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.

Wouldn't a model be instantly dead if it were slain outright?

No, it would be removed from the game.

I still don't see any difference in terms of what happens.

Instant Death is defined and has rules that reference it.

Slain outright/removed from the table are phrases that tell the players what to do, specifically there are not rules that actually tell you to ignore either phrase.

C'tan for example, are not immune to ID, unless it is caused by a wraithcannon (iirc).

EW is immune to ID.
Removing from the table does not cause ID, it causes your model to be removed from the table.

The term slain outright actually appears in fantasy. For 40k it comes across to me as a play on words but with your explanation I understand the difference as opposed to ID. Thanks.

DogOfWar wrote:Just curious, because I personally do not think there is a strict removal of wounds, merely a counting of what would have been remaining for combat resolution purposes.

The description for the weapon says otherwise, though.

"But count the actual amount inflicted" means that they have been "actually inflicted". It doesn't say anywhere that this only relevant for combat resolution; to the contrary, it says that wounds have been inflicted and you now count up the wounds that have been inflicted and use that for combat resolution.

To simplify, there's no "would have been". They have been inflicted.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

DogOfWar wrote:Just curious, because I personally do not think there is a strict removal of wounds, merely a counting of what would have been remaining for combat resolution purposes.

The description for the weapon says otherwise, though.

"But count the actual amount inflicted" means that they have been "actually inflicted". It doesn't say anywhere that this only relevant for combat resolution; to the contrary, it says that wounds have been inflicted and you now count up the wounds that have been inflicted and use that for combat resolution.

To simplify, there's no "would have been". They have been inflicted.

Okay that makes sense. But I still disagree that they have been inflicted for the purposes of anything other than determining combat resolution.

"...slain outright, no matter how many wounds it has (but count the number actually inflicted for determining which side won the assault)."

I take this to mean that you cannot use the fact that wounds are being assigned for anything other than determining which side won the assault. The effect states that you will remove the model regardless of how many wounds it has, then count the number for a specific purpose, and that purpose only. It doesn't say "and anything else that depends on removal of wounds is also counted/activated" so I don't think anything that relies on the normal wound loss system would come into play.

Actually, now that I read the rules for ID again it seems that it's a good thing Yarrick has EW since I don't believe he would get his Iron Will roll if he was killed by an ID attack either. Both ID and NFW require that an unsaved wound be taken by the model before a check can be made for either double the toughness value (with ID) or the psychic test (NFW), respectively. After this point, however, both act in exactly the same way and there is no actual wound removal as the model is either 'killed outright' or 'slain outright' depending on whether it was ID or NFW. Yarrick's Iron Will specifically mentions that he has to "lose his last wound" before he can initiate that special roll. With either effect, he doesn't technically 'lose' his last wound, and so I don't believe a player would get the option to roll for Iron Will. Whether you count the wounds actually inflicted for assault purposes at the end of combat doesn't seem to apply to the actual wording of Yarrick's special rule.

Of course this is a moot point with ID effects since Yarrick has EW, but it still applies for NFW. Honestly, like I said, I think he should get his roll regardless of what killed him because that's obviously the intent of such a mighty hero of the Imperium. Still, I think the way it's worded he's a bit SOL if he pisses off any Daemonhunters...

DoW

DogOfWar wrote:"...slain outright, no matter how many wounds it has (but count the number actually inflicted for determining which side won the assault)."

I take this to mean that you cannot use the fact that wounds are being assigned for anything other than determining which side won the assault. The effect states that you will remove the model regardless of how many wounds it has, then count the number for a specific purpose, and that purpose only. It doesn't say "and anything else that depends on removal of wounds is also counted/activated" so I don't think anything that relies on the normal wound loss system would come into play.

That would make sense if it said "only count the number actually inflicted", but it doesn't. It doesn't say "only" anywhere, nor does it imply at all that wounds are only lost for the purposes of combat resolution. It's only saying that when it comes to combat resolution, you count the number of wounds that have actually been inflicted, and not the one wound you originally gave to the model to use the force weapon.

The rule is telling you to count something. It doesn't in any way conjure up the existence of these wounds, it just states that they do exist, as they must to be counted. Since there are no further rules for what being "slain outright" entails, we must rely on what the rules for the weapon state the effects of it are (in this case, the model losing all of its wounds, and being slain as a result of this mechanic).

There's no exclusivity here. The rule says that you use the wounds actually inflicted for the purposes of combat resolution, not that there have been wounds dealt only for the purposes of combat resolution. Saying that they exist for other cases too is unnecessary. If something exists, and it's not stated to only exist in a specific capacity (i.e. combat resolution), then it exists for all purposes.

I have no idea how you guys are making this sound so complicated and hard to read so....

1vs.1
Grand master swings at yarrik and hits 3 times
Grand master wounds yarrik 2 times
Yarrik saves once, taking an unsaved wound.
Grand master makes a psychic test and passes!
The wound Yarrik recieves is counted as his last.
Yarrik is tipped over due to how f***ing awesome the inquisition is.

Combat Resolution:
Grand Master: 1
Yarrik: 0


You guys are reading it wrong i think, it says in the book that it counts as losing his last wound. no instand death, or slain outright. both of those terms mean nothing.

Counts as losing its last wound.
When something loses its last wound, it is removed from the table as a casualty.

But Yarrik is awesome so he just tips over because he is an orc killing God.

Stop overcomplicating things like this, people come to this site wondering what kind of things people bicker about (me) and get utterly confused because 2 people arguing are reading 2 different books.

DogOfWar wrote:It doesn't say "and anything else that depends on removal of wounds is also counted/activated" so I don't think anything that relies on the normal wound loss system would come into play.

The problem with that is that GW's rules never say things like, they're just not that water-tight.

IMO, the NFW removes all the wounds, as implied by the comment about "count the number actually inflicted". So, it is inflicting wounds rather than causing Instant Death.

though in my post i pointed out that the wound caused counts as the model losing its last wound, not all of its wounds. only one wound is being inflicted, there is no argument here, it is what the codex has said, now listen to its rules like it was the 11th commandment. (or for the non-christian/jewish.... what yo momma said)

Nenga97 - you said "it says in the book that it counts as losing his last wound. "

Can you give the actual quote from the book to back that up?

The nemesis force weapon IGNORES Yarricks wounds.

(Does he come back from INSTA deff also?)

Emperors Faithful wrote:The nemesis force weapon IGNORES Yarricks wounds.

(Does he come back from INSTA deff also?)

He has eternal warrior so Instant death means nothing to him. But any thing that igores wounds, for example zogs curse (Hope thats his name) and he becomes a squig, well nothing in his rules is going to save him.

He explodes, like to see him pick himself out of that one.

Orkeosaurus wrote:That would make sense if it said "only count the number actually inflicted", but it doesn't. It doesn't say "only" anywhere, nor does it imply at all that wounds are only lost for the purposes of combat resolution. It's only saying that when it comes to combat resolution, you count the number of wounds that have actually been inflicted, and not the one wound you originally gave to the model to use the force weapon.

The rule is telling you to count something. It doesn't in any way conjure up the existence of these wounds, it just states that they do exist, as they must to be counted. Since there are no further rules for what being "slain outright" entails, we must rely on what the rules for the weapon state the effects of it are (in this case, the model losing all of its wounds, and being slain as a result of this mechanic).

There's no exclusivity here. The rule says that you use the wounds actually inflicted for the purposes of combat resolution, not that there have been wounds dealt only for the purposes of combat resolution. Saying that they exist for other cases too is unnecessary. If something exists, and it's not stated to only exist in a specific capacity (i.e. combat resolution), then it exists for all purposes.

Hmmmmmm... I'm torn now.

In my head it really isn't giving Yarrick a chance to technically 'lose' his last wound, since as soon as he suffers one wound (and the psychic test is made) he goes straight from the status of "having one unsaved wound" to "slain outright." After that, so you don't get into any arguments (ha!) about combat resolution, you need to count the wounds inflicted to determine the victor. I think there are two questions I am having trouble answering that I think would make things clearer.

1) Does the phrase 'inflicted a wound' equate to a model 'losing a wound' or does it just mean that a wound is applied? I would wager that I can inflict plenty of wounds on a bunch of SM, yet they could make all of their armour saves and not technically 'lose any wounds'. Yarrick's rule specifies that he has to lose that last wound in order for Iron Will to activate, does it still activate if a wound is 'inflicted'? Could just be semantics, but I see a difference there.

2) If a rule states that you must accomplish a task or count a result for a specific purpose, does any effect that depends upon the result of that count also gain the benefit? Say, for instance, there was a vampiric form of NFW that sucked away wounds from targets and added them to the character wielding it. If something was slain outright by that weapon, could you count all the wounds for the purpose of the vampiric effect or would you only be able to count them for the combat resolution? Essentially, if the rules say to tally something for a specific reason, can you use that tally for additional events that are not specified?

I'm not sure how to answer both of those, but they would shed some light on both 1) if Yarrick actually loses his last wound as per the NFW ruling and 2) even if he doesn't, if the mere act of counting up the wounds for combat resolution would also apply to Iron Will.

Much appreciated!

DoW

1) If taking a wound referred to being wounded before armor saves, that'd be a whole different ball game. If a wound is inflicted - and unsaved - than the model loses a wound, that's part of the whole wound system. Otherwise how would inflicting wounds ever kill the model that takes them?

2) I think the problem is that you're looking at the ability to "count" something as an ability given by the rules, when in fact it's not. You can count the number of wounds inflicted anytime you like; you don't need permission to count them any more than you need permission to count the number of Kill Points you've scored so far, or the number of guardsmen left in the squad you want to kill.

If the rules said "only count the number of wounds actually inflicted for determining which side won the assault" then things would be different, as the rules are now saying that the wounds are only to be counted for this purpose, and no others. (In essence, it turns the wounds from a real fixture of the game to a fixture of that specific rule.)

This kind of thing makes me really annoyed with GW.

There are so many things that need to be errata'd/faq'd that could be done in a very short period of time but they havent done anything about it and instead work on more space marine codexes. Take 5min out of your day to answer a few important wording problems so players don't have to get into an hour long debate every time they try to play their army they paid good money to GW for.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I think you should just roll off for it at the beginning of every game, as it probably won't happen that often and it's really a 50/50 chance of following the RAW anyway since "slain outright" isn't defined.

It is just a literal description of what a Force Weapon does to the character it is used on, it is not in and of itself a special rule. I am not sure that it needs further definition. It is what it says. I think the important thing to remember is that a weapon that slays outright is not referring to an undefined special rule called "Slain Outright". Instant Death however is a well defined Special Rule that has an entry in the rulebook, and it is defined in a such a way that it can be cross referenced any time an item or other rule refers to it.

The Eldar Codex has the exact same thing, and its a hell of a lot more up to dat ethen the Daemon Hunters list

Removing something from the game, regardless of remaining wounds is just that. You remove it. It's gone. It does not have the chance to lose its last wound, therefore, yarrik cannot get back up, since he's removed from the game.

The rule gives you the description of what to do in a circumstance, in this circumstance: Remove the model regardless of remaining wounds.

Yarriks rule never gets the chance to trigger. HIS rule states UPON losing the last wound. The weapon hitting him never lets him get to this condition. He's dead. Its not Instant Death, its "removing regardless of remaining wounds".

There is a destinction. The Daemon hunter codex may be old, but the precident is in the Eldar Codex.

Unless it SAYS instant death, its not instant death. Its removing from the game.

Edit: My 2c on the wound allocation: He has to take a wound in order to make the test. This is what you count towards the total resolution. Melee combat did not cause him to lose any more wounds, a special condition killed him off regardless of how many he had left. Count it as however many saves he failed.

It doesn't say "removed from the game", it says "slain outright".

Why are we talking about Eldar?

DogOfWar wrote:"...slain outright, no matter how many wounds it has (but count the number actually inflicted for determining which side won the assault)."

I hope you are not all reading into this and thinking it is describing a case where any remaining wounds Yarrick has as being counted toward the combat resolution or as having been inflicted in addition to the initial one that was done during combat. This little section in brackets is referring to the wounds you actually inflicted during the normal means of close combat, not the wounds that were remaining on Yarrick that may have been removed presuming we had a case or a need to actually be removing wounds for this rule to work. Hence, if you wounded Yarrick once with normal close combat attacks and then he was slain outright, then that single wound you did to him would give you a combat resolution total of 1. If you wounded him twice and during that period he was slain outright it would have given you a combat resolution of 2. If you inflict one wound on a monstrous creature with ten wounds on its profile and then slay it outright you would get a combat resolution of 1.

That would be one way of reading it, yes.

Do psychic powers used in the close combat phase even generate combat results?

Majesticgoat wrote:

DogOfWar wrote:"...slain outright, no matter how many wounds it has (but count the number actually inflicted for determining which side won the assault)."

I hope you are not all reading into this and thinking it is describing a case where any remaining wounds Yarrick has as being counted toward the combat resolution or as having been inflicted in addition to the initial one that was done during combat. This little section in brackets is referring to the wounds you actually inflicted during the normal means of close combat, not the wounds that were remaining on Yarrick that may have been removed presuming we had a case or a need to actually be removing wounds for this rule to work. Hence, if you wounded Yarrick once with normal close combat attacks and then he was slain outright, then that single wound you did to him would give you a combat resolution total of 1. If you wounded him twice and during that period he was slain outright it would have given you a combat resolution of 2. If you inflict one wound on a monstrous creature with ten wounds on its profile and then slay it outright you would get a combat resolution of 1.

That's a very good point.

I would mention, however, that the rules on pg.39 do make a specific exception for 'instant death' in regards to combat resolution. If one was to argue that 'slain outright' was indeed the same result as 'instant death' (which would also most likely force them to accept that characters with Eternal Warrior are also immune) then you would count the total number of wounds, not just the one that caused the 'instant death'.

Just in case anyone is getting confused with the two different scenarios.

DoW

I believe that slain outright is different than losing your last wound.

Thus I would say he is dead, and does not get to come back.

I am not entirely convinced instant death due to a psychic attack would count towards to combat resolution though.

What I mean by example would be that if a monstrous creature or a dreadnought hit a space marine hero it would instant death it if it had twice the strength of the space marine hero's toughness which would count towards the combat resolution. I think the Instant Death excerpt is being told from this perspective mainly- however that is always up for interpretation.

Are you certain Instant Death inflicted by/as a Psychic Power that is used following the actual real wound counts in the same way if it isn't inflicted automatically according to the whole double-strength to toughness causing instant death stipulation?

EDIT: 100th edit for syntax and spelling corrections.

Majesticgoat wrote:I am not entirely convinced instant death due to a psychic attack would count towards to combat resolution though.

What I mean by example would be that if a monstrous creature or a dreadnought hit a space marine hero it would instant death it if it had twice the strength of the space marine hero's toughness which would count towards the combat resolution. I think the Instant Death excerpt is being told from this perspective mainly- however that is always up for interpretation.

Are you certain Instant Death inflicted by/as a Psychic Power that is used following the actual real wound counts in the same way if it isn't inflicted automatically according to the whole double-strength to toughness causing instant death stipulation?

EDIT: 100th edit for syntax and spelling corrections.

I'm fairly convinced that regardless of the method, as long as the ability states that it causes the 'instant death' effect, then it is covered in the "Determine Assault Results" on pg.39 and the wounds are counted for combat resolution. The effect 'Instant Death' is not limited to twice-toughness weapon situations (check out pg.50 for the description of Force Weapons), so counting the wounds for combat resolution doesn't seem to be limited either.

DoW

I just feel it may be different for a psychic power than if a standard issue vanilla high strength attack does it. Does the fact it is used during the assault phase make it something that adds to combat resolution even though it isn't a normal close combat strike? Instant Death during combat from a dreadnought close combat weapon is different from Instant Death during the shooting phase from a railgun in terms of what factors need to be considered, but they have the same excerpt. I would have to roll off on this one. I am not convinced either way.

Do wounds caused by the Holocaust psychic power count towards combat resolution according to the Daemonhunters Codex? I do not have my codex handy so if no one else chimes in then I will be back with it..

If the psychic power of one side inflicts wounds on the other side during close combat, those wounds apply for combat resolution.