Killing Blow + Ethereal.

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.

**kirsanth**

Saldiven wrote:
Is there really a legitimate in-game point as to why this thread is 10 pages long or that tempers have gotten this high?

In-game point for a forum post? Shouldn't it be after/before a game? I play with Tomb Guard; it comes up.
Tempers high?

My not conceding to people's incorrect assertions is not odd, nor indicative of anger.

Maybe some of the others?

I find it funny that people are willing to argue that being immune to a wound means the model cannot be slain - but only in this one single instance and for no actual reason.
Just that it offends their sensibilities.
That seems a _really_ funny line for people to be drawing.
_THAT'S_ the part of this game that is too much for you to suspend your disbelief? Really?
The rules really are clear. KB slays. Ethereal models are not immune to being slain - by anything.
Pick up and. . .Stuff in a bag works.
KB works.
Unstable works.
If you could non-magically reduce most any of their stats to 0 it would work.

I get that people mis-read things. That is not what this is.
This is people deliberately obfuscating things.

Maybe that's what they do for fun.
/shrug

Keeps me entertained.

**Peasant**

Warpsolution wrote:
p.51 Roll to Wound "Roll a D6 for each attack that hit."

p.68 Ethereal"...Ethereal creatures can only be wounded..."

p.72 Killing Blow "...rolls a 6 to wound...he automatically slays his opponent, regardless of the number of wounds..."

@Peasant: it kinda' looks like you're forced to roll on the To Wound table, regardless of whether you'll ever be successful or not. The only reason you're allowed to skip it is because, normally, there's no point, so you might as well save some time. Like fast dice-rolling. Can you offer evidence that shows otherwise?

So roll to wound. If you have no magic you can't wound ethereal so you are wasting time.
Those that believe KB works need to show where it does NOT cause a wound.
The term slays has been established that it has many uses and is not descriptive enough to use as a reason KB doesn't wound.
Those that say KB breaks game process need to show where it deviates.
The idea that it doesn't cause a wound is contrary to the game process that you are told to follow.
What is the point of rolling to wound if it is not to wound?
Boomer has shown you always use KB, it never stops, so what happens when you roll that 6 to wound a model that is not affected by KB?
What rule tells you NOT to follow the game process?
Where does it say you do NOT wound.?
The game process of rolling to wound says you are attempting to wound.

This is why I typed the game structure with 3 similar models.
KB is a wound process just like multiple wounds.
Your '6' on certain models, just gives you added effects. It does not take away the wound roll.
You have no instruction to stop or change normal game process.

All this has been said over and over because there is really nothing left to add.
Looking at both sides there is not enough evidence that KB does NOT wound.
If people choose to play it that way, this up to them.
I believe it breaks both RAW and RAI and I like I said I hope they let there opponent roll all their poison attacks at ws 0. (that's a similar topic I believe to be incorrect as well)

**Warpsolution**

@Peasant: let's keep it concise, huh?

Three things:

- You asked where it says Killing Blow says you don't wound.
I would point out that, in a permissive system, you're told what you're allowed to do, not what you're prohibited from doing. So, unless Killing Blow says you wound, you don't.

- just because you can't wound doesn't change the rules, "roll a D6 for each attack that hit". You have to roll on the table for each hit. You just know the results ahead of time, if you don't have a way to bypass Ethereal.

- finally, I don't think anyone is going to try and play it this way. It is beyond silly. It's just a thought exercise.

**Saldiven**

(And here is where I mutter under my breath about how the last three posts demonstrate my point that neither side is willing to make any concessions and further discussion is a waste of time.)

**Peasant**

Niteware wrote:

The fact that you can construct a scenario where two different rules seem to act in a similar way does not mean that they are the same. KB does not consult the to wound table at all - that step usually comes after rolling to wound (as in Roll, then check result on table by comparing s to t). As Warp said (and as many others have said), following the rules forces you to roll for every hit, regardless of the likelihood of a positive result. KB then explicitly tells you what to do. There is no loophole to say "but KB can't hurt me because of X", unless X explicitly says that it makes you immune to KB, or because KB says that it is not effective.

I am not constructing a scenario. I am showing that the game process remains the same because it is supposed to.
Are my examples inaccurate? Are they breaking rules? Other than the creation for your opinion on KB.
KB doesn't have to consult the chart. The dice roll of a six does. You are never told to ignore the wound. It does not say discard the wound and remove from play. There is no text indicating that you ignore the game process which is rolling to wound.
When do you ignore your dice when rolling to wound.?. Why would you roll to wound and NOT compare to the chart?? When you wound automatically. Which happens to be precisely when KB does not work. Rolling to wound and checking the chart are all part of the same game process.
Rolling to hit and rolling to wound are separate.
Rolling to wound tells you what to do...roll to wound.
KB does tell you explicitly what to do. Ignore armour saves, take a ward if you have it and slay regardless of the number of wounds.
This is not complicated.

Given that you have said that you wound as well as KB, do you think that after saving KB you should have to save the wound? In a challenge, do you also save the wound to determine overkill? If not, why do you stop following the rules for wounding, since KB doesn't tell you to?
The only logical conclusion is that KB happens instead of a wound, ergo KB does not wound, so ethereal is irrelevant.

You are saving the wound AND KB at the same time if you have a ward. It's all or nothing. I am following the rules for wounding and the rules for KB.
The rules are clear for KB in challenges
If your model has 1 of 3 wounds left and you rolled the 6, KB grants you 3 wounds not 1. But you are still saving the 1 wounding dice roll.
Just like multiple wounds. you save the one dice roll, if you fail you get d3(d6)
If you roll 2 '6's you could get 6 wounds..but you still save twice. (once for each dice)
If you roll 2 wound with multiple wounds you can take up to 6 wounds, but you still roll saves against 2 dice.
If your model has 1 wound total and you roll the 6 you get 1 wound.

You think KB and wounding are separate, that is how you are justifying them with ethereal.
I say KB is not a separate part from wounding, they are parts of the same process.
You are not rolling to wound and to KB. (just like multiple wounds, you don't roll separately to wound and to multiple wound)
You are not saving from a wound and KB. (just like multiple wounds, you don't roll saves separately to wound and to multiple wound)
You are saving a wound that is a killing blow..( you are saving a wound that is multiple wounds)
Ergo, KB is part of the wounding process...without magic you can't KB ethereal
I have been saying this all along.

**Warpsolution**

@Saldiven: I am curious and like to stretch my brain by forcing it to think at weird angles. And I think precise language is a useful skill to develop.
I've already made up my mind as to how I'll play this: the obvious way. Any of my Mmodels with Killing Blow will not wound Ethereal units. Because that's silly.
But I am interested in how we might work out what the RAW state.
If it really is that big of a concern for you, just walk away.

@Peasant: Now this is interesting!
Can anyone offer proof that the rules for Killing Blow replace the standard To Wound rolls? Because, as of now, it kind of seems like it does this:

Roll a D6 for each attack that hit. Consult the chart to see if it wounds. Also, on a 6, the model is removed as a casualty, regardless of wounds.

...so, technically, it seems like, on a 6, you scored a Killing Blow. But the standard rules for wounding are still in effect, so also wounded normally.

Weird and silly. But interesting.

**kirsanth**

Read DukeRustfield's KB during challenges description.

The rules straight up break if Peasant's text is used instead.

**DukeRustfield**

How do you wound a slain model is a simple question.

Not to mention the can of worms that erupts when you score the combat resolution from KB AND wounding.

**Niteware**

Roll to wound process is; Roll a d6 then compare to chart. KB interrupts this because it tells you to do something different on the roll of a 6. That is why there is no wound.

As far as point goes, implications for poisoned attacks and for KB against botwd have come up, as well as the op. Thought exercises expand the mind and lead to contemplation of fresh nuances.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and I would not insist on this rule ever, unless I was playing Peasant. ^.^ As I have said several times, I think it is silly, even though it is correct.

**DukeRustfield**

Poison bypasses KB. You wound automatically if you score poison and KB specifically says attacks that wound automatically are discounted.

roll hit
poison
hit
roll wound
kb
wound

Each one of those steps can be short-circuited. By [edit] not hitting, for instance you short-circuit everything after that roll. If you poison, you jump past Hit, Rolling to Wound, KB.

So, if there is a rule that activates on HITS, successful poison would bypass it. Because it's not hitting. It's poisoning.

**Peasant**

Warpsolution wrote:
@Saldiven: I am curious and like to stretch my brain by forcing it to think at weird angles. And I think precise language is a useful skill to develop.
I've already made up my mind as to how I'll play this: the obvious way. Any of my Mmodels with Killing Blow will not wound Ethereal units. Because that's silly.
But I am interested in how we might work out what the RAW state.
If it really is that big of a concern for you, just walk away.

@Peasant: Now this is interesting!
Can anyone offer proof that the rules for Killing Blow replace the standard To Wound rolls? Because, as of now, it kind of seems like it does this:

Roll a D6 for each attack that hit. Consult the chart to see if it wounds. Also, on a 6, the model is removed as a casualty, regardless of wounds.

...so, technically, it seems like, on a 6, you scored a Killing Blow. But the standard rules for wounding are still in effect, so also wounded normally.

Weird and silly. But interesting.

Not weird or silly. Its the same as multiple wounds. Only all the wounds on the profile. It just requires the '6'

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
How do you wound a slain model is a simple question.

Not to mention the can of worms that erupts when you score the combat resolution from KB AND wounding.

You don't wound a slain model.
You do a wound and he is slain. The wound is all the wounds on the profile.
We know how KB works for combat res.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:
Roll to wound process is; Roll a d6 then compare to chart. KB interrupts this because it tells you to do something different on the roll of a 6. That is why there is no wound.

.

It never tells you to ignore anything.
It gives you additional rules on the 6.
If you meet criteria you ignore armour saves and potentially slay regardless of the number of wounds.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And where do the rules break?

**Saldiven**

Warpsolution wrote:
@Saldiven: I am curious and like to stretch my brain by forcing it to think at weird angles. And I think precise language is a useful skill to develop.
I've already made up my mind as to how I'll play this: the obvious way. Any of my Mmodels with Killing Blow will not wound Ethereal units. Because that's silly.
But I am interested in how we might work out what the RAW state.
If it really is that big of a concern for you, just walk away.

That's perfectly fine. The issue is that the people on the opposing side have also already made up their mind how they're going to play it. Neither side has conceded an inch on the subject. That was readily apparently five pages ago in this thread. The only significantly new viewpoint that's been added in that time was HawaiiMatt's introductio that things can be killed by KB on a wound that does not even actually wound that thing.

I predicted five pages ago that this thread was going to go the exact same way as the thread discussing what is 25% of a 1999 point army, and I have been proven correct. It's a discussion far longer and far more heated than warranted by the actual impact on the game. Thread should've been locked a while ago for being an exercise in spinning in circles.

I wish I had a "Someone on the internet is wrong" meme picture to post.

**Vulcan**

Ah, the joys of RAW vs.RAI arguments.

I could make an argument that under certain circumstances KB might be less about martial prowess and more about channeling a small portion of the winds of magic to do the trick. Specifically Grave Guard - magically animated extensions of their Master's will - and the DE Cauldron of Blood blessing come to mind as potential examples.

But instead I'll just point out a rule we all play RAI... even the most hard-core RAW supporter.

Specifically the rule about running down a fleeing unit that was facing the unit that charged it. We all do it; the two units face off, the strong one charges, the weak one opts to flee, it pivots to flee, and the chargers move straight up to catch it and wipe it out.

But by the rules, when two units start out front to front you can't do that. We'll go through it step by step.

First, the charger must determine which arc of the target unit he is charging. BRB p.21, last sentence of the second paragraph under 'flank and rear charges' header. "Whether a charger is in the front, flank, or rear of it's intended target is determined before charges are declared..." Front to front this means the charger is charging the target unit's front arc.

Next, the charge is declared. Then the charged unit declares and resolves its charge reaction. If it chooses to flee, you "Immediarlty turn the unit about it's centre so that it is facing directly away from the center of the charging enemy unit..." (BRB p.17, first sentence after the first bullet point under the 'Flee!' Header)

Thus putting that front arc on the opposite side of the unit from the charger, in addition to moving the target unit some distance away.

Now we move the chargers. But wait! On BRB p.20, second sentence of the second paragraph under the 'Move Chargers' header it reminds us "You are free to make this wheel in order to place pplace your unit wherever you like against the FACING OF THE ENEMY UNIT BEING CHARGED..."

In short, you still have to hit that facing.... which is now facing the other way. And the first sentence of that same paragraph tells yo that you only get ONE 90-degree wheel to do it in. Which is a geometric impossibility, with that arc on the other side of the target unit.

And since there is no provision anywhere I've looked that changes that target arc when a unit flees...

Well, the rule on BRB p.23, first paragraph under the 'Charging a fleeing unit' header allowing you to 'run down' the fleeing unit is contingent upon completing the charge... which you cannot do RAW.

Now we all understand that this is not the way GW intended these rules to be played, so none of us play them that way. To do otherwise risks turning us into 'that freaking guy' who is no fun at all to play.

Remember, playing RAW is not carte-blanche to be 'TFG.'

**Warpsolution**

@Peasant: so, since KB gives additional rules on a 6, instead of replacing them, you agree that, on a 6, you score a KB as well as a normal wound, so you have to make one Ward save to avoid being slain, and then an armour/Ward/Regen. save to avoid taking a wound. Is that right?
...how is that not both weird and silly?

@DukeRustfield: what is the scenario with KB in a challenge again? I can't find it in this jungle of texts.

@Saldiven: I agree with you entirely. But I can safely dismiss any especially grumpy posts and look for the facts therein. Until this thread is locked, I'll take what I can from it. Which is not much, but it's something.

@Vulcan: Genius.

**DukeRustfield**

Saldiven wrote:
I predicted five pages ago that this thread was going to go the exact same way as the thread discussing what is 25% of a 1999 point army, and I have been proven correct. It's a discussion far longer and far more heated than warranted by the actual impact on the game. Thread should've been locked a while ago for being an exercise in spinning in circles.

You posting I told you this would be a long thread, isn't remotely helpful or works in any way to make it shorter. This is actually the 2nd time the thread came up and I knew what the arguments would be and said it on page 1. The cool thing about the internet is there is nothing on earth preventing you from not reading this thread and even less from posting in it.

Warp,
The section on KB on challenges is under challenges/overkill. It specifically says you can multi KB the same dude in terms of scoring points.

They do it for balance purposes. Otherwise you would challenge some badass guy even if you knew you were going to lose, to ensure he scores (a lot) less combat resolution. So if your unit champ is in Tomb Guard and an enemy Saurus Oldblood is in a group of Skinks (!) you could challenge the Oldblood and your TG could outkill the Skinks easily, and you win combat just by sacrificing a champ.

And normally, the way KB works, you slay someone and they're dead so you can't slay them any more (or cause wounds). So KB could actually become a penalty to have if you're fighting a challenge. Because if you just had normal attacks you could score all his wounds and +5 overkill. But if you KB'd once, you could only score his remaining wounds. So they made it you could KB as many times as you like. Which makes KB able to score the +5 overkill just like normal attacks. In the overkill section they again use the verbiage that KB scores the wounds on the profile, because it's a combat resolution ruling.

**Peasant**

Warpsolution wrote:
@Peasant: so, since KB gives additional rules on a 6, instead of replacing them, you agree that, on a 6, you score a KB as well as a normal wound, so you have to make one Ward save to avoid being slain, and then an armour/Ward/Regen. save to avoid taking a wound. Is that right?
...how is that not both weird and silly?.

Incorrect.
You roll one time for everything. The roll to wound that shows the '6' negates your armour and becomes a wound multiplier just like multiple wounds

With the roll of '6' your single wound kills. You get full combat res for the profile

Just as you don't roll for the wound and the d3 for multiple wounds. You roll once.

GW writes their books attempting to make the book entertaining to read as opposed to being a law book where there would just be repetition of the same quotes.
This then leaves opportunity, for those that are willing, to begin interpreting language with it's multiple meanings, that often go outside the scope of what is written, to twist the rules often for their own benefit. Hence the entire portion in this discussion on 'slays'. Then they throw RAW vs RAI.

If we take an honest look at KB and remove ethereal from the equation, would anyone have ever stated that KB does not wound.?
I seriously doubt it.
It goes against the rules. Rolling to hit, to wound, taking the wound and killing the model. Every time you roll 'to wound' in this game it is for the purpose of wounding. The rule is written just as it is.
Then take Ethereal without KB. No magic, no wound, no problem. The rule is written fine.
Now ethereal gets thrown in with KB and all of a sudden the lack of the words 'wound' in KB and the presence of the word 'slays' in KB and 'wound' in ethereal, start to take on a whole new meaning that were never an issue before, so we create an issue. Human nature wants to find connections.
So we step away from the RAW that many swear on, create a RAI and try to pass it off as RAW because we can pick up a few key words. So we use the intent to create the RAW.
So the intent becomes a discussion on how to get around ethereal, passed off as RAW goes around ethereal.
Sadly it is an unfortunate problem as people attempt to separate RAW and RAI. When they are both equally dependent upon each other, especially in the game we choose to play.
As Vulcan put the example...if we don't take RAW and RAI and play them together everything falls apart.
It makes sense, as human nature tends to seek a black and white answer to everything. But even law has had to accept that intent is important as well.
Maybe I'm just old, but I have learned nothing is as simple as black and white.
Tis a vicious circle

**Niteware**

Peasant wrote:
Warpsolution wrote:
@Saldiven: I am curious and like to stretch my brain by forcing it to think at weird angles. And I think precise language is a useful skill to develop.
I've already made up my mind as to how I'll play this: the obvious way. Any of my Mmodels with Killing Blow will not wound Ethereal units. Because that's silly.
But I am interested in how we might work out what the RAW state.
If it really is that big of a concern for you, just walk away.

@Peasant: Now this is interesting!
Can anyone offer proof that the rules for Killing Blow replace the standard To Wound rolls? Because, as of now, it kind of seems like it does this:

Roll a D6 for each attack that hit. Consult the chart to see if it wounds. Also, on a 6, the model is removed as a casualty, regardless of wounds.

...so, technically, it seems like, on a 6, you scored a Killing Blow. But the standard rules for wounding are still in effect, so also wounded normally.

Weird and silly. But interesting.

Not weird or silly. Its the same as multiple wounds. Only all the wounds on the profile. It just requires the '6'

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
How do you wound a slain model is a simple question.

Not to mention the can of worms that erupts when you score the combat resolution from KB AND wounding.

You don't wound a slain model.
You do a wound and he is slain. The wound is all the wounds on the profile.
We know how KB works for combat res.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:
Roll to wound process is; Roll a d6 then compare to chart. KB interrupts this because it tells you to do something different on the roll of a 6. That is why there is no wound.

.

It never tells you to ignore anything.
It gives you additional rules on the 6.
If you meet criteria you ignore armour saves and potentially slay regardless of the number of wounds.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And where do the rules break?

It doesn't give you additional rules for a 6, it gives you different rules for a 6. Else you would need to save both wound and KB and both would count for CR.
Editing to add: Your suggestion that you could save both with one roll has no basis in rules, it is just you trying to find a way for your misinterpretation to work. Any ime that additional rules cause wounds, you save them as well, separately. Multiple woundsnis totally diffeent, as it is explicitly off unsaved wounds (ie, after saves have been attempted).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peasant wrote:
Warpsolution wrote:
@Peasant: so, since KB gives additional rules on a 6, instead of replacing them, you agree that, on a 6, you score a KB as well as a normal wound, so you have to make one Ward save to avoid being slain, and then an armour/Ward/Regen. save to avoid taking a wound. Is that right?
...how is that not both weird and silly?.

Incorrect.
You roll one time for everything. The roll to wound that shows the '6' negates your armour and becomes a wound multiplier just like multiple wounds

With the roll of '6' your single wound kills. You get full combat res for the profile

Just as you don't roll for the wound and the d3 for multiple wounds. You roll once.

GW writes their books attempting to make the book entertaining to read as opposed to being a law book where there would just be repetition of the same quotes.
This then leaves opportunity, for those that are willing, to begin interpreting language with it's multiple meanings, that often go outside the scope of what is written, to twist the rules often for their own benefit. Hence the entire portion in this discussion on 'slays'. Then they throw RAW vs RAI.

If we take an honest look at KB and remove ethereal from the equation, would anyone have ever stated that KB does not wound.?
I seriously doubt it.
It goes against the rules. Rolling to hit, to wound, taking the wound and killing the model. Every time you roll 'to wound' in this game it is for the purpose of wounding. The rule is written just as it is.
Then take Ethereal without KB. No magic, no wound, no problem. The rule is written fine.
Now ethereal gets thrown in with KB and all of a sudden the lack of the words 'wound' in KB and the presence of the word 'slays' in KB and 'wound' in ethereal, start to take on a whole new meaning that were never an issue before, so we create an issue. Human nature wants to find connections.
So we step away from the RAW that many swear on, create a RAI and try to pass it off as RAW because we can pick up a few key words. So we use the intent to create the RAW.
So the intent becomes a discussion on how to get around ethereal, passed off as RAW goes around ethereal.
Sadly it is an unfortunate problem as people attempt to separate RAW and RAI. When they are both equally dependent upon each other, especially in the game we choose to play.
As Vulcan put the example...if we don't take RAW and RAI and play them together everything falls apart.
It makes sense, as human nature tends to seek a black and white answer to everything. But even law has had to accept that intent is important as well.
Maybe I'm just old, but I have learned nothing is as simple as black and white.
Tis a vicious circle

You are actually wrong about both of those.
Ethereal is obvious - no magic doesn't stop a giant killing them with put in a hag.
KB is more nuanced; As KB doesn't wound, botwd probably doesn't protect against it, since it specifies that it is a ward against wounds. Again, this is RAW not RAI

**BooMeRLiNSKi**

Niteware wrote:
It doesn't give you additional rules for a 6, it gives you different rules for a 6. Else you would need to save both wound and KB and both would count for CR.

Different rules that come into effect and then don't effect Monstrous Infantry or Monstrous Cavalry meaning that on a 6 you do nothing to those targets. As I have proved with direct quotes from the BRB.

If you make it work as a replacement effect, that is what happens. End of.

I've shown and proved exactly how it works, now all we can do is wait until they update the FAQ and you end up looking a stupid and apologising for the abuse.

If you want to play it like that, fine. Anybody who tries to pull that on me will be discarding those 6's against MI and MC because it doesn't say at any point in the BRB or any FAQ that Killing Blow is not in effect against them.

**Niteware**

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:
Niteware wrote:
It doesn't give you additional rules for a 6, it gives you different rules for a 6. Else you would need to save both wound and KB and both would count for CR.

Different rules that come into effect and then don't effect Monstrous Infantry or Monstrous Cavalry meaning that on a 6 you do nothing to those targets. As I have proved with direct quotes from the BRB.

If you make it work as a replacement effect, that is what happens. End of.

I've shown and proved exactly how it works, now all we can do is wait until they update the FAQ and you end up looking a stupid and apologising for the abuse.

If you want to play it like that, fine. Anybody who tries to pull that on me will be discarding those 6's against MI and MC because it doesn't say at any point in the BRB or any FAQ that Killing Blow is not in effect against them.

Lol

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Boomer, it has to be additional or replacing.
If it is additional, you save bith seperately and the KB can still kill Ethereal.
If it is replacing, you only save KB and it can kill Ethereal.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
What happens with MI and MC depends on your interpretation of no effect. The rational interpretation would be that replacing rule steps is an effect, so against some unit types KB does not replace the rules.
You are free to continue to try and justify your weird position on that point.

**BooMeRLiNSKi**

Niteware wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Boomer, it has to be additional or replacing.
If it is additional, you save bith seperately and the KB can still kill Ethereal.
If it is replacing, you only save KB and it can kill Ethereal.

If it is additional effect you have an extra wound to make save for etc. Clearly it is not this, as that would be ridiculous.

If it replaces then you have replaced the wound you would have done on a 6 with the "Killing Blow Effect" and being as this effect only works on Infantry, Cavalry and Warbeasts you would do nothing to other targets on a 6.

What happens with MI and MC depends on your interpretation of no effect.

No it doesn't. That language doesn't appear in the BRB.

All it says is that

"Killing Blow is only effective against infantry,
cavalry and war beasts "

Not "not in effect.".

The rational interpretation would be

Really? A person arguing that a non magic weapon suddenly gets the ability to lop the head off a ghost due to high level of skill is going to lecture me on being rational?

At least you've given me a laugh.

that replacing rule steps is an effect, so against some unit types KB does not replace the rules.

BRB rule section for this please?

You are free to continue to try and justify your weird position on that point.

I'll bet you 500 quid that GW rule in my favour on my "weird" position.

Any takers?

**Saldiven**

DukeRustfield wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
I predicted five pages ago that this thread was going to go the exact same way as the thread discussing what is 25% of a 1999 point army, and I have been proven correct. It's a discussion far longer and far more heated than warranted by the actual impact on the game. Thread should've been locked a while ago for being an exercise in spinning in circles.

You posting I told you this would be a long thread, isn't remotely helpful or works in any way to make it shorter. This is actually the 2nd time the thread came up and I knew what the arguments would be and said it on page 1. The cool thing about the internet is there is nothing on earth preventing you from not reading this thread and even less from posting in it.

What would make it shorter would be locking it as it should have been 5+ pages ago. Continued argument on this topic is an exercise in futility. Neither side has even accepted that the other has made a reasonable argument at any point during this thread. At this point, the entire argument has devolved to "yes it is," "no it isn't" repeated ad nauseum.

**Niteware**

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:
Niteware wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Boomer, it has to be additional or replacing.
If it is additional, you save bith seperately and the KB can still kill Ethereal.
If it is replacing, you only save KB and it can kill Ethereal.

If it is additional effect you have an extra wound to make save for etc. Clearly it is not this, as that would be ridiculous.

If it replaces then you have replaced the wound you would have done on a 6 with the "Killing Blow Effect" and being as this effect only works on Infantry, Cavalry and Warbeasts you would do nothing to other targets on a 6.

What happens with MI and MC depends on your interpretation of no effect.

No it doesn't. That language doesn't appear in the BRB.

All it says is that

"Killing Blow is only effective against infantry,
cavalry and war beasts "

Not "not in effect.".

The rational interpretation would be

Really? A person arguing that a non magic weapon suddenly gets the ability to lop the head off a ghost due to high level of skill is going to lecture me on being rational?

At least you've given me a laugh.

that replacing rule steps is an effect, so against some unit types KB does not replace the rules.

BRB rule section for this please?

You are free to continue to try and justify your weird position on that point.

I'll bet you 500 quid that GW rule in my favour on my "weird" position.

Any takers?

Taking the last bit first, you bet £500 that GW would say that because KB is ineffective on MI they are unharmed? I would take that bet.
As I said, your argument depends on interpretation of language, not of rules. "KB is only effective against" - what does effective mean? You are choosing a position meanng that you can do it but it does not do anything to. Another, more reasonable interpretation, is that KB does not come in to play against. Both are literal translations of the written words (look at a dictionary if you don't believe me), but one works and makes sense.
As far as mundane weapons killing ghosts with KB, it makes as much sense as many things in game.
You asked for a page number for "replacing rules being an effect of a rule". I was referring to cause and effect; KB causes a change to the normal rules, ergo the change it caused is an effect of KB. You do not need a page number for basic English.
As you admit ahove that KB replaces the normal wounding rules on a 6, you would presumably agree that you should follow those rules? As written? Like, on the roll of a 6, the model is slain.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:
DukeRustfield wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
I predicted five pages ago that this thread was going to go the exact same way as the thread discussing what is 25% of a 1999 point army, and I have been proven correct. It's a discussion far longer and far more heated than warranted by the actual impact on the game. Thread should've been locked a while ago for being an exercise in spinning in circles.

You posting I told you this would be a long thread, isn't remotely helpful or works in any way to make it shorter. This is actually the 2nd time the thread came up and I knew what the arguments would be and said it on page 1. The cool thing about the internet is there is nothing on earth preventing you from not reading this thread and even less from posting in it.

What would make it shorter would be locking it as it should have been 5+ pages ago. Continued argument on this topic is an exercise in futility. Neither side has even accepted that the other has made a reasonable argument at any point during this thread. At this point, the entire argument has devolved to "yes it is," "no it isn't" repeated ad nauseum.

You are ignoing the peripheral things which have come out.
If you object to the theead, ignore it.

**Warpsolution**

Peasant wrote:
You roll one time for everything. The roll to wound that shows the '6' negates your armour and becomes a wound multiplier just like multiple wounds

I agree with you, obviously. Any other interpretation is silly. But I don't think the rule, in the most technical and literal sense, support that interpretation. Can you find any textual evidence? I've got nothing.

Peasant wrote:
...for those that are willing, to begin interpreting language with it's multiple meanings, that often go outside the scope of what is written, to twist the rules often for their own benefit...So we step away from the RAW that many swear on, create a RAI and try to pass it off as RAW because we can pick up a few key words. So we use the intent to create the RAW.

I'm not sure if I follow. I mean, I totally agree that the idea of Killing Blow (or a Giant's pants, for that matter) is capable of dispersing the ectoplasm that makes up a ghost's form is utterly ridiculous. It is very clear that GW did not intend for such nonsense.
But I always thought the term "RAW" was used to describe what the rules technically, according to the most precise form of grammar and so on, where "RAI" is used to describe the way things are supposed to work, regardless of what they, due to an odd clause or an ambiguous word, "actually" say.
It seems like you're saying that the act of determining the RAW is an incorrect approach to the game. Is that right? I mean, I agree with you. I don't think many people are going to argue that their Executioners can kill Carin Wraiths.
I guess my point is: if you're arguing that a strict, grammatical adherence to the rules is incorrect, I think the debate is done. Because on one side, you've got people saying, "technically, KB can take out Ethereal, lullz", and the others saying, "being that strict in your reading is damaging to the game", and those can both be right at the same time.

...or am I just totally off-base, here?

**fattymac04**

No your not off base, almost anyone who has said that KB works on Ethereal also says they don't play that way, but in terms of a RAW it does work. This is just a thread arguing whether or not it works, and right now there are two people saying it doesn't work, but they keep only copy pasting the same thing over and over again when it keeps being shown that what they are saying doesn't work. Since why some of us are ignoring them and calling them trolls, because they are not making any clear arguments against KB working. Half the time they list a rule and completely make up stuff base off a rule that no way relates to the issue at hand. Which is "does KB work on Ethereal?" and in the rules breakdown "does KB cause wounds?"

Right now we have seen at least 10 sources and examples from the BRB and Army books that show that KB doesn't cause wounds (except for Combat resolution for determining scoring on who won combat, it even has its on thing on it stating as such) and even though its stupid it works on Ethereal.

The prime example that clearly shows it works is the whole spell that increases KB to work on a 5+, and no these attacks are not magically

The example.

20 Tomb Guard with Hand weapon and shield, and the the 5+ KB spell on them attack a unit of halberdiers and a captain of the empire with the +4 toughness spell on them.
The TG hit 12 times, then they go to the to wound phase in which they need a 6 to wound them str 4 vs To 7 and To 8
of the 12 hits, they roll 4x 3's, 4x 5's and 4x 6's
The 3's do not wound, but the 5's and 6's KB even though they needed 6's to wound.
Thus KB is only based on the roll of the dice not whether or not it wounds.
And KB specifically says it "Slays" and not wounds.

It is a pretty clear cut case for it working, because you could just substitute the empire guys with a unit of Cairn wraiths and the same thing would happen.

**Peasant**

Niteware wrote:

It doesn't give you additional rules for a 6, it gives you different rules for a 6. Else you would need to save both wound and KB and both would count for CR.
Editing to add: Your suggestion that you could save both with one roll has no basis in rules, it is just you trying to find a way for your misinterpretation to work. Any ime that additional rules cause wounds, you save them as well, separately. Multiple woundsnis totally diffeent, as it is explicitly off unsaved wounds (ie, after saves have been attempted).

What is a wound with no armour save, if it is not an unsaved wound? When wounded, what happens when you fail your ward?
There is no instruction to ignore the wound that you rolled for. Only your assumption. Can you name any instance in this game that you roll to wound for another purpose? (of course outside of your interpretation of KB)
Your roll to wound causes the wound, KB multiplies it.
None of this breaks the system, and follows process.

You are actually wrong about both of those.
Ethereal is obvious - no magic doesn't stop a giant killing them with put in a hag.
KB is more nuanced; As KB doesn't wound, botwd probably doesn't protect against it, since it specifies that it is a ward against wounds. Again, this is RAW not RAI

Ethereal is obvious.
We are not talking about a giant.
KB is obvious.
It is your assumption that KB does not wound that is causing your difficulty.
Since KB wounds the discussion should be over.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:

Taking the last bit first, you bet £500 that GW would say that because KB is ineffective on MI they are unharmed? I would take that bet.
As I said, your argument depends on interpretation of language, not of rules. "KB is only effective against" - what does effective mean? You are choosing a position meanng that you can do it but it does not do anything to. Another, more reasonable interpretation, is that KB does not come in to play against. Both are literal translations of the written words (look at a dictionary if you don't believe me), but one works and makes sense.
As far as mundane weapons killing ghosts with KB, it makes as much sense as many things in game.
You asked for a page number for "replacing rules being an effect of a rule". I was referring to cause and effect; KB causes a change to the normal rules, ergo the change it caused is an effect of KB. You do not need a page number for basic English.
As you admit ahove that KB replaces the normal wounding rules on a 6, you would presumably agree that you should follow those rules? As written? Like, on the roll of a 6, the model is slain

You question the interpretation of 'effective', yet you are interpreting the lack of the word 'wound' in KB (even though you are told to roll to wound) as it not causing wounds.
Which is more reasonable?
Your interpretation of KB is restructuring, the roll to wound (because you are ignoring it), the game process of rolling to wound (because you claim it becomes irrelevant) and the game process of checking the chart. (because you assume it ignores the chart)
Our interpretation negates armour, as stated in the rules and reduces wounds to zero, ergo slain (because you rolled to wound). All aspects of the game remain the same.
which is more reasonable?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warpsolution wrote:
Peasant wrote:
You roll one time for everything. The roll to wound that shows the '6' negates your armour and becomes a wound multiplier just like multiple wounds

I agree with you, obviously. Any other interpretation is silly. But I don't think the rule, in the most technical and literal sense, support that interpretation. Can you find any textual evidence? I've got nothing.

Other than the text in KB itself, no. The other side has nothing new either. That is why we are so many pages in. It is really down to interpretation and at this point most reasonable.
As stated permissive system does not give you any instruction to ignore the roll to wound. Slain is a descriptive term not a game action.
There is no other time you roll to wound, other than to wound.

Peasant wrote:
...for those that are willing, to begin interpreting language with it's multiple meanings, that often go outside the scope of what is written, to twist the rules often for their own benefit...So we step away from the RAW that many swear on, create a RAI and try to pass it off as RAW because we can pick up a few key words. So we use the intent to create the RAW.

I'm not sure if I follow. I mean, I totally agree that the idea of Killing Blow (or a Giant's pants, for that matter) is capable of dispersing the ectoplasm that makes up a ghost's form is utterly ridiculous. It is very clear that GW did not intend for such nonsense.
But I always thought the term "RAW" was used to describe what the rules technically, according to the most precise form of grammar and so on, where "RAI" is used to describe the way things are supposed to work, regardless of what they, due to an odd clause or an ambiguous word, "actually" say.
It seems like you're saying that the act of determining the RAW is an incorrect approach to the game. Is that right? I mean, I agree with you. I don't think many people are going to argue that their Executioners can kill Carin Wraiths.
I guess my point is: if you're arguing that a strict, grammatical adherence to the rules is incorrect, I think the debate is done. Because on one side, you've got people saying, "technically, KB can take out Ethereal, lullz", and the others saying, "being that strict in your reading is damaging to the game", and those can both be right at the same time.

...or am I just totally off-base, here?

**Niteware**

Peasant wrote:
Niteware wrote:

It doesn't give you additional rules for a 6, it gives you different rules for a 6. Else you would need to save both wound and KB and both would count for CR.
Editing to add: Your suggestion that you could save both with one roll has no basis in rules, it is just you trying to find a way for your misinterpretation to work. Any ime that additional rules cause wounds, you save them as well, separately. Multiple woundsnis totally diffeent, as it is explicitly off unsaved wounds (ie, after saves have been attempted).

What is a wound with no armour save, if it is not an unsaved wound? When wounded, what happens when you fail your ward?
There is no instruction to ignore the wound that you rolled for. Only your assumption. Can you name any instance in this game that you roll to wound for another purpose? (of course outside of your interpretation of KB)
Your roll to wound causes the wound, KB multiplies it.
None of this breaks the system, and follows process.

You are actually wrong about both of those.
Ethereal is obvious - no magic doesn't stop a giant killing them with put in a hag.
KB is more nuanced; As KB doesn't wound, botwd probably doesn't protect against it, since it specifies that it is a ward against wounds. Again, this is RAW not RAI

Ethereal is obvious.
We are not talking about a giant.
KB is obvious.
It is your assumption that KB does not wound that is causing your difficulty.
Since KB wounds the discussion should be over.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:

Taking the last bit first, you bet £500 that GW would say that because KB is ineffective on MI they are unharmed? I would take that bet.
As I said, your argument depends on interpretation of language, not of rules. "KB is only effective against" - what does effective mean? You are choosing a position meanng that you can do it but it does not do anything to. Another, more reasonable interpretation, is that KB does not come in to play against. Both are literal translations of the written words (look at a dictionary if you don't believe me), but one works and makes sense.
As far as mundane weapons killing ghosts with KB, it makes as much sense as many things in game.
You asked for a page number for "replacing rules being an effect of a rule". I was referring to cause and effect; KB causes a change to the normal rules, ergo the change it caused is an effect of KB. You do not need a page number for basic English.
As you admit ahove that KB replaces the normal wounding rules on a 6, you would presumably agree that you should follow those rules? As written? Like, on the roll of a 6, the model is slain

You question the interpretation of 'effective', yet you are interpreting the lack of the word 'wound' in KB (even though you are told to roll to wound) as it not causing wounds.
Which is more reasonable?
Your interpretation of KB is restructuring, the roll to wound (because you are ignoring it), the game process of rolling to wound (because you claim it becomes irrelevant) and the game process of checking the chart. (because you assume it ignores the chart)
Our interpretation negates armour, as stated in the rules and reduces wounds to zero, ergo slain (because you rolled to wound). All aspects of the game remain the same.
which is more reasonable?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warpsolution wrote:
Peasant wrote:
You roll one time for everything. The roll to wound that shows the '6' negates your armour and becomes a wound multiplier just like multiple wounds

I agree with you, obviously. Any other interpretation is silly. But I don't think the rule, in the most technical and literal sense, support that interpretation. Can you find any textual evidence? I've got nothing.

Other than the text in KB itself, no. The other side has nothing new either. That is why we are so many pages in. It is really down to interpretation and at this point most reasonable.
As stated permissive system does not give you any instruction to ignore the roll to wound. Slain is a descriptive term not a game action.
There is no other time you roll to wound, other than to wound.

Peasant wrote:
...for those that are willing, to begin interpreting language with it's multiple meanings, that often go outside the scope of what is written, to twist the rules often for their own benefit...So we step away from the RAW that many swear on, create a RAI and try to pass it off as RAW because we can pick up a few key words. So we use the intent to create the RAW.

I'm not sure if I follow. I mean, I totally agree that the idea of Killing Blow (or a Giant's pants, for that matter) is capable of dispersing the ectoplasm that makes up a ghost's form is utterly ridiculous. It is very clear that GW did not intend for such nonsense.
But I always thought the term "RAW" was used to describe what the rules technically, according to the most precise form of grammar and so on, where "RAI" is used to describe the way things are supposed to work, regardless of what they, due to an odd clause or an ambiguous word, "actually" say.
It seems like you're saying that the act of determining the RAW is an incorrect approach to the game. Is that right? I mean, I agree with you. I don't think many people are going to argue that their Executioners can kill Carin Wraiths.
I guess my point is: if you're arguing that a strict, grammatical adherence to the rules is incorrect, I think the debate is done. Because on one side, you've got people saying, "technically, KB can take out Ethereal, lullz", and the others saying, "being that strict in your reading is damaging to the game", and those can both be right at the same time.

...or am I just totally off-base, here?

I'm sorry that wasn't as clear as I had hoped. It did sort of ramble.
Let me try a more concise ramble.
KB, you roll to wound. Would you ever make an assumption after rolling to wound that you didn't wound?
When playing, the RAW would tell you that you wounded and killed the model. Game process, wound, fail save, die.
RAW for ethereal you need magic to wound.
But now the intent becomes the issue. They no longer want KB to wound so the interpretation gets changed.
Raw is not incorrect it's what is on the pages.
Since language is, for lack of a better word, 'flexible' we change RAW into RAI and back again as we see fit and try to claim it as gaming gospel and try to thro the term RAW/RAI for strength.
Ergo the rules as written must be played as intended. They require each other. Both equally important.
Nite plays his way, I play mine. We disagree. If we can iron it out during game great, if not it's time to find a new player.
This has been done for a while because there is no additional information to give. There hasn't been in pages. That is why these topics show in You make da call..because we take the RAW and explain our RAI and hope we can sway people to our side.
And of course this entertains me.

First off, a wound is not an "unsaved wound" until you have taken any ward saves that you have, so a wound with no armour save is just a wound with no armour save.
Secondly, lets look at the actuql rule for wounding.

P 51Roll to Wound
Roll a d6 for each attack which hit. Compare the Strength of the attacker with the Toughness of the defender to find the score required to wound.

So you roll a d6, then compare the s to t, then consult the table. Only at that point is the wound extant.
KB substitutes alternative instructions;

On a To Wound roll of a 6, the target is slain

You do not reach the comparison of s and t, so you do not reach the to wound table, so no wound exists.
You claim that I am assuming there is no wound, but I have shown that there is no wound.
The meaning of the word "effective" is far more ambiguous, but I am 100% confident that GW would not say that the presence of KB meant that MC and MI are not wounded on a roll of a 6. That suggests that my interpretation of effective is more useful than Boomer's.

**Vulcan**

Okay, I think we've pretty well exhausted this.

Just like the 'catching fleeing units' rule, I think it's pretty clear that KB was not INTENDED to be a way to bypass ethereal. Even those that are arguing that RAW it could, don't intend to play that way because it would make them TFG.

So... why are we still arguing this? Isn't it about time to let this thread just die?

**Niteware**

Vulcan wrote:
Okay, I think we've pretty well exhausted this.

Just like the 'catching fleeing units' rule, I think it's pretty clear that KB was not INTENDED to be a way to bypass ethereal. Even those that are arguing that RAW it could, don't intend to play that way because it would make them TFG.

So... why are we still arguing this? Isn't it about time to let this thread just die?

We are still arguing it because we are pedants who like to make their point

Why do you want the thread to die?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
We've passed the 5k views point, so one of the most viewed questions of the last 2 years. Good going.

**HoverBoy**

It will not die

**HawaiiMatt**

HoverBoy wrote:
It will not die

Theads that won't die rule:
Roll of D6 for each page of circular logic. On a 2+, add another page of circular logic and roll again.
It's like the Red Fury of pointless arguments.

-Matt