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.

 Throt wrote:

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.

There was a mess. By a certain user claiming that KB causes a wound whilst not presenting any facts.

The Valten thing is the first piece of evidence you submitted to this thread.

I still have Throt on ignore. But this is something we've kicked around before in this forum. The chain of rules goes like this:

*my [ARMY] unit

FAQ/WHITE DWARF (OFFICIAL)
|
[ARMY] BOOK
|
BRB

That's it. That's what influences your unit. The DoC army book has special rules for their Stomp and Thunderstomp and Unstable but they have no effect whatsoever on other armies. You need your army book and the BRB and any relevant FAQs to play your army. You don't need some optional vampire scenario book. If you play WE you don't need to get DE and HE to collect all your rules together.

This had been argued in the past for various things. I think one was Slaughtermaster wearing armor when we were picking apart the wording. You can look at it as pointers to see what they did elsewhere, but they still aren't RAW. What is in the Empire book doesn't matter to O&G. That book does not modify the BRB in any way except for itself. DoC players with KB units aren't required to have FAQ+WD+BRB+NAGASH BOOK.

That's never been the case.

Did you guys see the paragraph from Fighting challenges in the BrB, quote follows.

Overkill
If one model slays the other, then any excess wounds they inflicted above and beyond those needed to slay the opponent, up to a maximum of +5, are counted towards their side's total number of wounds for close combat resolution. More on this bonus can be found on page 53.
Note that this is an exception to the rule stating that a model can only suffer as many wounds as it has on its profile. This time you need to add up all of the wounds inflicted on the victim, even those from a weapon causing multiple wounds, or by repeated Killing Blows (each successful Killing Blow scores the same amount of wounds the slain character has on its profile), etc. This is great fun, albeit a little one-sided.

It seems to suggest that you do indeed inflict wounds with killing blow. it then goes on to explain how many wounds you inflict, in this case all the woulds on the profile times number of successful killing blows.

Just thought i would throw that out there.

Cheers

Overkill is combat resolution of challenges. Which is pretty specific. We already know KB counts as SCORING wounds for CR. Because there's no such thing as scoring SLAYS. It's got to be converted to some number + or -. So wounds # is a logical choice. The fact you can SCORE more than the wounds characteristic on the profile (which is impossible), let's you know you're not actually CAUSING those wounds, you're SCORING. The game doesn't let you kill the same guy multiple times, which almost seems like you're implying. If you could, you would never face anyone except the front row and kill them over and over.

tl;dr "each successful Killing Blow scores the same amount of wounds"

Not inflicts, causes, suffers.

"(each successful Killing Blow scores the same amount of wounds the slain character has on its profile"

Yes, we had seen that. A) this is combat res, where we know KB counts as scoring wounds, and B) this is reinforced by the sentence you quoted, which i have added above, which states that KB SCORES the number of wounds, it does not CAUSE a number of wounds.

Valten just cause a mess, by taking a situation (no wounds actually caused, wounds only COUNT AS having been caused for scoring purposes, in ACTUAL rules not those made up ones) and muddying it. Luckily, only affects that one char, and noone else, so will hopefully be FAQ'd correctly

So you choose to ignore the start of this sentence where it says that multiple wounds and killing blow inflicts wounds?

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

This should be perfectly clear that Killing blow indeed does cause wounds.
It should not matter that it is described in a section containing rules for overkill in challenges.
It is correct that each killing blow scores the same amount as is on the profile, that does not change the wording of the first part, killing blow inflicts wounds, its there, right on the paper, RAW.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Throt wrote:

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.

There was a mess. By a certain user claiming that KB causes a wound whilst not presenting any facts.

The Valten thing is the first piece of evidence you submitted to this thread.

Let me try to explain.
This idea that no wounds are caused is a misinterpretation of the rules. Plain and simple.
The rule itself should never have come into discussion. That is the point about creating a mess. There was no mess until someone created it.
There is ZERO reason to come to the conclusion that killing blow causes no wounds. The no wound argument has simply been that that's what the rules say. Nothing backs it up.
Nothing even suggests that there aren't wounds.
I have been placed on ignore by people who have said I have no evidence, yet the burden of proof is on their shoulders because they are trying to change a very simple rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
I still have Throt on ignore. But this is something we've kicked around before in this forum. The chain of rules goes like this:

*my [ARMY] unit

FAQ/WHITE DWARF (OFFICIAL)
|
[ARMY] BOOK
|
BRB

That's it. That's what influences your unit. The DoC army book has special rules for their Stomp and Thunderstomp and Unstable but they have no effect whatsoever on other armies. You need your army book and the BRB and any relevant FAQs to play your army. You don't need some optional vampire scenario book. If you play WE you don't need to get DE and HE to collect all your rules together.

This had been argued in the past for various things. I think one was Slaughtermaster wearing armor when we were picking apart the wording. You can look at it as pointers to see what they did elsewhere, but they still aren't RAW. What is in the Empire book doesn't matter to O&G. That book does not modify the BRB in any way except for itself. DoC players with KB units aren't required to have FAQ+WD+BRB+NAGASH BOOK.

That's never been the case.

I don't have the Nagash book so I can't quote it directly but it is not a rule for Valten. It is a description of happenstance from wounds.
If someone has the book and would be so kind as to type the actual paragraph that would be great.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"(each successful Killing Blow scores the same amount of wounds the slain character has on its profile"

Yes, we had seen that. A) this is combat res, where we know KB counts as scoring wounds, and B) this is reinforced by the sentence you quoted, which i have added above, which states that KB SCORES the number of wounds, it does not CAUSE a number of wounds.

Valten just cause a mess, by taking a situation (no wounds actually caused, wounds only COUNT AS having been caused for scoring purposes, in ACTUAL rules not those made up ones) and muddying it. Luckily, only affects that one char, and noone else, so will hopefully be FAQ'd correctly

I have answered the score issue and counts as.
it says scoring wounds because that's what it is...when you total up wounds for combat res that is your SCORE. YOu are misinterpreting it's usage or using it backwards to reach your desired conclusion.
It doesn't need to say causing wounds because the wounds were caused during the combat now you are adding up your score.
The reason it discusses scoring is because it is in the section of the book on how to get your score for combat resolution.

Demelain wrote:
This should be perfectly clear that Killing blow indeed does cause wounds.

Except it's not in a section that has anything to do with wounds. It's in a section that talks about how you combat resolve challenges. If indeed it caused that many wounds then you would be killing that same dude multiple times. And you should score victory points for killing that model (like a general) 5 times. But you're not. It's not anywhere near where they talk about how wounds are handled. It's not in any of the sections about KB or unique attacks. It's past the descriptions of wounds, combat resolution, unit types, special rules, weapon types. It's under the subsection of CHARACTERS. So if anything, it only applies to CHARACTERS. Because CHARACTERS are the only units who can CHALLENGE. And the only units who can OVERKILL.

1. CHARACTERS
|
2. CHALLENGES
|
3. OVERKILL
|
4. (a partial sentence you're talking about)

So you choose to ignore the start of this sentence where it says that multiple wounds and killing blow inflicts wounds?

If you diagram the sentence, they are not necessarily the same concept.

"Add up all the wounds
,even those from a weapon causing multiple
,OR by repeated KB ([defines how to calculate that])
,etc"

It's not great English, but if you say:

>>I like stupid girls, like ones who can't count, or girls who are rich.

The comma and OR ^ above, means the last clause doesn't have anything to do with the first ones. It could be inclusive or exclusive. It is its own clause. Normally you'd want them in a new sentence to make it clearer.

Another simple:

>>I only like the color red, or blue, or green.

That doesn't mean blue has to be red. Or green has to be red-blue-green. The subject likes them all independently.

I mean, we're putting a lot more grammar then they likely did on this. I think the big point is it's totally in the wrong section.

I think of it this way

Ethereal says can only be hit by magic weapons, so unless it is a magic weapon killing blow is now magic it is a ability. Think of it like dryads in warcraft spells don't hit them but ability's like ensnare do.

On topic about killing blow, it never says you roll to wound just on a 5+ it slays the enemy. So with that said roll a 5 it dead!!

I think of it more like this, their armour can defend most but a killing blow is them getting lucky or having skill and sliding it between the chinks into the goods. Armour can only keep you safe if they hit it.

just my 5cents

@OgreChubbs: except the rule for Ethereal doesn't say that. It says it can't be wounded by non-magical weapons.

A warrior fighting a ghost certainly will try fight his otherworldly foe; he's swing his sword (roll to Hit), putting all his might behind the blow before the unnatural horror snuffs out his life force (roll to Wound), but alas, it is all for naught, for this fell enemy is not a mortal creature (Ethereal says you can't successfully wound).

@Throt: before I say anything, know this: I'm not mad. I'm not trying to insult or mess with you. I just disagree.
So, if you feel the need to respond to any disrespectful or insulting behavior, I would point out that I am not someone who has felt the need to respond to your stance thusly.

 Throt wrote:
The no wound argument has simply been that that's what the rules say. Nothing backs it up.

I'm not sure what you mean. If someone points at the rules and says, "see, this is what they say"...how is that not backing up the argument?

 Throt wrote:
it says scoring wounds because that's what it is...when you total up wounds for combat res that is your SCORE. YOu are misinterpreting it's usage or using it backwards to reach your desired conclusion.
It doesn't need to say causing wounds because the wounds were caused during the combat now you are adding up your score.
The reason it discusses scoring is because it is in the section of the book on how to get your score for combat resolution.

Hm. I just don't see it. I mean, I agree with you from a practical standpoint, but the Rules as Written don't seem to support that.
Killing Blow says when you roll a 6 to Wound (stuff) happens. So, you cause a wound, according to the normal rules, but then you also auto-kill them, according to the rules for Killing Blow. Two totally separate instances, one of which is triggered when specific circumstances of the other are met.
Say you hit an Ogre and roll a 6 to wound. So, it's a successful wound that also triggers Killing Blow. But KB has no effect on him, so we ignore that part.
Then, you hit a Banshee and roll a 6 to wound. So, it's a successful wound that also triggers Killing Blow. The successful wound is ignored, due to Ethereal. But Killing Blow is still sitting there, waiting to be resolved.

I think it's stupid, but I think that's how the rules currently work.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I think of it this way

Ethereal says can only be hit by magic weapons, so unless it is a magic weapon killing blow is now magic it is a ability. Think of it like dryads in warcraft spells don't hit them but ability's like ensnare do.

On topic about killing blow, it never says you roll to wound just on a 5+ it slays the enemy. So with that said roll a 5 it dead!!

I think of it more like this, their armour can defend most but a killing blow is them getting lucky or having skill and sliding it between the chinks into the goods. Armour can only keep you safe if they hit it.

just my 5cents

Actually the text says ....KB special rule rolls a 6 to wound....

Warpsolution wrote:
@OgreChubbs: except the rule for Ethereal doesn't say that. It says it can't be wounded by non-magical weapons.

A warrior fighting a ghost certainly will try fight his otherworldly foe; he's swing his sword (roll to Hit), putting all his might behind the blow before the unnatural horror snuffs out his life force (roll to Wound), but alas, it is all for naught, for this fell enemy is not a mortal creature (Ethereal says you can't successfully wound).

@Throt: before I say anything, know this: I'm not mad. I'm not trying to insult or mess with you. I just disagree.
So, if you feel the need to respond to any disrespectful or insulting behavior, I would point out that I am not someone who has felt the need to respond to your stance thusly.

No worries. I don't get offended. This is the internet and I choose what site I go to.

 Throt wrote:
The no wound argument has simply been that that's what the rules say. Nothing backs it up.

I'm not sure what you mean. If someone points at the rules and says, "see, this is what they say"...how is that not backing up the argument?

 Throt wrote:
it says scoring wounds because that's what it is...when you total up wounds for combat res that is your SCORE. YOu are misinterpreting it's usage or using it backwards to reach your desired conclusion.
It doesn't need to say causing wounds because the wounds were caused during the combat now you are adding up your score.
The reason it discusses scoring is because it is in the section of the book on how to get your score for combat resolution.

Hm. I just don't see it. I mean, I agree with you from a practical standpoint, but the Rules as Written don't seem to support that.
Killing Blow says when you roll a 6 to Wound (stuff) happens. So, you cause a wound, according to the normal rules, but then you also auto-kill them, according to the rules for Killing Blow. Two totally separate instances, one of which is triggered when specific circumstances of the other are met.
Say you hit an Ogre and roll a 6 to wound. So, it's a successful wound that also triggers Killing Blow. But KB has no effect on him, so we ignore that part.
Then, you hit a Banshee and roll a 6 to wound. So, it's a successful wound that also triggers Killing Blow. The successful wound is ignored, due to Ethereal. But Killing Blow is still sitting there, waiting to be resolved.

I think it's stupid, but I think that's how the rules currently work.

I believe they do support it. Here is why.
As I have stated in the past KB is simply a wound modifier, quite simply all the wounds on the profile. Though the idea was blasted as inconceivable, it is a logical progression.

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...
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. Nothing has stated no wounds. How does the death of a model imply that he wasn't wounded? Especially after rolling to wound. It simply doesn't without overreach

With your example..
"Killing Blow says when you roll a 6 to Wound (stuff) happens. So, you cause a wound, according to the normal rules, but then you also auto-kill them, according to the rules for Killing Blow. Two totally separate instances, one of which is triggered when specific circumstances of the other are met..."

Now here is where I continue to disagree, they are not separate instances. There is no reason to separate them, nor instruction to separate wounds from KB..it even states that the model dies regardless of the number of wounds..
We all agree on what is written and what happens.
IF the model can be affected, he is. If he can't he isn't affected.

Now the point here is to look at what is written and logical, because the ONLY part that we disagree on is that it is/isn't WOUNDS.
There is no logical reason that after rolling to wound you would suddenly ignore the wounds even though the model dies. There is no game purpose or steps to grant that conclusion. There are no words implying no wounds.

The dice roll is what is making your wounds successful. You are granted success or not, there are only 2 possible outcomes. Pass or fail.
As has been stated in the past say S4 vs. T10..you would need a six to wound but if your KB has been increased to 5+ the model will die. All things happen the same. It is still wounds...all the wounds on the profile. Nothing implies otherwise.
If you have the same abilitiy of of 5+ KB, S4 vs T10 and the model was a giant, you would neither cause a wound nor KB. a 6 would cause a wound.
As for Ethereal, if the models weapon is not magical then the ethereal model is safe. If the weapon is magical all the normal progress applies.

Again this is the reason that it was placed in the wounding rolls. There is no implication that it is not wounds.
Without the misinterpretation that KB causes no wounds, there is no muddying of any of these rules. They work just as intended with no errors and no confusion through all aspects of the game.
The idea of no wounds is the cause of the mud.

 Throt wrote:
- As I have stated in the past KB is simply a wound modifier, quite simply all the wounds on the profile. Though the idea was blasted as inconceivable, it is a logical progression.

- We are using the exact same rule set, doing the exact same thing. Nothing has stated no wounds. How does the death of a model imply that he wasn't wounded? Especially after rolling to wound. It simply doesn't without overreach

- Now here is where I continue to disagree, they are not separate instances. There is no reason to separate them, nor instruction to separate wounds from KB..it even states that the model dies regardless of the number of wounds..

- Now the point here is to look at what is written and logical, because the ONLY part that we disagree on is that it is/isn't WOUNDS.
There is no logical reason that after rolling to wound you would suddenly ignore the wounds even though the model dies. There is no game purpose or steps to grant that conclusion. There are no words implying no wounds.

- The dice roll is what is making your wounds successful. You are granted success or not, there are only 2 possible outcomes. Pass or fail.

- Again this is the reason that it was placed in the wounding rolls. There is no implication that it is not wounds.

So. There seem to be three general points:

1. the idea that Killing Blow doesn't wound is not logical or realistic. You roll a die. This die represents your attempt to cut my flesh, break my bones, and spill my blood. If you happen to have this special rule, and it triggers, you instead decapitate or disembowel me. Surely, this special rule is simply a more extreme example of success of the die roll.

2. dead models are wounded models.

3. because Killing Blow is triggered by a result of the to Wound roll, it therefore causes wounds.

Does that seem about right?
I'm trying to condense this down. 'Bout to get philosophical in here! We'll trim all the unnecessary stuff and get right to the bare bones and brass tacks at the bottom of this barrel..

Warpsolution wrote:

So. There seem to be three general points:

1. the idea that Killing Blow doesn't wound is not logical or realistic. You roll a die. This die represents your attempt to cut my flesh, break my bones, and spill my blood. If you happen to have this special rule, and it triggers, you instead decapitate or disembowel me. Surely, this special rule is simply a more extreme example of success of the die roll.

2. dead models are wounded models.

3. because Killing Blow is triggered by a result of the to Wound roll, it therefore causes wounds.

Does that seem about right?
I'm trying to condense this down. 'Bout to get philosophical in here! We'll trim all the unnecessary stuff and get right to the bare bones and brass tacks at the bottom of this barrel..

Sounds like a plan. I'll answer the 3 but there are really 2 points where we are now. That actually narrow down to just 1.

1. I don't mean logical in the sense of story. Realism of the story that goes along with it is irrelevant. With the game it is about dice process progress. I am talking about logical as progression/process of rules since death of models is based on dice rolls.

2. Dead models die in few ways in the game. Failed statistic tests, remove from play/remove as a casualty, and reduction of wounds or other stats to zero. All have a dice process causing said death, all of which are stated in the book.

3. Yes. That is the dice roll it is connected to there is no process or instruction to separate it.

Okay. Cool. So, #3 is the main point, then. I'm going to try and summarize both arguments:

Argument 1: Killing Blow is triggered when a specific instance occurs on the to-Wound roll, therefore, it causes wounds.

Argument 2: Killing blow is triggered when a specific instance occurs on the to-Wound roll, but is not affected by the to-Wound table, therefore, it does not cause wounds.

Yeah?
If those are accurate, I would offer the following: Warhammer is a permissive system; it tells us what we are allowed to do, not what we are prohibited from doing.
Because the rules in Killing Blow do not explicitly state that it's effect is part of the normal to-Wound process, I cannot consider them to be related.
Does that make sense?

Like...well, like the rules for Poison, I guess.
You roll to Hit. Let's say you need a 4 to hit. You roll a 6. So you successfully hit. But you also automatically wound. Poison is a separate rule that has an effect totally independent of the ones the die was originally rolled for.
Actually, the very fact that they had to FAQ how Poison works supports the comparison. They had to say "the hit needs to be successful for it to automatically wound", because a successful hit and Poison are otherwise not involved.
Therefore, Killing Blow is activated due to a result of the to Wound role, but does not have anything to do with the normal wounding process. The text under Killing Blow tells us what to do. Roll a 6, insta-dead. Not, successful wound on a 6, insta-dead or roll a 6, gain the Multiple Wounds (X) special rule, where X is number of model's remaining wounds. It has nothing to do with the wounding process at all. Totally separate mechanic.
...or not? Discuss.

Warpsolution wrote:
Okay. Cool. So, #3 is the main point, then. I'm going to try and summarize both arguments:

Argument 1: Killing Blow is triggered when a specific instance occurs on the to-Wound roll, therefore, it causes wounds.

Argument 2: Killing blow is triggered when a specific instance occurs on the to-Wound roll, but is not affected by the to-Wound table, therefore, it does not cause wounds.

Yeah?
If those are accurate, I would offer the following: Warhammer is a permissive system; it tells us what we are allowed to do, not what we are prohibited from doing.
Because the rules in Killing Blow do not explicitly state that it's effect is part of the normal to-Wound process, I cannot consider them to be related.
Does that make sense?

Argument 1 is correct for me, and I would assume that #2 is good for you.
Argument 2: We still agree on it being specific instance. We still agree on everything other than whether or not wounds are caused.

I will explain how it is explicitly part of the to wound process and doesn't require more statement.
I do agree it is a permissive system. And it is based on the dice rolls.
So I would ask..If you have already rolled to wound, isn't not causing wounds contrary to what you were in the process of doing? You are prohibiting yourself from wounding violating the given instruction.
You don't have permission not to cause wounds. Unless your dice roll fails. Your 6 has determined success. There is no permission to not cause wounds.
The explicit statement and permission comes from the roll of the dice. That is the start and purpose of the function. Once the dice rolls start, that is the conditions until you move to the next. Otherwise the dice roll would not be required or would specifically stated separately.
Roll to wound>6>KB works on target-yes/no>all wounds/1wound.
Every time something happens it has a root. When you break from combat from your combat res, Ld test. Would you say that it wasn't Ld when you rolled? You will pass or fail,(what did you pass/fail? Ld test) then stay or flee.
With KB you will take wounds or not. (What happened? you took wounds or you didn't) Then you live or die accordingly.

Like...well, like the rules for Poison, I guess.
You roll to Hit. Let's say you need a 4 to hit. You roll a 6. So you successfully hit. But you also automatically wound. Poison is a separate rule that has an effect totally independent of the ones the die was originally rolled for.
Actually, the very fact that they had to FAQ how Poison works supports the comparison. They had to say "the hit needs to be successful for it to automatically wound", because a successful hit and Poison are otherwise not involved.
Therefore, Killing Blow is activated due to a result of the to Wound role, but does not have anything to do with the normal wounding process. The text under Killing Blow tells us what to do. Roll a 6, insta-dead. Not, successful wound on a 6, insta-dead or roll a 6, gain the Multiple Wounds (X) special rule, where X is number of model's remaining wounds. It has nothing to do with the wounding process at all. Totally separate mechanic.
...or not? Discuss.

As above it is the wounding process. It is either, failure to wound, 1 wound or all wounds depending on the circumstance of the roll to wound and target.
Auto hits do not cause KB because they need the dice roll which locks you in the wounding process.
It's on a 6 an die regardless of the number of wounds( basically X# of wounds). It's not just roll a 6 and remove from play etc

Actually poison is a different topic. But I will go along and try to keep it short. Combat is generally roll to hit>roll to wound>etc..and of course special rules inside each....so
The permissive system has skipped the dice roll for wounds. Poison attacks are still hits, just as KB are still wounds.
Poison in effect is similar to a weapon that auto wounds. Once you hit(with required #) you pass over the roll to wound. Auto hits and poison don't jive, just as auto hits and KB don't jive.
The FAQ actually shows that poison and the hit are related, because you must hit.(But lets not get sidetracked, please bypass)

.

Warp _ i would add to that that KB is just a rule that triggers on a specific to-wound roll, it does not itself require a wound to exist, however temporarily, unlike with the multiple wounds rule which is explicitly AFTER the unsaved wound has been caused

Instead KB is a separate rule, entirely self contained, that is triggered by a to-wound roll of a specific value. This in no way means a wound is caused BY KB, or that KB requires a wound, just that a value has been met

If you succesfully KB a model, you in theory may still have a wound to allocate to them - after saves, etc - but you CANNOT do this, as the model is already dead. There is nothing to alloacte the wound to.

This is why it is entirely impossible to say that KB is a wound multiplier - there is no rules support, whatsoever, for that position. We know what a wound multiplier does, and how it is structured, and it requires an unsaved wound - something that KB does NOT need

I agree, nos.
When someone says "Killing Blow is like a wound modifier", I say, "yes. It's similar in a lot of ways. But it is not actually a wound modifier."

 Throt wrote:
So I would ask..If you have already rolled to wound, isn't not causing wounds contrary to what you were in the process of doing? You are prohibiting yourself from wounding violating the given instruction.
You don't have permission not to cause wounds. Unless your dice roll fails. Your 6 has determined success. There is no permission to not cause wounds.

I agree. You roll to wound, and consult the chart. But on a 6, another, entirely separate rule is triggered.
Like "for every successful armour save the model makes, it inflicts a S4 hit on an enemy in base contact". The hit is triggered due to a certain result on the armour save. It is, of course, not in any way part of the armour save. It's a separate rule that comes into play when specific conditions of another rule are met.

 Throt wrote:
Otherwise the dice roll would not be required or would specifically stated separately.

I'm not sure if I understand.
You think that we need permission to consider two rules as separate instances?
One could argue that the to Hit/to Wound/armour/Regeneration or Ward process is all one thing. But they're not. They each have their own entries and rules, even though they play off each other. Like Killing Blow and the to Wound roll.

 Throt wrote:
Auto hits do not cause KB because they need the dice roll which locks you in the wounding process.

Do you mean auto-wounds? Or are you talking about Poison?

 Throt wrote:
It's on a 6 an die regardless of the number of wounds( basically X# of wounds). It's not just roll a 6 and remove from play etc

It is similar to X# of wounds. But it doesn't say that. It says instantly slain, regardless of the number of wounds. Regardless, as in, no regard for. Do not regard. Ignore. Don't look at.
It doesn't say "remove from play", but it does not say "X# of wounds", either. It's a different animal entirely. Due to unclear writing, I'm sure.

 Throt wrote:
Poison attacks are still hits, just as KB are still wounds...The FAQ actually shows that poison and the hit are related, because you must hit.

Ah, but only because the FAQ said they are. Right? They corrected the BRB, further stating that requiring a 7+ to hit means you cannot cause Poison. Without that FAQ, you could need a 7+ to hit, but have 5+ Poison, and still technically auto-wound on a 5+. Killing Blow has no such FAQ stating "a roll must successfully wound to cause Killing Blow". And since it and Poison are both independent rules that trigger on another roll...yeah.

I think that makes sense. That's actually set it even further in stone for me.
The need an FAQ.

Warpsolution wrote:
I agree. You roll to wound, and consult the chart. But on a 6, another, entirely separate rule is triggered.
Like "for every successful armour save the model makes, it inflicts a S4 hit on an enemy in base contact". The hit is triggered due to a certain result on the armour save. It is, of course, not in any way part of the armour save. It's a separate rule that comes into play when specific conditions of another rule are met.

Generally I agree. But even in your example, the first process has been completed. You have finished rolling your saves and the results are complete. Your saves have triggered the S4 hits. Start and end to process.
Can you explain the order of your process? I am having trouble with your flow chart.

 Throt wrote:
Otherwise the dice roll would not be required or would specifically stated separately.

I'm not sure if I understand.
You think that we need permission to consider two rules as separate instances?
One could argue that the to Hit/to Wound/armour/Regeneration or Ward process is all one thing. But they're not. They each have their own entries and rules, even though they play off each other. Like Killing Blow and the to Wound roll.

If KB was a separate rule from wounds you would not roll to wound. You would be told to roll for KB. Separate from rolling to wound. Similar to when weapons require toughness tests or die, they are separate because they do not use the wound characteristic.
I would not argue that any of the hit/wound etc. are the same. EVERY one has a specific start and finish point. In effect, roll for reason 'x'. End with result of pass or fail.

 Throt wrote:
Auto hits do not cause KB because they need the dice roll which locks you in the wounding process.

Do you mean auto-wounds? Or are you talking about Poison?

Sorry typo, watching Impractical Jokers at the same time. Yes I mean auto wounds.

It is similar to X# of wounds. But it doesn't say that. It says instantly slain, regardless of the number of wounds. Regardless, as in, no regard for. Do not regard. Ignore. Don't look at.
It doesn't say "remove from play", but it does not say "X# of wounds", either. It's a different animal entirely. Due to unclear writing, I'm sure.

Actually it says automatically, not instantly. Maybe this is where the confusion comes in. They are 2 entirely different words/circumstance.
Your use of regardless is incorrect as well. Regardless is in the relation to the NUMBER of wounds, not the wounds. I.E. automatically slain, (ignoring the number) of wounds. So in part you are correct. Do not read, ignore or don't look at the number.
The sentence is entirely accurate and simply stated.

 Throt wrote:
Poison attacks are still hits, just as KB are still wounds...The FAQ actually shows that poison and the hit are related, because you must hit.

Ah, but only because the FAQ said they are. Right? They corrected the BRB, further stating that requiring a 7+ to hit means you cannot cause Poison. Without that FAQ, you could need a 7+ to hit, but have 5+ Poison, and still technically auto-wound on a 5+. Killing Blow has no such FAQ stating "a roll must successfully wound to cause Killing Blow". And since it and Poison are both independent rules that trigger on another roll...yeah.

I think that makes sense. That's actually set it even further in stone for me.
The need an FAQ.

Actually they were always hits. In close combat 5+ will always hit. No rule conflict.
But you are right about the poison conflict, but approaching from the wrong direction.The question most likely came about when having Poison 5+ (probably skink blow guns) and shooting at long range, skirmishers, whatever modifiers, causing you to need a 6 to hit. This would the create a conflicting rule it in no way representative of not being hits.
This is similar to where I see the misinterpretation of KB..

I won't be responding to more on poison because it will drift off topic, and since you worked hard to try to narrow this I'd hate to go for naught.

As for KB, a 6 is a wound. So if you rolled a 6 you successfully wounded, there was no need for the BRB to state otherwise. You have no instructions to change that. KB (triggered on that6) has changed your single wound to all the wounds.

So let me jump the gun for what will come next...I guess there is some magic item that makes it possible to have a 5+ KB.
That circumstance/item would require a FAQ. (imo)To which I believe should go this way.
Do you still need to be able to successfully wound to cause a 5+ KB?
YES, you must still be able to wound on a 5+. Which I believe would be the correct answer.
How would your stance on KB go if they answered this way?

*edits for grammar*

 Throt wrote:
Generally I agree. But even in your example, the first process has been completed. You have finished rolling your saves and the results are complete. Your saves have triggered the S4 hits. Start and end to process.

Fair enough. They're not identical.

 Throt wrote:
Can you explain the order of your process? I am having trouble with your flow chart.

1. Roll to hit. 2. Roll to Wound. 3 and/or 4. consult the to wound chart and the rules for Killing Blow. Either one after the other, or simultaneously. Since the rules don't tell us explicitly, I'm guessing it's up to the player who's turn it is, as usual. Which means that, technically speaking, you could Killing Blow someone in a challenge, and score +1 overkill from the wound that was caused by that same roll.

 Throt wrote:
If KB was a separate rule from wounds you would not roll to wound. You would be told to roll for KB.

That would certainly make sense. But there's no reason for it. There could be a rule that goes, "every time the model rolls a 1 when making a Leadership test, it inflicts a S5 hit...", and it would be the same thing. One is activated off the other, but they aren't the same thing.

 Throt wrote:
Actually it says automatically, not instantly. Maybe this is where the confusion comes in. They are 2 entirely different words/circumstance.
Your use of regardless is incorrect as well. Regardless is in the relation to the NUMBER of wounds, not the wounds. I.E. automatically slain, (ignoring the number) of wounds. So in part you are correct. Do not read, ignore or don't look at the number.

I wasn't quoting the book there, just going from memory. Yeah, it says automatically. That doesn't change anything in regards to whether or not Killing Blow is an extension of the rules regarding wounds or a separate rule all together.
And yes, I'm well aware of the fact that "regardless" is referring to the number of wounds. But you're still ignoring the number of wounds. You're not looking at the number, and dealing that many. You're automatically slaying the model, regardless of what that number is.

 Throt wrote:
I won't be responding to more on poison because it will drift off topic, and since you worked hard to try to narrow this I'd hate to go for naught.

If things get off-topic, we'll remedy it. But as it stands, I think it's a huge help.

 Throt wrote:
Actually they were always hits. In close combat 5+ will always hit. No rule conflict.
But you are right about the poison conflict, but approaching from the wrong direction.The question most likely came about when having Poison 5+ (probably skink blow guns) and shooting at long range, skirmishers, whatever modifiers, causing you to need a 6 to hit. This would the create a conflicting rule it in no way representative of not being hits.
This is similar to where I see the misinterpretation of KB.

I was indeed talking about ranged combat. But there's also stacking high WS with penalties to hit (Fencer's Blades + Glittering Scales), where you need a 6+.
That's exactly my point, though. Poison had a conflict--you'd technically be allowed to auto-wound without hitting without the FAQ.
So, without the FAQ, Killing Blow can auto-slay without wounding normally.

 Throt wrote:
That circumstance/item would require a FAQ. (imo)To which I believe should go this way.
Do you still need to be able to successfully wound to cause a 5+ KB?
YES, you must still be able to wound on a 5+. Which I believe would be the correct answer.
How would your stance on KB go if they answered this way?

I would say that there's yet more evidence that Killing Blow causes wounds. But they'd still need to state it explicitly in its rules. Something like:
"...if a 6 is rolled, instead of causing 1 wound, the target suffers as many wounds as they have on their profile..."

Warpsolution wrote:

1. Roll to hit. 2. Roll to Wound. 3 and/or 4. consult the to wound chart and the rules for Killing Blow. Either one after the other, or simultaneously. Since the rules don't tell us explicitly, I'm guessing it's up to the player who's turn it is, as usual. Which means that, technically speaking, you could Killing Blow someone in a challenge, and score +1 overkill from the wound that was caused by that same roll.

I don't understand what you mean with 3 and 4. And/or consult the to wound or use KB? Is that what you mean? Either one after the other or simultaneously?? So you just get to pick what you want the rules to do?
That is definitely not right.

That would certainly make sense. But there's no reason for it. There could be a rule that goes, "every time the model rolls a 1 when making a Leadership test, it inflicts a S5 hit...", and it would be the same thing. One is activated off the other, but they aren't the same thing.

You are correct. Because they aren't the same. It is a specific rule.
But if your rule said anytime you roll doubles(your 6 on KB) on a leadership test(to wound) you automatically passed or failed regardless of the total(Slain)...what would you be passing or failing?
If it wasn't LD, then the rule would be meaningless because your break tests(and similar) are based on the model LD.

I wasn't quoting the book there, just going from memory. Yeah, it says automatically. That doesn't change anything in regards to whether or not Killing Blow is an extension of the rules regarding wounds or a separate rule all together.
And yes, I'm well aware of the fact that "regardless" is referring to the number of wounds. But you're still ignoring the number of wounds. You're not looking at the number, and dealing that many. You're automatically slaying the model, regardless of what that number is.

Correct. So this will be bad English but I will use it to show that you cannot just dismiss the wounds. We look at the sentence.
...automatically slain, [removed] of wounds.

I was indeed talking about ranged combat. But there's also stacking high WS with penalties to hit (Fencer's Blades + Glittering Scales), where you need a 6+.
That's exactly my point, though. Poison had a conflict--you'd technically be allowed to auto-wound without hitting without the FAQ.
So, without the FAQ, Killing Blow can auto-slay without wounding normally.

As it stands KB has to wound normally which a 6 does. Tomb kings created the KB conflict after the 8th edition rulebook, so it is not proof against wounds. Only creation of conflict that does need a FAQ.
But as of now, without a FAQ, KB can kill models without wounding normally. It is a conflict on S vs. T . This does not show evidence that no wounds are caused. Poison does not wound normally but they are still wounds
Just because poison and KB have similar circumstance does not determine that they have any direct correlation. The fact that you can need a 7+ plus to hit shows basic differences Take daemonic instability and undead instability.
.

I would say that there's yet more evidence that Killing Blow causes wounds. But they'd still need to state it explicitly in its rules. Something like:
"...if a 6 is rolled, instead of causing 1 wound, the target suffers as many wounds as they have on their profile..."

Thank you for seeing it my way.
Just kidding, I'm sure you meant to say '..more evidence that Killing Blow does not cause wounds'
The thing is...that's what the KB rules say, it is just worded differently

 Throt wrote:
I don't understand what you mean with 3 and 4. And/or consult the to wound or use KB? Is that what you mean? Either one after the other or simultaneously?? So you just get to pick what you want the rules to do?
That is definitely not right.

What I meant was: there are two steps, one may come after the other, or vise versa, or they both happen at the same time. That happens plenty of times in this game.

 Throt wrote:
But if your rule said anytime you roll doubles(your 6 on KB) on a leadership test(to wound) you automatically passed or failed regardless of the total(Slain)...what would you be passing or failing?

It was a weak analogy to begin with. What is quoted above does not work at all. Different situation entirely.

 Throt wrote:
...automatically slain, [removed] of wounds.

Do you have any hard, non-interpretive evidence that "removed" is the same as "regardless of the number of"? Because I do not think they are at all the same.

 Throt wrote:
As it stands KB has to wound normally which a 6 does. Tomb kings created the KB conflict after the 8th edition rulebook, so it is not proof against wounds. Only creation of conflict that does need a FAQ.

The Tomb King Book came out after the 8th edition book...

 Throt wrote:
Thank you for seeing it my way.
Just kidding, I'm sure you meant to say '..more evidence that Killing Blow does not cause wounds'
The thing is...that's what the KB rules say, it is just worded differently

1. No need for coyness. 2. That is what I meant to say. Exactly. As I've said, time and again: I think the rules should work as you say they do. But the rules, as of now, do not seem to work that way. 3. Please don't tell me "that's what the rules say". Obviously it's up for debate. As we are debating.

The kb rules do NOT state they cause wounds.

If they did state this, there is no need for the reference in scoring to the fact that it counts as scoring wounds

This is the biggest undermine of any kb = wounds argument, and has been roundly ignored

Warpsolution wrote:
What I meant was: there are two steps, one may come after the other, or vise versa, or they both happen at the same time. That happens plenty of times in this game.

All steps happen in an order. Each must be completed before moving on. If KB is not causing wounds then you are stuck with incomplete processes.
6+successful wound then Kb just slays the target (as is the argument). Now you have a successful wound that is waiting incompleted. We know that a 6 wounds. As long as it is wounding what do we do with it now?

But if your rule said anytime you roll doubles(your 6 on KB) on a leadership test(to wound) you automatically passed or failed regardless of the total(Slain)...what would you be passing or failing? It was a weak analogy to begin with. What is quoted above does not work at all. Different situation entirely.

Why does it not work.? The sentences is the same other than using leadership.
Every dice roll in this game is tied to a statistic or specific function. This is indicative of what you are doing. Can you tell me a time you roll a dice for anything that does not have anything to do with its comparative roll?
You can view all functions backwards to their root dice as well and what you were rolling for which will tell you what you are doing. The purpose of the roll shows what you are doing in every game instance. Every single time.
slain>KB>rolled a six to wound>why did you roll>rolling to wound. Shows you were wounding
ran from combat>Failed break test>rolled 12>why>lost combat res which tests ld. Shows Ld.

Do you have any hard, non-interpretive evidence that "removed" is the same as "regardless of the number of"? Because I do not think they are at all the same.

I was not clear. I used [removed] to show how the sentence would appear when we 'ignore' the section that is ' regardless of the number without editing for proper grammar. So essentially it says
..automatically slain, of wounds.

The Tomb King Book came out after the 8th edition book...

That is what I said. It came after. It shows a conflict in the S vs. T comparison. Because up until that book you were always successfully wounding when you did a KB. Therefore causing wounds.
The Tomb Kings book doesn't change what was done prior, but shows an error in the book that was written

1. No need for coyness. 2. That is what I meant to say. Exactly. As I've said, time and again: I think the rules should work as you say they do. But the rules, as of now, do not seem to work that way. 3. Please don't tell me "that's what the rules say". Obviously it's up for debate. As we are debating.

My apologies. You have argued in favor of no wounds, I thought you made a typo. Failed attempt at light hearted jab.
As for my response of that being what the rues say, it was in reference to your sentence..
"...if a 6 is rolled,(If a 6 is rolled to wound) instead of causing 1 wound, the target suffers as many wounds as they have on their profile..."(, the model is automatically slain regardless of the number of wounds)
Though not as specific the sentence has the same meaning. Regardless of the number means the same because it is covering from 1 to an infinite number.
Here is a grammar example in non game terms.
If you borrow a dollar today and then more later, pay me back on friday regardless of how much you borrow.
Would you assume that they don't want that first dollar back?
He does not need to say instead of paying me the first dollar, pay me back all the money you borrowed.
.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The kb rules do NOT state they cause wounds.

If they did state this, there is no need for the reference in scoring to the fact that it counts as scoring wounds

This is the biggest undermine of any kb = wounds argument, and has been roundly ignored

I have never ignored it. I have answered it appropriately and the response has been dismissed.
Read my last post to warpsolution and you will see multiple examples of how it does state it and does not require a specific "KB causes wounds"
I have also responded to scoring wounds as well..simply stated, scoring wounds is proper language when you are adding up your score for combat res. Another dismissed response.

 Throt wrote:
All steps happen in an order. Each must be completed before moving on. If KB is not causing wounds then you are stuck with incomplete processes.
6+successful wound then Kb just slays the target (as is the argument). Now you have a successful wound that is waiting incompleted. We know that a 6 wounds. As long as it is wounding what do we do with it now?

Two things. We either discount it, as the model is slain, or we say "the model is automatically slain, and also suffers another wound".

 Throt wrote:
Why does it not work.? The sentences is the same other than using leadership.
Every dice roll in this game is tied to a statistic or specific function. This is indicative of what you are doing. Can you tell me a time you roll a dice for anything that does not have anything to do with its comparative roll?

It doesn't work because "you automatically pass or fail" is explicitly saying that you either pass or fail. Whereas Killing Blow says "the model is slain", which may or may not equal "the model takes X wounds".
Can I tell you of a tile that I roll a die that leads to an unrelated situation? Sure. Lots of times. Like, "every time this model passes an armour save, an enemy unit in base contact takes a S5 hit". The armour save triggers a totally different rule; that of another hit, another wound, and further saves, etc. Rolling a 6 follows the rules for armour, but also for the add-on rule that is triggered by those circumstances.

 Throt wrote:
I was not clear. I used [removed] to show how the sentence would appear when we 'ignore' the section that is ' regardless of the number without editing for proper grammar. So essentially it says
..automatically slain, of wounds.

Ah. Then you were perfectly clear. I just don't think that's any kind of evidence. If we ignore part of the rules...yeah. It'll read differently. But we can't ignore the rules. They're the rules.

 Throt wrote:
That is what I said. It came after. It shows a conflict in the S vs. T comparison. Because up until that book you were always successfully wounding when you did a KB. Therefore causing wounds.
The Tomb Kings book doesn't change what was done prior, but shows an error in the book that was written

So...even though they had the BRB to reference, they just messed up? Could be. I'd even say probably. But that's not a solid argument. The rules in the BRB function just fine without an FAQ, and with the TK book. They just function in a way that seems weird.

 Throt wrote:
Though not as specific the sentence has the same meaning. Regardless of the number means the same because it is covering from 1 to an infinite number.

Obviously, the sentence's current meaning is ambiguous. Thus, this conversation.
Yes, my revision is more specific. As in, it is clear. Which the current one is not.

 Throt wrote:
Here is a grammar example in non game terms.
If you borrow a dollar today and then more later, pay me back on friday regardless of how much you borrow.
Would you assume that they don't want that first dollar back?
He does not need to say instead of paying me the first dollar, pay me back all the money you borrowed.

This isn't the same thing. This is something happening, and then it being undone. Killing Blow is a situation that results in an additional effect.
Every time someone tries to do this sort of thing, I cringe. Because it's never the same thing. Even in-game comparisons are a stretch, 9 out of 10 times. This sort of argument never works. I've never seen someone say "upon further review of your metaphor, you are correct. My mistake". It's only talking directly about the task at hand that these things come to a close.

Warpsolution wrote:
Two things. We either discount it, as the model is slain, or we say "the model is automatically slain, and also suffers another wound".

You are saying that we can discount it without specific instruction, but we don't cause wounds because we don't have specific instruction? You are already in the wounding process, as has been discussed you cannot just be slain.
What dice roll slayed the model.?

It doesn't work because "you automatically pass or fail" is explicitly saying that you either pass or fail. Whereas Killing Blow says "the model is slain", which may or may not equal "the model takes X wounds".
Can I tell you of a tile that I roll a die that leads to an unrelated situation? Sure. Lots of times. Like, "every time this model passes an armour save, an enemy unit in base contact takes a S5 hit". The armour save triggers a totally different rule; that of another hit, another wound, and further saves, etc. Rolling a 6 follows the rules for armour, but also for the add-on rule that is triggered by those circumstances.

When I said pass or fail I was generalizing for the doubles. It could be fail. So double automatically fail, just as you are automatically slain. Ld was your roll as wounds are to your KB.
As we discussed prior each action is completed before moving on. You will complete your armor save triggering the s5 hit. The armor save process is finished.
KB must cause wounds to finish the wounding process. Otherwise you have conflict. You either have a KB waiting to happen or a wound left to be resolved.

Ah. Then you were perfectly clear. I just don't think that's any kind of evidence. If we ignore part of the rules...yeah. It'll read differently. But we can't ignore the rules. They're the rules.

We are not ignoring anything. We are removing that portion. The part of the discussion was in referring to regardless of the number...
It is proper grammar that is showing wounds are still relevant.

So...even though they had the BRB to reference, they just messed up? Could be. I'd even say probably. But that's not a solid argument. The rules in the BRB function just fine without an FAQ, and with the TK book. They just function in a way that seems weird.

Exactly this is the point. TK and the 5+ does nothing to benefit the discussion.

Obviously, the sentence's current meaning is ambiguous. Thus, this conversation
Yes, my revision is more specific. As in, it is clear. Which the current one is not..

THe original wording is not ambiguous. It only has one meaning and is being misinterpreted. Often because of extra and incorrect annalasys. This argument has broken into defining singular words, bouncing off other pages to prove one word or another. Generating confusion that is not there.

This isn't the same thing. This is something happening, and then it being undone. Killing Blow is a situation that results in an additional effect.
Every time someone tries to do this sort of thing, I cringe. Because it's never the same thing. Even in-game comparisons are a stretch, 9 out of 10 times. This sort of argument never works. I've never seen someone say "upon further review of your metaphor, you are correct. My mistake". It's only talking directly about the task at hand that these things come to a close.

Yet the metaphors are necessary at this point.
The task at hand is the one sentence that people are struggling with and breaking down. You yourself have used multiple in game comparisons, poison for example.
...on a to wound roll of 6 the model is slain regardless of the number of wounds.
The sentence tells you everything you need to know. The significant characteristics, the necessary dice roll, and the outcome.
The reason for the metaphor is you are attempting to undo the wound that has been done. You are already in the wounding process the only way out is to wound.

 Throt wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:
Two things. We either discount it, as the model is slain, or we say "the model is automatically slain, and also suffers another wound".

You are saying that we can discount it without specific instruction, but we don't cause wounds because we don't have specific instruction? You are already in the wounding process, as has been discussed you cannot just be slain.
What dice roll slayed the model.?

We know what Slain means, the Wounds characteristic is reduced to 0 or less, this can be done via special rules or magic the same way as when a model's Strength or Toughness is reduced to 0 or less. We do not consult the Saves process, we look right here:

 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).

Now let's look back at Killing Blow:

"A ward save can be attempted - if pased, the ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but damage does not equate to wounds, a grouping of wounds is not a damage; in the rules and in english in general.

So otherwise, you're now arguing that a Wound is still done and a Ward Save that block a Killing Blow still has a Wound to be dealt with, in which case you are arguing to make Killing Blow more powerful (automatically slain and a seperate wound which must be saved and dealth with seperately).

To be direct in my points: you are not wounded, you are slain and removed from play via the Characteristic of 0 subheading on p4. The Killing Blow rule at no point carries the character of a wound when it comes into effect. If you do not 'discard' (for lack of a better term) the 'wound' (or rather end the process upon the Ward Save being successful or a failure) then you're carrying through a different process.

Since everyone is so fond of unrelated examples: there is a conversation between two gentlemen, one named Mr Attack, one named Mr Target.

Regular Attack
Mr Attack: Hello Mr Target
Mr Target: Hello Mr Attack
Mr Attack: Nice weather we're having isn't it Mr Target?
Mr Target: Yes indeed Mr Attack.

Killing Blow Attack
Mr Attack: Hello Mr Target
Mr Target: Hello Mr Attack
Mr Attack: Nice weather we're having isn't it Mr Target?
[roll 6 to wound]
MR KILLING BLOW: *giant luchador bursts through the door and suplexes Mr Target*

 Ehsteve wrote:

 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).

Strength and Toughness are not wounds.
Don't drift off topic. We know the model is slain.
This has no bearing on KB.

Now let's look back at Killing Blow:

"A ward save can be attempted - if pased, the ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but damage does not equate to wounds, a grouping of wounds is not a damage; in the rules and in english in general.

So otherwise, you're now arguing that a Wound is still done and a Ward Save that block a Killing Blow still has a Wound to be dealt with, in which case you are arguing to make Killing Blow more powerful (automatically slain and a seperate wound which must be saved and dealth with seperately).

To be direct in my points: you are not wounded, you are slain and removed from play via the Characteristic of 0 subheading on p4. The Killing Blow rule at no point carries the character of a wound when it comes into effect. If you do not 'discard' (for lack of a better term) the 'wound' (or rather end the process upon the Ward Save being successful or a failure) then you're carrying through a different process.

You are incorrect. And jumbling yourself.
None of that is what I am saying. Your example is what would happen if no wounds are caused by KB because you have unfinished results.
What characteristic is reduced to Zero?
What was the relevant dice roll doing?
Everything in this game is tied to dice as stated in my other posts.

 Throt wrote:

Now let's look back at Killing Blow:

"A ward save can be attempted - if pased, the ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but damage does not equate to wounds, a grouping of wounds is not a damage; in the rules and in english in general.

So otherwise, you're now arguing that a Wound is still done and a Ward Save that block a Killing Blow still has a Wound to be dealt with, in which case you are arguing to make Killing Blow more powerful (automatically slain and a seperate wound which must be saved and dealth with seperately).

To be direct in my points: you are not wounded, you are slain and removed from play via the Characteristic of 0 subheading on p4. The Killing Blow rule at no point carries the character of a wound when it comes into effect. If you do not 'discard' (for lack of a better term) the 'wound' (or rather end the process upon the Ward Save being successful or a failure) then you're carrying through a different process.

You are incorrect. And jumbling yourself.
None of that is what I am saying. Your example is what would happen if no wounds are caused by KB because you have unfinished results.
What characteristic is reduced to Zero?
What was the relevant dice roll doing?
Everything in this game is tied to dice as stated in my other posts.

Then you can enjoy arguing RAI all day. Your logical conclusion results in two entirely seperate events occuring: a Wound and a Killing Blow event, which means that even if the Killing Blow is unsuccessful, the target must still save against a regular wound.

A reduction of a model's wound characteristic is not a wound.

Meanwhile, as per the YMDC tenets (see here), please provide definitive evidence for a RAW interpretation which states that Killing Blow is wholly a wound. By all means, say that I am jumbled, but do so after going through the rules in the BRB/FAQ, finding relevant quotes and forming a constructive argument which presents your thought process as such.

 Ehsteve wrote:

 Throt wrote:

Now let's look back at Killing Blow:

"A ward save can be attempted - if pased, the ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but damage does not equate to wounds, a grouping of wounds is not a damage; in the rules and in english in general.

So otherwise, you're now arguing that a Wound is still done and a Ward Save that block a Killing Blow still has a Wound to be dealt with, in which case you are arguing to make Killing Blow more powerful (automatically slain and a seperate wound which must be saved and dealth with seperately).

To be direct in my points: you are not wounded, you are slain and removed from play via the Characteristic of 0 subheading on p4. The Killing Blow rule at no point carries the character of a wound when it comes into effect. If you do not 'discard' (for lack of a better term) the 'wound' (or rather end the process upon the Ward Save being successful or a failure) then you're carrying through a different process.

You are incorrect. And jumbling yourself.
None of that is what I am saying. Your example is what would happen if no wounds are caused by KB because you have unfinished results.
What characteristic is reduced to Zero?
What was the relevant dice roll doing?
Everything in this game is tied to dice as stated in my other posts.

Then you can enjoy arguing RAI all day. Your logical conclusion results in two entirely seperate events occuring: a Wound and a Killing Blow event, which means that even if the Killing Blow is unsuccessful, the target must still save against a regular wound.

A reduction of a model's wound characteristic is not a wound.

Meanwhile, as per the YMDC tenets (see here), please provide definitive evidence for a RAW interpretation which states that Killing Blow is wholly a wound. By all means, say that I am jumbled, but do so after going through the rules in the BRB/FAQ, finding relevant quotes and forming a constructive argument which presents your thought process as such.

I have answered this many times.
The characteristic affected is wounds. It is written that they are wounds. This should not be an issue.
If your toughness is affected it is not wounds..it is toughness, again, not an issue.
Rules as written rolling a 6 to wound causes a wound. You have no instruction to ignore it as you do with multiple wounds. If you just remove the model you are stuck with a caused wound and can never complete the process. You also lack instruction to cause a wound then slay.
What do you propose happens with that wound. Every process has a start and finish tied to a statistic when rolling. See examples above.
You must complete the wounding process to move on to the saving throw process.
6 to wound and the model is slain regardless of the number of wounds.
KB is simply a wound modifier the effects are the same
Single wound model affected by KB..6>Kb>1 wound
Multi wound model affected by Kb 6>KB>all wounds
No problems no conflicts. All game process followed.

Feel free to not take part and assume you are correct or answer my 2 prior questions plus these 2.
How else do you remove wounds if you are not causing them?
What examples do you have of removing wounds without causing wounds?