Switch Theme:

If a model is slain outright, does it count as being reduced to zero wounds?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Octopoid wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 doctortom wrote:
You are making an assumption here. They say going to 0 wounds means you are slain or destroyed. The reverse is not necessarily true.
The rules equate the two.


You've said this before. The rules do not equate the two.
It actually does equate the two. Context matters...


I can repeat myself without backing it up, too!


I already backed it up. Page 7 if you can't remember.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






Actually (as unlikely as this may seem) I have to agree with BCB on this one. That you're slain when reduced to zero wounds does not mean the inverse is true, and that Yarrick FAQ seems to confirm that this is indeed intentional.

   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Ultramarine Devastator



Chicago, IL, USA

It does bring up some interesting implications. As noted up-thread, if being "slain" or "destroyed" implicitly reduces a model to zero Wounds, what happens to those Wounds? If they are being lost, it seems as though an FNP save could be taken for each, potentially saving the model. If so, can a model be considered to have been "slain" if it winds up with one or more Wounds still remaining?

Given that conundrum, and the Yarrick FAQ, I think I have to go with BCB as well; a "slain" effect simply removes the model from play, and does not trigger any effects that interact with Wound loss.
   
Made in se
Fresh-Faced New User




Sweden

So as I see it it comes down to these choices:

1. Slain is removed from play and no zerkers can get out as you can not perform either a normal nor an emergency disembarkation.

2. Count it as being destroyed as in the datasheet and roll to see if explodes and then perform an emergency disembarkation.

I guess this was the question all along, if you can disembark after blowing yourself up, right?
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 McRage wrote:
So as I see it it comes down to these choices:

1. Slain is removed from play and no zerkers can get out as you can not perform either a normal nor an emergency disembarkation.

2. Count it as being destroyed as in the datasheet and roll to see if explodes and then perform an emergency disembarkation.

I guess this was the question all along, if you can disembark after blowing yourself up, right?

Um, hate to break it to you but slain and destroyed are equivalent in the rules, which means you get to disembark when your tank is slain. (The trigger for disembark is that the transport is destroyed)

So the correct answer is:
3. You count as being slain/destroyed, and as of such disembark. But because you haven't been reduced to 0 wounds you don't explode.
   
Made in nz
Fresh-Faced New User




Edit - the two questions were answered in the Faq but there may still be some value to this thread so I'll leave the content.

Since this thread is related to something I have been pondering over I'll avoid discussing separately. Admech Kataphron Destroyers are infantry with 3 wounds. If they are Graia Forgeworld then they have the following ability:

Roll a D6 each time a model with this dogma is slain or flees – on a 6 that model refuses to yield; either the wound that slew it is ignored or the model does not flee. However, <FORGEWORLD> units with this dogma cannot Fall Back unless there is a friendly <FORGEWORLD> CHARACTER on the battlefield.


There are a couple of clarifications needed - mainly due to the reuse of the word Wound in the Hit/Wound/Save/Damage/Lose Wounds attack flow:

- If they receive a wound that causes 3 damage and successfully roll the six after being slain (by being reduced to 0 wounds), do they ignore the full damage or only the final point that kills them?
- If they use an overcharged plasma and are slain, but roll a six, do they regain full health?

The plasma related question is answered by the conclusion in this thread, that due to it not being reduced to 0 wounds it should come back on full health (assuming no previous damage). Alas, this implies that it is possible that this is the same answer as the former question, but on its own this is not how I would expect people to interpret it (i.e. you would regain your last wound and come back to life on 1 wound.)

Since I can count how many games of 40k I have played on one hand, I defer judgement to the DakkaDakka.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/27 10:30:16


 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






You have to roll 3 dice and hope for 3 sixes to ignore 3 points of damage. Having 1 wound on your profile doesn't exempt you from the other 2 points of damage.
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You have to roll 3 dice and hope for 3 sixes to ignore 3 points of damage. Having 1 wound on your profile doesn't exempt you from the other 2 points of damage.

I think you confused the Graia FW trait with something like the Ulthwe CW trait. It's very different from that.

* If you have a Destroyer sitting at full wounds (3), and you take a damage 3 hit, you lose three separate wounds one by one. Only the third wound would slay your model, and now you get to roll that D6 once. If you roll a 6, the model remains on the table with 1 wound remaining.
* If you have a Destroyer sitting at one wound, and you take the same it, you'll have to roll 3 D6 and all of them have to be 6's for the model to survive.
* If you have a Destoyer being slain by e.g. a Plasma overloading (that doesn't deal wounds, but simply slays the model), you get to roll 1 D6 for that "slays the model" event, so to speak. If you get a 6, you get to ignore that "event" - so if your Destroyer was at 2 wounds, it's still at 2 wounds, for example.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






But if you were just some regular random dude with 1 wound, and take a Predator Autocannon to the face, you take 3 points of damage, you roll to see if the 1st one slays you, get a 6, then have to roll to see if the 2nd point slays you, etc.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

RAW, the excess damage is wasted on a W1 model, and the model is slain. Then you roll once for that ability mentioned. It’s not the same as a FNP-style ability.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/27 12:20:48


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 JohnnyHell wrote:
RAW, the excess damage is wasted on a W1 model, and the model is slain. Then you roll once for that ability mentioned. It’s not the same as a FNP-style ability.


Why? Unsaved wounds are applied one at a time, that's why you roll 3D6 on an unsaved D3 hit for eg. disgustingly resilient.
I'd assume that when the first wound is lost, you're slain - you ignore it on a 6, then another wound is lost and you're slain, and so on.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






nekooni wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
RAW, the excess damage is wasted on a W1 model, and the model is slain. Then you roll once for that ability mentioned. It’s not the same as a FNP-style ability.
Why? Unsaved wounds are applied one at a time, that's why you roll 3D6 on an unsaved D3 hit for eg. disgustingly resilient.
I'd assume that when the first wound is lost, you're slain - you ignore it on a 6, then another wound is lost and you're slain, and so on.
The why is because it contradicts what I say. I could say that a 1 always fails to hit even with a +1 to hit and JohnnyHell would immediately say that RaI it doesn't fail.

You're right in that damage applies one at a time, so you get 3 chances to ignore the slain instruction, but you have to pass all 3 to not be slain.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/27 12:52:24


 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 BaconCatBug wrote:
nekooni wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
RAW, the excess damage is wasted on a W1 model, and the model is slain. Then you roll once for that ability mentioned. It’s not the same as a FNP-style ability.
Why? Unsaved wounds are applied one at a time, that's why you roll 3D6 on an unsaved D3 hit for eg. disgustingly resilient.
I'd assume that when the first wound is lost, you're slain - you ignore it on a 6, then another wound is lost and you're slain, and so on.
The why is because it contradicts what I say. I could say that a 1 always fails to hit even with a +1 to hit and JohnnyHell would immediately say that RaI it doesn't fail.

You're right in that damage applies one at a time, so you get 3 chances to ignore the slain instruction, but you have to pass all 3 to not be slain.

So we agree - yes. But I'd like to also let Johnny explain his reasoning since I'm sure he has a better reason than "because BCB said otherwise". At least I hope so ;-)
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 DeathReaper wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 Octopoid wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 doctortom wrote:
You are making an assumption here. They say going to 0 wounds means you are slain or destroyed. The reverse is not necessarily true.
The rules equate the two.


You've said this before. The rules do not equate the two.
It actually does equate the two. Context matters...


I can repeat myself without backing it up, too!


I already backed it up. Page 7 if you can't remember.


And if y0u remember, I refuted that.

You quoted a rule that says that models reduced to 0 wounds are slain or destroyed. You claimed this meant that it also means that all models that are slain or destroyed are reduced to zero wounds. I pointed out that the language doesn't work that way. All bananas (reduced to 0 wounds) are fruit (slain or destroyed), but that does not mean that all friut (slain or destroyed) are bananas (reduced to 0 wounds).

Hopefully you will address this point in a reply. Your "proof" is lacking and your basic "no it isn't, it's there on page 7" attitude does not address that your argument was discredited.
   
Made in us
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk





Disgustingly Resilient ignores wounds as they happen. That's why you have to roll to ignore each wound. The ability above doesn't kick in until the model is slain. Once the model is slain, any excess damage is discarded. Therefore, you only roll once.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Ork-en Man wrote:
Disgustingly Resilient ignores wounds as they happen. That's why you have to roll to ignore each wound. The ability above doesn't kick in until the model is slain. Once the model is slain, any excess damage is discarded. Therefore, you only roll once.
But if you're ignoring the slain result, you don't discard the damage.

However I do understand where you're coming from. You ignore the result but you were still "slain" so you ignore any damage past the first. Could do with an FAQ since both arguments have merit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/27 13:49:26


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





This does remind me of the arguments back a few editions ago when there were arguments about whether effects that caused you "removed from play" would be triggered by things that trigger on a model or unit being slain. They had to FAQ back then that removed from play and being slain is equivalent.

In this case it seems we've hit the same type of thing - I would not be suprised that GW thinks that being reduced to 0 wounds and being slain or destroyed is the same thing, but the rules don't say that, and BCB has found a situation where it matters whether they mean the same thing or not.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





The original specific question, to paraphrase slightly, is: "Because the Explodes rule uses reduced to zero wounds as its trigger, does Explodes trigger when a model is destroyed by an effect that does not explicitly deal wounds or reduce a model to zero wounds?" The thread has included a lot of back-and-forth about the general question of whether "destroyed" is always exactly synonymous with "reduced to zero wounds." The general question interesting in its own right, but the specific question seems to me to be directly and explicitly answered in the main rulebook FAQ:


Q: How do transports work with regards to disembarking units upon the transport’s destruction?
A: Disembarking from a destroyed transport operates as follows:
1. If the transport has the Explodes ability (or equivalent) roll to see if it explodes and resolve any resulting damage to nearby units. . . .


[Emphasis added.]

The example at the end of that FAQ entry is equally explicit:

For example, a Razorback is transporting a Tactical Squad of five models and one Space Marine Captain when it is destroyed. The Razorback rolls a 6 for its Explodes ability, inflicting D3 mortal wounds on each unit within 6". The six models inside now disembark, and six D6 are rolled. . . .


[Emphasis, again, added.] All of this is on page 5 of the FAQ. Note that the above are partial quotes of relatively lengthy FAQ answers, but nowhere in that Q&A is the concept of "reduced to zero wounds" invoked. Rather, it explicitly states that a destroyed transport rolls for Explodes. Suicide RhinoBombs for all!

Note that none of the above has any bearing on the question of whether "destroyed" is always synonymous with "reduced to zero wounds." I think that remains a legitimate question to ask, despite the logical fallacies being emphatically asserted by some posters in this thread. Because of the above-quoted FAQ, though, I don't think it bears directly on the original specific question.

   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






That line of the FAQ only applies if the Explodes ability would trigger. In this case the Explodes ability doesn't trigger so is not relevant.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/27 14:32:24


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





 BaconCatBug wrote:
That line of the FAQ only applies if the Explodes ability would trigger. . . .


I don't see any such qualification or caveat in the FAQ. Rather, it appears to me to do more or less the conceptual opposite by explicitly stating that Explodes does trigger if the transport is "destroyed." Because . . . that's what it says. I don't see any ambiguity here.
   
Made in us
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk





Greywing wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
That line of the FAQ only applies if the Explodes ability would trigger. . . .


I don't see any such qualification or caveat in the FAQ. Rather, it appears to me to do more or less the conceptual opposite by explicitly stating that Explodes does trigger if the transport is "destroyed." Because . . . that's what it says. I don't see any ambiguity here.


Me neither.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Greywing wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
That line of the FAQ only applies if the Explodes ability would trigger. . . .


I don't see any such qualification or caveat in the FAQ. Rather, it appears to me to do more or less the conceptual opposite by explicitly stating that Explodes does trigger if the transport is "destroyed." Because . . . that's what it says. I don't see any ambiguity here.
Are you suggesting that the FAQ is a special snowflake FAQ that ignores the RaW and tells you to roll for the Explodes ability regardless? I suppose if this is the case I could accept that.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





I honestly am not trying to "suggest" anything. Rather, I'm putting some effort toward making a direct statement, which I'll summarize: There where the FAQ says "A: Disembarking from a destroyed transport operates as follows: 1. If the transport has the Explodes ability (or equivalent) roll to see if it explodes," it means that when disembarking from a destroyed transport and the transport has the Explodes ability, you roll to see if it explodes.

My reading comprehension is pretty strong--but of course I'm fallible. So I'm always willing to be shown where I'm wrong. But this particular FAQ answer is pretty simple and straightforward, is it not? I'm just not seeing where there's room for interpretation here, but I'm listening.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Greywing wrote:
I honestly am not trying to "suggest" anything. Rather, I'm putting some effort toward making a direct statement, which I'll summarize: There where the FAQ says "A: Disembarking from a destroyed transport operates as follows: 1. If the transport has the Explodes ability (or equivalent) roll to see if it explodes," it means that when disembarking from a destroyed transport and the transport has the Explodes ability, you roll to see if it explodes.

My reading comprehension is pretty strong--but of course I'm fallible. So I'm always willing to be shown where I'm wrong. But this particular FAQ answer is pretty simple and straightforward, is it not? I'm just not seeing where there's room for interpretation here, but I'm listening.

Your explanation is the best I've seen. Well done answering a silly question well.

DFTT 
   
Made in nz
Fresh-Faced New User




Sorry to pour further fuel on this topic, but according to the admech faq, if slain by a plasma roll of one and roll a six for the graia ability, your destroyer is left with only 1 wound. That does suggest slain == zero wounds. :(
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Captyn_Bob wrote:

Your explanation is the best I've seen. Well done answering a silly question well.


Thank you very much for that thought. I genuinely appreciate it. I respectfully disagree that it was a silly question though. I probably should have been clearer about that all along (and you're obviously free to withdraw your kudos if you think I'm a toolbox now), but I think that the specific question (as I outlined it in my first post in this thread) is totally valid--I just happen to believe it has a direct and unambiguous answer in the cited FAQ. That answer does not apply, however, to the general "is destroyed always exactly synonymous with reduced to zero wounds" question.

Regarding the RhinoBomb, the subject of the original specific question, the language in the rules themselves--e.g., not just saying "destroyed" in the Explodes rule--creates an unfortunate situation that could easily have been avoided if the rules author had exercised an acceptable level of discipline in expressing some of the game's basic, basic premises. The inexplicable prevalence of that kind of thing is my biggest gripe with this game and the company that publishes it, by far.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Greywing wrote:
I honestly am not trying to "suggest" anything. Rather, I'm putting some effort toward making a direct statement, which I'll summarize: There where the FAQ says "A: Disembarking from a destroyed transport operates as follows: 1. If the transport has the Explodes ability (or equivalent) roll to see if it explodes," it means that when disembarking from a destroyed transport and the transport has the Explodes ability, you roll to see if it explodes.

My reading comprehension is pretty strong--but of course I'm fallible. So I'm always willing to be shown where I'm wrong. But this particular FAQ answer is pretty simple and straightforward, is it not? I'm just not seeing where there's room for interpretation here, but I'm listening.

Your explanation is the best I've seen. Well done answering a silly question well.


Seconded, the “RAW via FAQ” proof was fab. Good job.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: