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.

I don't know how the new undead rules work so I'll guess that's somehow able to be done.

But yes.

Life Leeching from Lore of Death gives a specific instruction on what to do with models slain by Purple Sun. If it was just a standard wound death you would already know.

Even if you don't want to use something like this^ as an example, as has been stated numerous times, a wound is never caused because a wound is never stated to be caused. The model IS said to be slain and you can't do anything to slain models except maybe resurrect them from death. But they're dead as soon as it says slay. That's quite clear.

There are abilities that specifically protect against wounds, like Banner of the World Dragon. Does it now protect against slay? That's a rather large expansion. Likewise WoC Soul Feeder triggers on unsaved wounds and WoC Sword of Change requires a slain character. But those are all clearly different events. There are abilities that trigger on slay--Skill Swallower in Doc (Whenever the Damon slays an enemy character). There are abilities that trigger on wound in DoC (At the end of any phase in which the Daemon causes one or more unsaved wounds in CC). And of course the spells are all about causing unsaved wounds.

You can totally argue that it's not RAI for KB to not count as inflicting wounds after the fact. But it certainly isn't RAW. No rule mechanism exists for it as it stands. It would have to be a single attack with a special rule Multi-Wound (Enemy Model's Current Wounds), no armor saves, no regen saves, etc . If they wanted to do that, they could have made that. I did it in a sentence and it would be clear exactly what it did.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, it's not a modification but a new process

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

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

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

Really?
So rolling to wound and applying the result (for the roll that you just made) into all the wounds on the profile is hyperbole? Yet discounting the roll to wound, that you just used to generate your result, is not?
You weren't asked to roll to KB. YOu were asked to roll to wound.
I can point to a rule. It's called rolling to wound.
Where is your rule that discounts that the roll? Other than 'slay' because you don't have a rule for that.
Why do you continue to refuse to answer the questions if your argument is so concrete?
Answer my questions or say you can't

 Throt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, it's not a modification but a new process

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

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

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

Really?
So rolling to wound and applying the result (for the roll that you just made) into all the wounds on the profile is hyperbole? Yet discounting the roll to wound, that you just used to generate your result, is not?
You weren't asked to roll to KB. YOu were asked to roll to wound.
I can point to a rule. It's called rolling to wound.
Where is your rule that discounts that the roll? Other than 'slay' because you don't have a rule for that.
Why do you continue to refuse to answer the questions if your argument is so concrete?
Answer my questions or say you can't

No. On the roll of a 6 to wound, you apply the effect of killing blow, INSTEAD of normal wounding.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Throt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, it's not a modification but a new process

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

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

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

Really?
So rolling to wound and applying the result (for the roll that you just made) into all the wounds on the profile is hyperbole? Yet discounting the roll to wound, that you just used to generate your result, is not?
You weren't asked to roll to KB. YOu were asked to roll to wound.
I can point to a rule. It's called rolling to wound.
Where is your rule that discounts that the roll? Other than 'slay' because you don't have a rule for that.
Why do you continue to refuse to answer the questions if your argument is so concrete?
Answer my questions or say you can't

No. On the roll of a 6 to wound, you apply the effect of killing blow, INSTEAD of normal wounding.

Fine. But this is no example to even imply that it is not wounds. Just as a D6 multiplier is not the normal wounding process. yet it still counts as wounds.
There is nothing to suggest that NO wounds are caused.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
I don't know how the new undead rules work so I'll guess that's somehow able to be done.

But yes.

Life Leeching from Lore of Death gives a specific instruction on what to do with models slain by Purple Sun. If it was just a standard wound death you would already know.

Even if you don't want to use something like this^ as an example, as has been stated numerous times, a wound is never caused because a wound is never stated to be caused. The model IS said to be slain and you can't do anything to slain models except maybe resurrect them from death. But they're dead as soon as it says slay. That's quite clear.

Fine I'll play along.
Yes. It is Slain from Purple Sun.. And how did you determine it's slaying? Hint: Initiative test. So of course no wounds were caused. Because your test and mechanic were based around Initiative and not Wounds. This doesn't have relevance.
What roll determined your KB.? Hint: Roll to wound.
Your roll to wound is your permission to wound. It doesn't have to say it because once you have rolled to wound you will either cause wounds or you won't.

There are abilities that specifically protect against wounds, like Banner of the World Dragon. Does it now protect against slay? That's a rather large expansion. Likewise WoC Soul Feeder triggers on unsaved wounds and WoC Sword of Change requires a slain character. But those are all clearly different events. There are abilities that trigger on slay--Skill Swallower in Doc (Whenever the Damon slays an enemy character). There are abilities that trigger on wound in DoC (At the end of any phase in which the Daemon causes one or more unsaved wounds in CC). And of course the spells are all about causing unsaved wounds.

Once again. I have never said models aren't slain.
All of this is fine. But none of it explains why you are not causing wounds. There is no logical sense in it. You are disallowing the very game mechainic that you just used.
BotWD does not protect against slay...again...because slay is a decription not a rule.
Sword of Change requires a slain character...What does that have to do with causing wounds? Skill swallower does trigger on slain characters.. What is the relevance?
Slain is a description that I have always said is just that.
You are using SKill swallower....the model was slain.. What game mechanic brought you to that slain description?
No model is ever just...slain. There is always a game mechanic that brought it there.

You can totally argue that it's not RAI for KB to not count as inflicting wounds after the fact. But it certainly isn't RAW. No rule mechanism exists for it as it stands. It would have to be a single attack with a special rule Multi-Wound (Enemy Model's Current Wounds), no armor saves, no regen saves, etc . If they wanted to do that, they could have made that. I did it in a sentence and it would be clear exactly what it did.

Everytime you roll to wound it is either to cause them or not. That is the sole purpose.
There is nothing to imply that you are not causing wounds.
They did make a clear sentence.
On a roll of 6 (when you are rolling to wound, not on it's own) the model is slain regardless of the number of wounds. Models do not receive armour or regeneration saves.
Let's summarize...
I say..you roll to wound...get a six.. the model is slain.
So I am rolling to wound as instructed, I got the required #, the model was slain.
You say ...roll to wound as instructed, you get the required #, the model was slain. But no wounds were caused.
We are using the exact same rule set, doing the exact same thing. yet you are adding , no wounds are caused. Nothing has stated no wounds.
Rolling to wound is the signifier of wounds. It's purpose is to cause wounds and hopefully slay it's target model. KB is just really good at it.

You are arguing that NO wounds are caused after the fact.

 Throt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, it's not a modification but a new process

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

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

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

Really?
So rolling to wound and applying the result (for the roll that you just made) into all the wounds on the profile is hyperbole? Yet discounting the roll to wound, that you just used to generate your result, is not?
You weren't asked to roll to KB. YOu were asked to roll to wound.
I can point to a rule. It's called rolling to wound.
Where is your rule that discounts that the roll? Other than 'slay' because you don't have a rule for that.
Why do you continue to refuse to answer the questions if your argument is so concrete?
Answer my questions or say you can't

Yes, because NO SUCH RULE EXISTS. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. You have made it up to fit your idea of how the rules should work in your opinion, as opposed to how the rules are actually written.

I am not "discounting" the roll to wound. Stop making up strawman arguments. I am saying you roll to-wound, triggering a rule on a 6. Now, you follow this rule. Which does not say you have a wound (multiple wounds, remainder wounds on profile) of course, but something else. You still "have" a wound, but by the time you come to apply it the model is already slain.

THis is RAW.

Yes, you can point to a rule. Its not relevant for the discussion, as itr is not up for debate. YOu however seem to think that when you start rolling to wound that a wound is the only outcome. Hint: it isnt.

So to answer your questions:
1) Already pointed out that the roll is not discounted, as that is something you made up. try not to
2) Questions, where they have any relevance, have been answered

So, now - please state where it states KB causes a multiple wound. Page and graph. Or, instead, accept your error and just move on. Or, you could answer WHY KB "counts as" causing al remaining wounds? Maybe you could do that, instead of ignoring it for another go around?

shame_on_a_playa wrote:

the moment that someone claimed that KB can kill ethereal.
That was so outrageous to me I fell upwards out of my chair. So I had to register to speak my mind.

I agree 100%

shame_on_a_playa wrote:

Finally, as a show of good faith, I will search the entire rulebook and every armybook I have, hoping to find anything that causes damages or harms someone.
I'll report it here so you'll have more things to "harm" and "damage" ethereal creatures. You won't be wounding them however, that's illegal.

You aren't helping your case. Though I agree with most of your logic, you come across as a whiny brat. Just calm down.

nosferatu1001 wrote:



Yes, because NO SUCH RULE EXISTS. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. You have made it up to fit your idea of how the rules should work in your opinion, as opposed to how the rules are actually written.

The idea of the multiplier was used to try and simplify an already simple process that you appear to be struggling with.

I am not "discounting" the roll to wound. Stop making up strawman arguments. I am saying you roll to-wound, triggering a rule on a 6. Now, you follow this rule. Which does not say you have a wound (multiple wounds, remainder wounds on profile) of course, but something else. You still "have" a wound, but by the time you come to apply it the model is already slain.

THis is RAW.

You consider it straw man because you have no answer. You can scream RAW all you want.
Show me your RAW for slay/slain.
Show me what it means to slay a model. Once you learn what it actually is to slay a model all this might make some sense to you.
The RAW is that models are slain, they die, they drag to their DOOOM. EVERY one has a game mechanic. Wounding, or remove from play, or remove as a casualty.
What game mechanic has caused the model to be slain????

Yes, you can point to a rule. Its not relevant for the discussion, as itr is not up for debate. YOu however seem to think that when you start rolling to wound that a wound is the only outcome. Hint: it isnt.

How is rolling to wound not relevant to the discussion of whether or not KB causes wounds?
How id rolling to wound, the in game mechanic that started the process of KB, not relevant?
Is it because it doesn't jive with your opinion?
What other outcomes, other than causing wounds or not causing wounds have you had whilst playing a game? I along with others only had those 2.

So to answer your questions:
1) Already pointed out that the roll is not discounted, as that is something you made up. try not to
2) Questions, where they have any relevance, have been answered

So, now - please state where it states KB causes a multiple wound. Page and graph. Or, instead, accept your error and just move on. Or, you could answer WHY KB "counts as" causing al remaining wounds? Maybe you could do that, instead of ignoring it for another go around?

Saying I made something up is not proof of anything.
As I stated earlier, calling it a multiplier was an attempt to simplify the idea for you. But yes I did make it up.
Now you appear to be as stuck on that as you are on 'slay'
Because you refuse to accept relevance does not disavow it.
Show me the RAW for slain. You can't because it is not a rule.
You demand RAW for everything you disagree with and think it solves your problems, yet you have no RAW of your own.

Let me answer your question..
Why does KB count as all remaining wounds?
Because it says so. Let me break it down for you again.
Roll to wound. - Therefore you have already shown context that you will be causing wounds or not. This is not an initiative, ld, Toughness or any other test. IT has aready been categorized as WOUNDS.
Roll a 6 and the model is slain regardless of the number of wounds- Therefore, the model that has just been slain will suffer anywhere from 1-3 or 5 or however many wounds it has. All with a single dice

This is not complicated. Here is a summary that someone I gave to someone else..
So I am rolling to wound as instructed, I got the required #, the model was slain.
You say ...roll to wound as instructed, you get the required #, the model was slain. But no wounds were caused.
We are using the exact same rule set, doing the exact same thing. yet you are adding , no wounds are caused. Nothing has stated no wounds.
Rolling to wound is the signifier of wounds. It's purpose is to cause wounds and hopefully slay it's target model. KB

Why would there be no wounds?
You are trying to be RAw but you are working backwards without instruction.
I have shown you why wounds are caused, now show me how they aren't!

Sigh. Still missing by a mile.

Count as means there aren't actually any wounds. Otherwise it wouldn't state counts as. You seem to struggle with this concept, so I'll leave it at this - there is little point in debating further.

Raw it never gets so far as causing a wound, instead it slays the model. This is actual, written rules.

There is nowhere in the rules for Killing Blow that state you need to be able to successfully wound to trigger it.

Like this:

Process A (Rolling to wound) Causes Process B (Killing blow) On the roll to wound of a 6.

Process B in no way relies on Process A being successful. Process B just needs Process A to exist. Whether you wound on 7s( if that were possible), or you wounds on 2s, a six instantly slays your opponent.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh. Still missing by a mile.

Count as means there aren't actually any wounds. Otherwise it wouldn't state counts as. You seem to struggle with this concept, so I'll leave it at this - there is little point in debating further.

Raw it never gets so far as causing a wound, instead it slays the model. This is actual, written rules.

No. Not missing. Trying to fathom why you are making the assumption that there are no wounds caused.
It doesn't say counts as. it never says 'instead slay the model.
...rolls a 6 to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent-regardless of the number of wounds on the victims profile.(this is actual written rules)

Define slay in this game.
What is the written rule for slain?

If your reference is to Pg. 52 ..counts as scored all the slain models remaining wounds. This is to give extra credit for the 2 or 3 extra wounds you have removed from the model when he was slain.
It gives you maximum credit rather than credit for the singular roll. This does not infer that no wounds were caused. Nothing even suggests zero wounds.

Again you make incorrect assumptions. Try taking the entire sentence and paragraphs in context rather than a couple of words. I.e. Slain, counts as.
You have multiple consistent references to wounds. You are rolling to wound, Your 'counts as' section is even in the wounds inflicted section.
Yet somehow you mistakenly believe that no wounds are caused with no evidence to back it up.
And you will probably ask how I come up with this....
Because it is written and grammatically correct.


And you are probably right, we should probably just stop at this.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
There is nowhere in the rules for Killing Blow that state you need to be able to successfully wound to trigger it.

Like this:

Process A (Rolling to wound) Causes Process B (Killing blow) On the roll to wound of a 6.

Process B in no way relies on Process A being successful. Process B just needs Process A to exist. Whether you wound on 7s( if that were possible), or you wounds on 2s, a six instantly slays your opponent.

Your '6' is your success. That's what it says. Your six made your roll successful. IT doesn't eradicate the wounds.
And yes you are correct. And I have agreed with this. 6 is your magic number.
Explain why it is not wounds.
Again, we are using the exact same process. How does yours not cause wounds?
You have no rules to support it.

Well actually, there is a reference to slain (p4):

Warhammer Fantasty Battle Rulebook p4, column 2 last paragraph wrote:CHARACTERISTICS OF ZERO
...'If at any time a model's Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0 or less by magic OR A SPECIAL RULE, it is SLAIN and REMOVED FROM PLAY

Don't see any actual reference to any wounds being applied. So Killing Blow is exactly the same as reduce a model's Strength or Toughness to 0 or below via a Spell (which by my recollection does not constitute a wound).

 Ehsteve wrote:
Well actually, there is a reference to slain (p4):

Warhammer Fantasty Battle Rulebook p4, column 2 last paragraph wrote:CHARACTERISTICS OF ZERO
...'If at any time a model's Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0 or less by magic OR A SPECIAL RULE, it is SLAIN and REMOVED FROM PLAY

Don't see any actual reference to any wounds being applied. So Killing Blow is exactly the same as reduce a model's Strength or Toughness to 0 or below via a Spell (which by my recollection does not constitute a wound).

Okay...good find. Finally.
Now read the whole sentence in it's entirety..
'If at any time a model's Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0 or less by magic OR A SPECIAL RULE, it is SLAIN and REMOVED FROM PLAY.
What are the 3 characteristics affected?
And what are the things causing reduction?
So which of the 3 characteristics do you think the special rule KB will be reducing??

Let me help just in case.
If any models wounds are reduced to zero by a special rule (KB) the model is slain and removed from play.
Here is a break down. It is wounds because you are not taking a strength or toughness test, you are rolling to wound. KB states slain regardless of the number of wounds.
It does not say slain by a special rule. It says a characteristic reduced to zero. Your roll to wound is its relevance.
It does not need to say wounds again because you already know what stat you are referencing.
Just as purple sun says you 'must pass an I test or be slain'...it does not say an I test, and if you fail your I test you are slain. Because you already know what its reference and relevance is.
Why is this complicated.?

Sigh. No, youre just not actually reading anymore, are you.

The rule COUNTS AS removing all their wounds because it doesnt actually cause any wounds.

Fact. Otherwise it wouldnt be "counts as", but "is"

That is a very, very basic concept.

At no point does KB actually state it causes a single wound. Nowhere.

Yes, you are rolling to wound. So what? Is a wound the only possible result of rolling to wound? No, because KB does something else instead. It even tells you what it does instead. Which is slay. We know that slay / slain removes you from play

I understand context. I also understand that, when something states it COUNTS AS causing wounds, it means it didnt actually cause any wounds. Without that, if you slew a model with KB, you would get 0 combat res, as before you got to remove a wound (from the 6, assuming they failed any applicable saves) the model was removed as a casualty.

You cannot cause wounds to models that are no longer alive, as you have no mechanism to do so.

Its like stating a roll to wound is still made with a succesful poison roll - because thats usually what happens when you successfully hit. A wound is usually what happens (if you fail any applicable saves) after succesfully rolling a to-wound roll. Just because it usually happens, doesnt mean it HAS to happen.

IN this case it doesnt happen, as something else interrupts.

It isnt complicated, we dont know why youre making it so tricky.

No. A roll to wound of a 6 isn't always success. Look at the destroyer. But, Killing blow/ Heroic killing blow don't require successful rolls to wound. NOWHERE in the rules says that you do. And until it's FAQ'd, you don't. We've had far more compelling arguments last time round which all got debunked.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
No. A roll to wound of a 6 isn't always success. Look at the destroyer. But, Killing blow/ Heroic killing blow don't require successful rolls to wound. NOWHERE in the rules says that you do. And until it's FAQ'd, you don't. We've had far more compelling arguments last time round which all got debunked.

Except that they dropped the *impossible to wound without a magical weapon if your Strength is too low* and replaced it with a *reroll all non-magical attacks* in the Chaos Dwarf FAQ on the FW site.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

I even go so far to say if it was impossible to wound them (Ethereal) you can still slay them. Because Ethereal does not say you don't roll to hit, it doesn't say you don't roll to wound. It definitely doesn't say it blocks KB. Ethereal says they cannot be wounded by mundane, but KB doesn't wound. It slays, which is why it can slay something on a 5 it needs to wound on a 6.

This is perhaps the best post I've seen. The logic is sound and, appears, to conform to all applicable rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh. No, youre just not actually reading anymore, are you.

The rule COUNTS AS removing all their wounds because it doesnt actually cause any wounds.

Fact. Otherwise it wouldnt be "counts as", but "is"

That is a very, very basic concept.

At no point does KB actually state it causes a single wound. Nowhere.

Nope. I am still reading. Let me help you with your comprehension because we are reading the same sentences.
First. You added because it doesnt actually cause any wounds, so we will ignore that.
Counts as is not the entire sentence. Count's as, the way you are trying to interpret, is accurate but it is not what the sentence says. Let us look at this young student.
Attacks that kill a model outright count as having scored all the models remaining wounds.
In this statement 'count' is relating to the score not the wounds.
How do we know this? Because the paragraphs that we are reading are refereeing to totalling up the number of wounds. i.e score.
So the question would be..I just killed someone with killing blow...how many wounds do I score. the answer would be..
Attacks that kill a model outright count as having scored all the models remaining wounds.

Yes, you are rolling to wound. So what? Is a wound the only possible result of rolling to wound? No, because KB does something else instead. It even tells you what it does instead. Which is slay. We know that slay / slain removes you from play

So what.? When you roll to wound you will cause wounds or you won't. Those are the 2 results that you get, only 2. That is how the game works.
Sigh, KB is not proof upon itself. Though you have your mind se,t we are still determining whether or not wounds are caused by KB, so KB is moot and cannot be used to prove that anything else happens with wounding or without.
Refer to the other posts. Slain/slay is an end result based on game mechanics. Not a mechanic itself.

I understand context. I also understand that, when something states it COUNTS AS causing wounds, it means it didnt actually cause any wounds. Without that, if you slew a model with KB, you would get 0 combat res, as before you got to remove a wound (from the 6, assuming they failed any applicable saves) the model was removed as a casualty.

Maybe you are reading a different book. Mine doesn't say counts as causing wounds, it says ....count as having scored all the models remaining wounds. See above.

You cannot cause wounds to models that are no longer alive, as you have no mechanism to do so.

Effect before cause. You are trying to wound first. You cause wounds before you slay.

Its like stating a roll to wound is still made with a succesful poison roll - because thats usually what happens when you successfully hit. A wound is usually what happens (if you fail any applicable saves) after succesfully rolling a to-wound roll. Just because it usually happens, doesnt mean it HAS to happen.

No, they are nothing alike. different rules, mechanic and instruction. Leave the red herring in the fridge.

IN this case it doesnt happen, as something else interrupts.

It isnt complicated, we dont know why youre making it so tricky.

I'm not making this tricky. I am trying to correct your error.
There is nothing to suggest that there are no wounds. You have yet to provide any rules information other than your misrepresentation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
No. A roll to wound of a 6 isn't always success. Look at the destroyer. But, Killing blow/ Heroic killing blow don't require successful rolls to wound. NOWHERE in the rules says that you do. And until it's FAQ'd, you don't. We've had far more compelling arguments last time round which all got debunked.

Disagreement doesn't debunk.
Your six made your wounds successful. All of them wheter it was 1 or 3 or 5..whatever.
You don't roll to killing blow you roll to wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gummynerds wrote:

 DukeRustfield wrote:

I even go so far to say if it was impossible to wound them (Ethereal) you can still slay them. Because Ethereal does not say you don't roll to hit, it doesn't say you don't roll to wound. It definitely doesn't say it blocks KB. Ethereal says they cannot be wounded by mundane, but KB doesn't wound. It slays, which is why it can slay something on a 5 it needs to wound on a 6.

This is perhaps the best post I've seen. The logic is sound and, appears, to conform to all applicable rules.

This is where the argument stems from. Kb causes wounds (though people disagree) so this whole point falls apart. The whole idea is working backwards.

Given the failure to rebut with anything but sarcasm, your concession is accepted.

Onto "ignore"

And that last post says it all.

Yeah, I put him on ignore ages ago.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Yeah, I put him on ignore ages ago.

Sometimes, it's the only thing left to do when rational arguments are not sufficient. There's only so many times you can bang your head against a wall.

I think I can offer a lil' something new here:

The first big hang-up seemed to be a disconnect between RAW and RAI.
The rules are clear: Killing Blow is a rule that involves the to Wound roll, but does not appear to hinge upon the success or failure thereof.
But I'm not going to try to kill ghosts with my Bretonnian Lord's mundane lance. That's just silly.
The RAW and the RAI are totally different animals. Trying to disprove one with the other is utterly, completely pointless. Such an argument is doomed.

The second thing is this more recent discussion of wounding versus slaying.
To this, I just want to add the following:

A model can cause a wound, such those caused by a spell or an attack.
A model also has wounds, between 1-10, that signify how much damage it can take before it is removed from play.

These are totally different things--both of them game mechanics--with the same name.
So the fact that Killing Blow reduces a model to zero wounds doesn't mean that it causes that many of the other type of wound. Just like Purple Sun or Dwellers.

Finally, I'll just toss this out there: this argument has gotten heated and more. Would anyone heed a rallying cry, and set aside their sarcasm and frustration, and take up patience and understanding in their stead? We will certainly get to our destination faster if we do, and we'll feel better in the process.

Warpsolution wrote:

Would anyone heed a rallying cry, and set aside their sarcasm and frustration, and take up patience and understanding in their stead?

But I'm not going to try to kill ghosts with my Bretonnian Lord's mundane lance. That's just silly.

Let he who is without sin cast the first thread.

We're seriously still arguing this?

After reading it from the beginning, I have not seen ONE new argument for either side since the first couple of posts.

I vote we let it die already. All you're doing now is trolling each other.

Have fun. That's the point of the game. Not endless rounds of "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!"

Saldiven wrote:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Yeah, I put him on ignore ages ago.

Sometimes, it's the only thing left to do when rational arguments are not sufficient. There's only so many times you can bang your head against a wall.

Indeed, patience was wearing thin, and it's not worth getting heated over a failure in reason.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Let he who is without sin cast the first thread.

Hey, now. Calling something "silly" is, in my book, about as mild as it gets. I just wouldn't play it that way, that's all. But I completely and totally agree with you that the rules work as you have stated.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Indeed, patience was wearing thin, and it's not worth getting heated over a failure in reason.

Ha. Nice little snipe in there. Expertly played.


At any rate, I believe that if you looked at the population who have said Killing Blow causes wounds, they would all have the similar motive of "it doesn't make sense, therefore, it's not allowed". Which, while a perfectly legit way to argue RAI, is beside the point in a RAW discussion.

I would just like to point out that in the new Nagash book under the heading for Valten you will find a sentence that refers to the wounds caused by killing blow.

I'm sure there is some excuse why that isn't relevant though.

Just sayin.

It certainly muddies the waters even further. I wish they'd just clear it up.
Some models have Killing Blow because they have magical weapons or the like (Graveguard). You could make the argument that their ability to snuff their enemy's life force could apply to ghosts.
But Executioners? Bretonnian Lords with the Virtue of Heroism? They're combat-experts who've studied anatomy or just killed lots of dudes. No way can they take down a spirit from the ethereal plane.

But all of that is moot, of course. The rules tell us what to do and how to do it. This one's just a mess.

 Throt wrote:
I would just like to point out that in the new Nagash book under the heading for Valten you will find a sentence that refers to the wounds caused by killing blow.

I'm sure there is some excuse why that isn't relevant though.

Just sayin.

Nice spot.

Warpsolution wrote:
It certainly muddies the waters even further. I wish they'd just clear it up.
Some models have Killing Blow because they have magical weapons or the like (Graveguard). You could make the argument that their ability to snuff their enemy's life force could apply to ghosts.
But Executioners? Bretonnian Lords with the Virtue of Heroism? They're combat-experts who've studied anatomy or just killed lots of dudes. No way can they take down a spirit from the ethereal plane.

But all of that is moot, of course. The rules tell us what to do and how to do it. This one's just a mess.

No surprise, but I disagree.
There is no muddying.


A mess was created that wasn't there.