So, if my Tomb Guard are wounding the enemy on 6s, but I cast a spell that makes it so that their Killing Blow goes off on a 5+ instead, does a 5 mean Killing Blow works? Or do I still have to successfully wound them? Killing Blow's rule just says that on a wound role of 6 they instantly slay their opponent. I'm not quite sure how this would work if it's on a 5+ instead.

This is one of those rules that REALLY needs an FAQ. Does the KB bypass the need to roll high enough to wound, or not? Nothing in the rules says either way.

Discuss the matter with your opponent ahead of time, is my recommendation.

 Vulcan wrote:
This is one of those rules that REALLY needs an FAQ. Does the KB bypass the need to roll high enough to wound, or not? Nothing in the rules says either way.

Discuss the matter with your opponent ahead of time, is my recommendation.

Wow, okay. I thought I was just missing something. I guess not.

We had a huge debate about this.

KB is a self-contained Special Rule. It doesn't say you need to wound in its text. You just need to attempt it. If you roll your KB value, you slay. You're not wounding. You're slaying. There is no slaying chart that says S->T roll needed, you are bypassing it in the Special Rule. If they have 10 wounds and a Special Rule that says they can't be wounded on anything less than a 6, that's fine. You're not wounding. They still die on your KB roll if they are the appropriate model (and fail ward).

If you need a 5 to slay, you slay them. The rules of the enemy model don't matter unless it addresses KB specifically.

I even go so far to say if it was impossible to wound them (Ethereal) you can still slay them. Because Ethereal does not say you don't roll to hit, it doesn't say you don't roll to wound. It definitely doesn't say it blocks KB. Ethereal says they cannot be wounded by mundane, but KB doesn't wound. It slays, which is why it can slay something on a 5 it needs to wound on a 6.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
We had a huge debate about this.

KB is a self-contained Special Rule. It doesn't say you need to wound in its text. You just need to attempt it. If you roll your KB value, you slay. You're not wounding. You're slaying. There is no slaying chart that says S->T roll needed, you are bypassing it in the Special Rule. If they have 10 wounds and a Special Rule that says they can't be wounded on anything less than a 6, that's fine. You're not wounding. They still die on your KB roll if they are the appropriate model (and fail ward).

If you need a 5 to slay, you slay them. The rules of the enemy model don't matter unless it addresses KB specifically.

I even go so far to say if it was impossible to wound them (Ethereal) you can still slay them. Because Ethereal does not say you don't roll to hit, it doesn't say you don't roll to wound. It definitely doesn't say it blocks KB. Ethereal says they cannot be wounded by mundane, but KB doesn't wound. It slays, which is why it can slay something on a 5 it needs to wound on a 6.

Subsequently it remains one of the few ways of also bypassing the BotWD for Daemons (at the 2+ Ward only protects again *wounds* caused by magical attacks, and KB technically isn't a wound).

 DukeRustfield wrote:
We had a huge debate about this.

KB is a self-contained Special Rule. It doesn't say you need to wound in its text. You just need to attempt it. If you roll your KB value, you slay. You're not wounding. You're slaying. There is no slaying chart that says S->T roll needed, you are bypassing it in the Special Rule. If they have 10 wounds and a Special Rule that says they can't be wounded on anything less than a 6, that's fine. You're not wounding. They still die on your KB roll if they are the appropriate model (and fail ward).

If you need a 5 to slay, you slay them. The rules of the enemy model don't matter unless it addresses KB specifically.

I even go so far to say if it was impossible to wound them (Ethereal) you can still slay them. Because Ethereal does not say you don't roll to hit, it doesn't say you don't roll to wound. It definitely doesn't say it blocks KB. Ethereal says they cannot be wounded by mundane, but KB doesn't wound. It slays, which is why it can slay something on a 5 it needs to wound on a 6.

A very compelling argument, and I see your point. I just wasn't sure if there was something I was missing, but I guess that answers that.

 Ehsteve wrote:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
We had a huge debate about this.

KB is a self-contained Special Rule. It doesn't say you need to wound in its text. You just need to attempt it. If you roll your KB value, you slay. You're not wounding. You're slaying. There is no slaying chart that says S->T roll needed, you are bypassing it in the Special Rule. If they have 10 wounds and a Special Rule that says they can't be wounded on anything less than a 6, that's fine. You're not wounding. They still die on your KB roll if they are the appropriate model (and fail ward).

If you need a 5 to slay, you slay them. The rules of the enemy model don't matter unless it addresses KB specifically.

I even go so far to say if it was impossible to wound them (Ethereal) you can still slay them. Because Ethereal does not say you don't roll to hit, it doesn't say you don't roll to wound. It definitely doesn't say it blocks KB. Ethereal says they cannot be wounded by mundane, but KB doesn't wound. It slays, which is why it can slay something on a 5 it needs to wound on a 6.

Subsequently it remains one of the few ways of also bypassing the BotWD for Daemons (at the 2+ Ward only protects again *wounds* caused by magical attacks, and KB technically isn't a wound).

Yeah, but KB simply doesn't happen very much and it isn't cost-effective. Bloodletters are expensive and they are expensive because of their attack capabilities, most of which are of no value vs. BoTWD. You'd probably get better result with 2 attack Daemonettes and their reduced cost. Though in either case it would still be pretty pathetic.

Well, I only disagree with the ethereal issue. It has to do with the nature of the attack. If my KB is accompanied by magical attacks(like bloodletters), then ok, it works, but warhawk riders/tomb guard/grave guard KB shouldnt normally be workin on ethereals.

The "nature of the attack" isn't a rule. Ethereal has extremely specific rules. It states it can only be wounded by magical attacks. If it said it couldn't be hit, couldn't be harmed, couldn't be affected, then it would work vs. KB. But just like the BoTWD says it protects against magic wounds, Ethereal is the exact opposite and protects against everything except magic wounds.

But Killing Blow is neither a magic or non-magic wound. It's not a wound at all.

I didn't say there are rules of attacks' classification. But technically, a weapon or warrior gifted with with KB without having magical attacks, it cannot touch an ethereal creature, thus no harming him. Anyways, let's wait for some faq.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
The "nature of the attack" isn't a rule. Ethereal has extremely specific rules. It states it can only be wounded by magical attacks. If it said it couldn't be hit, couldn't be harmed, couldn't be affected, then it would work vs. KB. But just like the BoTWD says it protects against magic wounds, Ethereal is the exact opposite and protects against everything except magic wounds.

But Killing Blow is neither a magic or non-magic wound. It's not a wound at all.

7.10. Q: Does Killing Blow cause a wound?
A: Yes.

Case closed.

Would it not also be covered by the fact that under rolling to wound in the BRB, it categorically states that a "to wound" roll of a 6 is always a wound, regardless of toughness?

As in, regardless of the fact that rolling a 6 triggers KB, it still counts as causing a wound.
Ergo, it is a WOUND, that slays outright. Its a normal wound, with added bonuses.

KeyserSoze wrote:
I didn't say there are rules of attacks' classification. But technically, a weapon or warrior gifted with with KB without having magical attacks, it cannot touch an ethereal creature, thus no harming him. Anyways, let's wait for some faq.

You're making this up. There is nowhere it says you "cannot touch." That's like me saying Killing Blow says "totally ignores Ethereal." Print the rules.

7.10. Q: Does Killing Blow cause a wound?
A: Yes.

Case closed.

It's case closed if you're playing ETC and using their rules at their events. However, ETC is not official. The official FAQs do not say that.

Of course ETC is not official, but their Q&A clarify many things, so I trust them completely.

It also doesnt say that KB doesnt cause its "slay" effect, either. So you now get it doing two things - a wound and a slay-effect

Not at all "case closed".

KeyserSoze wrote:
Of course ETC is not official, but their Q&A clarify many things, so I trust them completely.

ETC is a completely different setting from regular 40k or WHFB. The rules are changed or interpretated with a competitive environment in mind...unlike 40k...and therefore cannot be used to clear up vanilla 40k issues.

From the official warhammer rulebook FAQ:
Q: Do Poisoned Attacks that wound automatically on a To Hit roll
of 5+ or better still need to hit to cause a Wound?(p73)
A: Yes.

It goes without saying that KB follows the same principle as Poisoned Attacks, so why would anyone claim that a 5+ KB does not need to succesfully wound first, before the KB activates?
The only reason this wasn't covered in the FAQ was that no one was dumb enough to ask it, or GW thought that the poison attack clarification would cover that.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
We had a huge debate about this.

KB is a self-contained Special Rule. It doesn't say you need to wound in its text. You just need to attempt it.

Why would it say in the text that KB needs to wound, when KB works on 6s, and 6s are always successful rolls to Wound? Wouldn't it be an overstatement?

Some special rules often create situations where you have to be reasonable when they are not completely clear in the rules.

Also that monkey business about KB slaying ethereal creatures is so arbitrary. I don't even know how to respond to such an (censorship) argument.
Usually I like to take part in rules interpretation arguments, but in this case I'll pass. There has to be at least a certain degree of logic for me to take part in one.

shame_on_a_playa wrote:
It goes without saying that KB follows the same principle as Poisoned Attacks

If they all followed the same rules, they wouldn't be special rules with their own text. However, they are. For instance, Thunderstomp basically just says, "we're stomp, except bigger." HKB is KB except bigger. Hover is Fly except smaller. KB doesn't say it's Poison but with slaying. It doesn't say anything whatsoever about it. If Poison kills your entire army if you roll a 3, that has no impact at all on KB or Flaming Attacks or Impact Hits or anything else. They aren't connected at all.

Usually I like to take part in rules interpretation arguments, but in this case I'll pass. There has to be at least a certain degree of logic for me to take part in one.

If you don't want to answer, don't be passive aggressive and say you're not going to answer by answering and saying you're not going to answer. That's called, in game terms, "being a douchebag." Just don't answer. It's super easy to not type something.

Why would it say in the text that KB needs to wound, when KB works on 6s, and 6s are always successful rolls to Wound? Wouldn't it be an overstatement?

Yeah, because explaining rules is a horrible thing for a rulebook to do. Especially since it would take a whole sentence. I guess you didn't read the very first post in this thread which brings up the question to begin with. We're not talking about 6's. We're talking about 5's. And clearly 6's don't "always wound" because if you have a normal weapon vs. Ethereal it does not. And I'm sure there are some other cases somewhere. There are no always. And in the instances where there are discrepancies or questions, we look to the rules as written. RAW is very clear. You have to add rules or imply rules or use ETC rules to reach another conclusion than RAW. I can quote the exact text.

If memory serves, when this first came about, I was part of the boat who, at first, argued for Killing blow needing to be able to wound.(I still disagree with mundane killing blow not working against ethereal, but let's not get into that.) However, Duke's right, in this case.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

shame_on_a_playa wrote:
It goes without saying that KB follows the same principle as Poisoned Attacks

If you don't want to answer, don't be passive aggressive and say you're not going to answer by answering and saying you're not going to answer. That's called, in game terms, "being a douchebag." Just don't answer. It's super easy to not type something.

So if a politician is asked to comment on a matter and says "No comments", he actually did comment by your logic. He should just have kept his mouth shut, because the comment "no comment" is a comment so he commented.
Your reply to that will be "who asked you?".

 DukeRustfield wrote:
If they all followed the same rules, they wouldn't be special rules with their own text.

Poisoned attacks and killing blow DO follow the same principle. I never said they are the same rule.
Poison rolls a 6 to hit so it skips the to wound roll.
KB rolls a 6 to wound so it skips the armour save roll. In addition, if the ward save fails, the model is slayed.
What you've done, is taken the word "slay" and don't understand it just means that all remaining wounds are gone.
It's not a magical property to slay someone, it's a special rule.

In the ethereal text, the fact that it doesn't say that you 're not allowed to make To Hit rolls, doesn't mean you can.
It specifies ethereal creatures can only be wounded by spells, magical attacks and magic weapons.
So in CC if you don't have magical attacks or a magic weapon, you don't get to roll To Hit vs ethereals. You just don't.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
I guess you didn't read the very first post in this thread which brings up the question to begin with. We're not talking about 6's. We're talking about 5's

I talked about 5s on my the start of my post. 5s with KB come into effect only if the To Wound result of a 5 is also successful. That's done. No more discussing that.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
And clearly 6's don't "always wound" because if you have a normal weapon vs. Ethereal it does not.

A 6 in the To Wound roll is always successful provided you got to the To Wound roll by not cheating.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Yeah, because explaining rules is a horrible thing for a rulebook to do. Especially since it would take a whole sentence.

It is a horrible thing to do. And it would take more than a sentence. The rulebook states the rules as simple and clear as possible. It can't cover every possible scenario that comes up.
Killing blow is a rule that works on 6s and 6s are always successful when rolling To Wound, so the sentence to specify that To Wound roll has to be successful for the KB to work is not necessary and thus is not in the rulebook. The fact that the Tomb Kings book decided to have a spell to boost the KB to 5+ is another story. You are supposed to incorporate that into your rulepack as logically as possible.

And btw, I also checked about the phrase "being a douchebag" in game terms. There is no reference of that anywhere, so you are wrong about that too.

shame_on_a_playa wrote:

 DukeRustfield wrote:

shame_on_a_playa wrote:
It goes without saying that KB follows the same principle as Poisoned Attacks

If you don't want to answer, don't be passive aggressive and say you're not going to answer by answering and saying you're not going to answer. That's called, in game terms, "being a douchebag." Just don't answer. It's super easy to not type something.

So if a politician is asked to comment on a matter and says "No comments", he actually did comment by your logic. He should just have kept his mouth shut, because the comment "no comment" is a comment so he commented.
Your reply to that will be "who asked you?".

 DukeRustfield wrote:
If they all followed the same rules, they wouldn't be special rules with their own text.

Poisoned attacks and killing blow DO follow the same principle. I never said they are the same rule.
Poison rolls a 6 to hit so it skips the to wound roll.
KB rolls a 6 to wound so it skips the armour save roll. In addition, if the ward save fails, the model is slayed.
What you've done, is taken the word "slay" and don't understand it just means that all remaining wounds are gone.
It's not a magical property to slay someone, it's a special rule.

In the ethereal text, the fact that it doesn't say that you 're not allowed to make To Hit rolls, doesn't mean you can.
It specifies ethereal creatures can only be wounded by spells, magical attacks and magic weapons.
So in CC if you don't have magical attacks or a magic weapon, you don't get to roll To Hit vs ethereals. You just don't.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
I guess you didn't read the very first post in this thread which brings up the question to begin with. We're not talking about 6's. We're talking about 5's

I talked about 5s on my the start of my post. 5s with KB come into effect only if the To Wound result of a 5 is also successful. That's done. No more discussing that.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
And clearly 6's don't "always wound" because if you have a normal weapon vs. Ethereal it does not.

A 6 in the To Wound roll is always successful provided you got to the To Wound roll by not cheating.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Yeah, because explaining rules is a horrible thing for a rulebook to do. Especially since it would take a whole sentence.

It is a horrible thing to do. And it would take more than a sentence. The rulebook states the rules as simple and clear as possible. It can't cover every possible scenario that comes up.
Killing blow is a rule that works on 6s and 6s are always successful when rolling To Wound, so the sentence to specify that To Wound roll has to be successful for the KB to work is not necessary and thus is not in the rulebook. The fact that the Tomb Kings book decided to have a spell to boost the KB to 5+ is another story. You are supposed to incorporate that into your rulepack as logically as possible.

And btw, I also checked about the phrase "being a douchebag" in game terms. There is no reference of that anywhere, so you are wrong about that too.

Aaaactually, your entire argument hinges on KB requiring a successful roll to wound. It doesn't. The rule states, that on a roll of a 6 you kill something. As does HKB.

Now. Take a Destroyer. If a Bretonnian Lord with a mundane weapon and HKB vow comes up against it, he still can HKB it, even though he wounds it on 7's.

*sigh*

So if a politician is asked to comment on a matter and says "No comments", he actually did comment by your logic.

You're not a politician. These are voluntary forums. He is expected to answer because that is his job. If he is standing there taking questions, that is his specific purpose. If he simply stood there silently, people would think he had a stroke. We, however, are expected not to answer unless we have something to contribute. In fact, that's the forum rules. If everyone responded to every thread they weren't interested in, with some version of, "this is stupid and doesn't interest me," the forums would be completely unusable.

Poisoned attacks and killing blow DO follow the same principle.

There's no such thing as a principle in WHFB for anything to follow. There are special rules with instructions. They follow that and nothing else. It doesn't matter if they are 99.9999% the same. There is a special rule Poisoned Attacks and a special rule Killing Blow. They have no effect on each other at all. None. Zero. The text of Poison can be modified completely in a FAQ and it won't affect KB.

In the ethereal text, the fact that it doesn't say that you 're not allowed to make To Hit rolls, doesn't mean you can.

Yes, it does. Because the BRB gives the rules on that and unless something specifically countermands it, those rules still exist. That's exactly how it works. Nothing says you don't roll to hit. Nothing says you don't roll to wound. The BRB DOES tell you to do those things, however. It is for you to show how those rules are no longer in force. Poison DOESN'T work on Ethereal because it causes a wound. You could still roll to hit and try to poison, and you may even get your 6. It just wouldn't matter because when it goes to apply the wound, it wouldn't work because Ethereal specifically blocks that effect. It does not block KB.

thedarkavenger wrote:Aaaactually, your entire argument hinges on KB requiring a successful roll to wound. It doesn't. The rule states, that on a roll of a 6 you kill something. As does HKB.

Now. Take a Destroyer. If a Bretonnian Lord with a mundane weapon and HKB vow comes up against it, he still can HKB it, even though he wounds it on 7's.

I'm not familiar with every single unit and special rule in warhammer fantasy. Probably about 99% familiar with it. So please kindly point out to me what is a Destroyer, and how is it possible for a To Wound roll to be 7+.

DukeRustfield wrote:You're not a politician. These are voluntary forums. He is expected to answer because that is his job. If he is standing there taking questions, that is his specific purpose. If he simply stood there silently, people would think he had a stroke. We, however, are expected not to answer unless we have something to contribute. In fact, that's the forum rules. If everyone responded to every thread they weren't interested in, with some version of, "this is stupid and doesn't interest me," the forums would be completely unusable.

You are still getting stuck in the wrong words and miss the entire point of a sentence. I merely said politician, I could've said a famous person being chased by paparazzi asked about a scandal. The point is that if they answer "no comment", that means that they didn't comment about that, not that their comment was "no comment".
Also, about the forum rules and contributing to a conversation, each and everyone of us has their own way of illustrating their points and beliefs. I AM contributing when I make a contemptuous comment about something. It makes people realise how I feel about addressing a meaningless argument. If I didn't say anything at all, they wouldn't get that.

I feel bad for the person playing against you in a game, and you claim to be able to kill his ethereal guys with non-magical killing blow.
Or maybe it's not so bad, he can go back with a funny story to tell his mates starting with "you are not going to believe what this IDIOT claimed in a game" (his words, not mine).

I'll end my involvement in this conversation, I don't mind ending up looking like a fool. You probably won this argument. Have fun violating the spirit of the game and giving your butchers/slaughtermasters magic armour.

Shame - your analogy still fails, as in those cases THAT specific person is being asked to answer questions. YOU were NEVER specifically asked a thing.

You simply interjected with a poorly constructed argument based around the concept of "well this word doesnt really mean "slay", it means "wound and lose all wounds" (in essence)

each and everyone of us has their own way of illustrating their points and beliefs. I AM contributing when I make a contemptuous comment

No you're not.

Please refrain from doing so in future.

Thank you.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Now. Take a Destroyer. If a Bretonnian Lord with a mundane weapon and HKB vow comes up against it, he still can HKB it, even though he wounds it on 7's.

So you're using out of studio forge world rules combined with 6th edition rules to explain 8th edition rules?
I'm not disagree with how the RAW works, but with the inability to get FAQ's at all (still waiting on high elves and lizardmen), I'm thinking GW has decided to leave it up to the community to answer questions themselves.
I personally don't know anyone who says, you don't have to successfully wound, you only need to roll to wound meets the requirement to kill an ethereal model. Yeah it's RAW, but it's pretty far from intent.

shame_on_a_playa wrote:

thedarkavenger wrote:Aaaactually, your entire argument hinges on KB requiring a successful roll to wound. It doesn't. The rule states, that on a roll of a 6 you kill something. As does HKB.

Now. Take a Destroyer. If a Bretonnian Lord with a mundane weapon and HKB vow comes up against it, he still can HKB it, even though he wounds it on 7's.

I'm not familiar with every single unit and special rule in warhammer fantasy. Probably about 99% familiar with it. So please kindly point out to me what is a Destroyer, and how is it possible for a To Wound roll to be 7+.

DukeRustfield wrote:You're not a politician. These are voluntary forums. He is expected to answer because that is his job. If he is standing there taking questions, that is his specific purpose. If he simply stood there silently, people would think he had a stroke. We, however, are expected not to answer unless we have something to contribute. In fact, that's the forum rules. If everyone responded to every thread they weren't interested in, with some version of, "this is stupid and doesn't interest me," the forums would be completely unusable.

You are still getting stuck in the wrong words and miss the entire point of a sentence. I merely said politician, I could've said a famous person being chased by paparazzi asked about a scandal. The point is that if they answer "no comment", that means that they didn't comment about that, not that their comment was "no comment".
Also, about the forum rules and contributing to a conversation, each and everyone of us has their own way of illustrating their points and beliefs. I AM contributing when I make a contemptuous comment about something. It makes people realise how I feel about addressing a meaningless argument. If I didn't say anything at all, they wouldn't get that.

I feel bad for the person playing against you in a game, and you claim to be able to kill his ethereal guys with non-magical killing blow.
Or maybe it's not so bad, he can go back with a funny story to tell his mates starting with "you are not going to believe what this IDIOT claimed in a game" (his words, not mine).

I'll end my involvement in this conversation, I don't mind ending up looking like a fool. You probably won this argument. Have fun violating the spirit of the game and giving your butchers/slaughtermasters magic armour.

Destroyer has a -1 to wound penalty.

But is that not countered by the "a natural 6 is always a wound", much like they faqd a to wound of 1 as always failing?

 japehlio wrote:
But is that not countered by the "a natural 6 is always a wound", much like they faqd a to wound of 1 as always failing?

It's not contradicting the rulebook. Just like a natural roll of a 6 for poisoned is an automatic wound, but if you hit on 7s, poisoned is counteracted.

As such, we follow the rules for wounding on 7s, of which there are none, so under the rules(Which may have changed, I don't know. I only keep up to date with real armies), it's impossible to wound it at that point, except for HKB.

ooh, a red letter warning - gak just got real!

@dark avenger:
I still don't know what a destroyer is. What armybook does he come from?

@everyone who thinks KB without magical attacks can kill ethereal models:
You are basing this opinion using RAW reference from the book, and I tried to contradict you using RAI logic.
Actually, RAW, I mean really RAW, you are wrong.
*ethereal creatures can only be wounded by spells, magical attacks and magic weapons or effects.*
The phrase "can be wounded" is not a rule in itself, it doesn't mean "can suffer a wound on its profile", it just means "can be harmed" or "can be damaged", it's just an English phrase with a given meaning.
So, by misreading the rules for ethereals and spotting that a KB does not "wound" but instead slays, you conclude that an Ethereal fella can be slayed, as if "wounded" is not included in slaying.

Like if I said, "you cannot ever take a bite off this banana" and you go "ok, I'll just eat it whole then". That's a nice way around it. Congratulations.

I'm the biggest supporter of RAW, I call upon RAW whenever some monkey business is tried by my oppenent. "I think they meant this or that", I go "I don't care, read what it fething says here!"

I've been scouring warhammer forums for months, I don't work so I'm at home a lot, and I've never felt the need to register anywhere until the moment that someone claimed that KB can kill ethereal.
That was so outrageous to me I fell upwards out of my chair. So I had to register to speak my mind.
The fact that still this DukeRustfield guy thinks he is right makes me think he is a troll.
His avatar looks like a troll anyhow, but I've seen his posts around a lot, and I've never seen him exhibit a trolling behaviour, so I'm confused.

Finally, as a show of good faith, I will search the entire rulebook and every armybook I have, hoping to find anything that causes damages or harms someone.
I'll report it here so you'll have more things to "harm" and "damage" ethereal creatures. You won't be wounding them however, that's illegal.

A destroyer is the monster from Chaos Dwarfs.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
A destroyer is the monster from Chaos Dwarfs.

Thank you. I do not own their book and don't have access to it.
I refuse to download anything. I've never done it and never will.
I hate players coming to tournaments with printed out books, claiming they've printed from their own copy right before their dog ate it.

shame_on_a_playa wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
A destroyer is the monster from Chaos Dwarfs.

Thank you. I do not own their book and don't have access to it.
I refuse to download anything. I've never done it and never will.
I hate players coming to tournaments with printed out books, claiming they've printed from their own copy right before their dog ate it.

To be fair. It's A) Massive, and B) £45, C) You only want a small part of it, and D) It's not a real army.

I personally don't know anyone who says, you don't have to successfully wound, you only need to roll to wound meets the requirement to kill an ethereal model. Yeah it's RAW, but it's pretty far from intent.

You know them on this board at least. Which seems to be nearly everyone. I don't think it's far from intent at all. Within the BRB there are multiple ways to destroy units that don't just involve causing wounds. So it's not like some army book simply invented this after the BRB made its basic rules. They already state even within the special rule itself you can lose in combat to mundane troops. So the fact they have a banner and a lot of guys picking their noses (unable to directly hurt the enemy) is potentially enough to trump Ethereal--as if that makes a lot of sense. So a bunch of ghosts who KNOW they can't be hurt by an infinite number of these enemies can still "lose" simply by their existence and whether they are standing on a hill and such. Clearly this rule does not make them invulnerable gods and even the most feeble, blind, crippled, units in the game can triumph. So if you want to get RAI, a the worst units can win using situations that make no difference to Ethereals who can't be directly injured, so why not the (arguably) most powerful attacks in the game?

shame_on_a_playa wrote:
I'll end my involvement in this conversation

Guess you can't even read your own writing let alone the rulebooks.

The phrase "can be wounded" is not a rule in itself, it doesn't mean "can suffer a wound on its profile", it just means "can be harmed" or "can be damaged", it's just an English phrase with a given meaning.

Lol. Now you're just trolling. "Wounded" has an exact, unbelievably specific meaning in the game. If you are going to broaden it to the entirety of the English language, the game ceases to exist. Because hit and stomp and fly and attack and move have many synonyms and uses outside of the game context. But we aren't writing poetry. We are playing inside a game universe. Ethereal means tinkly translucent shimmering. So by your logic, none of the special rules in the BRB exist and models with Ethereal just look pretty and ghostly.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

shame_on_a_playa wrote:
I'll end my involvement in this conversation

Guess you can't even read your own writing let alone the rulebooks.

I don't have to read or abide by my own writing. I am not a rulebook.

Let me ask you this, when calculating combat res, do you get +1 for each wound inflicted if you killed ethereal models with killing blow?
You didn't inflict any wounds, you just slayed them, 2 completely different things by what you're saying.
If you get the combat res, then it means you inflicted wounds, but ethereal models can't suffer wounds from non-magical attacks, but you did slay them.

Don't you see how ridiculous this gets?
More correctly put, don't you see you ridiculous you're making it?

I'm not giving an answer for either side here, but upon rereading the KB entry, I saw the phrase; "Note that if a Killing Blow attack wounds automatically, then the USR does not come into play."

Does that not have some vague implication that successful wounding comes into it?

I fully accept that the wording of the rule itself does not reference wounding in any way, but I just thought to bring that up, as I didn't pay massive attention to that old thread, and it was a while ago.

AS I ORIGINALLY SAID

this is an issue that is unclear and really needs an FAQ, and in the interim should be discussed pre-game with your opponent.

We'll go 'round and 'round for pages and ages over it, rehashing the same arguments, but the one thing that is clear is that there is NO clear answer.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
I'm not giving an answer for either side here, but upon rereading the KB entry, I saw the phrase; "Note that if a Killing Blow attack wounds automatically, then the USR does not come into play."

Does that not have some vague implication that successful wounding comes into it?

No, actually, the opposite. If they said: note that if KB attacks can't wound the target or always wounds, then USR does not come into play.

Then you would have a direct requirement of successful wounding ability. And it would cover Ethereal. Just that small change. As it stands, if you wound automatically, but aren't magic, then you can't KB OR wound Ethereal.

KB is supposed to have a 1/6th chance of going off. It's a very powerful ability. They are using the wound roll as a trigger. If you always wounded KB would be insanely powerful if it functioned 100% of the time and armies that could combine such abilities would really go out of their way to build splattering KB masters--not sure if anyone can make it. I think they were a bit lazy, really. You could still roll for KB even on auto-wound, but I think they simply wanted to cut down on rolls.

You figure if KB was an Army Book special rule instead of a BRB one, they would have you roll separately. But because it's a standard rule, they combined it with one of the existing game mechanics.

 Vulcan wrote:
AS I ORIGINALLY SAID

this is an issue that is unclear and really needs an FAQ, and in the interim should be discussed pre-game with your opponent.

We'll go 'round and 'round for pages and ages over it, rehashing the same arguments, but the one thing that is clear is that there is NO clear answer.

I agree that it needs to be discussed with your opponent and this just goes round and round.
I believe that the answer is very clear, those that disagree just refuse to agree when logic shows the answer so it does get rehashed.
The original thread was terrible.
I guess it does need a FAQ just to close it.

I'll give you a FAQ.

Q: Does an attack with Killing Blow that works on a 5+ still needs to successfully wound for the Killing Blow effect to come into play?
A: Duh, yes. Obviously.

Q: Does Killing Blow work on Ethereal models if it isn't accompanied with magical attacks?
A: No, that would be mental.


DukeRustfield, care to answer this? Perhaps you didn't read it in my previous post so I'll repost the same question:

shame_on_a_playa wrote:
Let me ask you this, when calculating combat res, do you get +1 for each wound inflicted if you killed ethereal models with killing blow?
You didn't inflict any wounds, you just slayed them, 2 completely different things by what you're saying.
If you get the combat res, then it means you inflicted wounds, but ethereal models can't suffer wounds from non-magical attacks, but you did slay them.

shame_on_a_playa wrote:
I'll give you a FAQ.

Q: Does an attack with Killing Blow that works on a 5+ still needs to successfully wound for the Killing Blow effect to come into play?
A: Duh, yes. Obviously.

Q: Does Killing Blow work on Ethereal models if it isn't accompanied with magical attacks?

Here's a FAQ for you:

Q: Can you make your own FAQ up?
A: Duh, no. Obviously.

shame_on_a_playa wrote:
I'll give you a FAQ.

Q: Does an attack with Killing Blow that works on a 5+ still needs to successfully wound for the Killing Blow effect to come into play?
A: Duh, yes. Obviously.

Q: Does Killing Blow work on Ethereal models if it isn't accompanied with magical attacks?
A: No, that would be mental.


DukeRustfield, care to answer this? Perhaps you didn't read it in my previous post so I'll repost the same question:

shame_on_a_playa wrote:
Let me ask you this, when calculating combat res, do you get +1 for each wound inflicted if you killed ethereal models with killing blow?
You didn't inflict any wounds, you just slayed them, 2 completely different things by what you're saying.
If you get the combat res, then it means you inflicted wounds, but ethereal models can't suffer wounds from non-magical attacks, but you did slay them.

Haha.
I have always believed that killing blow wounds. There really is no reason to come to the conclusion it doesn't.
Following logic, proper sentence structure, premise, conclusion etc killing blow wounds but there are those that disagree.
Like I said, the original thread was huge and never really went anywhere.
Although at risk of things going crazy you do bring up a point that I don't remember if it was addressed..

For those that think KB doesn't wound here's your situation..
Your unit has 1 rank, and standard with 5+ KB in effect.
You face 3 ranks and standard.
Opponent attack rolls poorly, 2 wounds.
You have the 5+ kb in effect.. You roll great you roll to wound and roll 3 fives and 3 sixes.
Since some claim KB doesn't wound, it slays, you just lost combat by 4 instead of winning by 2.
This is how you play right?
You aren't getting any benefit from KB. In fact it is hurting you in combat for every 6 you roll.

Good trade to hurt ethereal creatures, I think not.

Since some claim KB doesn't wound, it slays, you just lost combat by 4 instead of winning by 2.

Combat Resolution already states that attacks that slay outright count as causing all the remaining wounds the model has. KB cannot be a disadvantage in combat resolution. Again, right there in the rules.

There really is no reason to come to the conclusion it doesn't.

The reason is something called RAW. For a rule to do something, it has to do say it does something. Poison tells you it wounds. Impact Hits tell you they cause Hits. Stomp/Thunderstomp cause hits. KB says none of that. It "automatically slays his opponent." That's it. It doesn't say it causes a Hit. It doesn't say it causes Frenzy. It doesn't say it grants Stupidity. It doesn't say you have to take a Break Test. It doesn't say it causes a wound or requires a wound. You can try and infer those things as much as you like, but it's not in the rules. Again, those saying it slays without wounding and without requiring a successful wound, have the rules as proof. The printed, book-smacking rules.

Multi-wound is an example of what you're talking about (as is Poison). It cannot function without causing a wound. You can totally roll to hit. You can roll to wound. But if there isn't an unsaved wound caused, because of armor, ward, regen, Ethereal, Special Rule, then there is nothing to multiply. The Special Rule fails. It's In The Rules that it doesn't work. We can take our fingers and put it on the exact sentence that makes that true. You can't say the same for your position, and have to use fluffy speech like, "doesn't make sense," and "no reason why." Maybe. But it's RAW.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

Since some claim KB doesn't wound, it slays, you just lost combat by 4 instead of winning by 2.

Combat Resolution already states that attacks that slay outright count as causing all the remaining wounds the model has. KB cannot be a disadvantage in combat resolution. Again, right there in the rules.

There really is no reason to come to the conclusion it doesn't.

The reason is something called RAW. For a rule to do something, it has to do say it does something. Poison tells you it wounds. Impact Hits tell you they cause Hits. Stomp/Thunderstomp cause hits. KB says none of that. It "automatically slays his opponent." That's it. It doesn't say it causes a Hit. It doesn't say it causes Frenzy. It doesn't say it grants Stupidity. It doesn't say you have to take a Break Test. It doesn't say it causes a wound or requires a wound. You can try and infer those things as much as you like, but it's not in the rules. Again, those saying it slays without wounding and without requiring a successful wound, have the rules as proof. The printed, book-smacking rules.

Multi-wound is an example of what you're talking about (as is Poison). It cannot function without causing a wound. You can totally roll to hit. You can roll to wound. But if there isn't an unsaved wound caused, because of armor, ward, regen, Ethereal, Special Rule, then there is nothing to multiply. The Special Rule fails. It's In The Rules that it doesn't work. We can take our fingers and put it on the exact sentence that makes that true. You can't say the same for your position, and have to use fluffy speech like, "doesn't make sense," and "no reason why." Maybe. But it's RAW.

Ooops, forgot that the rulebook states you count all the wounds from the model. Oh well inconsequential.

Trying not to rehash old arguments, I really should just drop it all but what the heck..
'Slays' is fluffy.
Since RAW is supposed to be defining..

1. What page of the rulebook describes 'slays'? And what does it say about slaying? Can I find it in the index?
2. How do you determine whether or not you wound when attacking?
3. How does a model not take a wound?
4. How does your roll of 6 invalidate the successful wound?

1. What page of the rulebook describes 'slays'? And what does it say about slaying? Can I find it in the index?
2. How do you determine whether or not you wound when attacking?
3. How does a model not take a wound?
4. How does your roll of 6 invalidate the successful wound?

If slay is fluffy a whole lot of abilities are fluff. Like the mega spells that cease to work. DOOOOOM isn't in the BRB index either...

1. under combat resolution and KB itself
2. the same place where you determine whether you start to fly and gain random movement when you attack: if it doesn't say you do, you don't
3. because slain models are slain and cannot be slain any more
4. because the KB rule is activated immediately on rolling a 6 on the table. This goes back to specific rule vs. general rule. If general rules overrode specific rules, then specific rules would never come into play. I.e., if 6 automatically wounded, as you state, you would never get an armor save, never get a ward save, never get an Ethereal save, never get a regen save, because 6 Automatically Wounds. But those specific, special rules clearly interrupt the general rule of 6 being instant success.

KB tells you exactly what happens when it happens: "if a model...rolls a 6 to wound...he automatically slays..." Per #3 above, there is no aftermath. The enemy model is slain. He can't get double-slain. (Though he can take a ward save.) If you don't roll a 6, the special rule doesn't do jack and the BRB combat order functions as normal. And we know this because it doesn't say otherwise. That's what RAW means. You do what it tells you to do.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

1. What page of the rulebook describes 'slays'? And what does it say about slaying? Can I find it in the index?
2. How do you determine whether or not you wound when attacking?
3. How does a model not take a wound?
4. How does your roll of 6 invalidate the successful wound?

If slay is fluffy a whole lot of abilities are fluff. Like the mega spells that cease to work. DOOOOOM isn't in the BRB index either...

1. under combat resolution and KB itself
2. the same place where you determine whether you start to fly and gain random movement when you attack: if it doesn't say you do, you don't
3. because slain models are slain and cannot be slain any more
4. because the KB rule is activated immediately on rolling a 6 on the table. This goes back to specific rule vs. general rule. If general rules overrode specific rules, then specific rules would never come into play. I.e., if 6 automatically wounded, as you state, you would never get an armor save, never get a ward save, never get an Ethereal save, never get a regen save, because 6 Automatically Wounds. But those specific, special rules clearly interrupt the general rule of 6 being instant success.

KB tells you exactly what happens when it happens: "if a model...rolls a 6 to wound...he automatically slays..." Per #3 above, there is no aftermath. The enemy model is slain. He can't get double-slain. (Though he can take a ward save.) If you don't roll a 6, the special rule doesn't do jack and the BRB combat order functions as normal. And we know this because it doesn't say otherwise. That's what RAW means. You do what it tells you to do.

You are correct. Doooom...is not in the book. But remove the model as a casualty is.
Let's try to do this without the lengthy hyperbole.
1. And in combat resolution, what has caused the model to be slain?
2. You didn't really answer #2, but I will help. You know you have wounded a model by your roll to wound. Your roll to wound is a pass or fail result.
3. And how are you defining slain models that can not be slain anymore? What rule am I referencing?
Ah this is all so familiar....
4. A 6 wounds. that's the purpose of rolling to wound. to pass or fail. you pass you take saves if you can. you fail you do not roll saves.
So when do you apply this auto death? Immediately after your 6? What if it is a monster? Remember you have to do what you are told and it must apply in all situations equally.

1. And in combat resolution, what has caused the model to be slain?
2. You didn't really answer #2, but I will help. You know you have wounded a model by your roll to wound. Your roll to wound is a pass or fail result.
3. And how are you defining slain models that can not be slain anymore? What rule am I referencing?
Ah this is all so familiar....
4. A 6 wounds. that's the purpose of rolling to wound. to pass or fail. you pass you take saves if you can. you fail you do not roll saves.
So when do you apply this auto death? Immediately after your 6? What if it is a monster? Remember you have to do what you are told and it must apply in all situations equally.

1. Where it say slay...have you actually read any of the BRB? It says it right there in KB. The special rule caused it. It was so kind as to even say so.
2. The roll to wound is irrelevant. If you need a 50 to wound wound or a -5 it doesn't change the rules of KB which state if you roll a natural 6, this following text happens. It doesn't mention anything about what you need to wound or wounding or failing to wound or succeeding to wound. Therefore, it doesn't matter.

Rules are often interrupted in WFB. One offhand is charging Fanatics. All of a sudden your move/charge is interrupted and the player who has already moved (or not moved yet) makes an out-of-sequence move. Much like stand and shoot charge reaction. Or flee reaction. Or panic. Or dispelling an enemy spell. If you can get your head around these concepts, you can get your head around other rules being interrupted. It happens constantly.

3. Slain is used throughout the book. You are free to look around. It is a synonym for 0 wounds. Remove Casualties mentions slain models in its very first sentence. If there is no such thing as slain (as, amazingly, you seem to be implying) then the entire game ceases to exist as nothing can die. It is one of the most basic principles in combat. Look up combat and start reading. You will encounter the word slay/slain multiple times. It's under war machines, spells, etc. It is all through the BRB. I can assure you, it is "a thing." If slain models are still in play, the game no longer works I'm afraid and it's just models moving and rolling dice for no apparent reason.
4. A six doesn't "do" anything. A six is a roll on a die. A roll on a die only has significance when applied to rules. KB says if you happen to be rolling on a chart and a 6 comes up, you Do This. The do this happens to slay the target that meets the requirements. It is absolutely pointless if it's a monster or a marshmallow, the rule exists in its entirety. It's not as if you have a set time to read the rule out loud as you're rolling. The rule works quite fine and in all cases.

Again, all of this is in black and white in the BRB. You've not shown one word that proves otherwise. So let's try it in reverse.

1. Where does it say KB needs to successfully (or even unsuccessfully) wound in order to work?
1a. If you can't successfully wound because of extenuating circumstances (mundane weapon vs. Ethereal) where does it say you are not allowed to roll to hit/wound? Do your troops just stand there KNOWING they can't hurt a ghost and thus don't bother? Lazy bastards.
2. Where does it say Ethereal blocks KB or instant death effects that do not cause wounds?
3. Where DOESN'T KB say it kills your entire army just by putting the model on the table? <-you seem to be looking for the lack of rules as proof that random rules exist, so I'll throw this one out there

 DukeRustfield wrote:

1. And in combat resolution, what has caused the model to be slain?
2. You didn't really answer #2, but I will help. You know you have wounded a model by your roll to wound. Your roll to wound is a pass or fail result.
3. And how are you defining slain models that can not be slain anymore? What rule am I referencing?
Ah this is all so familiar....
4. A 6 wounds. that's the purpose of rolling to wound. to pass or fail. you pass you take saves if you can. you fail you do not roll saves.
So when do you apply this auto death? Immediately after your 6? What if it is a monster? Remember you have to do what you are told and it must apply in all situations equally.

1. Where it say slay...have you actually read any of the BRB? It says it right there in KB. The special rule caused it. It was so kind as to even say so.
2. The roll to wound is irrelevant. If you need a 50 to wound wound or a -5 it doesn't change the rules of KB which state if you roll a natural 6, this following text happens. It doesn't mention anything about what you need to wound or wounding or failing to wound or succeeding to wound. Therefore, it doesn't matter.

Rules are often interrupted in WFB. One offhand is charging Fanatics. All of a sudden your move/charge is interrupted and the player who has already moved (or not moved yet) makes an out-of-sequence move. Much like stand and shoot charge reaction. Or flee reaction. Or panic. Or dispelling an enemy spell. If you can get your head around these concepts, you can get your head around other rules being interrupted. It happens constantly.

3. Slain is used throughout the book. You are free to look around. It is a synonym for 0 wounds. Remove Casualties mentions slain models in its very first sentence. If there is no such thing as slain (as, amazingly, you seem to be implying) then the entire game ceases to exist as nothing can die. It is one of the most basic principles in combat. Look up combat and start reading. You will encounter the word slay/slain multiple times. It's under war machines, spells, etc. It is all through the BRB. I can assure you, it is "a thing." If slain models are still in play, the game no longer works I'm afraid and it's just models moving and rolling dice for no apparent reason.
4. A six doesn't "do" anything. A six is a roll on a die. A roll on a die only has significance when applied to rules. KB says if you happen to be rolling on a chart and a 6 comes up, you Do This. The do this happens to slay the target that meets the requirements. It is absolutely pointless if it's a monster or a marshmallow, the rule exists in its entirety. It's not as if you have a set time to read the rule out loud as you're rolling. The rule works quite fine and in all cases.

Again, all of this is in black and white in the BRB. You've not shown one word that proves otherwise. So let's try it in reverse.

1. Where does it say KB needs to successfully (or even unsuccessfully) wound in order to work?
1a. If you can't successfully wound because of extenuating circumstances (mundane weapon vs. Ethereal) where does it say you are not allowed to roll to hit/wound? Do your troops just stand there KNOWING they can't hurt a ghost and thus don't bother? Lazy bastards.
2. Where does it say Ethereal blocks KB or instant death effects that do not cause wounds?
3. Where DOESN'T KB say it kills your entire army just by putting the model on the table? <-you seem to be looking for the lack of rules as proof that random rules exist, so I'll throw this one out there

1.Yep, it says slain. so KB causes slain?. and what does it mean to be slain? To have zero wounds. How do you get to zero wounds? If you did not cause wounds to remove them?
2. Why did the roll to wound become irrelevant when that was the purpose of the roll. You aren't rolling to KB. You are rolling to wound and if it is a 6 you slay regardless of the number of wounds. The inference is that however many wounds you have you now have zero. A special rule that removes all wounds on a single roll to wound of 6.
Rules are often interrupted. And then the process continues unless you are told to stop. If something changes you are told to do something different. You have no permission to exit the wounding portion with this interruption.
3. Exactly. Slain is a synonym for zero wounds. I am not implying that slain doesn't exist. I am stating it does not exist on it's own. You either slay, by reaching zero wounds or you are simply removed as a casualty/removed from play.
4. Correct. the six is applied to rules. in order. with or without interruption.
So it comes time to roll...you are rolling to wound...now you are going to apply that roll to the chart you are committed to that chart, You will wound or not. a six on the proper model triggers killing blow which slays the model removes all wounds from the model, hence "regardless of the number of wounds".
The rule does work fine. There is just no evidence, other than attempts at symantics, to imply that the word 'slain' somehow shows that wounds suddenly do not count.
What evidence do you have to suddenly ignore wounds when you are in the process of wounding.?

Interrupted rules continue as they are. Do you get to stop charging because of Fanatics? When your charge is interrupted by a flee, does your charge stop? It can, because you have permission. When your spell get's dispelled, you continue your casting and discard your dice. Look at your own examples.
You are in the wounding process. You haven't been given permission to stop your process and not to take away wounds, you have been given permission to take them all.

1. It does not say you have to be un/successful. It says on a roll of 6..... Where does it say that you do not cause wounds? What were you in process of doing when you rolled that 6 again?
Your assumption lacks credibility because you are already in the 'rolling to wound' process. Which is most likely? you rolled to wound, with a chance to make wounds irrelevant, or you rolled to wound with a chance to remove all wounds?
1a. Okay, roll. What is the sole purpose of rolling to hit/wound? And when you roll to wound, what will happen? You will be successful or not. even with special circumstances.
2. Ethereal does not have relevance because our discussion is still trying to establish whether or not wounds are caused
3. pointless hyperbole.
You accuse me of using lack of rules, yet I am not lacking in rules. I am following the processes as instructed.
You are discounting the process that you are in. Adding rules/ideas where there are none.

1. It does not say you have to be un/successful.
2. [it doesn't]

This is all I read.

text removed.

Reds8n

This post contained a heavily rude insult about the member DukeRustfield.

You're the one being dense here. You're arguing for an incorrect point with non-existent rules, and claiming that anyone who posts any evidence on the contrary is wrong.

If you were to post valid evidence that may prove your point, we might start accepting you as anything other than a troll, but until then, good luck.

Well, I tried to head it off....

 DukeRustfield wrote:

1. It does not say you have to be un/successful.
2. [it doesn't]

This is all I read.

Sounds about right.
If that's all you read it will grant you the answer you seek.
You have yet to explain why you suddenly discount the wounds that you were already in the process of rolling for. It has never told you to stop wounding.
The simplest way to describe this is your '6' is all the wounds. Therefore still wounds. And a model slain.

But congratulations. You have made your point.

You have yet to explain why you suddenly discount the wounds that you were already in the process of rolling for. It has never told you to stop wounding.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or just want to argue for no reason. The rules state exactly what to do.

1. roll to wound
2. 6
3. SLAY
4. Ward Save (if any)
5. Remove Casualties at end of combat phase where they specifically mentioned "slain models."

That's it. The BRB says that exactly.

The attacking model might have a rule that the target model is -1 to S, that it suffers from Stupidity, that it must take an T test or die. None of it can take effect, however, because the model is slain. Per the earliest of early combat pages we know what slain is. It is dead and subject to Remove Casualties. It's a casualty. Read all the spells and war machines and combat sections that say slain/slay. Is that simply not a word to you? If it's not, as I said, then nothing can ever be removed from the table because it is the condition that is required to be met for removal.

If you can still wound slain models, then nothing can ever step-up. They just sit there dying over and over and over again.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

You have yet to explain why you suddenly discount the wounds that you were already in the process of rolling for. It has never told you to stop wounding.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or just want to argue for no reason. The rules state exactly what to do.

1. roll to wound
2. 6
3. SLAY
4. Ward Save (if any)
5. Remove Casualties at end of combat phase where they specifically mentioned "slain models."

That's it. The BRB says that exactly.

The attacking model might have a rule that the target model is -1 to S, that it suffers from Stupidity, that it must take an T test or die. None of it can take effect, however, because the model is slain. Per the earliest of early combat pages we know what slain is. It is dead and subject to Remove Casualties. It's a casualty. Read all the spells and war machines and combat sections that say slain/slay. Is that simply not a word to you? If it's not, as I said, then nothing can ever be removed from the table because it is the condition that is required to be met for removal.

If you can still wound slain models, then nothing can ever step-up. They just sit there dying over and over and over again.

Disagreement is not trolling. You believe yourself correct, as do I.
You have nothing to base your ruling on other than the singular term 'slay/slain.'
There are 2 way models are removed from the table. zero wounds and when you are instructed to. As in Dwellers below when you are told to remove as a casualty. Slay is not the verb it is the Adjective for one of the 2 situations.
Your example...
1. roll to wound
2. 6
3. SLAY (you forgot - regardless of the number of wounds.) They have already given you the relevance of wounds by the whole process by placing it with the roll to wound, yet but you are choosing to bypass wounds.
4. Ward Save (if any)
5. Remove Casualties at end of combat phase where they specifically mentioned "slain models."

This is all based on #3...
On your number 3...how is your model slain? Every time slain is used it is in conjunction with a game action. Once again, zero wounds or remove from play. You cannot look up 'slay/slain' in the index.
There is no rule to support slay.
So what determines a model being slain?
Your quote..
..... Per the earliest of early combat pages we know what slain is. It is dead and subject to Remove Casualties. It's a casualty. Read all the spells and war machines and combat sections that say slain/slay. Is that simply not a word to you? If it's not, as I said, then nothing can ever be removed from the table because it is the condition that is required to be met for removal.

I am aware of what a slain model is. I am trying to figure out why you believe that you just stop wounding when that is what you are attempting to do.
And the same question stands...
How do I determine what a slain model is?
I have never claimed that slain does not exist. Reread what I have said and you have said. Slain is a synonym for a dead model, a casualty. And how does a model go from being alive and active participant to this 'slain' status?
As stated before, standard game process would imply that once you are rolling to wound, if a rule is taking place in this sub phase that is it's relevance.
The basis of your argument is based around a single word that cannot be verified in the rulebook as nothing more than a decription. If the word was changed to bubblegum, you would have to determine what 'bubblegum' is.
You cannot still wound slain models because you have removed all of their wounds for them to become slain.
There is nothing to imply that KB does not cause wounds.

You dont "stop wounding" - a process interrupts the normal to-wound -> roll saves -> remove model process.

It replaces this process, on a 6, with a separate process. You do not have a wound, you have a process to follow. This process slays the model, telling you to count any remaining wounds solely for combat res purposes - the model never actually "loses" those wounds, otherwise it would not need counts as, it would be "is"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You dont "stop wounding" - a process interrupts the normal to-wound -> roll saves -> remove model process.

It replaces this process, on a 6, with a separate process. You do not have a wound, you have a process to follow. This process slays the model, telling you to count any remaining wounds solely for combat res purposes - the model never actually "loses" those wounds, otherwise it would not need counts as, it would be "is"

You are changing the rules though. You have already rolled to wound.
It is not replacing, it is modifying. It is quite simply a multiplier....all the wounds on the profile.
How does it not lose the wounds.?
No one has explained why it is no longer a wound..?
No one has argued that you need roll a 6. No one has argued that the end result is a dead model.
The question remains what proof do you have that it magically doesn't count as a 'wound'?
The fact is you have already rolled to wound. You have nothing to imply that the 'wound' is now discounted, ignored.
There is no logical or fluffy reason for it not to cause 'wounds'.
I can't find slay in the index so the same question..
What determines a slain model..?

I can't find slay in the index so the same question..

This is, frankly, asinine. The index and table of contents aren't rules. Quite a few rules do not exist in either, probably about half of them, as you would increase the book size substantially.

What determines a slain model..?

Again, you want there to be something else other than slay. Slay is the end result you are told to make. It doesn't tell you to do anything else and therefore you have to give proof why you would be required to do anything.

P. 44 has a box on Instant Kills.
"Some Special Attacks don't inflict wounds but require models to be removed as casualties...the number wounds on the victim's profile is completely irrelevant--just remove the model from play..."

 DukeRustfield wrote:

I can't find slay in the index so the same question..

This is, frankly, asinine. The index and table of contents aren't rules. Quite a few rules do not exist in either, probably about half of them, as you would increase the book size substantially.

What determines a slain model..?

Again, you want there to be something else other than slay. Slay is the end result you are told to make. It doesn't tell you to do anything else and therefore you have to give proof why you would be required to do anything.

No the index aren't rules. They direct you to the pages where the rules are. Where you find the particular mechanic of the game. You believe half the rules are not found in the index? This is rhetorical because to answer this would drift off topic. If you really believe that there are rules not listed, that could explain your trouble.

No I don't want there to be something other than slay. I want you to stick to the process of wounding and wounds. As I have stated repeatedly, I have never dismissed the slaying of the model...through removing all its wounds.
You want there to be some magic happenstance where suddenly 'wounds' don't count. That the action within the roll to wound, suddenly, causes no wounds.
You are still unable to explain why you have no wounds other than being caught up on the word slay/slain.
Find an explanation that eradicates wounds.
Slay does not work as slay is not a rule, and cannot be proof upon itself.
Slay is the end result. The result of your dice rolls, removing wounds and slaying. That is how it works. Always.
If slay is the best you can come up with we will just have to agree to disagree.

P. 44 has a box on Instant Kills.
"Some Special Attacks don't inflict wounds but require models to be removed as casualties...the number wounds on the victim's profile is completely irrelevant--just remove the model from play..."

Yes there are special attacks. And they say remove from play, or remove as a casualty and involve a dice roll other than to wound.
KB states regardless of the number of wounds so it has once again shown the relevance of wounds.

You have avoided the questions, instead focusing on the rulebook and the word slay.

Answer the questions or admit you can't.

How does it not lose the wounds.? Other than 'because you 'slay', because it is a description
Explain why it is no longer a wound..? Other than 'because you 'slay', because it is a description
The question remains what proof do you have that it magically doesn't count as a 'wound'? Other than 'because you 'slay',
What determines a slain model..?

.(edit to improve grammar)

Again, it's not a modification but a new process

Your made up gak that it is a multiplier is just that, made up.

You ignore that it's a counts as losing wounds, presumably because it destroys any argument you had.

It never causes wounds. You cannot point to any actual rules, so rely in hyperbole.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, it's not a modification but a new process
Your made up gak that it is a multiplier is just that, made up.
You ignore that it's a counts as losing wounds, presumably because it destroys any argument you had.
It never causes wounds. You cannot point to any actual rules, so rely in hyperbole.

Ok, so Vampire Lord with red fury has heroic killing blow from a sphinx.
He hits a rank and file model, rolls a 6 to wound, and do not get a bonus attack, because no wound was inflicted?

-Matt

I don't know how the new undead rules work so I'll guess that's somehow able to be done.

But yes.

Life Leeching from Lore of Death gives a specific instruction on what to do with models slain by Purple Sun. If it was just a standard wound death you would already know.

Even if you don't want to use something like this^ as an example, as has been stated numerous times, a wound is never caused because a wound is never stated to be caused. The model IS said to be slain and you can't do anything to slain models except maybe resurrect them from death. But they're dead as soon as it says slay. That's quite clear.

There are abilities that specifically protect against wounds, like Banner of the World Dragon. Does it now protect against slay? That's a rather large expansion. Likewise WoC Soul Feeder triggers on unsaved wounds and WoC Sword of Change requires a slain character. But those are all clearly different events. There are abilities that trigger on slay--Skill Swallower in Doc (Whenever the Damon slays an enemy character). There are abilities that trigger on wound in DoC (At the end of any phase in which the Daemon causes one or more unsaved wounds in CC). And of course the spells are all about causing unsaved wounds.

You can totally argue that it's not RAI for KB to not count as inflicting wounds after the fact. But it certainly isn't RAW. No rule mechanism exists for it as it stands. It would have to be a single attack with a special rule Multi-Wound (Enemy Model's Current Wounds), no armor saves, no regen saves, etc . If they wanted to do that, they could have made that. I did it in a sentence and it would be clear exactly what it did.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, it's not a modification but a new process

Your made up gak that it is a multiplier is just that, made up.

You ignore that it's a counts as losing wounds, presumably because it destroys any argument you had.

It never causes wounds. You cannot point to any actual rules, so rely in hyperbole.

Really?
So rolling to wound and applying the result (for the roll that you just made) into all the wounds on the profile is hyperbole? Yet discounting the roll to wound, that you just used to generate your result, is not?
You weren't asked to roll to KB. YOu were asked to roll to wound.
I can point to a rule. It's called rolling to wound.
Where is your rule that discounts that the roll? Other than 'slay' because you don't have a rule for that.
Why do you continue to refuse to answer the questions if your argument is so concrete?
Answer my questions or say you can't

 Throt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, it's not a modification but a new process

Your made up gak that it is a multiplier is just that, made up.

You ignore that it's a counts as losing wounds, presumably because it destroys any argument you had.

It never causes wounds. You cannot point to any actual rules, so rely in hyperbole.

Really?
So rolling to wound and applying the result (for the roll that you just made) into all the wounds on the profile is hyperbole? Yet discounting the roll to wound, that you just used to generate your result, is not?
You weren't asked to roll to KB. YOu were asked to roll to wound.
I can point to a rule. It's called rolling to wound.
Where is your rule that discounts that the roll? Other than 'slay' because you don't have a rule for that.
Why do you continue to refuse to answer the questions if your argument is so concrete?
Answer my questions or say you can't

No. On the roll of a 6 to wound, you apply the effect of killing blow, INSTEAD of normal wounding.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Throt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, it's not a modification but a new process

Your made up gak that it is a multiplier is just that, made up.

You ignore that it's a counts as losing wounds, presumably because it destroys any argument you had.

It never causes wounds. You cannot point to any actual rules, so rely in hyperbole.

Really?
So rolling to wound and applying the result (for the roll that you just made) into all the wounds on the profile is hyperbole? Yet discounting the roll to wound, that you just used to generate your result, is not?
You weren't asked to roll to KB. YOu were asked to roll to wound.
I can point to a rule. It's called rolling to wound.
Where is your rule that discounts that the roll? Other than 'slay' because you don't have a rule for that.
Why do you continue to refuse to answer the questions if your argument is so concrete?
Answer my questions or say you can't

No. On the roll of a 6 to wound, you apply the effect of killing blow, INSTEAD of normal wounding.

Fine. But this is no example to even imply that it is not wounds. Just as a D6 multiplier is not the normal wounding process. yet it still counts as wounds.
There is nothing to suggest that NO wounds are caused.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
I don't know how the new undead rules work so I'll guess that's somehow able to be done.

But yes.

Life Leeching from Lore of Death gives a specific instruction on what to do with models slain by Purple Sun. If it was just a standard wound death you would already know.

Even if you don't want to use something like this^ as an example, as has been stated numerous times, a wound is never caused because a wound is never stated to be caused. The model IS said to be slain and you can't do anything to slain models except maybe resurrect them from death. But they're dead as soon as it says slay. That's quite clear.

Fine I'll play along.
Yes. It is Slain from Purple Sun.. And how did you determine it's slaying? Hint: Initiative test. So of course no wounds were caused. Because your test and mechanic were based around Initiative and not Wounds. This doesn't have relevance.
What roll determined your KB.? Hint: Roll to wound.
Your roll to wound is your permission to wound. It doesn't have to say it because once you have rolled to wound you will either cause wounds or you won't.

There are abilities that specifically protect against wounds, like Banner of the World Dragon. Does it now protect against slay? That's a rather large expansion. Likewise WoC Soul Feeder triggers on unsaved wounds and WoC Sword of Change requires a slain character. But those are all clearly different events. There are abilities that trigger on slay--Skill Swallower in Doc (Whenever the Damon slays an enemy character). There are abilities that trigger on wound in DoC (At the end of any phase in which the Daemon causes one or more unsaved wounds in CC). And of course the spells are all about causing unsaved wounds.

Once again. I have never said models aren't slain.
All of this is fine. But none of it explains why you are not causing wounds. There is no logical sense in it. You are disallowing the very game mechainic that you just used.
BotWD does not protect against slay...again...because slay is a decription not a rule.
Sword of Change requires a slain character...What does that have to do with causing wounds? Skill swallower does trigger on slain characters.. What is the relevance?
Slain is a description that I have always said is just that.
You are using SKill swallower....the model was slain.. What game mechanic brought you to that slain description?
No model is ever just...slain. There is always a game mechanic that brought it there.

You can totally argue that it's not RAI for KB to not count as inflicting wounds after the fact. But it certainly isn't RAW. No rule mechanism exists for it as it stands. It would have to be a single attack with a special rule Multi-Wound (Enemy Model's Current Wounds), no armor saves, no regen saves, etc . If they wanted to do that, they could have made that. I did it in a sentence and it would be clear exactly what it did.

Everytime you roll to wound it is either to cause them or not. That is the sole purpose.
There is nothing to imply that you are not causing wounds.
They did make a clear sentence.
On a roll of 6 (when you are rolling to wound, not on it's own) the model is slain regardless of the number of wounds. Models do not receive armour or regeneration saves.
Let's summarize...
I say..you roll to wound...get a six.. the model is slain.
So I am rolling to wound as instructed, I got the required #, the model was slain.
You say ...roll to wound as instructed, you get the required #, the model was slain. But no wounds were caused.
We are using the exact same rule set, doing the exact same thing. yet you are adding , no wounds are caused. Nothing has stated no wounds.
Rolling to wound is the signifier of wounds. It's purpose is to cause wounds and hopefully slay it's target model. KB is just really good at it.

You are arguing that NO wounds are caused after the fact.

 Throt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, it's not a modification but a new process

Your made up gak that it is a multiplier is just that, made up.

You ignore that it's a counts as losing wounds, presumably because it destroys any argument you had.

It never causes wounds. You cannot point to any actual rules, so rely in hyperbole.

Really?
So rolling to wound and applying the result (for the roll that you just made) into all the wounds on the profile is hyperbole? Yet discounting the roll to wound, that you just used to generate your result, is not?
You weren't asked to roll to KB. YOu were asked to roll to wound.
I can point to a rule. It's called rolling to wound.
Where is your rule that discounts that the roll? Other than 'slay' because you don't have a rule for that.
Why do you continue to refuse to answer the questions if your argument is so concrete?
Answer my questions or say you can't

Yes, because NO SUCH RULE EXISTS. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. You have made it up to fit your idea of how the rules should work in your opinion, as opposed to how the rules are actually written.

I am not "discounting" the roll to wound. Stop making up strawman arguments. I am saying you roll to-wound, triggering a rule on a 6. Now, you follow this rule. Which does not say you have a wound (multiple wounds, remainder wounds on profile) of course, but something else. You still "have" a wound, but by the time you come to apply it the model is already slain.

THis is RAW.

Yes, you can point to a rule. Its not relevant for the discussion, as itr is not up for debate. YOu however seem to think that when you start rolling to wound that a wound is the only outcome. Hint: it isnt.

So to answer your questions:
1) Already pointed out that the roll is not discounted, as that is something you made up. try not to
2) Questions, where they have any relevance, have been answered

So, now - please state where it states KB causes a multiple wound. Page and graph. Or, instead, accept your error and just move on. Or, you could answer WHY KB "counts as" causing al remaining wounds? Maybe you could do that, instead of ignoring it for another go around?

shame_on_a_playa wrote:

the moment that someone claimed that KB can kill ethereal.
That was so outrageous to me I fell upwards out of my chair. So I had to register to speak my mind.

I agree 100%

shame_on_a_playa wrote:

Finally, as a show of good faith, I will search the entire rulebook and every armybook I have, hoping to find anything that causes damages or harms someone.
I'll report it here so you'll have more things to "harm" and "damage" ethereal creatures. You won't be wounding them however, that's illegal.

You aren't helping your case. Though I agree with most of your logic, you come across as a whiny brat. Just calm down.

nosferatu1001 wrote:



Yes, because NO SUCH RULE EXISTS. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. You have made it up to fit your idea of how the rules should work in your opinion, as opposed to how the rules are actually written.

The idea of the multiplier was used to try and simplify an already simple process that you appear to be struggling with.

I am not "discounting" the roll to wound. Stop making up strawman arguments. I am saying you roll to-wound, triggering a rule on a 6. Now, you follow this rule. Which does not say you have a wound (multiple wounds, remainder wounds on profile) of course, but something else. You still "have" a wound, but by the time you come to apply it the model is already slain.

THis is RAW.

You consider it straw man because you have no answer. You can scream RAW all you want.
Show me your RAW for slay/slain.
Show me what it means to slay a model. Once you learn what it actually is to slay a model all this might make some sense to you.
The RAW is that models are slain, they die, they drag to their DOOOM. EVERY one has a game mechanic. Wounding, or remove from play, or remove as a casualty.
What game mechanic has caused the model to be slain????

Yes, you can point to a rule. Its not relevant for the discussion, as itr is not up for debate. YOu however seem to think that when you start rolling to wound that a wound is the only outcome. Hint: it isnt.

How is rolling to wound not relevant to the discussion of whether or not KB causes wounds?
How id rolling to wound, the in game mechanic that started the process of KB, not relevant?
Is it because it doesn't jive with your opinion?
What other outcomes, other than causing wounds or not causing wounds have you had whilst playing a game? I along with others only had those 2.

So to answer your questions:
1) Already pointed out that the roll is not discounted, as that is something you made up. try not to
2) Questions, where they have any relevance, have been answered

So, now - please state where it states KB causes a multiple wound. Page and graph. Or, instead, accept your error and just move on. Or, you could answer WHY KB "counts as" causing al remaining wounds? Maybe you could do that, instead of ignoring it for another go around?

Saying I made something up is not proof of anything.
As I stated earlier, calling it a multiplier was an attempt to simplify the idea for you. But yes I did make it up.
Now you appear to be as stuck on that as you are on 'slay'
Because you refuse to accept relevance does not disavow it.
Show me the RAW for slain. You can't because it is not a rule.
You demand RAW for everything you disagree with and think it solves your problems, yet you have no RAW of your own.

Let me answer your question..
Why does KB count as all remaining wounds?
Because it says so. Let me break it down for you again.
Roll to wound. - Therefore you have already shown context that you will be causing wounds or not. This is not an initiative, ld, Toughness or any other test. IT has aready been categorized as WOUNDS.
Roll a 6 and the model is slain regardless of the number of wounds- Therefore, the model that has just been slain will suffer anywhere from 1-3 or 5 or however many wounds it has. All with a single dice

This is not complicated. Here is a summary that someone I gave to someone else..
So I am rolling to wound as instructed, I got the required #, the model was slain.
You say ...roll to wound as instructed, you get the required #, the model was slain. But no wounds were caused.
We are using the exact same rule set, doing the exact same thing. yet you are adding , no wounds are caused. Nothing has stated no wounds.
Rolling to wound is the signifier of wounds. It's purpose is to cause wounds and hopefully slay it's target model. KB

Why would there be no wounds?
You are trying to be RAw but you are working backwards without instruction.
I have shown you why wounds are caused, now show me how they aren't!

Sigh. Still missing by a mile.

Count as means there aren't actually any wounds. Otherwise it wouldn't state counts as. You seem to struggle with this concept, so I'll leave it at this - there is little point in debating further.

Raw it never gets so far as causing a wound, instead it slays the model. This is actual, written rules.

There is nowhere in the rules for Killing Blow that state you need to be able to successfully wound to trigger it.

Like this:

Process A (Rolling to wound) Causes Process B (Killing blow) On the roll to wound of a 6.

Process B in no way relies on Process A being successful. Process B just needs Process A to exist. Whether you wound on 7s( if that were possible), or you wounds on 2s, a six instantly slays your opponent.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh. Still missing by a mile.

Count as means there aren't actually any wounds. Otherwise it wouldn't state counts as. You seem to struggle with this concept, so I'll leave it at this - there is little point in debating further.

Raw it never gets so far as causing a wound, instead it slays the model. This is actual, written rules.

No. Not missing. Trying to fathom why you are making the assumption that there are no wounds caused.
It doesn't say counts as. it never says 'instead slay the model.
...rolls a 6 to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent-regardless of the number of wounds on the victims profile.(this is actual written rules)

Define slay in this game.
What is the written rule for slain?

If your reference is to Pg. 52 ..counts as scored all the slain models remaining wounds. This is to give extra credit for the 2 or 3 extra wounds you have removed from the model when he was slain.
It gives you maximum credit rather than credit for the singular roll. This does not infer that no wounds were caused. Nothing even suggests zero wounds.

Again you make incorrect assumptions. Try taking the entire sentence and paragraphs in context rather than a couple of words. I.e. Slain, counts as.
You have multiple consistent references to wounds. You are rolling to wound, Your 'counts as' section is even in the wounds inflicted section.
Yet somehow you mistakenly believe that no wounds are caused with no evidence to back it up.
And you will probably ask how I come up with this....
Because it is written and grammatically correct.


And you are probably right, we should probably just stop at this.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
There is nowhere in the rules for Killing Blow that state you need to be able to successfully wound to trigger it.

Like this:

Process A (Rolling to wound) Causes Process B (Killing blow) On the roll to wound of a 6.

Process B in no way relies on Process A being successful. Process B just needs Process A to exist. Whether you wound on 7s( if that were possible), or you wounds on 2s, a six instantly slays your opponent.

Your '6' is your success. That's what it says. Your six made your roll successful. IT doesn't eradicate the wounds.
And yes you are correct. And I have agreed with this. 6 is your magic number.
Explain why it is not wounds.
Again, we are using the exact same process. How does yours not cause wounds?
You have no rules to support it.

Well actually, there is a reference to slain (p4):

Warhammer Fantasty Battle Rulebook p4, column 2 last paragraph wrote:CHARACTERISTICS OF ZERO
...'If at any time a model's Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0 or less by magic OR A SPECIAL RULE, it is SLAIN and REMOVED FROM PLAY

Don't see any actual reference to any wounds being applied. So Killing Blow is exactly the same as reduce a model's Strength or Toughness to 0 or below via a Spell (which by my recollection does not constitute a wound).

 Ehsteve wrote:
Well actually, there is a reference to slain (p4):

Warhammer Fantasty Battle Rulebook p4, column 2 last paragraph wrote:CHARACTERISTICS OF ZERO
...'If at any time a model's Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0 or less by magic OR A SPECIAL RULE, it is SLAIN and REMOVED FROM PLAY

Don't see any actual reference to any wounds being applied. So Killing Blow is exactly the same as reduce a model's Strength or Toughness to 0 or below via a Spell (which by my recollection does not constitute a wound).

Okay...good find. Finally.
Now read the whole sentence in it's entirety..
'If at any time a model's Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0 or less by magic OR A SPECIAL RULE, it is SLAIN and REMOVED FROM PLAY.
What are the 3 characteristics affected?
And what are the things causing reduction?
So which of the 3 characteristics do you think the special rule KB will be reducing??

Let me help just in case.
If any models wounds are reduced to zero by a special rule (KB) the model is slain and removed from play.
Here is a break down. It is wounds because you are not taking a strength or toughness test, you are rolling to wound. KB states slain regardless of the number of wounds.
It does not say slain by a special rule. It says a characteristic reduced to zero. Your roll to wound is its relevance.
It does not need to say wounds again because you already know what stat you are referencing.
Just as purple sun says you 'must pass an I test or be slain'...it does not say an I test, and if you fail your I test you are slain. Because you already know what its reference and relevance is.
Why is this complicated.?

Sigh. No, youre just not actually reading anymore, are you.

The rule COUNTS AS removing all their wounds because it doesnt actually cause any wounds.

Fact. Otherwise it wouldnt be "counts as", but "is"

That is a very, very basic concept.

At no point does KB actually state it causes a single wound. Nowhere.

Yes, you are rolling to wound. So what? Is a wound the only possible result of rolling to wound? No, because KB does something else instead. It even tells you what it does instead. Which is slay. We know that slay / slain removes you from play

I understand context. I also understand that, when something states it COUNTS AS causing wounds, it means it didnt actually cause any wounds. Without that, if you slew a model with KB, you would get 0 combat res, as before you got to remove a wound (from the 6, assuming they failed any applicable saves) the model was removed as a casualty.

You cannot cause wounds to models that are no longer alive, as you have no mechanism to do so.

Its like stating a roll to wound is still made with a succesful poison roll - because thats usually what happens when you successfully hit. A wound is usually what happens (if you fail any applicable saves) after succesfully rolling a to-wound roll. Just because it usually happens, doesnt mean it HAS to happen.

IN this case it doesnt happen, as something else interrupts.

It isnt complicated, we dont know why youre making it so tricky.

No. A roll to wound of a 6 isn't always success. Look at the destroyer. But, Killing blow/ Heroic killing blow don't require successful rolls to wound. NOWHERE in the rules says that you do. And until it's FAQ'd, you don't. We've had far more compelling arguments last time round which all got debunked.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
No. A roll to wound of a 6 isn't always success. Look at the destroyer. But, Killing blow/ Heroic killing blow don't require successful rolls to wound. NOWHERE in the rules says that you do. And until it's FAQ'd, you don't. We've had far more compelling arguments last time round which all got debunked.

Except that they dropped the *impossible to wound without a magical weapon if your Strength is too low* and replaced it with a *reroll all non-magical attacks* in the Chaos Dwarf FAQ on the FW site.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

I even go so far to say if it was impossible to wound them (Ethereal) you can still slay them. Because Ethereal does not say you don't roll to hit, it doesn't say you don't roll to wound. It definitely doesn't say it blocks KB. Ethereal says they cannot be wounded by mundane, but KB doesn't wound. It slays, which is why it can slay something on a 5 it needs to wound on a 6.

This is perhaps the best post I've seen. The logic is sound and, appears, to conform to all applicable rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh. No, youre just not actually reading anymore, are you.

The rule COUNTS AS removing all their wounds because it doesnt actually cause any wounds.

Fact. Otherwise it wouldnt be "counts as", but "is"

That is a very, very basic concept.

At no point does KB actually state it causes a single wound. Nowhere.

Nope. I am still reading. Let me help you with your comprehension because we are reading the same sentences.
First. You added because it doesnt actually cause any wounds, so we will ignore that.
Counts as is not the entire sentence. Count's as, the way you are trying to interpret, is accurate but it is not what the sentence says. Let us look at this young student.
Attacks that kill a model outright count as having scored all the models remaining wounds.
In this statement 'count' is relating to the score not the wounds.
How do we know this? Because the paragraphs that we are reading are refereeing to totalling up the number of wounds. i.e score.
So the question would be..I just killed someone with killing blow...how many wounds do I score. the answer would be..
Attacks that kill a model outright count as having scored all the models remaining wounds.

Yes, you are rolling to wound. So what? Is a wound the only possible result of rolling to wound? No, because KB does something else instead. It even tells you what it does instead. Which is slay. We know that slay / slain removes you from play

So what.? When you roll to wound you will cause wounds or you won't. Those are the 2 results that you get, only 2. That is how the game works.
Sigh, KB is not proof upon itself. Though you have your mind se,t we are still determining whether or not wounds are caused by KB, so KB is moot and cannot be used to prove that anything else happens with wounding or without.
Refer to the other posts. Slain/slay is an end result based on game mechanics. Not a mechanic itself.

I understand context. I also understand that, when something states it COUNTS AS causing wounds, it means it didnt actually cause any wounds. Without that, if you slew a model with KB, you would get 0 combat res, as before you got to remove a wound (from the 6, assuming they failed any applicable saves) the model was removed as a casualty.

Maybe you are reading a different book. Mine doesn't say counts as causing wounds, it says ....count as having scored all the models remaining wounds. See above.

You cannot cause wounds to models that are no longer alive, as you have no mechanism to do so.

Effect before cause. You are trying to wound first. You cause wounds before you slay.

Its like stating a roll to wound is still made with a succesful poison roll - because thats usually what happens when you successfully hit. A wound is usually what happens (if you fail any applicable saves) after succesfully rolling a to-wound roll. Just because it usually happens, doesnt mean it HAS to happen.

No, they are nothing alike. different rules, mechanic and instruction. Leave the red herring in the fridge.

IN this case it doesnt happen, as something else interrupts.

It isnt complicated, we dont know why youre making it so tricky.

I'm not making this tricky. I am trying to correct your error.
There is nothing to suggest that there are no wounds. You have yet to provide any rules information other than your misrepresentation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
No. A roll to wound of a 6 isn't always success. Look at the destroyer. But, Killing blow/ Heroic killing blow don't require successful rolls to wound. NOWHERE in the rules says that you do. And until it's FAQ'd, you don't. We've had far more compelling arguments last time round which all got debunked.

Disagreement doesn't debunk.
Your six made your wounds successful. All of them wheter it was 1 or 3 or 5..whatever.
You don't roll to killing blow you roll to wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gummynerds wrote:

 DukeRustfield wrote:

I even go so far to say if it was impossible to wound them (Ethereal) you can still slay them. Because Ethereal does not say you don't roll to hit, it doesn't say you don't roll to wound. It definitely doesn't say it blocks KB. Ethereal says they cannot be wounded by mundane, but KB doesn't wound. It slays, which is why it can slay something on a 5 it needs to wound on a 6.

This is perhaps the best post I've seen. The logic is sound and, appears, to conform to all applicable rules.

This is where the argument stems from. Kb causes wounds (though people disagree) so this whole point falls apart. The whole idea is working backwards.

Given the failure to rebut with anything but sarcasm, your concession is accepted.

Onto "ignore"

And that last post says it all.

Yeah, I put him on ignore ages ago.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Yeah, I put him on ignore ages ago.

Sometimes, it's the only thing left to do when rational arguments are not sufficient. There's only so many times you can bang your head against a wall.

I think I can offer a lil' something new here:

The first big hang-up seemed to be a disconnect between RAW and RAI.
The rules are clear: Killing Blow is a rule that involves the to Wound roll, but does not appear to hinge upon the success or failure thereof.
But I'm not going to try to kill ghosts with my Bretonnian Lord's mundane lance. That's just silly.
The RAW and the RAI are totally different animals. Trying to disprove one with the other is utterly, completely pointless. Such an argument is doomed.

The second thing is this more recent discussion of wounding versus slaying.
To this, I just want to add the following:

A model can cause a wound, such those caused by a spell or an attack.
A model also has wounds, between 1-10, that signify how much damage it can take before it is removed from play.

These are totally different things--both of them game mechanics--with the same name.
So the fact that Killing Blow reduces a model to zero wounds doesn't mean that it causes that many of the other type of wound. Just like Purple Sun or Dwellers.

Finally, I'll just toss this out there: this argument has gotten heated and more. Would anyone heed a rallying cry, and set aside their sarcasm and frustration, and take up patience and understanding in their stead? We will certainly get to our destination faster if we do, and we'll feel better in the process.

Warpsolution wrote:

Would anyone heed a rallying cry, and set aside their sarcasm and frustration, and take up patience and understanding in their stead?

But I'm not going to try to kill ghosts with my Bretonnian Lord's mundane lance. That's just silly.

Let he who is without sin cast the first thread.

We're seriously still arguing this?

After reading it from the beginning, I have not seen ONE new argument for either side since the first couple of posts.

I vote we let it die already. All you're doing now is trolling each other.

Have fun. That's the point of the game. Not endless rounds of "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!"

Saldiven wrote:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Yeah, I put him on ignore ages ago.

Sometimes, it's the only thing left to do when rational arguments are not sufficient. There's only so many times you can bang your head against a wall.

Indeed, patience was wearing thin, and it's not worth getting heated over a failure in reason.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Let he who is without sin cast the first thread.

Hey, now. Calling something "silly" is, in my book, about as mild as it gets. I just wouldn't play it that way, that's all. But I completely and totally agree with you that the rules work as you have stated.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Indeed, patience was wearing thin, and it's not worth getting heated over a failure in reason.

Ha. Nice little snipe in there. Expertly played.


At any rate, I believe that if you looked at the population who have said Killing Blow causes wounds, they would all have the similar motive of "it doesn't make sense, therefore, it's not allowed". Which, while a perfectly legit way to argue RAI, is beside the point in a RAW discussion.

I would just like to point out that in the new Nagash book under the heading for Valten you will find a sentence that refers to the wounds caused by killing blow.

I'm sure there is some excuse why that isn't relevant though.

Just sayin.

It certainly muddies the waters even further. I wish they'd just clear it up.
Some models have Killing Blow because they have magical weapons or the like (Graveguard). You could make the argument that their ability to snuff their enemy's life force could apply to ghosts.
But Executioners? Bretonnian Lords with the Virtue of Heroism? They're combat-experts who've studied anatomy or just killed lots of dudes. No way can they take down a spirit from the ethereal plane.

But all of that is moot, of course. The rules tell us what to do and how to do it. This one's just a mess.

 Throt wrote:
I would just like to point out that in the new Nagash book under the heading for Valten you will find a sentence that refers to the wounds caused by killing blow.

I'm sure there is some excuse why that isn't relevant though.

Just sayin.

Nice spot.

Warpsolution wrote:
It certainly muddies the waters even further. I wish they'd just clear it up.
Some models have Killing Blow because they have magical weapons or the like (Graveguard). You could make the argument that their ability to snuff their enemy's life force could apply to ghosts.
But Executioners? Bretonnian Lords with the Virtue of Heroism? They're combat-experts who've studied anatomy or just killed lots of dudes. No way can they take down a spirit from the ethereal plane.

But all of that is moot, of course. The rules tell us what to do and how to do it. This one's just a mess.

No surprise, but I disagree.
There is no muddying.


A mess was created that wasn't there.

 Throt wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:
It certainly muddies the waters even further. I wish they'd just clear it up.
Some models have Killing Blow because they have magical weapons or the like (Graveguard). You could make the argument that their ability to snuff their enemy's life force could apply to ghosts.
But Executioners? Bretonnian Lords with the Virtue of Heroism? They're combat-experts who've studied anatomy or just killed lots of dudes. No way can they take down a spirit from the ethereal plane.

But all of that is moot, of course. The rules tell us what to do and how to do it. This one's just a mess.

No surprise, but I disagree.
There is no muddying.


A mess was created that wasn't there.

There was a mess. By a certain user claiming that KB causes a wound whilst not presenting any facts.

The Valten thing is the first piece of evidence you submitted to this thread.

I still have Throt on ignore. But this is something we've kicked around before in this forum. The chain of rules goes like this:

*my [ARMY] unit

FAQ/WHITE DWARF (OFFICIAL)
|
[ARMY] BOOK
|
BRB

That's it. That's what influences your unit. The DoC army book has special rules for their Stomp and Thunderstomp and Unstable but they have no effect whatsoever on other armies. You need your army book and the BRB and any relevant FAQs to play your army. You don't need some optional vampire scenario book. If you play WE you don't need to get DE and HE to collect all your rules together.

This had been argued in the past for various things. I think one was Slaughtermaster wearing armor when we were picking apart the wording. You can look at it as pointers to see what they did elsewhere, but they still aren't RAW. What is in the Empire book doesn't matter to O&G. That book does not modify the BRB in any way except for itself. DoC players with KB units aren't required to have FAQ+WD+BRB+NAGASH BOOK.

That's never been the case.

Did you guys see the paragraph from Fighting challenges in the BrB, quote follows.

Overkill
If one model slays the other, then any excess wounds they inflicted above and beyond those needed to slay the opponent, up to a maximum of +5, are counted towards their side's total number of wounds for close combat resolution. More on this bonus can be found on page 53.
Note that this is an exception to the rule stating that a model can only suffer as many wounds as it has on its profile. 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 (each successful Killing Blow scores the same amount of wounds the slain character has on its profile), etc. This is great fun, albeit a little one-sided.

It seems to suggest that you do indeed inflict wounds with killing blow. it then goes on to explain how many wounds you inflict, in this case all the woulds on the profile times number of successful killing blows.

Just thought i would throw that out there.

Cheers

Overkill is combat resolution of challenges. Which is pretty specific. We already know KB counts as SCORING wounds for CR. Because there's no such thing as scoring SLAYS. It's got to be converted to some number + or -. So wounds # is a logical choice. The fact you can SCORE more than the wounds characteristic on the profile (which is impossible), let's you know you're not actually CAUSING those wounds, you're SCORING. The game doesn't let you kill the same guy multiple times, which almost seems like you're implying. If you could, you would never face anyone except the front row and kill them over and over.

tl;dr "each successful Killing Blow scores the same amount of wounds"

Not inflicts, causes, suffers.

"(each successful Killing Blow scores the same amount of wounds the slain character has on its profile"

Yes, we had seen that. A) this is combat res, where we know KB counts as scoring wounds, and B) this is reinforced by the sentence you quoted, which i have added above, which states that KB SCORES the number of wounds, it does not CAUSE a number of wounds.

Valten just cause a mess, by taking a situation (no wounds actually caused, wounds only COUNT AS having been caused for scoring purposes, in ACTUAL rules not those made up ones) and muddying it. Luckily, only affects that one char, and noone else, so will hopefully be FAQ'd correctly

So you choose to ignore the start of this sentence where it says that multiple wounds and killing blow inflicts wounds?

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

This should be perfectly clear that Killing blow indeed does cause wounds.
It should not matter that it is described in a section containing rules for overkill in challenges.
It is correct that each killing blow scores the same amount as is on the profile, that does not change the wording of the first part, killing blow inflicts wounds, its there, right on the paper, RAW.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Throt wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:
It certainly muddies the waters even further. I wish they'd just clear it up.
Some models have Killing Blow because they have magical weapons or the like (Graveguard). You could make the argument that their ability to snuff their enemy's life force could apply to ghosts.
But Executioners? Bretonnian Lords with the Virtue of Heroism? They're combat-experts who've studied anatomy or just killed lots of dudes. No way can they take down a spirit from the ethereal plane.

But all of that is moot, of course. The rules tell us what to do and how to do it. This one's just a mess.

No surprise, but I disagree.
There is no muddying.


A mess was created that wasn't there.

There was a mess. By a certain user claiming that KB causes a wound whilst not presenting any facts.

The Valten thing is the first piece of evidence you submitted to this thread.

Let me try to explain.
This idea that no wounds are caused is a misinterpretation of the rules. Plain and simple.
The rule itself should never have come into discussion. That is the point about creating a mess. There was no mess until someone created it.
There is ZERO reason to come to the conclusion that killing blow causes no wounds. The no wound argument has simply been that that's what the rules say. Nothing backs it up.
Nothing even suggests that there aren't wounds.
I have been placed on ignore by people who have said I have no evidence, yet the burden of proof is on their shoulders because they are trying to change a very simple rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
I still have Throt on ignore. But this is something we've kicked around before in this forum. The chain of rules goes like this:

*my [ARMY] unit

FAQ/WHITE DWARF (OFFICIAL)
|
[ARMY] BOOK
|
BRB

That's it. That's what influences your unit. The DoC army book has special rules for their Stomp and Thunderstomp and Unstable but they have no effect whatsoever on other armies. You need your army book and the BRB and any relevant FAQs to play your army. You don't need some optional vampire scenario book. If you play WE you don't need to get DE and HE to collect all your rules together.

This had been argued in the past for various things. I think one was Slaughtermaster wearing armor when we were picking apart the wording. You can look at it as pointers to see what they did elsewhere, but they still aren't RAW. What is in the Empire book doesn't matter to O&G. That book does not modify the BRB in any way except for itself. DoC players with KB units aren't required to have FAQ+WD+BRB+NAGASH BOOK.

That's never been the case.

I don't have the Nagash book so I can't quote it directly but it is not a rule for Valten. It is a description of happenstance from wounds.
If someone has the book and would be so kind as to type the actual paragraph that would be great.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"(each successful Killing Blow scores the same amount of wounds the slain character has on its profile"

Yes, we had seen that. A) this is combat res, where we know KB counts as scoring wounds, and B) this is reinforced by the sentence you quoted, which i have added above, which states that KB SCORES the number of wounds, it does not CAUSE a number of wounds.

Valten just cause a mess, by taking a situation (no wounds actually caused, wounds only COUNT AS having been caused for scoring purposes, in ACTUAL rules not those made up ones) and muddying it. Luckily, only affects that one char, and noone else, so will hopefully be FAQ'd correctly

I have answered the score issue and counts as.
it says scoring wounds because that's what it is...when you total up wounds for combat res that is your SCORE. YOu are misinterpreting it's usage or using it backwards to reach your desired conclusion.
It doesn't need to say causing wounds because the wounds were caused during the combat now you are adding up your score.
The reason it discusses scoring is because it is in the section of the book on how to get your score for combat resolution.

Demelain wrote:
This should be perfectly clear that Killing blow indeed does cause wounds.

Except it's not in a section that has anything to do with wounds. It's in a section that talks about how you combat resolve challenges. If indeed it caused that many wounds then you would be killing that same dude multiple times. And you should score victory points for killing that model (like a general) 5 times. But you're not. It's not anywhere near where they talk about how wounds are handled. It's not in any of the sections about KB or unique attacks. It's past the descriptions of wounds, combat resolution, unit types, special rules, weapon types. It's under the subsection of CHARACTERS. So if anything, it only applies to CHARACTERS. Because CHARACTERS are the only units who can CHALLENGE. And the only units who can OVERKILL.

1. CHARACTERS
|
2. CHALLENGES
|
3. OVERKILL
|
4. (a partial sentence you're talking about)

So you choose to ignore the start of this sentence where it says that multiple wounds and killing blow inflicts wounds?

If you diagram the sentence, they are not necessarily the same concept.

"Add up all the wounds
,even those from a weapon causing multiple
,OR by repeated KB ([defines how to calculate that])
,etc"

It's not great English, but if you say:

>>I like stupid girls, like ones who can't count, or girls who are rich.

The comma and OR ^ above, means the last clause doesn't have anything to do with the first ones. It could be inclusive or exclusive. It is its own clause. Normally you'd want them in a new sentence to make it clearer.

Another simple:

>>I only like the color red, or blue, or green.

That doesn't mean blue has to be red. Or green has to be red-blue-green. The subject likes them all independently.

I mean, we're putting a lot more grammar then they likely did on this. I think the big point is it's totally in the wrong section.

I think of it this way

Ethereal says can only be hit by magic weapons, so unless it is a magic weapon killing blow is now magic it is a ability. Think of it like dryads in warcraft spells don't hit them but ability's like ensnare do.

On topic about killing blow, it never says you roll to wound just on a 5+ it slays the enemy. So with that said roll a 5 it dead!!

I think of it more like this, their armour can defend most but a killing blow is them getting lucky or having skill and sliding it between the chinks into the goods. Armour can only keep you safe if they hit it.

just my 5cents

@OgreChubbs: except the rule for Ethereal doesn't say that. It says it can't be wounded by non-magical weapons.

A warrior fighting a ghost certainly will try fight his otherworldly foe; he's swing his sword (roll to Hit), putting all his might behind the blow before the unnatural horror snuffs out his life force (roll to Wound), but alas, it is all for naught, for this fell enemy is not a mortal creature (Ethereal says you can't successfully wound).

@Throt: before I say anything, know this: I'm not mad. I'm not trying to insult or mess with you. I just disagree.
So, if you feel the need to respond to any disrespectful or insulting behavior, I would point out that I am not someone who has felt the need to respond to your stance thusly.

 Throt wrote:
The no wound argument has simply been that that's what the rules say. Nothing backs it up.

I'm not sure what you mean. If someone points at the rules and says, "see, this is what they say"...how is that not backing up the argument?

 Throt wrote:
it says scoring wounds because that's what it is...when you total up wounds for combat res that is your SCORE. YOu are misinterpreting it's usage or using it backwards to reach your desired conclusion.
It doesn't need to say causing wounds because the wounds were caused during the combat now you are adding up your score.
The reason it discusses scoring is because it is in the section of the book on how to get your score for combat resolution.

Hm. I just don't see it. I mean, I agree with you from a practical standpoint, but the Rules as Written don't seem to support that.
Killing Blow says when you roll a 6 to Wound (stuff) happens. So, you cause a wound, according to the normal rules, but then you also auto-kill them, according to the rules for Killing Blow. Two totally separate instances, one of which is triggered when specific circumstances of the other are met.
Say you hit an Ogre and roll a 6 to wound. So, it's a successful wound that also triggers Killing Blow. But KB has no effect on him, so we ignore that part.
Then, you hit a Banshee and roll a 6 to wound. So, it's a successful wound that also triggers Killing Blow. The successful wound is ignored, due to Ethereal. But Killing Blow is still sitting there, waiting to be resolved.

I think it's stupid, but I think that's how the rules currently work.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I think of it this way

Ethereal says can only be hit by magic weapons, so unless it is a magic weapon killing blow is now magic it is a ability. Think of it like dryads in warcraft spells don't hit them but ability's like ensnare do.

On topic about killing blow, it never says you roll to wound just on a 5+ it slays the enemy. So with that said roll a 5 it dead!!

I think of it more like this, their armour can defend most but a killing blow is them getting lucky or having skill and sliding it between the chinks into the goods. Armour can only keep you safe if they hit it.

just my 5cents

Actually the text says ....KB special rule rolls a 6 to wound....

Warpsolution wrote:
@OgreChubbs: except the rule for Ethereal doesn't say that. It says it can't be wounded by non-magical weapons.

A warrior fighting a ghost certainly will try fight his otherworldly foe; he's swing his sword (roll to Hit), putting all his might behind the blow before the unnatural horror snuffs out his life force (roll to Wound), but alas, it is all for naught, for this fell enemy is not a mortal creature (Ethereal says you can't successfully wound).

@Throt: before I say anything, know this: I'm not mad. I'm not trying to insult or mess with you. I just disagree.
So, if you feel the need to respond to any disrespectful or insulting behavior, I would point out that I am not someone who has felt the need to respond to your stance thusly.

No worries. I don't get offended. This is the internet and I choose what site I go to.

 Throt wrote:
The no wound argument has simply been that that's what the rules say. Nothing backs it up.

I'm not sure what you mean. If someone points at the rules and says, "see, this is what they say"...how is that not backing up the argument?

 Throt wrote:
it says scoring wounds because that's what it is...when you total up wounds for combat res that is your SCORE. YOu are misinterpreting it's usage or using it backwards to reach your desired conclusion.
It doesn't need to say causing wounds because the wounds were caused during the combat now you are adding up your score.
The reason it discusses scoring is because it is in the section of the book on how to get your score for combat resolution.

Hm. I just don't see it. I mean, I agree with you from a practical standpoint, but the Rules as Written don't seem to support that.
Killing Blow says when you roll a 6 to Wound (stuff) happens. So, you cause a wound, according to the normal rules, but then you also auto-kill them, according to the rules for Killing Blow. Two totally separate instances, one of which is triggered when specific circumstances of the other are met.
Say you hit an Ogre and roll a 6 to wound. So, it's a successful wound that also triggers Killing Blow. But KB has no effect on him, so we ignore that part.
Then, you hit a Banshee and roll a 6 to wound. So, it's a successful wound that also triggers Killing Blow. The successful wound is ignored, due to Ethereal. But Killing Blow is still sitting there, waiting to be resolved.

I think it's stupid, but I think that's how the rules currently work.

I believe they do support it. Here is why.
As I have stated in the past KB is simply a wound modifier, quite simply all the wounds on the profile. Though the idea was blasted as inconceivable, it is a logical progression.

On a roll of 6 (when you are rolling to wound, not on it's own) the model is slain regardless of the number of wounds. Models do not receive armour or regeneration saves.
Let's summarize...
So I am rolling to wound as instructed, I got the required #, the model was slain.
You say ...roll to wound as instructed, you get the required #, the model was slain. But no wounds were caused.
We are using the exact same rule set, doing the exact same thing. Nothing has stated no wounds. How does the death of a model imply that he wasn't wounded? Especially after rolling to wound. It simply doesn't without overreach

With your example..
"Killing Blow says when you roll a 6 to Wound (stuff) happens. So, you cause a wound, according to the normal rules, but then you also auto-kill them, according to the rules for Killing Blow. Two totally separate instances, one of which is triggered when specific circumstances of the other are met..."

Now here is where I continue to disagree, they are not separate instances. There is no reason to separate them, nor instruction to separate wounds from KB..it even states that the model dies regardless of the number of wounds..
We all agree on what is written and what happens.
IF the model can be affected, he is. If he can't he isn't affected.

Now the point here is to look at what is written and logical, because the ONLY part that we disagree on is that it is/isn't WOUNDS.
There is no logical reason that after rolling to wound you would suddenly ignore the wounds even though the model dies. There is no game purpose or steps to grant that conclusion. There are no words implying no wounds.

The dice roll is what is making your wounds successful. You are granted success or not, there are only 2 possible outcomes. Pass or fail.
As has been stated in the past say S4 vs. T10..you would need a six to wound but if your KB has been increased to 5+ the model will die. All things happen the same. It is still wounds...all the wounds on the profile. Nothing implies otherwise.
If you have the same abilitiy of of 5+ KB, S4 vs T10 and the model was a giant, you would neither cause a wound nor KB. a 6 would cause a wound.
As for Ethereal, if the models weapon is not magical then the ethereal model is safe. If the weapon is magical all the normal progress applies.

Again this is the reason that it was placed in the wounding rolls. There is no implication that it is not wounds.
Without the misinterpretation that KB causes no wounds, there is no muddying of any of these rules. They work just as intended with no errors and no confusion through all aspects of the game.
The idea of no wounds is the cause of the mud.

 Throt wrote:
- As I have stated in the past KB is simply a wound modifier, quite simply all the wounds on the profile. Though the idea was blasted as inconceivable, it is a logical progression.

- We are using the exact same rule set, doing the exact same thing. Nothing has stated no wounds. How does the death of a model imply that he wasn't wounded? Especially after rolling to wound. It simply doesn't without overreach

- Now here is where I continue to disagree, they are not separate instances. There is no reason to separate them, nor instruction to separate wounds from KB..it even states that the model dies regardless of the number of wounds..

- Now the point here is to look at what is written and logical, because the ONLY part that we disagree on is that it is/isn't WOUNDS.
There is no logical reason that after rolling to wound you would suddenly ignore the wounds even though the model dies. There is no game purpose or steps to grant that conclusion. There are no words implying no wounds.

- The dice roll is what is making your wounds successful. You are granted success or not, there are only 2 possible outcomes. Pass or fail.

- Again this is the reason that it was placed in the wounding rolls. There is no implication that it is not wounds.

So. There seem to be three general points:

1. the idea that Killing Blow doesn't wound is not logical or realistic. You roll a die. This die represents your attempt to cut my flesh, break my bones, and spill my blood. If you happen to have this special rule, and it triggers, you instead decapitate or disembowel me. Surely, this special rule is simply a more extreme example of success of the die roll.

2. dead models are wounded models.

3. because Killing Blow is triggered by a result of the to Wound roll, it therefore causes wounds.

Does that seem about right?
I'm trying to condense this down. 'Bout to get philosophical in here! We'll trim all the unnecessary stuff and get right to the bare bones and brass tacks at the bottom of this barrel..

Warpsolution wrote:

So. There seem to be three general points:

1. the idea that Killing Blow doesn't wound is not logical or realistic. You roll a die. This die represents your attempt to cut my flesh, break my bones, and spill my blood. If you happen to have this special rule, and it triggers, you instead decapitate or disembowel me. Surely, this special rule is simply a more extreme example of success of the die roll.

2. dead models are wounded models.

3. because Killing Blow is triggered by a result of the to Wound roll, it therefore causes wounds.

Does that seem about right?
I'm trying to condense this down. 'Bout to get philosophical in here! We'll trim all the unnecessary stuff and get right to the bare bones and brass tacks at the bottom of this barrel..

Sounds like a plan. I'll answer the 3 but there are really 2 points where we are now. That actually narrow down to just 1.

1. I don't mean logical in the sense of story. Realism of the story that goes along with it is irrelevant. With the game it is about dice process progress. I am talking about logical as progression/process of rules since death of models is based on dice rolls.

2. Dead models die in few ways in the game. Failed statistic tests, remove from play/remove as a casualty, and reduction of wounds or other stats to zero. All have a dice process causing said death, all of which are stated in the book.

3. Yes. That is the dice roll it is connected to there is no process or instruction to separate it.

Okay. Cool. So, #3 is the main point, then. I'm going to try and summarize both arguments:

Argument 1: Killing Blow is triggered when a specific instance occurs on the to-Wound roll, therefore, it causes wounds.

Argument 2: Killing blow is triggered when a specific instance occurs on the to-Wound roll, but is not affected by the to-Wound table, therefore, it does not cause wounds.

Yeah?
If those are accurate, I would offer the following: Warhammer is a permissive system; it tells us what we are allowed to do, not what we are prohibited from doing.
Because the rules in Killing Blow do not explicitly state that it's effect is part of the normal to-Wound process, I cannot consider them to be related.
Does that make sense?

Like...well, like the rules for Poison, I guess.
You roll to Hit. Let's say you need a 4 to hit. You roll a 6. So you successfully hit. But you also automatically wound. Poison is a separate rule that has an effect totally independent of the ones the die was originally rolled for.
Actually, the very fact that they had to FAQ how Poison works supports the comparison. They had to say "the hit needs to be successful for it to automatically wound", because a successful hit and Poison are otherwise not involved.
Therefore, Killing Blow is activated due to a result of the to Wound role, but does not have anything to do with the normal wounding process. The text under Killing Blow tells us what to do. Roll a 6, insta-dead. Not, successful wound on a 6, insta-dead or roll a 6, gain the Multiple Wounds (X) special rule, where X is number of model's remaining wounds. It has nothing to do with the wounding process at all. Totally separate mechanic.
...or not? Discuss.

Warpsolution wrote:
Okay. Cool. So, #3 is the main point, then. I'm going to try and summarize both arguments:

Argument 1: Killing Blow is triggered when a specific instance occurs on the to-Wound roll, therefore, it causes wounds.

Argument 2: Killing blow is triggered when a specific instance occurs on the to-Wound roll, but is not affected by the to-Wound table, therefore, it does not cause wounds.

Yeah?
If those are accurate, I would offer the following: Warhammer is a permissive system; it tells us what we are allowed to do, not what we are prohibited from doing.
Because the rules in Killing Blow do not explicitly state that it's effect is part of the normal to-Wound process, I cannot consider them to be related.
Does that make sense?

Argument 1 is correct for me, and I would assume that #2 is good for you.
Argument 2: We still agree on it being specific instance. We still agree on everything other than whether or not wounds are caused.

I will explain how it is explicitly part of the to wound process and doesn't require more statement.
I do agree it is a permissive system. And it is based on the dice rolls.
So I would ask..If you have already rolled to wound, isn't not causing wounds contrary to what you were in the process of doing? You are prohibiting yourself from wounding violating the given instruction.
You don't have permission not to cause wounds. Unless your dice roll fails. Your 6 has determined success. There is no permission to not cause wounds.
The explicit statement and permission comes from the roll of the dice. That is the start and purpose of the function. Once the dice rolls start, that is the conditions until you move to the next. Otherwise the dice roll would not be required or would specifically stated separately.
Roll to wound>6>KB works on target-yes/no>all wounds/1wound.
Every time something happens it has a root. When you break from combat from your combat res, Ld test. Would you say that it wasn't Ld when you rolled? You will pass or fail,(what did you pass/fail? Ld test) then stay or flee.
With KB you will take wounds or not. (What happened? you took wounds or you didn't) Then you live or die accordingly.

Like...well, like the rules for Poison, I guess.
You roll to Hit. Let's say you need a 4 to hit. You roll a 6. So you successfully hit. But you also automatically wound. Poison is a separate rule that has an effect totally independent of the ones the die was originally rolled for.
Actually, the very fact that they had to FAQ how Poison works supports the comparison. They had to say "the hit needs to be successful for it to automatically wound", because a successful hit and Poison are otherwise not involved.
Therefore, Killing Blow is activated due to a result of the to Wound role, but does not have anything to do with the normal wounding process. The text under Killing Blow tells us what to do. Roll a 6, insta-dead. Not, successful wound on a 6, insta-dead or roll a 6, gain the Multiple Wounds (X) special rule, where X is number of model's remaining wounds. It has nothing to do with the wounding process at all. Totally separate mechanic.
...or not? Discuss.

As above it is the wounding process. It is either, failure to wound, 1 wound or all wounds depending on the circumstance of the roll to wound and target.
Auto hits do not cause KB because they need the dice roll which locks you in the wounding process.
It's on a 6 an die regardless of the number of wounds( basically X# of wounds). It's not just roll a 6 and remove from play etc

Actually poison is a different topic. But I will go along and try to keep it short. Combat is generally roll to hit>roll to wound>etc..and of course special rules inside each....so
The permissive system has skipped the dice roll for wounds. Poison attacks are still hits, just as KB are still wounds.
Poison in effect is similar to a weapon that auto wounds. Once you hit(with required #) you pass over the roll to wound. Auto hits and poison don't jive, just as auto hits and KB don't jive.
The FAQ actually shows that poison and the hit are related, because you must hit.(But lets not get sidetracked, please bypass)

.

Warp _ i would add to that that KB is just a rule that triggers on a specific to-wound roll, it does not itself require a wound to exist, however temporarily, unlike with the multiple wounds rule which is explicitly AFTER the unsaved wound has been caused

Instead KB is a separate rule, entirely self contained, that is triggered by a to-wound roll of a specific value. This in no way means a wound is caused BY KB, or that KB requires a wound, just that a value has been met

If you succesfully KB a model, you in theory may still have a wound to allocate to them - after saves, etc - but you CANNOT do this, as the model is already dead. There is nothing to alloacte the wound to.

This is why it is entirely impossible to say that KB is a wound multiplier - there is no rules support, whatsoever, for that position. We know what a wound multiplier does, and how it is structured, and it requires an unsaved wound - something that KB does NOT need

I agree, nos.
When someone says "Killing Blow is like a wound modifier", I say, "yes. It's similar in a lot of ways. But it is not actually a wound modifier."

 Throt wrote:
So I would ask..If you have already rolled to wound, isn't not causing wounds contrary to what you were in the process of doing? You are prohibiting yourself from wounding violating the given instruction.
You don't have permission not to cause wounds. Unless your dice roll fails. Your 6 has determined success. There is no permission to not cause wounds.

I agree. You roll to wound, and consult the chart. But on a 6, another, entirely separate rule is triggered.
Like "for every successful armour save the model makes, it inflicts a S4 hit on an enemy in base contact". The hit is triggered due to a certain result on the armour save. It is, of course, not in any way part of the armour save. It's a separate rule that comes into play when specific conditions of another rule are met.

 Throt wrote:
Otherwise the dice roll would not be required or would specifically stated separately.

I'm not sure if I understand.
You think that we need permission to consider two rules as separate instances?
One could argue that the to Hit/to Wound/armour/Regeneration or Ward process is all one thing. But they're not. They each have their own entries and rules, even though they play off each other. Like Killing Blow and the to Wound roll.

 Throt wrote:
Auto hits do not cause KB because they need the dice roll which locks you in the wounding process.

Do you mean auto-wounds? Or are you talking about Poison?

 Throt wrote:
It's on a 6 an die regardless of the number of wounds( basically X# of wounds). It's not just roll a 6 and remove from play etc

It is similar to X# of wounds. But it doesn't say that. It says instantly slain, regardless of the number of wounds. Regardless, as in, no regard for. Do not regard. Ignore. Don't look at.
It doesn't say "remove from play", but it does not say "X# of wounds", either. It's a different animal entirely. Due to unclear writing, I'm sure.

 Throt wrote:
Poison attacks are still hits, just as KB are still wounds...The FAQ actually shows that poison and the hit are related, because you must hit.

Ah, but only because the FAQ said they are. Right? They corrected the BRB, further stating that requiring a 7+ to hit means you cannot cause Poison. Without that FAQ, you could need a 7+ to hit, but have 5+ Poison, and still technically auto-wound on a 5+. Killing Blow has no such FAQ stating "a roll must successfully wound to cause Killing Blow". And since it and Poison are both independent rules that trigger on another roll...yeah.

I think that makes sense. That's actually set it even further in stone for me.
The need an FAQ.

Warpsolution wrote:
I agree. You roll to wound, and consult the chart. But on a 6, another, entirely separate rule is triggered.
Like "for every successful armour save the model makes, it inflicts a S4 hit on an enemy in base contact". The hit is triggered due to a certain result on the armour save. It is, of course, not in any way part of the armour save. It's a separate rule that comes into play when specific conditions of another rule are met.

Generally I agree. But even in your example, the first process has been completed. You have finished rolling your saves and the results are complete. Your saves have triggered the S4 hits. Start and end to process.
Can you explain the order of your process? I am having trouble with your flow chart.

 Throt wrote:
Otherwise the dice roll would not be required or would specifically stated separately.

I'm not sure if I understand.
You think that we need permission to consider two rules as separate instances?
One could argue that the to Hit/to Wound/armour/Regeneration or Ward process is all one thing. But they're not. They each have their own entries and rules, even though they play off each other. Like Killing Blow and the to Wound roll.

If KB was a separate rule from wounds you would not roll to wound. You would be told to roll for KB. Separate from rolling to wound. Similar to when weapons require toughness tests or die, they are separate because they do not use the wound characteristic.
I would not argue that any of the hit/wound etc. are the same. EVERY one has a specific start and finish point. In effect, roll for reason 'x'. End with result of pass or fail.

 Throt wrote:
Auto hits do not cause KB because they need the dice roll which locks you in the wounding process.

Do you mean auto-wounds? Or are you talking about Poison?

Sorry typo, watching Impractical Jokers at the same time. Yes I mean auto wounds.

It is similar to X# of wounds. But it doesn't say that. It says instantly slain, regardless of the number of wounds. Regardless, as in, no regard for. Do not regard. Ignore. Don't look at.
It doesn't say "remove from play", but it does not say "X# of wounds", either. It's a different animal entirely. Due to unclear writing, I'm sure.

Actually it says automatically, not instantly. Maybe this is where the confusion comes in. They are 2 entirely different words/circumstance.
Your use of regardless is incorrect as well. Regardless is in the relation to the NUMBER of wounds, not the wounds. I.E. automatically slain, (ignoring the number) of wounds. So in part you are correct. Do not read, ignore or don't look at the number.
The sentence is entirely accurate and simply stated.

 Throt wrote:
Poison attacks are still hits, just as KB are still wounds...The FAQ actually shows that poison and the hit are related, because you must hit.

Ah, but only because the FAQ said they are. Right? They corrected the BRB, further stating that requiring a 7+ to hit means you cannot cause Poison. Without that FAQ, you could need a 7+ to hit, but have 5+ Poison, and still technically auto-wound on a 5+. Killing Blow has no such FAQ stating "a roll must successfully wound to cause Killing Blow". And since it and Poison are both independent rules that trigger on another roll...yeah.

I think that makes sense. That's actually set it even further in stone for me.
The need an FAQ.

Actually they were always hits. In close combat 5+ will always hit. No rule conflict.
But you are right about the poison conflict, but approaching from the wrong direction.The question most likely came about when having Poison 5+ (probably skink blow guns) and shooting at long range, skirmishers, whatever modifiers, causing you to need a 6 to hit. This would the create a conflicting rule it in no way representative of not being hits.
This is similar to where I see the misinterpretation of KB..

I won't be responding to more on poison because it will drift off topic, and since you worked hard to try to narrow this I'd hate to go for naught.

As for KB, a 6 is a wound. So if you rolled a 6 you successfully wounded, there was no need for the BRB to state otherwise. You have no instructions to change that. KB (triggered on that6) has changed your single wound to all the wounds.

So let me jump the gun for what will come next...I guess there is some magic item that makes it possible to have a 5+ KB.
That circumstance/item would require a FAQ. (imo)To which I believe should go this way.
Do you still need to be able to successfully wound to cause a 5+ KB?
YES, you must still be able to wound on a 5+. Which I believe would be the correct answer.
How would your stance on KB go if they answered this way?

*edits for grammar*

 Throt wrote:
Generally I agree. But even in your example, the first process has been completed. You have finished rolling your saves and the results are complete. Your saves have triggered the S4 hits. Start and end to process.

Fair enough. They're not identical.

 Throt wrote:
Can you explain the order of your process? I am having trouble with your flow chart.

1. Roll to hit. 2. Roll to Wound. 3 and/or 4. consult the to wound chart and the rules for Killing Blow. Either one after the other, or simultaneously. Since the rules don't tell us explicitly, I'm guessing it's up to the player who's turn it is, as usual. Which means that, technically speaking, you could Killing Blow someone in a challenge, and score +1 overkill from the wound that was caused by that same roll.

 Throt wrote:
If KB was a separate rule from wounds you would not roll to wound. You would be told to roll for KB.

That would certainly make sense. But there's no reason for it. There could be a rule that goes, "every time the model rolls a 1 when making a Leadership test, it inflicts a S5 hit...", and it would be the same thing. One is activated off the other, but they aren't the same thing.

 Throt wrote:
Actually it says automatically, not instantly. Maybe this is where the confusion comes in. They are 2 entirely different words/circumstance.
Your use of regardless is incorrect as well. Regardless is in the relation to the NUMBER of wounds, not the wounds. I.E. automatically slain, (ignoring the number) of wounds. So in part you are correct. Do not read, ignore or don't look at the number.

I wasn't quoting the book there, just going from memory. Yeah, it says automatically. That doesn't change anything in regards to whether or not Killing Blow is an extension of the rules regarding wounds or a separate rule all together.
And yes, I'm well aware of the fact that "regardless" is referring to the number of wounds. But you're still ignoring the number of wounds. You're not looking at the number, and dealing that many. You're automatically slaying the model, regardless of what that number is.

 Throt wrote:
I won't be responding to more on poison because it will drift off topic, and since you worked hard to try to narrow this I'd hate to go for naught.

If things get off-topic, we'll remedy it. But as it stands, I think it's a huge help.

 Throt wrote:
Actually they were always hits. In close combat 5+ will always hit. No rule conflict.
But you are right about the poison conflict, but approaching from the wrong direction.The question most likely came about when having Poison 5+ (probably skink blow guns) and shooting at long range, skirmishers, whatever modifiers, causing you to need a 6 to hit. This would the create a conflicting rule it in no way representative of not being hits.
This is similar to where I see the misinterpretation of KB.

I was indeed talking about ranged combat. But there's also stacking high WS with penalties to hit (Fencer's Blades + Glittering Scales), where you need a 6+.
That's exactly my point, though. Poison had a conflict--you'd technically be allowed to auto-wound without hitting without the FAQ.
So, without the FAQ, Killing Blow can auto-slay without wounding normally.

 Throt wrote:
That circumstance/item would require a FAQ. (imo)To which I believe should go this way.
Do you still need to be able to successfully wound to cause a 5+ KB?
YES, you must still be able to wound on a 5+. Which I believe would be the correct answer.
How would your stance on KB go if they answered this way?

I would say that there's yet more evidence that Killing Blow causes wounds. But they'd still need to state it explicitly in its rules. Something like:
"...if a 6 is rolled, instead of causing 1 wound, the target suffers as many wounds as they have on their profile..."

Warpsolution wrote:

1. Roll to hit. 2. Roll to Wound. 3 and/or 4. consult the to wound chart and the rules for Killing Blow. Either one after the other, or simultaneously. Since the rules don't tell us explicitly, I'm guessing it's up to the player who's turn it is, as usual. Which means that, technically speaking, you could Killing Blow someone in a challenge, and score +1 overkill from the wound that was caused by that same roll.

I don't understand what you mean with 3 and 4. And/or consult the to wound or use KB? Is that what you mean? Either one after the other or simultaneously?? So you just get to pick what you want the rules to do?
That is definitely not right.

That would certainly make sense. But there's no reason for it. There could be a rule that goes, "every time the model rolls a 1 when making a Leadership test, it inflicts a S5 hit...", and it would be the same thing. One is activated off the other, but they aren't the same thing.

You are correct. Because they aren't the same. It is a specific rule.
But if your rule said anytime you roll doubles(your 6 on KB) on a leadership test(to wound) you automatically passed or failed regardless of the total(Slain)...what would you be passing or failing?
If it wasn't LD, then the rule would be meaningless because your break tests(and similar) are based on the model LD.

I wasn't quoting the book there, just going from memory. Yeah, it says automatically. That doesn't change anything in regards to whether or not Killing Blow is an extension of the rules regarding wounds or a separate rule all together.
And yes, I'm well aware of the fact that "regardless" is referring to the number of wounds. But you're still ignoring the number of wounds. You're not looking at the number, and dealing that many. You're automatically slaying the model, regardless of what that number is.

Correct. So this will be bad English but I will use it to show that you cannot just dismiss the wounds. We look at the sentence.
...automatically slain, [removed] of wounds.

I was indeed talking about ranged combat. But there's also stacking high WS with penalties to hit (Fencer's Blades + Glittering Scales), where you need a 6+.
That's exactly my point, though. Poison had a conflict--you'd technically be allowed to auto-wound without hitting without the FAQ.
So, without the FAQ, Killing Blow can auto-slay without wounding normally.

As it stands KB has to wound normally which a 6 does. Tomb kings created the KB conflict after the 8th edition rulebook, so it is not proof against wounds. Only creation of conflict that does need a FAQ.
But as of now, without a FAQ, KB can kill models without wounding normally. It is a conflict on S vs. T . This does not show evidence that no wounds are caused. Poison does not wound normally but they are still wounds
Just because poison and KB have similar circumstance does not determine that they have any direct correlation. The fact that you can need a 7+ plus to hit shows basic differences Take daemonic instability and undead instability.
.

I would say that there's yet more evidence that Killing Blow causes wounds. But they'd still need to state it explicitly in its rules. Something like:
"...if a 6 is rolled, instead of causing 1 wound, the target suffers as many wounds as they have on their profile..."

Thank you for seeing it my way.
Just kidding, I'm sure you meant to say '..more evidence that Killing Blow does not cause wounds'
The thing is...that's what the KB rules say, it is just worded differently

 Throt wrote:
I don't understand what you mean with 3 and 4. And/or consult the to wound or use KB? Is that what you mean? Either one after the other or simultaneously?? So you just get to pick what you want the rules to do?
That is definitely not right.

What I meant was: there are two steps, one may come after the other, or vise versa, or they both happen at the same time. That happens plenty of times in this game.

 Throt wrote:
But if your rule said anytime you roll doubles(your 6 on KB) on a leadership test(to wound) you automatically passed or failed regardless of the total(Slain)...what would you be passing or failing?

It was a weak analogy to begin with. What is quoted above does not work at all. Different situation entirely.

 Throt wrote:
...automatically slain, [removed] of wounds.

Do you have any hard, non-interpretive evidence that "removed" is the same as "regardless of the number of"? Because I do not think they are at all the same.

 Throt wrote:
As it stands KB has to wound normally which a 6 does. Tomb kings created the KB conflict after the 8th edition rulebook, so it is not proof against wounds. Only creation of conflict that does need a FAQ.

The Tomb King Book came out after the 8th edition book...

 Throt wrote:
Thank you for seeing it my way.
Just kidding, I'm sure you meant to say '..more evidence that Killing Blow does not cause wounds'
The thing is...that's what the KB rules say, it is just worded differently

1. No need for coyness. 2. That is what I meant to say. Exactly. As I've said, time and again: I think the rules should work as you say they do. But the rules, as of now, do not seem to work that way. 3. Please don't tell me "that's what the rules say". Obviously it's up for debate. As we are debating.

The kb rules do NOT state they cause wounds.

If they did state this, there is no need for the reference in scoring to the fact that it counts as scoring wounds

This is the biggest undermine of any kb = wounds argument, and has been roundly ignored

Warpsolution wrote:
What I meant was: there are two steps, one may come after the other, or vise versa, or they both happen at the same time. That happens plenty of times in this game.

All steps happen in an order. Each must be completed before moving on. If KB is not causing wounds then you are stuck with incomplete processes.
6+successful wound then Kb just slays the target (as is the argument). Now you have a successful wound that is waiting incompleted. We know that a 6 wounds. As long as it is wounding what do we do with it now?

But if your rule said anytime you roll doubles(your 6 on KB) on a leadership test(to wound) you automatically passed or failed regardless of the total(Slain)...what would you be passing or failing? It was a weak analogy to begin with. What is quoted above does not work at all. Different situation entirely.

Why does it not work.? The sentences is the same other than using leadership.
Every dice roll in this game is tied to a statistic or specific function. This is indicative of what you are doing. Can you tell me a time you roll a dice for anything that does not have anything to do with its comparative roll?
You can view all functions backwards to their root dice as well and what you were rolling for which will tell you what you are doing. The purpose of the roll shows what you are doing in every game instance. Every single time.
slain>KB>rolled a six to wound>why did you roll>rolling to wound. Shows you were wounding
ran from combat>Failed break test>rolled 12>why>lost combat res which tests ld. Shows Ld.

Do you have any hard, non-interpretive evidence that "removed" is the same as "regardless of the number of"? Because I do not think they are at all the same.

I was not clear. I used [removed] to show how the sentence would appear when we 'ignore' the section that is ' regardless of the number without editing for proper grammar. So essentially it says
..automatically slain, of wounds.

The Tomb King Book came out after the 8th edition book...

That is what I said. It came after. It shows a conflict in the S vs. T comparison. Because up until that book you were always successfully wounding when you did a KB. Therefore causing wounds.
The Tomb Kings book doesn't change what was done prior, but shows an error in the book that was written

1. No need for coyness. 2. That is what I meant to say. Exactly. As I've said, time and again: I think the rules should work as you say they do. But the rules, as of now, do not seem to work that way. 3. Please don't tell me "that's what the rules say". Obviously it's up for debate. As we are debating.

My apologies. You have argued in favor of no wounds, I thought you made a typo. Failed attempt at light hearted jab.
As for my response of that being what the rues say, it was in reference to your sentence..
"...if a 6 is rolled,(If a 6 is rolled to wound) instead of causing 1 wound, the target suffers as many wounds as they have on their profile..."(, the model is automatically slain regardless of the number of wounds)
Though not as specific the sentence has the same meaning. Regardless of the number means the same because it is covering from 1 to an infinite number.
Here is a grammar example in non game terms.
If you borrow a dollar today and then more later, pay me back on friday regardless of how much you borrow.
Would you assume that they don't want that first dollar back?
He does not need to say instead of paying me the first dollar, pay me back all the money you borrowed.
.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The kb rules do NOT state they cause wounds.

If they did state this, there is no need for the reference in scoring to the fact that it counts as scoring wounds

This is the biggest undermine of any kb = wounds argument, and has been roundly ignored

I have never ignored it. I have answered it appropriately and the response has been dismissed.
Read my last post to warpsolution and you will see multiple examples of how it does state it and does not require a specific "KB causes wounds"
I have also responded to scoring wounds as well..simply stated, scoring wounds is proper language when you are adding up your score for combat res. Another dismissed response.

 Throt wrote:
All steps happen in an order. Each must be completed before moving on. If KB is not causing wounds then you are stuck with incomplete processes.
6+successful wound then Kb just slays the target (as is the argument). Now you have a successful wound that is waiting incompleted. We know that a 6 wounds. As long as it is wounding what do we do with it now?

Two things. We either discount it, as the model is slain, or we say "the model is automatically slain, and also suffers another wound".

 Throt wrote:
Why does it not work.? The sentences is the same other than using leadership.
Every dice roll in this game is tied to a statistic or specific function. This is indicative of what you are doing. Can you tell me a time you roll a dice for anything that does not have anything to do with its comparative roll?

It doesn't work because "you automatically pass or fail" is explicitly saying that you either pass or fail. Whereas Killing Blow says "the model is slain", which may or may not equal "the model takes X wounds".
Can I tell you of a tile that I roll a die that leads to an unrelated situation? Sure. Lots of times. Like, "every time this model passes an armour save, an enemy unit in base contact takes a S5 hit". The armour save triggers a totally different rule; that of another hit, another wound, and further saves, etc. Rolling a 6 follows the rules for armour, but also for the add-on rule that is triggered by those circumstances.

 Throt wrote:
I was not clear. I used [removed] to show how the sentence would appear when we 'ignore' the section that is ' regardless of the number without editing for proper grammar. So essentially it says
..automatically slain, of wounds.

Ah. Then you were perfectly clear. I just don't think that's any kind of evidence. If we ignore part of the rules...yeah. It'll read differently. But we can't ignore the rules. They're the rules.

 Throt wrote:
That is what I said. It came after. It shows a conflict in the S vs. T comparison. Because up until that book you were always successfully wounding when you did a KB. Therefore causing wounds.
The Tomb Kings book doesn't change what was done prior, but shows an error in the book that was written

So...even though they had the BRB to reference, they just messed up? Could be. I'd even say probably. But that's not a solid argument. The rules in the BRB function just fine without an FAQ, and with the TK book. They just function in a way that seems weird.

 Throt wrote:
Though not as specific the sentence has the same meaning. Regardless of the number means the same because it is covering from 1 to an infinite number.

Obviously, the sentence's current meaning is ambiguous. Thus, this conversation.
Yes, my revision is more specific. As in, it is clear. Which the current one is not.

 Throt wrote:
Here is a grammar example in non game terms.
If you borrow a dollar today and then more later, pay me back on friday regardless of how much you borrow.
Would you assume that they don't want that first dollar back?
He does not need to say instead of paying me the first dollar, pay me back all the money you borrowed.

This isn't the same thing. This is something happening, and then it being undone. Killing Blow is a situation that results in an additional effect.
Every time someone tries to do this sort of thing, I cringe. Because it's never the same thing. Even in-game comparisons are a stretch, 9 out of 10 times. This sort of argument never works. I've never seen someone say "upon further review of your metaphor, you are correct. My mistake". It's only talking directly about the task at hand that these things come to a close.

Warpsolution wrote:
Two things. We either discount it, as the model is slain, or we say "the model is automatically slain, and also suffers another wound".

You are saying that we can discount it without specific instruction, but we don't cause wounds because we don't have specific instruction? You are already in the wounding process, as has been discussed you cannot just be slain.
What dice roll slayed the model.?

It doesn't work because "you automatically pass or fail" is explicitly saying that you either pass or fail. Whereas Killing Blow says "the model is slain", which may or may not equal "the model takes X wounds".
Can I tell you of a tile that I roll a die that leads to an unrelated situation? Sure. Lots of times. Like, "every time this model passes an armour save, an enemy unit in base contact takes a S5 hit". The armour save triggers a totally different rule; that of another hit, another wound, and further saves, etc. Rolling a 6 follows the rules for armour, but also for the add-on rule that is triggered by those circumstances.

When I said pass or fail I was generalizing for the doubles. It could be fail. So double automatically fail, just as you are automatically slain. Ld was your roll as wounds are to your KB.
As we discussed prior each action is completed before moving on. You will complete your armor save triggering the s5 hit. The armor save process is finished.
KB must cause wounds to finish the wounding process. Otherwise you have conflict. You either have a KB waiting to happen or a wound left to be resolved.

Ah. Then you were perfectly clear. I just don't think that's any kind of evidence. If we ignore part of the rules...yeah. It'll read differently. But we can't ignore the rules. They're the rules.

We are not ignoring anything. We are removing that portion. The part of the discussion was in referring to regardless of the number...
It is proper grammar that is showing wounds are still relevant.

So...even though they had the BRB to reference, they just messed up? Could be. I'd even say probably. But that's not a solid argument. The rules in the BRB function just fine without an FAQ, and with the TK book. They just function in a way that seems weird.

Exactly this is the point. TK and the 5+ does nothing to benefit the discussion.

Obviously, the sentence's current meaning is ambiguous. Thus, this conversation
Yes, my revision is more specific. As in, it is clear. Which the current one is not..

THe original wording is not ambiguous. It only has one meaning and is being misinterpreted. Often because of extra and incorrect annalasys. This argument has broken into defining singular words, bouncing off other pages to prove one word or another. Generating confusion that is not there.

This isn't the same thing. This is something happening, and then it being undone. Killing Blow is a situation that results in an additional effect.
Every time someone tries to do this sort of thing, I cringe. Because it's never the same thing. Even in-game comparisons are a stretch, 9 out of 10 times. This sort of argument never works. I've never seen someone say "upon further review of your metaphor, you are correct. My mistake". It's only talking directly about the task at hand that these things come to a close.

Yet the metaphors are necessary at this point.
The task at hand is the one sentence that people are struggling with and breaking down. You yourself have used multiple in game comparisons, poison for example.
...on a to wound roll of 6 the model is slain regardless of the number of wounds.
The sentence tells you everything you need to know. The significant characteristics, the necessary dice roll, and the outcome.
The reason for the metaphor is you are attempting to undo the wound that has been done. You are already in the wounding process the only way out is to wound.

 Throt wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:
Two things. We either discount it, as the model is slain, or we say "the model is automatically slain, and also suffers another wound".

You are saying that we can discount it without specific instruction, but we don't cause wounds because we don't have specific instruction? You are already in the wounding process, as has been discussed you cannot just be slain.
What dice roll slayed the model.?

We know what Slain means, the Wounds characteristic is reduced to 0 or less, this can be done via special rules or magic the same way as when a model's Strength or Toughness is reduced to 0 or less. We do not consult the Saves process, we look right here:

 Ehsteve wrote:
Well actually, there is a reference to slain (p4):

Warhammer Fantasty Battle Rulebook p4, column 2 last paragraph wrote:CHARACTERISTICS OF ZERO
...'If at any time a model's Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0 or less by magic OR A SPECIAL RULE, it is SLAIN and REMOVED FROM PLAY

Don't see any actual reference to any wounds being applied. So Killing Blow is exactly the same as reduce a model's Strength or Toughness to 0 or below via a Spell (which by my recollection does not constitute a wound).

Now let's look back at Killing Blow:

"A ward save can be attempted - if pased, the ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but damage does not equate to wounds, a grouping of wounds is not a damage; in the rules and in english in general.

So otherwise, you're now arguing that a Wound is still done and a Ward Save that block a Killing Blow still has a Wound to be dealt with, in which case you are arguing to make Killing Blow more powerful (automatically slain and a seperate wound which must be saved and dealth with seperately).

To be direct in my points: you are not wounded, you are slain and removed from play via the Characteristic of 0 subheading on p4. The Killing Blow rule at no point carries the character of a wound when it comes into effect. If you do not 'discard' (for lack of a better term) the 'wound' (or rather end the process upon the Ward Save being successful or a failure) then you're carrying through a different process.

Since everyone is so fond of unrelated examples: there is a conversation between two gentlemen, one named Mr Attack, one named Mr Target.

Regular Attack
Mr Attack: Hello Mr Target
Mr Target: Hello Mr Attack
Mr Attack: Nice weather we're having isn't it Mr Target?
Mr Target: Yes indeed Mr Attack.

Killing Blow Attack
Mr Attack: Hello Mr Target
Mr Target: Hello Mr Attack
Mr Attack: Nice weather we're having isn't it Mr Target?
[roll 6 to wound]
MR KILLING BLOW: *giant luchador bursts through the door and suplexes Mr Target*

 Ehsteve wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
Well actually, there is a reference to slain (p4):

Warhammer Fantasty Battle Rulebook p4, column 2 last paragraph wrote:CHARACTERISTICS OF ZERO
...'If at any time a model's Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0 or less by magic OR A SPECIAL RULE, it is SLAIN and REMOVED FROM PLAY

Don't see any actual reference to any wounds being applied. So Killing Blow is exactly the same as reduce a model's Strength or Toughness to 0 or below via a Spell (which by my recollection does not constitute a wound).

Strength and Toughness are not wounds.
Don't drift off topic. We know the model is slain.
This has no bearing on KB.

Now let's look back at Killing Blow:

"A ward save can be attempted - if pased, the ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but damage does not equate to wounds, a grouping of wounds is not a damage; in the rules and in english in general.

So otherwise, you're now arguing that a Wound is still done and a Ward Save that block a Killing Blow still has a Wound to be dealt with, in which case you are arguing to make Killing Blow more powerful (automatically slain and a seperate wound which must be saved and dealth with seperately).

To be direct in my points: you are not wounded, you are slain and removed from play via the Characteristic of 0 subheading on p4. The Killing Blow rule at no point carries the character of a wound when it comes into effect. If you do not 'discard' (for lack of a better term) the 'wound' (or rather end the process upon the Ward Save being successful or a failure) then you're carrying through a different process.

You are incorrect. And jumbling yourself.
None of that is what I am saying. Your example is what would happen if no wounds are caused by KB because you have unfinished results.
What characteristic is reduced to Zero?
What was the relevant dice roll doing?
Everything in this game is tied to dice as stated in my other posts.

 Throt wrote:

Now let's look back at Killing Blow:

"A ward save can be attempted - if pased, the ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but damage does not equate to wounds, a grouping of wounds is not a damage; in the rules and in english in general.

So otherwise, you're now arguing that a Wound is still done and a Ward Save that block a Killing Blow still has a Wound to be dealt with, in which case you are arguing to make Killing Blow more powerful (automatically slain and a seperate wound which must be saved and dealth with seperately).

To be direct in my points: you are not wounded, you are slain and removed from play via the Characteristic of 0 subheading on p4. The Killing Blow rule at no point carries the character of a wound when it comes into effect. If you do not 'discard' (for lack of a better term) the 'wound' (or rather end the process upon the Ward Save being successful or a failure) then you're carrying through a different process.

You are incorrect. And jumbling yourself.
None of that is what I am saying. Your example is what would happen if no wounds are caused by KB because you have unfinished results.
What characteristic is reduced to Zero?
What was the relevant dice roll doing?
Everything in this game is tied to dice as stated in my other posts.

Then you can enjoy arguing RAI all day. Your logical conclusion results in two entirely seperate events occuring: a Wound and a Killing Blow event, which means that even if the Killing Blow is unsuccessful, the target must still save against a regular wound.

A reduction of a model's wound characteristic is not a wound.

Meanwhile, as per the YMDC tenets (see here), please provide definitive evidence for a RAW interpretation which states that Killing Blow is wholly a wound. By all means, say that I am jumbled, but do so after going through the rules in the BRB/FAQ, finding relevant quotes and forming a constructive argument which presents your thought process as such.

 Ehsteve wrote:

 Throt wrote:

Now let's look back at Killing Blow:

"A ward save can be attempted - if pased, the ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but damage does not equate to wounds, a grouping of wounds is not a damage; in the rules and in english in general.

So otherwise, you're now arguing that a Wound is still done and a Ward Save that block a Killing Blow still has a Wound to be dealt with, in which case you are arguing to make Killing Blow more powerful (automatically slain and a seperate wound which must be saved and dealth with seperately).

To be direct in my points: you are not wounded, you are slain and removed from play via the Characteristic of 0 subheading on p4. The Killing Blow rule at no point carries the character of a wound when it comes into effect. If you do not 'discard' (for lack of a better term) the 'wound' (or rather end the process upon the Ward Save being successful or a failure) then you're carrying through a different process.

You are incorrect. And jumbling yourself.
None of that is what I am saying. Your example is what would happen if no wounds are caused by KB because you have unfinished results.
What characteristic is reduced to Zero?
What was the relevant dice roll doing?
Everything in this game is tied to dice as stated in my other posts.

Then you can enjoy arguing RAI all day. Your logical conclusion results in two entirely seperate events occuring: a Wound and a Killing Blow event, which means that even if the Killing Blow is unsuccessful, the target must still save against a regular wound.

A reduction of a model's wound characteristic is not a wound.

Meanwhile, as per the YMDC tenets (see here), please provide definitive evidence for a RAW interpretation which states that Killing Blow is wholly a wound. By all means, say that I am jumbled, but do so after going through the rules in the BRB/FAQ, finding relevant quotes and forming a constructive argument which presents your thought process as such.

I have answered this many times.
The characteristic affected is wounds. It is written that they are wounds. This should not be an issue.
If your toughness is affected it is not wounds..it is toughness, again, not an issue.
Rules as written rolling a 6 to wound causes a wound. You have no instruction to ignore it as you do with multiple wounds. If you just remove the model you are stuck with a caused wound and can never complete the process. You also lack instruction to cause a wound then slay.
What do you propose happens with that wound. Every process has a start and finish tied to a statistic when rolling. See examples above.
You must complete the wounding process to move on to the saving throw process.
6 to wound and the model is slain regardless of the number of wounds.
KB is simply a wound modifier the effects are the same
Single wound model affected by KB..6>Kb>1 wound
Multi wound model affected by Kb 6>KB>all wounds
No problems no conflicts. All game process followed.

Feel free to not take part and assume you are correct or answer my 2 prior questions plus these 2.
How else do you remove wounds if you are not causing them?
What examples do you have of removing wounds without causing wounds?

 Throt wrote:
The characteristic affected is wounds. It is written that they are wounds. This should not be an issue.

Not really. "instantly slain, regardless of the number of wounds". Strength, Toughness or Wounds reduced to 0, slain and removed from play. No reference to Wounds. Nowhere is it written that these are wounds. Please provide a BRB or FAQ quote and/or page number instead of an assertion.

 Throt wrote:
If your toughness is affected it is not wounds..it is toughness, again, not an issue.

see above

 Throt wrote:
Rules as written rolling a 6 to wound causes a wound. You have no instruction to ignore it as you do with multiple wounds. If you just remove the model you are stuck with a caused wound and can never complete the process. You also lack instruction to cause a wound then slay.

Then the Special Rule occurs seperately to the Wound if you believe you are compelled and hence you are required to make 2 saves, one against being slain, and the other against a regular wound by extension. Refer to the rules on Killing Blow and Slaying.

 Throt wrote:
What do you propose happens with that wound. Every process has a start and finish tied to a statistic when rolling. See examples above.

see above.

 Throt wrote:
You must complete the wounding process to move on to the saving throw process.
6 to wound and the model is slain regardless of the number of wounds.
KB is simply a wound modifier the effects are the same
Single wound model affected by KB..6>Kb>1 wound
Multi wound model affected by Kb 6>KB>all wounds
No problems no conflicts. All game process followed.

Fantastic, now show me where Killing Blow (special rule which is allowed to contradict base rules, [see beginning of the Special Rule section]) deals Wounds and I'll agree with the process. Killing Blow doesn't care about how many wounds a creature has (simply says "regardless of Wounds"), nor is it a 'wound modifier'. It doesn't care whether it's an empire trooper or a lizardmen salamander, there is no characterising feature of the rule itself which in the process of its application means that it distinguishes between the two. There is no such thing. The Combat Resolution section you are referring to (or the Overkill section for challenges) which are specific to Combat are a very specific and seperate entity from Wounds, earning themselves a seperate mention.

What about is a ranged attack has Killing Blow? It doesn't care about Combat Resolution? What then?

 Throt wrote:
How else do you remove wounds if you are not causing them?

Same way you reduce Toughness or Strengthn under the Characteristic of Zero subheading. Each is not an entirely seperate instance (class rule).

 Throt wrote:

What examples do you have of removing wounds without causing wounds?

Withering + Curse of the Leper. Reduced to T0, no wounds dealt, models removed from play. p4. No wounds dealt, just reduction of a characteristic to 0 or less. Killing Blow works on the same principle (slaying see p4) by reduction of the Wounds characteristic to 0 or less (slaying regardless of wounds) and the model is removed from play.

 Ehsteve wrote:

 Throt wrote:
The characteristic affected is wounds. It is written that they are wounds. This should not be an issue.

Not really. "instantly slain, regardless of the number of wounds". Strength, Toughness or Wounds reduced to 0, slain and removed from play. No reference to Wounds. Nowhere is it written that these are wounds. Please provide a BRB or FAQ quote and/or page number instead of an assertion.

1. It is automatically, not instantly. Major difference. Scroll through other posts and you will see the breakdown of the sentence regardless of the number of wounds. Summary..Regardless is reference to quantity,not wounds.
2. Yes Strength and Toughness reduced to zero are not wounds. not an issue. Never made the claim that either of them are wounds.

 Throt wrote:
If your toughness is affected it is not wounds..it is toughness, again, not an issue.

see above

 Throt wrote:
Rules as written rolling a 6 to wound causes a wound. You have no instruction to ignore it as you do with multiple wounds. If you just remove the model you are stuck with a caused wound and can never complete the process. You also lack instruction to cause a wound then slay.

Then the Special Rule occurs seperately to the Wound if you believe you are compelled and hence you are required to make 2 saves, one against being slain, and the other against a regular wound by extension. Refer to the rules on Killing Blow and Slaying.

 Throt wrote:
What do you propose happens with that wound. Every process has a start and finish tied to a statistic when rolling. See examples above.

see above.

When you are slain you have a corresponding dice roll. Strength and Toughness are not wounds and the dice roll is contained to that statistic.
KB is not self contained. It is tied directly to wounds.
You are making up rules by creating and rolling for 2 instances on 1 dice. You cannot roll once for the wound and once for KB. Again showing that the 2 are the same.
There are no rules for slaying has been discussed earlier in the thread.

 Throt wrote:
You must complete the wounding process to move on to the saving throw process.
6 to wound and the model is slain regardless of the number of wounds.
KB is simply a wound modifier the effects are the same
Single wound model affected by KB..6>Kb>1 wound
Multi wound model affected by Kb 6>KB>all wounds
No problems no conflicts. All game process followed.

Fantastic, now show me where Killing Blow (special rule which is allowed to contradict base rules, [see beginning of the Special Rule section]) deals Wounds and I'll agree with the process. Killing Blow doesn't care about how many wounds a creature has (simply says "regardless of Wounds"), nor is it a 'wound modifier'. It doesn't care whether it's an empire trooper or a lizardmen salamander, there is no characterising feature of the rule itself which in the process of its application means that it distinguishes between the two. There is no such thing. The Combat Resolution section you are referring to (or the Overkill section for challenges) which are specific to Combat are a very specific and seperate entity from Wounds, earning themselves a seperate mention.

What about is a ranged attack has Killing Blow? It doesn't care about Combat Resolution? What then?

What rule does KB break? It only breaks rules when you assume that no wounds are caused.
Incorrect says "regardless of the number of wounds' as stated above and earlier. And nope, it does not care about how many wounds.
I am not sure I understand what you are saying..I made no reference to combat resolution.
If you want to go into combat resolution that was covered prior and that confusion has been cleared up.

Ranged attack works exactly the same as standard KB.

 Throt wrote:
How else do you remove wounds if you are not causing them?

Same way you reduce Toughness or Strengthn under the Characteristic of Zero subheading. Each is not an entirely seperate instance (class rule).

Wounds are only caused by wounding. Toughness and Strength are their own category

 Throt wrote:

What examples do you have of removing wounds without causing wounds?

Withering + Curse of the Leper. Reduced to T0, no wounds dealt, models removed from play. p4. No wounds dealt, just reduction of a characteristic to 0 or less. Killing Blow works on the same principle (slaying see p4) by reduction of the Wounds characteristic to 0 or less (slaying regardless of wounds) and the model is removed from play.

This again comes down to Throt ignoring that one dice roll can trigger an entirely different effect - for example MA has a model where, when it maeks an armour save, it inflicts a hit on the unit it just saved against.

This is a saving throw, and not a to hit or anything, yet it generates a hit based on a specific roll on the saving throw

KB is not a to-wound roll, nor does it cause wounds, it is just triggered by a specific roll on the to-wound chart.

KB only ever counts as wounds. Again, if it were ACTUAL wounds, as Throt continues to contend in the face of all evidence against, then this line woujld be a nonsense. Good job it isnt.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
This again comes down to Throt ignoring that one dice roll can trigger an entirely different effect - for example MA has a model where, when it maeks an armour save, it inflicts a hit on the unit it just saved against.

This is a saving throw, and not a to hit or anything, yet it generates a hit based on a specific roll on the saving throw

KB is not a to-wound roll, nor does it cause wounds, it is just triggered by a specific roll on the to-wound chart.

KB only ever counts as wounds. Again, if it were ACTUAL wounds, as Throt continues to contend in the face of all evidence against, then this line woujld be a nonsense. Good job it isnt.

I have never ignored anything. And I have addressed this.
I have never said dice rolls can't trigger separate effects.
You have no instruction to ignore the wound that you just created. No instruction to replace it.
And with this MA model, yes when a model makes it's save, The saving throw is complete.Now proceed To the hit on the unit.

This is your statement.
'KB is not a to-wound roll, nor does it cause wounds, it is just triggered by a specific roll on the to-wound chart'

You have provided no evidence that it is not wounds. You are just stating how you play it.
KB is a to wound roll as the rule states. When a 6 is rolled to wound...how can that be ambiguous?
Your own example is contrary. It's not a to wound roll....but it's on the to wound chart...how do you do that?
If you are not rolling to wound, what are you rolling for?

I have also explained the 'counts as' that you are referring to.
I have answered and justified everything that has been presented.
Are you choosing to not answer my questions from the prior post?

You don't ignore the wound. You just add the effects of Killing Blow.

Killing Blow is not, itself, a to Wound roll. Of course not. You roll to wound. You consult the chart.
No where on the chart does it mention Killing Blow in any way.
So, you consult the chart. A 6 is a success.

But wait, Killing Blow has special rules in regard to that. So you follow those, too.

So, according to the RAW, when you roll a 6 to wound, the target "is automatically slain" and also suffers a wound as normal. Roll Ward saves against KB. If you survive, roll armour, Regen, and Ward against that other wound.

Warpsolution wrote:
You don't ignore the wound. You just add the effects of Killing Blow.

Killing Blow is not, itself, a to Wound roll. Of course not. You roll to wound. You consult the chart.
No where on the chart does it mention Killing Blow in any way.

So, you consult the chart. A 6 is a success.

But wait, Killing Blow has special rules in regard to that. So you follow those, too.

So, according to the RAW, when you roll a 6 to wound, the target "is automatically slain" and also suffers a wound as normal. Roll Ward saves against KB. If you survive, roll armour, Regen, and Ward against that other wound.

So why don't we get profile wounds +1 for combat res?

And what about activating Killing Blow on a 5 (from a special rule or magic weapon) when you need a 6 to wound the target normally?

It still gets kb'd, same as pre faq poison still worked on a 6 when you needed a 7+ to hit

If you add the old omni thread to this one, it's like 2 pages of real posts and the rest are repeated with just the sentences spliced.

I get it. Your ghost shouldn't care about a really sharp sword. But KB isn't just a really sharp sword, it's also a Finger of Death or an Ancient Volcanic God Staff. Just like a ward save isn't just some magical force field, but it's also luck or the ability to dodge(!!!!) in the case of Skaven. The Special Rules are just game mechanics that we fluff to. They don't apply fluff first and then make game mechanics, they want the unit balanced. A thunderstomp can literally be a stomp of thunder (WoC Shaggoth) or it can be an arachnarok spider...I'm not sure what they would do, drop to the ground?

KB exists where it is in the rules because: They Didn't Want To Add Another Die Roll.

That's it. They combine rules all the time for that very reason. Multi-wounds. Area Effect. Shooting. Poison. Lots of stuff really should be broken out when we're fighting unit-to-unit and with all these stacking special rules and different conditions. If they made KB a separate roll, this would be a total non-issue.

-You roll for KB. Fail. Now roll to wound.
-Roll for KB. Succeed. Roll for Ward. Maybe roll to wound. Maybe roll for Ward again.

Well, the suck part is you just slowed down combat a lot for anyone with KB. I'm absolutely certainly, I'd bet my big toe, they look at this stuff and go, "how can we speed up combat?" The above separate rolls would be pretty horrible against ward-users. Bloodletters fighting bloodletters would take forever. At least stuff like Hatred, you can simply pick up the misses and reroll. For KB as it is, if you don't see 6's it don't matter. If they pass their ward, they stopped the KB, but the same die roll exists for the wound. You don't have to pick it up and reroll it, it's sitting right there. If, as stated above, you somehow needed a 5+ to KB and 6+ to wound, and the KB failed, you don't have to roll again, you don't have to ward again, that roll stands and is insufficient to wound. You just saved the combat some more rolls and time.

Warpsolution wrote:
You don't ignore the wound. You just add the effects of Killing Blow.

Killing Blow is not, itself, a to Wound roll. Of course not. You roll to wound. You consult the chart.
No where on the chart does it mention Killing Blow in any way.
So, you consult the chart. A 6 is a success.

But wait, Killing Blow has special rules in regard to that. So you follow those, too.

So, according to the RAW, when you roll a 6 to wound, the target "is automatically slain" and also suffers a wound as normal. Roll Ward saves against KB. If you survive, roll armour, Regen, and Ward against that other wound.

You are almost there.
RAW when you roll a 6 to wound the target is automatically slain regardless or the number of wounds.
He suffers 1 if he has 1, 2 if he has 2, 3 if he has 3, etc. Take ward saves if he has one. because now he doesn't get armor or regen.
Don't roll anything else.

 Throt wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:
You don't ignore the wound. You just add the effects of Killing Blow.

Killing Blow is not, itself, a to Wound roll. Of course not. You roll to wound. You consult the chart.
No where on the chart does it mention Killing Blow in any way.
So, you consult the chart. A 6 is a success.

But wait, Killing Blow has special rules in regard to that. So you follow those, too.

So, according to the RAW, when you roll a 6 to wound, the target "is automatically slain" and also suffers a wound as normal. Roll Ward saves against KB. If you survive, roll armour, Regen, and Ward against that other wound.

You are almost there.
RAW when you roll a 6 to wound the target is automatically slain regardless or the number of wounds.
He suffers 1 if he has 1, 2 if he has 2, 3 if he has 3, etc. Take ward saves if he has one. because now he doesn't get armor or regen.
Don't roll anything else.

The bit in bold is what you made up, yet have not stated so in the text.

You do not suffer any wounds, otherwise you wouldnt count as having been wounded in the scoring part of close combat.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Throt wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:
You don't ignore the wound. You just add the effects of Killing Blow.

Killing Blow is not, itself, a to Wound roll. Of course not. You roll to wound. You consult the chart.
No where on the chart does it mention Killing Blow in any way.
So, you consult the chart. A 6 is a success.

But wait, Killing Blow has special rules in regard to that. So you follow those, too.

So, according to the RAW, when you roll a 6 to wound, the target "is automatically slain" and also suffers a wound as normal. Roll Ward saves against KB. If you survive, roll armour, Regen, and Ward against that other wound.

You are almost there.
RAW when you roll a 6 to wound the target is automatically slain regardless or the number of wounds.
He suffers 1 if he has 1, 2 if he has 2, 3 if he has 3, etc. Take ward saves if he has one. because now he doesn't get armor or regen.
Don't roll anything else.

The bit in bold is what you made up, yet have not stated so in the text.

You do not suffer any wounds, otherwise you wouldnt count as having been wounded in the scoring part of close combat.

There is literally no point in trying to talk sense into him. He's obviously shown that he's just going to repeat his own words, and make up evidence to prove his point.

I know - i clicked show post in the hope that it had some rules support, but alas no.

The target never suffers these wounds, that is RAW> The tagret countsa as having taken these wounds, whcih is RAW. To claim they suffer wounds while ignoring they count as is a nonsense, truly

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So why don't we get profile wounds +1 for combat res?

Well, technically, I believe you would. For Overkill only, of course.

 Throt wrote:
You are almost there.
RAW when you roll a 6 to wound the target is automatically slain regardless or the number of wounds....Don't roll anything else.

Can you show me where Killing Blow says it replaces the normal wounding process? If you follow the rules to the letter, none of it tells us to discount anything. So Killing Blow is triggered. But also, the normal rules for wounding come into effect, too.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


The bit in bold is what you made up, yet have not stated so in the text.

You do not suffer any wounds, otherwise you wouldnt count as having been wounded in the scoring part of close combat.

I did not make it up. I tried to simplify one of the many parts you refuse to accept.
..slain regardless of the number of wounds. It is the same as suffering 1,2, e wounds etc. just because you refuse to acknowledge it does not prove anything.
Just because you refuse to acknowledge the full sentences of counting and scoring, that I have addressed,doesn't make you right or invalidate my point.
You have no proof of your assumed lack of wounds.
You are not proxying KB for wounds with 'counts as''
Even from a game designer point of view. Which do you think is more likely with the rule as written..
1. They wrote the rule to be on the wound roll, to cause all the wounds (because wounds have 1 function in this game) on the model and be done.
Or
2. They wrote the rule to to be part of the roll to wound, to not cause wounds and the evidence would require the breaking up of 4 seperate paragraphs and sentences throughout different chapters in the book to show that no wounds are caused.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:


There is literally no point in trying to talk sense into him. He's obviously shown that he's just going to repeat his own words, and make up evidence to prove his point.

Read my post above.
I have explained everything, always.
You chime in yet have NEVER answered any question I have proposed. You dismiss them as irrelevant. And repeat yourself, then make accusations.
It begs the question if you are being deliberate in your lack of response.
I repeat myself because people refuse to answer questions that i ask so I must assume answering would cause conflict in their position. It then is easier to accuse me of being uncooperative.
Looks like this comes to a close very soon and you can continue to play it your way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I know - i clicked show post in the hope that it had some rules support, but alas no.

The target never suffers these wounds, that is RAW> The tagret countsa as having taken these wounds, whcih is RAW. To claim they suffer wounds while ignoring they count as is a nonsense, truly

No evidence of RAW here.
Just repetition of how you play it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warpsolution wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So why don't we get profile wounds +1 for combat res?

Well, technically, I believe you would. For Overkill only, of course.

 Throt wrote:
You are almost there.
RAW when you roll a 6 to wound the target is automatically slain regardless or the number of wounds....Don't roll anything else.

Can you show me where Killing Blow says it replaces the normal wounding process? If you follow the rules to the letter, none of it tells us to discount anything. So Killing Blow is triggered. But also, the normal rules for wounding come into effect, too.

Let me try and put this into a short break down because what is happening is people are over thinking the rules. I can safely assume that most people here have been playing for many years and have a very thorough understanding of the game. The knowledge of how we play the game is pushing the conclusion of no wounds.
Look at it as the writer writing the rules for a new player and what the logical conclusion would be. Because these rules are also written for the novice.
We know the sentences.
On a to wound roll of 6 the model is slain regardless of the number of wounds..
When a model loses its final wound it is slain.
So a KB on a single wound model will be identical in all aspects to a KB on a 3 wound model.
You have already rolled 'to wound'. As a new player, reading the rule book..do you think they would ever come to the conclusion that no wounds are caused when we have been taught that a roll to wound is wounding models.?

Now with all our knowledge we are reaching through pages of rules breaking up sentences seeking definitions to state that no wounds are caused. The claim is that when no wounds are caused it is obvious because of all these things
If this was to be the case it would be intent rather than written. Even based solely on the hoops that one must go through to prove that conclusion.
But a hundred and some pages later, we should probably just agree to disagree.

 Throt wrote:
Let me try and put this into a short break down because what is happening is people are over thinking the rules. I can safely assume that most people here have been playing for many years and have a very thorough understanding of the game. The knowledge of how we play the game is pushing the conclusion of no wounds.
[i]Look at it as the writer writing the rules for a new player[/i] and what the logical conclusion would be. Because these rules are also written for the novice.

No. I'm sorry, but there is one way to look at the rules. And that is as they are written. Do exactly what they say. The fact that they are difficult to follow, or written in such a way that they yield seemly odd or nonsensical results is beside the point.
Granted, this is Warhammer. A game that straight-up tells us to make up our own cool stuff, and to ignore things that aren't fun. So. I read how Killing Blow works. And I have come to the conclusion I have. But then I play it exactly like you're describing it. Because Games Workshop told me that's the point of the game. To be flexible with it and have fun.

 Throt wrote:
If this was to be the case it would be intent rather than written. Even based solely on the hoops that one must go through to prove that conclusion.

I do not understand this statement.

 Throt wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:


There is literally no point in trying to talk sense into him. He's obviously shown that he's just going to repeat his own words, and make up evidence to prove his point.

Read my post above.
I have explained everything, always.
You chime in yet have NEVER answered any question I have proposed. You dismiss them as irrelevant. And repeat yourself, then make accusations.
It begs the question if you are being deliberate in your lack of response.
I repeat myself because people refuse to answer questions that i ask so I must assume answering would cause conflict in their position. It then is easier to accuse me of being uncooperative.
Looks like this comes to a close very soon and you can continue to play it your way.

All you've done in this thread is post your interpretation of the rules and claimed them to be facts, when in fact, they are completely wrong. There is nothing in the rulebook that backs you up. I have argued against this point to death in the previous thread, where it was established, as per RAW, that KB does not require a roll to wound. Hence Tomb Guard can get a 5+ killing blow even if they wound on 6s.

Allow me to explain the rule.

Page 72. "If a model with the killing blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent"

Now. The confusion here stems from the underlined part. As does your blatant misunderstanding. There is nowhere in the book that says you have to successfully wound to trigger it. Killing blow is simply cause 1(rolling a 6 on the to wound roll) triggering effect 2(A dead enemy).

That is how the rule is written, and how it should be played.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

All you've done in this thread is post your interpretation of the rules and claimed them to be facts, when in fact, they are completely wrong. There is nothing in the rulebook that backs you up. I have argued against this point to death in the previous thread, where it was established, as per RAW, that KB does not require a roll to wound. Hence Tomb Guard can get a 5+ killing blow even if they wound on 6s.

Allow me to explain the rule.

Page 72. "If a model with the killing blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent"

Now. The confusion here stems from the underlined part. As does your blatant misunderstanding. There is nowhere in the book that says you have to successfully wound to trigger it. Killing blow is simply cause 1(rolling a 6 on the to wound roll) triggering effect 2(A dead enemy).

That is how the rule is written, and how it should be played.

+1

This has been an interesting thread, I hadn't really had an opinion before the issue was raised here.

After reading it all I think I land with Throt on this one. It seems the association of KB with the roll to wound as the causal mechanic would mean that it causes wounds (albeit ALL wounds that the victim had, thereby 'slaying' them) for the purposes of any other mechanic that triggers based on causing wounds. Interesting argument though!

"It seems", "the association", "would mean"...all of that might be a valid way that the rules should work, or were probably intended to work, but the Rules, as they are Written, states something different.

As above. You're making an argument from intention, nit from actual rules.

Warpsolution wrote:
"It seems", "the association", "would mean"...all of that might be a valid way that the rules should work, or were probably intended to work, but the Rules, as they are Written, states something different.

Yeah, I'm not so sure. I mean, if the RAW were as clear as you guys are claiming there wouldn't really be an argument would there?

At any rate, I'm not losing any sleep over it. If my opponent wanted to play it the other way it's no big deal.

Just because there's an argument doesn't mean there's a reasonable dispute. I could say "gravity is a myth", and then cover my ears and go "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". We'd still be arguing. But you would clearly be right.

Don't get me wrong; I wouldn't play it this way. Your Banshee is safe from my Bretonnian Lord.
But, following the rules to the letter, and making zero assumptions, the rule is triggered by the to Wound roll, and is not in any way connected to the wound itself.

Warpsolution wrote:

 Throt wrote:
Let me try and put this into a short break down because what is happening is people are over thinking the rules. I can safely assume that most people here have been playing for many years and have a very thorough understanding of the game. The knowledge of how we play the game is pushing the conclusion of no wounds.
[i]Look at it as the writer writing the rules for a new player[/i] and what the logical conclusion would be. Because these rules are also written for the novice.

No. I'm sorry, but there is one way to look at the rules. And that is as they are written. Do exactly what they say. The fact that they are difficult to follow, or written in such a way that they yield seemly odd or nonsensical results is beside the point.
Granted, this is Warhammer. A game that straight-up tells us to make up our own cool stuff, and to ignore things that aren't fun. So. I read how Killing Blow works. And I have come to the conclusion I have. But then I play it exactly like you're describing it. Because Games Workshop told me that's the point of the game. To be flexible with it and have fun.

 Throt wrote:
If this was to be the case it would be intent rather than written. Even based solely on the hoops that one must go through to prove that conclusion.

I do not understand this statement.

Let me try to clarify.
The rule is only difficult to those that are overthinking.
As a new player picks up the book and reads through they learn the game processes through each phase.
As they play with their Island of Blood box the learn about combat. They learn to roll to hit, required scores and then they learn to roll to wound and required scores and removing wounds to kill models. I think we could agree that this would this be correct?
Now they have that part of the game down, comfortable with those rules and they start adding new units with special abilities. One happens to be killing blow.
So now as they take all their learned process playing the game, roll to hit wound, die etc.
You think that this brand new player is suddenly going to think that KB isn't going to cause wounds despite the process they have learned with rolling to hit and wound.?
You think that the rule was written to suddenly change the whole learned process, to no longer have reference to wounds based on a few terms in the KB text?
Obviously some do, and I bet many have been playing a long time and think they know how to write rules better or how screwed up they believe GW is.
The only reason that this is even in a discussion is someone, somewhere wanted an additional rule to be able to kill the pesky ethereal. Because without ethereal the 'no wounds' would be completely irrelevant.
And most likely those new players never give the idea of not wounding a single thought.
So people believe that GW wrote a rule to have an obscure relevance toward a single situation?
So by bouncing back and forth through rule to rule, page to page, those someones are able to swear that that was how the rule was written.. Sounds, more like the person who is struggling with ethereals, intent to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:



All you've done in this thread is post your interpretation of the rules and claimed them to be facts, when in fact, they are completely wrong. There is nothing in the rulebook that backs you up. I have argued against this point to death in the previous thread, where it was established, as per RAW, that KB does not require a roll to wound. Hence Tomb Guard can get a 5+ killing blow even if they wound on 6s.

Allow me to explain the rule.

Page 72. "If a model with the killing blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent"

Now. The confusion here stems from the underlined part. As does your blatant misunderstanding. There is nowhere in the book that says you have to successfully wound to trigger it. Killing blow is simply cause 1(rolling a 6 on the to wound roll) triggering effect 2(A dead enemy).

That is how the rule is written, and how it should be played.

Ah, so my so my interpretation of rules, showing text and written rules, building a logical chain of events, is less relevant than your current post that is showing text and written rules that you have filled in your interpretation of the rules based this sentence..
" There is nowhere in the book that says you have to successfully wound to trigger it"
The lack of that statement, is proof of nothing other than your own interpretation.
You can look at my post above.
I am often accused of things in this thread that the accusers do themselves.

 Throt wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:

 Throt wrote:
Let me try and put this into a short break down because what is happening is people are over thinking the rules. I can safely assume that most people here have been playing for many years and have a very thorough understanding of the game. The knowledge of how we play the game is pushing the conclusion of no wounds.
[i]Look at it as the writer writing the rules for a new player[/i] and what the logical conclusion would be. Because these rules are also written for the novice.

No. I'm sorry, but there is one way to look at the rules. And that is as they are written. Do exactly what they say. The fact that they are difficult to follow, or written in such a way that they yield seemly odd or nonsensical results is beside the point.
Granted, this is Warhammer. A game that straight-up tells us to make up our own cool stuff, and to ignore things that aren't fun. So. I read how Killing Blow works. And I have come to the conclusion I have. But then I play it exactly like you're describing it. Because Games Workshop told me that's the point of the game. To be flexible with it and have fun.

 Throt wrote:
If this was to be the case it would be intent rather than written. Even based solely on the hoops that one must go through to prove that conclusion.

I do not understand this statement.

Let me try to clarify.
The rule is only difficult to those that are overthinking.
As a new player picks up the book and reads through they learn the game processes through each phase.
As they play with their Island of Blood box the learn about combat. They learn to roll to hit, required scores and then they learn to roll to wound and required scores and removing wounds to kill models. I think we could agree that this would this be correct?
Now they have that part of the game down, comfortable with those rules and they start adding new units with special abilities. One happens to be killing blow.
So now as they take all their learned process playing the game, roll to hit wound, die etc.
You think that this brand new player is suddenly going to think that KB isn't going to cause wounds despite the process they have learned with rolling to hit and wound.?
You think that the rule was written to suddenly change the whole learned process, to no longer have reference to wounds based on a few terms in the KB text?
Obviously some do, and I bet many have been playing a long time and think they know how to write rules better or how screwed up they believe GW is.
The only reason that this is even in a discussion is someone, somewhere wanted an additional rule to be able to kill the pesky ethereal. Because without ethereal the 'no wounds' would be completely irrelevant.
And most likely those new players never give the idea of not wounding a single thought.
So people believe that GW wrote a rule to have an obscure relevance toward a single situation?
So by bouncing back and forth through rule to rule, page to page, those someones are able to swear that that was how the rule was written.. Sounds, more like the person who is struggling with ethereals, intent to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:



All you've done in this thread is post your interpretation of the rules and claimed them to be facts, when in fact, they are completely wrong. There is nothing in the rulebook that backs you up. I have argued against this point to death in the previous thread, where it was established, as per RAW, that KB does not require a roll to wound. Hence Tomb Guard can get a 5+ killing blow even if they wound on 6s.

Allow me to explain the rule.

Page 72. "If a model with the killing blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent"

Now. The confusion here stems from the underlined part. As does your blatant misunderstanding. There is nowhere in the book that says you have to successfully wound to trigger it. Killing blow is simply cause 1(rolling a 6 on the to wound roll) triggering effect 2(A dead enemy).

That is how the rule is written, and how it should be played.

Ah, so my so my interpretation of rules, showing text and written rules, building a logical chain of events, is less relevant than your current post that is showing text and written rules that you have filled in your interpretation of the rules based this sentence..
" There is nowhere in the book that says you have to successfully wound to trigger it"
The lack of that statement, is proof of nothing other than your own interpretation.
You can look at my post above.
I am often accused of things in this thread that the accusers do themselves.

No. Your post listing your ideas of how the rules work with your own opinions of how they should trigger is why you have yet to make a single valid argument.

I have listed the rules for Killing Blow. There is nowhere in the rulebook that states that sixes are always a successful wound. The wound chart just gives you the maximum of a six.

The fact of the matter remains. The only time wounding comes into play is when you trigger killing blow.

You could have a special rule that means your infantry can only be successfully wounded on a roll of a 5. Killing Blow still comes into play, due to it not wounding, as per the writing of the rule.

 Throt wrote:
Let me try to clarify.
The rule is only difficult to those that are overthinking.
You think that...KB isn't going to cause wounds despite the process they have learned with rolling to hit and wound?...You think that the rule was written to suddenly change the whole learned process, to no longer have reference to wounds based on a few terms in the KB text?...Obviously some do, and I bet many have been playing a long time and think they know how to write rules better or how screwed up they believe GW is...So people believe that GW wrote a rule to have an obscure relevance toward a single situation?
So by bouncing back and forth through rule to rule, page to page, those someones are able to swear that that was how the rule was written...

That is all intent. I'm not talking about intent.
If my roommate left a note on the fridge that said "don't drink my juice", I could wonder, "is my roommate mad at me? Does he think I have drank his juice in the past? Or is his juice poisoned? Or is he saying not to drink his juice, because he wants me to drink his soda first?" There's lots of reasons he could have written it in the way he did.
But, if all I'm interested in is following the note, exactly as it is printed (as I would for, say, a section of a rulebook), my course of action would be clear.

So no, I haven't spared one single thought towards new players or what GW meant to do. I don't care, in this case. The rules say Killing Blow does stuff. I do that stuff. I read the text and follow it, exactly, to every tedious and potentially stupid letter.
...and then I might ignore some of it, because it's stupid.

 Throt wrote:
The only reason that this is even in a discussion is someone, somewhere wanted an additional rule to be able to kill the pesky ethereal. Because without ethereal the 'no wounds' would be completely irrelevant...Sounds, more like the person who is struggling with ethereals, intent to me.

Some people might have this motive, but I--as I've said. Over. And effing Over--do not. So please stop saying that my argument is ill-founded because it's based in someone else's bias. I've met you, word-for-word, throughout this post. You might say that I've been "missing the point", but I'd say the same thing about your argument. So we're at least equal (obviously, I think I'm winning, but that is how these things go).
It's like the old thread about how Armour Piercing can't ever be applied to ranged attacks. Sure, it's technically true. But I'll never ever play it that way.
My only argument in terms of actually letting this work is that Ethereal is good and Killing Blow is bad. If I was playing Vampire Counts versus Daemons, I'd let their Bloodletters insta'-kill my Banshees, if they wanted. But never the other way around.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

No. Your post listing your ideas of how the rules work with your own opinions of how they should trigger is why you have yet to make a single valid argument.

I have listed the rules for Killing Blow. There is nowhere in the rulebook that states that sixes are always a successful wound. The wound chart just gives you the maximum of a six.

The fact of the matter remains. The only time wounding comes into play is when you trigger killing blow.

You could have a special rule that means your infantry can only be successfully wounded on a roll of a 5. Killing Blow still comes into play, due to it not wounding, as per the writing of the rule.

 Throt wrote:

In a way we are getting there together because the whole idea of wounds or not has created intent. Because up until someone decided to try and use KB against undead it was completely irrelevant.
It didn't matter if KB caused wounds or not because you just did what you were told that was how it was written...some guy wants to use it on undead, he's looking for intent and needs to look at more than the written.
So now we have to look at what the game process is and does, which is where my points come in.
Notice technically, we are both arguing intent although the no wounds crowd seems to throw around RAW and believe themselves correct just as I believe myself correct

I am not arguing intent. At. All.
The only way you could claim that I am is by my definition of the term "slain". And we're back in those muddy, poorly outlined waters once more.

That guy who wants to use Killing Blow on Ethereal models doesn't need to decipher the intent of the rules. He need only read what is written, and follow them exactly. Saying that someone needs to look at "more than the written" rules is absurdity! Think about it. They're the rules! You follow them. Period. End of story.
...except where GW says we should feel free to play however we damn well please. Which I do, with pride. But I would never claim that it is the correct reading of the rules.

As I'm on a mobile phone, I'm not going to quote things.

Their, I haveNEVER listed, posted, quoted, or linked my interpretation of the rules. I have posted the rules.

Killing Blow triggers on the to wound roll of a 6. That is the only time wounding comes into play. Not a successful roll of a 6. A roll of a 6.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
As I'm on a mobile phone, I'm not going to quote things.

Their, I haveNEVER listed, posted, quoted, or linked my interpretation of the rules. I have posted the rules.

Killing Blow triggers on the to wound roll of a 6. That is the only time wounding comes into play. Not a successful roll of a 6. A roll of a 6.

Do you know of a time where a 6 is not successful?

When you need a 7+ to do something.

Warpsolution wrote:

 Throt wrote:

In a way we are getting there together because the whole idea of wounds or not has created intent. Because up until someone decided to try and use KB against undead it was completely irrelevant.
It didn't matter if KB caused wounds or not because you just did what you were told that was how it was written...some guy wants to use it on undead, he's looking for intent and needs to look at more than the written.
So now we have to look at what the game process is and does, which is where my points come in.
Notice technically, we are both arguing intent although the no wounds crowd seems to throw around RAW and believe themselves correct just as I believe myself correct

I am not arguing intent. At. All.
The only way you could claim that I am is by my definition of the term "slain". And we're back in those muddy, poorly outlined waters once more.

That guy who wants to use Killing Blow on Ethereal models doesn't need to decipher the intent of the rules. He need only read what is written, and follow them exactly. Saying that someone needs to look at "more than the written" rules is absurdity! Think about it. They're the rules! You follow them. Period. End of story.
...except where GW says we should feel free to play however we damn well please. Which I do, with pride. But I would never claim that it is the correct reading of the rules.

Any step away from what is written is intent.
The fact that this discussion is being had, is intent not written. Once any ambiguity comes up, intent will supersede written.
KB does not state wounds or not. Nowhere is it written. One must take their interpretation of the KB rule.
All in all I guess the argument could be considered valid either way based on the lack of information. Even though we each know which way we would play it.
It isn't more than written, it is application of written on different sources to create the chain
When you take wounds you need other rules that tell you what/how. When you are slain, you need rules to tell you what/how.
Take the dragonhelm..you need to know what and how is happening to see if you get your ward because they have specific condition that trump the basic writings. Because you are not getting a ward against warpflame.
So with KB Vs. Ethereal you do need to know whether or not they are wounds because it (I suppose) is up to interpretation and requires specific conditions be met.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
When you need a 7+ to do something.

Do you know of any time a 6 rolled to wound is not successful?

 Throt wrote:


Do you know of any time a 6 rolled to wound is not successful?

I do believe there are spells and abilities that confer a -1 to the To Wound roll, though I can't think of it right off the top of my head. Thus, if a S4 attack is directed at a T6 target and that penalty is in play, you would need a 7+ to wound. Unless, of course, there is specific wording somewhere that states that a 6 on the To Wound roll is always a success.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Throt wrote:


Do you know of any time a 6 rolled to wound is not successful?

I do believe there are spells and abilities that confer a -1 to the To Wound roll, though I can't think of it right off the top of my head. Thus, if a S4 attack is directed at a T6 target and that penalty is in play, you would need a 7+ to wound. Unless, of course, there is specific wording somewhere that states that a 6 on the To Wound roll is always a success.

As far as I know there are no more instances of -1 To Wound in WHFB as the K'Daai destroyer's ability has been errata'd to reroll successful wounds from non-magical wounds.

 Throt wrote:
Any step away from what is written is intent.
The fact that this discussion is being had, is intent not written.

Sure. But one side of the argument seems to be "since it doesn't say it causes wounds, it doesn't", and the other side seems to be "because you're rolling to wound, we can assume that it causes wounds". The second argument steps away from what is written. The first does not.

 Throt wrote:
Take the dragonhelm..you need to know what and how is happening to see if you get your ward because they have specific condition that trump the basic writings. Because you are not getting a ward against warpflame.

This metaphor doesn't work. The Dragonhelm has perfectly written rules. Now, if it was like how the Bretonnian item was originally written, something like "this item makes the bearer immune to to attacks that are comprised completely of fire, such as a Dwarf flame cannon or a dragon's breath weapon", you'd have a case.

 Throt wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
As I'm on a mobile phone, I'm not going to quote things.

Their, I haveNEVER listed, posted, quoted, or linked my interpretation of the rules. I have posted the rules.

Killing Blow triggers on the to wound roll of a 6. That is the only time wounding comes into play. Not a successful roll of a 6. A roll of a 6.

Do you know of a time where a 6 is not successful?

Mundane attacks vs ethereal.

Warpsolution wrote:
Just because there's an argument doesn't mean there's a reasonable dispute. I could say "gravity is a myth", and then cover my ears and go "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". We'd still be arguing. But you would clearly be right..

That's exactly the point warp, you're attempting to win the argument by disavowing any other argument as 'unreasonable'. In other words, if it doesn't fit your interpretation - and let's be clear, that's what it is - then it's not RAW, and your opponent should just shut up and get in line. But you're not actually entertaining the thought that your interpretation is not clearly RAW and so in effect the argument is quite unreasonable....so instead of saying "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" what you really are saying is "RAW RAW RAW, YOU'RE NOT READING IT THE SAME WAY I AM."

Not trying to pick a fight or anything, I just want to poke some holes in the epistemological certainty that's on display.

P.S. Gravity is a myth is a straw man, don't be silly.

akempist wrote:
That's exactly the point warp, you're attempting to win the argument by disavowing any other argument as 'unreasonable'. In other words, if it doesn't fit your interpretation - and let's be clear, that's what it is - then it's not RAW, and your opponent should just shut up and get in line.

I have never suggest that anyone "just shut up and get in line". I have attempted to debate my point as civilly and reasonably as possible.

As to whether or not my reading of the rule is an interpretation or not:

p.72 KILLING BLOW "If a model with the Killing Blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent..." --since it does not say that it causes woulds, or that the target suffers wounds, and Warhammer is a permissive rule system, then this rule cannot cause wounds.
The main argument I've heard to counter this point is that, because Killing Blow is triggered by a To Wound roll, it must therefore have something to do with wounds. But that is an assumption. A reasonable one, mind you, but an assumption nevertheless.

akempist wrote:
Not trying to pick a fight or anything, I just want to poke some holes in the epistemological certainty that's on display.

In the future, a more civil tone would help demonstrate that you are not, in fact, trying to pick a fight.

akempist wrote:
P.S. Gravity is a myth is a straw man, don't be silly.

...yes, I wasn't trying to compare this argument to the Killing Blow one or something. It's just an extreme example of how there can be an argument, even if one side is not obeying the rules.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Throt wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
As I'm on a mobile phone, I'm not going to quote things.

Their, I haveNEVER listed, posted, quoted, or linked my interpretation of the rules. I have posted the rules.

Killing Blow triggers on the to wound roll of a 6. That is the only time wounding comes into play. Not a successful roll of a 6. A roll of a 6.

Do you know of a time where a 6 is not successful?

Mundane attacks vs ethereal.

Touche.
So shouldn't you simply look at the fact that killing blow is mundane, since it is definitely not magical, and know that it is not successful against ethereal? No matter how the sentences are broken down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warpsolution wrote:


As to whether or not my reading of the rule is an interpretation or not:

p.72 KILLING BLOW "If a model with the Killing Blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent..." --since it does not say that it causes woulds, or that the target suffers wounds, and Warhammer is a permissive rule system, then this rule cannot cause wounds.
The main argument I've heard to counter this point is that, because Killing Blow is triggered by a To Wound roll, it must therefore have something to do with wounds. But that is an assumption. A reasonable one, mind you, but an assumption nevertheless.

You have already been given permission to cause a wound in this permissive system. (Don't forget..."regardless of the number of wounds" That part always gets left out.)
So why is it more of an assumption to believe it causes wounds, than ignoring the same point, to say that there are no wounds?
No one has ever explained why the roll to wound suddenly became irrelevant, other than trying to break the sentence into pieces.
So it is not an assumption to think this singular rule is going to go against a well defined game mechanic? Which is rooted in that game mechanic, and you have no permission to ignore the already generated mechanic? Because all of these things must be overlooked to create the no wound theory.
Why can it not cause wounds? If verbiage becomes more important then the rules that are supposed to be RAW, Isn't that in itself interpretation then?

Taking parts of the sentences out of context is just more interpretation. Which shows that no wounds is obviously interpretation, because it needs specific inference of singular words to validate the theory. (the muddy breakdown of 'slain' for example)

 Throt wrote:
...shouldn't you simply look at the fact that killing blow is mundane, since it is definitely not magical, and know that it is not successful against ethereal? No matter how the sentences are broken down.

No. Because, as said before, Ethereal units cannot be wounded, except by spells and magical attacks and effects. So, if it doesn't cause wounds, mundane or not, it effects Ethereal models just fine.

 Throt wrote:
You have already been given permission to cause a wound in this permissive system. (Don't forget..."regardless of the number of wounds" That part always gets left out.)

I left it out because I was being concise. It has no bearing on my argument.

 Throt wrote:
So why is it more of an assumption to believe it causes wounds, than ignoring the same point, to say that there are no wounds? No one has ever explained why the roll to wound suddenly became irrelevant, other than trying to break the sentence into pieces.

The to wound roll does not become irrelevant. It is still resolved, right along side Killing Blow, as two separate instances.

 Throt wrote:
So it is not an assumption to think this singular rule is going to go against a well defined game mechanic? Which is rooted in that game mechanic, and you have no permission to ignore the already generated mechanic? Because all of these things must be overlooked to create the no wound theory.
Why can it not cause wounds? If verbiage becomes more important then the rules that are supposed to be RAW, Isn't that in itself interpretation then?

It's not "going against" anything. It's just a separate rule that happens to be triggered by the "well-defined game mechanic". The fact that it's "rooted in" this mechanic doesn't matter.
So, I'm not overlooking any of these things. And my conclusion remains.

Why can it not cause wounds? Because it doesn't say it does. It says "...rolls a 6 to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent, regardless of the number of wounds on his profile". It tells us that, no matter the number of wounds on his profile, he's dead. It doesn't say he suffers those wounds, or that the model with Killing Blow inflicts them. Just that, whatever the number, the model is dead.
Then it's a matter of saying "huh. Guess it doesn't cause wounds. Because it doesn't say it does", or trying to claim that "well, since it's the to wound roll that triggers the rule, Killing Blow is really more like Multiple Wounds (X), where X is the number of wounds on the models profile". The first is simple, strict, and technical. It might not make a whole lot of sense, and it's probably due to poor writing. But the second deviates from the above rules, assuming that we're causing wounds where the book does not explicitly tell us to.

 Throt wrote:
If verbiage becomes more important then the rules that are supposed to be RAW, Isn't that in itself interpretation then?

I am not sure I understand. If (the way the rules are written) becomes more important than (the rules as they are written)...this is a contradictory statement.

 Throt wrote:
Taking parts of the sentences out of context is just more interpretation. Which shows that no wounds is obviously interpretation, because it needs specific inference of singular words to validate the theory. (the muddy breakdown of 'slain' for example)

Again. Not sure if I follow. So...defining individual words in a sentences means I'm interpreting said sentence? Because...no. Words have meaning. I define them, and put all those definitions together, and read them in a certain order, and that's a thought.

Warpsolution wrote:

 Throt wrote:
...shouldn't you simply look at the fact that killing blow is mundane, since it is definitely not magical, and know that it is not successful against ethereal? No matter how the sentences are broken down.

No. Because, as said before, Ethereal units cannot be wounded, except by spells and magical attacks and effects. So, if it doesn't cause wounds, mundane or not, it effects Ethereal models just fine.

So you think that effects is it's own category? As in ....cannot be wounded by..except by magical attacks. (period) ...except by effects? So effects is it's own happenstance??? This is an example of overthinking and taking things out of context.
If I said 'I don't like fruit, except for in pies and candies. Would you think I was telling you I like all candies or would you place it in the context of the sentence for fruit candies?

Warpsolution wrote:

 Throt wrote:
You have already been given permission to cause a wound in this permissive system. (Don't forget..."regardless of the number of wounds" That part always gets left out.)

I left it out because I was being concise. It has no bearing on my argument.

 Throt wrote:

So you think that effects is it's own category? As in ....cannot be wounded by..except by magical attacks. (period) ...except by effects? So effects is it's own happenstance???

...wow. I know other people had that crazy stance, but that is not at all what I said. Read it.
What I'm saying is: anything that does not cause wounds bypasses the Ethereal rule. Because it only prevents you from being wounded. Not slain, removed from play as a casualty, or dragged to your DOOM!.
So, if there was some oddball war machine that said "models must pass an Initiative test or be removed from play", it would kill ghosts. Because it doesn't do wounds.
Stupid? Yes. But RAW.

 Throt wrote:
yet it should. It is part of the context of the entire rule. In fact it is a major part because it gives you your additional connections to the process. Context.

When a quote ends with ellipses, that means the sentences goes on beyond the quoted section. I'm not going to transcribe the entire Killing Blow Entry, or that chapter, or the whole book, every time I quote something.
I wasn't going "and now I'll quote the rules again...but I'll leave out that last part, so it makes my argument seem stronger. MWAHAHA!--" I was just being concise.

 Throt wrote:
So you get +4 combat res on a 3 wound model? One for the wound and 3 for KB?

Technically? Yup. As silly as that sounds.
Even weirder, though, is a situation where, say, a model successfully makes its Ward save against KB. Now, they technically have to roll their armour and Ward/Regen against the regular wound that's still floating around.
I would never dream of playing it that way. But that's how it works.

 Throt wrote:
You have no permission for any of that.

...says who? I followed the rules for Killing Blow, the rules for wounding, and the rules for Combat Resolution. To. The. Letter.

 Throt wrote:
If it was a separate mechanic you would be told to roll a dice for killing blow.

You make it sound like that's the only way it could ever work.
These are rules. That someone made up. They can literally work however the writer wanted them to.

Furthermore, if what you were saying were true, then why is it that when I have a unit with Poisoned Attacks, I don't roll for Poison separately? 24 shots, I roll 24 dice, and any 6's auto-wound. Then I pick up the leftover dice and roll to hit. Exactly the same concept.

 Throt wrote:
Here are the same examples for both our views
I rolled a 6 and wounded him cool that's a wound, wait, I have KB and it works on him. Forget about wounds he dies.
OR
I rolled a 6 and wounded him cool that's a wound, wait, I have KB and it works on him. It takes all his wounds he dies.
Both are just as technical. Both are simple. The second maintains all the normal flow and processes changes nothing, not even the rules.

So...where does it say "the model suffers as many wounds as it has on its current profile"? Saying the second argument is more valid because it flows with the game better is a good point in favor of playing it that way. But that's not what it says. It says instantly slain, regardless of the number of wounds.

 Throt wrote:
My apologies. The 'proof' that no wounds are caused is often broken down into choice words, like slain, removing words from the context of the rule itself to meet the required results. Though this may be effective in law to prove point it automatically changes the discussion from the written into intent. Are you old enough to remember the Clinton debacle, with what the meaning of 'is' is'? If you need to start defining separate words apart from the context of the sentence your argument will be damaged.

The issue with Clinton was that he was trying to define a word when there was no debate as to its meaning.
The rule is ""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..."
The question is, "does Killing Blow cause wounds?"
The follow-up question is "does 'slay' mean wounds are caused, or is it a removed-from-play effect?"

How could that possibly involve intent?

"I like candy" --well, what do they mean by candy? What about candied beets and maple candy, do those count? None of that involves intent in any way. You just need to find where "candy" is defined within the text, and boom! There's your answer.
You keep talking about people over thinking stuff. Now you're saying that trying to define the words of a sentence is somehow deviating from the written words that you're defining? What?!

 Throt wrote:
Sorry. That should have been taking parts of sentences out of context shows intent. So when we look at the entire context of killing blow,all the game mechanics involved and all the rules we know to follow, everything works fine. But for the no wounds to work we must only look at the single incomplete sentence.....rolls a six to wound the model is slain..we have created the intent of avoiding all the other rules and mechanics. Without permission and out of context.
Because now we must ignore the wound roll, we ignore the wound characteristic. Other examples have used 'counts as' taking it out of context of the sentence and paragraph. All the defense of no wounds, require out of context examples.
Is that a bit clearer?

I guess. But I am still unswayed.

I am not ignoring anything. The to wound roll? Nope. Still doing that. Killing Blow just works independently of it, once it is triggered (Just. Like. Poison). Oh, but we do ignore the Wound characteristic. Because we're told to; "regardless of the number of wounds":

re·gard·less
rəˈɡärdləs/
adverb
without paying attention to the present situation; despite the prevailing circumstances.

So, we do not pay attention to (the number of wounds); we remove the enemy model despite (the number of wounds).