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.

Acctually nightware, the rules basis for that is that the wounds are reduced to 0.

Niteware wrote:


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

Rules basis for that? Because KB doesn't fit either of those, unless you now think it is remove as a casualty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your grades and schooling have nothing to do with this, and obviously what people have said before in another thread FAILED to prove your point. It says regardless of the "number" of wounds on the targets profile. Number of wounds are ignored, wounds themselves, are not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And as for the TK example of a 5+ triggering KB that is their special rule further adding to this allowing them to wound.

Actually... did you read the 5+ kb example?

A group of TK tomb guard with 5+ kb, attack a unit with t7, they need 6's to wound them.
On the To Wound roll, a bunch of 4's, 5's and 6's are rolled.
The 4's do not wound and either do the 5's.
The 6's wound, however any dice that show 5 or 6 according to the special rule, KB.
KB states you "automatically slays his opponent"
Now the 6's still wound, but since you used that 6 with the KB rule, you cant wound something that is dead, cause that is what Slay means.
Otherwise you would have extra wounds that would make KB the most broken special rule in the game, this was the argument of someone in the other thread that you would get the KB wounds as he argued and the wounds from the dice roll, thus making each wound do double wounds on a 6.... thus it does not work that way. KB even has a section in the combat resolution section dealing with how KB works for determining a victor, because otherwise you wouldn't get to count the removed models that were killed outright. With out that section, those KB's kill guys, but seeing no wounds are caused, you get no combat res, hence why it has a section.

As the other thread had pointed out numerous times with tons of evidence, its all on that locked thread, KB does not cause wounds. However certain people kept trolling that thread to the point of it being locked. I already see this thread going down that road.

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

This has been stated many times, as I will state once again, stop this argument now as it won't be solved until a FAQ is released.

And another thing, what GW should do is actually go through their rules section, and actually make them right, go through the BRB spells and fix those too, re-release a small rule book with just the updated rules and maybe a few tweaks to 8th ed, call it 8.5 and sell it for $40 buck and re-release the undated magic cards with the fixes in them for $20 bucks. I would buy both and be happy until they just re errata everything....


*edit: further clarification

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


It says "slays outright".

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

Please stop spreading false info.

Okay you want to play that card...
here we go......

Instant Kills pg. 44

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

Remove Casualties pg. 51

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

Killing Blow in combat resolution pg. 52 with errata added in

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

(notice that it says score, as in you didn't wound, but you get to score them)

Killing blow rule pg. 72

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

Notice that killing blow fits the mold of a instant kill? cant take any saves, kills the model outright, it slays its opponent, slay is also tense of slain, both include the number of wounds of the victim's profile, following the instant kill thing, KB allows a ward which some instant kills allow.

Now like I said in my earlier post, this has already been said in the other thread so lets drop it now as this thread will be locked.

Also if you read my previous post, I said instant kill effect, I did not call it a instant kill, but having instant kill effect. two different things, but as with the English language, wording is tricky and GW makes that apparent.


*lots of edits to make it clearer

Firstly: well done, fattymac04

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Peasant wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Totally agree.

DukeRustfield wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It says "slays outright".

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

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

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

Peasant.... really? really?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warpsolution wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are doing so in this casem but with KB.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 FlingitNow] wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A demonstrably dishonest way to argue

FlingitNow wrote:

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

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

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

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

FlingitNow wrote:

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

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

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

FlingitNow wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

A demonstrably dishonest way to argue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are doing so in this casem but with KB.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:


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

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

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

I don't know what RADBF means?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

Yup Matt1785,

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

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

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

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



Now peasant....

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

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

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

Yup direct and to the point!

fattymac04 wrote:
Yup Matt1785

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

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

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

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

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

fattymac04 wrote:




Now peasant....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insult noted, back on ignore. Pointless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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