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.

Warpsolution wrote:

 Throt wrote:

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

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

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

Any step away from what is written is intent.
The fact that this discussion is being had, is intent not written. Once any ambiguity comes up, intent will supersede written.
KB does not state wounds or not. Nowhere is it written. One must take their interpretation of the KB rule.
All in all I guess the argument could be considered valid either way based on the lack of information. Even though we each know which way we would play it.
It isn't more than written, it is application of written on different sources to create the chain
When you take wounds you need other rules that tell you what/how. When you are slain, you need rules to tell you what/how.
Take the dragonhelm..you need to know what and how is happening to see if you get your ward because they have specific condition that trump the basic writings. Because you are not getting a ward against warpflame.
So with KB Vs. Ethereal you do need to know whether or not they are wounds because it (I suppose) is up to interpretation and requires specific conditions be met.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
When you need a 7+ to do something.

Do you know of any time a 6 rolled to wound is not successful?

 Throt wrote:


Do you know of any time a 6 rolled to wound is not successful?

I do believe there are spells and abilities that confer a -1 to the To Wound roll, though I can't think of it right off the top of my head. Thus, if a S4 attack is directed at a T6 target and that penalty is in play, you would need a 7+ to wound. Unless, of course, there is specific wording somewhere that states that a 6 on the To Wound roll is always a success.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Throt wrote:


Do you know of any time a 6 rolled to wound is not successful?

I do believe there are spells and abilities that confer a -1 to the To Wound roll, though I can't think of it right off the top of my head. Thus, if a S4 attack is directed at a T6 target and that penalty is in play, you would need a 7+ to wound. Unless, of course, there is specific wording somewhere that states that a 6 on the To Wound roll is always a success.

As far as I know there are no more instances of -1 To Wound in WHFB as the K'Daai destroyer's ability has been errata'd to reroll successful wounds from non-magical wounds.

 Throt wrote:
Any step away from what is written is intent.
The fact that this discussion is being had, is intent not written.

Sure. But one side of the argument seems to be "since it doesn't say it causes wounds, it doesn't", and the other side seems to be "because you're rolling to wound, we can assume that it causes wounds". The second argument steps away from what is written. The first does not.

 Throt wrote:
Take the dragonhelm..you need to know what and how is happening to see if you get your ward because they have specific condition that trump the basic writings. Because you are not getting a ward against warpflame.

This metaphor doesn't work. The Dragonhelm has perfectly written rules. Now, if it was like how the Bretonnian item was originally written, something like "this item makes the bearer immune to to attacks that are comprised completely of fire, such as a Dwarf flame cannon or a dragon's breath weapon", you'd have a case.

 Throt wrote:

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

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

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

Do you know of a time where a 6 is not successful?

Mundane attacks vs ethereal.

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

That's exactly the point warp, you're attempting to win the argument by disavowing any other argument as 'unreasonable'. In other words, if it doesn't fit your interpretation - and let's be clear, that's what it is - then it's not RAW, and your opponent should just shut up and get in line. But you're not actually entertaining the thought that your interpretation is not clearly RAW and so in effect the argument is quite unreasonable....so instead of saying "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" what you really are saying is "RAW RAW RAW, YOU'RE NOT READING IT THE SAME WAY I AM."

Not trying to pick a fight or anything, I just want to poke some holes in the epistemological certainty that's on display.

P.S. Gravity is a myth is a straw man, don't be silly.

akempist wrote:
That's exactly the point warp, you're attempting to win the argument by disavowing any other argument as 'unreasonable'. In other words, if it doesn't fit your interpretation - and let's be clear, that's what it is - then it's not RAW, and your opponent should just shut up and get in line.

I have never suggest that anyone "just shut up and get in line". I have attempted to debate my point as civilly and reasonably as possible.

As to whether or not my reading of the rule is an interpretation or not:

p.72 KILLING BLOW "If a model with the Killing Blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent..." --since it does not say that it causes woulds, or that the target suffers wounds, and Warhammer is a permissive rule system, then this rule cannot cause wounds.
The main argument I've heard to counter this point is that, because Killing Blow is triggered by a To Wound roll, it must therefore have something to do with wounds. But that is an assumption. A reasonable one, mind you, but an assumption nevertheless.

akempist wrote:
Not trying to pick a fight or anything, I just want to poke some holes in the epistemological certainty that's on display.

In the future, a more civil tone would help demonstrate that you are not, in fact, trying to pick a fight.

akempist wrote:
P.S. Gravity is a myth is a straw man, don't be silly.

...yes, I wasn't trying to compare this argument to the Killing Blow one or something. It's just an extreme example of how there can be an argument, even if one side is not obeying the rules.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Throt wrote:

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

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

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

Do you know of a time where a 6 is not successful?

Mundane attacks vs ethereal.

Touche.
So shouldn't you simply look at the fact that killing blow is mundane, since it is definitely not magical, and know that it is not successful against ethereal? No matter how the sentences are broken down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warpsolution wrote:


As to whether or not my reading of the rule is an interpretation or not:

p.72 KILLING BLOW "If a model with the Killing Blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent..." --since it does not say that it causes woulds, or that the target suffers wounds, and Warhammer is a permissive rule system, then this rule cannot cause wounds.
The main argument I've heard to counter this point is that, because Killing Blow is triggered by a To Wound roll, it must therefore have something to do with wounds. But that is an assumption. A reasonable one, mind you, but an assumption nevertheless.

You have already been given permission to cause a wound in this permissive system. (Don't forget..."regardless of the number of wounds" That part always gets left out.)
So why is it more of an assumption to believe it causes wounds, than ignoring the same point, to say that there are no wounds?
No one has ever explained why the roll to wound suddenly became irrelevant, other than trying to break the sentence into pieces.
So it is not an assumption to think this singular rule is going to go against a well defined game mechanic? Which is rooted in that game mechanic, and you have no permission to ignore the already generated mechanic? Because all of these things must be overlooked to create the no wound theory.
Why can it not cause wounds? If verbiage becomes more important then the rules that are supposed to be RAW, Isn't that in itself interpretation then?

Taking parts of the sentences out of context is just more interpretation. Which shows that no wounds is obviously interpretation, because it needs specific inference of singular words to validate the theory. (the muddy breakdown of 'slain' for example)

 Throt wrote:
...shouldn't you simply look at the fact that killing blow is mundane, since it is definitely not magical, and know that it is not successful against ethereal? No matter how the sentences are broken down.

No. Because, as said before, Ethereal units cannot be wounded, except by spells and magical attacks and effects. So, if it doesn't cause wounds, mundane or not, it effects Ethereal models just fine.

 Throt wrote:
You have already been given permission to cause a wound in this permissive system. (Don't forget..."regardless of the number of wounds" That part always gets left out.)

I left it out because I was being concise. It has no bearing on my argument.

 Throt wrote:
So why is it more of an assumption to believe it causes wounds, than ignoring the same point, to say that there are no wounds? No one has ever explained why the roll to wound suddenly became irrelevant, other than trying to break the sentence into pieces.

The to wound roll does not become irrelevant. It is still resolved, right along side Killing Blow, as two separate instances.

 Throt wrote:
So it is not an assumption to think this singular rule is going to go against a well defined game mechanic? Which is rooted in that game mechanic, and you have no permission to ignore the already generated mechanic? Because all of these things must be overlooked to create the no wound theory.
Why can it not cause wounds? If verbiage becomes more important then the rules that are supposed to be RAW, Isn't that in itself interpretation then?

It's not "going against" anything. It's just a separate rule that happens to be triggered by the "well-defined game mechanic". The fact that it's "rooted in" this mechanic doesn't matter.
So, I'm not overlooking any of these things. And my conclusion remains.

Why can it not cause wounds? Because it doesn't say it does. It says "...rolls a 6 to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent, regardless of the number of wounds on his profile". It tells us that, no matter the number of wounds on his profile, he's dead. It doesn't say he suffers those wounds, or that the model with Killing Blow inflicts them. Just that, whatever the number, the model is dead.
Then it's a matter of saying "huh. Guess it doesn't cause wounds. Because it doesn't say it does", or trying to claim that "well, since it's the to wound roll that triggers the rule, Killing Blow is really more like Multiple Wounds (X), where X is the number of wounds on the models profile". The first is simple, strict, and technical. It might not make a whole lot of sense, and it's probably due to poor writing. But the second deviates from the above rules, assuming that we're causing wounds where the book does not explicitly tell us to.

 Throt wrote:
If verbiage becomes more important then the rules that are supposed to be RAW, Isn't that in itself interpretation then?

I am not sure I understand. If (the way the rules are written) becomes more important than (the rules as they are written)...this is a contradictory statement.

 Throt wrote:
Taking parts of the sentences out of context is just more interpretation. Which shows that no wounds is obviously interpretation, because it needs specific inference of singular words to validate the theory. (the muddy breakdown of 'slain' for example)

Again. Not sure if I follow. So...defining individual words in a sentences means I'm interpreting said sentence? Because...no. Words have meaning. I define them, and put all those definitions together, and read them in a certain order, and that's a thought.

Warpsolution wrote:

 Throt wrote:
...shouldn't you simply look at the fact that killing blow is mundane, since it is definitely not magical, and know that it is not successful against ethereal? No matter how the sentences are broken down.

No. Because, as said before, Ethereal units cannot be wounded, except by spells and magical attacks and effects. So, if it doesn't cause wounds, mundane or not, it effects Ethereal models just fine.

So you think that effects is it's own category? As in ....cannot be wounded by..except by magical attacks. (period) ...except by effects? So effects is it's own happenstance??? This is an example of overthinking and taking things out of context.
If I said 'I don't like fruit, except for in pies and candies. Would you think I was telling you I like all candies or would you place it in the context of the sentence for fruit candies?

Warpsolution wrote:

 Throt wrote:
You have already been given permission to cause a wound in this permissive system. (Don't forget..."regardless of the number of wounds" That part always gets left out.)

I left it out because I was being concise. It has no bearing on my argument.

 Throt wrote:

So you think that effects is it's own category? As in ....cannot be wounded by..except by magical attacks. (period) ...except by effects? So effects is it's own happenstance???

...wow. I know other people had that crazy stance, but that is not at all what I said. Read it.
What I'm saying is: anything that does not cause wounds bypasses the Ethereal rule. Because it only prevents you from being wounded. Not slain, removed from play as a casualty, or dragged to your DOOM!.
So, if there was some oddball war machine that said "models must pass an Initiative test or be removed from play", it would kill ghosts. Because it doesn't do wounds.
Stupid? Yes. But RAW.

 Throt wrote:
yet it should. It is part of the context of the entire rule. In fact it is a major part because it gives you your additional connections to the process. Context.

When a quote ends with ellipses, that means the sentences goes on beyond the quoted section. I'm not going to transcribe the entire Killing Blow Entry, or that chapter, or the whole book, every time I quote something.
I wasn't going "and now I'll quote the rules again...but I'll leave out that last part, so it makes my argument seem stronger. MWAHAHA!--" I was just being concise.

 Throt wrote:
So you get +4 combat res on a 3 wound model? One for the wound and 3 for KB?

Technically? Yup. As silly as that sounds.
Even weirder, though, is a situation where, say, a model successfully makes its Ward save against KB. Now, they technically have to roll their armour and Ward/Regen against the regular wound that's still floating around.
I would never dream of playing it that way. But that's how it works.

 Throt wrote:
You have no permission for any of that.

...says who? I followed the rules for Killing Blow, the rules for wounding, and the rules for Combat Resolution. To. The. Letter.

 Throt wrote:
If it was a separate mechanic you would be told to roll a dice for killing blow.

You make it sound like that's the only way it could ever work.
These are rules. That someone made up. They can literally work however the writer wanted them to.

Furthermore, if what you were saying were true, then why is it that when I have a unit with Poisoned Attacks, I don't roll for Poison separately? 24 shots, I roll 24 dice, and any 6's auto-wound. Then I pick up the leftover dice and roll to hit. Exactly the same concept.

 Throt wrote:
Here are the same examples for both our views
I rolled a 6 and wounded him cool that's a wound, wait, I have KB and it works on him. Forget about wounds he dies.
OR
I rolled a 6 and wounded him cool that's a wound, wait, I have KB and it works on him. It takes all his wounds he dies.
Both are just as technical. Both are simple. The second maintains all the normal flow and processes changes nothing, not even the rules.

So...where does it say "the model suffers as many wounds as it has on its current profile"? Saying the second argument is more valid because it flows with the game better is a good point in favor of playing it that way. But that's not what it says. It says instantly slain, regardless of the number of wounds.

 Throt wrote:
My apologies. The 'proof' that no wounds are caused is often broken down into choice words, like slain, removing words from the context of the rule itself to meet the required results. Though this may be effective in law to prove point it automatically changes the discussion from the written into intent. Are you old enough to remember the Clinton debacle, with what the meaning of 'is' is'? If you need to start defining separate words apart from the context of the sentence your argument will be damaged.

The issue with Clinton was that he was trying to define a word when there was no debate as to its meaning.
The rule is ""If a model with the Killing Blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent, regardless of the number of wounds..."
The question is, "does Killing Blow cause wounds?"
The follow-up question is "does 'slay' mean wounds are caused, or is it a removed-from-play effect?"

How could that possibly involve intent?

"I like candy" --well, what do they mean by candy? What about candied beets and maple candy, do those count? None of that involves intent in any way. You just need to find where "candy" is defined within the text, and boom! There's your answer.
You keep talking about people over thinking stuff. Now you're saying that trying to define the words of a sentence is somehow deviating from the written words that you're defining? What?!

 Throt wrote:
Sorry. That should have been taking parts of sentences out of context shows intent. So when we look at the entire context of killing blow,all the game mechanics involved and all the rules we know to follow, everything works fine. But for the no wounds to work we must only look at the single incomplete sentence.....rolls a six to wound the model is slain..we have created the intent of avoiding all the other rules and mechanics. Without permission and out of context.
Because now we must ignore the wound roll, we ignore the wound characteristic. Other examples have used 'counts as' taking it out of context of the sentence and paragraph. All the defense of no wounds, require out of context examples.
Is that a bit clearer?

I guess. But I am still unswayed.

I am not ignoring anything. The to wound roll? Nope. Still doing that. Killing Blow just works independently of it, once it is triggered (Just. Like. Poison). Oh, but we do ignore the Wound characteristic. Because we're told to; "regardless of the number of wounds":

re·gard·less
rəˈɡärdləs/
adverb
without paying attention to the present situation; despite the prevailing circumstances.

So, we do not pay attention to (the number of wounds); we remove the enemy model despite (the number of wounds).