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.

Inspired by what I believe to be the stronger argument in the thread "Killing Blow + Ethereal". I want to take a look at the other side of the spectrum.

Killing Blow: On a roll of a 6 to wound model is slain. Invulnerable Saves may be taken.

Banner of the World Dragon: Grants a 2+ Ward Save to WOUNDS caused by Magical Weapons, Spells and Magical Attacks.


Killing Blow, when successfully triggering, adds a special Slay Effect which then further allows for Ward Saves to take effect. This slay effect is distinct from a wound. So therefor, in the same way that the Banner of the World Dragon does not protect against Dwellers Below, it would not provide its 2++ against a Killing Blow. The rules for Killing Blow itself specify that the model would be able to take a Ward Save, such as a Character using the Talisman of Preservation, but because the Killing Blow effect is not a wound the Banner would not meet the requirement to trigger against it.

Basically. If a bunch of Dragon Princes with the Banner are battling a squad of Blood letters, what I am suggesting is that on successful to wound rolls of 2-5, the Banner would apply as the Princes are suffering wounds, but when a 6 is rolled and the slay effect comes into play, the Banner be of no help.

Yeppers.

Yeah, KB gets by. Including Epidimius tally, making him even more godlike, and the Khorne Blade of Blood, which you could give to a Bloodthirster or herald. Though I wouldn't hold my breath you're going to get many kills, or fair anything but horribly. You you got a 16% of KB, they still have any ward they might have outside the banner. Meanwhile, they got all their normal attacks. You'll never win that fight. Even with the most buffed, KBing nurgle units.

I don't think the banner saves are different than other ward saves just because it says wounds.

According to rule book page 43 (Saving Throws) it states:

"Each wound suffered may be canceled if the controlling player makes a saving throw. There are two types of saving throw: armour saves and ward saves."

Later it states:

"Models that are wounded still have a chance to avoid a grisly death by 'saving' the wound."

So armor and WARD saves are said to be taken against 'wounds'. Based on this the ward saves from the banner are no different than any other ward save.

Killing blow allows ward saves.

Since page 43 states that saves (including ward saves) are taken by 'wounded' models than the banner should also work.

killing blow would skip the ward save, if the attack didnt also wound, but it does.

a roll of a 6 to wound, is a successful attempt to wound againgst anything.

Eihnlazer wrote:
killing blow would skip the ward save, if the attack didnt also wound, but it does.

a roll of a 6 to wound, is a successful attempt to wound againgst anything.

That would mean you had a ward against the wound, but not necessarily against the kb. There is debate as to whether a wound is done as well as the kb, but they are definitely not the same thing.
I think the banner doesn't give a ward RAW, but I would play it as giving a ward.

It absolutely gives the ward. Did the origination of the attack start as magical? Yes daemon attacks are magical. Did the opponent roll to wound the model? Yes he did. Therefore it is a magical wound that if unsaved will kill a model regardless of wounds left on its profile. Killing blow allows a single ward save to be taken against it. If the attack came from a non magical source clearly kb would not trigger the ward, but a magical kb will trigger it because it still rolled to wound and is just a larger wound if you will.

A daemonic KB is a magical attack
BotWD gives a 2+ ward saves against wounds caused by magical attacks
A roll of 6 to wound will usually cause a wound (might not be the case against toad dragons for instance), and does trigger the KB effect
KB authorizes ward saves if you got one, however it doesn't cause any wounds by itself. It's a "slain outright" effect, not a "multiple wound(10)" effect, so the BotWD has no effect
Then BotWD triggers and gives you a 2+ ward against the wound caused by the 6, but you're already dead due to the KB

furbyballer wrote:
It absolutely gives the ward. Did the origination of the attack start as magical? Yes daemon attacks are magical. Did the opponent roll to wound the model? Yes he did. Therefore it is a magical wound that if unsaved will kill a model regardless of wounds left on its profile. Killing blow allows a single ward save to be taken against it. If the attack came from a non magical source clearly kb would not trigger the ward, but a magical kb will trigger it because it still rolled to wound and is just a larger wound if you will.

KB doesn't cause wounds, it is a seperate effect caused by a to-wound roll, so no HOTWD.

furbyballer wrote:
It absolutely gives the ward. Did the origination of the attack start as magical? Yes daemon attacks are magical. Did the opponent roll to wound the model? Yes he did. Therefore it is a magical wound that if unsaved will kill a model regardless of wounds left on its profile. Killing blow allows a single ward save to be taken against it. If the attack came from a non magical source clearly kb would not trigger the ward, but a magical kb will trigger it because it still rolled to wound and is just a larger wound if you will.

Killing Blow does not cause a wound, it just slays outright. As you dont have a ward against slain, only wounds, no ward save

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Killing Blow does not cause a wound, it just slays outright. As you dont have a ward against slain, only wounds, no ward save

RAW disagrees with you.

QUOTE BRB p72 Rules for Killing Blow

A ward save can be attempted — if passed, the ward save prevents all
damage from the Killing Blow.

Prevents all damage. Not the effect. The ward save prevents the damage that killing blow would have done.

QUOTE BRB p3 Definitions of Characteristics

"WOUNDS (W)
This shows how much damage a creature can
take before it dies or is so badly hurt that it can't fight any more"

Killing Blow does damage. Damage = Wounds. There is your RAW.

Slain, slay and slaying are just descriptive terms. I can quote you more examples from the BRB with those terms being used in conjunction with something that undoubtedly removes wounds then there are otherwise.

Example

QUOTE BRB p3

"WOUNDS (W)
This shows how much damage a creature can
take before it dies or is so badly hurt that it
can't fight any more. Most men and man-sized
models have a Wounds characteristic value of
1. Large monsters and mighty heroes are often
able to withstand several wounds that would
slay a smaller creature"

You see that there? Right under the description of WOUNDS? When something has it's wounds removed it is slain.

Have another

QUOTE BRB p87 War Machines

"War machines such as Empire Great Cannons,
Orc Rock Lobbers and Dwarf Bolt Throwers
are powerful units on the field of battle, able to
pulverise whole regiments, breach stone walls
or even slay fearsome monsters with a single,
well-placed shot."

Are you saying that a cannon has some slay effect that I am not playing?

What section of the BRB can I find the Slay rule? Where can I find the Slay rule in the index? Can I find a reference to the slay rule in any of the FAQ's?

I'd given up on the previous thread... frankly what's the point when none of you have the manners or maturity to admit that you've been proven wrong?

^^^^ exactly. Very well said.

Ah, so you are using an inexhaustive list and claiming it is exhaustive? That bcause wounds are damage, that all damage is wounds?

Logical fallacy for the loss, as far as arguments go

Reported for both being off topic, and for the insult you added in about maturity.

Boomer eveybody, havng lost the arguement once, he's coming back for the second round..
Wounds are only caused when the rules say wounds are caused. KB is a seperate effect triggered on a to wound roll. It itself does not cause wounds, so no BOTWD save.

Oh, and because wound loss leads to being slain, that must mean being slain is always equivalent to losing all your wounds.

Good job actual logic doesnt work that way.

I lvoe the throw away about maturity, while coming into another thread to dredge up a lost argument....

acctually hes right, so once again, stop being immature.


KB isn't anything special. its just Multiple wounds (remaining wounds).

banner works.

Eihnlazer wrote:
acctually hes right, so once again, stop being immature.


KB isn't anything special. its just Multiple wounds (remaining wounds).

banner works.

Eoohoo, second person writing nonsense from the previous thread.
Killing Blow happens midway through the to wound process so has nothing to do with multiple wounds.

Can we get any more debunked falacies?

Eihnlazer wrote:
acctually hes right, so once again, stop being immature.


KB isn't anything special. its just Multiple wounds (remaining wounds).

banner works.

And of course you have a rule to back that up? No?

thought not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so you are using an inexhaustive list and claiming it is exhaustive? That bcause wounds are damage, that all damage is wounds?

Logical fallacy for the loss, as far as arguments go

Reported for both being off topic, and for the insult you added in about maturity.

How mature is it to go and 'tell mom' every time someone says something you don't like and can't answer?
You still have never shown anything to disprove any of that list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Oh, and because wound loss leads to being slain, that must mean being slain is always equivalent to losing all your wounds.

Good job actual logic doesnt work that way.

I lvoe the throw away about maturity, while coming into another thread to dredge up a lost argument....

In this game there are only 3 ways to remove models from the table. Hey I know..I'll start a thread on that.
And just because the thread was closed, probably because of your 'reporting', does not mean that you won or lost.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so you are using an inexhaustive list and claiming it is exhaustive? That bcause wounds are damage, that all damage is wounds?

I have a full list of every time the word damage is used in the BRB, would you like to go through it?

Logical fallacy for the loss, as far as arguments go

And which logical fallacy would that be? I like to go over it with the person accusing me of such things, you know... to see if they know what they are talking about.

Reported for both being off topic, and for the insult you added in about maturity.

Luckily your frustration over your inability to make a coherent counter argument after I've torn down your whole case quite easily (again) is not an issue for moderation. Lets just hope the moderator whose time you wasted got a good laugh at least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:
Boomer eveybody, havng lost the arguement once, he's coming back for the second round..

Can't answer? Insult instead!

That debate was over and solved halfway through, no use banging my head on a brick wall of stubborn stupidity.

Wounds are only caused when the rules say wounds are caused. KB is a seperate effect triggered on a to wound roll. It itself does not cause wounds, so no BOTWD save.

Like it says Killing Blow does in the BRB you mean?

QUOTE BRB p103

"This time you need to add
up all of the wounds inflicted on the victim,
even those from a weapon causing multiple
wounds, or by repeated Killing Blows"

There you go, the BRB telling you directly that Killing Blow inflicts wounds

Let me paraphrase that sentence withput changing or adding anything to its meaning just to be REAL clear

"Wounds inflicted on the victim by Killing Blow"

Job.

Done.

Boomer - I gave the fallacy. A -> B does not mean B->A. You are claiming this.

Job. Not. Done.

(Oh, and you realise the rule was changed, and is only talking about combat resolution, yes? WE've been over that. Your inability to tell the difference isnt our issue)

There really is no need for the insults and cracks about other people's maturity.

Thanks.

"This time you need to add
up all of the wounds inflicted on the victim,
even those from a weapon causing multiple
wounds, or by repeated Killing Blows"

You're taking the text out of its context there, the subject is "overkill in a challenge", it just says that one KB against a 3 wounds guys counts as 3 wounds for combat resolution, while 3 KBs against the same guy counts as 5 wounds for combat resolution (as 5 is the maximum for overkill)

TanKoL wrote:

"This time you need to add
up all of the wounds inflicted on the victim,
even those from a weapon causing multiple
wounds, or by repeated Killing Blows"

You're taking the text out of its context there, the subject is "overkill in a challenge", it just says that one KB against a 3 wounds guys counts as 3 wounds for combat resolution, while 3 KBs against the same guy counts as 5 wounds for combat resolution (as 5 is the maximum for overkill)

He knows. To be generous, you could say that he is trying to prop up a flimsy argument with anything which looks vaguely like it might fit.
The To wound process is interrupted by KB, no wound is caused. KB slays outright. No wounds are caused.
For wounds to be caused by KB, it would have to say that it caused wounds. This means that effects which proc off wounds caused (such as Soul Feeder) do not proc from KB.

TanKoL wrote:

"This time you need to add
up all of the wounds inflicted on the victim,
even those from a weapon causing multiple
wounds, or by repeated Killing Blows"

You're taking the text out of its context there, the subject is "overkill in a challenge", it just says that one KB against a 3 wounds guys counts as 3 wounds for combat resolution, while 3 KBs against the same guy counts as 5 wounds for combat resolution (as 5 is the maximum for overkill)

They are fully aware of this, as this was repeatedly pointed out in the previous, now closed, thread that they posted in. The fact they keep repeating it is telling.

They lost the argument there, and dont appear to have accepted it yet.

There's no discussion here.

Killing Blow states that "A Ward Save can be attempted". BotWD gives a 2+ ward against Magical Attacks. An attack from a bloodletter is magical, hence BotWD gives you a 2+ Ward. Killing Blow specifically lets you take this Ward Save.

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

No, it doesn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This line of questioning is fun for those who state that all the rules relate and single areas, let alone sentence, need to be taken as part of a whole.

The fact that the rules make assumption is not odd. The fact that when those assumptions are specifically called out in exceptions is not odd either.
That is the part of the basis of the specific > general assertion.

The general rules for save, ward included, assume wounds are what is being prevented.

The fact - yes fact - that there is even one exception does not mean the exception is an accident because it is unique.

Killing Blow states that ward saves can prevent the model from being slain outright; despite the fact that this is not a rule under Ward Saves, it is a rule that applies to Ward Saves.

"Each wound suffered may be cancelled if the controlling player makes a saving throw. There are two types of saving throw: armor saves and ward saves."

That is the first description and it's for shooting. CC says see ^ description.

As for magic effects that don't do wounds but allow wards, the Instant Kills hints it can be done in the BRB. It gives examples of failing attribute test, dying and taking no saves (unless specified). Which can apply to about anything.

But something doesn't have to exist before for it to be valid. Or there would be no Banner of the World Dragon, period.