BooMeRLiNSKi wrote: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.
