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.

Kharn affectively has Eternal Warrior (Force Weapons), allowing him to ignore Instant Death from any weapon with the Force special rule. Not sure why that's so difficult for people to grasp.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Kharn affectively has Eternal Warrior (Force Weapons), allowing him to ignore Instant Death from any weapon with the Force special rule. Not sure why that's so difficult for people to grasp.

SJ

because they think that he has Eternal Warrior (Force Special Rule) even though his rules say Force Weapon.

Everyone is ignoring the fact that force weapons don't inflict instant death until after an unsaved wound has been inflited, this would happen at the same time kharns special rule kicks in, meaning that if the player who's turn it is decideds the order of the rules or if you randomise it, 50% of the time kharns special rule takes place before the force weapon activates, so for the rule to ignore the force special rule it'd have to ignore force weapon instant death before a force weapon was activated not after, thus placing the context at a stage of unactivated force weapons aswell as activated force weapons, from this we can discern the oringal context to mean, "if kharn sufferes an unsaved wound from a "force weapon"", not "if kharn sufferes an unsaved wound from an active "force weapon"". This means the force weapon, the weapon, not force weapon the rule. Meaning all instant death confered by a force weapon of any type. Considering a daemon hammer's special rule is to double the user's strength, which is confered by the daemon hammer, allowing the user to instand death an oponent, due to the daemon hammers altered attacks. The force weapon makes stikes at strength 8 which is ignored by kharn's rule.

alex567 wrote:
Everyone is ignoring the fact that force weapons don't inflict instant death until after an unsaved wound has been inflited,

You mean like literally ever Instant Death rule?

this would happen at the same time kharns special rule kicks in, meaning that if the player who's turn it is decideds the order of the rules or if you randomise it, 50% of the time kharns special rule takes place before the force weapon activates, so for the rule to ignore the force special rule it'd have to ignore force weapon instant death before a force weapon was activated not after, thus placing the context at a stage of unactivated force weapons aswell as activated force weapons, from this we can discern the oringal context to mean, "if kharn sufferes an unsaved wound from a "force weapon"", not "if kharn sufferes an unsaved wound from an active "force weapon"". This means the force weapon, the weapon, not force weapon the rule. Meaning all instant death confered by a force weapon of any type. Considering a daemon hammer's special rule is to double the user's strength, which is confered by the daemon hammer, allowing the user to instand death an oponent, due to the daemon hammers altered attacks. The force weapon makes stikes at strength 8 which is ignored by kharn's rule.

Not a single part of that is actual rules. Perhaps you should refer to them.

alex567 wrote:
Everyone is ignoring the fact that force weapons don't inflict instant death until after an unsaved wound has been inflited

... no.

Normally force weapons would requires a force test to inflict ID. However it is quite possible for a force weapon to strike at double a targets toughness.

In this case the daemon hammer strikes at str 8 so can cause ID without using the force rule. It is however a force weapon and force weapons cannot inflict ID on Kharn, so it still doesn't inflict ID.

pg. 37 main rulebook, force special rule, the test is not taken until after the unsave wound is inflicted. thus meaning that it is actualy possible for the force weapon to inflict instant death, before the weapon inflicts the unsaved wound, i.e. in the case of daemon hammers doubling the strength, I was refering to the context in which kharn ignores instant death, and it is not in the context of an activated force weapon, as previously discussed, but in the case of any force weapon, that is what I was trying to get across.

This statement means that people are perfectly justified to ignore double strength daemon hammers when taking wounds on kharn. I was just adding supporting evidence to keeping kharn alive.

If two rules happen at the same time, that oppose, then IIRC then the person who's turn it is gets to pick the order, or you randomise it? Don't quote me on that. That is what I meant by the 50% thing, but after re-reading it, an inflicted unsaved wound and an unsaved wound are to different things, i.e. kharns rule happens after the wound happens but before kharn takes it, also in the case of wound allocation where you take a save then allocate a wound.

alex567 wrote:
pg. 37 main rulebook, force special rule, the test is not taken until after the unsave wound is inflicted. thus meaning that it is actualy possible for the force weapon to inflict instant death, before the weapon inflicts the unsaved wound, i.e. in the case of daemon hammers doubling the strength, I was refering to the context in which kharn ignores instant death, and it is not in the context of an activated force weapon, as previously discussed, but in the case of any force weapon, that is what I was trying to get across.

You're wrong.
For any Instant Death wound you must cause an unsaved wound first. It's in the rules for Instant Death.

If two rules happen at the same time, that oppose, then IIRC then the person who's turn it is gets to pick the order, or you randomise it? Don't quote me on that. That is what I meant by the 50% thing, but after re-reading it, an inflicted unsaved wound and an unsaved wound are to different things, i.e. kharns rule happens after the wound happens but before kharn takes it, also in the case of wound allocation where you take a save then allocate a wound.

No, it's not if rules conflict - it's if two actions must happen at the same time. There's no conflict of actions here.

rigeld2 wrote:

alex567 wrote:
pg. 37 main rulebook, force special rule, the test is not taken until after the unsave wound is inflicted. thus meaning that it is actualy possible for the force weapon to inflict instant death, before the weapon inflicts the unsaved wound, i.e. in the case of daemon hammers doubling the strength, I was refering to the context in which kharn ignores instant death, and it is not in the context of an activated force weapon, as previously discussed, but in the case of any force weapon, that is what I was trying to get across.

You're wrong.
For any Instant Death wound you must cause an unsaved wound first. It's in the rules for Instant Death.

I was more refering to a force weapon able to inflict instant deat before rolling to be a force weapon, not at what time you actually kill the model, a daemon hammer inflicts instant death whether or not you use the force weapon rules, against targets half its strength value.

rigeld2 wrote:

alex567 wrote:
If two rules happen at the same time, that oppose, then IIRC then the person who's turn it is gets to pick the order, or you randomise it? Don't quote me on that. That is what I meant by the 50% thing, but after re-reading it, an inflicted unsaved wound and an unsaved wound are to different things, i.e. kharns rule happens after the wound happens but before kharn takes it, also in the case of wound allocation where you take a save then allocate a wound..

No, it's not if rules conflict - it's if two actions must happen at the same time. There's no conflict of actions here.

Kinda what I was trying to refere to, had conflict in my head, but meant something, else. I was thinking of some I1 versus I10 thread I encountered a while ago, and had conflict at the forefront of my mind.

alex567 wrote:

I was more refering to a force weapon able to inflict instant deat before rolling to be a force weapon,

heres your problem ... its always a force weapon. Force weapons give you access to the Force rule, which you may activate.

The blood god would be pleased with this 11 page debate over one of his favored sons. Wow! I would just let kharn not be instant gibbed... He has a special rule against anything force. Not your average rule everyone gets.

 Tri wrote:

alex567 wrote:

I was more refering to a force weapon able to inflict instant deat before rolling to be a force weapon,

heres your problem ... its always a force weapon. Force weapons give you access to the Force rule, which you may activate.

Again basically what I meant.

alex567 wrote:

 Tri wrote:

alex567 wrote:

I was more refering to a force weapon able to inflict instant deat before rolling to be a force weapon,

heres your problem ... its always a force weapon. Force weapons give you access to the Force rule, which you may activate.

Again basically what I meant.

Not really as kharn is not immune to instant death caused by the Force rule. He is immune to instant death from force weapons, doesn't matter how the force weapon tries to ID him, his rule lets him ignores it.

This has been going in circles for 11 pages because some people can not seem to understand that the way Kharn's rule is written is that he is immune to instant death from force WEAPONS, not just the force special rule. RAW is CLEAR and no matter HOW the force weapon inflicts instant death Kharn is not affected by the instant death given from the force weapon.

I also think IMHO that in this case RAW does = RAI

I leaning more in that direction now... RAW = RAI in this case.

Mywik wrote:
The Force Weapon is not what inflicts the wound. The daemon hammer doubles the wielders strength and can be used to inflict force weapon wounds. The str8 wound is therefore no force weapon wound. Thats how we play it anyway.

Bulls eye that is the correct wording, all the rest is rules lawyering and trying to exploit wordings resulting in cheating.

 Valek wrote:

Mywik wrote:
The Force Weapon is not what inflicts the wound. The daemon hammer doubles the wielders strength and can be used to inflict force weapon wounds. The str8 wound is therefore no force weapon wound. Thats how we play it anyway.

Bulls eye that is the correct wording, all the rest is rules lawyering and trying to exploit wordings resulting in cheating.

Sorry what?

Page 54 – Wargear, Nemesis Daemon Hammer.
Replace the first sentence of the second paragraph with the
following profile:
Range S AP Type
Daemon - x2 2 Melee, Concussive,
Hammer Daemonbane, Force,
Specialist Weapon,
Unwieldy.

If you are striking at strength 8 then you are using the above weapon. It is also a force weapon. Explain how a force weapon can cause instant death on kharn?

alex567 wrote:
If two rules happen at the same time, that oppose, then IIRC then the person who's turn it is gets to pick the order

that's a rule in Warhammer Fantasy.

 Valek wrote:

Mywik wrote:
The Force Weapon is not what inflicts the wound. The daemon hammer doubles the wielders strength and can be used to inflict force weapon wounds. The str8 wound is therefore no force weapon wound. Thats how we play it anyway.

Bulls eye that is the correct wording, all the rest is rules lawyering and trying to exploit wordings resulting in cheating.

So..A weapon doesn't cause wounds.

How do you get 2X the strength then? Do you just magically apply it out of thin air?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Valek wrote:

Mywik wrote:
The Force Weapon is not what inflicts the wound. The daemon hammer doubles the wielders strength and can be used to inflict force weapon wounds. The str8 wound is therefore no force weapon wound. Thats how we play it anyway.

Bulls eye that is the correct wording, all the rest is rules lawyering and trying to exploit wordings resulting in cheating.

So..A weapon doesn't cause wounds.

How do you get 2X the strength then? Do you just magically apply it out of thin air?

no, it seems they think a Waepon just applies a buff to the wielder, like all other equipment that isn't a weapon.

alex567 wrote:
pg. 37 main rulebook, force special rule, the test is not taken until after the unsave wound is inflicted. thus meaning that it is actualy possible for the force weapon to inflict instant death, before the weapon inflicts the unsaved wound, i.e. in the case of daemon hammers doubling the strength, I was refering to the context in which kharn ignores instant death, and it is not in the context of an activated force weapon, as previously discussed, but in the case of any force weapon, that is what I was trying to get across.

This statement means that people are perfectly justified to ignore double strength daemon hammers when taking wounds on kharn. I was just adding supporting evidence to keeping kharn alive.

If two rules happen at the same time, that oppose, then IIRC then the person who's turn it is gets to pick the order, or you randomise it? Don't quote me on that. That is what I meant by the 50% thing, but after re-reading it, an inflicted unsaved wound and an unsaved wound are to different things, i.e. kharns rule happens after the wound happens but before kharn takes it, also in the case of wound allocation where you take a save then allocate a wound.

yes, the force special rule. Kharn doesnt ignore instant death from the force special rule, he ignores instant death from force WEAPONS. The context is he ignores ID from a certain type of weapon. A daemon hammer is one of those types of weapons and thus he ignores ID from it. Doesnt matter if it is force ID or double toughness ID.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valek wrote:

Mywik wrote:
The Force Weapon is not what inflicts the wound. The daemon hammer doubles the wielders strength and can be used to inflict force weapon wounds. The str8 wound is therefore no force weapon wound. Thats how we play it anyway.

Bulls eye that is the correct wording, all the rest is rules lawyering and trying to exploit wordings resulting in cheating.

false. The daemonhammer does not double the wielders strength. He is still strength 4 for strength tests like Necron Portal of Exile.
The daemon hammer is a weapon, that can be used in cc, rolling to wound at double the wielders strength. 6th edition changed, you need a weapon in CC and the weapon causes the wounds.

1. Nemesis Force Weapons are considered force weapons with additional properties. Force Weapons are always force weapons even if the psychic abilities of said weapon are not activated.
2. Even if the strength of a force weapon wielder is double the wounded models toughness so that ID is caused, Kharn's rule prevents that from happening because the weapon used was a force weapon. If Kharn was hit by a Strength 8 salami stick instead and failed his save, he would be removed by ID.
3. Grey Knights typically do not have other combat weapon options available besides their NFWs, so they will always use said weapons in combat.

The moral of the story is that if you are a GK player then shoot the poo out of Kharn instead of relying on combat to kill him, or smack him 3 times with your NDH and not worry about ID. Kharn is absolutley intended to be able to withstand force weapons of all kinds, he is the solution to GKs for the Chaos SMs. Both RAW and RAI are satisfied.

Looks like no one answered my question as to how kharn made it through the halberds yet.

I believe we are clear on this, Kharn is fine vs any force weapon until it does 3 wounds total.

Regardless, this thread seems done. Vote for lock?

 Valek wrote:

Mywik wrote:
The Force Weapon is not what inflicts the wound. The daemon hammer doubles the wielders strength and can be used to inflict force weapon wounds. The str8 wound is therefore no force weapon wound. Thats how we play it anyway.

Bulls eye that is the correct wording, all the rest is rules lawyering and trying to exploit wordings resulting in cheating.

Except you would be the one cheating, as (If you had bothered to read the thread) you would have known that 6th edition is very, very clear that WEAPONS cause close combat wounds. Not the wielder. All damage is caused byt he weapon.

Perhaps you can prove or retract? Silence is concession

I dont think it is okay to say cheating... there is clearly a difference of opinion which is okay.

I was echoing the poster

The difference is one between an actual literal reading of the rule and one that relies on literally making up language that does not exist in the rules

It is a little like saying the sky is green when it is, factually, blue. Yes, the difference can be considered one of opinion, but it is actually someone is factually wrong.

Those saying he is not immune to ID from wounds caused by a FW are, factually, wrong. There is no debate on this.

RAW it is clear, any force weapon cannot cause ID no matter the circumstances, but you can always settle it with a friendly roll-off if somebody disagrees. Keep your games civil.

 juraigamer wrote:


I believe we are clear on this, Kharn is fine vs any force weapon until it does 3 wounds total.

Regardless, this thread seems done. Vote for lock?

Definite vote here, it is just going to keep going in circles

I agree with the Chaos (shudder) kharn should be immune, but if that's the case just hit him harder with gun fire. problem solved. (this post seems like it will only go in circles so unless GW comes out with an FAQ it is impossible to get the real intended answer.) Maybe they really wanted to stick it to grey knight players? Who Knows.

Why do people assume a codex written with full knowledge of the 6th edition rules, made AFTER S8+ FW were about, is not intended to do *exactly* what it says?

Currently RAW is totally unambiguous

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Currently RAW is totally unambiguous

That is true, but do not ignore the context of Kharns rule.