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.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
A destroyer is the monster from Chaos Dwarfs.

Thank you. I do not own their book and don't have access to it.
I refuse to download anything. I've never done it and never will.
I hate players coming to tournaments with printed out books, claiming they've printed from their own copy right before their dog ate it.

shame_on_a_playa wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
A destroyer is the monster from Chaos Dwarfs.

Thank you. I do not own their book and don't have access to it.
I refuse to download anything. I've never done it and never will.
I hate players coming to tournaments with printed out books, claiming they've printed from their own copy right before their dog ate it.

To be fair. It's A) Massive, and B) £45, C) You only want a small part of it, and D) It's not a real army.

I personally don't know anyone who says, you don't have to successfully wound, you only need to roll to wound meets the requirement to kill an ethereal model. Yeah it's RAW, but it's pretty far from intent.

You know them on this board at least. Which seems to be nearly everyone. I don't think it's far from intent at all. Within the BRB there are multiple ways to destroy units that don't just involve causing wounds. So it's not like some army book simply invented this after the BRB made its basic rules. They already state even within the special rule itself you can lose in combat to mundane troops. So the fact they have a banner and a lot of guys picking their noses (unable to directly hurt the enemy) is potentially enough to trump Ethereal--as if that makes a lot of sense. So a bunch of ghosts who KNOW they can't be hurt by an infinite number of these enemies can still "lose" simply by their existence and whether they are standing on a hill and such. Clearly this rule does not make them invulnerable gods and even the most feeble, blind, crippled, units in the game can triumph. So if you want to get RAI, a the worst units can win using situations that make no difference to Ethereals who can't be directly injured, so why not the (arguably) most powerful attacks in the game?

shame_on_a_playa wrote:
I'll end my involvement in this conversation

Guess you can't even read your own writing let alone the rulebooks.

The phrase "can be wounded" is not a rule in itself, it doesn't mean "can suffer a wound on its profile", it just means "can be harmed" or "can be damaged", it's just an English phrase with a given meaning.

Lol. Now you're just trolling. "Wounded" has an exact, unbelievably specific meaning in the game. If you are going to broaden it to the entirety of the English language, the game ceases to exist. Because hit and stomp and fly and attack and move have many synonyms and uses outside of the game context. But we aren't writing poetry. We are playing inside a game universe. Ethereal means tinkly translucent shimmering. So by your logic, none of the special rules in the BRB exist and models with Ethereal just look pretty and ghostly.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

shame_on_a_playa wrote:
I'll end my involvement in this conversation

Guess you can't even read your own writing let alone the rulebooks.

I don't have to read or abide by my own writing. I am not a rulebook.

Let me ask you this, when calculating combat res, do you get +1 for each wound inflicted if you killed ethereal models with killing blow?
You didn't inflict any wounds, you just slayed them, 2 completely different things by what you're saying.
If you get the combat res, then it means you inflicted wounds, but ethereal models can't suffer wounds from non-magical attacks, but you did slay them.

Don't you see how ridiculous this gets?
More correctly put, don't you see you ridiculous you're making it?

I'm not giving an answer for either side here, but upon rereading the KB entry, I saw the phrase; "Note that if a Killing Blow attack wounds automatically, then the USR does not come into play."

Does that not have some vague implication that successful wounding comes into it?

I fully accept that the wording of the rule itself does not reference wounding in any way, but I just thought to bring that up, as I didn't pay massive attention to that old thread, and it was a while ago.

AS I ORIGINALLY SAID

this is an issue that is unclear and really needs an FAQ, and in the interim should be discussed pre-game with your opponent.

We'll go 'round and 'round for pages and ages over it, rehashing the same arguments, but the one thing that is clear is that there is NO clear answer.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
I'm not giving an answer for either side here, but upon rereading the KB entry, I saw the phrase; "Note that if a Killing Blow attack wounds automatically, then the USR does not come into play."

Does that not have some vague implication that successful wounding comes into it?

No, actually, the opposite. If they said: note that if KB attacks can't wound the target or always wounds, then USR does not come into play.

Then you would have a direct requirement of successful wounding ability. And it would cover Ethereal. Just that small change. As it stands, if you wound automatically, but aren't magic, then you can't KB OR wound Ethereal.

KB is supposed to have a 1/6th chance of going off. It's a very powerful ability. They are using the wound roll as a trigger. If you always wounded KB would be insanely powerful if it functioned 100% of the time and armies that could combine such abilities would really go out of their way to build splattering KB masters--not sure if anyone can make it. I think they were a bit lazy, really. You could still roll for KB even on auto-wound, but I think they simply wanted to cut down on rolls.

You figure if KB was an Army Book special rule instead of a BRB one, they would have you roll separately. But because it's a standard rule, they combined it with one of the existing game mechanics.

 Vulcan wrote:
AS I ORIGINALLY SAID

this is an issue that is unclear and really needs an FAQ, and in the interim should be discussed pre-game with your opponent.

We'll go 'round and 'round for pages and ages over it, rehashing the same arguments, but the one thing that is clear is that there is NO clear answer.

I agree that it needs to be discussed with your opponent and this just goes round and round.
I believe that the answer is very clear, those that disagree just refuse to agree when logic shows the answer so it does get rehashed.
The original thread was terrible.
I guess it does need a FAQ just to close it.

I'll give you a FAQ.

Q: Does an attack with Killing Blow that works on a 5+ still needs to successfully wound for the Killing Blow effect to come into play?
A: Duh, yes. Obviously.

Q: Does Killing Blow work on Ethereal models if it isn't accompanied with magical attacks?
A: No, that would be mental.


DukeRustfield, care to answer this? Perhaps you didn't read it in my previous post so I'll repost the same question:

shame_on_a_playa wrote:
Let me ask you this, when calculating combat res, do you get +1 for each wound inflicted if you killed ethereal models with killing blow?
You didn't inflict any wounds, you just slayed them, 2 completely different things by what you're saying.
If you get the combat res, then it means you inflicted wounds, but ethereal models can't suffer wounds from non-magical attacks, but you did slay them.

shame_on_a_playa wrote:
I'll give you a FAQ.

Q: Does an attack with Killing Blow that works on a 5+ still needs to successfully wound for the Killing Blow effect to come into play?
A: Duh, yes. Obviously.

Q: Does Killing Blow work on Ethereal models if it isn't accompanied with magical attacks?

Here's a FAQ for you:

Q: Can you make your own FAQ up?
A: Duh, no. Obviously.

shame_on_a_playa wrote:
I'll give you a FAQ.

Q: Does an attack with Killing Blow that works on a 5+ still needs to successfully wound for the Killing Blow effect to come into play?
A: Duh, yes. Obviously.

Q: Does Killing Blow work on Ethereal models if it isn't accompanied with magical attacks?
A: No, that would be mental.


DukeRustfield, care to answer this? Perhaps you didn't read it in my previous post so I'll repost the same question:

shame_on_a_playa wrote:
Let me ask you this, when calculating combat res, do you get +1 for each wound inflicted if you killed ethereal models with killing blow?
You didn't inflict any wounds, you just slayed them, 2 completely different things by what you're saying.
If you get the combat res, then it means you inflicted wounds, but ethereal models can't suffer wounds from non-magical attacks, but you did slay them.

Haha.
I have always believed that killing blow wounds. There really is no reason to come to the conclusion it doesn't.
Following logic, proper sentence structure, premise, conclusion etc killing blow wounds but there are those that disagree.
Like I said, the original thread was huge and never really went anywhere.
Although at risk of things going crazy you do bring up a point that I don't remember if it was addressed..

For those that think KB doesn't wound here's your situation..
Your unit has 1 rank, and standard with 5+ KB in effect.
You face 3 ranks and standard.
Opponent attack rolls poorly, 2 wounds.
You have the 5+ kb in effect.. You roll great you roll to wound and roll 3 fives and 3 sixes.
Since some claim KB doesn't wound, it slays, you just lost combat by 4 instead of winning by 2.
This is how you play right?
You aren't getting any benefit from KB. In fact it is hurting you in combat for every 6 you roll.

Good trade to hurt ethereal creatures, I think not.

Since some claim KB doesn't wound, it slays, you just lost combat by 4 instead of winning by 2.

Combat Resolution already states that attacks that slay outright count as causing all the remaining wounds the model has. KB cannot be a disadvantage in combat resolution. Again, right there in the rules.

There really is no reason to come to the conclusion it doesn't.

The reason is something called RAW. For a rule to do something, it has to do say it does something. Poison tells you it wounds. Impact Hits tell you they cause Hits. Stomp/Thunderstomp cause hits. KB says none of that. It "automatically slays his opponent." That's it. It doesn't say it causes a Hit. It doesn't say it causes Frenzy. It doesn't say it grants Stupidity. It doesn't say you have to take a Break Test. It doesn't say it causes a wound or requires a wound. You can try and infer those things as much as you like, but it's not in the rules. Again, those saying it slays without wounding and without requiring a successful wound, have the rules as proof. The printed, book-smacking rules.

Multi-wound is an example of what you're talking about (as is Poison). It cannot function without causing a wound. You can totally roll to hit. You can roll to wound. But if there isn't an unsaved wound caused, because of armor, ward, regen, Ethereal, Special Rule, then there is nothing to multiply. The Special Rule fails. It's In The Rules that it doesn't work. We can take our fingers and put it on the exact sentence that makes that true. You can't say the same for your position, and have to use fluffy speech like, "doesn't make sense," and "no reason why." Maybe. But it's RAW.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

Since some claim KB doesn't wound, it slays, you just lost combat by 4 instead of winning by 2.

Combat Resolution already states that attacks that slay outright count as causing all the remaining wounds the model has. KB cannot be a disadvantage in combat resolution. Again, right there in the rules.

There really is no reason to come to the conclusion it doesn't.

The reason is something called RAW. For a rule to do something, it has to do say it does something. Poison tells you it wounds. Impact Hits tell you they cause Hits. Stomp/Thunderstomp cause hits. KB says none of that. It "automatically slays his opponent." That's it. It doesn't say it causes a Hit. It doesn't say it causes Frenzy. It doesn't say it grants Stupidity. It doesn't say you have to take a Break Test. It doesn't say it causes a wound or requires a wound. You can try and infer those things as much as you like, but it's not in the rules. Again, those saying it slays without wounding and without requiring a successful wound, have the rules as proof. The printed, book-smacking rules.

Multi-wound is an example of what you're talking about (as is Poison). It cannot function without causing a wound. You can totally roll to hit. You can roll to wound. But if there isn't an unsaved wound caused, because of armor, ward, regen, Ethereal, Special Rule, then there is nothing to multiply. The Special Rule fails. It's In The Rules that it doesn't work. We can take our fingers and put it on the exact sentence that makes that true. You can't say the same for your position, and have to use fluffy speech like, "doesn't make sense," and "no reason why." Maybe. But it's RAW.

Ooops, forgot that the rulebook states you count all the wounds from the model. Oh well inconsequential.

Trying not to rehash old arguments, I really should just drop it all but what the heck..
'Slays' is fluffy.
Since RAW is supposed to be defining..

1. What page of the rulebook describes 'slays'? And what does it say about slaying? Can I find it in the index?
2. How do you determine whether or not you wound when attacking?
3. How does a model not take a wound?
4. How does your roll of 6 invalidate the successful wound?

1. What page of the rulebook describes 'slays'? And what does it say about slaying? Can I find it in the index?
2. How do you determine whether or not you wound when attacking?
3. How does a model not take a wound?
4. How does your roll of 6 invalidate the successful wound?

If slay is fluffy a whole lot of abilities are fluff. Like the mega spells that cease to work. DOOOOOM isn't in the BRB index either...

1. under combat resolution and KB itself
2. the same place where you determine whether you start to fly and gain random movement when you attack: if it doesn't say you do, you don't
3. because slain models are slain and cannot be slain any more
4. because the KB rule is activated immediately on rolling a 6 on the table. This goes back to specific rule vs. general rule. If general rules overrode specific rules, then specific rules would never come into play. I.e., if 6 automatically wounded, as you state, you would never get an armor save, never get a ward save, never get an Ethereal save, never get a regen save, because 6 Automatically Wounds. But those specific, special rules clearly interrupt the general rule of 6 being instant success.

KB tells you exactly what happens when it happens: "if a model...rolls a 6 to wound...he automatically slays..." Per #3 above, there is no aftermath. The enemy model is slain. He can't get double-slain. (Though he can take a ward save.) If you don't roll a 6, the special rule doesn't do jack and the BRB combat order functions as normal. And we know this because it doesn't say otherwise. That's what RAW means. You do what it tells you to do.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

1. What page of the rulebook describes 'slays'? And what does it say about slaying? Can I find it in the index?
2. How do you determine whether or not you wound when attacking?
3. How does a model not take a wound?
4. How does your roll of 6 invalidate the successful wound?

If slay is fluffy a whole lot of abilities are fluff. Like the mega spells that cease to work. DOOOOOM isn't in the BRB index either...

1. under combat resolution and KB itself
2. the same place where you determine whether you start to fly and gain random movement when you attack: if it doesn't say you do, you don't
3. because slain models are slain and cannot be slain any more
4. because the KB rule is activated immediately on rolling a 6 on the table. This goes back to specific rule vs. general rule. If general rules overrode specific rules, then specific rules would never come into play. I.e., if 6 automatically wounded, as you state, you would never get an armor save, never get a ward save, never get an Ethereal save, never get a regen save, because 6 Automatically Wounds. But those specific, special rules clearly interrupt the general rule of 6 being instant success.

KB tells you exactly what happens when it happens: "if a model...rolls a 6 to wound...he automatically slays..." Per #3 above, there is no aftermath. The enemy model is slain. He can't get double-slain. (Though he can take a ward save.) If you don't roll a 6, the special rule doesn't do jack and the BRB combat order functions as normal. And we know this because it doesn't say otherwise. That's what RAW means. You do what it tells you to do.

You are correct. Doooom...is not in the book. But remove the model as a casualty is.
Let's try to do this without the lengthy hyperbole.
1. And in combat resolution, what has caused the model to be slain?
2. You didn't really answer #2, but I will help. You know you have wounded a model by your roll to wound. Your roll to wound is a pass or fail result.
3. And how are you defining slain models that can not be slain anymore? What rule am I referencing?
Ah this is all so familiar....
4. A 6 wounds. that's the purpose of rolling to wound. to pass or fail. you pass you take saves if you can. you fail you do not roll saves.
So when do you apply this auto death? Immediately after your 6? What if it is a monster? Remember you have to do what you are told and it must apply in all situations equally.

1. And in combat resolution, what has caused the model to be slain?
2. You didn't really answer #2, but I will help. You know you have wounded a model by your roll to wound. Your roll to wound is a pass or fail result.
3. And how are you defining slain models that can not be slain anymore? What rule am I referencing?
Ah this is all so familiar....
4. A 6 wounds. that's the purpose of rolling to wound. to pass or fail. you pass you take saves if you can. you fail you do not roll saves.
So when do you apply this auto death? Immediately after your 6? What if it is a monster? Remember you have to do what you are told and it must apply in all situations equally.

1. Where it say slay...have you actually read any of the BRB? It says it right there in KB. The special rule caused it. It was so kind as to even say so.
2. The roll to wound is irrelevant. If you need a 50 to wound wound or a -5 it doesn't change the rules of KB which state if you roll a natural 6, this following text happens. It doesn't mention anything about what you need to wound or wounding or failing to wound or succeeding to wound. Therefore, it doesn't matter.

Rules are often interrupted in WFB. One offhand is charging Fanatics. All of a sudden your move/charge is interrupted and the player who has already moved (or not moved yet) makes an out-of-sequence move. Much like stand and shoot charge reaction. Or flee reaction. Or panic. Or dispelling an enemy spell. If you can get your head around these concepts, you can get your head around other rules being interrupted. It happens constantly.

3. Slain is used throughout the book. You are free to look around. It is a synonym for 0 wounds. Remove Casualties mentions slain models in its very first sentence. If there is no such thing as slain (as, amazingly, you seem to be implying) then the entire game ceases to exist as nothing can die. It is one of the most basic principles in combat. Look up combat and start reading. You will encounter the word slay/slain multiple times. It's under war machines, spells, etc. It is all through the BRB. I can assure you, it is "a thing." If slain models are still in play, the game no longer works I'm afraid and it's just models moving and rolling dice for no apparent reason.
4. A six doesn't "do" anything. A six is a roll on a die. A roll on a die only has significance when applied to rules. KB says if you happen to be rolling on a chart and a 6 comes up, you Do This. The do this happens to slay the target that meets the requirements. It is absolutely pointless if it's a monster or a marshmallow, the rule exists in its entirety. It's not as if you have a set time to read the rule out loud as you're rolling. The rule works quite fine and in all cases.

Again, all of this is in black and white in the BRB. You've not shown one word that proves otherwise. So let's try it in reverse.

1. Where does it say KB needs to successfully (or even unsuccessfully) wound in order to work?
1a. If you can't successfully wound because of extenuating circumstances (mundane weapon vs. Ethereal) where does it say you are not allowed to roll to hit/wound? Do your troops just stand there KNOWING they can't hurt a ghost and thus don't bother? Lazy bastards.
2. Where does it say Ethereal blocks KB or instant death effects that do not cause wounds?
3. Where DOESN'T KB say it kills your entire army just by putting the model on the table? <-you seem to be looking for the lack of rules as proof that random rules exist, so I'll throw this one out there

 DukeRustfield wrote:

1. And in combat resolution, what has caused the model to be slain?
2. You didn't really answer #2, but I will help. You know you have wounded a model by your roll to wound. Your roll to wound is a pass or fail result.
3. And how are you defining slain models that can not be slain anymore? What rule am I referencing?
Ah this is all so familiar....
4. A 6 wounds. that's the purpose of rolling to wound. to pass or fail. you pass you take saves if you can. you fail you do not roll saves.
So when do you apply this auto death? Immediately after your 6? What if it is a monster? Remember you have to do what you are told and it must apply in all situations equally.

1. Where it say slay...have you actually read any of the BRB? It says it right there in KB. The special rule caused it. It was so kind as to even say so.
2. The roll to wound is irrelevant. If you need a 50 to wound wound or a -5 it doesn't change the rules of KB which state if you roll a natural 6, this following text happens. It doesn't mention anything about what you need to wound or wounding or failing to wound or succeeding to wound. Therefore, it doesn't matter.

Rules are often interrupted in WFB. One offhand is charging Fanatics. All of a sudden your move/charge is interrupted and the player who has already moved (or not moved yet) makes an out-of-sequence move. Much like stand and shoot charge reaction. Or flee reaction. Or panic. Or dispelling an enemy spell. If you can get your head around these concepts, you can get your head around other rules being interrupted. It happens constantly.

3. Slain is used throughout the book. You are free to look around. It is a synonym for 0 wounds. Remove Casualties mentions slain models in its very first sentence. If there is no such thing as slain (as, amazingly, you seem to be implying) then the entire game ceases to exist as nothing can die. It is one of the most basic principles in combat. Look up combat and start reading. You will encounter the word slay/slain multiple times. It's under war machines, spells, etc. It is all through the BRB. I can assure you, it is "a thing." If slain models are still in play, the game no longer works I'm afraid and it's just models moving and rolling dice for no apparent reason.
4. A six doesn't "do" anything. A six is a roll on a die. A roll on a die only has significance when applied to rules. KB says if you happen to be rolling on a chart and a 6 comes up, you Do This. The do this happens to slay the target that meets the requirements. It is absolutely pointless if it's a monster or a marshmallow, the rule exists in its entirety. It's not as if you have a set time to read the rule out loud as you're rolling. The rule works quite fine and in all cases.

Again, all of this is in black and white in the BRB. You've not shown one word that proves otherwise. So let's try it in reverse.

1. Where does it say KB needs to successfully (or even unsuccessfully) wound in order to work?
1a. If you can't successfully wound because of extenuating circumstances (mundane weapon vs. Ethereal) where does it say you are not allowed to roll to hit/wound? Do your troops just stand there KNOWING they can't hurt a ghost and thus don't bother? Lazy bastards.
2. Where does it say Ethereal blocks KB or instant death effects that do not cause wounds?
3. Where DOESN'T KB say it kills your entire army just by putting the model on the table? <-you seem to be looking for the lack of rules as proof that random rules exist, so I'll throw this one out there

1.Yep, it says slain. so KB causes slain?. and what does it mean to be slain? To have zero wounds. How do you get to zero wounds? If you did not cause wounds to remove them?
2. Why did the roll to wound become irrelevant when that was the purpose of the roll. You aren't rolling to KB. You are rolling to wound and if it is a 6 you slay regardless of the number of wounds. The inference is that however many wounds you have you now have zero. A special rule that removes all wounds on a single roll to wound of 6.
Rules are often interrupted. And then the process continues unless you are told to stop. If something changes you are told to do something different. You have no permission to exit the wounding portion with this interruption.
3. Exactly. Slain is a synonym for zero wounds. I am not implying that slain doesn't exist. I am stating it does not exist on it's own. You either slay, by reaching zero wounds or you are simply removed as a casualty/removed from play.
4. Correct. the six is applied to rules. in order. with or without interruption.
So it comes time to roll...you are rolling to wound...now you are going to apply that roll to the chart you are committed to that chart, You will wound or not. a six on the proper model triggers killing blow which slays the model removes all wounds from the model, hence "regardless of the number of wounds".
The rule does work fine. There is just no evidence, other than attempts at symantics, to imply that the word 'slain' somehow shows that wounds suddenly do not count.
What evidence do you have to suddenly ignore wounds when you are in the process of wounding.?

Interrupted rules continue as they are. Do you get to stop charging because of Fanatics? When your charge is interrupted by a flee, does your charge stop? It can, because you have permission. When your spell get's dispelled, you continue your casting and discard your dice. Look at your own examples.
You are in the wounding process. You haven't been given permission to stop your process and not to take away wounds, you have been given permission to take them all.

1. It does not say you have to be un/successful. It says on a roll of 6..... Where does it say that you do not cause wounds? What were you in process of doing when you rolled that 6 again?
Your assumption lacks credibility because you are already in the 'rolling to wound' process. Which is most likely? you rolled to wound, with a chance to make wounds irrelevant, or you rolled to wound with a chance to remove all wounds?
1a. Okay, roll. What is the sole purpose of rolling to hit/wound? And when you roll to wound, what will happen? You will be successful or not. even with special circumstances.
2. Ethereal does not have relevance because our discussion is still trying to establish whether or not wounds are caused
3. pointless hyperbole.
You accuse me of using lack of rules, yet I am not lacking in rules. I am following the processes as instructed.
You are discounting the process that you are in. Adding rules/ideas where there are none.

1. It does not say you have to be un/successful.
2. [it doesn't]

This is all I read.

text removed.

Reds8n

This post contained a heavily rude insult about the member DukeRustfield.

You're the one being dense here. You're arguing for an incorrect point with non-existent rules, and claiming that anyone who posts any evidence on the contrary is wrong.

If you were to post valid evidence that may prove your point, we might start accepting you as anything other than a troll, but until then, good luck.

Well, I tried to head it off....

 DukeRustfield wrote:

1. It does not say you have to be un/successful.
2. [it doesn't]

This is all I read.

Sounds about right.
If that's all you read it will grant you the answer you seek.
You have yet to explain why you suddenly discount the wounds that you were already in the process of rolling for. It has never told you to stop wounding.
The simplest way to describe this is your '6' is all the wounds. Therefore still wounds. And a model slain.

But congratulations. You have made your point.

You have yet to explain why you suddenly discount the wounds that you were already in the process of rolling for. It has never told you to stop wounding.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or just want to argue for no reason. The rules state exactly what to do.

1. roll to wound
2. 6
3. SLAY
4. Ward Save (if any)
5. Remove Casualties at end of combat phase where they specifically mentioned "slain models."

That's it. The BRB says that exactly.

The attacking model might have a rule that the target model is -1 to S, that it suffers from Stupidity, that it must take an T test or die. None of it can take effect, however, because the model is slain. Per the earliest of early combat pages we know what slain is. It is dead and subject to Remove Casualties. It's a casualty. Read all the spells and war machines and combat sections that say slain/slay. Is that simply not a word to you? If it's not, as I said, then nothing can ever be removed from the table because it is the condition that is required to be met for removal.

If you can still wound slain models, then nothing can ever step-up. They just sit there dying over and over and over again.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

You have yet to explain why you suddenly discount the wounds that you were already in the process of rolling for. It has never told you to stop wounding.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or just want to argue for no reason. The rules state exactly what to do.

1. roll to wound
2. 6
3. SLAY
4. Ward Save (if any)
5. Remove Casualties at end of combat phase where they specifically mentioned "slain models."

That's it. The BRB says that exactly.

The attacking model might have a rule that the target model is -1 to S, that it suffers from Stupidity, that it must take an T test or die. None of it can take effect, however, because the model is slain. Per the earliest of early combat pages we know what slain is. It is dead and subject to Remove Casualties. It's a casualty. Read all the spells and war machines and combat sections that say slain/slay. Is that simply not a word to you? If it's not, as I said, then nothing can ever be removed from the table because it is the condition that is required to be met for removal.

If you can still wound slain models, then nothing can ever step-up. They just sit there dying over and over and over again.

Disagreement is not trolling. You believe yourself correct, as do I.
You have nothing to base your ruling on other than the singular term 'slay/slain.'
There are 2 way models are removed from the table. zero wounds and when you are instructed to. As in Dwellers below when you are told to remove as a casualty. Slay is not the verb it is the Adjective for one of the 2 situations.
Your example...
1. roll to wound
2. 6
3. SLAY (you forgot - regardless of the number of wounds.) They have already given you the relevance of wounds by the whole process by placing it with the roll to wound, yet but you are choosing to bypass wounds.
4. Ward Save (if any)
5. Remove Casualties at end of combat phase where they specifically mentioned "slain models."

This is all based on #3...
On your number 3...how is your model slain? Every time slain is used it is in conjunction with a game action. Once again, zero wounds or remove from play. You cannot look up 'slay/slain' in the index.
There is no rule to support slay.
So what determines a model being slain?
Your quote..
..... Per the earliest of early combat pages we know what slain is. It is dead and subject to Remove Casualties. It's a casualty. Read all the spells and war machines and combat sections that say slain/slay. Is that simply not a word to you? If it's not, as I said, then nothing can ever be removed from the table because it is the condition that is required to be met for removal.

I am aware of what a slain model is. I am trying to figure out why you believe that you just stop wounding when that is what you are attempting to do.
And the same question stands...
How do I determine what a slain model is?
I have never claimed that slain does not exist. Reread what I have said and you have said. Slain is a synonym for a dead model, a casualty. And how does a model go from being alive and active participant to this 'slain' status?
As stated before, standard game process would imply that once you are rolling to wound, if a rule is taking place in this sub phase that is it's relevance.
The basis of your argument is based around a single word that cannot be verified in the rulebook as nothing more than a decription. If the word was changed to bubblegum, you would have to determine what 'bubblegum' is.
You cannot still wound slain models because you have removed all of their wounds for them to become slain.
There is nothing to imply that KB does not cause wounds.

You dont "stop wounding" - a process interrupts the normal to-wound -> roll saves -> remove model process.

It replaces this process, on a 6, with a separate process. You do not have a wound, you have a process to follow. This process slays the model, telling you to count any remaining wounds solely for combat res purposes - the model never actually "loses" those wounds, otherwise it would not need counts as, it would be "is"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You dont "stop wounding" - a process interrupts the normal to-wound -> roll saves -> remove model process.

It replaces this process, on a 6, with a separate process. You do not have a wound, you have a process to follow. This process slays the model, telling you to count any remaining wounds solely for combat res purposes - the model never actually "loses" those wounds, otherwise it would not need counts as, it would be "is"

You are changing the rules though. You have already rolled to wound.
It is not replacing, it is modifying. It is quite simply a multiplier....all the wounds on the profile.
How does it not lose the wounds.?
No one has explained why it is no longer a wound..?
No one has argued that you need roll a 6. No one has argued that the end result is a dead model.
The question remains what proof do you have that it magically doesn't count as a 'wound'?
The fact is you have already rolled to wound. You have nothing to imply that the 'wound' is now discounted, ignored.
There is no logical or fluffy reason for it not to cause 'wounds'.
I can't find slay in the index so the same question..
What determines a slain model..?

I can't find slay in the index so the same question..

This is, frankly, asinine. The index and table of contents aren't rules. Quite a few rules do not exist in either, probably about half of them, as you would increase the book size substantially.

What determines a slain model..?

Again, you want there to be something else other than slay. Slay is the end result you are told to make. It doesn't tell you to do anything else and therefore you have to give proof why you would be required to do anything.

P. 44 has a box on Instant Kills.
"Some Special Attacks don't inflict wounds but require models to be removed as casualties...the number wounds on the victim's profile is completely irrelevant--just remove the model from play..."

 DukeRustfield wrote:

I can't find slay in the index so the same question..

This is, frankly, asinine. The index and table of contents aren't rules. Quite a few rules do not exist in either, probably about half of them, as you would increase the book size substantially.

What determines a slain model..?

Again, you want there to be something else other than slay. Slay is the end result you are told to make. It doesn't tell you to do anything else and therefore you have to give proof why you would be required to do anything.

No the index aren't rules. They direct you to the pages where the rules are. Where you find the particular mechanic of the game. You believe half the rules are not found in the index? This is rhetorical because to answer this would drift off topic. If you really believe that there are rules not listed, that could explain your trouble.

No I don't want there to be something other than slay. I want you to stick to the process of wounding and wounds. As I have stated repeatedly, I have never dismissed the slaying of the model...through removing all its wounds.
You want there to be some magic happenstance where suddenly 'wounds' don't count. That the action within the roll to wound, suddenly, causes no wounds.
You are still unable to explain why you have no wounds other than being caught up on the word slay/slain.
Find an explanation that eradicates wounds.
Slay does not work as slay is not a rule, and cannot be proof upon itself.
Slay is the end result. The result of your dice rolls, removing wounds and slaying. That is how it works. Always.
If slay is the best you can come up with we will just have to agree to disagree.

P. 44 has a box on Instant Kills.
"Some Special Attacks don't inflict wounds but require models to be removed as casualties...the number wounds on the victim's profile is completely irrelevant--just remove the model from play..."

Yes there are special attacks. And they say remove from play, or remove as a casualty and involve a dice roll other than to wound.
KB states regardless of the number of wounds so it has once again shown the relevance of wounds.

You have avoided the questions, instead focusing on the rulebook and the word slay.

Answer the questions or admit you can't.

How does it not lose the wounds.? Other than 'because you 'slay', because it is a description
Explain why it is no longer a wound..? Other than 'because you 'slay', because it is a description
The question remains what proof do you have that it magically doesn't count as a 'wound'? Other than 'because you 'slay',
What determines a slain model..?

.(edit to improve grammar)

Again, it's not a modification but a new process

Your made up gak that it is a multiplier is just that, made up.

You ignore that it's a counts as losing wounds, presumably because it destroys any argument you had.

It never causes wounds. You cannot point to any actual rules, so rely in hyperbole.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, it's not a modification but a new process
Your made up gak that it is a multiplier is just that, made up.
You ignore that it's a counts as losing wounds, presumably because it destroys any argument you had.
It never causes wounds. You cannot point to any actual rules, so rely in hyperbole.

Ok, so Vampire Lord with red fury has heroic killing blow from a sphinx.
He hits a rank and file model, rolls a 6 to wound, and do not get a bonus attack, because no wound was inflicted?

-Matt