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 wrote:
A triggering on a 'to wound of 6' is an instruction to change standard game process. Literally.
Standard rules have nothing trigger on a 'to wound of 6'.

editing to add for the obtuse:
A roll of 6 is in the standard rules causes a wound.
Full stop.

Nothing is triggered.
KB, pick up and . . . stuff in a bag, et al are not causing wounds not matter what table is rolled.
Claim that different books make the difference and we will find KB in armies with giants.
The rules are the same.

They are not ignored by Ethereal which ignores wounds.

You are correct.
Roll to 6 you cause a wound.
If you meet the criteria that '6' does cool extra stuff. Ignores armour saves, and slays regardless of the number of wounds. The whole idea that KB does not wound is obsurd IMO.
'The worst thing about this is there really is no other way to write this. It is already self explanatory.
The 'book' reference was a jab at the 'RAW' Sarcasm never really transmits well in text.
KB and giants are totally different.
I must say that the repletion is growing tiresome.
You'll play your way, we will play ours. We will both say we are right until GW FAQ's it.

Still.

Again - if this ever actually comes up and people disagree with RAW, my army is about 20% BETTER. (editing to add: more like 10%, but still! it is vs. the parts I am weak against.)
I would love to be wrong.

You don't have to worry...you are wrong and your army is 10% better Couldn't resist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:


Intriguing that you throw that my way, since from my point of view you're the primary offender.

But you make a valid point. I shouldn't keep coming back and looking at your 'I'm TFG!!!!11!!1!1!' posts. I'll be leaving this thread now.

Have fun trolling, but don't think for a second it makes anyone think any better of you, or your position on the point in question.

Not really that intriguing.
I am not an offender I am party in a discussion.
We are having a discussion...though it is a veeeerrrrryyy long one..with two parties, maybe a few more, stating opinions, sometimes backed with rules in an attempt to draw agreeable conclusion.
It's pretty standard debate.
Each side believes themselves to be correct and is not willing to give ground...again, pretty standard.
And you have poked in commenting about why we are still talking about it, whilst offering nothing. Take part. Learn. Share. Don't just stand on the side saying you guys are dumb.
As I said, I do this for fun. . I have a rather egotistical personality already with sparks of narcissism, so I don't need the internet to make me feel better, I can take care of that myself.

 Peasant wrote:
The whole idea that KB does not wound is obsurd IMO.

Yet the idea of Ethereal is OK?

I mean literally.
The rules are not based on verisimilitude. That is irrelevant.

The rules disagree with your statements.
Really.

The fact - yes fact - that you are not OK with that is fine.
No one cares that you are wrong.
It is just strange you feel the need to propagate your deliberate mis-interpretation.

Many rules are "obsurd"[sic] - but that does not mean that it is within the rules to ignore those rules.

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
The whole idea that KB does not wound is obsurd IMO.

Yet the idea of Ethereal is OK?

I mean literally.
The rules are not based on verisimilitude. That is irrelevant.

The rules disagree with your statements.
Really.

Ah, once again taken out of context.
Everything in the KB text and game process leads to the conclusion that it wounds.
It is your bias that has led you to believe that you are correct. Nothing else. You have created a jagged, complicated and illogical flow chart to come to your false conclusion.
...The rules disagree with your statements....
...Really...
I can say it as well. Doesn't change much does it?

The fact - yes fact - that you are not OK with that is fine.
No one cares that you are wrong.
It is just strange you feel the need to propagate your deliberate mis-interpretation.

Many rules are "obsurd"[sic] - but that does not mean that it is within the rules to ignore those rules.

I have yet to ignore a single rule or part of a rule. Can you show me one that I have ignored?
But again your bias shows. Taking parts of rules out of context and building connections based on parts of the whole does not make you correct.

And as a bit of friendly advice..
Remember we are having a discussion in a public forum about a game, not discussing philosophy, so when you begin to throw terms outside of the layman you suffer in several areas
1. People don't understand so they stop listening for fear of being labeled 'unintelligent'...which they are often not.
2. People begin to believe less of what you say because your sudden expansive vocabulary shows weakness.
3. People stop listening because the words make the speaker come across as pompous and demeaning to the listeners.
People debate with their hearts as well as their minds, and often more so by heart. If you damage the heart, you lose the mind, so you must tread carefully
It is a common problem amongst the educated (yes I am calling you educated) and philosophers. In their attempts to help and prove their knowledge they confuse and alienate the very people that they are trying to help.

I think the rule I argued hardest with that "didn't make sense"™ was Slaughtermasters using armor. It specifically said in the fluff they didn't even wear gutplates, just relying on their god, but they're going to wear platemail? I felt a little justified when they came out and said, woops, we didn't mean it, but it can stay--sorta. But it's RAW vs. RAI.

Everything fluff said they shouldn't have armor. They even admitted it wasn't RAI. And they said hey, you shouldn't, like, in tournaments use it. But it's still RAW so everyone doesn't care.

It's been stated ad nauseum how it can't possibly cause a wound. It's literally not possible. You're either wounding a dead model (Ima kill you in heaven!) and you're getting double combat resolution for "killing" the same guy twice.

You know what happens when someone is slain. You take a guy from the back and they step up. If you run up and do impact hits, you don't then attack and kill the same guys again. Impact hit, then KB, then wound, then stomp. Kill the same non-character model 4 times? DIE DIE DIE DIE.

 kirsanth wrote:
See above (i.e. any of the 12 pages have examples for you).

Ah the "it's there somewhere in the last twelve pages, you just have to look... but it's definitely there!" argument. I'm fully aware of what's been said. I'm also aware of whats being conveniently ignored.

There are many ways to do what anyone would call damage (including the rules) without a wound.

Actually no, damage is only used to describe anything that does wounds. Would you like me to list every single place damage is used in the manual?

Do you think unit is not damaged by a giant stuffing a model into its bag?

No I do not think that. I know it is "removed as a casualty" as that's what the rule says. It doesn't use the term damage. I know this because I spent time finding every single usage of the word damage in the BRB

(Note: Nothing in the rules dealt wounds. Yet there are rules stating the model is slain, which is damage - NOT WOUNDS - to the unit, via the removal of models.)

No there are not. There are rules stating the model is "removed as a casualty", damage is only used throughout the book for wounds.

Quote BRB p72 Killing Blow
"the ward save prevents all
damage from the Killing Blow"

It doesn't say "prevent the effect" it says "prevents all damage". All damage. Not prevent the effect, but prevent the damage. Damage is defined as wounds (BRB p3). I have a list here of all the times the word damage comes up in the BRB, would you like to go through it with me?

Slay is not a game term. Slay, slaying and slain come up many times in the manual. The vast majority of times it is used is in conjunction with something that removes wounds slaying them. Would you like me to go through the BRB with you showing every time slay, slaying or slain comes up?

There is a section in the BRB called "instant Kills". This section does not use the word slay, slaying or slain. This section uses the terminology "removed as casualties" (like the giant) and "remove the model from play" This section does not reference Killing Blow. Killing Blow does not reference this section.

The rules on Killing Blow are quite simple enough as stated in the manual. I don't know where you are getting all this extra stuff from that killing blow does.

Mine says:

1. roll to wound
2 Regardless of the number of wounds, meaning it is wounding and not "removing as casualty" or "remove from play". You're still regarding wounds here, you are disregarding the number of them to do whatever the number of wounds the target has.
3. and a "ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow" with damage being defined in the BRB as wounds and I don't use a ward save to "prevent the effect".

Wait.

Are you trying to say that the removal of models without wounding them is wounding a unit?

That would almost make sense, it seems, except for the exceptions that allow it - naming the rules for KB.
(I am literally struggling to understand the basis of your disagreeing with the rules as written in a RAW debate. A roll to wound that causes a new effect to occur is not able to be ignored on the basis that the effect that it is replacing could be ignored. If I can re-roll misses, I do not get to reroll any 3 because it could have been a miss. In this case you are claiming exactly that. I want to ignore the to-wound roll of 6 even though that is not related to the rule we are discussing? Ethereal does not make them immune to anything non-magical that rolls to-wound.)

Maybe I misread again.

No and yes you did.

Also, as the above listed parsing of the killing blow rules should make obvious "I am literally struggling to understand the basis of your disagreeing with the rules as written in a RAW debate".



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:


Intriguing that you throw that my way, since from my point of view you're the primary offender.

But you make a valid point. I shouldn't keep coming back and looking at your 'I'm TFG!!!!11!!1!1!' posts. I'll be leaving this thread now.

Have fun trolling, but don't think for a second it makes anyone think any better of you, or your position on the point in question.

Have fun going away and shutting up, but don't think for a second that it makes anyone think any better of you, or your position of adding nothing to a discussion except your bizarre whining about people having a discussion about rules, on a discussion forum, in the subsection for discussing rules.

As much as people have got up my nose on this thread, not a single one has acted like as much of a douchebag as you've just managed. Good Job

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:
See above (i.e. any of the 12 pages have examples for you).

Ah the "it's there somewhere in the last twelve pages, you just have to look... but it's definitely there!" argument. I'm fully aware of what's been said. I'm also aware of whats being conveniently ignored.

There are many ways to do what anyone would call damage (including the rules) without a wound.

Actually no, damage is only used to describe anything that does wounds. Would you like me to list every single place damage is used in the manual?

Do you think unit is not damaged by a giant stuffing a model into its bag?

No I do not think that. I know it is "removed as a casualty" as that's what the rule says. It doesn't use the term damage. I know this because I spent time finding every single usage of the word damage in the BRB

(Note: Nothing in the rules dealt wounds. Yet there are rules stating the model is slain, which is damage - NOT WOUNDS - to the unit, via the removal of models.)

No there are not. There are rules stating the model is "removed as a casualty", damage is only used throughout the book for wounds.

Quote BRB p72 Killing Blow
"the ward save prevents all
damage from the Killing Blow"

It doesn't say "prevent the effect" it says "prevents all damage". All damage. Not prevent the effect, but prevent the damage. Damage is defined as wounds (BRB p3). I have a list here of all the times the word damage comes up in the BRB, would you like to go through it with me?

Slay is not a game term. Slay, slaying and slain come up many times in the manual. The vast majority of times it is used is in conjunction with something that removes wounds slaying them. Would you like me to go through the BRB with you showing every time slay, slaying or slain comes up?

There is a section in the BRB called "instant Kills". This section does not use the word slay, slaying or slain. This section uses the terminology "removed as casualties" (like the giant) and "remove the model from play" This section does not reference Killing Blow. Killing Blow does not reference this section.

The rules on Killing Blow are quite simple enough as stated in the manual. I don't know where you are getting all this extra stuff from that killing blow does.

Mine says:

1. roll to wound
2 Regardless of the number of wounds, meaning it is wounding and not "removing as casualty" or "remove from play". You're still regarding wounds here, you are disregarding the number of them to do whatever the number of wounds the target has.
3. and a "ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow" with damage being defined in the BRB as wounds and I don't use a ward save to "prevent the effect".

Wait.

Are you trying to say that the removal of models without wounding them is wounding a unit?

That would almost make sense, it seems, except for the exceptions that allow it - naming the rules for KB.
(I am literally struggling to understand the basis of your disagreeing with the rules as written in a RAW debate. A roll to wound that causes a new effect to occur is not able to be ignored on the basis that the effect that it is replacing could be ignored. If I can re-roll misses, I do not get to reroll any 3 because it could have been a miss. In this case you are claiming exactly that. I want to ignore the to-wound roll of 6 even though that is not related to the rule we are discussing? Ethereal does not make them immune to anything non-magical that rolls to-wound.)

Maybe I misread again.

No and yes you did.

Also, as the above listed parsing of the killing blow rules should make obvious "I am literally struggling to understand the basis of your disagreeing with the rules as written in a RAW debate".



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:


Intriguing that you throw that my way, since from my point of view you're the primary offender.

But you make a valid point. I shouldn't keep coming back and looking at your 'I'm TFG!!!!11!!1!1!' posts. I'll be leaving this thread now.

Have fun trolling, but don't think for a second it makes anyone think any better of you, or your position on the point in question.

Have fun going away and shutting up, but don't think for a second that it makes anyone think any better of you, or your position of adding nothing to a discussion except your bizarre whining about people having a discussion about rules, on a discussion forum, in the subsection for discussing rules.

As much as people have got up my nose on this thread, not a single one has acted like as much of a douchebag as you've just managed. Good Job

I love how you dismiss slain as a game term, but keep rying to use damage as a game term.

You still have never managed to poin out the hit of ext in the KB rule which says "on a roll to wound of 6, the model is slain UNLESS..." It simply isn't in my copy of he book. Claiming that other rules implicitly add an unless is making assumptions which are not based on text; they are not RAW.
Nothing else really matters for this arguement. You read the rule then follow it exactly. The fact that this doesn't fit with your theories of how the system should work is irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just checked - this is by far tbe most viewed topic in 70 pages of YMDC. Who would have guessed?

Niteware wrote:

I love how you dismiss slain as a game term, but keep rying to use damage as a game term.

I am dismissing slain as a game term with evidence backed up with references. Would you like me to go over every use of slay, slaying or slain in the book and tally up where it uses it in conjunction with something that has wounded, removed wounds, thereby slaying it and it becoming slain, vs it being used in conjunction with something that has been "removed from play"?

So the offer is there, we can go through every single instance in the book and tally them up. It comes out with a large majority in favour of being used in conjunction with something that wounds just so you know. I do not offer this as evidence of it being anything other then a descriptive term.

The section on instant kills, which you are insisting this is, does not use the term slay, slaying or slain.

The section on instant kills says

QUOTE BRB p4
but the number of wounds on the victim's profile is completely
irrelevant — just remove the model from play


The section on Killing Blow says

QUOTE BRB p72
automatically slays his opponent -regardless of
the number of wounds on the victim's profile


Notice the difference? One removes you from play because the wounds on the profile are irrelevant and the other slays regardless of the number of wounds and doesn't say remove the model from play

So yes I am dismissing it as a game term.

What I have not done is dismissed your argument that it is a game term. I have addressed that point of view, shown that the way you are trying to use it is factually and verifiably incorrect. If you are going to disagree with this then you have to provide some evidence that it is a game mechanic. A Game mechanic that has no index reference or heading and is used descriptively throughout the BRB in a way that contradicts your assertion on what it means and how it works.

Being that you have a problem with my characterization (backed up with references and quotes from the BRB) of damage, can you explain to me what the damage is and what form it takes when I am rolling a ward against Killing Blow? Alternatively, can you provide me with your definition of damage in WFB and the BRB page reference that qualifies it?

You still have never managed to poin out the hit of ext in the KB rule which says "on a roll to wound of 6, the model is slain UNLESS..." It simply isn't in my copy of he book. Claiming that other rules implicitly add an unless is making assumptions which are not based on text; they are not RAW.

Because I don't need to. Slain is not a game term, as I have shown. The word slay, slaying or slain in the text means exactly zero mechanically. Slain is not a game mechanic. This is a fact. It is an absolute and verifiable fact that slain is not a game mechanic.

If slain, slay or slaying is a game mechanic can you please quote me the page of the BRB where it details the mechanics of the Slay/Slain rule? Can you give me an index reference to any of the many variations of slay? A Glossary? A FAQ? If you cannot do this, can you please have the decency to admit that it is not a game mechanic, it is never listed as a game mechanic and that it is more often used descriptively in conjunction with something that wounds. I can factually verify those last two statements, would you like me to?

Nothing else really matters for this arguement. You read the rule then follow it exactly. The fact that this doesn't fit with your theories of how the system should work is irrelevant.

I couldn't agree more. You should read this advice you have given, take a long good and hard look at yourself, and what and how you are arguing this. You read the rule and follow it exactly.

"If a model with the Killing Blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound"

You can't wound, so you can't wound with killing blow. That's as far as it needs to go.

Honestly, how has this 'discussion' gone on for 13 pages!?

Killing blow cannot kill an ethereal creature if you are unable to wound it normally. Period.

If you are trying to abuse a possible loophole in the wording of how these two rules interact rather than apply common sense then I feel for you.

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:

I couldn't agree more. You should read this advice you have given, take a long good and hard look at yourself, and what and how you are arguing this. You read the rule and follow it exactly.

"If a model with the Killing Blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound"

You can't wound, so you can't wound with killing blow. That's as far as it needs to go.

While not necessarily disagreeing with your premise, I don't accept this particular argument.

KB doesn't require a sucessful to wound roll, simply that the player roll a 6. Yes, in all probability the roll is also a sucessful to wound score, it doesn't follow that it has to be.

Etherial units can be 'killed' via nonmagical effects

Just my tuppence on the discussion.

Cheers

Andrew

DukeRustfield wrote:

It's been stated ad nauseum how it can't possibly cause a wound. It's literally not possible. You're either wounding a dead model (Ima kill you in heaven!) and you're getting double combat resolution for "killing" the same guy twice.

You know what happens when someone is slain. You take a guy from the back and they step up. If you run up and do impact hits, you don't then attack and kill the same guys again. Impact hit, then KB, then wound, then stomp. Kill the same non-character model 4 times? DIE DIE DIE DIE.

You are still working backwards. The roll to wound came first. The instruction of game process says so. No instruction to invalidate it or ignore it.
KB is a wound multiplier.
KB really is simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewC wrote:

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:

I couldn't agree more. You should read this advice you have given, take a long good and hard look at yourself, and what and how you are arguing this. You read the rule and follow it exactly.

"If a model with the Killing Blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound"

You can't wound, so you can't wound with killing blow. That's as far as it needs to go.

While not necessarily disagreeing with your premise, I don't accept this particular argument.

KB doesn't require a sucessful to wound roll, simply that the player roll a 6. Yes, in all probability the roll is also a sucessful to wound score, it doesn't follow that it has to be.

Etherial units can be 'killed' via nonmagical effects

Just my tuppence on the discussion.

Cheers

Andrew

Jump back through our loooooong discussion
You will see that the point you are making has been addressed many times
So what happens to the six that wounded?
KB is a wound multiplier.
Ethereal can be killed by other means. But not KB.








Automatically Appended Next Post:

alex87 wrote:
Honestly, how has this 'discussion' gone on for 13 pages!?

Killing blow cannot kill an ethereal creature if you are unable to wound it normally. Period.

If you are trying to abuse a possible loophole in the wording of how these two rules interact rather than apply common sense then I feel for you.

Have you read the pages?
The debate at this point is pretty much down to whether or not KB wounds.
I say it does. Boomer says it does.
Niteware and Duke say it doesn't.

I have no problem with KB working if the weapon is magical.

alex87 wrote:
Killing blow cannot kill an ethereal creature if you are unable to wound it normally. Period.

Prove it. It is impossible to prove given the rules as WRITTEN.

Slay is a game term as of page 4. In close combat the only word that is used to describe casualties is slain. That's it. If it isn't a game term, no one can ever die in close combat, because they continuously refer to models who are [non game term]. And if it doesn't mean anything, no one ever reaches that condition. Even barring that it obviously is a game term, it's also a synonym in any dictionary on earth for kill/destroy.

KB doesn't require a sucessful to wound roll, simply that the player roll a 6.

We've already proven that KB doesn't require a successful wound or even a 6. TK, and I believe some heroes, can KB on other rolls. And the roll doesn't have to wound at all for it to still KB. A TK unit can KB on a 5 or 6 and be fighting a unit with T10. It wouldn't remotely wound that model with a 5. Yet it would still slay them via KB.

alex87 wrote:
Honestly, how has this 'discussion' gone on for 13 pages!?

Killing blow cannot kill an ethereal creature if you are unable to wound it normally. Period.

If you are trying to abuse a possible loophole in the wording of how these two rules interact rather than apply common sense then I feel for you.

It is equally valid to say that you are trying to exploit a loophole that would let ethereal survive KB by saying that it wounds. KB is not a wound, whether you believe it replaces or is additional, it is a seperate effect. It gives no get out clause for ethereals.

 Peasant wrote:


Jump back through our loooooong discussion
You will see that the point you are making has been addressed many times
So what happens to the six that wounded?
KB is a wound multiplier.
Ethereal can be killed by other means. But not KB.

No I don't think it has, or at least the point I'm trying to make hasn't (Or at least I didn't see it, 12 pages of he says, she says it all kind of merges together)

What happens to the six? Who cares? thats not the question being asked. One argument proposed is that if it can't wound then it can't work. But KB doesn't require a succesful wound roll, simply a 6 being rolled.

KB is not simply a wound multiplier. It is a special rule that inflicts sufficient 'damage' (please note inverted commas, this is a word of convenience not a game term) to slay a model outright. It is a rule that changes per model it affects, rather than a *2, D6, whatever, that is implied by the use of the words wound multiplier.

People have maintained that Etherial cannot be hurt my mundane effects, magic only. However this assertion is false. Etherial can and do die to 'mundane' means.

Cheers

Andrew

 Peasant wrote:

Have you read the pages?

Yes. I can understand the wound vs not a wound argument but in the end it all boils down to RAW vs RAI. The whole notion that KB trumps being ethereal somehow reminds me of thedarkavenger's '14 Spell Slann' discussion. It's an obvious case of two special rules not exactly interacting the way they should with regards to some very specific wording. A non-magical weapon cannot wound an ethereal creature, so I find it very hard to somehow comprehend that KB allows the weilder to circumvent this, regardless of this argument as to whether KB is actually a wound or wound-multiplier.

 Peasant wrote:

I have no problem with KB working if the weapon is magical.

Agreed. That was the point I was originally trying to make, apologies for any confusion.

I agree with the "KB doesn't work on Etherials except when dealt from a magical weapon or spell effect" camp.
I also agree this needs to be FAQ'd. And soon.

Personal opinion is the argument to the contrary is thin and seems a bit too word-gamey.

Text removed.

reds8n

 snurl wrote:
I agree with the "KB doesn't work on Etherials except when dealt from a magical weapon or spell effect" camp.
I also agree this needs to be FAQ'd. And soon.

Personal opinion is the argument to the contrary is thin and seems a bit too word-gamey.

The "KB works except where the rules say it doesn't" camp is based on what is written in the rules - that on the roll of a 6 the target is slain.
The "Ethereals can survive KB" camp is based on assumptions that they meant to include other text or that "of course KB is the same thing as a wound and has to use all those rules even though it statea different rules".
The latter is clearly weaker.

Niteware wrote:

The "KB works except where the rules say it doesn't" camp is based on what is written in the rules - that on the roll of a 6 the target is slain.
The "Ethereals can survive KB" camp is based on assumptions that they meant to include other text or that "of course KB is the same thing as a wound and has to use all those rules even though it statea different rules".
The latter is clearly weaker.

Sigh.

We managed to go almost 34 whole hours with no posts on this thread and here we go again.

I was looking forward to the thread title working its way lower and lower on the forum page.

Saldiven wrote:
Sigh.

We managed to go almost 34 whole hours with no posts on this thread and here we go again.

I was looking forward to the thread title working its way lower and lower on the forum page.

Come on and feel the love for niche rule arguments

This is clearly a case of the age old debate:-

Rules As Intended vs. Rules As Written.

Yes, rules as written means you can play a little word game and con your way into hitting ethereal creatures with killing blow using a mundane weapon if you can browbeat the other player enough into letting you. You could indeed do that, it would however make you a massive massive cock.

Everyone knows that Ethereal is meant to represent the fact that none magical weapons pass though the creature as though it's not there. The fact that you're especially well trained, use a deadly poison/toxin, or are so strong you can cut a normal person in two, does not alter the fact that you're hitting a damn ghost... so you miss.

If you're trying to argue that Killing Blow hits Ethereal, you're a bloody cheater and extremely unsporting. If you can't win fair, don't bother trying I say.

 TornadoCreator wrote:
If you're trying to argue that Killing Blow hits Ethereal, you're a bloody cheater and extremely unsporting. If you can't win fair, don't bother trying I say.

Ethereal models are not immune to being hit in this game, no one else in this thread even tries to claim that.

Saying they cannot be hit proves you are a cheater and not playing fair.

 TornadoCreator wrote:
This is clearly a case of the age old debate:-

Just because you call someone a cock on the internet doesn't make you right. The fact you can't back up your statement with anything other than "everyone knows" means you basically have nothing to stand on. There wouldn't be 13 or however many pages if everyone knows. There wouldn't be a single post in YMDC if everyone knows. You have an opinion, you have no facts other than conceding it is RAW. But...the funny thing is, the people arguing against it aren't arguing it is RAI. They are saying it isn't RAW. I.e., they are disagreeing with you (or you them). They are literally saying those words don't exist. Which is probably why so many people are arguing. If you want to argue RAI or RAW, that's a lot fuzzier and really comes down to opinion. I'm still on the fence as far as RAI and I've probably been one of the biggest arguers for RAW.

You went extremely rage-like in your post. Especially for something that almost everyone agrees, will almost never ever happen in an actual game.

Speaking as a person who has wished this thread would just go away and die since page 5 or 6, I have to point out that posts like TornadoCreator's serve absolutely no purpose. It's nothing but emotion and opinion with not a single iota of rules backing.

Posts like that have no place in a forum dedicated to discussing what the rules do or do not say.

Take that crap to the Discussion forum.

Oddly enough, Fantasy doesn't have the same Tenants of YMDC as the 40K side does.
Might be a good idea to set down some ground rules; as you can justify arguing how the rules should work, or how they are intended to work, or even just HIWPI.

-Matt

Here's a HIWPI question then... for units with a specific ward save against wounss, would you let your opponent use it against KB? Obviously RAW is no, but that would seem a bit TFG. What do you reckon?

If they have a ward against flaming attacks and a non-flaming sword attacks them with KB and rolls a 6, you check to see if they have a ward save. They do not. It does not exist for a non-flaming attack. If the sword was flaming, it would. An attack has a profile. KB is just one potential special rule on it. HE with their stupid banner of ward 2+ vs magic hit by a magic KB sword would save on a 2+. This was brought up with bloodletters to try and bypass it.

This is much the same as Ethereal, except Ethereal comes a phase later. After the to wound roll is completed. But KB bypasses that so Ethereal is never invoked. But the KB language specifically asks if the user has a ward even though the normal attack process lists it later (but they wanted to remove armor saves and regen and anything else). But again, KB bypasses that.

Niteware wrote:
Here's a HIWPI question then... for units with a specific ward save against wounss, would you let your opponent use it against KB? Obviously RAW is no, but that would seem a bit TFG. What do you reckon?

Killing Blow does cause wounds. The BRB says it inflicts wounds. There is no "obviously" here. The RAW is that KB causes wounds. KB allows a ward save against the damage it causes, not the effect.

The only marker in WFB for damage is wounds

QUOTE BRB p45
Wound Markers
It's always worth placing a
marker next to a wounded
model in order to remind you of
just how much damage it has taken

Are you going to argue that it doesn't say "damage" in the description for mechanics of Killing Blow? What else is this "damage" I am making a ward save against?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
HE with their stupid banner of ward 2+ vs magic hit by a magic KB sword would save on a 2+. This was brought up with bloodletters to try and bypass it.

What? Sorry, weren't you arguing in that thread that they wouldn't get the ward save from the banner against KB? Completely incorrect, but wasn't that your argument?

You seem confused...

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:

Niteware wrote:
Here's a HIWPI question then... for units with a specific ward save against wounss, would you let your opponent use it against KB? Obviously RAW is no, but that would seem a bit TFG. What do you reckon?

Killing Blow does cause wounds. The BRB says it inflicts wounds. There is no "obviously" here. The RAW is that KB causes wounds. KB allows a ward save against the damage it causes, not the effect.

The only marker in WFB for damage is wounds

QUOTE BRB p45
Wound Markers
It's always worth placing a
marker next to a wounded
model in order to remind you of
just how much damage it has taken

Are you going to argue that it doesn't say "damage" in the description for mechanics of Killing Blow? What else is this "damage" I am making a ward save against?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
HE with their stupid banner of ward 2+ vs magic hit by a magic KB sword would save on a 2+. This was brought up with bloodletters to try and bypass it.

What? Sorry, weren't you arguing in that thread that they wouldn't get the ward save from the banner against KB? Completely incorrect, but wasn't that your argument?

You seem confused...

Boomer, KB does not cause wounds. Peasant has argued that wounds are also caused by the to wound roll , but KB is clearly seperate.
It was me who was arguing that the banner would not protect HE from KB because it specifices that it protects against wounds caused by magic.
BRB, as has been stated many times, does not say that KB causes wounds, it gives you a mechanic to deal with KB in CR. Also, damage is less of a game term than slay is, so your backwards reasoning is ridiculous.

Niteware wrote:

Boomer, KB does not cause wounds. Peasant has argued that wounds are also caused by the to wound roll , but KB is clearly seperate.
It was me who was arguing that the banner would not protect HE from KB because it specifices that it protects against wounds caused by magic.
BRB, as has been stated many times, does not say that KB causes wounds, it gives you a mechanic to deal with KB in CR. Also, damage is less of a game term than slay is, so your backwards reasoning is ridiculous.

It is obviously not clear, otherwise we wouldn't have 13 pages. It does not say it wounds, nor does it say it does not wound.
You have never answered these simple questions.
1.If you are not rolling to wound, why are you rolling 'to wound'?
2.Tell me any time you roll to wound that you do NOT use that chart?
Every time, with every effect, if it does not follow game process you are given a different process. Giants, poison wind globes, weapons that wound on a 4+(just to name a few) you are always told how the effect works.
If KB did not wound you would be told to 'roll a dice and on a six...'
If you are rolling 'to wound'...what do you think is the most logical conclusion?
It is written that you roll 'to wound'
I can't believe I came back..