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.

So, if my Tomb Guard are wounding the enemy on 6s, but I cast a spell that makes it so that their Killing Blow goes off on a 5+ instead, does a 5 mean Killing Blow works? Or do I still have to successfully wound them? Killing Blow's rule just says that on a wound role of 6 they instantly slay their opponent. I'm not quite sure how this would work if it's on a 5+ instead.

This is one of those rules that REALLY needs an FAQ. Does the KB bypass the need to roll high enough to wound, or not? Nothing in the rules says either way.

Discuss the matter with your opponent ahead of time, is my recommendation.

 Vulcan wrote:
This is one of those rules that REALLY needs an FAQ. Does the KB bypass the need to roll high enough to wound, or not? Nothing in the rules says either way.

Discuss the matter with your opponent ahead of time, is my recommendation.

Wow, okay. I thought I was just missing something. I guess not.

We had a huge debate about this.

KB is a self-contained Special Rule. It doesn't say you need to wound in its text. You just need to attempt it. If you roll your KB value, you slay. You're not wounding. You're slaying. There is no slaying chart that says S->T roll needed, you are bypassing it in the Special Rule. If they have 10 wounds and a Special Rule that says they can't be wounded on anything less than a 6, that's fine. You're not wounding. They still die on your KB roll if they are the appropriate model (and fail ward).

If you need a 5 to slay, you slay them. The rules of the enemy model don't matter unless it addresses KB specifically.

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.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
We had a huge debate about this.

KB is a self-contained Special Rule. It doesn't say you need to wound in its text. You just need to attempt it. If you roll your KB value, you slay. You're not wounding. You're slaying. There is no slaying chart that says S->T roll needed, you are bypassing it in the Special Rule. If they have 10 wounds and a Special Rule that says they can't be wounded on anything less than a 6, that's fine. You're not wounding. They still die on your KB roll if they are the appropriate model (and fail ward).

If you need a 5 to slay, you slay them. The rules of the enemy model don't matter unless it addresses KB specifically.

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.

Subsequently it remains one of the few ways of also bypassing the BotWD for Daemons (at the 2+ Ward only protects again *wounds* caused by magical attacks, and KB technically isn't a wound).

 DukeRustfield wrote:
We had a huge debate about this.

KB is a self-contained Special Rule. It doesn't say you need to wound in its text. You just need to attempt it. If you roll your KB value, you slay. You're not wounding. You're slaying. There is no slaying chart that says S->T roll needed, you are bypassing it in the Special Rule. If they have 10 wounds and a Special Rule that says they can't be wounded on anything less than a 6, that's fine. You're not wounding. They still die on your KB roll if they are the appropriate model (and fail ward).

If you need a 5 to slay, you slay them. The rules of the enemy model don't matter unless it addresses KB specifically.

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.

A very compelling argument, and I see your point. I just wasn't sure if there was something I was missing, but I guess that answers that.

 Ehsteve wrote:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
We had a huge debate about this.

KB is a self-contained Special Rule. It doesn't say you need to wound in its text. You just need to attempt it. If you roll your KB value, you slay. You're not wounding. You're slaying. There is no slaying chart that says S->T roll needed, you are bypassing it in the Special Rule. If they have 10 wounds and a Special Rule that says they can't be wounded on anything less than a 6, that's fine. You're not wounding. They still die on your KB roll if they are the appropriate model (and fail ward).

If you need a 5 to slay, you slay them. The rules of the enemy model don't matter unless it addresses KB specifically.

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.

Subsequently it remains one of the few ways of also bypassing the BotWD for Daemons (at the 2+ Ward only protects again *wounds* caused by magical attacks, and KB technically isn't a wound).

Yeah, but KB simply doesn't happen very much and it isn't cost-effective. Bloodletters are expensive and they are expensive because of their attack capabilities, most of which are of no value vs. BoTWD. You'd probably get better result with 2 attack Daemonettes and their reduced cost. Though in either case it would still be pretty pathetic.

Well, I only disagree with the ethereal issue. It has to do with the nature of the attack. If my KB is accompanied by magical attacks(like bloodletters), then ok, it works, but warhawk riders/tomb guard/grave guard KB shouldnt normally be workin on ethereals.

The "nature of the attack" isn't a rule. Ethereal has extremely specific rules. It states it can only be wounded by magical attacks. If it said it couldn't be hit, couldn't be harmed, couldn't be affected, then it would work vs. KB. But just like the BoTWD says it protects against magic wounds, Ethereal is the exact opposite and protects against everything except magic wounds.

But Killing Blow is neither a magic or non-magic wound. It's not a wound at all.

I didn't say there are rules of attacks' classification. But technically, a weapon or warrior gifted with with KB without having magical attacks, it cannot touch an ethereal creature, thus no harming him. Anyways, let's wait for some faq.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
The "nature of the attack" isn't a rule. Ethereal has extremely specific rules. It states it can only be wounded by magical attacks. If it said it couldn't be hit, couldn't be harmed, couldn't be affected, then it would work vs. KB. But just like the BoTWD says it protects against magic wounds, Ethereal is the exact opposite and protects against everything except magic wounds.

But Killing Blow is neither a magic or non-magic wound. It's not a wound at all.

7.10. Q: Does Killing Blow cause a wound?
A: Yes.

Case closed.

Would it not also be covered by the fact that under rolling to wound in the BRB, it categorically states that a "to wound" roll of a 6 is always a wound, regardless of toughness?

As in, regardless of the fact that rolling a 6 triggers KB, it still counts as causing a wound.
Ergo, it is a WOUND, that slays outright. Its a normal wound, with added bonuses.

KeyserSoze wrote:
I didn't say there are rules of attacks' classification. But technically, a weapon or warrior gifted with with KB without having magical attacks, it cannot touch an ethereal creature, thus no harming him. Anyways, let's wait for some faq.

You're making this up. There is nowhere it says you "cannot touch." That's like me saying Killing Blow says "totally ignores Ethereal." Print the rules.

7.10. Q: Does Killing Blow cause a wound?
A: Yes.

Case closed.

It's case closed if you're playing ETC and using their rules at their events. However, ETC is not official. The official FAQs do not say that.

Of course ETC is not official, but their Q&A clarify many things, so I trust them completely.

It also doesnt say that KB doesnt cause its "slay" effect, either. So you now get it doing two things - a wound and a slay-effect

Not at all "case closed".

KeyserSoze wrote:
Of course ETC is not official, but their Q&A clarify many things, so I trust them completely.

ETC is a completely different setting from regular 40k or WHFB. The rules are changed or interpretated with a competitive environment in mind...unlike 40k...and therefore cannot be used to clear up vanilla 40k issues.

From the official warhammer rulebook FAQ:
Q: Do Poisoned Attacks that wound automatically on a To Hit roll
of 5+ or better still need to hit to cause a Wound?(p73)
A: Yes.

It goes without saying that KB follows the same principle as Poisoned Attacks, so why would anyone claim that a 5+ KB does not need to succesfully wound first, before the KB activates?
The only reason this wasn't covered in the FAQ was that no one was dumb enough to ask it, or GW thought that the poison attack clarification would cover that.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
We had a huge debate about this.

KB is a self-contained Special Rule. It doesn't say you need to wound in its text. You just need to attempt it.

Why would it say in the text that KB needs to wound, when KB works on 6s, and 6s are always successful rolls to Wound? Wouldn't it be an overstatement?

Some special rules often create situations where you have to be reasonable when they are not completely clear in the rules.

Also that monkey business about KB slaying ethereal creatures is so arbitrary. I don't even know how to respond to such an (censorship) argument.
Usually I like to take part in rules interpretation arguments, but in this case I'll pass. There has to be at least a certain degree of logic for me to take part in one.

shame_on_a_playa wrote:
It goes without saying that KB follows the same principle as Poisoned Attacks

If they all followed the same rules, they wouldn't be special rules with their own text. However, they are. For instance, Thunderstomp basically just says, "we're stomp, except bigger." HKB is KB except bigger. Hover is Fly except smaller. KB doesn't say it's Poison but with slaying. It doesn't say anything whatsoever about it. If Poison kills your entire army if you roll a 3, that has no impact at all on KB or Flaming Attacks or Impact Hits or anything else. They aren't connected at all.

Usually I like to take part in rules interpretation arguments, but in this case I'll pass. There has to be at least a certain degree of logic for me to take part in one.

If you don't want to answer, don't be passive aggressive and say you're not going to answer by answering and saying you're not going to answer. That's called, in game terms, "being a douchebag." Just don't answer. It's super easy to not type something.

Why would it say in the text that KB needs to wound, when KB works on 6s, and 6s are always successful rolls to Wound? Wouldn't it be an overstatement?

Yeah, because explaining rules is a horrible thing for a rulebook to do. Especially since it would take a whole sentence. I guess you didn't read the very first post in this thread which brings up the question to begin with. We're not talking about 6's. We're talking about 5's. And clearly 6's don't "always wound" because if you have a normal weapon vs. Ethereal it does not. And I'm sure there are some other cases somewhere. There are no always. And in the instances where there are discrepancies or questions, we look to the rules as written. RAW is very clear. You have to add rules or imply rules or use ETC rules to reach another conclusion than RAW. I can quote the exact text.

If memory serves, when this first came about, I was part of the boat who, at first, argued for Killing blow needing to be able to wound.(I still disagree with mundane killing blow not working against ethereal, but let's not get into that.) However, Duke's right, in this case.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

shame_on_a_playa wrote:
It goes without saying that KB follows the same principle as Poisoned Attacks

If you don't want to answer, don't be passive aggressive and say you're not going to answer by answering and saying you're not going to answer. That's called, in game terms, "being a douchebag." Just don't answer. It's super easy to not type something.

So if a politician is asked to comment on a matter and says "No comments", he actually did comment by your logic. He should just have kept his mouth shut, because the comment "no comment" is a comment so he commented.
Your reply to that will be "who asked you?".

 DukeRustfield wrote:
If they all followed the same rules, they wouldn't be special rules with their own text.

Poisoned attacks and killing blow DO follow the same principle. I never said they are the same rule.
Poison rolls a 6 to hit so it skips the to wound roll.
KB rolls a 6 to wound so it skips the armour save roll. In addition, if the ward save fails, the model is slayed.
What you've done, is taken the word "slay" and don't understand it just means that all remaining wounds are gone.
It's not a magical property to slay someone, it's a special rule.

In the ethereal text, the fact that it doesn't say that you 're not allowed to make To Hit rolls, doesn't mean you can.
It specifies ethereal creatures can only be wounded by spells, magical attacks and magic weapons.
So in CC if you don't have magical attacks or a magic weapon, you don't get to roll To Hit vs ethereals. You just don't.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
I guess you didn't read the very first post in this thread which brings up the question to begin with. We're not talking about 6's. We're talking about 5's

I talked about 5s on my the start of my post. 5s with KB come into effect only if the To Wound result of a 5 is also successful. That's done. No more discussing that.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
And clearly 6's don't "always wound" because if you have a normal weapon vs. Ethereal it does not.

A 6 in the To Wound roll is always successful provided you got to the To Wound roll by not cheating.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Yeah, because explaining rules is a horrible thing for a rulebook to do. Especially since it would take a whole sentence.

It is a horrible thing to do. And it would take more than a sentence. The rulebook states the rules as simple and clear as possible. It can't cover every possible scenario that comes up.
Killing blow is a rule that works on 6s and 6s are always successful when rolling To Wound, so the sentence to specify that To Wound roll has to be successful for the KB to work is not necessary and thus is not in the rulebook. The fact that the Tomb Kings book decided to have a spell to boost the KB to 5+ is another story. You are supposed to incorporate that into your rulepack as logically as possible.

And btw, I also checked about the phrase "being a douchebag" in game terms. There is no reference of that anywhere, so you are wrong about that too.

shame_on_a_playa wrote:

 DukeRustfield wrote:

shame_on_a_playa wrote:
It goes without saying that KB follows the same principle as Poisoned Attacks

If you don't want to answer, don't be passive aggressive and say you're not going to answer by answering and saying you're not going to answer. That's called, in game terms, "being a douchebag." Just don't answer. It's super easy to not type something.

So if a politician is asked to comment on a matter and says "No comments", he actually did comment by your logic. He should just have kept his mouth shut, because the comment "no comment" is a comment so he commented.
Your reply to that will be "who asked you?".

 DukeRustfield wrote:
If they all followed the same rules, they wouldn't be special rules with their own text.

Poisoned attacks and killing blow DO follow the same principle. I never said they are the same rule.
Poison rolls a 6 to hit so it skips the to wound roll.
KB rolls a 6 to wound so it skips the armour save roll. In addition, if the ward save fails, the model is slayed.
What you've done, is taken the word "slay" and don't understand it just means that all remaining wounds are gone.
It's not a magical property to slay someone, it's a special rule.

In the ethereal text, the fact that it doesn't say that you 're not allowed to make To Hit rolls, doesn't mean you can.
It specifies ethereal creatures can only be wounded by spells, magical attacks and magic weapons.
So in CC if you don't have magical attacks or a magic weapon, you don't get to roll To Hit vs ethereals. You just don't.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
I guess you didn't read the very first post in this thread which brings up the question to begin with. We're not talking about 6's. We're talking about 5's

I talked about 5s on my the start of my post. 5s with KB come into effect only if the To Wound result of a 5 is also successful. That's done. No more discussing that.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
And clearly 6's don't "always wound" because if you have a normal weapon vs. Ethereal it does not.

A 6 in the To Wound roll is always successful provided you got to the To Wound roll by not cheating.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Yeah, because explaining rules is a horrible thing for a rulebook to do. Especially since it would take a whole sentence.

It is a horrible thing to do. And it would take more than a sentence. The rulebook states the rules as simple and clear as possible. It can't cover every possible scenario that comes up.
Killing blow is a rule that works on 6s and 6s are always successful when rolling To Wound, so the sentence to specify that To Wound roll has to be successful for the KB to work is not necessary and thus is not in the rulebook. The fact that the Tomb Kings book decided to have a spell to boost the KB to 5+ is another story. You are supposed to incorporate that into your rulepack as logically as possible.

And btw, I also checked about the phrase "being a douchebag" in game terms. There is no reference of that anywhere, so you are wrong about that too.

Aaaactually, your entire argument hinges on KB requiring a successful roll to wound. It doesn't. The rule states, that on a roll of a 6 you kill something. As does HKB.

Now. Take a Destroyer. If a Bretonnian Lord with a mundane weapon and HKB vow comes up against it, he still can HKB it, even though he wounds it on 7's.

*sigh*

So if a politician is asked to comment on a matter and says "No comments", he actually did comment by your logic.

You're not a politician. These are voluntary forums. He is expected to answer because that is his job. If he is standing there taking questions, that is his specific purpose. If he simply stood there silently, people would think he had a stroke. We, however, are expected not to answer unless we have something to contribute. In fact, that's the forum rules. If everyone responded to every thread they weren't interested in, with some version of, "this is stupid and doesn't interest me," the forums would be completely unusable.

Poisoned attacks and killing blow DO follow the same principle.

There's no such thing as a principle in WHFB for anything to follow. There are special rules with instructions. They follow that and nothing else. It doesn't matter if they are 99.9999% the same. There is a special rule Poisoned Attacks and a special rule Killing Blow. They have no effect on each other at all. None. Zero. The text of Poison can be modified completely in a FAQ and it won't affect KB.

In the ethereal text, the fact that it doesn't say that you 're not allowed to make To Hit rolls, doesn't mean you can.

Yes, it does. Because the BRB gives the rules on that and unless something specifically countermands it, those rules still exist. That's exactly how it works. Nothing says you don't roll to hit. Nothing says you don't roll to wound. The BRB DOES tell you to do those things, however. It is for you to show how those rules are no longer in force. Poison DOESN'T work on Ethereal because it causes a wound. You could still roll to hit and try to poison, and you may even get your 6. It just wouldn't matter because when it goes to apply the wound, it wouldn't work because Ethereal specifically blocks that effect. It does not block KB.

thedarkavenger wrote:Aaaactually, your entire argument hinges on KB requiring a successful roll to wound. It doesn't. The rule states, that on a roll of a 6 you kill something. As does HKB.

Now. Take a Destroyer. If a Bretonnian Lord with a mundane weapon and HKB vow comes up against it, he still can HKB it, even though he wounds it on 7's.

I'm not familiar with every single unit and special rule in warhammer fantasy. Probably about 99% familiar with it. So please kindly point out to me what is a Destroyer, and how is it possible for a To Wound roll to be 7+.

DukeRustfield wrote:You're not a politician. These are voluntary forums. He is expected to answer because that is his job. If he is standing there taking questions, that is his specific purpose. If he simply stood there silently, people would think he had a stroke. We, however, are expected not to answer unless we have something to contribute. In fact, that's the forum rules. If everyone responded to every thread they weren't interested in, with some version of, "this is stupid and doesn't interest me," the forums would be completely unusable.

You are still getting stuck in the wrong words and miss the entire point of a sentence. I merely said politician, I could've said a famous person being chased by paparazzi asked about a scandal. The point is that if they answer "no comment", that means that they didn't comment about that, not that their comment was "no comment".
Also, about the forum rules and contributing to a conversation, each and everyone of us has their own way of illustrating their points and beliefs. I AM contributing when I make a contemptuous comment about something. It makes people realise how I feel about addressing a meaningless argument. If I didn't say anything at all, they wouldn't get that.

I feel bad for the person playing against you in a game, and you claim to be able to kill his ethereal guys with non-magical killing blow.
Or maybe it's not so bad, he can go back with a funny story to tell his mates starting with "you are not going to believe what this IDIOT claimed in a game" (his words, not mine).

I'll end my involvement in this conversation, I don't mind ending up looking like a fool. You probably won this argument. Have fun violating the spirit of the game and giving your butchers/slaughtermasters magic armour.

Shame - your analogy still fails, as in those cases THAT specific person is being asked to answer questions. YOU were NEVER specifically asked a thing.

You simply interjected with a poorly constructed argument based around the concept of "well this word doesnt really mean "slay", it means "wound and lose all wounds" (in essence)

each and everyone of us has their own way of illustrating their points and beliefs. I AM contributing when I make a contemptuous comment

No you're not.

Please refrain from doing so in future.

Thank you.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Now. Take a Destroyer. If a Bretonnian Lord with a mundane weapon and HKB vow comes up against it, he still can HKB it, even though he wounds it on 7's.

So you're using out of studio forge world rules combined with 6th edition rules to explain 8th edition rules?
I'm not disagree with how the RAW works, but with the inability to get FAQ's at all (still waiting on high elves and lizardmen), I'm thinking GW has decided to leave it up to the community to answer questions themselves.
I personally don't know anyone who says, you don't have to successfully wound, you only need to roll to wound meets the requirement to kill an ethereal model. Yeah it's RAW, but it's pretty far from intent.

shame_on_a_playa wrote:

thedarkavenger wrote:Aaaactually, your entire argument hinges on KB requiring a successful roll to wound. It doesn't. The rule states, that on a roll of a 6 you kill something. As does HKB.

Now. Take a Destroyer. If a Bretonnian Lord with a mundane weapon and HKB vow comes up against it, he still can HKB it, even though he wounds it on 7's.

I'm not familiar with every single unit and special rule in warhammer fantasy. Probably about 99% familiar with it. So please kindly point out to me what is a Destroyer, and how is it possible for a To Wound roll to be 7+.

DukeRustfield wrote:You're not a politician. These are voluntary forums. He is expected to answer because that is his job. If he is standing there taking questions, that is his specific purpose. If he simply stood there silently, people would think he had a stroke. We, however, are expected not to answer unless we have something to contribute. In fact, that's the forum rules. If everyone responded to every thread they weren't interested in, with some version of, "this is stupid and doesn't interest me," the forums would be completely unusable.

You are still getting stuck in the wrong words and miss the entire point of a sentence. I merely said politician, I could've said a famous person being chased by paparazzi asked about a scandal. The point is that if they answer "no comment", that means that they didn't comment about that, not that their comment was "no comment".
Also, about the forum rules and contributing to a conversation, each and everyone of us has their own way of illustrating their points and beliefs. I AM contributing when I make a contemptuous comment about something. It makes people realise how I feel about addressing a meaningless argument. If I didn't say anything at all, they wouldn't get that.

I feel bad for the person playing against you in a game, and you claim to be able to kill his ethereal guys with non-magical killing blow.
Or maybe it's not so bad, he can go back with a funny story to tell his mates starting with "you are not going to believe what this IDIOT claimed in a game" (his words, not mine).

I'll end my involvement in this conversation, I don't mind ending up looking like a fool. You probably won this argument. Have fun violating the spirit of the game and giving your butchers/slaughtermasters magic armour.

Destroyer has a -1 to wound penalty.

But is that not countered by the "a natural 6 is always a wound", much like they faqd a to wound of 1 as always failing?

 japehlio wrote:
But is that not countered by the "a natural 6 is always a wound", much like they faqd a to wound of 1 as always failing?

It's not contradicting the rulebook. Just like a natural roll of a 6 for poisoned is an automatic wound, but if you hit on 7s, poisoned is counteracted.

As such, we follow the rules for wounding on 7s, of which there are none, so under the rules(Which may have changed, I don't know. I only keep up to date with real armies), it's impossible to wound it at that point, except for HKB.

ooh, a red letter warning - gak just got real!

@dark avenger:
I still don't know what a destroyer is. What armybook does he come from?

@everyone who thinks KB without magical attacks can kill ethereal models:
You are basing this opinion using RAW reference from the book, and I tried to contradict you using RAI logic.
Actually, RAW, I mean really RAW, you are wrong.
*ethereal creatures can only be wounded by spells, magical attacks and magic weapons or effects.*
The phrase "can be wounded" is not a rule in itself, it doesn't mean "can suffer a wound on its profile", it just means "can be harmed" or "can be damaged", it's just an English phrase with a given meaning.
So, by misreading the rules for ethereals and spotting that a KB does not "wound" but instead slays, you conclude that an Ethereal fella can be slayed, as if "wounded" is not included in slaying.

Like if I said, "you cannot ever take a bite off this banana" and you go "ok, I'll just eat it whole then". That's a nice way around it. Congratulations.

I'm the biggest supporter of RAW, I call upon RAW whenever some monkey business is tried by my oppenent. "I think they meant this or that", I go "I don't care, read what it fething says here!"

I've been scouring warhammer forums for months, I don't work so I'm at home a lot, and I've never felt the need to register anywhere until 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.
The fact that still this DukeRustfield guy thinks he is right makes me think he is a troll.
His avatar looks like a troll anyhow, but I've seen his posts around a lot, and I've never seen him exhibit a trolling behaviour, so I'm confused.

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.

A destroyer is the monster from Chaos Dwarfs.