Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.