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.

The Angry Commissar wrote:demolisher cannon to the face always works =)

How about a Destroyer weapon? Or a Vortex Grenade?

So would you play that the eldar weapon could instant death Abbadon? Your whole argument rests on two words. Seems pretty flimsy to me.

G

Yes it can, because slain outright is not Instant Death. It's not a universal rule. Stop whining and find a way to counter it if you're so upset about it.

waaagh!orksrocks wrote:Kharn has worked for me one on one but 9 zerkers and kharn in a land raider is the scariest thing i have seen for chaos if not gazhgkull on his waaagh! but what army do you have sorry if not chaos or orks but they are all I can help thats not basic like shoot him a lot

One time I got real lucky- I assaulted a squad of Beserkers and Kharn with a Guard command squad (Last Codex) and Yarrick. I ate the squad and only lost like two guys.

Green Blow Fly wrote:So would you play that the eldar weapon could instant death Abbadon? Your whole argument rests on two words. Seems pretty flimsy to me.

G

It beats yours, which is based on two words (Instant Death) which aren't there...lol

Yes, the Diresword can put down Abbadabadoo, Tyrants, Phoenix Lords, etc. because it says it can. Although it requires a failed Ld (on a high Ld usually) test for the victim, not to mention it's a S3 model doing the supposed wounding. I think those two things are the reason that the Diresword rarely is mentioned in such debates.

to the OP:
For extra-hurty characters I deal with them on a case by case basis, for example....
Kharn? shoot him. he can be killed easy with massed bolter fire. If he is holed up in a land raider headed for you then just play keep away from the land raider untill you can pop it.
Greater demon/demon prince? use my own characters with a CC squad loaded with powerfists, he either throws attacks into the squad, taking out regular troops then getting detroyed by my character + powerfists, or he throws attacks at the character and the powerfists and massed attacks take him down.
Gazzy? put a couple of S8 shots into his unit to insta-kill some nobs, then charge into him with everything i can throw at him. whatever you do dont let him charge or you will be eaten alive. usually i avoid his charge by staying inside my landraider(s) he has to hit them with powerklaws to pop them, and then on the next turn i just charge out of the wreckage.
Abby? i dont fight against him much (read: at all) so i dunno, bend over?
DA/BA/SW characters? S8 attacks, they do not have eternal warrior.

the diresword is not a force weapon. I was hoping you would just come out and say so. The term killed outright is not a rule and is merely a desriptor to explain how the NFW instant deaths multi wound models.

G

The diresword says "removed regardless of remaining wounds."

Inquisitor FW: "slain outright, no matter how many wounds it has."

Basically the same thing, but not Instant Death.

Nurgleboy77

So do you think the term slain/killed outright was written to ignore the EW rule?

Should we always use RAW in it's strictest sense?

"Instant Death" has been in the game since 3rd edition. Since that is the case, I don't see why something that is not labeled as Instant Death should be treated as such, just because they have the same result.

As has been stated, this could easily be cleared up in a FAQ and is the only two (DH & WH) where something that is now (in 5th) ID (Force Weapons) are described as not being ID.

Should we always use RAW in it's strictest sense?

When it's this easy? Yes.

Just like Dedicated Transports. The previous IG codex and I believe either DH or WH states you cannot use another squads DT, although the 5th ed rules clearly have other rules for DTs, you must still abide by what the codex says. Good thing IG got a new bag!

you know that GW is not going to FAQ every rule that people abuse. Throwing it on GW's lap is a cop out. Be a man and take responbility for your own decision.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:you know that GW is not going to FAQ every rule that people abuse. Throwing it on GW's lap is a cop out. Be a man and take responbility for your own decision.

G

or maybe be a man and accept that someone else's interpretation is right? How can you say what GW intended? Saying I'm right because this is what they intended is a cop out when you have nothing substantial to back up your opinion.

Slain / killed outright is different terms to instant death.
if they wanted it to cause instant death then they would have stated so in the codex.

Skulltaker can kill off most characters that get in the way.

GBF, you have shown an amazing ability to ignore logic. You are arguing a point that doesnt even need to be rehashed because the rest of the 40k community readily accepts the interpretation of this rule that Nurgleboy and I (and everyone else in this thread) are trying to hammer to you once its explained.

Inat FAQ backs us up.
RAW backs us up.
Codex rules backs us up.
Even the rulebook itself backs us up. (you keep pointing out force weapons in the rulebook but you conveniently ignore the fact that the rulebook itself states that particular rules may be reworked within codexes. I.E. Smoke Launchers.)

All you've got is a RAI arguement, which doesnt work here on dakka. It doest work in tournament.

I cannot fathom why you keep ignoring the logical and correct interpretation of this rule.

I Have spoken with stores here In FL and they are all going with NFW does not remove EW from the tabel. Don't get personal.

G

GBF, stores have no real standing as far as rules go.
They did not write them, just like everyone else here.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I Have spoken with stores here In FL and they are all going with NFW does not remove EW from the tabel. Don't get personal.

G

Thats odd, considering that Stormboy97 and WCBrian live/game in FL...and they know that NFW's slay even EW's outright.

How many stores are we talking about here? I know the gaming down by miami is hard to come by...are there even any stores down there to play at? Stormboy and WCBrian havent been able to find any.

Regardless, wherever you're playing that is playing that way....must be a house rule.

I am talking about the greater Tampa area. You know I don't play down in Miami. I should have been more clear they I was referring to an area... Still it's a lot of stores.

G

....that are playing "House Rules" concerning NFW's.

No they are not shane.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:No they are not shane.

G

Then its even simpler...they're playing wrong. Let some of THEM come here and try and argue it. The whole of dakka will let them know how wrong they are too.

<<< crunch goes the popcorn, and the popcorn goes crunch!

Wow green bow fly is so wrong its really funny and he is so stubborn it amazes me..................... Crunches goes the pop corn.

Instant death = Weapon S = your Tx2, or a weapons that specifically says it inflicts instant death, like a blissgiver.
Slain outright = NFW, Sweeping Advance, Shokk Attack Gun Rolls of 6,6, Scattering off the board, etc, etc.

Does a unit with eternal warriors ignore sweeping advances, or shokk attack guns?

Still don't see anything presented here to change my mind plus scattering off the table you roll on the mishap table to wit there is only a 33% chance the unit is dead.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Sorry Nurgleboy I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I run a GKGM and I would not play that he can outright slay an EW. It's just not right.

G

So in 4th you played that FW did not "slay outright" but instead caused a single wound to creatures that were immune to ID, such as creatures within synapse? If not then you are being inconsistent in "updating" (read: changing the wording to what you think they intended) the NFW to work as a normal FW.

FW in 4th would "slay outright" a hive tyrant and this was universally agreed on. NFW have retained that wording, yet now you think it is just a "semantic difference"?

I don't think 4th edition has much relevance since there was no rule for EW.

G

EW existed, just not as a universal rule and under the name 'Immune to Instant Death'.

Instant Death is a rule incurred by the result of something very specific. If a wound is caused as a result of S=>T*2, this in turn incurs 'killed outright' and 'removed as a casualty'. The Diresword, Sweeping Advance etc. have no relation to that rule - they result in 'killed outright' and 'removed as a casualty' completely differently.

Eternal Warrior's wording is more in question here... if it mentioned anything other than what it does, it might have been a bit more subjective. But it's very clear.

The model is immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule.

That's all it is. Eternal Warrior doesn't save you. Different wargear with the same effect as Eternal Warrior might be described slightly differently, so that's the thing to watch.

I don't see what the issue is. Instant death has been around since 3rd edition. Since 3rd edition, many weapons have ignored the wording for instant death and just slay outright. What's the issue? It's always been like that. There's no hidden anything here.

What makes you think we should ignore the rule for dire swords? It slays slay outright, written ON PURPOSE like that way after 4th edition had been written. It's not like eternal warrior is a new concept either. Ever heard of synpase?