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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Slain = 0 wounds. Page 7 of the rules sheet under inflict damage.

Any vehicle slain has a chance to explode if it has the explodes rule.

So you can engineer a situation where you cannot legally make your minimum move, and thus cause it to be destroyed. And that will have a chance to explode.

There is nothing that states 0W = Slain, atleast not in my German BRB.
Instead in the movement rules it states, that a model with minimum Movement that can't make the movement necessary is just destroyed/ slain, respectively removed. That means it does not lose any wounds at all it is just out of the match.
The rules for explode generally only apply IF a model has lost all it's W (when W drops to 0) which it does not if it get's removed due to minimum movement.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Slain = 0 wounds. Page 7 of the rules sheet under inflict damage.

Any vehicle slain has a chance to explode if it has the explodes rule.

So you can engineer a situation where you cannot legally make your minimum move, and thus cause it to be destroyed. And that will have a chance to explode.

There is nothing that states 0W = Slain, atleast not in my German BRB.
Instead in the movement rules it states, that a model with minimum Movement that can't make the movement necessary is just destroyed/ slain, respectively removed. That means it does not lose any wounds at all it is just out of the match.
The rules for explode generally only apply IF a model has lost all it's W (when W drops to 0) which it does not if it get's removed due to minimum movement.

Just to drive the point home more for DeathReaper, in this case if the two could be equated, they would still have said that the model was reduced to 0 wounds and/or stated that when the model is slain it explodes before being removed. There is no statement saying it's reduced to 0 wounds, or that it explodes after being declared slain but before removing it from the board.

There are many ways for a model/unit to be removed from battlefield. Wounds reaching 0 and consequentially having attained "slain" status is only one of them.

Not all removals from battlefield count as wounds having reached 0.

If a squadron of landspeeders lose a model due to morale, does it explode? No, it does not.

Deathreaper, just to re-iterate what everyone is already saying, you have a cause and effect and are reading it as an equality - being reduced to 0 wounds causes the model to be slain or destroyed, it does not mean that the two are the same.

contextual argument to emphasize the silliness of this belief:

Wounds cause damage, thus damage is wounds
mortal wounds cause damage, thus damage is mortal wounds
wounds = damage = mortal wounds
wounds = mortal wounds
therefore wounds are mortal wounds
mortal wounds say no saves

now the game disallows saves.

but wait, hits cause wound rolls, wound rolls cause wounds

therefore hits = wounds = mortal wounds

selecting a unit to shoot causes the hit roll which hcauses hits, so not select a target and inflict an arbitrary amount of mortal wounds.

Next Question: if there are enemies on your minimum move away, must you go further to pass them, or can you choose to end your move there, and thus die?

 some bloke wrote:
Deathreaper, just to re-iterate what everyone is already saying, you have a cause and effect and are reading it as an equality - being reduced to 0 wounds causes the model to be slain or destroyed, it does not mean that the two are the same.

contextual argument to emphasize the silliness of this belief:

Wounds cause damage, thus damage is wounds
mortal wounds cause damage, thus damage is mortal wounds
wounds = damage = mortal wounds
wounds = mortal wounds
therefore wounds are mortal wounds
mortal wounds say no saves

now the game disallows saves.

but wait, hits cause wound rolls, wound rolls cause wounds

therefore hits = wounds = mortal wounds

selecting a unit to shoot causes the hit roll which hcauses hits, so not select a target and inflict an arbitrary amount of mortal wounds.

Next Question: if there are enemies on your minimum move away, must you go further to pass them, or can you choose to end your move there, and thus die?

I believe that, if it is at all possible to make your move, you must make your move.

Agreed, the rule only triggers if you "cannot" make your move (or are forced to end the move off the battlefield). If you can make your move, you make your move, because you are not in a position where you cannot make your move or you are forced to move off the battlefield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I believe that, if it is at all possible to make your move, you must make your move.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Please explain why.

I have, the rules equate slain with 0 wound. it has nothing to do with fruit or shapes.

If you do not ignore the context of the rules then you will see that 0 woulds = slain.

But as I said Clearly we disagree on that point. So there is no need to discuss it further.

OP discuss it with your opponent until a FaQ comes out.

The point of the "fruit" and "shapes" examples is to demonstrate false equivalency.

If a model is reduced to 0 wounds, it is slain. This is an "IF, THEN" statement, not an "=" statement.

If a human is reduced to 0 heads, it is slain. This does not mean that a human who is slain has 0 heads.

You talk about context, but the context of that rule is actually when losing wounds after being dealt damage. If you deal enough damage to reduce a model to 0 wounds, it is slain - THAT is the context.

 Cheexsta wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Please explain why.

I have, the rules equate slain with 0 wound. it has nothing to do with fruit or shapes.

If you do not ignore the context of the rules then you will see that 0 woulds = slain.

But as I said Clearly we disagree on that point. So there is no need to discuss it further.

OP discuss it with your opponent until a FaQ comes out.

The point of the "fruit" and "shapes" examples is to demonstrate false equivalency.

If a model is reduced to 0 wounds, it is slain. This is an "IF, THEN" statement, not an "=" statement.

If a human is reduced to 0 heads, it is slain. This does not mean that a human who is slain has 0 heads.

You talk about context, but the context of that rule is actually when losing wounds after being dealt damage. If you deal enough damage to reduce a model to 0 wounds, it is slain - THAT is the context.

Agreed. The context for the original statement is what subsequently happens when you reach 0 wounds, not what subsequently happens when you are slain.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Slain = 0 wounds. Page 7 of the rules sheet under inflict damage.

Any vehicle slain has a chance to explode if it has the explodes rule.

So you can engineer a situation where you cannot legally make your minimum move, and thus cause it to be destroyed. And that will have a chance to explode.

While I agree with you conceptually, GW doesn't. You can look at the Necron Reanimation rule and failing Morale FAQ to see that.