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.

I concur that there are lots of effects that

1 are magical
2 remove a model
3 allow no ward save

There is also a second group that is common that are

1 magical
2 remove a model
3 allow a ward save

There are a lot of magic missles or template breath weapons that cause models to take characteristic tests however I cannot think of a single specific spell that does not cause wounds but specifically allows a ward save to prevent casualties.

There is a raw argument because of the extra clause and the fuzziness of what killing blow actually does. However I cannot imagine that the writer of the army book thought "this standard would be too OP to include if it was a ward save against magic attacks instead of the wounds caused by magic attacks! Magic killing blows will be the rock to this banners scissors!"

On the other hand this banner is a mess to adjudicate anyway. If we grant that the killing blows allow banner saves in the blood letter case then we complicate the case of a wight king using a magic weapon. Without the magic weapon his kbs would be kills with the magic weapon his attacks have to be rolled seperatly.

I don't believe killing blow falls under the category of instant kills. On page 44 under instant kills it states they require models to take a stat test and killing blow does not do that. I can see the other side of the argument due to the wording with KB and it is a strong and valid point. However I think the banner would/should work here. In either case KB should be made more clear in an errata/FAQ.

That's what it states, eh?
Care to quote that part?
Where the stat test is a requirement.

I must have missed it.

IthinkIbrokeit wrote:
I am curious are there any other magic effects in the game at all
Where a model would be subject to a magic effect, that effect explicitly allows ward saves but the effect
Causes no wounds.

Black Horror, as discussed in another thread, is an instant kill spell (so explicitly causes no wounds) but allows a ward save. There may well be others that I can't think of atm.

Can somebody snippet post the rule book section on ward saves? I believe
The entire section presupposes wounding have been caused.

p44 Ward Saves
Some fluff...
A ward save represents some form of magical protection... possible sources... more fluff...
That is it, nothing which says what they can be used against. On the same page, under instant kills
p44 Instant Kills
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.

underline added

Would a banner that said it provided a x+ armor save against wounds inflicted on the unit be redundant phrasing or are there
Any attacks that allow an armor save but inflict no wounds?

I believe it would be redundant for attacks, but it would provide an armour save that was not usable for Lore of Metal, so could be a real benefit - also GW could add a spell that did no wounds that said you could take an AS.

I think there is at least a good argument the banner does not work by raw keywords. However I think that interputation falls flat to a
RAI reading of what ward saves do.

There are two distinct types of ward - general and triggered. General wards cover everything that allows a ward. These work for KB, but are generally more expensive than triggered wards. Triggered wards have specific things which allow them to work. BOTWD requires that wounds were caused and that their source was magical. Ignoring one of those triggers makes the banner far better than it seems intended to be.

Is there even a single other effect where the banners "against wounds caused" clause would be the reason the banner doesn't apply?

Black Horror. GW are likely to add more though, as the banner is a bit OP against magic based armies. Taking away wounds means that expensive wards still work, but the BOTWDstar is less effective.

Either the "wounds caused by" is a functional clause that excludes a distinct list of things or it's a descriptive clause that is merely restating when saves occur. A the more things excluded the more purposeful the phrasing seems

Given that even the same book doesn't include "wounds caused by" on most wards, I think it is clearly intended to be functional. It gives scope to have abilities not covered by the banner's ward but covered by expensive personal wards - or even by the 5+ army wide Deamon Ward, letting GW balance things if they wish.

Given that even the same book doesn't include "wounds caused by" on most wards, I think it is clearly intended to be functional.

On all triggered ward saves the wounds caused by wording is used so this is either intentionally misleading or I'll informed. See the Fireborn rule Matt Ward is quite consistent in using the wounds caused by wording as a descriptive clause.

DukeRustfield wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:
BotWD gives a 2+ ward against Magical Attacks.

No, it doesn't.

For it to give that it would have to say that. It says "Wounds caused by...magical attacks." If it said gives a 2+ ward against magical attacks and that was verbatim what it said, then it would block it. It does not say that, however.

In which case the discussion is not here, it is in the Ethereal and Killing Blow thread. This isn't a question about BotWD, it's about Killing Blow.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Given that even the same book doesn't include "wounds caused by" on most wards, I think it is clearly intended to be functional.

On all triggered ward saves the wounds caused by wording is used so this is either intentionally misleading or I'll informed. See the Fireborn rule Matt Ward is quite consistent in using the wounds caused by wording as a descriptive clause.

Uneerlined and bolded the key word. It is neither misleading nor misread, since he has included several trigerred wards and several general wards. You are purposefully misreading both my posts and the rules.

Uneerlined and bolded the key word. It is neither misleading nor misread, since he has included several trigerred wards and several general wards. You are purposefully misreading both my posts and the rules.

I am not there is no need for the wording in a generic ward save, however if you can only take the ward saves against certain sources of damage then the wording makes perfect sense. You made out like it was unusual wording for him to put the "against wounds caused by" in a ward save when indeed it is in every ward save in the book that is triggered by a set of damage.

Could he have said "against all damage caused by" yes but damage isn't a very well defined term in Warhammer so that wording would cause problems. Could he simply put "has a ward save against" yes but again that causes problems because it would imply you get a ward save against spells that do no damage. Using the language he used made the best sense in the current ruleset get still some people deliberately missunderstand it. Just kind of illustrates that often the "problems" with the rules aren't always the writers fault.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Uneerlined and bolded the key word. It is neither misleading nor misread, since he has included several trigerred wards and several general wards. You are purposefully misreading both my posts and the rules.

I am not there is no need for the wording in a generic ward save, however if you can only take the ward saves against certain sources of damage then the wording makes perfect sense. You made out like it was unusual wording for him to put the "against wounds caused by" in a ward save when indeed it is in every ward save in the book that is triggered by a set of damage.

Could he have said "against all damage caused by" yes but damage isn't a very well defined term in Warhammer so that wording would cause problems. Could he simply put "has a ward save against" yes but again that causes problems because it would imply you get a ward save against spells that do no damage. Using the language he used made the best sense in the current ruleset get still some people deliberately missunderstand it. Just kind of illustrates that often the "problems" with the rules aren't always the writers fault.

Firstly, the most likely thing is that he wrote what he meant - it is only against wounds.
Secondly, damage is used in other places eg the KB rule, no reason they couldn't use it for ward descriptions.
Finally, it comes across as if you would rather assume that the writers of the rules are wrong, rather than that you might not be able to claim a ward in a niche situation. Seems kinda petty.

Firstly, the most likely thing is that he wrote what he meant - it is only against wounds.
Secondly, damage is used in other places eg the KB rule, no reason they couldn't use it for ward descriptions.
Finally, it comes across as if you would rather assume that the writers of the rules are wrong, rather than that you might not be able to claim a ward in a niche situation. Seems kinda petty.

I haven't assumed the writers are wrong I've assumed your narrow and literal interpretation is wrong. I assumed the ward save talks about wounds because all saves say they are taken against wounds.

I've assumed using the damage wording was considered and disregarded because it would be unclear (I'm guessing someone claimed -1T or S could be considered damage as it can kill you so they disregarded that wording and went with wounds because they thought it was clear).

Would you argue someone with a Dragonbane gem wouldn't get a ward save against KB from a flaming attacks unit? What about someone with the Fireborn rule?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why would I not be able to claim a ward save. I don't and never have played as High Elves. I will be starting a DE army so on the black horror argument my vested interest is on the other side. I just don't need to try to find loop holes to try to cheat a victory out of people.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Firstly, the most likely thing is that he wrote what he meant - it is only against wounds.
Secondly, damage is used in other places eg the KB rule, no reason they couldn't use it for ward descriptions.
Finally, it comes across as if you would rather assume that the writers of the rules are wrong, rather than that you might not be able to claim a ward in a niche situation. Seems kinda petty.

I haven't assumed the writers are wrong I've assumed your narrow and literal interpretation is wrong. I assumed the ward save talks about wounds because all saves say they are taken against wounds.

I've assumed using the damage wording was considered and disregarded because it would be unclear (I'm guessing someone claimed -1T or S could be considered damage as it can kill you so they disregarded that wording and went with wounds because they thought it was clear).
Thirdly
Would you argue someone with a Dragonbane gem wouldn't get a ward save against KB from a flaming attacks unit? What about someone with the Fireborn rule?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why would I not be able to claim a ward save. I don't and never have played as High Elves. I will be starting a DE army so on the black horror argument my vested interest is on the other side. I just don't need to try to find loop holes to try to cheat a victory out of people.

Keeping on repeating that all saves say they are made against wounds will not make it actually true.
And od course someone with a draginbane gem wouldn't get a ward against flaming kb - no wounds so it doesn't trigger. You can't ignore one of a pair of triggers.

Dragonbane gem triggers against flaming attacks (not wounds) so would provide a save. However, take note that this is one of many saves NOT triggered by wounds so I guess they do exist...

Niteware wrote:

Firstly, the most likely thing is that he wrote what he meant - it is only against wounds.
Secondly, damage is used in other places eg the KB rule, no reason they couldn't use it for ward descriptions.
Finally, it comes across as if you would rather assume that the writers of the rules are wrong, rather than that you might not be able to claim a ward in a niche situation. Seems kinda petty.

It's funny that you make this argument on this topic, yet you would not accept this same reasoning on KB as it was opposite your stance..hmm..
Though I am confident in the process that you do not get the save vs black horror as it is an instant kill I have to give some ground and fill in the gaps as I am not familiar with either of these 2 items.

titaniumkiz wrote:
Dragonbane gem triggers against flaming attacks (not wounds) so would provide a save. However, take note that this is one of many saves NOT triggered by wounds so I guess they do exist...

Ah, was misremembering it. Lots of other wards have no trigger at all, so also do not mention wounds. Talisman of Preservation simply says "The bearer has a 4+ ward save"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peasant wrote:

Niteware wrote:

Firstly, the most likely thing is that he wrote what he meant - it is only against wounds.
Secondly, damage is used in other places eg the KB rule, no reason they couldn't use it for ward descriptions.
Finally, it comes across as if you would rather assume that the writers of the rules are wrong, rather than that you might not be able to claim a ward in a niche situation. Seems kinda petty.

It's funny that you make this argument on this topic, yet you would not accept this same reasoning on KB as it was opposite your stance..hmm..
Though I am confident in the process that you do not get the save vs black horror as it is an instant kill I have to give some ground and fill in the gaps as I am not familiar with either of these 2 items.

I think my line of argument is exactly consistent throughout. KB doesn't cause wounds, it only could if they had written that it did. Where do you see a difference?

Several Things:

1) Talisman of Preservation 4+ ward save clearly doesn't apply to numerous situations, including as we have discussed above any generic instant kill effect. This means that a magic item that provides an "untriggered" ward save IS triggered, it is triggered by the target receiving a wound or being subject to an effect that explicitly allows a ward save. This really seems to make the "against wounds caused" wording EXTREMELY redundant.

2) The full text of the instant kill effect seems to imply that instant kill effects actually just ignore the number wounds on the target before removing them as a casualty as per the second sentence that tells you how to resolve an instant kill effect (BRB 44). The full text of the implies that the part of the combat resolution order that is skipped is the part where wound are rolled (for effects that involve another stat test) and the step were wounds are deducted on models till you get to 0 wounds and a model is removed as a casualty. This means that the very text for instant kill is ambiguous as it both says it doesn't cause wounds but also says that what instant kill effects do is ignore the number of wounds in the targets profile

3) The text for killing blow does NOT say it is an instant kill effect. it simply says that if the owning model rolls a 6 to wound the target is slain outright. If this was an instant kill effect it would say it was an instant kill effect and therefore would not cause wounds. However it says instead that the target is slain regardless of the wounds on its profile, no armor or regeneration saves may be taken. While this is similar in function to effect of an instant kill attack it does not say "killing blows are insant kill attacks" which is what you would expect.

4) The banner is the second most expensive banner available to High Elves, the general cost of banners, even ones that do really amazing and/or game breaking stuff all cost about 50-100 points. The number of units that can even carry a 50 point standard in the High elves is limited to the Phoenix Guard/White Lions/Swordmasters/Dragon Princes. So arguments that its too good for its points without the limit seem somewhat far fetched.

5) The banner also has trailing clauses that specifically broaden its use to "magic attacks" which makes it cover practically any magic effect originating at an enemy.

Anyway, I think in a tournament setting a RAW reading of the rules pretty well means that the banner does not apply to killing blows. Additionally I think that in a tournament settings until there is an FAQ the banner of the world dragon would not apply to effects that do not cause wounds. However I also think that this is far from settled because the RAW case is littered with contradictions. An FAQ ruling is the only thing that is going to provide the sort of resolution that brings concensus (and in the wargame community which ever side wins will almost certainly say "I told you so!).

Niteware wrote:

 Peasant wrote:

Niteware wrote:

Firstly, the most likely thing is that he wrote what he meant - it is only against wounds.
Secondly, damage is used in other places eg the KB rule, no reason they couldn't use it for ward descriptions.
Finally, it comes across as if you would rather assume that the writers of the rules are wrong, rather than that you might not be able to claim a ward in a niche situation. Seems kinda petty.

It's funny that you make this argument on this topic, yet you would not accept this same reasoning on KB as it was opposite your stance..hmm..
Though I am confident in the process that you do not get the save vs black horror as it is an instant kill I have to give some ground and fill in the gaps as I am not familiar with either of these 2 items.

I think my line of argument is exactly consistent throughout. KB doesn't cause wounds, it only could if they had written that it did. Where do you see a difference?

Your line of reasoning is generally accurate. You did say that KB does not cause wounds.
Here is the flaw..your comments in the post above..
"Firstly, the most likely thing is that he wrote what he meant ..."
So with KB, when they(authors) wrote you were rolling to wound...that's what the author meant..why because you were rolling to wound..
It didn't work for KB, but it works for BotWD because they 'would' have wrote it that particular way.

You said "Secondly, damage is used in other places eg the KB rule, no reason they couldn't use it for ward descriptions"
But damage was just a term in the KB argument it, had no relevance, it as only in challenges and descriptions. Yet the term damage now has relevance here in BotWD.

And then ...
"Finally, it comes across as if you would rather assume that the writers of the rules are wrong, rather than that you might not be able to claim a ward in a niche situation. Seems kinda petty"
..So with BothWD you now disapprove of the petty situation being created by picking out partial sentences to lean the argument to gain an advantage in a situation like having BotWD work against Black Horror..but you would rather assume that the writers did not mean it to wound,( even though you rolled to wound in KB) so it won't work in a (ethereal) situation?

The two stances are quite contrary, especially since the topics can be quite easily traded out between KB/causing wounds and BotWD/Black Horror
Now as I said I don't know these items well, but I believe it is quite obvious, and written that BotWD does NOT work against Black Horror, but I do want to call 'shenanigans' on your line of reasoning.

IthinkIbrokeit wrote:
4) The banner is the second most expensive banner available to High Elves, the general cost of banners, even ones that do really amazing and/or game breaking stuff all cost about 50-100 points. The number of units that can even carry a 50 point standard in the High elves is limited to the Phoenix Guard/White Lions/Swordmasters/Dragon Princes. So arguments that its too good for its points without the limit seem somewhat far fetched.

5) The banner also has trailing clauses that specifically broaden its use to "magic attacks" which makes it cover practically any magic effect originating at an enemy.

4. If you want to get in a price war, Ogres have a 60 pt banner that on a 2+ makes you target another unit with spells. It doesn't even stop you from casting the spells or protect you from spells, you can just kill someone else. Not to mention it does nothing vs. weapons or wounds from other sources.

5. No, it doesn't have a trailing clause that broadens. That's exactly the opposite of what it does. It is a trailing clause that limits. Because Magical Attacks is a modifier in that sentence of Wounds. In the English language it goes like this:

Caused by modifies wounds. It can only limit the scope. If it said Banner has a ward save against ALL wounds period, much of this would be moot, because it would be any wound from any source. The fact it lists them is a limitation. A simple example using the Reed-Kellog sentence diagrammer is:

Company has a policy against accidents caused by fire. [sorry got to use a non-gaming sentence...]

http://1aiway.com/nlp4net/services/enparser/

Company (banner) = subject
has (have) = verb
policy (ward save) = direct object
against accidents (against Wounds) = prepopsitional phrase that modifies has. What do you have?
caused by fire (caused by magic attacks) = prepositional phrase that modifies accidents/wounds. What kind of accidents/Wounds?

You can call that RAW or raping or whatever, but that's English.

Well said Duke

IthinkIbrokeit wrote:
Several Things:

1) Talisman of Preservation 4+ ward save clearly doesn't apply to numerous situations, including as we have discussed above any generic instant kill effect. This means that a magic item that provides an "untriggered" ward save IS triggered, it is triggered by the target receiving a wound or being subject to an effect that explicitly allows a ward save. This really seems to make the "against wounds caused" wording EXTREMELY redundant.

An untriggerred ward save is one which can be used any time that you are allowed a ward save, without further conditions being met. They are almost always far more expensive than triggered wards (will come to banner price later). GW have written themselves the flexibility to create spells which can be warded by untriggerred things but not by triggered wards. This means that the word "wounds" is not redundant - instead it is very important for allowing GW to write things which bypass it.

2) The full text of the instant kill effect seems to imply that instant kill effects actually just ignore the number wounds on the target before removing them as a casualty as per the second sentence that tells you how to resolve an instant kill effect (BRB 44). The full text of the implies that the part of the combat resolution order that is skipped is the part where wound are rolled (for effects that involve another stat test) and the step were wounds are deducted on models till you get to 0 wounds and a model is removed as a casualty. This means that the very text for instant kill is ambiguous as it both says it doesn't cause wounds but also says that what instant kill effects do is ignore the number of wounds in the targets profile

It explicitly says that they don't cause wounds. How could it be clearer?

3) The text for killing blow does NOT say it is an instant kill effect. it simply says that if the owning model rolls a 6 to wound the target is slain outright. If this was an instant kill effect it would say it was an instant kill effect and therefore would not cause wounds. However it says instead that the target is slain regardless of the wounds on its profile, no armor or regeneration saves may be taken. While this is similar in function to effect of an instant kill attack it does not say "killing blows are insant kill attacks" which is what you would expect.

The "to wound" process says that you roll a die, then you compare that number with the s and t table, then a wound is created. KB says that, on a roll of a 6, you don't check the table, but slay the model. Since KB is not the usual wounding effect (but is an additional effect caused by the roll) and since you have not completed the "to wound" process, no wound exists.

4) The banner is the second most expensive banner available to High Elves, the general cost of banners, even ones that do really amazing and/or game breaking stuff all cost about 50-100 points. The number of units that can even carry a 50 point standard in the High elves is limited to the Phoenix Guard/White Lions/Swordmasters/Dragon Princes. So arguments that its too good for its points without the limit seem somewhat far fetched.

Magical Resistance 3, which has almost no effect compared to the banner, costs 45 points. The OnG banner which stops magical items working costs over 100 points (iirc). The banner is very, very cheap, even without granting it extra abilities by ignoring some of the text.

5) The banner also has trailing clauses that specifically broaden its use to "magic attacks" which makes it cover practically any magic effect originating at an enemy.

As Duke said, this is narrowing the field - it has a dual trigger Wounds caused AND Magical source.

Anyway, I think in a tournament setting a RAW reading of the rules pretty well means that the banner does not apply to killing blows. Additionally I think that in a tournament settings until there is an FAQ the banner of the world dragon would not apply to effects that do not cause wounds. However I also think that this is far from settled because the RAW case is littered with contradictions. An FAQ ruling is the only thing that is going to provide the sort of resolution that brings concensus (and in the wargame community which ever side wins will almost certainly say "I told you so!).

I suspect that it may well be FAQed at some point, although neither side will be required to say I told you so (since they do completely change rules in FAQs - see crumble and overrun).

Peasant wrote:
"Firstly, the most likely thing is that he wrote what he meant ..."
So with KB, when they(authors) wrote you were rolling to wound...that's what the author meant..why because you were rolling to wound..

Yep, and we know that the to-wound process is not the same as "a wound". But we've been through this before....

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Peasant wrote:
"Firstly, the most likely thing is that he wrote what he meant ..."
So with KB, when they(authors) wrote you were rolling to wound...that's what the author meant..why because you were rolling to wound..

Yep, and we know that the to-wound process is not the same as "a wound". But we've been through this before....

Reread my post that you quoted, and try reading the whole thing because it applies to your reasoning as well.
You can pick apart KB to prove your point but it is no different to Flings stance that he is taking (just for debate practice I am guessing)
This discussion is near identical to the KB discussion, the only difference is that the sides have switched.
You need to find a new line of reasoning to defend against Flings' stance

Totally disagree with you Peasant - pmed you so as not to derail thread - still on the same side of the argument in both

Seen it, will respond asap.

Just to throw my two cents in but the fun part is if you continue to look further into the HE book on p.55 under Tyrion you will get some help to this dilemna. The item Heart of Averlorn clearly states you get a save against Unsaved Wounds caused by KB, HKB, and MultiWounds.
I also believe Malekith has the same wording in his book but i dont have that book with me.

UncleGlock wrote:
Just to throw my two cents in but the fun part is if you continue to look further into the HE book on p.55 under Tyrion you will get some help to this dilemna. The item Heart of Averlorn clearly states you get a save against Unsaved Wounds caused by KB, HKB, and MultiWounds.
I also believe Malekith has the same wording in his book but i dont have that book with me.

UncleGlock wrote:
Just to throw my two cents in but the fun part is if you continue to look further into the HE book on p.55 under Tyrion you will get some help to this dilemna. The item Heart of Averlorn clearly states you get a save against Unsaved Wounds caused by KB, HKB, and MultiWounds.
I also believe Malekith has the same wording in his book but i dont have that book with me.

That find seems to crumble quite a few arguments wouldnt you say peasent?

What is the exact text?

Eihnlazer wrote:

UncleGlock wrote:
Just to throw my two cents in but the fun part is if you continue to look further into the HE book on p.55 under Tyrion you will get some help to this dilemna. The item Heart of Averlorn clearly states you get a save against Unsaved Wounds caused by KB, HKB, and MultiWounds.
I also believe Malekith has the same wording in his book but i dont have that book with me.

That find seems to crumble quite a few arguments wouldnt you say peasent?

It definitely appears to solve the KB argument. I don't have the books to verify though.

The Black Horror/BotWD is petty much just for argument sake I think.

The Heart is indeed a wacky item. But it's wording isn't clear for any side, it's 8 lines with 2 compound sentences being the crux.

In the past items/abilities just said immune to KB. Dwarf FAQ still says that for Rune of Preservation. I believe Acharon used to say that, no longer.

The Heart doesn't give protection from Wounds or protection from KB attacks it only gives protection from those IF they were going to kill Tyrion and only on a 2+ and only once. Oh, and MR...

I totally admit the Heart doesn't make much sense with the way the BRB is now. It would have just been better to say if he's going to be removed as a casualty, roll a 2+ and he isn't, then throw away the item. Because as it is he can still be poofed away by spell tests or attribute reduction or any of the other things. But the special rule in the item text of the HE book doesn't change the rules for all other army books--its scope is limited to itself. And the "result of the KB...special rule" can never cause a wound unless you actually fail to KB and then it's just a normal attack. So it frankly doesn't make much sense. You know what they were trying to say, but trying to say it in one sentence didn't work.

DukeRustfield wrote:
So it frankly doesn't make much sense. You know what they were trying to say, but trying to say it in one sentence didn't work.

This sentence here applies to every rules question that appears on these boards. Usually only really novice players come asking questions that have a resolution that most people will agree on.

The moment you say "You know what they ere trying to say" you have entered RAI territory and the problem is that you never actually DO know what they were trying to say.

Everybody here who is arguing that BotWD gives a 2+ ward save against magical killing blows or even black horror believes that what they KNOW what the author of the BotWD meant when they said "wounds caused by spells, magic items or magic attacks" and they believe that what he was trying to say was "2+ ward against ANY magic effect that touches them"