Eihnlazer wrote:
killing blow would skip the ward save, if the attack didnt also wound, but it does.

a roll of a 6 to wound, is a successful attempt to wound againgst anything.

furbyballer wrote:
It absolutely gives the ward. Did the origination of the attack start as magical? Yes daemon attacks are magical. Did the opponent roll to wound the model? Yes he did. Therefore it is a magical wound that if unsaved will kill a model regardless of wounds left on its profile. Killing blow allows a single ward save to be taken against it. If the attack came from a non magical source clearly kb would not trigger the ward, but a magical kb will trigger it because it still rolled to wound and is just a larger wound if you will.

furbyballer wrote:
It absolutely gives the ward. Did the origination of the attack start as magical? Yes daemon attacks are magical. Did the opponent roll to wound the model? Yes he did. Therefore it is a magical wound that if unsaved will kill a model regardless of wounds left on its profile. Killing blow allows a single ward save to be taken against it. If the attack came from a non magical source clearly kb would not trigger the ward, but a magical kb will trigger it because it still rolled to wound and is just a larger wound if you will.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Killing Blow does not cause a wound, it just slays outright. As you dont have a ward against slain, only wounds, no ward save

Eihnlazer wrote:
acctually hes right, so once again, stop being immature.


KB isn't anything special. its just Multiple wounds (remaining wounds).

banner works.

Eihnlazer wrote:
acctually hes right, so once again, stop being immature.


KB isn't anything special. its just Multiple wounds (remaining wounds).

banner works.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so you are using an inexhaustive list and claiming it is exhaustive? That bcause wounds are damage, that all damage is wounds?

Logical fallacy for the loss, as far as arguments go

Reported for both being off topic, and for the insult you added in about maturity.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Oh, and because wound loss leads to being slain, that must mean being slain is always equivalent to losing all your wounds.

Good job actual logic doesnt work that way.

I lvoe the throw away about maturity, while coming into another thread to dredge up a lost argument....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so you are using an inexhaustive list and claiming it is exhaustive? That bcause wounds are damage, that all damage is wounds?

Logical fallacy for the loss, as far as arguments go

Reported for both being off topic, and for the insult you added in about maturity.

Niteware wrote:
Boomer eveybody, havng lost the arguement once, he's coming back for the second round..

Wounds are only caused when the rules say wounds are caused. KB is a seperate effect triggered on a to wound roll. It itself does not cause wounds, so no BOTWD save.

"This time you need to add
up all of the wounds inflicted on the victim,
even those from a weapon causing multiple
wounds, or by repeated Killing Blows"

TanKoL wrote:

"This time you need to add
up all of the wounds inflicted on the victim,
even those from a weapon causing multiple
wounds, or by repeated Killing Blows"

You're taking the text out of its context there, the subject is "overkill in a challenge", it just says that one KB against a 3 wounds guys counts as 3 wounds for combat resolution, while 3 KBs against the same guy counts as 5 wounds for combat resolution (as 5 is the maximum for overkill)

TanKoL wrote:

"This time you need to add
up all of the wounds inflicted on the victim,
even those from a weapon causing multiple
wounds, or by repeated Killing Blows"

You're taking the text out of its context there, the subject is "overkill in a challenge", it just says that one KB against a 3 wounds guys counts as 3 wounds for combat resolution, while 3 KBs against the same guy counts as 5 wounds for combat resolution (as 5 is the maximum for overkill)

 The Shadow wrote:
BotWD gives a 2+ ward against Magical Attacks.

IthinkIbrokeit wrote:
I am curious are there any other magic effects in the game at all
Where a model would be subject to a magic effect, that effect explicitly allows ward saves but the effect
Causes no wounds.

Can somebody snippet post the rule book section on ward saves? I believe
The entire section presupposes wounding have been caused.

Would a banner that said it provided a x+ armor save against wounds inflicted on the unit be redundant phrasing or are there
Any attacks that allow an armor save but inflict no wounds?

I think there is at least a good argument the banner does not work by raw keywords. However I think that interputation falls flat to a
RAI reading of what ward saves do.

Is there even a single other effect where the banners "against wounds caused" clause would be the reason the banner doesn't apply?

Either the "wounds caused by" is a functional clause that excludes a distinct list of things or it's a descriptive clause that is merely restating when saves occur. A the more things excluded the more purposeful the phrasing seems

Given that even the same book doesn't include "wounds caused by" on most wards, I think it is clearly intended to be functional.

DukeRustfield wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:
BotWD gives a 2+ ward against Magical Attacks.

No, it doesn't.

For it to give that it would have to say that. It says "Wounds caused by...magical attacks." If it said gives a 2+ ward against magical attacks and that was verbatim what it said, then it would block it. It does not say that, however.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Given that even the same book doesn't include "wounds caused by" on most wards, I think it is clearly intended to be functional.

On all triggered ward saves the wounds caused by wording is used so this is either intentionally misleading or I'll informed. See the Fireborn rule Matt Ward is quite consistent in using the wounds caused by wording as a descriptive clause.

Uneerlined and bolded the key word. It is neither misleading nor misread, since he has included several trigerred wards and several general wards. You are purposefully misreading both my posts and the rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Uneerlined and bolded the key word. It is neither misleading nor misread, since he has included several trigerred wards and several general wards. You are purposefully misreading both my posts and the rules.

I am not there is no need for the wording in a generic ward save, however if you can only take the ward saves against certain sources of damage then the wording makes perfect sense. You made out like it was unusual wording for him to put the "against wounds caused by" in a ward save when indeed it is in every ward save in the book that is triggered by a set of damage.

Could he have said "against all damage caused by" yes but damage isn't a very well defined term in Warhammer so that wording would cause problems. Could he simply put "has a ward save against" yes but again that causes problems because it would imply you get a ward save against spells that do no damage. Using the language he used made the best sense in the current ruleset get still some people deliberately missunderstand it. Just kind of illustrates that often the "problems" with the rules aren't always the writers fault.

Firstly, the most likely thing is that he wrote what he meant - it is only against wounds.
Secondly, damage is used in other places eg the KB rule, no reason they couldn't use it for ward descriptions.
Finally, it comes across as if you would rather assume that the writers of the rules are wrong, rather than that you might not be able to claim a ward in a niche situation. Seems kinda petty.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Firstly, the most likely thing is that he wrote what he meant - it is only against wounds.
Secondly, damage is used in other places eg the KB rule, no reason they couldn't use it for ward descriptions.
Finally, it comes across as if you would rather assume that the writers of the rules are wrong, rather than that you might not be able to claim a ward in a niche situation. Seems kinda petty.

I haven't assumed the writers are wrong I've assumed your narrow and literal interpretation is wrong. I assumed the ward save talks about wounds because all saves say they are taken against wounds.

I've assumed using the damage wording was considered and disregarded because it would be unclear (I'm guessing someone claimed -1T or S could be considered damage as it can kill you so they disregarded that wording and went with wounds because they thought it was clear).
Thirdly
Would you argue someone with a Dragonbane gem wouldn't get a ward save against KB from a flaming attacks unit? What about someone with the Fireborn rule?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why would I not be able to claim a ward save. I don't and never have played as High Elves. I will be starting a DE army so on the black horror argument my vested interest is on the other side. I just don't need to try to find loop holes to try to cheat a victory out of people.

Niteware wrote:

Firstly, the most likely thing is that he wrote what he meant - it is only against wounds.
Secondly, damage is used in other places eg the KB rule, no reason they couldn't use it for ward descriptions.
Finally, it comes across as if you would rather assume that the writers of the rules are wrong, rather than that you might not be able to claim a ward in a niche situation. Seems kinda petty.

titaniumkiz wrote:
Dragonbane gem triggers against flaming attacks (not wounds) so would provide a save. However, take note that this is one of many saves NOT triggered by wounds so I guess they do exist...

 Peasant wrote:

Niteware wrote:

Firstly, the most likely thing is that he wrote what he meant - it is only against wounds.
Secondly, damage is used in other places eg the KB rule, no reason they couldn't use it for ward descriptions.
Finally, it comes across as if you would rather assume that the writers of the rules are wrong, rather than that you might not be able to claim a ward in a niche situation. Seems kinda petty.

It's funny that you make this argument on this topic, yet you would not accept this same reasoning on KB as it was opposite your stance..hmm..
Though I am confident in the process that you do not get the save vs black horror as it is an instant kill I have to give some ground and fill in the gaps as I am not familiar with either of these 2 items.

Niteware wrote:

 Peasant wrote:

Niteware wrote:

Firstly, the most likely thing is that he wrote what he meant - it is only against wounds.
Secondly, damage is used in other places eg the KB rule, no reason they couldn't use it for ward descriptions.
Finally, it comes across as if you would rather assume that the writers of the rules are wrong, rather than that you might not be able to claim a ward in a niche situation. Seems kinda petty.

It's funny that you make this argument on this topic, yet you would not accept this same reasoning on KB as it was opposite your stance..hmm..
Though I am confident in the process that you do not get the save vs black horror as it is an instant kill I have to give some ground and fill in the gaps as I am not familiar with either of these 2 items.

I think my line of argument is exactly consistent throughout. KB doesn't cause wounds, it only could if they had written that it did. Where do you see a difference?

IthinkIbrokeit wrote:
4) The banner is the second most expensive banner available to High Elves, the general cost of banners, even ones that do really amazing and/or game breaking stuff all cost about 50-100 points. The number of units that can even carry a 50 point standard in the High elves is limited to the Phoenix Guard/White Lions/Swordmasters/Dragon Princes. So arguments that its too good for its points without the limit seem somewhat far fetched.

5) The banner also has trailing clauses that specifically broaden its use to "magic attacks" which makes it cover practically any magic effect originating at an enemy.

IthinkIbrokeit wrote:
Several Things:

1) Talisman of Preservation 4+ ward save clearly doesn't apply to numerous situations, including as we have discussed above any generic instant kill effect. This means that a magic item that provides an "untriggered" ward save IS triggered, it is triggered by the target receiving a wound or being subject to an effect that explicitly allows a ward save. This really seems to make the "against wounds caused" wording EXTREMELY redundant.

2) The full text of the instant kill effect seems to imply that instant kill effects actually just ignore the number wounds on the target before removing them as a casualty as per the second sentence that tells you how to resolve an instant kill effect (BRB 44). The full text of the implies that the part of the combat resolution order that is skipped is the part where wound are rolled (for effects that involve another stat test) and the step were wounds are deducted on models till you get to 0 wounds and a model is removed as a casualty. This means that the very text for instant kill is ambiguous as it both says it doesn't cause wounds but also says that what instant kill effects do is ignore the number of wounds in the targets profile

3) The text for killing blow does NOT say it is an instant kill effect. it simply says that if the owning model rolls a 6 to wound the target is slain outright. If this was an instant kill effect it would say it was an instant kill effect and therefore would not cause wounds. However it says instead that the target is slain regardless of the wounds on its profile, no armor or regeneration saves may be taken. While this is similar in function to effect of an instant kill attack it does not say "killing blows are insant kill attacks" which is what you would expect.

4) The banner is the second most expensive banner available to High Elves, the general cost of banners, even ones that do really amazing and/or game breaking stuff all cost about 50-100 points. The number of units that can even carry a 50 point standard in the High elves is limited to the Phoenix Guard/White Lions/Swordmasters/Dragon Princes. So arguments that its too good for its points without the limit seem somewhat far fetched.

5) The banner also has trailing clauses that specifically broaden its use to "magic attacks" which makes it cover practically any magic effect originating at an enemy.

Anyway, I think in a tournament setting a RAW reading of the rules pretty well means that the banner does not apply to killing blows. Additionally I think that in a tournament settings until there is an FAQ the banner of the world dragon would not apply to effects that do not cause wounds. However I also think that this is far from settled because the RAW case is littered with contradictions. An FAQ ruling is the only thing that is going to provide the sort of resolution that brings concensus (and in the wargame community which ever side wins will almost certainly say "I told you so!).

Peasant wrote:
"Firstly, the most likely thing is that he wrote what he meant ..."
So with KB, when they(authors) wrote you were rolling to wound...that's what the author meant..why because you were rolling to wound..

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Peasant wrote:
"Firstly, the most likely thing is that he wrote what he meant ..."
So with KB, when they(authors) wrote you were rolling to wound...that's what the author meant..why because you were rolling to wound..

Yep, and we know that the to-wound process is not the same as "a wound". But we've been through this before....

UncleGlock wrote:
Just to throw my two cents in but the fun part is if you continue to look further into the HE book on p.55 under Tyrion you will get some help to this dilemna. The item Heart of Averlorn clearly states you get a save against Unsaved Wounds caused by KB, HKB, and MultiWounds.
I also believe Malekith has the same wording in his book but i dont have that book with me.

UncleGlock wrote:
Just to throw my two cents in but the fun part is if you continue to look further into the HE book on p.55 under Tyrion you will get some help to this dilemna. The item Heart of Averlorn clearly states you get a save against Unsaved Wounds caused by KB, HKB, and MultiWounds.
I also believe Malekith has the same wording in his book but i dont have that book with me.

Eihnlazer wrote:

UncleGlock wrote:
Just to throw my two cents in but the fun part is if you continue to look further into the HE book on p.55 under Tyrion you will get some help to this dilemna. The item Heart of Averlorn clearly states you get a save against Unsaved Wounds caused by KB, HKB, and MultiWounds.
I also believe Malekith has the same wording in his book but i dont have that book with me.

That find seems to crumble quite a few arguments wouldnt you say peasent?

DukeRustfield wrote:
So it frankly doesn't make much sense. You know what they were trying to say, but trying to say it in one sentence didn't work.

The moment you say "You know what they ere trying to say" you have entered RAI territory and the problem is that you never actually DO know what they were trying to say.

Everybody here who is arguing that BotWD gives a 2+ ward save against magical killing blows or even black horror believes that what they KNOW what the author of the BotWD meant when they said "wounds caused by spells, magic items or magic attacks" and they believe that what he was trying to say was "2+ ward against ANY magic effect that touches them"

Niteware wrote:
The rule could offer protection against unsaved wounds from flying too, that would not mean that flying caused wounds.
Again, can someone copy the actual ttext snippet please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no rule which states that KB causes wounds.A rule negating wounds does not etate that wounds were caused.
The Killing Blow rule would have to state (like every effect which causes wounds does) that it causes wounds.
Do other effects which happen on a to wound roll cause wounds? Apart from the basic to wound process, no.
In a permissive ruleset, you don't get to just add things - KB doesn't cause wounds because it doesn't state that it causes wounds.

UncleGlock wrote:
The argument has nothing to do with protection from flying or goblin kisses. Demonstrate and cite a source that says KB doesnt cause a wound on a 6. KB states that on a wound roll of 6 it slays a model outright. It doesnt state that the wound roll of a 6 is no longer a wound. The argument is that on a 6 KB causes no wound but slays a model. The attempt is to confer slay outright as being similar to Dwellers or Final Transmutation where it just removes a model. There is no rule for slay outright in the rule book but slay is used numerous time. The point you need to now prove has nothing to do with protection from anything but that KB doesnt cause a wound. Pg 55 in the HE book under Tyrion specifically calls out Unsaved wounds caused by KB and Malekith's Armor in the DE book does the same. Also if you go and look at the To Wound chart in the big rule book any roll of a 6 causes a wound, KB is just an added affect that happens on a wound roll of a 6. Now please cite a source to the contrary that states that KB removes a model from play or doesnt cause any wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:
The rule could offer protection against unsaved wounds from flying too, that would not mean that flying caused wounds.
Again, can someone copy the actual ttext snippet please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no rule which states that KB causes wounds.A rule negating wounds does not etate that wounds were caused.
The Killing Blow rule would have to state (like every effect which causes wounds does) that it causes wounds.
Do other effects which happen on a to wound roll cause wounds? Apart from the basic to wound process, no.
In a permissive ruleset, you don't get to just add things - KB doesn't cause wounds because it doesn't state that it causes wounds.

You make my argument. If i can negate a WOUND you caused that i can also make a savings throw against the WOUND you caused. Thats what the argument is about, I dont care that the Heart negates the Wound, I care that the Heart states you caused a WOUND which youve aknowledge now twice. The Banner says i get ward against wounds caused and youve caused a wound on a 6 with KB. And yet again the Heart does indeed state it negates UNSAVED WOUNDS from KILLING BLOW. The argument isnt about Negating but about it being an WOUND. On any to wound roll of a 6 a wound happens, but on a 6 KB also happens. Look at the To Wound Chart, a roll of a 6 causes a wound which also proves that KB causes a wound.
Now please cite some form of evidence that KB causes no wound on a roll of a 6. The wound chart says otherwise as do both the HE and DE books. Im done posting til someone can actually demonstrate something to the contrary cause I now have a chart that shows all 6's cause wounds as well.

UncleGlock wrote:
Fine ill make this real easy. Pg 42 in the rule book on the Roll to Wound section. Read it. Any dice that equal or beat the score show on the chart have succesfully scored a wound. Since KB still uses the to wound chart and all 6s cause a wound than you run into another problem there. You still havent explained how KB can cause an Unsaved Wound on Tyrion and Malekith but no one else. KB is an effect that happens on the To Wound roll and since any dice roll of a 6 has successfully scored a wound and nothing in the KB rules negate that your still stuck. Please cite something that says KB doesnt cause a wound.
Pg. 55 HE book, "In addition, if Tyrion suffers an unsaved Wound that would kill him (including unsave Wounds that killed him as a result of the Killing Blow, Heroic Killing Blow or Multiple Wounds special rules, roll a d6 before removing him as a casualty;"
Theres your snippets of text. I dont have my DE book for Malekith but go look up the Witch King.
Prove that KB doesnt cause a wound please. KB doenst state anywhere that it doesnt. KB states on a TO WOUND roll of a 6 it happens and theres a whole To Wound Chart on pg 42 in the BRB that tells us what happens on a to wound roll of a 6 and nothing in killing blow negates it using that chart or doing a wound cause there is no rule for slay outright.
Yet again, once more, prove your point, make a case, stop stating you opinion and please cite some proof to your claims. Ive demonstrated 3 separate occurences to the point and youve demonstrated none and just stated an opionion.

UncleGlock wrote:
Opinion again. Cite something. Page 42 BRB To Wound Chart, all 6s=Wounds. Last sentence in third paragraph, any dice roll equal or beat the score causes a wound. Kill Blow states on a to wound roll of a 6 and theres nothing in the roll for KB that states it ignores the to wound chart or that a 6 to wound no longer causes a wound.
As you put it, permissive rule set, provdie permission that on a to wound roll of a 6 that KB needs to have happen that it no longer causes a wound which the 2 examples on pg 42 in the BRB and both the DE and HE book disagree with.
You need to provide permission to ignore the to wound chart since KB uses the to wound chart to activate and all 6s cause a wound.
Pg 44 Ward Saves, second paragraph, "Daemons, for example, have a ward save of 5+, meaning that score of 5 or more is required to prevent a wound." So according to this threads logic then no Ward saves can ever be taken against KB or HKB.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, they do not answer the question - it negates any wounds caused, but if no wounds are caused it has no effect whatsoever. It is an assumption that you are making.

Warpsolution wrote:
Killing Blow does not replace standard To Wound rules, it only adds to them.
So you roll to wound. On a 6, you cause a wound. And also trigger Killing Blow.
Technically speaking, I'd guess that means that you'd take any saves you have versus Killing Blow, then take any saves you have against the regular wound.

No where in the Killing Blow entry does it say anything about wounds. So I'd have to say that the Banner doesn't trigger with a Bloodletter's Killing Blow.

To be honest, though, I'd never bother trying to push this technicality on anyone; it is quite clear to me that Killing Blow should cause wounds. It just doesn't, technically.

...of course, as accidental as those rules might be, they're still less ridiculous than the purposeful broken-ness of the Banner of the World Dragon.

UncleGlock wrote:
I dont know red fury but thats VC rule i believe. But why are you even quoting Predatory Fighter from the LM book. You dont even know what that rule does apparently, its on 6s to hit you get xtra attacks so enlighten everyone as to what that has to with wounding? Ive already demonstrated twice now that on the same page in the BRB that KB wounds. Ive also managed to source two different army books from the last 5 months that specifically call out unsaved wounds from KB. You apparently still keep missing the point. The only rules qoute you made here in this thread to back up your point was about ward saves and you got that wrong as well. Read the big bold print right under Savings Throw on pg 43. Basically with your logic there are no ward saves against any killing blow since both armor and wards are only for wounds. Disprove me. Permissive rule set and theres nothing in KB that separates it from the to wound roll of a 6 it needs to even do a wound. KB even calls out the to wound of a 6 in its rules. I have all the case i need. Instead of just deciding your right because your opinion says so, disprove me. Ive done enough to disprove you and your counterpoint is i dont have to provide any info cause im other threads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Im not assuming the to wound roll of a 6 wounds. Ive already pointed out in two army books alone that it does or else instead of saying UNSAVED WOUNDS from KB, etc. they would just say you ignore the effect of KB and take a wound.

 Peasant wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, they do not answer the question - it negates any wounds caused, but if no wounds are caused it has no effect whatsoever. It is an assumption that you are making.

So is this just flat out denial?
The answer has been given in two written sources and you are still holding on that your interpretation that no wounds are caused is correct.

(apparently) 2 books state that KB causes wounds.

Black Horror causes no wounds. It is remove from play or remove as casualty. The Banner will not save it.

Niteware wrote:
@UncleGlock You have read those threads and are still making those mainly silly arguments? The only new things are the items. The DE item doesn't make your case at all, since it only talks about the presence of the rule. The HE item doea not make your case either, as Duke has pointed out.

A implies B does not mean that B implies A; the fact that you can take wards against wounds dowoes nit even suggest that you cannonly take them against wounds. That is why p43 ir irrelevant - it is talking about wounds. It is p44 that talks about wards. So when things which don't cause wounds (Black Horror for example) say that you can take a ward, this does not suddenly imply that they cause wounds.

Here is a very simple test to see if effects cause wounds. Read Pit of Shades. Does it say it causes wounds? No. So it doesn't. Read plague wind. Does it say it causes wounds? Yes. So it does. Read KB. Does it say it causes wounds? No. So it doesn't. The to wound process causes a wound at the same time, but that is a different thing from KB.
I agree that the language for Tyrion is sloppy, and it falls in to the "you know what they meant, so HiWPI is let them have a 2+ against kb", but tht is HIWPI not RAW.

UncleGlock wrote:
Problem is all 6s cause wounds. And both Tyrion in the HE book and Malekith in the DE book specifically call out Unsaved wounds caused by KB.

 Peasant wrote:
It's all over the KB example that KB wounds...the trump card was 2 army book stating that KB causes wounds which never really should have been in doubt.

IthinkIbrokeit wrote:
Actually, I think that the text for killing blow from the BRB heavily implies it causes a wound. The very existence of Heroic Killing blow [b]almost certifiably verifies[i] it causes a wound.

 Peasant wrote:
So you're saying that just because Tyrions item says it blocks wounds caused by KB doesn't mean that KB causes wounds?

IthinkIbrokeit wrote:

Niteware wrote:
@UncleGlock You have read those threads and are still making those mainly silly arguments? The only new things are the items. The DE item doesn't make your case at all, since it only talks about the presence of the rule. The HE item doea not make your case either, as Duke has pointed out.

A implies B does not mean that B implies A; the fact that you can take wards against wounds dowoes nit even suggest that you cannonly take them against wounds. That is why p43 ir irrelevant - it is talking about wounds. It is p44 that talks about wards. So when things which don't cause wounds (Black Horror for example) say that you can take a ward, this does not suddenly imply that they cause wounds.

Here is a very simple test to see if effects cause wounds. Read Pit of Shades. Does it say it causes wounds? No. So it doesn't. Read plague wind. Does it say it causes wounds? Yes. So it does. Read KB. Does it say it causes wounds? No. So it doesn't. The to wound process causes a wound at the same time, but that is a different thing from KB.
I agree that the language for Tyrion is sloppy, and it falls in to the "you know what they meant, so HiWPI is let them have a 2+ against kb", but tht is HIWPI not RAW.

Actually, I think that the text for killing blow from the BRB heavily implies it causes a wound. The very existence of Heroic Killing blow almost certifiably verifies it causes a wound. The KB special rule activates as part of rolling to wound. If you had a special rule that makes you immune to killing blow then you do not ignore the 6s rolled by an attacker with killing blow. Killing blow is a wound with a "slay outright" rider. Its why it is not listed as an instant kill effect in its text because that would imply it didn't cause a wound. This means that although the banner would not work against say black horror, it does work against a magical killing blow.

That is why p43 ir irrelevant - it is talking about wounds. It is p44 that talks about wards.

the fact that you can take wards against wounds [does not] even suggest that you [can only] take them against wounds.

 FlingitNow wrote:

That is why p43 ir irrelevant - it is talking about wounds. It is p44 that talks about wards.

Page 44 is meaningless without page 43. Stop trying to claim Ward saves are not saves. They are.

the fact that you can take wards against wounds [does not] even suggest that you [can only] take them against wounds.

Cool so I can take BotWD ward saves against things other than wounds? That also states I can get a ward save against wounds.

However this is basically a massive misrepresentation of how a permissive ruleset works. The saves rules only give you permission to take them against wounds. Thus you can only take them against wounds, just like the banner. Then KB comes in and goes unlike normal you can take your ward save here and this is the effect (please also note that KB does a wound because it does not state you don't and a to wound roll has been made, that is completely cut a dry without needing the DE & HE items).

Generally, saves are not defined as being specifically against wounds

BOTWD IS defined as specifically against wounds. How can you possibly fail to see the difference?

Saves do not define what they can be taken against (see p44 for the definition of a ward save).

P43 tells you how to save wounds, it does not say that it is the sum total of the ways in which saves are taken.

Hence ward saves not being defined as having anything to do with wounds.

Saves save against wound, except where they are specifically allowed to saveagaisnt something other than wounds. Permissive ruleset satisfied.

A rolll of a 6 on a model with KB causes a wound, but if it fails its ward save it is dead befroe that wound can be applied

An unsaved wound is the last part of a series of steps. Please explain how you get to an unsaved wound. SInce you cant have an unsaved wound without an attempt at a save and since every single wound in the game that has no save will specifically say that no saves are allowed against it and not its an unsaved wound with no save permitted. Thats what logic is.

Niteware wrote:
@Fling Trolling.
@Uncle I undrstand why you think that protection from X must mean that X exists. Although this presumably makes the Pentagon's alien defense and paranormal research programmes pretty scary for you. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually work in logic or in rules.
The fact is that the BRB gives no possibility of KB generating wounds. Even if an army book came out which actually did say that KB caused wounds, that could only apply when that army book was being used (weirdly changing a rule for some battles), and it would take a BRB errata to get KB to wound as is.

You can protect penguins by saving ice flows.
Ice Flows are big areas of Sea Ice.
You can protect Polar Bears by saving ice flows.
Flight logic "So you are saying that all polar bears are penguins, since Ice Flows were defined under Penguins and that was the first use of the term ice flow".
Saves first appear in the context of "How do we stop wounds". The save itself is then defined onthe next page. This does not mean it can only ever apply to wounds. Especially since the Instant Kill section leaves open the door for saves.

 FlingitNow wrote:
In the saves rules saves are defined to be taken against wounds and nothing else.

fattymac04 wrote:
Okay UncleGlock, I do not think you read the other threads where this stuff has already been covered and those got shut down because it is an issue that requires a FAQ.

But seeing that you think that KB wounds because of rolling a 6 in the To wound phase is wrong.

A example was brought up in the other threads that shows that KB does not care if the to wound roll is successful or not.

The tomb kings have a spell, also there is a few magic items in other books that allow KB to work on a 5 or 6.

Let say a unit of Tomb Guard with the spell on them attack another unit of guys, whose toughness has been boosted to 7.

After rolling to hit, the TG now roll to wound, they need 6's to cause successful wounds, but they also KB on rolls of 5's and 6's.

Those 5's are not rolls for successful wounds, as KB does not care, it just cares about the number on the die.

 Peasant wrote:

fattymac04 wrote:
Okay UncleGlock, I do not think you read the other threads where this stuff has already been covered and those got shut down because it is an issue that requires a FAQ.

But seeing that you think that KB wounds because of rolling a 6 in the To wound phase is wrong.

A example was brought up in the other threads that shows that KB does not care if the to wound roll is successful or not.

The tomb kings have a spell, also there is a few magic items in other books that allow KB to work on a 5 or 6.

Let say a unit of Tomb Guard with the spell on them attack another unit of guys, whose toughness has been boosted to 7.

After rolling to hit, the TG now roll to wound, they need 6's to cause successful wounds, but they also KB on rolls of 5's and 6's.

Those 5's are not rolls for successful wounds, as KB does not care, it just cares about the number on the die.

There are a few problems here.
1. So you believe that you can take the tomb kings book which changes the trigger role of KB to 5 and 6, yet the written statement about '...unsaved wounds from KB...' means less??
2.KB does not care about toughness or armour..annotation on brb pg 72. YOu are never permitted to ignore wounds.

It is now up to the naysayers to find new evidence to disprove the text about unsaved wounds from KB.

I don't see anything on this page that restricts when I can make saves; I can take them for wounds, and for other stuff, if that other stuff says I can. Right?

as in, on this page. It tells me that things other than wounds can be saved, if the rules say they can. Killing Blow fits in this category without breaking any rules (though it certainly defies logic).
What am I missing, here?

Warpsolution wrote:
@FlingitNow:


p.44 "Some special attacks don't inflict wounds...When this is the case, not only are no saves of any kind allowed (unless specified otherwise), but the number of wounds on the victim's profile is completely irrelevant"

...as in, on this page. It tells me that things other than wounds can be saved, if the rules say they can. Killing Blow fits in this category without breaking any rules (though it certainly defies logic).
What am I missing, here?

p.72 "If a model with the Killing Blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound...he automatically slays his opponent-regardless of the number of wounds..."

You said "...note that KB does a wound because it does not state you don't and a to wound roll has been made", but I don't think that's quite right. Killing Blow does stuff when you rolll a 6 to wound, but it doesn't replace it. Technically, it looks like you both trigger KB and cause a wound, so they'd need to be dealt with separately.

@UncleGlock: Just to be clear, do you believe that:

(1)Tyrion's item so strongly implies that Killing Blow causes wounds, that this is evidence that Killing Blow is, in fact, meant to cause wounds

OR

(2)Tyrion's item protects against wounds caused by Killing Blow, and therefore KIiling Blow must cause wounds?

Because, I'll be blunt, #2 is a logical fallacy. #1 is what I believe, but it's not technically correct, according to the RAW.

@fattymac04: Excellent point about the 5-6 KB. I think that discounts the "you're rolling to wound, therefore KB causes wounds" argument quite nicely.

Niteware wrote:


Logical fallacy as has been shown a few times. There is nothing to disprove.

DukeRustfield wrote:
The army book > the BRB in terms of that specific army. But saying the Heart is some universal rule is incorrect. The item completely breaks the normal game rules for every other instance of attacks. It's just one item that has no reach beyond itself.

KB never says it causes wounds. Just like reducing someone's T to 0 never says it causes wounds. The Heart would not block the death caused by having Tyrion's S/T reduced to 0. The wording of that action is slain, exactly the same as KB. It is also the exact same wording as Dwellers Below, and the Heart would also not block that.

Fling, you are still trying a) to say that BOTWD is a different thing from a ward save and b) that saves are defined in terms of wounds.

 FlingitNow wrote:
That's in the instant kills rules. It is an exception to the normal rules as it gives further permission. Just as the KB rules do. They are permission to take a save against something other than wounds and as dsuch work for normal ward saves and BotWD.

OR against other effects - being killed instantly

Given that we know this, are you now claiming that saves can ONLY be taken against wounds, and therefore effets which explicitly do NOT cause wounds, cause wounds?

That is some bizarre illogic, if so

So we're agreed that the book has given us permission to save things that are not wounds then. Right? But how does that give us permission to use the BoTWD for things other than wounds, when the Banner doesn't give us that permission?

 Peasant wrote:

Your own typing shows where you are missing.
Instant kills says the wounds are irrelevant. So the wounds don't matter.
KB says regardless of the number of wounds. So the number doesn't matter, be it 1 or 100.

 Peasant wrote:
So deal with them separately, cause 1 wound from the dice roll and all the rest of them from the KB. The score would be the same. KB is an all or nothing result.

 Peasant wrote:
How else should ...protects against wounds caused by killing blow be taken?
You are specifically told where the wound came from. It came from KB
If your save is against wounds caused by poison attacks...where must the wound come from.? How do you know where the wound came from?
To go back to the flying example. Flying may not cause wounds, but if you are told you are wounded by flying and you are able to save against a wound caused by flying, then flying can cause wounds...it requires a dice roll to do so in our game...The only reason you are finding fault in the logic is because you disbelieve that KB wounds, once you accept wounding then there is no problem in the logic in any process.

 Peasant wrote:
Same question for you, because KB can trigger on a 5 or a 6 in a different rule book that proves more about KB not wounding than 2 books that state ...unsaved wounds from KB...

 Peasant wrote:
We have a game that doesn't depend on logic, it depends on specific chain of events.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Those rules give us permission to take saves against something other than wounds. It works for normal saves just aswell as the banner. Unless you're stating it works for neither?

That's not how it technically works though. You roll a 6, which both causes a wound and triggers KB. So you make a Ward save versus Killing Blow. If you're still alive, you have to make any armour/Ward/Regen saves versus the regular wound.
I'd never dream of playing it this way, but that is how it works, when you follow the book to the letter.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I disagree RaW you take an armour save against the wound. If you pass you take a ward against the KB if you fail you take a ward against both the KB and Wound with 1 roll negating both effects. Hence nobody bothers rolling the irrelevant armour save.

I will always play it that way, but no where in the RAW does it that say that Killing Blow replaces the rules for normal wounding. It just adds to it. Separate rule.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I agree it adds to it and that passing the ward save satisfies both rules.

So Fling -you believe that the banner, which specifies it gives you a ward save against Wounds, works against something the explicitly does not cause any wouns?

I believe GW designed the rules that appear in the rulebook under the heading "THE RULES", and those are the rules they wrote. You believe they wrote something else, just didnt tell anyone about it - and only YOU know the real rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Fling, you are still trying a) to say that BOTWD is a different thing from a ward save and b) that saves are defined in terms of wounds.

I have never claimed a) and b) is obviously correct. You then makes some comments based on Ward saves not being saves which I just dont really get. Ward saves are a subset of saves. Therefore they are defined as something you may take to avoid a wound as per the saves rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I believe the banner is no more specifically for wounds than any other save.

Fling, since you believe that saves are only against wounds, do you also believe that "to hit" only happens in shooting? I ask, because like saves it is first defined there and also does not specify that it only happens there.
Presumably you take ward saves against shooting in the close combat round, since CC is an exception to "to hit" in exactly the same way as saves on an instant kill are exceptions.

High Elf rule doesn't do what it seems to intend RAW (although we know that Fling prefers RADBF (rules as determined by Fling) instead of RAW). Dark Elf rule arguably works, but is a bit shaky.

 kirsanth wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I believe the banner is no more specifically for wounds than any other save.

Quoted for posterity.

Reality, next left.

Re: OP
Banner of the World Dragon: Grants a 2+ Ward Save to WOUNDS caused by Magical Weapons, Spells and Magical Attacks.

Note the specific word in caps.

Adding that makes it specific.
Not adding it, like Heavy Armour, is not specific.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Fling, since you believe that saves are only against wounds, do you also believe that "to hit" only happens in shooting? I ask, because like saves it is first defined there and also does not specify that it only happens there.
Presumably you take ward saves against shooting in the close combat round, since CC is an exception to "to hit" in exactly the same way as saves on an instant kill are exceptions.

Your straw man is pretty terrible. Yes the shooting to hit rolls apply in the shooting phase the combat to hit rules apply in the combat phase unless there is an exception to use them at another time. I assume this is because you know you're wrong hence making laughable statements like this. The only way I could be more sure you knew you were wrong was if you resorted to personal attacks...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Uncle =glock / Peasant (as you are both makig the same logical error) - the game does depend on a certain amount of logic, actually. It has to, otherwise basic concepts would .not work,

Something saying "I protect you against wounds from flying" does not automatically mean that suddenly flying in and of itself causes any wounds. That isnt how language works. What it says is IF you have any wounds caused by flying, then you get save against them.

That does not suddenly mean flying causes wounds.

Same with Killing Blow - it says you get a save against unsaved wounds caused by killing blow; killing blow however does not itself cause wounds - it slays you, regardless of your wounds. Meaning strictly speaking the item has no function in this instance.

Cart before horse. You have an abilty that triggers on a specific effect; that does not mean that effect can happen. VERY basic concept.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They are defined as something that can save against wounds, OR against other effects - being killed instantly.

Given that we know this, are you now claiming that saves can ONLY be taken against wounds, and therefore effets which explicitly do NOT cause wounds, cause wounds?

That is some bizarre illogic, if so.

titaniumkiz wrote:
To the crowd that thinks KB doesn't cause wounds I have a question. How exactly do you think the model is killed?

Warpsolution wrote:

 Peasant wrote:

Your own typing shows where you are missing.
Instant kills says the wounds are irrelevant. So the wounds don't matter.
KB says regardless of the number of wounds. So the number doesn't matter, be it 1 or 100.

I don't follow you. Instant kills don't care about the number of wounds, and Killing Blow doesn't care about the number of wounds...what are you trying to show me?

That's not how it technically works though. You roll a 6, which both causes a wound and triggers KB. So you make a Ward save versus Killing Blow. If you're still alive, you have to make any armour/Ward/Regen saves versus the regular wound.
I'd never dream of playing it this way, but that is how it works, when you follow the book to the letter.

"protects against wounds caused by Killing Blow" does not prove that Killing Blow causes wounds. It implies it, very strongly, but that's not a sound argument. The flying example is a perfect one, but I don't think you're using it correctly: can the special rule Flying cause wounds? No. Of course not. "Flying" means that a unit can move 10" in a straight line over terrain and units and such. It has absolutely nothing to do about wounds. So if there was an item that said it "protects against wounds caused by Flying", it would prevent zero wounds, because none would ever be caused.
Again, it's just as stupid as can be. But it's the rhetorical truth.

The Tomb King book tells us how Killing Blow works. The High Elf book tells us how it reacts to a situation involving Killing Blow. And that situation, in the silliest and most literal of ways, never comes up.

WHAT? Pretty sure we depend on logic (from the Greek λογική, logos: the use of valid reasoning in some activity) to do everything ever.

titaniumkiz wrote:
Old age maybe? Snap my fingers poof you're dead? No, it is a critical wound like being impaled or decapitated. "Regardless of wounds" doesn't mean it doesn't cause a wound, it means it doesn't matter if it has 1 wound or 10 they are all gone. The fact that it even says that after "slays his opponent" highly suggests that it IS causing a wound. Otherwise "slays his opponent" would be sufficient text and make it an instant kill stopping there. However, they go on to note the specific stat that is being targeted, wounds. The way it reads tells me KB does 1 wound = to all wounds, which is why one save is made and not however many wounds actually get removed.

Niteware wrote:

titaniumkiz wrote:
To the crowd that thinks KB doesn't cause wounds I have a question. How exactly do you think the model is killed?

By being Killing Blowed? There are lots of things in the BRB that kill without wounding. KB is one of them.

 Peasant wrote:

Niteware wrote:

titaniumkiz wrote:
To the crowd that thinks KB doesn't cause wounds I have a question. How exactly do you think the model is killed?

By being Killing Blowed? There are lots of things in the BRB that kill without wounding. KB is one of them.

There are only 2 ways to kill models.
Reduced statistics to '0' (Wounds, Strength, Toughness)
Or remove from play or remove as a casualty.

titaniumkiz wrote:
It is directly supported by rules. Nowhere does KB say bypass the wound caused. All it states is that it doesn't matter how many wounds the opponent has because this one is good enough to slay the model.

Niteware wrote:


There are only 2 ways to kill models.
Reduced statistics to '0' (Wounds, Strength, Toughness)
Or remove from play or remove as a casualty.

titaniumkiz wrote:
Nowhere does KB say bypass the wound caused.

"Regardless of wounds" doesn't mean it doesn't cause a wound, it means it doesn't matter if it has 1 wound or 10 they are all gone.

Some special attacks don't inflict wounds, but require models to be removed as casualties (after failing a ld or T test, for example). Where this is the case, not only are no saves of any kind allowed (unless specified otherwise), but the number of wounds on the victim's profile is completely irrelevant - just remove the model from play, and hope for better luck next time!

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

Attacks that kill a model outright (made with a killing Blow, say - see page 72) score the same amount of wounds as the slain model has on its profile.

If a model with the Killing Blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent - regardless of the number of wounds on the victim's profile. Armour saves and regeneration saves cannot be taken against a Killing blow. A ward save can be attempted - if passed, the ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow.

 Peasant wrote:
You mis read or mis typed.
Instant kills don't care about wounds at all.
Kb doesn't care about the NUMBER of wounds.
They are not the same thing at all.

 Peasant wrote:
...KB is just a wound multiplier. You have already rolled to wound, no instruction to disregard it. If you don't meet the criteria it is 1 wound, if you do it is ALL wounds left. playing by the book.

 Peasant wrote:
The way our game works...you don't need protection unless it does cause a wound..once the flying has wounded you, then you are saving the wound caused by flying. You have KB, which doesn't cause wounds..until you have scored the proper roll. Then where did those wounds come from?

 Peasant wrote:

The Tomb King book tells us how Killing Blow works. The High Elf book tells us how it reacts to a situation involving Killing Blow. And that situation, in the silliest and most literal of ways, never comes up.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean?

What I meant was that, even if a certain rule/item/unit doesn't make sense or work when it interacts with another rule, doesn't mean we are forced to do anything about it. The High Elf item is, if those who stand against you are correct, useless. But there's nothing wrong with that, in terms of following the rules. Of course, there's something very much wrong with that, in terms of the spirit of the game, but that's another matter.

It's like the "problem" with Armour Piercing; because of the way it's worded, it only ever effects close combat attacks. So ranged weapons with AP, technically, don't have AP. No one ever plays it that way (except the time I saw this one guy who tried to pull that in a tournament against a Dark Elf). Anyway, my point in both cases is that "but it doesn't make sense otherwise" is not a sound argument, rhetorically speaking.

 Peasant wrote:
Again previous post, but of course we have logic. But the logic is determined by the game system. If the game says 1+1=3 that's how it goes.

Totally agree.

Reply by: Peasant - click to view full reply 

76274

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 04:54:17

Post by: Peasant

DukeRustfield wrote:

Nowhere is a wound caused is what you mean. We have already shown, in the mega thread you must have not read, that KB can work without ever causing a wound.

No, it doesn't mean they are all gone. It means they don't matter. Doesn't matter is vastly different than make zero.

-Regardless of my grades I was allowed to enter Harvard University. -- That doesn't mean my grades were zero or made zero, it means they didn't care.
-Regardless of my looks I'm dating a supermodel. -- That doesn't mean I have no face or it was hacked off by a psycho killer, it means my sparkling personality is what won the day.

As for how KB kills stuff, that again was in the mega thread. The same word they use in KB (slay/slain) is used when your S or T is reduced to 0, is used in test-or-die spells. If those caused wounds, you would allow take saves. That's the problem if something does wounds. If take Wounds, you get to take Armor/Regen/Ward saves unless it says you don't.

Nowhere in the other thread was it proven that KB doesn't wound.
Just because it can work doesn't mean it follows the rules.
Instant kills make the wound irrelevant, KB makes the number irrelevant. Do you need an example?
KB says the model is slain regardless of the number of wounds.
Read the mega thread again, they use slay/slain along with about 20 other times in the book. Like when a rider dies on his mount it says he is slain.
And you are correct..KB causes wounds because you get saves, except where it says you don't..no armour save because it says no.

Reply by: DukeRustfield - click to view full reply 

29630

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 04:56:17

Post by: DukeRustfield

titaniumkiz wrote:
Your grades and schooling have nothing to do with this

Don't get uptight. The examples were not personal examples, they were sentences in the English language to illustrate how the phrase works. I didn't go to Harvard and I'm not dating a supermodel... Please provide any instance where "regardless of ____" means _____ is removed or reduced to zero or ACTIVELY destroyed. Any instance that makes sense in English. You can't do it without qualifying ______ or otherwise putting modifiers. Because that is not how the phrase works in English. Google it up, there's a ton of pages on its usage.

The BRB never says once that KB is an instant kill effect. Flat out lie.

It says "slays outright".

Slay is the same term they use for models who have had their wounds reduced to 0 and is never defined anywhere in the BRB to be an instant kill.

Yes, slay is the same term used for models who have wounds reduced to 0. BUT they have that done in the context of CC and shooting attacks. Where you take saves and make rolls. We know how that works already. There are basically 4 phrases in the entire BRB they use for get-that-unit-out-of-here, slay, killed, dead, remove from play. They are all used interchangeably. You can look up each section, spell, area, and there is no pattern. Shooting attacks doesn't use slay, it uses kill and remove from play. CC uses slay and remove from play but then says just like shooting attacks. Spells use whatever. Slay is also the word used on page 4. That's FOUR. In the BRB to remove a model if their S or T is reduced to 0. There is no wound in that case. There is no save. Because what would you save? What strength is the attack? From what source? Slay is also used in some spells. Such as Dwellers Below. Again, no save.

Slay means die. Dead. Kaput. It says a model is dead. It doesn't say, "hey, it's dead, now go backwards and roll to hit it just to see if it's really super dead." It doesn't need to do wounds because it already tells you it's slain. That's as dead as anything can get. It tells you it is dead "regardless of" its wounds. Which does not mean you take them away or count them up/down, it means they don't matter. On page 4 when your T is reduced to 0 you are slain and removed from play. Again, exact same wording as KB. If KB does wound(s) so does that. But KB explicitly states you save with a ward, reduction your stats doesn't mention anything, which means you get all your saves, but there is no way you can take them. It's illogical.

Reply by: fattymac04 - click to view full reply 

57890

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 05:03:15

Post by: fattymac04

Peasant.... really? really?

Instant Kills pg. 44
Some special attacks don't inflict wounds, but require models to be removed as casualties (after failing a ld or T test, for example). Where this is the case, not only are no saves of any kind allowed (unless specified otherwise), but the number of wounds on the victim's profile is completely irrelevant - just remove the model from play, and hope for better luck next time!

Killing blow rule pg. 72
If a model with the Killing Blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent - regardless of the number of wounds on the victim's profile. Armour saves and regeneration saves cannot be taken against a Killing blow. A ward save can be attempted - if passed, the ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow.

hmmm both talk about number of wounds on the profile.....hmmmm

Also just to bring this up for fun... Nothing in the game says it instant kills, I know right, insane! The instant kill section is a guideline to certain attacks that do not follow the proper procedure and just kill guys and don't cause wounds. The uber spells do not say instant kill in their descriptor, they just follow the guidelines. no saves, allow a ward if it wants, etc... oh and kill outright.

Duke, I know right, the english language is screwed up and one thing can mean many things, like slay = slain = causality = dead = remove from play

Reply by: Peasant - click to view full reply 

76274

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 05:23:13

Post by: Peasant

fattymac04 wrote:
.
KB states you "automatically slays his opponent"
Now the 6's still wound, but since you used that 6 with the KB rule, you cant wound something that is dead, cause that is what Slay means.
KB even has a section in the combat resolution section dealing with how KB works for determining a victor, because otherwise you wouldn't get to count the removed models that were killed outright. With out that section, those KB's kill guys, but seeing no wounds are caused, you get no combat res, hence why it has a section.


Now the BRB says that KB is not a wound, but a instant kill effect.
But now we have two new 8th ed army books with mixed wording on whether or not KB causes a wound or not. It can be read both ways due to GW's lack of proofreading.

IF we were to assume slay has a place, slay is used AFTER something has happened. Wounds=0=slain, Failed S test=slain. It's how our game works.
KB has a special section because the wounds caused is highly variable.
Never does it refer to KB as an instant kill.
How else do you take..saves against wounds from KB?

Reply by: fattymac04 - click to view full reply 

57890

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 05:34:13

Post by: fattymac04

And you did not read like any of that post really?

Umm no, slay is the same as removed from play, slain, dead, causality.
The final transmutation spell has you roll a dice, on a 5+ i think the model is killed, does it take a To test or a int test, nope just a dice roll
so what you just said is flawed

Once again, read my other posts, its not because its highly variable, heck most of the time its removing 1 wound models, on occasion it removes a character, but because KB slays models outright and seeing that it doesn't cause wounds, you wouldn't get combat resolution with those models killed, hence the section. Also it does not say wounds caused, but it does say you get to score the wounds from the victims profile, a huge difference.

As my previous post just said, I said it was a instant kill effect, not a instant kill, plus nothing in the game is labeled instant kill, look you will find nothing! instant kill on that page is a guideline for special attacks / spell that do not follow the proper procedure and remove models.

Oh also, I love how you only take sections of someones argument and not include the whole thing, cutting off sections that relate to what was being said

Reply by: Peasant - click to view full reply 

76274

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 06:00:51

Post by: Peasant

Warpsolution wrote:


Oh! So you're saying that an "instant kill" does not interact with the Wounds characteristic. Is that it?

Exactly. That's why it says wounds are irrelevant.

Hm. I don't think so. You've got the rule: "on a 6, the model is instantly slain", and the rule "if the to wound roll is successful according to the chart, you cause a wound". I don't see anything stopping you from counting them as two separate and independent instances. Save or lose all your wounds. Save or lose 1 wound.
Heh. I suppose, in a permissive rules set, one could argue that you're not allowed to discount the normal wound.

Permissive system. You are not allowed to discount the wound
Roll of 6>KB>meet criteria>all wounds
Roll of 6>KB>don't meet criteria>1wound
I hate to repeat things. The last thing I want is to shut the thread down. No one has ever addressed how else this is supposed to play out.
The game works the same for all models.

Ah-ha! So you're saying that, because the item offers protection from a situation, that situation must be able to occur, or else the item makes no sense. Do I have that right?

Yes it must be able to occur, that doesn't always mean it will.

What I meant was that, even if a certain rule/item/unit doesn't make sense or work when it interacts with another rule, doesn't mean we are forced to do anything about it. The High Elf item is, if those who stand against you are correct, useless. But there's nothing wrong with that, in terms of following the rules. Of course, there's something very much wrong with that, in terms of the spirit of the game, but that's another matter.

I totally agree on spirit. And I am more likely to play on spirit, but KB is simply a wounding attack by both rules and spirit.
This argument has surfaced again because it is the same argument about KB wounding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fattymac04 wrote:
And you did not read like any of that post really?

I read the whole thing. Would you like me to go over it again?

Umm no, slay is the same as removed from play, slain, dead, causality.
The final transmutation spell has you roll a dice, on a 5+ i think the model is killed, does it take a To test or a int test, nope just a dice roll
so what you just said is flawed

No the flaw is in your type/reading. Final Transmutation states on a 5+ the model is removed as a casualty. It is a dice roll and there are really only 2 ways we remove the slain.
And yes 'slay/slain is the common term for dead models it is how they become the 'slain' that differs.

Once again, read my other posts, its not because its highly variable, heck most of the time its removing 1 wound models, on occasion it removes a character, but because KB slays models outright and seeing that it doesn't cause wounds, you wouldn't get combat resolution with those models killed, hence the section. Also it does not say wounds caused, but it does say you get to score the wounds from the victims profile, a huge difference.

It is your stance that KB does not cause wounds that complicates the issue. Causing wounds gives you combat resolution. No problems. Repeat sorry.progressive permissive system, once you roll to wound you will either cause a wound or not based on your dice roll. Until you are specifically told NOT to cause a wound you will be causing wounds.

As my previous post just said, I said it was a instant kill effect, not a instant kill, plus nothing in the game is labeled instant kill, look you will find nothing! instant kill on that page is a guideline for special attacks / spell that do not follow the proper procedure and remove models.

Oh also, I love how you only take sections of someones argument and not include the whole thing, cutting off sections that relate to what was being said

No they are not labeled instant kills, but brb pg 44 tells you what constitutes instant kills.
I cut sections to keep my typically long posts a bit shorter. If you would prefer I keep the whole thing I will be sure to leave it. I address the entire posts.
What do you believe I left out? What do feel I failed to address?

Reply by: DukeRustfield - click to view full reply 

29630

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 06:27:15

Post by: DukeRustfield

Yeah, they had to put the section in for KB under combat resolution because most stuff that kills you dead is done from afar. Like spells. I *think* they took out all of the items that you hit someone in the face and they die. Like DoC and Liz used to have one. Anyway, challenges let you score >wounds in CR. They did this because they wanted it to still be worthwhile to challenge, because challenges are fun and exciting. They didn't want it to be where you lol challenge the Daemon Prince with your fodder hero and basically make a combat god worthless for one round. Or have the DP be scared to challenge knowing his attacks would be thrown away. So you can score way more wounds in CR. If KB didn't score those extra wounds, then you would be praying you DIDN'T KB in challenges if you knew you were going to win. For what is supposedly a very powerful special rule it would suck if you didn't want it to actually work because it was a hindrance. "Damn this sword of slaying!"

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 11:52:37

Post by: nosferatu1001

Peasant - so again, your contention is that, if an item provides proection from X if Y occurs, then Y must be able to occur?

Because that isnt actually how language, nor game logic, works. It is why you continually fail to understand the Flying example

If GW write an item that gives protection from wounds caused by Flying, are you now claiming it is possible for Flying to cause wounds? No, of course you wouldnt.

You are doing so in this casem but with KB.

You cannot use these items as proof that KB causes wounds. YOu can use it to infer that KB should be causing wounds, but that is only an assumption on your part, not an actual rule.

Oh, and your continued insistence that KB is a wound multipler, despite it not following the multiple wounds rule YET EXACTLY following the "Instant Kills" rule is impressive.

"regardless of the number of wounds" does not mean that your wounds are reduced to 0. It just means your wounds are irrelevant. They have no binding abilityu on this condition.

Reply by: Matt1785 - click to view full reply 

17285

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 12:11:59

Post by: Matt1785

Well, didn't think I could be swung, but fattymac04 has posted a very legitimate bit of rulebook quotes there that seem to have broken me. I'd have to agree that no 2++ against KB as it doesn't in fact 'cause a wound' but removes a model. Solid argument, although I feel the 'intention' for GW was to make the banner useful against everything magic whether it 'wounds' or not, solid argument there.

I WOULD however still give them the 2++ save just because I'd hate to bring this argument up at my LGS, I'd be slain outright.

Reply by: FlingitNow - click to view full reply 

22508

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 13:05:27

Post by: FlingitNow

Peasant - so again, your contention is that, if an item provides proection from X if Y occurs, then Y must be able to occur?

Because that isnt actually how language, nor game logic, works. It is why you continually fail to understand the Flying example

If GW write an item that gives protection from wounds caused by Flying, are you now claiming it is possible for Flying to cause wounds? No, of course you wouldnt.

Because you still don't understand people and how language is used. GW wouldn't make an item that gave you saves against wounds caused by flying unless flying did indeed cause wounds. So yes such an item would lead us to believe that flying caused wounds.

You cannot use these items as proof that KB causes wounds.

You can, he did and any reasonable person would accept that as proof.

Oh, and your continued insistence that KB is a wound multipler, despite it not following the multiple wounds rule YET EXACTLY following the "Instant Kills" rule is impressive.

It does not follow the instant kills rule at all. See page 44.

"regardless of the number of wounds" does not mean that your wounds are reduced to 0. It just means your wounds are irrelevant. They have no binding abilityu on this condition.

It does not mean your wounds are irrelevant it means the number of wounds you have is irrelevant. The conclusion that it therefore must reduce your wounds to "0" is entirely logical given that it doesn't IK and doesn't remove as a casualty reduction to 0 wounds is the only way left to kill them.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 13:52:18

Post by: nosferatu1001

 FlingitNow] wrote:

Peasant - so again, your contention is that, if an item provides proection from X if Y occurs, then Y must be able to occur?

Because that isnt actually how language, nor game logic, works. It is why you continually fail to understand the Flying example

If GW write an item that gives protection from wounds caused by Flying, are you now claiming it is possible for Flying to cause wounds? No, of course you wouldnt.

Because you still don't understand people and how language is used. GW wouldn't make an item that gave you saves against wounds caused by flying unless flying did indeed cause wounds. So yes such an item would lead us to believe that flying caused wounds.

Demonstrably false. You are making a bucket load of assumptions, based on no evidence, and coming to an answer.

I FULLY understand how people use language. Not that it is relevant here, but my day job absolutely 100% requires that I understand how people use language, and I am good at my job. Your assertion, based on your opinion of someone you have never met in a text only forum, is factually incorrect.

Belief is not proof. You are [b]assuming[/]b that they meant something other than what they said. You are not allowing them the possibility of error, except when it suits your argument.

A demonstrably dishonest way to argue

FlingitNow wrote:

You cannot use these items as proof that KB causes wounds.

You can, he did and any reasonable person would accept that as proof.

So you are stating, categorically, that I am unreasonable? Do you think this is a good way to debate - by insulting others?

I AM reasonable, and i do not accept it as proof because it is NOT proof. It is, at best, a way of inferring some intent they may have had, that they then didnt realise when they actually committed the rule to paper. Or, it shows they do not understand how their own rules operate - common when you have rules-by-committee - and wrote something assuming it was correct.

FlingitNow wrote:

Oh, and your continued insistence that KB is a wound multipler, despite it not following the multiple wounds rule YET EXACTLY following the "Instant Kills" rule is impressive.

It does not follow the instant kills rule at all. See page 44.

False, see the proof already given. What specifically on page 44? Given the exact quotes have already been given, and the similarities shown, your statement is, factually, a lie. Retract it.

FlingitNow wrote:

"regardless of the number of wounds" does not mean that your wounds are reduced to 0. It just means your wounds are irrelevant. They have no binding abilityu on this condition.

It does not mean your wounds are irrelevant it means the number of wounds you have is irrelevant. The conclusion that it therefore must reduce your wounds to "0" is entirely logical given that it doesn't IK and doesn't remove as a casualty reduction to 0 wounds is the only way left to kill them.

"Regardless of" DOES mean your wounds are irrelevant. That is what the language means. What you are disregarding "of" is [number of wounds], NOT [number] . You care not, one jot, about their wounds, or indeed the number of wounds, not that you dont care about "number", which is your only claim

Your claims are not only provably false, but insulting. RADBF is indeed an apt description of the game you purport to play.

Reply by: FlingitNow - click to view full reply 

22508

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 14:18:47

Post by: FlingitNow

Belief is not proof. You are assuming[/]b that they meant something other than what they said. You are not allowing them the possibility of error, except when it suits your argument.

A demonstrably dishonest way to argue

I do indeed allow the possibility of error. But to write an entire rule to protect you against something that can't happen is not what they would do. We have possibilities for what they meant. Either it is an indication that KB does wounds or it is an indication that they see wounds as synonymous with damage. Either results in BotWD working against KB. Unless you can give a reason for them writing the rule? Likewise both result in the interpretation that KB causes wounds. I await your reasonable reason for why they would write the rule.

So you are stating, categorically, that I am unreasonable? Do you think this is a good way to debate - by insulting others?

I made no comment on whether or not you are reasonable. Though this is typical of your argument style complaining about any perceived slight, whilst insulting people. Reporting people for being off topic the moment they prove you wrong etc.

False, see the proof already given. What specifically on page 44? Given the exact quotes have already been given, and the similarities shown, your statement is, factually, a lie. Retract it.

The other Nos gambit claiming something is a lie just because he disagrees with it. Usually followed by a deliberate falsehood in his own argument. "Require models to be removed as casualties" does KB remove as casualties? Check page 72 and point me to where it says remove as casualty or "your statement is, factually, a lie. Retract it."

"Regardless of" DOES mean your wounds are irrelevant. That is what the language means. What you are disregarding "of" is [number of wounds], NOT [number] . You care not, one jot, about their [number of ]wounds, or indeed the number of wounds, not that you dont care about "number", which is your only claim

FTFY so we agree the number of wounds is irrelevant however their wounds still are just not the number of them. It does not mean we don't care about numbers [b]OR wounds as you contend but simply the "number of wounds".

Reply by: IthinkIbrokeit - click to view full reply 

78723

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 15:53:32

Post by: IthinkIbrokeit

If no effect is defined as instant kill in its text it negates an RAW interpretation of the entire rule book because it means that effects are not tied to keywords. In that case arguing for a strict interpretation of ANY effect is silly because GW uses to much conversational language to describe rules.

Ergo my position would now be that the banner works against anything remotely magical in nature originating with an enemy play. I would also think arguing the wounds clause in a tournament setting is exactly the sort of thing that would cost you sportsmanship points.

The blood letters get there kb effect and the elves get there ward save. I suggest attacking the elves with something else.

Reply by: Niteware - click to view full reply 

61985

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 16:37:00

Post by: Niteware

IthinkIbrokeit wrote:
If no effect is defined as instant kill in its text it negates an RAW interpretation of the entire rule book because it means that effects are not tied to keywords. In that case arguing for a strict interpretation of ANY effect is silly because GW uses to much conversational language to describe rules.

Ergo my position would now be that the banner works against anything remotely magical in nature originating with an enemy play. I would also think arguing the wounds clause in a tournament setting is exactly the sort of thing that would cost you sportsmanship points.

The blood letters get there kb effect and the elves get there ward save. I suggest attacking the elves with something else.

I think people are universally agreed that allowing the ward is HYWPI, just that it isn't the rules. Same as people would allow ethereal to block KB, even though it doesn't RAW.
Less sure about HYWP black horror qgainst the banner, since it explicitlly doesn't cause wounds - probablyI wwouldn't allow the ward there.
At the end of the day, playing thebgame should be fun, so I tend to let my opponent off with minor stuff like this.

Reply by: Peasant - click to view full reply 

76274

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 16:56:38

Post by: Peasant

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peasant - so again, your contention is that, if an item provides proection from X if Y occurs, then Y must be able to occur?

Because that isnt actually how language, nor game logic, works. It is why you continually fail to understand the Flying example

If GW write an item that gives protection from wounds caused by Flying, are you now claiming it is possible for Flying to cause wounds? No, of course you wouldnt.

You are doing so in this casem but with KB.

Once again, my question has been avoided, but I will trudge on.
Your grasp on language and game logic is not as good as you believe, but I am here to try and teach you.
I AM claiming that. Like I said before, it doesn't mean that it always does, but the proper chain of events can lead to that. Because that is what our game does. Our game has it's own set of rules that work forward and can be followed backwards. The flow chart can be worked backwards and show what has happened with certainty.
If you move as far as you can, say 4", than you must have a move of 4.
If you are wounded by a s3 weapon, and roll a 2 for your armour save and it is successful, you have a 2+ armour save.
If you have an item that protects you from something in this game, it is because that result must be possible. It is how the game works. What do you think the Blasted standard protects you from?

You cannot use these items as proof that KB causes wounds. YOu can use it to infer that KB should be causing wounds, but that is only an assumption on your part, not an actual rule.

So I ask again...what does..saves against wounds caused by KB mean?

Oh, and your continued insistence that KB is a wound multipler, despite it not following the multiple wounds rule YET EXACTLY following the "Instant Kills" rule is impressive.

Less denial and more fact please. Or least an example to the contrary.
It does not follow the instant kills rule as has been shown repeatedly. Page where an instant kill uses wounds?
Follow along please..
Do you roll to wound for KB? yes or no (we will imagine we get a 6) YES
Do you role to wound for multiple wounds? yes or no? YES
How many wounds do you take from KB? That will depend on how many wounds the model has left. There is no way to write the large array of potential numbers this could be.
How many wounds do you take if you fail your save from a d3 multiple wound? lets say its 3
If our example victim is a 3 wound model..
What is the result from your to wound roll? He is automatically slain. No need to roll number of wounds because the number is irrelevant. Again too many possibilities to be as simple as stating a number
What is the result from multiple wounds(d3)? The model takes 3 wounds. .
What is the result of the KB? The model is slain
What is the result of the multiple wounds(d3)? The model is slain
Do I need to do this backwards to show how they can be proof upon themselves?
My model is slain. How?
He had zero wounds. How?
He took 3 wounds. From what?
KB/d3 wounds. From whom?
Model with KB/Filth Mace. How?
rolled a six to wound. How?

"regardless of the number of wounds" does not mean that your wounds are reduced to 0. It just means your wounds are irrelevant. They have no binding abilityu on this condition.

You just touted that you have a great grasp of language. Look up the definition of regardless and the definition and usage for the word 'OF'
YOu will find that the conjunction 'of' links 'regardless' to 'number' not to 'wounds'

Reply by: Niteware - click to view full reply 

61985

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 17:09:05

Post by: Niteware

I am finally convincwd - KB is an instant kill. Most Instant kills use characteristic tests, which is why I thought it wasn't, but then I remembered that final transmutation doesn't. Credit to Peasant for convincing me that if it isn't wounding and isn't reducing characteristics to 0 it must be an instant kill and to the chap who pointed out that both KB and the instant kills section use "regardless of the number of wounds".
The question "What about Tyrion's item?" Is besy answered as "we know what they meant but they wrote it wrong" and to let HE players take it.
We know that BOTWD is different from general wards, and cannot be taken against instant kills.

No effect wounds unless it says it wounds.
No wound is caused by KB.
The to-wound roll would, if it wasn't interrupted by KB.

Reply by: Peasant - click to view full reply 

76274

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 17:31:22

Post by: Peasant

nosferatu1001 wrote:


"Regardless of" DOES mean your wounds are irrelevant. That is what the language means. What you are disregarding "of" is [number of wounds], NOT [number] . You care not, one jot, about their wounds, or indeed the number of wounds, not that you dont care about "number", which is your only claim

Your claims are not only provably false, but insulting. RADBF is indeed an apt description of the game you purport to play.

Regardless of..wounds. Does mean wounds are irrelevant, but we already know that.
See my previous posts.
Let me help you with an example of regardless of the number.(and some other to help with the explanation.)
A unit of spawn can only have one model, regardless of the number of units you own. Is it the unit that is irrelevant or the number?
You must be here at 5:00 regardless of the time of the meeting. (the meeting is at 7:00). Is the time irrelevant or the meeting?

I don't know what RADBF means?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:
I am finally convincwd - KB is an instant kill. Most Instant kills use characteristic tests, which is why I thought it wasn't, but then I remembered that final transmutation doesn't. Credit to Peasant for convincing me that if it isn't wounding and isn't reducing characteristics to 0 it must be an instant kill and to the chap who pointed out that both KB and the instant kills section use "regardless of the number of wounds".
The question "What about Tyrion's item?" Is besy answered as "we know what they meant but they wrote it wrong" and to let HE players take it.
We know that BOTWD is different from general wards, and cannot be taken against instant kills.
.

If that's what you got from my posts you must be reading things incorrectly.
Transmutation is and instant kill. How do you know? it says..remove as a casualty. Therefore there is no wound caused.
Instant kills does not only say regardless of the number of wounds. It says some attacks don't inflict wounds... Reread BRB pg 44.
Transmutation says roll a dice and remove the model, no reference to wounds. No wound roll. Nothing. Wounds are irrelevant just as the text states. Therefore Transmutation is an instant kill.
Instant kills are also based on a single dice roll (Transmutation) or a characteristic test. They do not affect the Wound characteristic.
KB references wounds, makes you roll to wound, and never tells you to disregard your wound roll, therefore is NOT an instant kill. The relevance to wounds is shown through the entire process.
Can you find an instant kill that uses wounds? Of course not, the first sentence of Instant kills states they do not inflict wounds.
A problem many are having is taking the entire situations out of context. They are written in paragraphs for a reason, they are to be taken as a whole.
Many of the conclusions that people are reaching are based on the assumptions that KB does NOT cause wounds. Nothing breaks when KB causes wounds. If KB does not cause wounds you break many portions of the game.

No effect wounds unless it says it wounds.
No wound is caused by KB.
The to-wound roll would, if it wasn't interrupted by KB.

How do you know you are wounding? Do I need to type the entire 'Roll to wound' section. It never actually states you wound. (for all of you who are ridiculously literal.)
Where does it tell you not to do,you have already been told to do.? Where does it tell you to ignore your to wound roll?
If it said roll a dice and on a '6' remove as a casualty, that would be an instant kill.
Can you give me any instance where you start something and don't follow it through to the next step?
Do you roll a break test, not to pass or fail the break?
All special rules affect things before you start a process.
Can you find one that doesn't?
Once you roll that dice you are committed.

Reply by: fattymac04 - click to view full reply 

57890

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 18:15:52

Post by: fattymac04

Yup Matt1785,

We brought those arguments up left and right in the other thread, they show that with the wording, KB does not cause wounds, but acts like a instant kill and removes models.

Now as almost everyone said in that locked forum, none of us would play that way. Even though it is RAW KB does not cause wounds, RAI it indeed seems like they meant for it to do so. Hence why I would give ethereal immune to KB, but in the case of the banner, I am split, the banner it self is really good and in my mind way to cheap, It already for the most part negates the Demon Army book, so in this case I would allow KB to work and not get the 2+ ward, to make things fair.

The purpose of the game is to have fun, if the game breaks down into a massive rules argument then you are not having fun (unless you both like arguing).

If it is a sensitive issue, before the game starts roll a dice, on evens, attacks with KB bypass the banner, on odds they do not. Simple and random and fair.



Now peasant....

If that's what you got from my posts you must be reading things incorrectly.
Transmutation is and instant kill. How do you know? it says..remove as a casualty. Therefore there is no wound caused.
Instant kills does not only say regardless of the number of wounds. It says some attacks don't inflict wounds... Reread BRB pg 44.
Transmutation says roll a dice and remove the model, no reference to wounds. No wound roll. Nothing. Wounds are irrelevant just as the text states. Therefore Transmutation is an instant kill.
Instant kills are also based on a single dice roll (Transmutation) or a characteristic test. They do not affect the Wound characteristic.
KB references wounds, makes you roll to wound, and never tells you to disregard your wound roll, therefore is NOT an instant kill. The relevance to wounds is shown through the entire process.
Can you find an instant kill that uses wounds? Of course not, the first sentence of Instant kills states they do not inflict wounds.
A problem many are having is taking the entire situations out of context. They are written in paragraphs for a reason, they are to be taken as a whole.
Many of the conclusions that people are reaching are based on the assumptions that KB does NOT cause wounds. Nothing breaks when KB causes wounds. If KB does not cause wounds you break many portions of the game.

Now where to start, oh, first of all if you would write your sentences clearly people would then maybe understand what you are talking about.
Hey guess what! KB says Slay, and slay is the same as slain which is the same as causality, I know crazy right? Every time in the book when they talk about dead things and remove from play, they use the terms, slain, slay, remove from play, dead, dragged to their doom, causalities. All of these mean that aka you are dead, that is the English language, because you don't like that fact with the term slay, does not mean its definition changes.
Hey guess what, like my previous post that you ignored, I showed that KB also says the same thing as instant kills! doesn't cause about the number of wounds, never does KB say it inflict wounds!
So your previous post about it only working on characteristic tests is now changed with this line, but guess what! here is something crazy, you know the to wound roll? your not actually causing wounds there, you are seeing if you are successful or not. If you are then you cause a wound. KB does not care if the roll if successful or not, it just slays.
Where does KB reference wounds? in the combat resolution section? cause yes as I already pointed out, it scores wounds for determining victor in combat. Otherwise no it doesn't, and you are making stuff up again like you did in the other thread and the mods told you to stop it.
Once again, name one special rule or spell in the game that calls itself a instant kill..... that's right, not a single one even says its a instant Kill, why you ask, like I said earlier cause instant kill is a guideline for certain attacks that ignore normal procedure, it itself is not a real thing. Also no where does it say KB causes wounds.
Nothing in the game would break if KB causes or does not cause wounds, that's why all of this is a mute point and requires a FAQ, to state it will break the game when it actually doesn't is silly. Oh I love how you now state that taking stuff out of entire paragraphs removes what the thing is trying to say....hmm i know someone who does that and its you!

No effect wounds unless it says it wounds.
No wound is caused by KB.
The to-wound roll would, if it wasn't interrupted by KB.

Yup direct and to the point!

Reply by: Peasant - click to view full reply 

76274

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 18:30:20

Post by: Peasant

fattymac04 wrote:
Yup Matt1785

We brought those arguments up left and right in the other thread, they show that with the wording, KB does not cause wounds, but acts like a instant kill and removes models.

Now as almost everyone said in that locked forum, none of us would play that way. Even though it is RAW KB does not cause wounds, RAI it indeed seems like they meant for it to do so. Hence why I would give ethereal immune to KB, but in the case of the banner, I am split, the banner it self is really good and in my mind way to cheap, It already for the most part negates the Demon Army book, so in this case I would allow KB to work and not get the 2+ ward, to make things fair.

The purpose of the game is to have fun, if the game breaks down into a massive rules argument then you are not having fun (unless you both like arguing).

If it is a sensitive issue, before the game starts roll a dice, on evens, attacks with KB bypass the banner, on odds they do not. Simple and random and fair.

The only similarity it has with an instant kill is that it is predictively destructive.
Part of the issue, which is why it escalated here again is also the magic issue.
Standard KB gets past the banner. Bloodletters KB does not. It's really the same issue as ethereal.
I am all for the spirit of the game and our game group will allow all sorts of things simply because the idea is great. ( there is a guy that wants to do an entire army with Throt, Skweel, and nothing but Giant rats, rat ogres and an abomination..plus some packmasters of course..yeah that's me..and we are cool with it because it is AWESOME..not too effective..but awesome..anyway..
...in that spirit it makes me wonder..
If you are going to play it one way, why do you even mention the other?
It's like when people go to a restaurant and say, I don't like to complain...and then complain.
But people are people I guess.

Reply by: Peasant - click to view full reply 

76274

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 19:42:41

Post by: Peasant

fattymac04 wrote:




Now peasant....

[b] Now where to start, oh, first of all if you would write your sentences clearly people would then maybe understand what you are talking about.
Hey guess what! KB says Slay, and slay is the same as slain which is the same as causality, I know crazy right? Every time in the book when they talk about dead things and remove from play, they use the terms, slain, slay, remove from play, dead, dragged to their doom, causalities. All of these mean that aka you are dead, that is the English language, because you don't like that fact with the term slay, does not mean its definition changes.
Hey guess what, like my previous post that you ignored, I showed that KB also says the same thing as instant kills! doesn't cause about the number of wounds, never does KB say it inflict wounds!

I believe most of this was answered with other posts, but I am happy to oblige.
I will start by saying that many are unable to take text as a whole and that is why they are struggling.
I have said many many times that slay is just a term. I have never said anything else. Others have tried to say that 'slay' is the linking factor for KB being an instant kill. Slay does mean you are dead. Nothing more nothing less. Take your model from the table.
That is why I ask the question..how was your model slain.? Was it from combat? Was it from being run down? How?
Yes, instant kills uses the same text about number of wounds. Now what is the context of the paragraphs and section it is in.?
Example..Is a cold one knight the same as a chaos knight? No? Why not they both say 'knight.' But when we look at the context and how they are used we find that they are different.
Rolling to wound tells you that you will wound or not based on your dice roll.
What is the process that gets you to your KB?
And what instruction tells you no wounds are caused?
Tell me anytime that you stop mid process without specific instruction? For KB not to cause wounds it would have to tell you that you do not wound, or instead of wounding you slay automatically..or some version of that. It has to specifically tell you that you do not wound because you have already rolled to wound. It is how this game works.

So your previous post about it only working on characteristic tests is now changed with this line, but guess what! here is something crazy, you know the to wound roll? your not actually causing wounds there, you are seeing if you are successful or not. If you are then you cause a wound. KB does not care if the roll if successful or not, it just slays.

Where does it say you do not cause a wound? You are assuming it doesn't, but the game process says differently. Tell me anytime that you ever roll to wound where you will not pass or fail based on that dice roll?
Again, you are breaking apart a paragraph into sections that all rely on each other. You NEVER roll to wound and then just stop. You never roll anything and just stop. We have been through this. Just because you believe that you skip a process doesn't make it so. Same question for you that none has ever answered..how else does this work. 2 situations one monster, one infantry. The process is the same for all models
To wound 6>KB>infantry>all wounds
To wound 6>KB>monster>1 wound
If you aren't causing wounds...how do your dice work to satisfy both combats?

Where does KB reference wounds? in the combat resolution section? cause yes as I already pointed out, it scores wounds for determining victor in combat. Otherwise no it doesn't, and you are making stuff up again like you did in the other thread and the mods told you to stop it.

What am I making up.? The mods shut it down because people reported rather than answering questions that they couldn't answer because of their flawed idea..and I'm sure, unfortunately, it will happen again.
Pg 72 killing blow re read it. How many times do they use the word wound? Is it at least once? Then there is definitely reference to wounds.
Requiring a roll to wound to get a KB doesn't reference wounds? What else is that roll for?
'If killing blow attack wounds automatically KB doesn't come into play.' Why not? Because you need to roll to wound. You don't need to roll to KB. Did that reference wounds?
Care to tell me what I have made up?

Once again, name one special rule or spell in the game that calls itself a instant kill..... that's right, not a single one even says its a instant Kill, why you ask, like I said earlier cause instant kill is a guideline for certain attacks that ignore normal procedure, it itself is not a real thing. Also no where does it say KB causes wounds.

Nope they aren't called instant kills. Many people will cite lack of text as why it doesn't work, i.e you say it does not say you cause a wound, so dwellers is not an instant kill?.
But if we look at how the game works...
Rolling to wound shows you that you are causing wounds, rolling to remove a model from play (transmutation) shows that it is an instant kill (no wounds reference)
How do instant kills ignore procedure? Let me help you to keep the list short.
None of the 'instant kills' require the W(wound characteristic) at all, ever. Which when you read the very first line along with the whole paragraph brbpg 44 you will see how the 2 work together. Yet KB requires what.? The roll to wound.
If it said roll a dice and on a 6 you score a KB, then yes it could be an instant kill, but you are rolling to wound.

Nothing in the game would break if KB causes or does not cause wounds, that's why all of this is a mute point and requires a FAQ, to state it will break the game when it actually doesn't is silly. Oh I love how you now state that taking stuff out of entire paragraphs removes what the thing is trying to say....hmm i know someone who does that and its you!

If you insist on accusations, at least take the time to cite it. And since you, impolitely, requested it I will make sure to quote your entire posts.
Again not wounding breaks the game process because it places loopholes in situations where there are none.
explain how the combat process works if KB does not wound. It must be consistent for all combat otherwise it does breaks parts of the game. I changed it to parts because I will concede that the whole game will not fall apart from 1 ridiculous assumption..

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 20:08:54

Post by: nosferatu1001

Fling - you claimed that "Any reasonable person" would accept it as proof

I do not accept it as *proof* - neither the commonly termed definition of "proof" nor the more formal one.

I am therefore, according to your definition, "unreasonable"

Insult noted, back on ignore. Pointless.

Peasant - again, you are not here to teach, that shows your arrogance again.

Number of wounds is the composite, that is what it modifies.

Similarly, protection from X does NOT require that X can occur. Cart. Horse.

You are making the exact same logical error you have made elsewhere. A implying B does not mean B implies A. It just doesnt

Again: it is not proof, it is only inference. Nothing more.

Reply by: Warpsolution - click to view full reply 

23729

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 20:19:20

Post by: Warpsolution

Sorry to drag this back so far, but I'd rather follow this sub-conversation to it's conclusion, rather than jump into all the stuff going on betwixt others:

 Peasant wrote:
Exactly. That's why it says wounds are irrelevant.

Hm...well, I'd point out that p.44 says "after failing a Ld or T test, for example", so it's not really clarified what an "instant kill" is; it just gives us two examples of them.
I mean, I totally see what you're saying. The only thing that Killing Blow interacts with is the roll to wound, which only interacts with Toughness and Wounds, etc.

 Peasant wrote:
Permissive system. You are not allowed to discount the wound
Roll of 6>KB>meet criteria>all wounds
Roll of 6>KB>don't meet criteria>1wound...

Except there's nothing stopping both of those from happening at the same time. The first situation doesn't replace the second. So, if you roll a 6 and he passes his Ward, he's got to make another save against the regular wound.
This has nothing to do with whether or not KB causes wounds, either. It works this way whether you say KB is an instant kill or a sort of Multiple Wounds (how many ya' got?) thing.

 Peasant wrote:
Yes it must be able to occur, that doesn't always mean it will.

I see. So...what would you do if, to use the now-rather-tired example, the next book had a rule that said "this item prevents any unsaved wounds caused by the Flying special rule"? I'm not trying to be clever or anything; I genuinely want to know how you'd handle that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So yes such an item would lead us to believe that flying caused wounds...any reasonable person would accept that as proof.

I will agree that it is proof of intent, 100% all the way. But RAW is a different (often silly) thing altogether.

 FlingitNow wrote:
It does not mean your wounds are irrelevant it means the number of wounds you have is irrelevant. The conclusion that it therefore must reduce your wounds to "0" is entirely logical given that it doesn't IK and doesn't remove as a casualty reduction to 0 wounds is the only way left to kill them.

So now we're talking about whether the phrases "regardless of the number of wounds" and "the number of wounds...is completely irrelevant" are talking about the number of the wounds or the wounds, somehow independant of their values?
I haven't seen anything this messy on these forums in a long while.

Honestly, I feel like the biggest contention here--especially with the High Elf thing--is the difference between RAW and RAI. It's pretty clear that Killing Blow ought to cause a wound. I mean...that's what a killing blow is. A fatal wound.
I would just like to clarify, once more, that even though I believe "KB does not cause wounds" is a correct argument by the RAW, I'd never play that way.
Of course, I also think that the BOTWD is a remarkably stupid item, and should have as many ways to bypass it as possible. Like, if it cost 100pts, and, if your opponent was playing Daemons, he got to punch you in the nose (or kick you in the shin, if he's playing Skaven).

Reply by: FlingitNow - click to view full reply 

22508

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 21:04:33

Post by: FlingitNow

So yes such an item would lead us to believe that flying caused wounds...any reasonable person would accept that as proof.

I will agree that it is proof of intent, 100% all the way. But RAW is a different (often silly) thing altogether

I agree with that. Any reasonable person would likewise agree that is proof (as much proof as is possible in any field outside of Mathematics).

So now we're talking about whether the phrases "regardless of the number of wounds" and "the number of wounds...is completely irrelevant" are talking about the number of the wounds or the wounds, somehow independant of their values?
I haven't seen anything this messy on these forums in a long while.

To clarify I meant Peasants deduction on what the rules mean was logical I wasn't necessarily stating I agree with it. It makes sense for the rule to work that way but it is far from ironclad RaI to me at the moment. However I do believe it is ironclad RaI that the banner works with both KB and Black Horror.

Reply by: DukeRustfield - click to view full reply 

29630

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/16 22:27:50

Post by: DukeRustfield

The opponents still don't get the basic logic. A flu shot (which I heartily recommend getting) will prevent you from getting certain strains of the flu. You can inject a flu shot into a pumpkin. That does not mean a pumpkin can get the flu. You can go to a gas station and pour yourself a glass of gasoline (petrol) and drink it. That does not mean you're a car, it means you're a person who's about to go to the hospital.

A lot of people have said RAI that KB shouldn't kill ethereal or similarly protected things, but they went out of their way to write it just like Dwellers Below/Final Transmutation. It's almost always a special rule that happens in CC, it would have been beyond easy to make it reference wounds. Just like the extremely similar special rule Poison does.

Some of the same people are saying GW would never write this or that in regards to the Heart/Banner, but you need to choose. They either meant to write what they wrote in Heart/Banner/Malekith and also KB or the same author had an aneurism and wrote completely different things in each one because he couldn't remember the rules and wording that he himself invented.

I mean, it's all Mat Ward.

Reply by: Warpsolution - click to view full reply 

23729

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/17 01:33:41

Post by: Warpsolution

 FlingitNow wrote:

So yes such an item would lead us to believe that flying caused wounds...any reasonable person would accept that as proof.

I will agree that it is proof of intent, 100% all the way. But RAW is a different (often silly) thing altogether

I agree with that. Any reasonable person would likewise agree that is proof (as much proof as is possible in any field outside of Mathematics).

So,,,if you're talking about the RAI, and Duke and Nosferatu and co. are talking about the RAW...

Why is this a debate?

Reply by: Peasant - click to view full reply 

76274

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/17 01:58:46

Post by: Peasant

Warpsolution wrote:
Sorry to drag this back so far, but I'd rather follow this sub-conversation to it's conclusion, rather than jump into all the stuff going on betwixt others

No worries:

 Peasant wrote:
Exactly. That's why it says wounds are irrelevant.

Hm...well, I'd point out that p.44 says "after failing a Ld or T test, for example", so it's not really clarified what an "instant kill" is; it just gives us two examples of them.
I mean, I totally see what you're saying. The only thing that Killing Blow interacts with is the roll to wound, which only interacts with Toughness and Wounds, etc.

Correct. This part of the situation shows how KB is not an instant kill. p.44 states that the number of wounds on the profile are irrelevant. Rolling to wound already joins KB to wounds no matter how people are breaking up the process and paragraphs. Sections and paragraphs are already written to bring them together.

 Peasant wrote:
Permissive system. You are not allowed to discount the wound
Roll of 6>KB>meet criteria>all wounds
Roll of 6>KB>don't meet criteria>1wound...

Except there's nothing stopping both of those from happening at the same time. The first situation doesn't replace the second. So, if you roll a 6 and he passes his Ward, he's got to make another save against the regular wound.
This has nothing to do with whether or not KB causes wounds, either. It works this way whether you say KB is an instant kill or a sort of Multiple Wounds (how many ya' got?) thing.

Are you saying the process I have shown is incorrect?
The root of all of this is once you have rolled to wound..you are causing wounds or failng to cause them. Period. Of course it's wounds there is nothing else for it to be.
It doesn't require all these pages because it is THAT simple. Although no one will accept that and.I must admit, I have gotten myself tangled into this for 7 pages here and 16 prior, in attempts to justify all these rehashes and break downs of this sentence vs. that one, one interpretation over another. I do apologize for confusing things.

 Peasant wrote:
Yes it must be able to occur, that doesn't always mean it will.

I see. So...what would you do if, to use the now-rather-tired example, the next book had a rule that said "this item prevents any unsaved wounds caused by the Flying special rule"? I'm not trying to be clever or anything; I genuinely want to know how you'd handle that.

Am I misreading I don't understand the phrasing.? Are you just asking about another save.?

 FlingitNow wrote:
So yes such an item would lead us to believe that flying caused wounds...any reasonable person would accept that as proof.

I will agree that it is proof of intent, 100% all the way. But RAW is a different (often silly) thing altogether.

With our game it is proof. It is a statement not implication. Do you know of anything that makes a false statement in our game? We are not talking conflicting rules it is a statement about KB

 FlingitNow wrote:
It does not mean your wounds are irrelevant it means the number of wounds you have is irrelevant. The conclusion that it therefore must reduce your wounds to "0" is entirely logical given that it doesn't IK and doesn't remove as a casualty reduction to 0 wounds is the only way left to kill them.

So now we're talking about whether the phrases "regardless of the number of wounds" and "the number of wounds...is completely irrelevant" are talking about the number of the wounds or the wounds, somehow independant of their values?
I haven't seen anything this messy on these forums in a long while.

As I said early in this post and early in the thread, aand in the other. Most of these arguments were brought about by the no wound crowd. I even joked about Clinton's what 'is' is.
It is this literal break down of a game process that we already know that is neither written nor intended.

Honestly, I feel like the biggest contention here--especially with the High Elf thing--is the difference between RAW and RAI. It's pretty clear that Killing Blow ought to cause a wound. I mean...that's what a killing blow is. A fatal wound.
I would just like to clarify, once more, that even though I believe "KB does not cause wounds" is a correct argument by the RAW, I'd never play that way.
Of course, I also think that the BOTWD is a remarkably stupid item, and should have as many ways to bypass it as possible. Like, if it cost 100pts, and, if your opponent was playing Daemons, he got to punch you in the nose (or kick you in the shin, if he's playing Skaven).

I disagree. RAW is wounds. You rolled to wound, you did not roll to KB. And RAI it causes wounds.
I' don't play against anyone with BotWD and if I did, they only get one so I can deal with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
Yeah, they had to put the section in for KB under combat resolution because most stuff that kills you dead is done from afar. Like spells. I *think* they took out all of the items that you hit someone in the face and they die. Like DoC and Liz used to have one. Anyway, challenges let you score >wounds in CR. They did this because they wanted it to still be worthwhile to challenge, because challenges are fun and exciting. They didn't want it to be where you lol challenge the Daemon Prince with your fodder hero and basically make a combat god worthless for one round. Or have the DP be scared to challenge knowing his attacks would be thrown away. So you can score way more wounds in CR. If KB didn't score those extra wounds, then you would be praying you DIDN'T KB in challenges if you knew you were going to win. For what is supposedly a very powerful special rule it would suck if you didn't want it to actually work because it was a hindrance. "Damn this sword of slaying!"

So you believe this was what they intended?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fling - you claimed that "Any reasonable person" would accept it as proof

I do not accept it as *proof* - neither the commonly termed definition of "proof" nor the more formal one.

I am therefore, according to your definition, "unreasonable"

Insult noted, back on ignore. Pointless.

You don't have to accept it, you can play it how ever you'd like if your opponent agrees.

Peasant - again, you are not here to teach, that shows your arrogance again.

Number of wounds is the composite, that is what it modifies.

Similarly, protection from X does NOT require that X can occur. Cart. Horse.

You are making the exact same logical error you have made elsewhere. A implying B does not mean B implies A. It just doesnt

Again: it is not proof, it is only inference. Nothing more.

I have never claimed NOT to be arrogant. How do you know what I am here for? oops OT.
?? So you don't have to be wounded from a flaming attack to use that ward against a flaming attack?
Can you list an item that gives specific protection against something that cannot happen?
Without the flaming attack, the ward does nothing but you still have it.
If I can buy protection from 'x'..you can be 100% positive in our game that you can be harmed by 'x'.
In real life this may not be so, but in our game it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fattymac04 wrote:
Peasant.... really? really?

Instant Kills pg. 44
Some special attacks don't inflict wounds, but require models to be removed as casualties (after failing a ld or T test, for example). Where this is the case, not only are no saves of any kind allowed (unless specified otherwise), but the number of wounds on the victim's profile is completely irrelevant - just remove the model from play, and hope for better luck next time!

Killing blow rule pg. 72
If a model with the Killing Blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent - regardless of the number of wounds on the victim's profile. Armour saves and regeneration saves cannot be taken against a Killing blow. A ward save can be attempted - if passed, the ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow.

hmmm both talk about number of wounds on the profile.....hmmmm

Also just to bring this up for fun... Nothing in the game says it instant kills, I know right, insane! The instant kill section is a guideline to certain attacks that do not follow the proper procedure and just kill guys and don't cause wounds. The uber spells do not say instant kill in their descriptor, they just follow the guidelines. no saves, allow a ward if it wants, etc... oh and kill outright.

Duke, I know right, the english language is screwed up and one thing can mean many things, like slay = slain = causality = dead = remove from play

What is the first step to get a KB? Rolling to wound. It is this simple. You rolled TO WOUND. Period.
What is the step in Instant kills? Roll against S..no wound. Roll against T...No wound. Roll against I. Roll a dice...no wound. What do all of these have in common. No wounds.
What do all the 'non labeled'' instant kills' all have in common? None of them roll to wound. They all have some other dice to roll
Guess what they all die, slay, slain, kick the bucket..
What is the difference between the 3 processes..
KB you rolled to wound....all the rest, you didn't.
THis is not as complicated as you are making it. You are over analyzing what is a very simple rule.

What's a break test for?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
The opponents still don't get the basic logic. A flu shot (which I heartily recommend getting) will prevent you from getting certain strains of the flu. You can inject a flu shot into a pumpkin. That does not mean a pumpkin can get the flu. You can go to a gas station and pour yourself a glass of gasoline (petrol) and drink it. That does not mean you're a car, it means you're a person who's about to go to the hospital.

I get basic logic. The game doesn't rely on basic logic. It relies on a structured process.
Basic logic we don't have flying horses or shoot fireballs from our hands. A man could never hold one of those swords that are sculpted so huge.
What does the ward provided by burning body protect you from?
If you rolled that ward, what has happened?

A lot of people have said RAI that KB shouldn't kill ethereal or similarly protected things, but they went out of their way to write it just like Dwellers Below/Final Transmutation. It's almost always a special rule that happens in CC, it would have been beyond easy to make it reference wounds. Just like the extremely similar special rule Poison does.

Your paragraph is a little confusing.
RAW and RAI KB does not work on ethereal unless it is the bloodletters magic sword or similar. Just as this banner does not work on KB but would work against the bloodletters
But RAW..a giants stuff in bag would work on ethereal..but I would never play it that way.

Reply by: Warpsolution - click to view full reply 

23729

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/17 07:58:15

Post by: Warpsolution

 Peasant wrote:
Are you saying the process I have shown is incorrect?

Yes. But not for the reasons I think you're thinking I think.
This was a little tangent I asked about, and never managed to get a straight answer for. It has nothing to do with whether or not Killing Blow causes wounds or is an instant kill or any of that. Totally separate issue about how Killing Blow works, all on its own.
My point is: I believe that, technically, the effects of Killing Blow and the normal wounding process stack. When a model rolls a 6, you might survive the Killing Blow, but take 1 wound. Because nothing says that Killing Blow replaces the normal attack. It just adds to it. So, on a 6, the model causes a wound. If the model has Killing Blow, it might also kill its target, regardless of number of wounds.

 Peasant wrote:
Am I misreading I don't understand the phrasing.? Are you just asking about another save.?

No, I think you're reading it correctly. An item that says "this prevents any wounds caused by the Flying special rule" would be utter nonsense, and do nothing. Right?

 Peasant wrote:
Do you know of anything that makes a false statement in our game?

Yes. According to the RAW, Armour Piercing makes a false statement. It says "Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier...", which means that Repeater Crossbows only benefit from AP when used in close combat, which they cannot be. The rule is, in one case at least, completely dead in the water.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/17 08:18:57

Post by: nosferatu1001

Peasan t- again, you are making a basic error in logic. THe claim you are making is NOT supported by the tet, it can only be INFERRED by the text

That is 100% factual.

Your assertions otherwise are just that - assertions, with no link to how the game is constructed. Or, prove it - prove your statements correct. Prove that protection from X REQUIRES that X can occur.

Rolling to-wound can cause a wound, it can also cause other effects. KB is one such other effect. Regaining a wound is one such effect. You cannot, honestly, claim that rolling to-wound means KB is a wound, as that is not supported by the text. You can claim it is inferred - but, as Duke pointed out - why did they, in close combat, NOT mention wounds?

Why point out it only count as causing all the wounds? According to you it is a wound multiplier, so that line is not only redundant - it is wrong, entirely so.

You mix argument by intent, and argument by rules. You lost the argument in the other thread, and your argument continues to fail to convince here.

Reply by: Eihnlazer - click to view full reply 

76273

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/17 12:46:35

Post by: Eihnlazer

Neither side has proven anything RAW i suppose.

While there is nothing in the rulebook explicitly stating KB causes wounds, there is also nothing stating that it is an instant kill effect or that you can ignore the "to wound" roll that caused it.

It is apparent to me however that RAI KB causes wounds and I will play it as such.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/17 13:21:03

Post by: nosferatu1001

Actually in this case absence of evidence (no evidence, none at all, that KB causes a wound) is sufficient; you cannot hang a process that relies on a wound - for example BotWD conditional granting of a ward save - when no wound exists.

As you cannto show a wound ever exists, no wound exists.

Reply by: FlingitNow - click to view full reply 

22508

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/17 13:56:22

Post by: FlingitNow

As you cannto show a wound ever exists, no wound exists

The rulebook disagrees with this. It clearly states what happenswhen you roll to wound.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/17 14:03:46

Post by: nosferatu1001

Yes, a 6 causes a wound. It also triggers KB. KB is not a wound.

The rulebook STILL disagrees with you on this.

Reply by: FlingitNow - click to view full reply 

22508

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/17 15:34:08

Post by: FlingitNow

But you have a wound when you KB. This is what the rules say.

Reply by: kirsanth - click to view full reply 

5873

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/17 16:09:19

Post by: kirsanth

 FlingitNow wrote:
But you have a wound when you KB. This is what I keep writing despite what the rules say.

So what happens on the KB 5+ needing 6 to wound again?

Reply by: fattymac04 - click to view full reply 

57890

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/17 16:45:53

Post by: fattymac04

Hence why KB does not cause a wound, that and never does KB say it wounds, it activates during the "To Wound Roll" If successful or not of the to wound roll, KB still activates if the dice roll is a 6 or a 5 if you have the spell or a ability / item that makes it a 5 or 6.

Now the whole instant kill thing, the reason why I say KB works like a instant kill, is because:

Lets look at saving throws, we have Armour saves, Regeneration saves and Ward saves.
Instant Kills say no saves of any kind allowed, unless it specifies a ward save may be taken.
KB says no armour and regeneration saves, but allows ward saves if the model has one.
Instant Kills allow 0 / 3 saves most of the time, but will allow if it says 1 / 3 if it says it can.
KB allows 1 / 3 saves if the model has a ward.
Also both state that they don't care about the number of wounds on profile.
They also both state (RAW) they do not do wounds.
Instant Kills say that "some special attacks don't inflict wounds, but require models to removed as casualties" pg. 44
KB does this by saying "...he automatically slays his opponent..." pg. 72
As I have said, Slay is the same as killed, dead, removed, causality, etc... it means the same thing as those, thank you English language.
As I have also stated, Instant Kill is not a actual thing in game, not a single thing calls itself a instant kill, but there are weapons, abilities and spells that follow the guidelines of what a instant kill effect is and therefor have been called it, such as transmutation, purple sun, etc...
But why not Killing blow? It fits all the criteria of the other stuff in the game that are called Instant Kills.

Hence why I call it a instant Kill effect.


Also this got me thinking, what happens with combat resolution if you kill a 3w lord character that is getting hit by a weapon that reduces Toughness, and that Toughness reaches 0 in CC? Or what if you get hit by a attack or breath weapon that causes characteristic tests with them being removed from play with no saves of any kind allowed? Well that would count as a instant kill effect and for the purposes of Combat resolution, you would use that section that KB uses of "Attacks that kill a model outright (made with a Killing Blow, say - see page 72) score the same amount of wounds as the slain model has on its profile." (pg. 52 with errata)
I am correct on this, right?

Because for the most part, most instant kill like things are spells, only a rare few things do reduce toughness or strength in CC. So how is that situation handled?

Reply by: Saldiven - click to view full reply 

1523

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/17 19:25:29

Post by: Saldiven

 kirsanth wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
But you have a wound when you KB. This is what I keep writing despite what the rules say.

So what happens on the KB 5+ needing 6 to wound again?

Is there really a reason to debate rules with someone who doesn't really care what the rules say?

Reply by: DukeRustfield - click to view full reply 

29630

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/17 19:33:53

Post by: DukeRustfield

Eihnlazer wrote:
While there is nothing in the rulebook explicitly stating KB causes wounds, there is also nothing stating that it is an instant kill effect or that you can ignore the "to wound" roll that caused it.

You don't "ignore" the to wound roll. It is interrupted by KB as per the KB rules. Inside the body of KB, if you are successful, you SLAY your target. You can't wound a dead guy who is removed from play. The wound roll is irrelevant, what are you going to wound? The model is slain.

Regeneration is another instance of this (sorta). Under saves, for CC/Shooting they list Armor and Ward. They do not list Regeneration, it is merely a special rule. Yet if you get hit by a successful wound, you can jump out of the normal save routine and take a regen save, following the instructions there. Nothing under Saving Throws says you can do this. If you pass your regen save, which again, is not mentioned once for dozens of pages in relation to attacks, you jump out of the entire shooting/close combat order of operations. You don't take wounds or remove casualties if you are successful--they had to be more explicit with Regen because it actually replaces Ward, which wasn't always the case with previous editions.

For some reason the fact that you slay someone while in the act of potentially wounding means he's wounded. It doesn't matter when it occurs, what matters is the results and the wording. Fanatics and Manglers do all their damage in the Compulsory Moves phase, but you don't go, "oh, these don't count as wounds because he's Moving and not in the close combat phase." Just follow the rules. If a fanatic kills someone, they are still dead even though the normal phases for fighting aren't on you yet.

Reply by: FlingitNow - click to view full reply 

22508

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/17 21:05:17

Post by: FlingitNow

Saldiven wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
But you have a wound when you KB. This is what I keep writing despite what the rules say.

So what happens on the KB 5+ needing 6 to wound again?

Is there really a reason to debate rules with someone who doesn't really care what the rules say?

When have I ever said that? You must have me confused with some one else. I care about the rules and the rule book is an important tool for learning them. Just because I believe the rules were designed by the GW design team does not mean what you think it means.

Though what is the point debating rules with people like Kirsanth, Nos or yourself who think you play a game not designed by the GW design team...

Reply by: Niteware - click to view full reply 

61985

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/17 21:49:07

Post by: Niteware

 FlingitNow wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
But you have a wound when you KB. This is what I keep writing despite what the rules say.

So what happens on the KB 5+ needing 6 to wound again?

Is there really a reason to debate rules with someone who doesn't really care what the rules say?

When have I ever said that? You must have me confused with some one else. I care about the rules and the rule book is an important tool for learning them. Just because I believe the rules were designed by the GW design team does not mean what you think it means.

Though what is the point debating rules with people like Kirsanth, Nos or yourself who think you play a game not designed by the GW design team...

The "not designed by GW" troll cracks me up every time. I love that Fling can continually insist that the GW team are unable to communicate through writing, like normal people, instead they must go through interpreters.
Fling, by any chance, are you a 15th century priest who thinks thT GW should write in Latin so that the general populous can't access what they actually say?
RADBF FTW.

Reply by: Peasant - click to view full reply 

76274

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/17 22:37:59

Post by: Peasant

Warpsolution wrote:


Yes. But not for the reasons I think you're thinking I think.
This was a little tangent I asked about, and never managed to get a straight answer for. It has nothing to do with whether or not Killing Blow causes wounds or is an instant kill or any of that. Totally separate issue about how Killing Blow works, all on its own.
My point is: I believe that, technically, the effects of Killing Blow and the normal wounding process stack. When a model rolls a 6, you might survive the Killing Blow, but take 1 wound. Because nothing says that Killing Blow replaces the normal attack. It just adds to it. So, on a 6, the model causes a wound. If the model has Killing Blow, it might also kill its target, regardless of number of wounds.

That is exactly what I am saying. Which is why I show the example and why KB is a multiplier. When a model has KB it doesn't turn off and on it is either effective or not..
You roll that 6 and it lose the single wound and if you meet the criteria you lose all remaining wounds.
People are looking for the inference that it wounds..but the roll to wound told you. You need inference to tell you that you don't wound. People are reading too much into it.

No, I think you're reading it correctly. An item that says "this prevents any wounds caused by the Flying special rule" would be utter nonsense, and do nothing. Right?

If that was the text, then there must be a way for you to be wounded. from the flying special rule. And your item will do nothing until you are wounded from the flying special rule.

 Peasant wrote:


Yes. According to the RAW, Armour Piercing makes a false statement. It says "Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier...", which means that Repeater Crossbows only benefit from AP when used in close combat, which they cannot be. The rule is, in one case at least, completely dead in the water.

You missed a couple of important parts
1. It does say 'or attacking with a weapon with this special rule'...Shooting is attacking so it still works
2.When you continue reading the section on armour piercing, the next paragraph under the example in italics says, "If a model has a weapon with armour Piercing rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon are armour piercing.
This is why the entire section is relevant and not made to be broken up.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/17 22:44:38

Post by: nosferatu1001

Peasant - "If that was the text, then there must be a way for you to be wounded. from the flying special rule."

No, that is 100% a made up concept. It has no basis in the rules. Not a single one.

You are inferring that there must be some way to be wounded by Flying. It does not mean there must be - it can be an entirely meaningless, can never happen rule.

That is why we state, correctly, you have a problem with logic. You have not provided a rule to back up your assertion above - not a one. Therefore your argument fails.

Fling - no, you have KB *and* a Wound. KB is a special rule. It is not a wound. You can pretend otherwise, but the rulebook does NOT STATE anything like what you are claiming. Please mark your posts "RADBF" in future

Reply by: Peasant - click to view full reply 

76274

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/17 23:11:49

Post by: Peasant

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peasan t- again, you are making a basic error in logic. THe claim you are making is NOT supported by the tet, it can only be INFERRED by the text

That is 100% factual.

Your assertions otherwise are just that - assertions, with no link to how the game is constructed. Or, prove it - prove your statements correct. Prove that protection from X REQUIRES that X can occur.

You are very good at stating things and asking for proof whilst providing nothing of your own. I'll ask again and maybe you will answer the questions.and it will show you proof...
So you don't have to be wounded from a flaming attack to use that ward against a flaming attack?
What kind of attacks does burning body give you a save against?
Can you list an item that gives specific protection against something that cannot happen?
Without the flaming attack, the ward does nothing but you still have it.
If I can buy protection from 'x'..you can be 100% positive in our game that you can be harmed by 'x'.
All aspects of our game are based on what can happen. Whether it does or not is determined throughout the game

Rolling to-wound can cause a wound, it can also cause other effects. KB is one such other effect. Regaining a wound is one such effect. You cannot, honestly, claim that rolling to-wound means KB is a wound, as that is not supported by the text. You can claim it is inferred - but, as Duke pointed out - why did they, in close combat, NOT mention wounds?

Yes, rolling to wound can cause a wound, or not if your dice fails. It can trigger other effects in addition to the wound.
What item regains a wound? And what happens to the wound that you rolled?
KB is supported by the text because it told you to roll to wound. This is this simple.
So are you saying that everything is inferred in this game? Then RAW becomes irrelevant and your whole argument falls apart because the whole game becomes RAI.
Again, answer the question..
What does .'.protects you from wounds caused by KB' mean?

Why point out it only count as causing all the wounds? According to you it is a wound multiplier, so that line is not only redundant - it is wrong, entirely so.

You mix argument by intent, and argument by rules. You lost the argument in the other thread, and your argument continues to fail to convince here.

I'm not sure I understand the question.
Do you mean why do they say you score the wounds on the profile rather than call it a wound multiplier? If that is the question I have answered that, it's because it is a short simple way to write that with every turn and every combat the number of wounds you may be causing can be different.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirsanth wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
But you have a wound when you KB. This is what I keep writing despite what the rules say.

So what happens on the KB 5+ needing 6 to wound again?

It says that when you roll a 5+ to wound you will KB the opponent and they will lose all the wounds on their profile. A 5+ KB does not show that no wounds are caused it just changes the score required to trigger the effect that reduces the model to zero wounds.
So what does the statement..'protects you from wounds caused by KB' mean??


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fattymac04 wrote:
Hence why KB does not cause a wound, that and never does KB say it wounds, it activates during the "To Wound Roll" If successful or not of the to wound roll, KB still activates if the dice roll is a 6 or a 5 if you have the spell or a ability / item that makes it a 5 or 6.

Now the whole instant kill thing, the reason why I say KB works like a instant kill, is because:

Lets look at saving throws, we have Armour saves, Regeneration saves and Ward saves.
Instant Kills say no saves of any kind allowed, unless it specifies a ward save may be taken.
KB says no armour and regeneration saves, but allows ward saves if the model has one.
Instant Kills allow 0 / 3 saves most of the time, but will allow if it says 1 / 3 if it says it can.
KB allows 1 / 3 saves if the model has a ward.
Also both state that they don't care about the number of wounds on profile.
They also both state (RAW) they do not do wounds.
Instant Kills say that "some special attacks don't inflict wounds, but require models to removed as casualties" pg. 44
KB does this by saying "...he automatically slays his opponent..." pg. 72
As I have said, Slay is the same as killed, dead, removed, causality, etc... it means the same thing as those, thank you English language.
As I have also stated, Instant Kill is not a actual thing in game, not a single thing calls itself a instant kill, but there are weapons, abilities and spells that follow the guidelines of what a instant kill effect is and therefor have been called it, such as transmutation, purple sun, etc...
But why not Killing blow? It fits all the criteria of the other stuff in the game that are called Instant Kills.

Once you roll to wound you are in the wounding process, everything you do from that point on will be wounds until specifically told not to do wounds
There is no statement that KB does not cause wounds, only assumptions from the no wounds crowd..
Since you and I agree that there is technically nothing labeled as 'instant kill'
As I have said the rules only show 2 ways to remove casualties.
1. Statistic reduced to zero
2. Remove as a casualty or remove from play.
Instant kills don't involve wounds.
As Kb does not say anything from category 2, then it must be from category 1.
Purple sun=initiative test=IK.(instant kill), transmutation=removed as casualty=IK, Pit of shades=Initiative=IK, Giants stuff in bag=remove as casualty=IK..etc etc.

Hence why I call it a instant Kill effect.

If KB said remove as a casualty, or roll a d6 and on a 6 you get KB...Then it could be an instant kill. But play it how you like.

Also this got me thinking, what happens with combat resolution if you kill a 3w lord character that is getting hit by a weapon that reduces Toughness, and that Toughness reaches 0 in CC? Or what if you get hit by a attack or breath weapon that causes characteristic tests with them being removed from play with no saves of any kind allowed? Well that would count as a instant kill effect and for the purposes of Combat resolution, you would use that section that KB uses of "Attacks that kill a model outright (made with a Killing Blow, say - see page 72) score the same amount of wounds as the slain model has on its profile." (pg. 52 with errata)
I am correct on this, right?

Because for the most part, most instant kill like things are spells, only a rare few things do reduce toughness or strength in CC. So how is that situation handled?

Most CC weapons that reduce toughness also require wounding first..but lets say the lord was reduced to T1 by enfeebling foe and still had 3 wounds left, you would get +3 combat res for the lord.
Are there breath weapons that kill outright? If the breath weapon says you are 'removed from play' it is an instant kill and you get full wounds for the model for combat res.
So yes you are correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
While there is nothing in the rulebook explicitly stating KB causes wounds, there is also nothing stating that it is an instant kill effect or that you can ignore the "to wound" roll that caused it.

You don't "ignore" the to wound roll. It is interrupted by KB as per the KB rules. Inside the body of KB, if you are successful, you SLAY your target. You can't wound a dead guy who is removed from play. The wound roll is irrelevant, what are you going to wound? The model is slain.

Regeneration is another instance of this (sorta). Under saves, for CC/Shooting they list Armor and Ward. They do not list Regeneration, it is merely a special rule. Yet if you get hit by a successful wound, you can jump out of the normal save routine and take a regen save, following the instructions there. Nothing under Saving Throws says you can do this. If you pass your regen save, which again, is not mentioned once for dozens of pages in relation to attacks, you jump out of the entire shooting/close combat order of operations. You don't take wounds or remove casualties if you are successful--they had to be more explicit with Regen because it actually replaces Ward, which wasn't always the case with previous editions.

For some reason the fact that you slay someone while in the act of potentially wounding means he's wounded. It doesn't matter when it occurs, what matters is the results and the wording. Fanatics and Manglers do all their damage in the Compulsory Moves phase, but you don't go, "oh, these don't count as wounds because he's Moving and not in the close combat phase." Just follow the rules. If a fanatic kills someone, they are still dead even though the normal phases for fighting aren't on you yet.

Regeneration gives you the rule to add it on after saves and trade it for ward if you choose. It gave specific instruction to ignore the ward. It does not tell you to interrupt anything, it says after your armour saves. AND it waited until you finished what you started, i.e. saves. And it continues to state it works exactly like other saves.
But you do the entire process for manglers then don't you? You don't assume you jump and do your wounds in another phase.
Does their damage apply to combat res? If it does...you are probably told to do something out of phase, like adding it by their special rules.
We do things in this game as we are told and until we are told something specifically different that is what we are doing.

Reply by: Warpsolution - click to view full reply 

23729

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/18 00:01:33

Post by: Warpsolution

 Peasant wrote:
That is exactly what I am saying. Which is why I show the example and why KB is a multiplier. When a model has KB it doesn't turn off and on it is either effective or not..
You roll that 6 and it lose the single wound and if you meet the criteria you lose all remaining wounds.
People are looking for the inference that it wounds..but the roll to wound told you. You need inference to tell you that you don't wound. People are reading too much into it.

Ach. No. Forget about all that. All that little tangent is about is as follows: Killing Blow's effect happens in addition to the normal benefits of rolling a 6 to wound. Roll a 6. you caused a wound. And you also maybe killed them. Both occur. Nothing replaces anything.
It's got nothing to do with whether or not Killing Blow causes wounds or whether it's an "instant kill". Nothing at all.
Do you see what I'm saying? There is nothing in the Killing Blow rules that tells us to discard the regular ol' 1 wound. It says "on a 6, this stuff happens". The rules before that say, "on a 6, this stuff happens". So they both happen. Which means you'd have to make two Ward saves.

 Peasant wrote:
If that was the text, then there must be a way for you to be wounded. from the flying special rule.

Can you show me how?

 Peasant wrote:
1. It does say 'or attacking with a weapon with this special rule'...Shooting is attacking so it still works
2.When you continue reading the section on armour piercing, the next paragraph under the example in italics says, "If a model has a weapon with armour Piercing rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon are armour piercing.
This is why the entire section is relevant and not made to be broken up.

Oiy. Look, this also got debated to death once upon a time. Here's how it goes:

Armour Piercing reads: "Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."
In response to your #1, we have to take out those parenthesis, and make two separate statements:

- "Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."
AND
- "Wounds caused in close combat by a model attacking with a weapon that has this special rule inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."

To assume the first clause, "wounds caused in close combat" doesn't apply to both "a model with..." and "or is attacking with a weapon that..." is grammatically incorrect.

In response to your #2, we have to replace the term "Armour Piercing" with the definition of it:
'
"If a model has a weapon with the (special rule: wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier...), only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon...(benefit from the rule: wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier...)

So, yes. Darkshards don't have Armour Piercing. Only the shots fired from their crossbows. But since Armour Piercing is "wounds caused in close combat...etc.", that rule does not technically do anything, in this instance.
I know this probably won't work, but...can you just assume I've got this one right? That thread went on for ages, and in the end, there wasn't a single naysayer about this.
Granted, we all thought it was beyond silly, but still.

As I've said, though: this is all purely what The Book says, exactly, down to the very letter, with none of the author's intent in mind. As far as any of my previous points are concerned, the designers never make mistakes in their wording (which, oddly enough, means that I am forced to disregard a few rules/situations, like the AP thing, rather than accept them and thereby "break" the other, less contrary rules).
Not even remotely how I play this game, of course. But since that's largely up to opinion anyway, I'm here on You Make Da Call to discuss the cold, unyielding facts. Silly as the situations they create may be.

Reply by: Peasant - click to view full reply 

76274

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/18 00:02:09

Post by: Peasant

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peasant - "If that was the text, then there must be a way for you to be wounded. from the flying special rule."

No, that is 100% a made up concept. It has no basis in the rules. Not a single one.

You are inferring that there must be some way to be wounded by Flying. It does not mean there must be - it can be an entirely meaningless, can never happen rule.

That is why we state, correctly, you have a problem with logic. You have not provided a rule to back up your assertion above - not a one. Therefore your argument fails.

Fling - no, you have KB *and* a Wound. KB is a special rule. It is not a wound. You can pretend otherwise, but the rulebook does NOT STATE anything like what you are claiming. Please mark your posts "RADBF" in future

More statements. No evidence, no proof, just denial.
You have not answered a single question I asked.
Saying, no that is infererence, or no that's not what it means, does not make me wrong. Stating your belief that I have a problem with logic does not prove anything.
Your refusal to answer simple questions shows that you are wrong.
Simple...answer the questions or I will be accepting your next post as concession.

Reply by: Warpsolution - click to view full reply 

23729

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/18 00:05:26

Post by: Warpsolution

 Peasant wrote:
Again, answer the question..
What does .'.protects you from wounds caused by KB' mean?

Well, those against you would answer thusly:

It means nothing. The item protects against a situation that cannot occur. It is an error in the system.

Reply by: Peasant - click to view full reply 

76274

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/18 00:20:55

Post by: Peasant

Warpsolution wrote:


Ach. No. Forget about all that. All that little tangent is about is as follows: Killing Blow's effect happens in addition to the normal benefits of rolling a 6 to wound. Roll a 6. you caused a wound. And you also maybe killed them. Both occur. Nothing replaces anything.
It's got nothing to do with whether or not Killing Blow causes wounds or whether it's an "instant kill". Nothing at all.
Do you see what I'm saying? There is nothing in the Killing Blow rules that tells us to discard the regular ol' 1 wound. It says "on a 6, this stuff happens". The rules before that say, "on a 6, this stuff happens". So they both happen. Which means you'd have to make two Ward saves.

Okay, I had to read it several times, but I think I get where you are going.
SO if none of that matters and does not show wounding or not, how do you reach the conclusion that no wounds are caused?

 Peasant wrote:
If that was the text, then there must be a way for you to be wounded. from the flying special rule.

Can you show me how?

Yes. Burning body. What is the purpose of a 5+ ward against flaming attacks?
If you are wounded by a flaming attack you get a 5+ ward against that attack.
If you took a ward save against a flaming attack you were wounded by a flaming attack.
The game is it's own proof and logic.
We don't have an item that protects us from wounds from flying, because we have nothing that causes wounds from flying.

 Peasant wrote:
1. It does say 'or attacking with a weapon with this special rule'...Shooting is attacking so it still works
2.When you continue reading the section on armour piercing, the next paragraph under the example in italics says, "If a model has a weapon with armour Piercing rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon are armour piercing.
This is why the entire section is relevant and not made to be broken up.

Oiy. Look, this also got debated to death once upon a time. Here's how it goes:

Armour Piercing reads: "Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."
In response to your #1, we have to take out those parenthesis, and make two separate statements:

- "Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."
AND
- "Wounds caused in close combat by a model attacking with a weapon that has this special rule inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."

To assume the first clause, "wounds caused in close combat" doesn't apply to both "a model with..." and "or is attacking with a weapon that..." is grammatically incorrect.

In response to your #2, we have to replace the term "Armour Piercing" with the definition of it:
'
"If a model has a weapon with the (special rule: wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier...), only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon...(benefit from the rule: wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier...)

So, yes. Darkshards don't have Armour Piercing. Only the shots fired from their crossbows. But since Armour Piercing is "wounds caused in close combat...etc.", that rule does not technically do anything, in this instance.
I know this probably won't work, but...can you just assume I've got this one right? That thread went on for ages, and in the end, there wasn't a single naysayer about this.
Granted, we all thought it was beyond silly, but still.

As I've said, though: this is all purely what The Book says, exactly, down to the very letter, with none of the author's intent in mind. As far as any of my previous points are concerned, the designers never make mistakes in their wording (which, oddly enough, means that I am forced to disregard a few rules/situations, like the AP thing, rather than accept them and thereby "break" the other, less contrary rules).
Not even remotely how I play this game, of course. But since that's largely up to opinion anyway, I'm here on You Make Da Call to discuss the cold, unyielding facts. Silly as the situations they create may be.

For the sake of my own sanity, and yours I think, I won't touch the armour piercing thing. You can take my response as agreement or denial whatever suits you. I don't need another 25+ pages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warpsolution wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
Again, answer the question..
What does .'.protects you from wounds caused by KB' mean?

Well, those against you would answer thusly:

It means nothing. The item protects against a situation that cannot occur. It is an error in the system.

I will agree. that is how they would answer.
It just humours me that LACK of text about KB causing wounds (though) you roll to wound with no instruction not to wound, no instruction other than to slay the model, is MORE meaningful, than text that actually states wounds from KB. There is no text stating that you do NOT cause wounds. Only interpretation
And often these same people are always screaming about how what is written is how things are played, yet will take the literal writings and interpret non specifics to suit their cause. The whole concept is contrary.
This literal attempt often comes across as 'only when it suits' me.

Reply by: Warpsolution - click to view full reply 

23729

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/18 02:27:02

Post by: Warpsolution

 Peasant wrote:
Okay, I had to read it several times, but I think I get where you are going.
SO if none of that matters and does not show wounding or not, how do you reach the conclusion that no wounds are caused?

It is a related aside. It is not an attempt to further either side of the two main arguments on this thread.

 Peasant wrote:
We don't have an item that protects us from wounds from flying, because we have nothing that causes wounds from flying.

Well, sure. But it's a possibility, right? The designer could make a mistake, and end up writing something that does not actually function within the rules of the game.

 Peasant wrote:
For the sake of my own sanity, and yours I think, I won't touch the armour piercing thing. You can take my response as agreement or denial whatever suits you. I don't need another 25+ pages.

Sure. But you asked for an example of such a thing, and I have provided.

 Peasant wrote:
There is no text stating that you do NOT cause wounds. Only interpretation

Permissive rules system?

 Peasant wrote:
I will agree. that is how they would answer.
It just humours me that LACK of text about KB causing wounds (though) you roll to wound with no instruction not to wound, no instruction other than to slay the model, is MORE meaningful, than text that actually states wounds from KB.

Well, the HE item does not offer any sort of proof that would hold up in a philosophical debate or in a court of law. It sure as Hell suggests strongly enough for me to play it that way, though.

 Peasant wrote:
And often these same people are always screaming about how what is written is how things are played, yet will take the literal writings and interpret non specifics to suit their cause. The whole concept is contrary.
This literal attempt often comes across as 'only when it suits' me.

I don't know about all that. I always argue the strictest RAW, but play nothing of the sort. Some of the people on this thread might be that cut-throat, but I bet they're a definite minority. What do you mean about interpreting non-specifics, though?

Reply by: kirsanth - click to view full reply 

5873

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/18 03:58:12

Post by: kirsanth

 kirsanth wrote:
So what happens on the KB 5+ needing 6 to wound again?

 Peasant wrote:
A 5+ KB does not show that no wounds are caused . . .

Again then, you play by the "It does not say I cannot" idea.

Nonsense.

Reply by: fattymac04 - click to view full reply 

57890

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/18 04:06:37

Post by: fattymac04

Once you roll to wound you are in the wounding process, everything you do from that point on will be wounds until specifically told not to do wounds
There is no statement that KB does not cause wounds, only assumptions from the no wounds crowd..
Since you and I agree that there is technically nothing labeled as 'instant kill'
As I have said the rules only show 2 ways to remove casualties.
1. Statistic reduced to zero
2. Remove as a casualty or remove from play.
Instant kills don't involve wounds.
As Kb does not say anything from category 2, then it must be from category 1.
Purple sun=initiative test=IK.(instant kill), transmutation=removed as casualty=IK, Pit of shades=Initiative=IK, Giants stuff in bag=remove as casualty=IK..etc etc.

You are assuming once again. There are many things that occur in various phases that do not follow the proper procedure, yet you say this and of course no evidence.
There is also no statement that says KB causes wounds, and seeing that it says slay which means killed, death, etc... it is easily seen as a non wound model killer.
And guess what... KB does not cause wounds, it does not state it does.
And now you say 2 types, where earlier you said 3, what is it? or are you just making stuff up again to satisfy yourself.

If KB said remove as a casualty, or roll a d6 and on a 6 you get KB...Then it could be an instant kill. But play it how you like.

Hey guess what, you do roll a d6 and on a 6 you KB, its in a phase in CC, but still your rolling a d6 and on a 6 its a KB.

Most CC weapons that reduce toughness also require wounding first..but lets say the lord was reduced to T1 by enfeebling foe and still had 3 wounds left, you would get +3 combat res for the lord.
Are there breath weapons that kill outright? If the breath weapon says you are 'removed from play' it is an instant kill and you get full wounds for the model for combat res.
So yes you are correct.

So peasant you do realize that you agreed to my statement that KB is an instant kill right? I'm just making sure.
Cause I said....

Also this got me thinking, what happens with combat resolution if you kill a 3w lord character that is getting hit by a weapon that reduces Toughness, and that Toughness reaches 0 in CC? Or what if you get hit by a attack or breath weapon that causes characteristic tests with them being removed from play with no saves of any kind allowed? Well that would count as a instant kill effect and for the purposes of Combat resolution, you would use that section that KB uses of "Attacks that kill a model outright (made with a Killing Blow, say - see page 72) score the same amount of wounds as the slain model has on its profile." (pg. 52 with errata)
I am correct on this, right?
Because for the most part, most instant kill like things are spells, only a rare few things do reduce toughness or strength in CC. So how is that situation handled?

Or are you going to say that models that killed outright by stuff like Toughness reducing to 0 in CC or the special chaos dragons breath weapon which removes models only work the same as KB for the purposes of combat resolution? When both use the same section, a section that deals with killing models outright (aka instant killing). And I have earlier pointed out using the BRB with pg. references showing that KB does not cause wounds and acts like a instant kill effect and even uses the same combat res as instant kill in the combat res section.
If you say that KB still causes wound after all that, you are a troll and still you have not put out evidence saying KB causes wounds, Go to the BRB and find something from there that shows KB causes wounds, post it here and we will see.

Reply by: DukeRustfield - click to view full reply 

29630

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/18 04:20:14

Post by: DukeRustfield

To get philosophical for a second: I was walking around a few days ago when I was thinking about laws and RAW. In governments, laws tell you what you can't do. I can't set stuff on fire randomly. I can't dump used motor oil in a lake. I can't steal candy bars.

We need those because we already know what we CAN do. I am capable of setting fire to things, pouring used motor oil, and stealing. I'm a human, I can do a whole lot of things. But we have laws to put limitations on those theoretical abilities for the betterment of society.

In games, we need RAW because these are completely new entities. We do not know if a bishop in chess can use a laser beam and turn the enemy rooks into shoelaces. If the game says that's how chess works, then that's how it works--it might not be a popular game, but that's another story.

Unlike humans, we do not know what any given model can do unless it tells us. Hitting someone with KB could make them fly. It could double their WS attribute. It could allow you to change places with the opposing player and put on a funny hat. There are infinite things that KB can do, but it does none of them unless it says so.

Because game rules don't work like laws, they grant freedoms, they don't take them away. That is why RAW is important. There is no law in any country/state/county/city that says you can't jump in the air and fly. Because humans can't fly so no one bothered making that law. Even the American Bill of Rights doesn't actually give rights. It says what the government is unable to take away, recognizing that's what laws do:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

KB doesn't say it causes wounds. It says it slays. Directly using slay/kill/removed from play/dead never say they cause wounds, and in fact they can't because it would conflict with other RAW in other sections where you are required to take saving throws.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/18 07:33:02

Post by: nosferatu1001

Peasant wrote:
More statements. No evidence, no proof, just denial.

Wrong, the evidence was included. It is called logic. A implying B does not mean that B implies A

Protection from X does not require that X can occur

This is absolutely basic.

Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

(its actually only one of the fallacies you are making, but you asked for proof, and here it is)

Peasant wrote:You have not answered a single question I asked.

Ask meaningful questions. ones that show an understanding of the debate, or that have any relevance, and you may get answers.

Peasant wrote:Saying, no that is infererence, or no that's not what it means, does not make me wrong. Stating your belief that I have a problem with logic does not prove anything.

It isnt a belief, when I have proved you have predicated your argument on a logical fallacy. This and other arguments, usually the same fallacy.

Peasant wrote:Your refusal to answer simple questions shows that you are wrong.

My not bothering (not refusal) to answer questions not related to the topic proves nothing. You can believe any thing you like, however/

Peasant wrote:Simple...answer the questions or I will be accepting your next post as concession.

Accept anythign you like.

You are still arguing "it doesnt say it doesnt", when shown that KB is an additional effect that happens on a 6 to-wound. You pretend that the KB is also the wound, and not an additional effect. Even when shown CATEGORICALLY that this cannot be true, with the 5+ KB when neeeding a 6 to cause a wound example, you STILL try to handwave that away.

You lost in that thread, wholeheartedly
You have lost the argument in this thread, wholeheartedly

I genuinely am asking you to go away and read up on basic logical errors in argument, so you can hopefully realise that the way you argue here is not only failing to convince others, but it results in frayed tempers on both sides.

You have inferred - perhaps reasonably - that KB causes wounds due to the HE item. It does not, in the strictest sense, prove that it does. Just because KB is part of a process called "to-wound" it does not mean it does wound itseld, and here you are required to have text stating it - as otherwise you do what you are doing now, which is making the "it doesnt say it doesnt, so it does!" argument. WHich fails in this system of rules.

Lastly - I was asking why did they state it counts as scoring all the wounds, when your contention is that it is a multiple wounds (all remaining wounds) multiplier? It is a false statement, if your assertion were true, to say they only "count as", because if your assertion WERE true - they would actually BE wounds. Another proof by contradiction.

Reply by: BooMeRLiNSKi - click to view full reply 

15053

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/18 09:36:34

Post by: BooMeRLiNSKi

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Ask meaningful questions. ones that show an understanding of the debate, or that have any relevance, and you may get answers.

More abuse again?

It isnt a belief, when I have proved you have predicated your argument on a logical fallacy. This and other arguments, usually the same fallacy.

You clearly have no idea what a logical fallacy is

My not bothering (not refusal) to answer questions not related to the topic proves nothing. You can believe any thing you like, however/

They are related to the topic. You cannot, not "will not" answer them.

You are still arguing "it doesnt say it doesnt", when shown that KB is an additional effect that happens on a 6 to-wound. You pretend that the KB is also the wound, and not an additional effect. Even when shown CATEGORICALLY that this cannot be true, with the 5+ KB when needing a 6 to cause a wound example, you STILL try to handwave that away.

And like has been said before:

If it is an additional effect, then if you were attacking something with a ward save they would get to ward save against the killing blow, if passed they would then have any normal armour and then ward/regen saves against that wound.

Or

They would get armour, ward/regen saves against the wound and then if successful a ward save against the "effect" of killing blow.

Clearly both those examples would be totally and completely ridiculous and anybody who thinks it works like that (and there is no other way to play it if it is an additional effect) is clearly and plainly an idiot of the highest order.

If it is a replacement effect then you give yourself the problem of 6's doing nothing to MC and MI as the BRB says that it is only effective against Infantry, Cavalry and Warbeasts but at no point does it say it is "not in effect" against MC and MI. That is the RAW reading of the rule if you think it is a replacement effect. You know that RAW that you want to cling to... except when it doesn't say what you want it to say.

You lost in that thread, wholeheartedly
You have lost the argument in this thread, wholeheartedly

You're highly deluded and when this gets FAQ'd exactly as we have said it works you are going to look even more dumb then you do already.

I genuinely am asking you to go away and read up on basic logical errors in argument, so you can hopefully realise that the way you argue here is not only failing to convince others, but it results in frayed tempers on both sides.

The people who are not convinced by the BRB saying directly that Killing Blow Inflicts wounds are not convinced due to being massively obtuse, it is no fault of his debating skills. The frayed tempers on this side are just due to having to deal with a whole lot of arrogant stupid.

here you are required to have text stating it .

Like how Killing Blow never says "remove from game" or "remove from play" or "removes as a casualty" which instant kills do?

Lastly - I was asking why did they state it counts as scoring all the wounds, when your contention is that it is a multiple wounds (all remaining wounds) multiplier? It is a false statement, if your assertion were true, to say they only "count as", because if your assertion WERE true - they would actually BE wounds. Another proof by contradiction.

I'm sure I've done this before...

QUOTE: FAQ, WARHAMMER RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.8

Page 52 – Calculate Combat Result, Wounds Inflicted.
Change “[...]counts as having scored all the slain model’s
remaining Wounds.” to “[...]score the same amount of
Wounds as the slain model has on its profile.” in the last
paragraph.

It doesn't say counts as, they changed the language in a FAQ to be more clear that it doesn't "count as scoring" you have "scored wounds". All under the section for "wounds Inflicted" that deal with things that have inflicted wounds in combat. that starts with the paragraph

Inflicting wounds on the foe is an important
factor when determining combat resolution —
perhaps the most important

and then goes on to say

Each side's basic combat result is equal to the
wounds caused in the combat

Killing Blow is dealt with under this section. The Section that deals with "wounds caused in combat" or "wounds inflicted", you know like the heading for the section dealing with the rules it is laying out?. That is, the section that deals with inflicted wounds that were caused during combat, wounds that may have been caused by killing blow. How do we know Killing Blow causes wounds? Because Killing Blow is dealt with under the section for things that inflict wounds in combat.

RAW and obviously RAI.

Reply by: FlingitNow - click to view full reply 

22508

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/18 09:55:07

Post by: FlingitNow

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Ask meaningful questions. ones that show an understanding of the debate, or that have any relevance, and you may get answers.

More abuse again?

It isnt a belief, when I have proved you have predicated your argument on a logical fallacy. This and other arguments, usually the same fallacy.

You clearly have no idea what a logical fallacy is

My not bothering (not refusal) to answer questions not related to the topic proves nothing. You can believe any thing you like, however/

They are related to the topic. You cannot, not "will not" answer them.

You are still arguing "it doesnt say it doesnt", when shown that KB is an additional effect that happens on a 6 to-wound. You pretend that the KB is also the wound, and not an additional effect. Even when shown CATEGORICALLY that this cannot be true, with the 5+ KB when needing a 6 to cause a wound example, you STILL try to handwave that away.

And like has been said before:

If it is an additional effect, then if you were attacking something with a ward save they would get to ward save against the killing blow, if passed they would then have any normal armour and then ward/regen saves against that wound.

Or

They would get armour, ward/regen saves against the wound and then if successful a ward save against the "effect" of killing blow.

Clearly both those examples would be totally and completely ridiculous and anybody who thinks it works like that (and there is no other way to play it if it is an additional effect) is clearly and plainly an idiot of the highest order.

If it is a replacement effect then you give yourself the problem of 6's doing nothing to MC and MI as the BRB says that it is only effective against Infantry, Cavalry and Warbeasts but at no point does it say it is "not in effect" against MC and MI. That is the RAW reading of the rule if you think it is a replacement effect. You know that RAW that you want to cling to... except when it doesn't say what you want it to say.

You lost in that thread, wholeheartedly
You have lost the argument in this thread, wholeheartedly

You're highly deluded and when this gets FAQ'd exactly as we have said it works you are going to look even more dumb then you do already.

I genuinely am asking you to go away and read up on basic logical errors in argument, so you can hopefully realise that the way you argue here is not only failing to convince others, but it results in frayed tempers on both sides.

The people who are not convinced by the BRB saying directly that Killing Blow Inflicts wounds are not convinced due to being massively obtuse, it is no fault of his debating skills. The frayed tempers on this side are just due to having to deal with a whole lot of arrogant stupid.

here you are required to have text stating it .

Like how Killing Blow never says "remove from game" or "remove from play" or "removes as a casualty" which instant kills do?

Lastly - I was asking why did they state it counts as scoring all the wounds, when your contention is that it is a multiple wounds (all remaining wounds) multiplier? It is a false statement, if your assertion were true, to say they only "count as", because if your assertion WERE true - they would actually BE wounds. Another proof by contradiction.

I'm sure I've done this before...

QUOTE: FAQ, WARHAMMER RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.8

Page 52 – Calculate Combat Result, Wounds Inflicted.
Change “[...]counts as having scored all the slain model’s
remaining Wounds.” to “[...]score the same amount of
Wounds as the slain model has on its profile.” in the last
paragraph.

It doesn't say counts as, they changed the language in a FAQ to be more clear that it doesn't "count as scoring" you have "scored wounds". All under the section for "wounds Inflicted" that deal with things that have inflicted wounds in combat. that starts with the paragraph

Inflicting wounds on the foe is an important
factor when determining combat resolution —
perhaps the most important

and then goes on to say

Each side's basic combat result is equal to the
wounds caused in the combat

Killing Blow is dealt with under this section. The Section that deals with "wounds caused in combat" or "wounds inflicted", you know like the heading for the section dealing with the rules it is laying out?. That is, the section that deals with inflicted wounds that were caused during combat, wounds that may have been caused by killing blow. How do we know Killing Blow causes wounds? Because Killing Blow is dealt with under the section for things that inflict wounds in combat.

RAW and obviously RAI.

QTF. Though they'll claim when a FAQ comes out that it changes the rules (which by RAW it can't which is the massive inconsistency in their point of view that they refuse to address)...

Reply by: Niteware - click to view full reply 

61985

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/18 10:18:19

Post by: Niteware

 FlingitNow wrote:

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Ask meaningful questions. ones that show an understanding of the debate, or that have any relevance, and you may get answers.

More abuse again?

It isnt a belief, when I have proved you have predicated your argument on a logical fallacy. This and other arguments, usually the same fallacy.

You clearly have no idea what a logical fallacy is

My not bothering (not refusal) to answer questions not related to the topic proves nothing. You can believe any thing you like, however/

They are related to the topic. You cannot, not "will not" answer them.

You are still arguing "it doesnt say it doesnt", when shown that KB is an additional effect that happens on a 6 to-wound. You pretend that the KB is also the wound, and not an additional effect. Even when shown CATEGORICALLY that this cannot be true, with the 5+ KB when needing a 6 to cause a wound example, you STILL try to handwave that away.

And like has been said before:

If it is an additional effect, then if you were attacking something with a ward save they would get to ward save against the killing blow, if passed they would then have any normal armour and then ward/regen saves against that wound.

Or

They would get armour, ward/regen saves against the wound and then if successful a ward save against the "effect" of killing blow.

Clearly both those examples would be totally and completely ridiculous and anybody who thinks it works like that (and there is no other way to play it if it is an additional effect) is clearly and plainly an idiot of the highest order.

If it is a replacement effect then you give yourself the problem of 6's doing nothing to MC and MI as the BRB says that it is only effective against Infantry, Cavalry and Warbeasts but at no point does it say it is "not in effect" against MC and MI. That is the RAW reading of the rule if you think it is a replacement effect. You know that RAW that you want to cling to... except when it doesn't say what you want it to say.

You lost in that thread, wholeheartedly
You have lost the argument in this thread, wholeheartedly

You're highly deluded and when this gets FAQ'd exactly as we have said it works you are going to look even more dumb then you do already.

I genuinely am asking you to go away and read up on basic logical errors in argument, so you can hopefully realise that the way you argue here is not only failing to convince others, but it results in frayed tempers on both sides.

The people who are not convinced by the BRB saying directly that Killing Blow Inflicts wounds are not convinced due to being massively obtuse, it is no fault of his debating skills. The frayed tempers on this side are just due to having to deal with a whole lot of arrogant stupid.

here you are required to have text stating it .

Like how Killing Blow never says "remove from game" or "remove from play" or "removes as a casualty" which instant kills do?

Lastly - I was asking why did they state it counts as scoring all the wounds, when your contention is that it is a multiple wounds (all remaining wounds) multiplier? It is a false statement, if your assertion were true, to say they only "count as", because if your assertion WERE true - they would actually BE wounds. Another proof by contradiction.

I'm sure I've done this before...

QUOTE: FAQ, WARHAMMER RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.8

Page 52 – Calculate Combat Result, Wounds Inflicted.
Change “[...]counts as having scored all the slain model’s
remaining Wounds.” to “[...]score the same amount of
Wounds as the slain model has on its profile.” in the last
paragraph.

It doesn't say counts as, they changed the language in a FAQ to be more clear that it doesn't "count as scoring" you have "scored wounds". All under the section for "wounds Inflicted" that deal with things that have inflicted wounds in combat. that starts with the paragraph

Inflicting wounds on the foe is an important
factor when determining combat resolution —
perhaps the most important

and then goes on to say

Each side's basic combat result is equal to the
wounds caused in the combat

Killing Blow is dealt with under this section. The Section that deals with "wounds caused in combat" or "wounds inflicted", you know like the heading for the section dealing with the rules it is laying out?. That is, the section that deals with inflicted wounds that were caused during combat, wounds that may have been caused by killing blow. How do we know Killing Blow causes wounds? Because Killing Blow is dealt with under the section for things that inflict wounds in combat.

RAW and obviously RAI.

QTF. Though they'll claim when a FAQ comes out that it changes the rules (which by RAW it can't which is the massive inconsistency in their point of view that they refuse to address)...

Firstly, as already discussed, scores wounds is less like wounding than counts as wounds.
Some muppet could try to justify using BOTWD on the basis that KB "counts as causing wounds in CR", but nobody could when it only scores the wounds in CR.
Flight, FAQs changing RAW is not an inconsistency in argument; FAQs are written and take precedence over BRB. We hav examples (eg overrun and crumble) where this has undeniably happened. Presumably though, you believe that they FAQed that rule incorrectly, sinfe they changed their mind about it.

@Boomer you criticised Nos for possibly being v slightly insulting and then refer to several people on the thread, Warp for example, as idiots of the highest magnitude. Not big, not clever and not accurate.

Read the thread before you make ridiculous statementa.

Also "the BRB stating directly that KB causes wounds" is a childish lie.

Reply by: HoverBoy - click to view full reply 

9808

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/18 11:34:09

Post by: HoverBoy

If these quotes get any bigger, they might gain sentience.

Reply by: reds8n - click to view full reply 

5394

Bloodletters and Magical Killing Blow vs Banner of the World Dragon @ 2013/10/18 12:31:01

Post by: reds8n

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here.