really matters for this arguement. You read the rule then follow it exactly. The fact that this doesn't fit with your theories of how the system should work is irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just checked - this is by far tbe most viewed topic in 70 pages of YMDC. Who would have guessed?

Niteware wrote:

I love how you dismiss slain as a game term, but keep rying to use damage as a game term.

I am dismissing slain as a game term with evidence backed up with references. Would you like me to go over every use of slay, slaying or slain in the book and tally up where it uses it in conjunction with something that has wounded, removed wounds, thereby slaying it and it becoming slain, vs it being used in conjunction with something that has been "removed from play"?

So the offer is there, we can go through every single instance in the book and tally them up. It comes out with a large majority in favour of being used in conjunction with something that wounds just so you know. I do not offer this as evidence of it being anything other then a descriptive term.

The section on instant kills, which you are insisting this is, does not use the term slay, slaying or slain.

The section on instant kills says

QUOTE BRB p4
but the number of wounds on the victim's profile is completely
irrelevant — just remove the model from play


The section on Killing Blow says

QUOTE BRB p72
automatically slays his opponent -regardless of
the number of wounds on the victim's profile


Notice the difference? One removes you from play because the wounds on the profile are irrelevant and the other slays regardless of the number of wounds and doesn't say remove the model from play

So yes I am dismissing it as a game term.

What I have not done is dismissed your argument that it is a game term. I have addressed that point of view, shown that the way you are trying to use it is factually and verifiably incorrect. If you are going to disagree with this then you have to provide some evidence that it is a game mechanic. A Game mechanic that has no index reference or heading and is used descriptively throughout the BRB in a way that contradicts your assertion on what it means and how it works.

Being that you have a problem with my characterization (backed up with references and quotes from the BRB) of damage, can you explain to me what the damage is and what form it takes when I am rolling a ward against Killing Blow? Alternatively, can you provide me with your definition of damage in WFB and the BRB page reference that qualifies it?

You still have never managed to poin out the hit of ext in the KB rule which says "on a roll to wound of 6, the model is slain UNLESS..." It simply isn't in my copy of he book. Claiming that other rules implicitly add an unless is making assumptions which are not based on text; they are not RAW.

Because I don't need to. Slain is not a game term, as I have shown. The word slay, slaying or slain in the text means exactly zero mechanically. Slain is not a game mechanic. This is a fact. It is an absolute and verifiable fact that slain is not a game mechanic.

If slain, slay or slaying is a game mechanic can you please quote me the page of the BRB where it details the mechanics of the Slay/Slain rule? Can you give me an index reference to any of the many variations of slay? A Glossary? A FAQ? If you cannot do this, can you please have the decency to admit that it is not a game mechanic, it is never listed as a game mechanic and that it is more often used descriptively in conjunction with something that wounds. I can factually verify those last two statements, would you like me to?

Nothing else really matters for this arguement. You read the rule then follow it exactly. The fact that this doesn't fit with your theories of how the system should work is irrelevant.

I couldn't agree more. You should read this advice you have given, take a long good and hard look at yourself, and what and how you are arguing this. You read the rule and follow it exactly.

"If a model with the Killing Blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound"

You can't wound, so you can't wound with killing blow. That's as far as it needs to go.

Honestly, how has this 'discussion' gone on for 13 pages!?

Killing blow cannot kill an ethereal creature if you are unable to wound it normally. Period.

If you are trying to abuse a possible loophole in the wording of how these two rules interact rather than apply common sense then I feel for you.

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:

I couldn't agree more. You should read this advice you have given, take a long good and hard look at yourself, and what and how you are arguing this. You read the rule and follow it exactly.

"If a model with the Killing Blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound"

You can't wound, so you can't wound with killing blow. That's as far as it needs to go.

While not necessarily disagreeing with your premise, I don't accept this particular argument.

KB doesn't require a sucessful to wound roll, simply that the player roll a 6. Yes, in all probability the roll is also a sucessful to wound score, it doesn't follow that it has to be.

Etherial units can be 'killed' via nonmagical effects

Just my tuppence on the discussion.

Cheers

Andrew

DukeRustfield wrote:

It's been stated ad nauseum how it can't possibly cause a wound. It's literally not possible. You're either wounding a dead model (Ima kill you in heaven!) and you're getting double combat resolution for "killing" the same guy twice.

You know what happens when someone is slain. You take a guy from the back and they step up. If you run up and do impact hits, you don't then attack and kill the same guys again. Impact hit, then KB, then wound, then stomp. Kill the same non-character model 4 times? DIE DIE DIE DIE.

You are still working backwards. The roll to wound came first. The instruction of game process says so. No instruction to invalidate it or ignore it.
KB is a wound multiplier.
KB really is simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewC wrote:

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:

I couldn't agree more. You should read this advice you have given, take a long good and hard look at yourself, and what and how you are arguing this. You read the rule and follow it exactly.

"If a model with the Killing Blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound"

You can't wound, so you can't wound with killing blow. That's as far as it needs to go.

While not necessarily disagreeing with your premise, I don't accept this particular argument.

KB doesn't require a sucessful to wound roll, simply that the player roll a 6. Yes, in all probability the roll is also a sucessful to wound score, it doesn't follow that it has to be.

Etherial units can be 'killed' via nonmagical effects

Just my tuppence on the discussion.

Cheers

Andrew

Jump back through our loooooong discussion
You will see that the point you are making has been addressed many times
So what happens to the six that wounded?
KB is a wound multiplier.
Ethereal can be killed by other means. But not KB.








Automatically Appended Next Post:

alex87 wrote:
Honestly, how has this 'discussion' gone on for 13 pages!?

Killing blow cannot kill an ethereal creature if you are unable to wound it normally. Period.

If you are trying to abuse a possible loophole in the wording of how these two rules interact rather than apply common sense then I feel for you.

Have you read the pages?
The debate at this point is pretty much down to whether or not KB wounds.
I say it does. Boomer says it does.
Niteware and Duke say it doesn't.

I have no problem with KB working if the weapon is magical.

alex87 wrote:
Killing blow cannot kill an ethereal creature if you are unable to wound it normally. Period.

Prove it. It is impossible to prove given the rules as WRITTEN.

Slay is a game term as of page 4. In close combat the only word that is used to describe casualties is slain. That's it. If it isn't a game term, no one can ever die in close combat, because they continuously refer to models who are [non game term]. And if it doesn't mean anything, no one ever reaches that condition. Even barring that it obviously is a game term, it's also a synonym in any dictionary on earth for kill/destroy.

KB doesn't require a sucessful to wound roll, simply that the player roll a 6.

We've already proven that KB doesn't require a successful wound or even a 6. TK, and I believe some heroes, can KB on other rolls. And the roll doesn't have to wound at all for it to still KB. A TK unit can KB on a 5 or 6 and be fighting a unit with T10. It wouldn't remotely wound that model with a 5. Yet it would still slay them via KB.

alex87 wrote:
Honestly, how has this 'discussion' gone on for 13 pages!?

Killing blow cannot kill an ethereal creature if you are unable to wound it normally. Period.

If you are trying to abuse a possible loophole in the wording of how these two rules interact rather than apply common sense then I feel for you.

It is equally valid to say that you are trying to exploit a loophole that would let ethereal survive KB by saying that it wounds. KB is not a wound, whether you believe it replaces or is additional, it is a seperate effect. It gives no get out clause for ethereals.

 Peasant wrote:


Jump back through our loooooong discussion
You will see that the point you are making has been addressed many times
So what happens to the six that wounded?
KB is a wound multiplier.
Ethereal can be killed by other means. But not KB.

No I don't think it has, or at least the point I'm trying to make hasn't (Or at least I didn't see it, 12 pages of he says, she says it all kind of merges together)

What happens to the six? Who cares? thats not the question being asked. One argument proposed is that if it can't wound then it can't work. But KB doesn't require a succesful wound roll, simply a 6 being rolled.

KB is not simply a wound multiplier. It is a special rule that inflicts sufficient 'damage' (please note inverted commas, this is a word of convenience not a game term) to slay a model outright. It is a rule that changes per model it affects, rather than a *2, D6, whatever, that is implied by the use of the words wound multiplier.

People have maintained that Etherial cannot be hurt my mundane effects, magic only. However this assertion is false. Etherial can and do die to 'mundane' means.

Cheers

Andrew

 Peasant wrote:

Have you read the pages?

Yes. I can understand the wound vs not a wound argument but in the end it all boils down to RAW vs RAI. The whole notion that KB trumps being ethereal somehow reminds me of thedarkavenger's '14 Spell Slann' discussion. It's an obvious case of two special rules not exactly interacting the way they should with regards to some very specific wording. A non-magical weapon cannot wound an ethereal creature, so I find it very hard to somehow comprehend that KB allows the weilder to circumvent this, regardless of this argument as to whether KB is actually a wound or wound-multiplier.

 Peasant wrote:

I have no problem with KB working if the weapon is magical.

Agreed. That was the point I was originally trying to make, apologies for any confusion.

I agree with the "KB doesn't work on Etherials except when dealt from a magical weapon or spell effect" camp.
I also agree this needs to be FAQ'd. And soon.

Personal opinion is the argument to the contrary is thin and seems a bit too word-gamey.

Text removed.

reds8n

 snurl wrote:
I agree with the "KB doesn't work on Etherials except when dealt from a magical weapon or spell effect" camp.
I also agree this needs to be FAQ'd. And soon.

Personal opinion is the argument to the contrary is thin and seems a bit too word-gamey.

The "KB works except where the rules say it doesn't" camp is based on what is written in the rules - that on the roll of a 6 the target is slain.
The "Ethereals can survive KB" camp is based on assumptions that they meant to include other text or that "of course KB is the same thing as a wound and has to use all those rules even though it statea different rules".
The latter is clearly weaker.

Niteware wrote:

The "KB works except where the rules say it doesn't" camp is based on what is written in the rules - that on the roll of a 6 the target is slain.
The "Ethereals can survive KB" camp is based on assumptions that they meant to include other text or that "of course KB is the same thing as a wound and has to use all those rules even though it statea different rules".
The latter is clearly weaker.

Sigh.

We managed to go almost 34 whole hours with no posts on this thread and here we go again.

I was looking forward to the thread title working its way lower and lower on the forum page.

Saldiven wrote:
Sigh.

We managed to go almost 34 whole hours with no posts on this thread and here we go again.

I was looking forward to the thread title working its way lower and lower on the forum page.

Come on and feel the love for niche rule arguments

This is clearly a case of the age old debate:-

Rules As Intended vs. Rules As Written.

Yes, rules as written means you can play a little word game and con your way into hitting ethereal creatures with killing blow using a mundane weapon if you can browbeat the other player enough into letting you. You could indeed do that, it would however make you a massive massive cock.

Everyone knows that Ethereal is meant to represent the fact that none magical weapons pass though the creature as though it's not there. The fact that you're especially well trained, use a deadly poison/toxin, or are so strong you can cut a normal person in two, does not alter the fact that you're hitting a damn ghost... so you miss.

If you're trying to argue that Killing Blow hits Ethereal, you're a bloody cheater and extremely unsporting. If you can't win fair, don't bother trying I say.

 TornadoCreator wrote:
If you're trying to argue that Killing Blow hits Ethereal, you're a bloody cheater and extremely unsporting. If you can't win fair, don't bother trying I say.

Ethereal models are not immune to being hit in this game, no one else in this thread even tries to claim that.

Saying they cannot be hit proves you are a cheater and not playing fair.

 TornadoCreator wrote:
This is clearly a case of the age old debate:-

Just because you call someone a cock on the internet doesn't make you right. The fact you can't back up your statement with anything other than "everyone knows" means you basically have nothing to stand on. There wouldn't be 13 or however many pages if everyone knows. There wouldn't be a single post in YMDC if everyone knows. You have an opinion, you have no facts other than conceding it is RAW. But...the funny thing is, the people arguing against it aren't arguing it is RAI. They are saying it isn't RAW. I.e., they are disagreeing with you (or you them). They are literally saying those words don't exist. Which is probably why so many people are arguing. If you want to argue RAI or RAW, that's a lot fuzzier and really comes down to opinion. I'm still on the fence as far as RAI and I've probably been one of the biggest arguers for RAW.

You went extremely rage-like in your post. Especially for something that almost everyone agrees, will almost never ever happen in an actual game.

Speaking as a person who has wished this thread would just go away and die since page 5 or 6, I have to point out that posts like TornadoCreator's serve absolutely no purpose. It's nothing but emotion and opinion with not a single iota of rules backing.

Posts like that have no place in a forum dedicated to discussing what the rules do or do not say.

Take that crap to the Discussion forum.

Oddly enough, Fantasy doesn't have the same Tenants of YMDC as the 40K side does.
Might be a good idea to set down some ground rules; as you can justify arguing how the rules should work, or how they are intended to work, or even just HIWPI.

-Matt

Here's a HIWPI question then... for units with a specific ward save against wounss, would you let your opponent use it against KB? Obviously RAW is no, but that would seem a bit TFG. What do you reckon?

If they have a ward against flaming attacks and a non-flaming sword attacks them with KB and rolls a 6, you check to see if they have a ward save. They do not. It does not exist for a non-flaming attack. If the sword was flaming, it would. An attack has a profile. KB is just one potential special rule on it. HE with their stupid banner of ward 2+ vs magic hit by a magic KB sword would save on a 2+. This was brought up with bloodletters to try and bypass it.

This is much the same as Ethereal, except Ethereal comes a phase later. After the to wound roll is completed. But KB bypasses that so Ethereal is never invoked. But the KB language specifically asks if the user has a ward even though the normal attack process lists it later (but they wanted to remove armor saves and regen and anything else). But again, KB bypasses that.

Niteware wrote:
Here's a HIWPI question then... for units with a specific ward save against wounss, would you let your opponent use it against KB? Obviously RAW is no, but that would seem a bit TFG. What do you reckon?

Killing Blow does cause wounds. The BRB says it inflicts wounds. There is no "obviously" here. The RAW is that KB causes wounds. KB allows a ward save against the damage it causes, not the effect.

The only marker in WFB for damage is wounds

QUOTE BRB p45
Wound Markers
It's always worth placing a
marker next to a wounded
model in order to remind you of
just how much damage it has taken

Are you going to argue that it doesn't say "damage" in the description for mechanics of Killing Blow? What else is this "damage" I am making a ward save against?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
HE with their stupid banner of ward 2+ vs magic hit by a magic KB sword would save on a 2+. This was brought up with bloodletters to try and bypass it.

What? Sorry, weren't you arguing in that thread that they wouldn't get the ward save from the banner against KB? Completely incorrect, but wasn't that your argument?

You seem confused...

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:

Niteware wrote:
Here's a HIWPI question then... for units with a specific ward save against wounss, would you let your opponent use it against KB? Obviously RAW is no, but that would seem a bit TFG. What do you reckon?

Killing Blow does cause wounds. The BRB says it inflicts wounds. There is no "obviously" here. The RAW is that KB causes wounds. KB allows a ward save against the damage it causes, not the effect.

The only marker in WFB for damage is wounds

QUOTE BRB p45
Wound Markers
It's always worth placing a
marker next to a wounded
model in order to remind you of
just how much damage it has taken

Are you going to argue that it doesn't say "damage" in the description for mechanics of Killing Blow? What else is this "damage" I am making a ward save against?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
HE with their stupid banner of ward 2+ vs magic hit by a magic KB sword would save on a 2+. This was brought up with bloodletters to try and bypass it.

What? Sorry, weren't you arguing in that thread that they wouldn't get the ward save from the banner against KB? Completely incorrect, but wasn't that your argument?

You seem confused...

Boomer, KB does not cause wounds. Peasant has argued that wounds are also caused by the to wound roll , but KB is clearly seperate.
It was me who was arguing that the banner would not protect HE from KB because it specifices that it protects against wounds caused by magic.
BRB, as has been stated many times, does not say that KB causes wounds, it gives you a mechanic to deal with KB in CR. Also, damage is less of a game term than slay is, so your backwards reasoning is ridiculous.

Niteware wrote:

Boomer, KB does not cause wounds. Peasant has argued that wounds are also caused by the to wound roll , but KB is clearly seperate.
It was me who was arguing that the banner would not protect HE from KB because it specifices that it protects against wounds caused by magic.
BRB, as has been stated many times, does not say that KB causes wounds, it gives you a mechanic to deal with KB in CR. Also, damage is less of a game term than slay is, so your backwards reasoning is ridiculous.

It is obviously not clear, otherwise we wouldn't have 13 pages. It does not say it wounds, nor does it say it does not wound.
You have never answered these simple questions.
1.If you are not rolling to wound, why are you rolling 'to wound'?
2.Tell me any time you roll to wound that you do NOT use that chart?
Every time, with every effect, if it does not follow game process you are given a different process. Giants, poison wind globes, weapons that wound on a 4+(just to name a few) you are always told how the effect works.
If KB did not wound you would be told to 'roll a dice and on a six...'
If you are rolling 'to wound'...what do you think is the most logical conclusion?
It is written that you roll 'to wound'
I can't believe I came back..

Niteware wrote:

It was me who was arguing that the banner would not protect HE from KB because it specifices that it protects against wounds caused by magic.
BRB, as has been stated many times, does not say that KB causes wounds

Oh, I just reread the banner and it does specifically say magic wounds. Which isn't KB. I'm just used to ward vs. flaming and I was think it said ward vs. magic attacks. I think when someone brought it up before I basically pointed out that KB simply doesn't happen enough that you could use it as a counter to the banner. Even with a horde and frenzy you're only going to be getting maybe 3-5 KBs and that's simply not very much.

yeah the KB itself isnt a magical wound, but the successful wound roll of a 6 that cause it is.

Peasant - you are rolling to-wound, the process. This normally creates a wound, however in the case of KB you dont get that far - you just end up with the KB effect, which is that the model is slain.

At no point does a succesfull KB generate a wound - as pointed out, a KB on 5+ when needing a 6 to generate a wound STILL gives KB; your interpretation, that you have to be able to cause a wound in order to trigger KB, denies this

(and for reference it was also wrong in 7th edition, when it was possible to be unable to successfully wound (T4 vs T8, for example) but still be able to killing blow them)

 Peasant wrote:

Niteware wrote:

Boomer, KB does not cause wounds. Peasant has argued that wounds are also caused by the to wound roll , but KB is clearly seperate.
It was me who was arguing that the banner would not protect HE from KB because it specifices that it protects against wounds caused by magic.
BRB, as has been stated many times, does not say that KB causes wounds, it gives you a mechanic to deal with KB in CR. Also, damage is less of a game term than slay is, so your backwards reasoning is ridiculous.

It is obviously not clear, otherwise we wouldn't have 13 pages. It does not say it wounds, nor does it say it does not wound.
You have never answered these simple questions.
1.If you are not rolling to wound, why are you rolling 'to wound'?
2.Tell me any time you roll to wound that you do NOT use that chart?
Every time, with every effect, if it does not follow game process you are given a different process. Giants, poison wind globes, weapons that wound on a 4+(just to name a few) you are always told how the effect works.
If KB did not wound you would be told to 'roll a dice and on a six...'
If you are rolling 'to wound'...what do you think is the most logical conclusion?
It is written that you roll 'to wound'
I can't believe I came back..

You do not use the chart when following the rules tells you not to.
The rules for roll to wound tell you to roll, then compare numbers then check the chart hen determine if you have wounded. Killing Blow says that if you rolled a 6, the target is slain - no need to carry on to check chart.
Your first question has two possible answers, which I would call the imperative and the motivation. The imperative is that roll to wound is a game mechanic which you have to follow; there is jo option not to. The motivation would be to KB, if there were no other, more viable targets / the ethereals had tied you up in combat.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peasant - you are rolling to-wound, the process. This normally creates a wound, however in the case of KB you dont get that far - you just end up with the KB effect, which is that the model is slain.

At no point does a succesfull KB generate a wound - as pointed out, a KB on 5+ when needing a 6 to generate a wound STILL gives KB; your interpretation, that you have to be able to cause a wound in order to trigger KB, denies this

(and for reference it was also wrong in 7th edition, when it was possible to be unable to successfully wound (T4 vs T8, for example) but still be able to killing blow them)

Pg 72 There is an annotation that KB does not care about the toughness and armour saves of the target.
No where does this mention anything about wounds.
There is no other way to put this...
You roll to wound for wounds.
Twist things however you want.
Once you have rolled to wound, it is because you are causing wounds.
Yes KB on 5+ just changes it to a 5+ KB. And it still slays regardless of the remaining number of WOUNDS.
This is just sad...
Sad that I apparently have issues because I keep coming back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Niteware- You have rolled to wound. The only logical conclusion is causing wounds.
No instruction to ignore your wounds.

Eihnlazer wrote:
yeah the KB itself isnt a magical wound, but the successful wound roll of a 6 that cause it is.

Fixed.

No need for the 6 to be successful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peasant wrote:
@ Niteware- You have rolled to wound. The only logical conclusion is (you are making an attempt at )causing wounds.

This is true.
There are plenty of other things that can occur though.
Triggering rules, for example.

Like rolling to-hit means you are attempting to hit does not prevent poison from wounding too.

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
@ Niteware- You have rolled to wound. The only logical conclusion is (you are making an attempt at )causing wounds.

This is true.
There are plenty of other things that can occur though.
Triggering rules, for example.

Like rolling to-hit means you are attempting to hit does not prevent poison from wounding too.

We've been through this.
If you are letting KB work this way, you should be letting WS0 opponents with poison roll to hit in case the poison works. (ridiculous)
Yes, you trigger KB, by rolling to wound. The roll of a 6 'to wound' can trigger a KB.
There is still no evidence that it is no longer wounding.
Why are there all the references to wounds if you are not wounding?

WS0 would be dead wouldn't they? Otherwise ofc you would let them roll to hit - barring a rule stating that you don't roll, then you have to roll.

Given that you are talking about logical conclusions, you ae admitting that what you are saying isn't exactly what is written. Since what is written is that "on a to wound roll of a 6, the model is slain", then I agree with you that your interpretation is not as written.
Excellent - agreekent at last ; D

Niteware wrote:
WS0 would be dead wouldn't they? Otherwise ofc you would let them roll to hit - barring a rule stating that you don't roll, then you have to roll.

Given that you are talking about logical conclusions, you ae admitting that what you are saying isn't exactly what is written. Since what is written is that "on a to wound roll of a 6, the model is slain", then I agree with you that your interpretation is not as written.
Excellent - agreekent at last ; D

WS0 is auto hit in combat and cannot attack.
Weapon Skill 0 is possible with the new Dark Elves. They get a spell that drops WS and BS by D3, but it doesn't mention to a minimum of 1. The boosted version also drops Strength and Init (IIRC) by a D3, but the additional effect is specifically limited to a minimum of 1.
If you go with shadow and dark magic; you could Miasma for a D3 WS; and follow it up with another D3 from "Word of Pain".

It's only Strength Zero, Toughness Zero or Wounds Zero that kills you.

-Matt

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
WS0 is auto hit in combat and cannot attack.

Where do you see it's auto hit? Or anything for that matter.

DukeRustfield wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
WS0 is auto hit in combat and cannot attack.

Where do you see it's auto hit? Or anything for that matter.

A dark mysterious place that few have ever laid eyes upon known as "Rulebook page 4".

Niteware wrote:
WS0 would be dead wouldn't they? Otherwise ofc you would let them roll to hit - barring a rule stating that you don't roll, then you have to roll.

Given that you are talking about logical conclusions, you ae admitting that what you are saying isn't exactly what is written. Since what is written is that "on a to wound roll of a 6, the model is slain", then I agree with you that your interpretation is not as written.
Excellent - agreekent at last ; D

You're missing the point. If your opponent has ghouls and through some effect they are reduced to weapon skill zero they cannot attack. But poison (in your stance) should work like KB and they can roll 'to hit' and hope for '6's.
How is it not what is written? ...rolls a 6 to wound ....regardless of the number of wounds on the victims profile.
Again you have left out '... regardless of the number of wounds..'
roll to wound..slain regardless...wounds..
How are you reaching the point that there are no wounds?
Why reference wounds if they are not relevant?

Peasant - so your confusion is you think that "to-wound" can only be when you are trying to generate wounds, and it isnt possible for other effects to come from it?

For example, KB

You are protected from wounds, yet all I have done is roll to-wound - I have not actually caused a wound.

Same as page 1 - ethereal does nothing to prevent KB, RAW. RAI? Who knows. Apparently the designers think it is perfectly fine for non-magical attacks / effects to wound ethereal creatures, and have done for at least 3 editions now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and saying "damage" can only mean "wounds" is faulty logic. A -> B does NOT mean B -> A. So while wounds can be considered damage, it does not follow that all damage would be wounds.

 HoverBoy wrote:

A dark mysterious place that few have ever laid eyes upon known as "Rulebook page 4".

Don't have to be a douche. He wrote: WS0 is auto hit in combat and cannot attack.
Which can be read as

the owner of WS0 is automatically hit in combat
or
WS0 automatically hits in combat

I saw the second and it made no sense so I asked.

Oh, and saying "damage" can only mean "wounds" is faulty logic. A -> B does NOT mean B -> A. So while wounds can be considered damage, it does not follow that all damage would be wound

We went over the basics of this logic many pages ago and they refused to accept it, rehashing the same argument over and over even though it makes no logical sense. A knight was killed by a dragon, thus all dead knights must have been killed by dragons. Stupid dragons.

And acctually it states in the poison rules that if you ever need a 7+ to hit with poison weapons that the poison no longer auto-wounds on a 6.

The point that they were trying to make was poison in close combat, stating you could somehow still "hit" (poison on a 6) despite automatically missing. THis isnt true, and yet another badly created argument against what is a very simple concept

Rolling a 6 with KB does not cause a wound. It never states it casues a wound, and in fact it tells you what it does instead - whcih is slay them immediately. You have no chance to look up the table; theyre dead already.

13 pages of nonsensical counters later, and there is still no actual argument against this point which uses any real rules.

This thread has the Special Rule: "It will not die!"

Eihnlazer wrote:
And acctually it states in the poison rules that if you ever need a 7+ to hit with poison weapons that the poison no longer auto-wounds on a 6.

Although this only ever applies to ranged attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peasant wrote:

Niteware wrote:
WS0 would be dead wouldn't they? Otherwise ofc you would let them roll to hit - barring a rule stating that you don't roll, then you have to roll.

Given that you are talking about logical conclusions, you ae admitting that what you are saying isn't exactly what is written. Since what is written is that "on a to wound roll of a 6, the model is slain", then I agree with you that your interpretation is not as written.
Excellent - agreekent at last ; D

You're missing the point. If your opponent has ghouls and through some effect they are reduced to weapon skill zero they cannot attack. But poison (in your stance) should work like KB and they can roll 'to hit' and hope for '6's.
How is it not what is written? ...rolls a 6 to wound ....regardless of the number of wounds on the victims profile.
Again you have left out '... regardless of the number of wounds..'
roll to wound..slain regardless...wounds..
How are you reaching the point that there are no wounds?
Why reference wounds if they are not relevant?

Peasant, I miss out the " regardless of the number of wounds" bit because it says REGARDLESS of the number of wounds. You pay no attention to the wounds because they are irrelevant. You keep typing this and not seeming to read it.
KB is not wounding, so it doesn't matter how many wounds thee are.

This made me think of this thread:

Except both the cats are using the same rules.

What I find interesting is that in the new DE book for their new magic spells, the number 6 spell has nearly the exact wording as KB.

"Any model touched by,, or passed over by the template must pass a strength test or be slain outright with no armour saves allowed (a model may take a single ward save, if it has one -- the model remains in play if the save succeeds)."

One again they are using the term slain to describe what we have been saying, slayed, dead, remove from game.

All this argument is coming down to is people unwilling to accept that GW mixes up terminology that all mean the same damn thing.

That and the To wound roll does not mean wounding, to cause a wound you must have a successful to wound roll. KB does not care if it is successful or not, it just cares about the number on the dice roll.

That and the repeatedly mentioned Giant's bag.

It is being deliberately ignored.

Oh i never said KB cared about whether the wound was successful or not, but to say that it does not wound is a fallicy.

You still successfully wound the model, with a to wound roll of a 6 whether you KB or not.

KB just doesnt care how many wounds are remaining on the model or in the case of the 5+ KB whether or not the actual to wound roll was successful.

You are never given permission to ignore the actual successful wound should it happen.


This means, if there is an effect that blocks that wound through some means, it still works.

Since, the term slay itself has no game term definition, and is only brought up in the circumstances of killing multi-wound models with only a single failed saving through, it should be treated exactly as though it was dealing Multiple-wounds (all your remaining wounds).

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Rolling a 6 with KB does not cause a wound. It never states it casues a wound, and in fact it tells you what it does instead - whcih is slay them immediately. You have no chance to look up the table; theyre dead already.

13 pages of nonsensical counters later, and there is still no actual argument against this point which uses any real rules.

There is no need for it to state it causes wounds...you rolled TO WOUND.
What do you think you were rolling for?
You are rolling to wound hoping it will be a KB. You are not rolling for KB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:

Peasant, I miss out the " regardless of the number of wounds" bit because it says REGARDLESS of the number of wounds. You pay no attention to the wounds because they are irrelevant. You keep typing this and not seeming to read it.
KB is not wounding, so it doesn't matter how many wounds thee are.

Again, selective reasoning. Look at these two sentences, one of which is written in our rule book.

...Regardless of the number of wounds
...Regardless of wounds

'of' is the preposition connecting...regardless to number.

Regardless of the number...ie the 'number' is irrelevant.
KB not wounding is your incorrect interpretation.

Eihnlazer wrote:
You still successfully wound the model, with a to wound roll of a 6 whether you KB or not.

You are never given permission to ignore the actual successful wound should it happen.

I know it's tempting to not read 23894 pages of a thread, but if you're going to come in and post, it helps to actually read the arguments as this has been refuted quite easily numerous times already.

As soon as you roll a 6 (5+ in the case of some instances) you go into the KB special rule. There it gives you instructions on how to proceed, including to take a ward save, if any. If you fail, the model is slain. KB is then over. You cannot then return to the To Wound table and apply a wound. The model is dead from KB. You are given permission to "ignore the successful wound" because you can't wound a slain model. The model has no wounds, no armor save, no ward save, no nothing. The worst you could ever do in close combat has already been done via KB.

Further, if you could do the impossible and wound a slain model, when it came time to do combat resolution, you would score more wounds than the actual model possessed even in the case of non-challenges. Which is against the rules. I.e., if you attack a goblin with 1 wound, KB it on a 6+, slay it, and then wound it, you would score 2 wounds of CR on that one single attack, because the rules state that KB does the full wounds of the model in CR and you're trying to maintain that you also do another wound, which of course is a wound in CR.

fattymac04 wrote:
What I find interesting is that in the new DE book for their new magic spells, the number 6 spell has nearly the exact wording as KB.

"Any model touched by,, or passed over by the template must pass a strength test or be slain outright with no armour saves allowed (a model may take a single ward save, if it has one -- the model remains in play if the save succeeds)."

One again they are using the term slain to describe what we have been saying, slayed, dead, remove from game.

All this argument is coming down to is people unwilling to accept that GW mixes up terminology that all mean the same damn thing.

That and the To wound roll does not mean wounding, to cause a wound you must have a successful to wound roll. KB does not care if it is successful or not, it just cares about the number on the dice roll.

Close but not quite.
Statistic tests are instant kills. We know how those work. Statistic test or death. Notice there is ZERO reference to wounds...why because wounds are irrelevant to instant kills.
NOt to KB.

I don't need terminology. The game says roll to wound. It does not say roll to KB

This argument really boils down to this ridiculous assumption that KB does not wound.
All the arguments for it working against ethereal is based on wounds.
The 'slay' usage was brought up by those trying to get KB past ethereal.
The discussion goes back and forth because of those that are trying to say it does not wound, despite the fact that the text and game process repeatedly references wounds.
The text itself should be adequate to show how it works and that it wounds.
This idea that suddenly you are not wounding after rolling to wound because it doesn't say you wounded...
That is why there is nothing new to add.

 Peasant wrote:
The discussion goes back and forth because of those that are trying to say it does not wound, despite the fact that the text and game process repeatedly references wounds in relation to Combat Resolution.

Fixed what you must have left out unintentionally.

DukeRustfield wrote:


As soon as you roll a 6 (5+ in the case of some instances) you go into the KB special rule. There it gives you instructions on how to proceed, including to take a ward save, if any. If you fail, the model is slain. KB is then over. You cannot then return to the To Wound table and apply a wound. The model is dead from KB. You are given permission to "ignore the successful wound" because you can't wound a slain model. The model has no wounds, no armor save, no ward save, no nothing. The worst you could ever do in close combat has already been done via KB.

Further, if you could do the impossible and wound a slain model, when it came time to do combat resolution, you would score more wounds than the actual model possessed even in the case of non-challenges. Which is against the rules. I.e., if you attack a goblin with 1 wound, KB it on a 6+, slay it, and then wound it, you would score 2 wounds of CR on that one single attack, because the rules state that KB does the full wounds of the model in CR and you're trying to maintain that you also do another wound, which of course is a wound in CR.

So if as soon as you roll a 6 it is a KB and you can't go back to the table, what happens if it's a monster?? You can't go back and apply the wound.
roll>6>KB>monster>nothing
Remember the process is the same for every model.
No one is trying to add extra wounds. The rules are very clear on how many wounds are caused from KB. If you just follow the (quite simple) KB process, everything works out properly.
If a model has one wound, you roll a six, it dies and you get credit for 1 wounds
If a model has two wounds, you roll a six, it dies and you get credit for 2 wounds
Because of your incorrect interpretation of KB it is making things more complicated than they are.
I have stated over and over KB is simply a wound multiplier. Trying to make it anything more is overcomplicating things.
Even for the magic item that makes it a 5+, it is now just a wound multiplier on 5+
The idea that it does not wound makes no sense.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
The discussion goes back and forth because of those that are trying to say it does not wound, despite the fact that the text and game process repeatedly references wounds in relation to Combat Resolution.

Fixed what you must have left out unintentionally.

Cute...but no.

Re read KB page 72. Count how many times it refernces wounds in that section.
And you are right..it is in the combat resolution section also, when you score all the slain models remaining wounds.
You can try and pick out all the language you like but it doesn't change the fact that KB causes wounds.

The only intentionally left out parts are to try and keep posts short.
Too bad we can't do that for this thread It really shouldn't be this long

 Peasant wrote:
the fact that the text and game process repeatedly references wounds.

And never states one occurs - they go so far as to literally state that the remaining wounds are disregarded.

Rolling to wound may result in things other than wounding. Case in point, really.
Akin to rolling to-hit can cause wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peasant wrote:

The only intentionally left out parts are to try and keep posts short.

Finally.
RAI as you interpret it agrees with your interpretation. At least you acknowledge it.

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
the fact that the text and game process repeatedly references wounds.

And never states one occurs - they go so far as to literally state that the remaining wounds are disregarded.

Rolling to wound may result in things other than wounding. Case in point, really.
Akin to rolling to-hit can cause wounds.

Are you serious

Why does it need to state it? It's the game process. The dice roll is 'TO WOUND' You are never told to disregard that process
Even the annotation on pg 72 says.. KB doesn't care about toughness or armour saves. No mention of it not caring about wounds.
Where does it say remaining wounds are disregarded??
Other than your assumed woundless KB, there is NEVER a time you roll to wound, not to wound.
Why is KB referenced in the wounds inflicted section on page 52?

Rolling to hit cannot cause a wound, it is a hit. It needs the special direction to reach that point, you are told it is possible.
Let's follow your same logic with poison.
You roll to hit with poison and get a 6, it never says you hit, it just says a natural 6 to hit automatically wounds. But since you are immune to poison nothing happens because the six got converted to an auto wound. . Looks like you are safe from that too.

 Peasant wrote:

The only intentionally left out parts are to try and keep posts short.

Finally.
RAI as you interpret it agrees with your interpretation. At least you acknowledge it.

DukeRustfield wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
You still successfully wound the model, with a to wound roll of a 6 whether you KB or not.

You are never given permission to ignore the actual successful wound should it happen.

I know it's tempting to not read 23894 pages of a thread, but if you're going to come in and post, it helps to actually read the arguments as this has been refuted quite easily numerous times already.

As soon as you roll a 6 (5+ in the case of some instances) you go into the KB special rule. There it gives you instructions on how to proceed, including to take a ward save, if any. If you fail, the model is slain. KB is then over. You cannot then return to the To Wound table and apply a wound. The model is dead from KB. You are given permission to "ignore the successful wound" because you can't wound a slain model. The model has no wounds, no armor save, no ward save, no nothing. The worst you could ever do in close combat has already been done via KB.

Further, if you could do the impossible and wound a slain model, when it came time to do combat resolution, you would score more wounds than the actual model possessed even in the case of non-challenges. Which is against the rules. I.e., if you attack a goblin with 1 wound, KB it on a 6+, slay it, and then wound it, you would score 2 wounds of CR on that one single attack, because the rules state that KB does the full wounds of the model in CR and you're trying to maintain that you also do another wound, which of course is a wound in CR.

Been reading everything as its posted acctually.

The refutal is based on an incorrect assumption so i disreguard it.

KB is simply a wound modifier. Instead of dealing a single wound, it deals multiple wounds (whatever you have remaining). They just didnt want to write it as such because it sounds crass. They used the term slay as it sounds alot more interesting and fluffy.

And before you state "pg. number or citation", there isnt one. There isnt one for slay either.

Didn't want to write wound multiplier because it's crass??? That's your argument? Like, I don't know, like the entire multiple wound special rule? Is that the dirty joke of special rules because it multiplies? Rules can't be crass. "As if some prissy barbarian is going, omg, we don't use the term kill, we say make non-active-undead when we behead someone."

Again, you completely ignored the combat resolution problem. If KB is a wound multiplier, you're still causing numerous instance of wounds to a target. CR specifically has rules for counting KB and it has separate section for counting wounds dealt. If KB was simply a wound multiplier it wouldn't need to address it, it would be a given in the fact it was just wounds. And, you know how multiplication works, right? You haven't done a wound yet. Because KB never states it causes a wound and the normal CC rules require you to take whole different battery of saves.

If slay is just a wound multiplier, it has to multiply by something. There are no wounds when KB takes effect. As in normal combat you would still get normal saves. This odd term "wound multiplier" that keeps getting tossed around isn't mentioned once or even hinted in any of the rules.

There are vast number of instances for slay. Starting at about page 4. If your S/T drops to 0 you're slain. There is no wound. It is not multiplied. You don't even have to be in combat or be attacked. You still die. Models can die in the game without rolling on to wound, without taking a wound. If they are transformed into giant rats, they aren't wound multiplied and then wound divided into rats.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Oh i never said KB cared about whether the wound was successful or not, but to say that it does not wound is a fallicy.

You still successfully wound the model, with a to wound roll of a 6 whether you KB or not.

KB just doesnt care how many wounds are remaining on the model or in the case of the 5+ KB whether or not the actual to wound roll was successful.

You are never given permission to ignore the actual successful wound should it happen.


This means, if there is an effect that blocks that wound through some means, it still works.

Since, the term slay itself has no game term definition, and is only brought up in the circumstances of killing multi-wound models with only a single failed saving through, it should be treated exactly as though it was dealing Multiple-wounds (all your remaining wounds).

KB irrefutably does not wound. You can argue that the "to wound roll" still wounds, but KB would have to say that it wounded. Like, for example, the multiple wounds rule does.
There are majy times in the game where what are called "special rules" happen. This means that something different from the basic rules can happen. This is almost always instead of what would normally happen. You are given very clear instructions on what to do if you roll a 6 on a to wound roll. This is a special rule and replaces the normal rule.

Ehh its ok, I have no doubt that killing blow doesnt do anything to ethereal unless its magic due to how its worded. I also know i am not a good enough debater to ever convince you guys.

Im stepping out of this.

Peasant - the process is called "to-wound". If succesful if can cause a wound. Rolling "to-wound" is, in of itself, NOT THE WOUND - by definition.

Not sure how else to put it. You never get as far as actually causing a wound

Killing blow does not cause a wound when it slays, so ethereals protection against non-magical wounds doesnt apply. It never has, in 14 pages.

Nothing you have ever posted alters that simple fact.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peasant - the process is called "to-wound". If succesful if can cause a wound. Rolling "to-wound" is, in of itself, NOT THE WOUND - by definition.

Not sure how else to put it. You never get as far as actually causing a wound

Killing blow does not cause a wound when it slays, so ethereals protection against non-magical wounds doesnt apply. It never has, in 14 pages.

Nothing you have ever posted alters that simple fact.

+1

Eihnlazer wrote:
I also know i am not a good enough debater to ever convince you guys.

No one is. It would take a rule written to convince me of the RAW.
The fact that RAW does not agree with you is the issue, not anyone's debate skills.

editing to add:
If you meant that more as an agree to disagree, cheers.

Half of the interesting part of threads like this are the random times someone actually finds something new.
The repetitions are good to get people to actually read things.
Most of the time people read what they think is there.
Critical reading and analysis once in a while gets to something that is rather new.
This is really an example, for most people.
The number of people I have met IRL and asked about this rule has been split.

That said, talking about it and asking them to actually read it, every one of them agrees with the RAW as I have stated.
It does come up quasi-regularly for me in games (I like my Halberd Tomb Guard), but so far every opponent has also agreed.
Note that the discussion occurred prior to the game and I stated I was entirely willing to play the other way if there was contention.

DukeRustfield wrote:


Again, you completely ignored the combat resolution problem. If KB is a wound multiplier, you're still causing numerous instance of wounds to a target. CR specifically has rules for counting KB and it has separate section for counting wounds dealt. If KB was simply a wound multiplier it wouldn't need to address it, it would be a given in the fact it was just wounds. And, you know how multiplication works, right? You haven't done a wound yet. Because KB never states it causes a wound and the normal CC rules require you to take whole different battery of saves.

KB has a different section because the formula is different depending on circumstance. It wounds, but it doesn't 'just' wound. KB on 1w model. Score +1, KB on 2W model +2, KB on 2W model with 1W left +1. KB causes the remaining wounds. The exception is Challenges, which is also addressed.

If slay is just a wound multiplier, it has to multiply by something. There are no wounds when KB takes effect. As in normal combat you would still get normal saves. This odd term "wound multiplier" that keeps getting tossed around isn't mentioned once or even hinted in any of the rules.

Get past slay. Slay is just a term. KB is the same as multiple wounds,except it is all the wounds on remaining on the profile. It also has the special effect of bypassing armor.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:

KB irrefutably does not wound. You can argue that the "to wound roll" still wounds, but KB would have to say that it wounded. Like, for example, the multiple wounds rule does.
There are majy times in the game where what are called "special rules" happen. This means that something different from the basic rules can happen. This is almost always instead of what would normally happen. You are given very clear instructions on what to do if you roll a 6 on a to wound roll. This is a special rule and replaces the normal rule.

Yes the irrefutability shows in 15 pages. Your disagreement does not make it irrefutable.
Why are you assuming it must say you wounded?
The wording is simple. You rolled to wound, logical progression is that it is to wound. You will either die or live with KB. So it is either ALL your wounds or nothing. d3/d6 wounds needs to state wounds because you can have 3 wounds and a 1 could be rolled.
Can you tell me a time (other than your KB assumption) that you have EVER rolled to wound, not to cause wounds?
Why does it not ask you to roll a dice for KB?
You are given very clear instructions on what to do when you roll a six. Yet you are never instructed that wounds become irrelevant.

So all of you that say KB doesn't wound/work on ethereal, you play this right??
You roll to hit with poison and get a 6, it never says you hit, it just says a natural 6 to hit automatically wounds. But since you are immune to poison nothing happens because the six got converted to an auto wound..

@ Duke- Are you going to address this?
So if as soon as you roll a 6 it is a KB and you can't go back to the table, what happens if it's a monster?? You can't go back and apply the wound.
roll>6>KB>monster>nothing

 kirsanth wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
I also know i am not a good enough debater to ever convince you guys.

No one
Half of the interesting part of threads like this are the random times someone actually finds something new.

And that was ~10 pages ago? Where killing blow can slay even though the roll to wound fails.


-Matt

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peasant - the process is called "to-wound". If succesful if can cause a wound. Rolling "to-wound" is, in of itself, NOT THE WOUND - by definition.

Not sure how else to put it. You never get as far as actually causing a wound

Killing blow does not cause a wound when it slays, so ethereals protection against non-magical wounds doesnt apply. It never has, in 14 pages.

Nothing you have ever posted alters that simple fact.

Then why is your model not 'removed as a casualty' or 'removed from play' ?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
I also know i am not a good enough debater to ever convince you guys.

No one
Half of the interesting part of threads like this are the random times someone actually finds something new.

And that was ~10 pages ago? Where killing blow can slay even though the roll to wound fails.


-Matt

As rules go this is after the fact. Before the magic banner a 6 always wounded. Many magic items change things.

 Peasant wrote:
As rules go this is after the fact.

It did not change anything.
The rules are the same.

PEasant - so you are unwilling / able to respond to the point you are misunderstanding, and that I explained?

Instead you will raise a "why didnt they word this differently?" question?

Helpful.

Cna this be put to bed? NOt a single rules argument from the no-side that manages to explain why,when you dont cause a wound, the ethereal protection about wounds somehow comes into play

Not a one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peasant - the process is called "to-wound". If succesful if can cause a wound. Rolling "to-wound" is, in of itself, NOT THE WOUND - by definition.

Not sure how else to put it. You never get as far as actually causing a wound

Killing blow does not cause a wound when it slays, so ethereals protection against non-magical wounds doesnt apply. It never has, in 14 pages.

Nothing you have ever posted alters that simple fact.

Is this the nonsense you want response to? It is not fact. It is your opinion.
The most basic logic is that since you are rolling to wound, it is causing wounds.
That same dice that you roll..to wound..is the exact same dice that generates the wounds on non affected models. That is the purpose of that dice roll.
Without that same dice you have no wounds. Period.
You are assuming, incorrectly, that, it does not wound.
Though your dice is not 'the wound', it is all part of the wound process.
You cannot have a wound or killing blow without that dice.
Your 6 is a wound or KB . KB is one wound or all wounds.
How do you prove no wound is caused? Is it simply because it does not state it causes a wound?
It doesn't say it causes a wound. It doesn't say it doesn't cause a wound.
6>infantry>KB>all wounds
6>monster>no KB>1 wound
Same dice,same process, all models. No shuffling, no back tracking, no exceptions, no rule changes.

Make sure you stay consistent and don't let poison attacks work on anyone immune to poison either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Cna this be put to bed? NOt a single rules argument from the no-side that manages to explain why,when you dont cause a wound, the ethereal protection about wounds somehow comes into play

Not a one.

As I just asked..where is your rules argument?
Assumption based on the idea that the roll to wound was for nought


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
As rules go this is after the fact.

It did not change anything.
The rules are the same.

It is after the fact but I will address it even though many of my questions get ignored.
The only thing the 5 changes is the score required for KB to trigger.
5>infantry kb>all wounds
As I stated even the annotation says it doesn't care about toughness or armor.
It still cares about wounds. That is why you roll to wound and you aren't rolling to KB , or rolling to remove the model from play, or rolling to remove as a casualty.
However you want to spin the language, rolling to wound and the dice involved are all part of that process. KB modifies damage and saves but there is no suggestion that it doesn't wound.

Same for you...I hope you stay consistent and make those poison to hit 6's do nothing against models that are immune to poison. It never says you hit.

 Peasant wrote:
That is why you roll to wound and you aren't rolling to KB

This is still where you go wrong. Conflating two separate things.
The facts are that you can have Killing Blow take place when you are rolling to-wound.

You then wrongly assert that it is impossible to have something occur during a to-wound roll that is not a wound. (NOTE: This includes failing roll to-wound.)

Why?
Where is the rule for that?
Page and line.
(editing to add:
The repeated nonsense about it counting for combat resolution is not a rule stating that wounds are caused.
See Challenge rules and DukeRustfield's concise descriptions and refute them if you want to claim otherwise.
The rules are explicitly clear that this "counts as" is literally to add to resolution score and has no other bearing on the game.)

You are wrong.

You can wound when rolling to-hit with Poison.
Same. . .exact. . .thing.

How does a giant do the same thing and you keep ignoring it?

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
That is why you roll to wound and you aren't rolling to KB

This is still where you go wrong. Conflating two separate things.
The facts are that you can have Killing Blow take place when you are rolling to-wound.

Let me try and break this down for you because just starting with this first sentence you seem to be confused with what I have said.
YES you can have a KB take place when you are rolling to wound. I have NEVER said you can't. That is when it happens. When rolling to wound.

You then wrongly assert that it is impossible to have something occur during a to-wound roll that is not a wound. (NOTE: This includes failing roll to-wound.)

I have never said nothing can happen during the to wound roll. I have said if it is during the 'to wound' roll..it is causing wounds. Or failing the roll. It is successful or it fails. Those are the only options.
KB happens during the process and therefore causes wounds.
Show me ANY time (other than KB because you can't use it as proof upon itself.) that the roll to wound is not for the purpose and effect of causing wounds.

Why?
Where is the rule for that?
Page and line.

I don't need to prove contrary. The roll to wound shows that it causes wounds. It is up to you to prove that it does not.

(editing to add:
The repeated nonsense about it counting for combat resolution is not a rule stating that wounds are caused.
See Challenge rules and DukeRustfield's concise descriptions and refute them if you want to claim otherwise.
The rules are explicitly clear that this "counts as" is literally to add to resolution score and has no other bearing on the game.)

The rule with KB in challenges is to even up the score for models with KB. If you have 5 attacks and KB against a 2 wound model scoring a KB would short you the potential overkill for your expensive character.
You are wrong that it is irrelevant, but for argument sake... show any thing that says in writing that you do not cause wounds.
You can't because it doesn't exist. Text neither states causing nor not causing wounds. If you are rolling to wound the logical conclusion is that you are causing wounds.
There is no foundation to the idea that it doesn't wound other than a weak interpretation and is nonsense.

You are wrong.

You can wound when rolling to-hit with Poison.
Same. . .exact. . .thing.

How does a giant do the same thing and you keep ignoring it?

A giant doesn't do the same thing.
Again, you are misreading.
You claim that KB does not cause wounds, because in the description for KB you roll to wound and then you get a natural 6 and it changes the order of things so the wound gets ignored and the model is slain, correct?
Well with poison, the text (paraphrase) states that on a natural '6' you automatically wound the target. It never states you hit then automatically wound.
So by your reasoning..that '6' never hits..it jumps to a new chart and wounds the target. So if the target is immune to poison any natural '6' does nothing because it never actually hit.
Another ridiculous idea, but on your (incorrect) reading that should be RAW.
Same...exact...thing. With your thought process.

I have never ignored the giant..I said it could be a different thread.
Giants are different. Giants have there own chart, some of which I have stated RAW may bypass Ethereal for some of the effects because they say 'remove as a casualty or remove from play, although I would play it as not working because it is silly.
KB NEVER uses that language (per giant or instant kills) and the roll to wound shows that it is wounding. Period.

 Peasant wrote:
I have said if it is during the 'to wound' roll..it is causing wounds. . .

Why?
Where is the rule for that?
Page and line.

I don't need to prove contrary.

Gotcha.
There are no rules that you claim to be following.
Yet you state that it is the written rules.

Yes, we have all read you stating things.
No one has read GW stating those things, nor can you find any reference to them doing so.

It has been proven that KB works without successful to-wound rolls.

As above. There is literally no point responding further, when Peasant admits they have no need to prove their contention - that to-wound = wound - when GW never states it

The process of rolling to-wound is a process, not the end result. EVen if you cannot succeed on your to-wound, nothing exempts you from rolling

FACT: KB does not cause a wound.

Nothing the nay side can provide shows otherwise, and hasnt for 14 pages.

 Peasant wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:


Again, you completely ignored the combat resolution problem. If KB is a wound multiplier, you're still causing numerous instance of wounds to a target. CR specifically has rules for counting KB and it has separate section for counting wounds dealt. If KB was simply a wound multiplier it wouldn't need to address it, it would be a given in the fact it was just wounds. And, you know how multiplication works, right? You haven't done a wound yet. Because KB never states it causes a wound and the normal CC rules require you to take whole different battery of saves.

KB has a different section because the formula is different depending on circumstance. It wounds, but it doesn't 'just' wound. KB on 1w model. Score +1, KB on 2W model +2, KB on 2W model with 1W left +1. KB causes the remaining wounds. The exception is Challenges, which is also addressed.

If slay is just a wound multiplier, it has to multiply by something. There are no wounds when KB takes effect. As in normal combat you would still get normal saves. This odd term "wound multiplier" that keeps getting tossed around isn't mentioned once or even hinted in any of the rules.

Get past slay. Slay is just a term. KB is the same as multiple wounds,except it is all the wounds on remaining on the profile. It also has the special effect of bypassing armor.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:

KB irrefutably does not wound. You can argue that the "to wound roll" still wounds, but KB would have to say that it wounded. Like, for example, the multiple wounds rule does.
There are majy times in the game where what are called "special rules" happen. This means that something different from the basic rules can happen. This is almost always instead of what would normally happen. You are given very clear instructions on what to do if you roll a 6 on a to wound roll. This is a special rule and replaces the normal rule.

Yes the irrefutability shows in 15 pages. Your disagreement does not make it irrefutable.
Why are you assuming it must say you wounded?
The wording is simple. You rolled to wound, logical progression is that it is to wound. You will either die or live with KB. So it is either ALL your wounds or nothing. d3/d6 wounds needs to state wounds because you can have 3 wounds and a 1 could be rolled.
Can you tell me a time (other than your KB assumption) that you have EVER rolled to wound, not to cause wounds?
Why does it not ask you to roll a dice for KB?
You are given very clear instructions on what to do when you roll a six. Yet you are never instructed that wounds become irrelevant.

So all of you that say KB doesn't wound/work on ethereal, you play this right??
You roll to hit with poison and get a 6, it never says you hit, it just says a natural 6 to hit automatically wounds. But since you are immune to poison nothing happens because the six got converted to an auto wound..

@ Duke- Are you going to address this?
So if as soon as you roll a 6 it is a KB and you can't go back to the table, what happens if it's a monster?? You can't go back and apply the wound.
roll>6>KB>monster>nothing

So here might be where you are going wrong. The multiple wounds rule does not wound. A wound is caused by the to wound roll, after comparison to the table. The multiple wounds rule then says what the effect of that wound is. That does not mean that the multiple wound rule is wounding, it is just multipling.
The whole time you seem to be confused about the differences between trying to wiund, actually wounding and wounds themselves.
Trying to wound is when you roll.
Wounding is when you compare that attempt to the table and get a sucfesful result.
Wounds are the actual markers themselves.
It is the difference between a noun and a verb.
KB does not wound. You are in the middle of the process of trying to wound, but it is interrupted before any actual wounds are generated.
Even if it wee not, KB would nit be wounding - the wound mechanic would be wounding, just like with the multiple wounds rule. That iw not what happens, since he process is clearly interuptted, but there is no rational arguement to say that anything is wounding other than the wounding mechanic itself.

 kirsanth wrote:

Gotcha.
There are no rules that you claim to be following.
Yet you state that it is the written rules.

Yes, we have all read you stating things.
No one has read GW stating those things, nor can you find any reference to them doing so.

It has been proven that KB works without successful to-wound rolls.

And where is your evidence that no wounds are caused.?
As is common by many of you, you call for 'evidence' whilst providing none of your own.
All you have is weak interpretation, breaking down portions of the same process, taking the entire process apart when they are all part of the same and require each other.
And again...you take a single sentence out of context instead of the whole. This is the only explanation I can find as to why you are struggling here.
I'll ask again..Show me ANY time (other than KB because you can't use it as proof upon itself.) that the roll to wound is not for the purpose and effect of causing wounds.

You're on board for poison example then right??
Immune to poison makes them safe from '6's from models with poison??
You really should answer that.

 Peasant wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

It has been proven that KB works without successful to-wound rolls.

And where is your evidence that no wounds are caused.?

Re-read that.

And the rules for challenges.

You are again conflating terms.

Cursed Blades on my Tomb Guard rolling vs WS10 and given a -1 to-hit rolling a 5 against a model susceptible to KB.
Failed to-wound, successful KB resulting in a slain model, without wounding it.

Following your inserted rules KB wreaks absolute havok on challenges.

Assuming a 4 wound target model gets wounded 5 times with KB - how much CR is generated by that challenge?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. There is literally no point responding further, when Peasant admits they have no need to prove their contention - that to-wound = wound - when GW never states it

The process of rolling to-wound is a process, not the end result. EVen if you cannot succeed on your to-wound, nothing exempts you from rolling

FACT: KB does not cause a wound.

Nothing the nay side can provide shows otherwise, and hasnt for 14 pages.

You should stop calling...FACT.
KB activates during the roll to wound..fact
KB works on infantry/cavalry/war beasts..fact
KB slays regardless of the number wounds...fact
KB happens during the 'rolling to wound' process of the game.. fact
KB counts wounds in combat resolution..fact

KB does not wound...your interpretation.. based on what?
You claim that KB does not cause wounds, because in the description for KB you roll to wound and then you get a natural 6 and it changes the order of things so the wound gets ignored and the model is slain, correct?
How do you prove no wounds are caused? Is it simply because it does not state it causes a wound?
It doesn't say it causes a wound. It doesn't say it doesn't cause a wound.
6>infantry>KB>all wounds
6>monster>no KB>1 wound
Same dice,same process, all models. No shuffling, no back tracking, no exceptions, no rule changes.
EPIPHANY---KB exempts you from the S vs.T.(hence the banner allowing 5+) Negates armor,(both shown in the annotation) plus removes all wounds(...slain regardless of the number of wounds). You are not exempt from wounds.
You always claim to need written proof. Provide some of your own. Show where the rule is that states the wounds are irrelevant and not caused? Because every time you play a game that to wound roll does the same things. It wounds or doesn't..that's its purpose.
I pose the same challenge to you
Show me ANY time (other than KB because you can't use it as proof upon itself.) that the roll to wound is not for the purpose and/or effect of causing wounds.
I have stated why I should not have to show more than I have... yet being crazy I still try
KB is part of the wounding process/section, that should be plenty to show it is dealing wounds. Again it is your interpretation that is making this difficult

You're on board for poison example right??

Maybe you;ll respond to questions rather than just saying you are right and I am wrong.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:

So here might be where you are going wrong. The multiple wounds rule does not wound. A wound is caused by the to wound roll, after comparison to the table. The multiple wounds rule then says what the effect of that wound is. That does not mean that the multiple wound rule is wounding, it is just multipling.
The whole time you seem to be confused about the differences between trying to wiund, actually wounding and wounds themselves.
Trying to wound is when you roll.
Wounding is when you compare that attempt to the table and get a sucfesful result.
Wounds are the actual markers themselves.
It is the difference between a noun and a verb.
KB does not wound. You are in the middle of the process of trying to wound, but it is interrupted before any actual wounds are generated.
Even if it wee not, KB would nit be wounding - the wound mechanic would be wounding, just like with the multiple wounds rule. That iw not what happens, since he process is clearly interuptted, but there is no rational arguement to say that anything is wounding other than the wounding mechanic itself.

See upper post.
The annotation says KB does not care about toughness.
So your 6 automatically makes it a successful chart comparison. KB 5+ makes a successful S vs.T check.
Your ultra specific mentality is making this more complicated than it is.
There is nothing that states that KB does NOT cause wounds. That is your interpretation.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

It has been proven that KB works without successful to-wound rolls.

And where is your evidence that no wounds are caused.?

Re-read that.

And the rules for challenges.

You are again conflating terms.

Cursed Blades on my Tomb Guard rolling vs WS10 and given a -1 to-hit rolling a 5 against a model susceptible to KB.
Failed to-wound, successful KB resulting in a slain model, without wounding it.

Following your inserted rules KB wreaks absolute havok on challenges.

Assuming a 4 wound target model gets wounded 5 times with KB - how much CR is generated by that challenge?

See above for S vs. T. and success.
I have shown how your roll 'to wound' is successful.
As for the challenge..read the FAQ.
Lets just say that it is 5 '6's...technically that's a score of 20 but overkill caps you at +5.
So your answer is +5
4 normal wounds and one '6' would be 8..overkill still caps at +5

When you rolled to wound you still have yet to show that wounds have become irrelevant.

So you still can't see the difference between different parts of the procedure... do you also think that rolling to hit causes wounds? After all, that is also part of the process...
You claim that by looking specifically at what happens, I am making the matter too complicated. I would contend that your black box "roll a die, some mechanics I don't understand happen and wounds come out" approach is too simplistic - as is evudenced by your argument.
The fact that you could consider that either KB or multiple wounds actually do any wounding isproof that you ddon't understand the process. That is also why you fail to see that a process can be changed.
So imqgine, for a second, that you have something that normally happens when you rolla certain number, 6 for example. Then you get a special rule, which tells you to do a specific thing if you roll a 6. Guess what happens when you get a more specific rule. It replaces the normal rule! Hooray!

Niteware wrote:
So you still can't see the difference between different parts of the procedure... do you also think that rolling to hit causes wounds? After all, that is also part of the process...
You claim that by looking specifically at what happens, I am making the matter too complicated. I would contend that your black box "roll a die, some mechanics I don't understand happen and wounds come out" approach is too simplistic - as is evudenced by your argument.
The fact that you could consider that either KB or multiple wounds actually do any wounding isproof that you ddon't understand the process. That is also why you fail to see that a process can be changed.
So imqgine, for a second, that you have something that normally happens when you rolla certain number, 6 for example. Then you get a special rule, which tells you to do a specific thing if you roll a 6. Guess what happens when you get a more specific rule. It replaces the normal rule! Hooray!

You still continue to avoid answering my questions.
Yet I answer yours, and will continue to.
The problem with your break up of the procedure is that it is neither stated nor required. Of course I understand your break up. The problem is YOU are unnecessarily breaking it up into different parts. You are never, told, asked, required, or suggested to deviate from the standard game mechanic.
Your '6' did give you specifics. You ignored toughness, you Ignore armor and slay regardless of the number of wounds. NEVER does it not refer to wounds. YOur specifics NEVER state ignore wounds or that wounds are irrelevant. NEVER does it state remove from play or remove as a casualty. This is still your assumption
6>infantry>KB>all wounds
6>monster>no KB>1 wound
Show me how your process works?
Because mine follows all the rules, mechanics and processes and it changes the required ones. Just like when you hit a model with a weapon that ignores armour saves. That is the specific change. Nothing gets added or taken away.

Still thinking about poison attacks against a model immune to poison??
.

Among many problems of the nays is the fact they can't understand the rules aren't written in easy step 1-10 but often vary depending on situations and units.

If you roll to charge into combat with an chariot and succeed, you make impact hits. Whatever normal process exists for all the non-chariots is changed, because not everyone has impact hits.

Even before that, the enemy could have chosen to flee as a charge reaction. So the process is short-circuited. Or they could have held and shot missile weapons.

CC rules say you view who strikes first based on Initiative order. But if someone has ASF or ASL, that's also not the case. That rule is thrown out.

There are a vast number of cases where this happens. Special Rules can turn everything from movement all the way to break tests into spaghetti. If you're Unbreakable, all that crap that says you need to test because you lost combat is out the door.

Like those good old Giants again, they got a rule that says they win combat by 2. Forget all the combat resolution rules, like 2 pages of what you're supposed to do are thrown out because of one sentence of giant special rules. You don't come back to CR after the giant just won it, it's over. Likewise, you can't say that the giant inflicted wounds or had extra ranks or charged or had a standard or any of the other rules of CR, all it says is he won by 2. A nameless, formless 2. If you did 4 wounds to him and charged and had the high ground and a banner, you still lose by 2. That means he had more of that stuff, right? Nope, it means there's a special rule that you lose by 2.

Just because other stuff dies when it loses wounds doesn't mean a special rule has to kill things the same way. If there's a special rule in the next army book called "Don't Do Wounds But Take The Damn Model Off The Table," then that's what you do. You don't have to prove it doesn't do wounds, just like you don't have to prove it doesn't happen in a pie plate template, or force everyone to have Random Movement. You go by RAW and what it tells you. Nowhere is slay ever said to cause wounds, lower attributes, directly cause LD tests, bend space-time. You don't have to prove it doesn't do those things either. The game would be infinitely long if you had to prove every archer wasn't a cannon and wasn't a stone thrower and wasn't poison and everything else in existence.

Just because I read through 4 or 5 pages, why wouldn't flaming attacks kill ethereal creatures? Flaming is an effect just as killing blow is an effect. So is poison, that's an effect.

Otherwise, we can continue to argue over the sentence structure of how we put together a list or whether the Brits are just too cheap to print an Oxford comma. The US interpretation would be magical attacks or effect could imply both to be magical because the writer has put together a list using multiple conjunctions (and & or). The confusion here is the Brits are not fond of the Oxford comma. In the US, we would have a comma either before "and magical weapons or effects" to imply they are lumped together or we would put a comma before "or" to split "effect" from magical.

It's just a difference in grammar between two countries. Armor and armour, behavior and behaviour and color or colour.

Personally, I have always interpreted the piece related to "effects" to be hits from the miscast table. I believe it was FAQed to be included shortly thereafter.

Sorry if there are any typos or incorrect spellings - I had my nightcap but it doesn't seem to be working. Hence the reason I'm on Dakka and its almost 1 AM...


Just because I'm curious now, why is this really an issue? Most ethereal units will die to combat resolution against any unit of similar points. The one ethereal unit you would send at that type of enemy is immune to killing blow because its a swarm. I wouldn't send a unit of wraiths to fight or tie up a unit with killing blow - that's what zombies or spirit hosts are for. I would use something with a high number of attacks or on a larger base to get around the whole killing blow. There are what 4 or 5 units with non magic killing blow attacks (haven't read the elves books) but almost all other killing blow abilities come via a magic weapon or banner right?

DukeRustfield wrote:
Among many problems of the nays is the fact they can't understand the rules aren't written in easy step 1-10 but often vary depending on situations and units.

If you roll to charge into combat with an chariot and succeed, you make impact hits. Whatever normal process exists for all the non-chariots is changed, because not everyone has impact hits.

Even before that, the enemy could have chosen to flee as a charge reaction. So the process is short-circuited. Or they could have held and shot missile weapons.

CC rules say you view who strikes first based on Initiative order. But if someone has ASF or ASL, that's also not the case. That rule is thrown out.

There are a vast number of cases where this happens. Special Rules can turn everything from movement all the way to break tests into spaghetti. If you're Unbreakable, all that crap that says you need to test because you lost combat is out the door.

Like those good old Giants again, they got a rule that says they win combat by 2. Forget all the combat resolution rules, like 2 pages of what you're supposed to do are thrown out because of one sentence of giant special rules. You don't come back to CR after the giant just won it, it's over. Likewise, you can't say that the giant inflicted wounds or had extra ranks or charged or had a standard or any of the other rules of CR, all it says is he won by 2. A nameless, formless 2. If you did 4 wounds to him and charged and had the high ground and a banner, you still lose by 2. That means he had more of that stuff, right? Nope, it means there's a special rule that you lose by 2.

Just because other stuff dies when it loses wounds doesn't mean a special rule has to kill things the same way. If there's a special rule in the next army book called "Don't Do Wounds But Take The Damn Model Off The Table," then that's what you do. You don't have to prove it doesn't do wounds, just like you don't have to prove it doesn't happen in a pie plate template, or force everyone to have Random Movement. You go by RAW and what it tells you. Nowhere is slay ever said to cause wounds, lower attributes, directly cause LD tests, bend space-time. You don't have to prove it doesn't do those things either. The game would be infinitely long if you had to prove every archer wasn't a cannon and wasn't a stone thrower and wasn't poison and everything else in existence.

Exactly!
Everything listed here has specific rules on how to play it. Anything that changes is VERY specifc.
The giant specifically changes the combat resolution. It told you change the combat res.
ASF said strike first.
KB told you to ignore armour, it told you to slay regardless..
Your roll to wound should prove that it wounds. You rolled to wound. That was your first step towards KB and you have no instruction not to. You wound til you are told not to.
NOWHERE does it say don't do wounds.
What purpose does the effort to prove it does not wound serve?
Finally.
This really should not be this difficult.

boyd wrote:
Just because I read through 4 or 5 pages, why wouldn't flaming attacks kill ethereal creatures? Flaming is an effect just as killing blow is an effect. So is poison, that's an effect.

It's just a difference in grammar between two countries. Armor and armour, behavior and behaviour and color or colour.

No one cares it's an "effect," which isn't a game term. It's a special rule. We care about the text of that special rule. You may have read 4 or 5 pages here, but you didn't read the BRB. Flaming doesn't kill anything, Ethereal or not. Poison specifically causes wounds. It's what it does. It cannot affect Ethereal unless it's magic because Ethereal can't be harmed by non-magic wounds. KB doesn't cause wounds. If you want to see what a special rule looks like when it causes wounds, read Poison.

However, Flaming attacks cause Fear in cavalry. Hexwraiths are fast cav. But they are also undead and thus unbreakable and cause Fear. But the owner of said flaming attack would be immune to the fear of the hexwraiths. Kinda like that scene in LOTR where Strider is waving around a torch(!!!) at those ringwraiths even though they're...you know, ringwraiths. Fire is scary, I guess. That said, if the Ethereal unit has regeneration, it wouldn't be cancelled by Flaming because you have to cause a wound.

This has nothing to do with grammar differences. All this stuff is written out. You can put a comma here, and here and here. Or here, and here, and here (Oxford). But it still doesn't say KB ever does a wound which is the only thing Ethereal protects against.

Peasan t - no, its a fact

With poison I am rolling to-hit, but can also cause a wound on a 6. Under your bizarre idea that KB still generates a wound, you MUST AGREE that poison STILL causes a hit - so do yo uroll to wound, as well as getting your succesful wound from the poison?
No, because that would be absurd. POison successfully activating shortcuts, and takes your to-hit and turns it directly into a wound.

(Poison 5+ needing a to-hit of 6 also poisons on a 5+, before you attempt yet another strawman)

WHen you roll a 6 TO_WOUND, the *process*, you Killing Blow. This slays, it does not cause a wound.

You have no permission to cause a wound, because the rule for KB states it slays.

Fnid permission, or concede your are still attempting to argue RAI when the RAW argument was won page 1.

Are you allowed to attempt to roll to wound in the first place?

 Daba wrote:
Are you allowed to attempt to roll to wound in the first place?

Yes because nothing in the Ethereal section says you don't get to roll. Most people won't roll when using mundane weapons (without Killing Blow) as there's no point, but there's no rule saying "If you cannot wound then you don't roll".

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peasan t - no, its a fact

With poison I am rolling to-hit, but can also cause a wound on a 6. Under your bizarre idea that KB still generates a wound, you MUST AGREE that poison STILL causes a hit - so do yo uroll to wound, as well as getting your succesful wound from the poison?
No, because that would be absurd. POison successfully activating shortcuts, and takes your to-hit and turns it directly into a wound.

(Poison 5+ needing a to-hit of 6 also poisons on a 5+, before you attempt yet another strawman)

WHen you roll a 6 TO_WOUND, the *process*, you Killing Blow. This slays, it does not cause a wound.

You have no permission to cause a wound, because the rule for KB states it slays.

Fnid permission, or concede your are still attempting to argue RAI when the RAW argument was won page 1.

Again, stating it is a fact, does not make it a fact.
Poison attacks BRB pg73
A model with the Poisoned Attacks special rule wounds his target automatically if his natural dice roll to hit is a 6. Armour saves are modified as usual....
KB BRB pg72
If a model with KB special rule rolls a 6 to wound in combat, he automatically slays his opponent - regardless of the number of wounds...
(edit..for example...I want to buy all of your birds- regardless of the number of birds. The birds..i.e wounds..are still relevant it is the quantity that is not. Use the complete context ..slays regardless.....)
You and several have stated that KB does not wound because you are never told that you wound. The dice roll 'to wound' is just a process and the grammar takes you away for that because it never actually states you wound.
Following your logic the grammar for poison attacks never actually states you hit. Your natural '6' automatically wounds. It never says to compare the dice to the hit chart..It wounds, it never actually hits.
Etehreal are immune to KB as Immune to poison are safe from being hit under your logic.

Of COURSE poison hits, just as KB causes wounds. The whole idea of it being anything otherwise is ridiculous.
That is my point. The activation doesn't disallow the process unless it is stated.
Like the giants yell and bawl for combat resolution, it states the specific change.
Poison attacks grant you and auto wound, it never disallows the roll to hit..
KB grants you all the wounds, it says regardless of the number of wounds. It grants you no armour save. It never disallows the wounds.
And I have permission. The permission was granted when rolling to wound.
The rules are written this way.
You are attempting RAI.
I'm still waiting on how your process works also.

 Peasant wrote:

Following your logic the grammar for poison attacks never actually states you hit. Your natural '6' automatically wounds. It never says to compare the dice to the hit chart..It wounds, it never actually hits.

I hate myself for getting involved in this, but that sentence is actually 100% correct by the rules.

The rules for poisoned ranged attacks even go so far as to instruct you that if you need greater than a "6" to hit, then Poison doesn't work. They've addressed that potential loophole. Theoretically, I would guess that if a unit Poisons on a 5+ but needs a "6" to-hit, then they'd still Poison on the "5," even though there wasn't actually a hit.

Though, it's interesting to wonder if a Wound generated from a to-hit roll of "6" from a Poisoned attack would count as a "hit" for that magic item that provides a save agains the first "hit" suffered in a game....

(Ugh, now I feel dirty.)

 Peasant wrote:
KB 5+ makes a successful S vs.T check.

Page and line.

You are making this up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peasant wrote:
I have shown how your roll 'to wound' is successful.

You have stated it.
Never shown anything other than your own words to back it.

The to-wound fails.
Killing Blow succeeds.

Successful Poison attacks don't hit. A Hit in WHFB just means you do your normal wound routine (S->T, Saves, etc). Stomp does an automatic Hit, you then do your normal test to see if it wounds. Successful Poison bypasses that and automatically wounds. It's not a Hit.

There is the English word hit and the game term Hit. You can, and do, cause wounds and kill people without ever hitting them. That's not some reality-bending concept of shooting a bow and it teleporting inside your enemy because you didn't hit them. It's the game term Hit. Poison never says it causes Hits. It completely bypasses that section, so it can't.

Again, this is the problem that some people can't comprehend that if something arrives at a point later in the process you must have completed everything that came before. You can cut in queues. You can Ambush/Vanguard/Scout without ever charging/moving across the map. You can cause multiple wounds with just 1 attack.

If something responded to how many Hits it took, successful Poison wouldn't count. Just like anything else that wounded automatically. Charmed Shield cannot block a successful Poison shot because it's not a Hit it's an auto wound. If Poison were a Hit, you would be required to roll to wound. Then when would you resolve the Poison special rule? Would you wound the target twice?

It's the same concept as KB. Or as nearly any other special rule that forces you to take different actions than the straight BRB. You roll a natural 6 with poison and you wound. You jump past the to-wound chart. The enemy's toughness is never consulted--if it's 1 or 10 it doesn't matter. Then you jump back into the regular process and take saves, if any.

If Ethereal, or something else, said it could only be Hit by magic weapons, you could still poison them. Because if you rolled a 6 you would auto-wound. If you didn't roll a 6, even if you would have normally scored a hit, it would bounce off your target because they are immune.

You only get immunity to what it says you're immune to. Poison can't poison things it can't hit, per its rules. Ethereal is immune to wounds only. Poison causes wounds and is clearly stated, just like every other rule and special rule and spell and item that causes wounds. KB doesn't.

Peasant - you apparently ignored that your logic, if extended, means that a poisoned hit still generates a hit, meaning you get a roll to wound. Yet we know that a Poison, KB attack has NO CHANCE to KB if you poison...because you dont get that hit. You bypass the hit entirely

KB bypasses the "wound" entirely. No wound is generated. INSTEAD you KB

Every time I state a fact, it stays a fact. Your assertions, without a single shred of rules to back them up, do not and WILL NOT alter that.

Good day. Ignore.

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
KB 5+ makes a successful S vs.T check.

Page and line.

You are making this up.

Pg 72
The annotation on the side says KB does nor care about toughness or armour saves. If you have KB 5+ or regular '6' the result is the same. Your target will be slain regardless of the number of wounds.

 Peasant wrote:
I have shown how your roll 'to wound' is successful.

You have stated it.
Never shown anything other than your own words to back it.

The to-wound fails.
Killing Blow succeeds.

You still have yet to explain this..remember the process is the same for all combat, let's say S4 v. T6.
1 wound models
roll to wound of 6>Infantry>KB>slays regardless of the number of wounds
roll to wound of 6>monster>No KB>1 wound
2 wound models
roll to wound of 6>Infantry>KB>slays regardless of the number of wounds
roll to wound of 6>monster>No KB>1 wound
Since KB as written does not care about S vs.T. The 5+ automatically triggers KB by passing your S.vs T test
2 wound models with banner
roll to wound of 6>Infantry>KB>slays regardless of the number of wounds
roll to wound of 6>monster>No KB>1 wound
roll to wound of 5>Infantry>KB>slays regardless of the number of wounds
roll to wound of 5>monster>No KB>No wound
Same process no shenanigans.
There are still many questions you have yet to address. I understand if you can't or don't want to.

 Peasant wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
KB 5+ makes a successful S vs.T check.

Page and line.

You are making this up.

Pg 72
The annotation on the side says KB does nor care about toughness or armour saves.

If it does not care about T how can it succeed to compare to T?

You are wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peasant wrote:
The 5+ automatically triggers KB by passing your S.vs T test

This is why.
You cannot pass a test that is bypassed.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Successful Poison attacks don't hit. A Hit in WHFB just means you do your normal wound routine (S->T, Saves, etc). Stomp does an automatic Hit, you then do your normal test to see if it wounds. Successful Poison bypasses that and automatically wounds. It's not a Hit.

So if your ghouls fight a model that is immune to poison you better hope you don't roll '6's

There is the English word hit and the game term Hit. You can, and do, cause wounds and kill people without ever hitting them. That's not some reality-bending concept of shooting a bow and it teleporting inside your enemy because you didn't hit them. It's the game term Hit. Poison never says it causes Hits. It completely bypasses that section, so it can't.

Those that say KB doesn't wound should be agreeing to this.

Again, this is the problem that some people can't comprehend that if something arrives at a point later in the process you must have completed everything that came before. You can cut in queues. You can Ambush/Vanguard/Scout without ever charging/moving across the map. You can cause multiple wounds with just 1 attack.

If something responded to how many Hits it took, successful Poison wouldn't count. Just like anything else that wounded automatically. Charmed Shield cannot block a successful Poison shot because it's not a Hit it's an auto wound. If Poison were a Hit, you would be required to roll to wound. Then when would you resolve the Poison special rule? Would you wound the target twice?

This is how it should work
no poison
roll to hit 6>roll to wound..6>success
with poison
roll to hit 6>automatic wound>success
with poison target immune to poison
roll to hit '6'>immunity to auto wound, roll to wound ..
Same processes no shenanigans
Poison tells you that you don't have to roll to wound.

It's the same concept as KB. Or as nearly any other special rule that forces you to take different actions than the straight BRB. You roll a natural 6 with poison and you wound. You jump past the to-wound chart. The enemy's toughness is never consulted--if it's 1 or 10 it doesn't matter. Then you jump back into the regular process and take saves, if any.

If Ethereal, or something else, said it could only be Hit by magic weapons, you could still poison them. Because if you rolled a 6 you would auto-wound. If you didn't roll a 6, even if you would have normally scored a hit, it would bounce off your target because they are immune.

You only get immunity to what it says you're immune to. Poison can't poison things it can't hit, per its rules. Ethereal is immune to wounds only. Poison causes wounds and is clearly stated, just like every other rule and special rule and spell and item that causes wounds. KB doesn't.

Yes poison causes wound but not hits, according to you.
So basically you are saying that a '6' from a model with poison attacks will never be hit on a 6.
I can't believe you are buying this
We really should step away from the poison because it will just extend all this.

How do you people play this game? Over complicating the basic steps in this game??