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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I mean, it's all Mat Ward.

 FlingitNow wrote:

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

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

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

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

Why is this a debate?

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

No worries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

So you believe this was what they intended?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

Insult noted, back on ignore. Pointless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's a break test for?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is 100% factual.

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

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

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

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

Neither side has proven anything RAW i suppose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rulebook STILL disagrees with you on this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hence why I call it a instant Kill effect.


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

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

 kirsanth wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saldiven wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 FlingitNow wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warpsolution wrote:


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

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

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

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

 Peasant wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is 100% factual.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirsanth wrote:

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

Hence why I call it a instant Kill effect.

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you show me how?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, those against you would answer thusly:

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

Warpsolution wrote:


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

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

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

Can you show me how?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warpsolution wrote:

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

Well, those against you would answer thusly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Permissive rules system?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection from X does not require that X can occur

This is absolutely basic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accept anythign you like.

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

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

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

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

More abuse again?

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

You clearly have no idea what a logical fallacy is

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

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

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

And like has been said before:

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

Or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

here you are required to have text stating it .

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

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

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

QUOTE: FAQ, WARHAMMER RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.8

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

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

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

and then goes on to say

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

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

RAW and obviously RAI.