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.

easysauce wrote:

not even close... power weapons do not cause ID, thats like saying kahrn is immuned to difficult terrain while in open terrain... it just doesnt make sense...

no weapon has ID in its rules,

ID is is simply caused in two ways, either 2x str or from the force rule,
instant death from force weapons is one separate, independent entity.
instant death from an ATTACK (not weapon, RAW specifically say 2x str from an attack, not a weapon) is completely separate.

Stop playing 5th edition. Pick your rulebook up and notice they are very clear that WEAPONS cause wounds, ranged and close combat. Note the basic CCW profile : S: USER.

Weapons cause wounds in 6th edition. You are arguing a point proven wrong about 10 times already in this thread, indicating you have not done anyone here the courtesy of actually reading it, as you are making a debunked argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

easysauce wrote:

not even close... power weapons do not cause ID, thats like saying kahrn is immuned to difficult terrain while in open terrain... it just doesnt make sense...

no weapon has ID in its rules,

ID is is simply caused in two ways, either 2x str or from the force rule,
instant death from force weapons is one separate, independent entity.
instant death from an ATTACK (not weapon, RAW specifically say 2x str from an attack, not a weapon) is completely separate.

Stop playing 5th edition. Pick your rulebook up and notice they are very clear that WEAPONS cause wounds, ranged and close combat. Note the basic CCW profile : S: USER.

Weapons cause wounds in 6th edition. You are arguing a point proven wrong about 10 times already in this thread, indicating you have not done anyone here the courtesy of actually reading it, as you are making a debunked argument.

Quoting for emphasis. People really need to read what they're responding to.

It seems to be an argument over wording of the rule now. So your saying that GW made Kharn just a bit tougher VS 1 Weapon the NDH.

I dont think so. Im voting that str 8 from any weapon kills him outright if he fails his invuln.

Its really a silly argument IMHO some read it one way and others read it another. Remember if it sounds to good to be true than it is.

< Taken by the void dragon >

If you're claiming that instant death from high strength isn't from the weapon, where is it coming from? You only have permission to use 1 weapon in close combat, reading through the close combat rules, all the attacks are made with the single weapon you choose. It's the weapon that gives user x2 strength, or S = user. Either way, the strength becomes the property of the weapon when you choose to use it at the start of the combat phase.

-Matt

As a veteran of the thread, i left it about two weeks ago. I thought it was finished. Deathreaper had been proven wrong (despite his ravings) and a general consensus had been reached.
I come back to dakkadakka to find this.
To all the people for believe kharn dies from ID; read the gakking thread.
Everything you can logically say to defend your position has already been debunked, by myself, nosferatu, rigeld or jameadean.
Open the rule book and read the rules concerning all the topics you are arguing. You will find that without making up context or false rules, there is no defense for kharn dying. The rules state very clearly, that he lives through it. And if you actually read the rules, you would realize that read as written: kharn cannot be ID'd from force weapons in any fashion currently.
Deal with it, and move on. Your efforts are wasted here.

Amazed that this is still going. Nothing new has been said.

When is this going to be locked?

Lungpickle wrote:
It seems to be an argument over wording of the rule now. So your saying that GW made Kharn just a bit tougher VS 1 Weapon the NDH.

I dont think so. Im voting that str 8 from any weapon kills him outright if he fails his invuln.

Its really a silly argument IMHO some read it one way and others read it another. Remember if it sounds to good to be true than it is.

You can vote for a houserule all you like, but it really CANNOT be read either way, as your houserule requires literally changing the words in the sentence to something else.

If you have a rules argument, different to every single debunked one on here, please present it for dissection, or note that your argument is "HIWPI" and not an actual rules argument.

How has this gone onto 14 pages???

this should have been over at the 2nd or 3rd

i am amazed at how people have managed to drag this on it is just basic english you cant really argue that this word does not mean this word or this word means these 9 other words

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.

Welcome to Dakka Dakka.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 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.

Welcome to Dakka Dakka.

SJ

A little confused here. You know that is not the way it works right jeffersonian? In 5th edition this was true, but in 6th edition you can very clearly read that qeapons cause wounds, not attacks. page 16 and 50 i do believe.
And yes, someone lock this thread already.

Neronoxx wrote:

 jeffersonian000 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.

Welcome to Dakka Dakka.

SJ

A little confused here. You know that is not the way it works right jeffersonian? In 5th edition this was true, but in 6th edition you can very clearly read that qeapons cause wounds, not attacks. page 16 and 50 i do believe.
And yes, someone lock this thread already.

I'm pretty sure you meant Neronoxx, not Jeffersonian. Especially since my previous posts on this thread have supported Kharn ignoring ID from Force Weapons, not just from activated Force Weapons. My post that you quoted was my way of pointing out how badly Dakka's YMDC forum has slid in allowing something that requires no argument to go 14 pages of circular debate with no end in sight. I'll admit humor is lost on the interwebz if it does involve cats.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

 jeffersonian000 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.

Welcome to Dakka Dakka.

SJ

A little confused here. You know that is not the way it works right jeffersonian? In 5th edition this was true, but in 6th edition you can very clearly read that qeapons cause wounds, not attacks. page 16 and 50 i do believe.
And yes, someone lock this thread already.

I'm pretty sure you meant Neronoxx, not Jeffersonian. Especially since my previous posts on this thread have supported Kharn ignoring ID from Force Weapons, not just from activated Force Weapons. My post that you quoted was my way of pointing out how badly Dakka's YMDC forum has slid in allowing something that requires no argument to go 14 pages of circular debate with no end in sight. I'll admit humor is lost on the interwebz if it does involve cats.



SJ

Did this really just happen? back to back cases of not finding the right person in the quote?? I hope you meany mywik Jeffersonian, as Neronoxx was the poster of the last post

I can haz?

I meant the right person, your joke just isnt as clear or funny as you might think.

I thought my triple joke was quite funny. : )

SJ

alright time to end this pointless humor

catz