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.

DukeRustfield wrote:

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:
[
I'll keep asking

You remind me of that scene from the old tv show Cheers. "What color is the sky in your world, troll?" You haven't the slightest clue how the game works, how basic logic works, or apparently the English language. I tend to believe you're part of North Korean conspiracy to make the decadent Western peoples more stupid by trying to coerce us to answer nonsensical questions, over and over and over and over and over. You won't trick us, you commie stool! Go back to the shadows! /Gandalf

Or in other words you are incapable of answering so are resorting to being flippant, insulting and dismissive?

Answer the question.

Read the answers. He did, I did, others did.
With actual rules and page references.

Check the last 7 pages.

You are easily dismissed at this point, thus people being dismissive.

 kirsanth wrote:

The to-wound roll of six causes a successful wound.

So an armor save can be made for this wound as killing blow is not a function of this wound? For the purposes of combat resolution these wounds would have to be counted separately and you would of course be able to take an armor save, then regeneration or ward if applicable on the first wound, and then a ward save for the killing blow?

The to-wound roll of six triggers a KB.

Can you show me where it says that, as you say killing blow is a replacement effect, it also does a wound? Either killing blow is a type of wound or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirsanth wrote:
Read the answers. He did, I did, others did.
With actual rules and page references.

Check the last 7 pages.

You are easily dismissed at this point, thus people being dismissive.

It should be easy to answer me with one or two sentences then. He could even quote himself or the page where he has answered this.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

But it doesn't need to be successful.

A Saurus Scar Vet with the Steggadon Helm is Toughness 6.
He charges into a block of Tomb King Tomb Guard (S4).
The Liche priest casts D'Jafs Incantation of Cursed Blades; which gives the target killing blow. If it already has killing blow or heroic killing blow, it triggers on a 5+.

The Tombguard swing, and with S4 would normally need a 6+ to wound (vs T6)
Against the Steghelm Scar Vet, he is killing blowed on a 5+, even though that is not a successful wound. The requirement isn't a successful wound, only a specific number on the roll to wound.

-Matt

Wow, I was wondering where you were going with this, but great job! I doubt the trolls will care, but it shows that KB could care less what the results of the to wound table is (and it completely bypasses the result anyway). And it also buffs HKB, so there's the Tomb King and monster with HKB which are similarly affected.

What I'm failing to understand is how people fail to make the connection between being able to wound and an effect that requires being able to wound.

If you can't hurt someone, then you can't killing blow them. Simple as that.

Ethereal models need magic weapons to be hurt, that includes all special rules.

Yes, the scar vet scenario would work, because you can physically wound him.

But with ethereal vs killing blow, you need magic to wound them, therefore magic applies to killing blow.

@thedarkavenger:

Let me preface this by saying I don't really care either way in this argument and think that it has gone on too long. That being said, let me sum up the opposition's argument since you stated that you cannot understand.

1. Killing Blow does not require the ability to be able to wound. That's your first mistake. Killing Blow only requires a roll on the to-wound table; there is no requirement that you actually be able to wound the target.

2. "Hurt" isn't a game mechanic.

3. Ethereal models need a magic weapon to be "wounded." Again, "hurt" isn't a game mechanic, and the rules don't say that Ethereal models need a magic weapon to be "hurt."

4. Doesn't really matter other than to show that you can still KB something even when you have not successfully wounded them.

5. Yes you need magic to wound. No, you don't need to wound in order to Killing Blow, as demonstrated by the Scarvet example.

So, hopefully that explains the opposition's viewpoint enough for you to understand it. Even if you don't agree with it.

Where does it say Ethereal can't be hurt? If that was the case they would be immortal and never be able to be removed under any circumstances. That's pretty uber. It doesn't say they can't be harmed, hurt, fondled, tickled, kicked, spit on, head butt, or anything else. It says they cannot be wounded.

A Wound is a game term. To wound is a game term. Wounded is a game turn. Hurt is not. You are trying to rewrite the rules. That is the sole basis of the argument against KB working, making up rules that do not exist. Slay is not Wound. Say "slay" and "wounded" out loud. Do they sound the same? Do they look the same? Are their rules the same? Ethereal are immune to two things, movement impairment, and WOUNDS from non-magic sources. Not TO wound rolls. A wound is the successful outcome of a to wound.

As for scar vet, we can run this scenario a million ways.

Slann with Higher State of Consciousness. He's Ethereal. He has Life Magic, casts Throne of Vines. Casts Stone Skin. He has EIGHT Toughness(!!!). A tomb guard soooo needs a 6 to wound. Yet if he has Blades cast on him, he still KB's that fat bastard on a 5. Even though a 5 normally does absolutely nothing to the Slann without the enhanced KB. Because nowhere does KB say you have to wound something to Slay it. Or be able to Wound it. And Ethereal does not stop you from trying, it stops you from succeeding. Unfortunately for frogboy, a slay is not a wound.

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

The to-wound roll of six causes a successful wound.

So an armor save can be made for this wound as killing blow is not a function of this wound? For the purposes of combat resolution these wounds would have to be counted separately and you would of course be able to take an armor save, then regeneration or ward if applicable on the first wound, and then a ward save for the killing blow?

Assuming KB kicks in, it does not matter. Assuming it does not, it does not matter.

If it does, then KB states that all remaining wounds are counted for resolution. No matter what process you use, the same number of wounds are counted for combat resolution. (i.e. if you try to save the wound and it works, KB removes slays and counts all remaining wounds for CR. If the armor save fails, KB slays and counts all remaining wounds for CR. Either way, every remaining wound counts for CR and the model is slain. Note that in the first case Ethereal prevents the wound, but not the slaying - leading to the EXACT same result.)

If no KB (e.g. vs. MI/MC) then of course you would get armor.

Also, HawaiiMatt's example is awesome.

 kirsanth wrote:
[Assuming KB kicks in, it does not matter. Assuming it does not, it does not matter.

Sorry, but this does matter for the purposes of your argument.

Either Killing Blow is an effect that kicks off in addition to a successful/unsuccessful wound roll.

Or

Killing Blow is an effect that supplants and replaces a successful/unsuccessful wound roll when it meets the right criteria i.e a roll of 6 or 5+ when boosted with spells.

Now I of course think it is neither of these things, it just changes the function and criteria of the wound. However, lets forget about what I think at the moment, I'm going along with you here.

Please clarify for me which of the two above you are arguing Killing Blow is.

Read the examples, I explained why it does not actually matter.

 kirsanth wrote:
Read the examples, I explained why it does not actually matter.

I maintain it does, and if it doesn't it should be no problem for you to clarify which of the two examples I have given it is. It cannot be both.

You also maintain that you need someone to repeat themselves because you do not want to look upat the answer despite it being given to you.

It does not matter which way as the results are the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Killing Blow is a rule that states what happens when a 6 is rolled while attempting to wound.

Adding your words and examples in an attempt to muddy things does not help.

The rules as written are sufficient.

 kirsanth wrote:
[.

If it does, then KB states that all remaining wounds are counted for resolution. No matter what process you use, the same number of wounds are counted for combat resolution. (i.e. if you try to save the wound and it works, KB removes slays and counts all remaining wounds for CR. If the armor save fails, KB slays and counts all remaining wounds for CR. Either way, every remaining wound counts for CR and the model is slain. Note that in the first case Ethereal prevents the wound, but not the slaying - leading to the EXACT same result.).

What happens if it's on a multi-wound model and you fail the save for the wound which is just a wound and make the ward save against the killing blow portion? It could effect combat res so it would have to be rolled for.

Say some St4 Tomb guard are fighting some phoenix guard who have been given a +4 toughness buff. A 5 would be an unsuccessful wound but a successful killing blow, so they would have a ward save against the killing blow. a 6 would be both a successful wound which they would get a 6+ armour save and a 4+ ward, and then they would have to take be able to take a ward save against the killing blow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirsanth wrote:
You also maintain that you need someone to repeat themselves because you do not want to look upat the answer despite it being given to you.

It does not matter which way as the results are the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Killing Blow is a rule that states what happens when a 6 is rolled while attempting to wound.

Adding your words and examples in an attempt to muddy things does not help.

The rules as written are sufficient.

Stop ducking and answer the question please.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Peasant wrote:

It does nor need to say you 'need' a successful wound. That is the game process.

Of course it must be successful.

But it doesn't need to be successful.

A Saurus Scar Vet with the Steggadon Helm is Toughness 6.
He charges into a block of Tomb King Tomb Guard (S4).
The Liche priest casts D'Jafs Incantation of Cursed Blades; which gives the target killing blow. If it already has killing blow or heroic killing blow, it triggers on a 5+.

The Tombguard swing, and with S4 would normally need a 6+ to wound (vs T6)
Against the Steghelm Scar Vet, he is killing blowed on a 5+, even though that is not a successful wound. The requirement isn't a successful wound, only a specific number on the roll to wound.

-Matt

Make he Scar Vet ethereal and the to wound rolls are still not effective, but it would clearly still be slain.

Saldiven wrote:
@thedarkavenger:

Let me preface this by saying I don't really care either way in this argument and think that it has gone on too long. That being said, let me sum up the opposition's argument since you stated that you cannot understand.

I don't care either because this is not my game group. I do this for entertainment. We do not play the house rule that KB works on ethereal.
But let me break this down for my (me personally) side.
The main problems are created through ridiculous (IMO) attempts at rules lawyering. Looking for words and phrases that could create a potential (invalid) loophole, especially when used in an aggressive stance or from someone who is knowledgeable on the rules
So lets go over these since you were gracious enough to summarize...
Remember this discussion started in relation to ethereal.

1. Killing Blow does not require the ability to be able to wound. That's your first mistake. Killing Blow only requires a roll on the to-wound table; there is no requirement that you actually be able to wound the target.

This attempt here is one crux. We do not do things in this game that we cannot succeed at.
I'm going to assume than that when your opponents units have been reduced to weapon skill zero and have poison attacks, you allow them to roll to hit in case they get a 6...correct?
It says you can't attack with weapon skill 0, but you don't need to hit you just need a six when rolling to hit. I doubt it, it's just as ridiculous as the stance on KB. (IMO)
Why would it tell you to roll to wound if that was not the process?
If you are not rolling 'to wound' it would say roll a dice, on a 6 you strike a KB.
All 'non wounding' attacks/events ask you to remove from play or remove as a casualty.
You are using reverse logic which is contrary to how this game is played.
In this game you are told to roll to wound..
Oh ..wait.. I can't wound you because I don't have a magic weapon and you are ethereal.
Oh ..wait ..I have KB and it never says I have to wound..even though I am told to roll to wound....
Make sure you keep your consistency for poison.
Flame cage, you better take the hits because you could have moved and if you would have moved...I know ridiculous.
The roll is 'to wound'

2. "Hurt" isn't a game mechanic.

nope. Neither is slays or slain. Thankfully that part is done.

3. Ethereal models need a magic weapon to be "wounded." Again, "hurt" isn't a game mechanic, and the rules don't say that Ethereal models need a magic weapon to be "hurt."

Although you are correct on the term 'hurt'...you are effectively using the same standard with 'wounded'. Ethereal need a magic weapon to be wounded..KB never says you need to be 'wounded' (even though you roll TO WOUND) so it can by pass ethereal...hmm, 2 very similar ideas. Just smoke and mirrors.

4. Doesn't really matter other than to show that you can still KB something even when you have not successfully wounded them.

That is not correct. Because KB will slay regardless of the number of wounds. There is no difference other than the count for combat res, between getting the KB and causing a wound. If you lose your 1 wound you are slain from both and if you make your ward you aren't. The result is the same. It is just a grasp at the 'wound' term and again IMO rules lawyering for an advantage.

5. Yes you need magic to wound. No, you don't need to wound in order to Killing Blow, as demonstrated by the Scarvet example.

Again, a grasp at the 'wound' at it's literal sense. The spell is the same as giving a +1 to wound. Because you only get 2 results. Ward or lose all wounds. If you ward it is unsuccessful, if you fail you lose the wound/wounds.


So, hopefully that explains the opposition's viewpoint enough for you to understand it. Even if you don't agree with it.

From FAQ version 1.8

Page 52 – Calculate Combat Result, Wounds Inflicted.
Change “[...]counts as having scored all the slain model’s
remaining Wounds.” to “[...]score the same amount of
Wounds as the slain model has on its profile.” in the last
paragraph

And that should about finish this


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
KB COUNTS AS HAVING SCORED (LOOK, CAPS!).

Oh look, it doesn't say that at all. In fact they felt the need to change it in the FAQ from "counts as" to "score the same amount of wounds".

Bet you feel embarrassed about that "LOOK CAPS!" thing now

 Peasant wrote:

2. "Hurt" isn't a game mechanic.

nope. Neither is slays or slain. Thankfully that part is done.

Fail troll is fail. It's mentioned under Remove Casualties multiple times in CC. It's mentioned dozens of times throughout the BRB. Dwellers. /just flipped some pages p.106 Slain Riders or Mounts is an actual section heading for Monster Reaction. If it's not a game mechanic, no one in the game can ever die. Because casualties are used as a synonym for slain. "With saving throws made or failed, you now need to remove the slain." That is the first sentence from Remove Casualties. If there's no such thing as slain, nothing ever leaves the table.

Besides your incessant trolling, failure to understand English, most rudimentary lack of logic, your greatest crime is that you're not actually reading the book. This isn't quoting from some obscure passage under the fluff section of Dark Elves, if you don't know that slain is used all over the place and has a really specific meaning, I question whether you've read the BRB at all. Are you sure you're not in the wrong forum? Warmachines are down there v. Maybe their rules don't mention slain at all.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Fail troll is fail.

You have a disgusting lack of manners and respect.

It's mentioned under Remove Casualties multiple times in CC. It's mentioned dozens of times throughout the BRB. Dwellers. /just flipped some pages p.106 Slain Riders or Mounts is an actual section heading for Monster Reaction. If it's not a game mechanic, no one in the game can ever die. Because casualties are used as a synonym for slain. "With saving throws made or failed, you now need to remove the slain." That is the first sentence from Remove Casualties. If there's no such thing as slain, nothing ever leaves the table.

I have already listed for you where slay comes up in the BRB, I shall do so again.

p25 on fleeing
p31 on hex spells
p52 on WOUNDS INFLICTED
p87 on war machines where is describes how it can "slay fearsome monsters with a single shot"
p103 on overkill "if one model slays the other then any excess wounds they inflicted above and beyond those needed to slay the opponent"
p109 shooting at war machines "the crews armor save is still used to prevent any wounds inflicted, as it is they the attack is attempting to slay"
p111 on receiving bolt thrower hits "the bolt fails to slay a target "

Besides your incessant trolling, failure to understand English, most rudimentary lack of logic, your greatest crime is that you're not actually reading the book.

You seem to slip into being rude and disrespectful when you lack an answer.

if you don't know that slain is used all over the place and has a really specific meaning, I question whether you've read the BRB at all.

Actually I have shown that slay is a descriptive term and one that is most often used in conjunction with something that does wounds, by far. I question whether you have read the BRB at all.

I can do slain and slaying to if you want to be really pedantic....in fact I already have, that's why I am happy to.

I'm with the KB works on Ethereal units here. Unless your rule specifically states that you cannot be killed outright then you can.

An example from the Dark Elf book: Malekith's Armour of Midnight. "Heavy armour. 2+ ward save against non-magical attacks. Malekith can never suffer more than one wound from a single attack, so attacks that do multiple wounds or kill outright only ever inflict a single wound."

Notice that it makes a distinction between inflicting multiple wounds (i.e. D3, D6 etc.) and killing outright (i.e. KB, HKB, Dwellers Below etc.)

Does Ethereal have any rule which states that effects which kill outright can be ignored if they are not magical, considering that, as we've seen above, they are not the same as causing multiple wounds and the Ethereal special rule only protects against wounds?

DukeRustfield wrote:

 Peasant wrote:

2. "Hurt" isn't a game mechanic.

nope. Neither is slays or slain. Thankfully that part is done.

Fail troll is fail. It's mentioned under Remove Casualties multiple times in CC. It's mentioned dozens of times throughout the BRB. Dwellers. /just flipped some pages p.106 Slain Riders or Mounts is an actual section heading for Monster Reaction. If it's not a game mechanic, no one in the game can ever die. Because casualties are used as a synonym for slain. "With saving throws made or failed, you now need to remove the slain." That is the first sentence from Remove Casualties. If there's no such thing as slain, nothing ever leaves the table.

Besides your incessant trolling, failure to understand English, most rudimentary lack of logic, your greatest crime is that you're not actually reading the book. This isn't quoting from some obscure passage under the fluff section of Dark Elves, if you don't know that slain is used all over the place and has a really specific meaning, I question whether you've read the BRB at all. Are you sure you're not in the wrong forum? Warmachines are down there v. Maybe their rules don't mention slain at all.

Curious. What is it with so many that make accusations then proceed to call someone a troll and post paragraphs full of meaningless insults?
Hmm. Does that make you a troll?
Whatever this isn't the first time and won't be the last. Everybody is a tough guy on the Internet.

"With saving throws made or failed, you now need to remove the slain." That is the first sentence from Remove Casualties.

Yes it is.
Slays and slain is a description of the dead.
Slain is used all over the book to describe models that are dead, killed, reduced to zero wounds.
Sometimes the book says when you reach zero wounds, crushed under foot, stuffed in a bag..there are countless descriptions of when it is necessary to take models off the table
Removing the dead/casualties/ too badly wounded etc., is the game mechanic.
Pg45..."individual warriors are not necessarily dead, they may just be too badly wounded to fight on..."
So if we focus on slain..how do we determine who is slain or just too badly wounded?
Simple.. We just go with the game mechanic of removing casualties or models from the table.

And You are missing the point here...when you focus on the term rather than the mechanic " YOU" (being the player not the specific individual) open doors and create problems that were not intended to be there.
Your attempts at using 'wound' to be your deciding factor (kb vs. ethereal) has created the RAI problem. You roll to wound with the rules as they are written( standard game play, a roll to wound is to wound), but you create, by saying it does not count because you don't have to wound and it doesn't say it wounded, are creating rule as intended and the problem that was never there.
KB is based upon the 'W' or wound characteristic. The logical conclusion is that it wounds.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
IAn example from the Dark Elf book: Malekith's Armour of Midnight. "Heavy armour. 2+ ward save against non-magical attacks. Malekith can never suffer more than one wound from a single attack, so attacks that do multiple wounds or kill outright only ever inflict a single wound."

Notice that it makes a distinction between inflicting multiple wounds (i.e. D3, D6 etc.) and killing outright (i.e. KB, HKB, Dwellers Below etc.)

No, notice where it says "or kill outright only ever inflict a single wound". What we can actually see above is that is killing blow is a wound inflicting attack.

Multiple wounding hits like d3 wounds, d6 wound and Killing Blow. it even says"Malekith can never suffer more than one wound from a single attack" and then lists the things that do multiple wounds.

Where does it say Malekith is immune to instant kill effects? Does Malekith take one wound if he fails a ST test for Dwellers Below then? If he doesn't, weren't we arguing that Killing Blow is an instant kill effect, and as an instant attack, doesn't inflict wounds?

Malekith's armor states that the model takes a wound instead of being slain.

Any other reading is wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peasant wrote:

Curious. . . Does that make you a troll?

Calling someone on their gak is not trolling.

 kirsanth wrote:
Malekith's armor states that the model takes a wound instead of being slain.

Any other reading is wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peasant wrote:

Curious. . . Does that make you a troll?

Calling someone on their gak is not trolling.

Edits for structure and grammar.
If he has one wound and loses it he is slain.
We have been over slain. Repeatedly.
And now you want to be specific?
Roll to wound is very specific. Any other reading is wrong.
Try to be consistent.

We have been over what slain is. Try a rule. Slays and slain are not rules.
Of my last post your only response is about someone not being a troll?
Hmm ????
Are we done?

Your entire argument then, is that you think SLAIN or SLAY are not backed by rules?
Yet you insert words to explain why wounding is involved with slain models?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peasant wrote:
Are we done?

You do not understand my job any more than you understand the rules.

Editing to add:
It does not bother me that you are wrong, you are entitled to that.
The . . . fact. . . that its been proven already is too much for some folk.
I am fine with that. People are often wrong.
The advantage of things like this are figuring out why. I get it. You don't read.
No one I have met has had this issue.
The few that have disagreed stopped and re-read the rules and agreed.

Internetnet rage is not logic nor a reason.

It is entirely possible to slay a model without reducing its wounds characteristic to 0, most commonly through reducing other characteristics to 0 and Removes from Play effects.

So would ethereal work against a unit with mundane weapons but a special rule which means that for every roll of six to wound (regardless of whether that would normally cause a successful wound) the targeted models Toughness characteristic is reduced to zero and therefore the model is removed as a casualty unless it passes a ward save?

No because the special rule for Ethereal only protects it from wounds, not death caused by any other means. Killing Blow does not cause wounds, it kills by its own unique rule.

So think of a successful Killing Blow as reducing the hit models Toughness to zero unless a Ward save saves it. A model without a head will not be Tough any more will it?

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:
From FAQ version 1.8

Page 52 – Calculate Combat Result, Wounds Inflicted.
Change “[...]counts as having scored all the slain model’s
remaining Wounds.” to “[...]score the same amount of
Wounds as the slain model has on its profile.” in the last
paragraph

And that should about finish this


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
KB COUNTS AS HAVING SCORED (LOOK, CAPS!).

Oh look, it doesn't say that at all. In fact they felt the need to change it in the FAQ from "counts as" to "score the same amount of wounds".

Bet you feel embarrassed about that "LOOK CAPS!" thing now

The FAQ continues to make our point and WE should be embarrassed? In combat rez it "scores" the number of wounds. It has not "wounded" the number of wounds. Do you see the difference now? It is statements oike that which lead to people talking about trolling, as a kindness: they charitably believe that you couldn't possibly believe what you said, so must jst be trying to wind people up.
If anything, scores is moe explicit - some people could have argued (wrongly) that "it counts as wounds, so ethereal can block it". They clarified - it scores wounds in combat rez.

You know, my favorite part about this debate is how long and vitriolic it has gotten over something that will rarely, rarely ever happen. I mean, seriously, how often in actual game play to Ethereal units end up fighting things with Killing Blow. Neither one are super common. I play mono-Khorne DoC, with an army full of Killing Blow, and I cannot remember the last time I faced an opponent with an Ethereal unit.

 kirsanth wrote:
Your entire argument then, is that you think SLAIN or SLAY are not backed by rules?
Yet you insert words to explain why wounding is involved with slain models?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peasant wrote:
Are we done?

You do not understand my job any more than you understand the rules.

Editing to add:
It does not bother me that you are wrong, you are entitled to that.
The . . . fact. . . that its been proven already is too much for some folk.
I am fine with that. People are often wrong.
The advantage of things like this are figuring out why. I get it. You don't read.
No one I have met has had this issue.
The few that have disagreed stopped and re-read the rules and agreed.

Internetnet rage is not logic nor a reason.

Apparently you don't know what rage means either.
I definitely believe I know your alter ego here. No debunked comments?
Another absolutely useless post from you where you have nothing to add and no response to points that have been presented. Then throw insults that I can't read when you appear to have your own comprehension issues.
Continue to stomp your feet and say I'm right you are wrong. Here let me pad your ego, you're right. can you sleep better now?
Your inability to comprehend has grown tiring. And this will be my last response to you.
In your attempts to use KB, YOU made or at least agreed, with the emphasis on slays and the fact that the KB description doesn't actually say wounds.
An entirely asinine position.
Slays is obviously used throughout the rulebook in many situations. which I have said.
The general term slay/slain does get used with wounds as a description referring to the dead, the too wounded to fight, or many other ways the rulebook describes models, that are potentially out of the game. which I have said and you have failed to comprehend that the term 'slays' in the KB description changes nothing.
Rolling to wound..a game process, is evidence enough that KB wounds. because you roll to wound. Sadly there is no other way to put it and apparently that is a part of the game you struggle to comprehend as well. You roll to wound, to wound. It is that simple.
Again I hope you let you opponent roll all his dice for poison attacks if he has WS0.
Your hunt and peck for a loophole by searching for differences in language shows intent to change the rule that was written following game process.
YOU are making it an RAI issue because your intent steps outside of the process using incorrect assumptions.

 Peasant wrote:
An entirely asinine position.

Backed by rules, but yes.

Niteware wrote:
The FAQ continues to make our point and WE should be embarrassed?

Now this is just crazy talk. The FAQ specifically changes the language from

Attacks that kill a model outright (made with a
Killing Blow, say - see page 72) count as having
scored all the slain model's remaining wounds.

To

Attacks that kill a model outright (made with a
Killing Blow, say - see page 72) score the same amount of
Wounds as the slain model has on its profile.

It says it right there in black and white. It's even been updated in a FAQ to show the function of KB in combat isn't to "count as having scored" wounds but for it to "score the same amount" of wounds to explicitly show it is scoring wounds and you are somehow going to claim that wounds aren't being done despite it telling you KB has scored wounds?

Wow

In combat rez it "scores" the number of wounds. It has not "wounded" the number of wounds. Do you see the difference now?

You want it to say

Attacks that kill a model outright (made with a
Killing Blow, say - see page 72) wounded the
Wounds as the slain model has on its profile
"
Really? If a model has a wound scored against it it hasn't been wounded? When a goal is scored in football, is it not a goal?

It is statements oike that which lead to people talking about trolling, as a kindness: they charitably believe that you couldn't possibly believe what you said, so must jst be trying to wind people up.

Are you trying to break irony by overloading it?

If anything, scores is moe explicit - some people could have argued (wrongly) that "it counts as wounds, so ethereal can block it". They clarified - it scores wounds in combat rez.

No, they clarified that it scores wounds in combat, combat rez is the result of what happened in combat. You cannot "score wounds in combat resolution", you can score wounds in combat. Wounds are added up to determine combat resolution.

To say that it scores wounds in combat resolution doesn't even make sense. Combat resolution is a count of your score.

It is under the subsection "Wounds Inflicted" and they have changed the language under "Wounds Inflicted" from "count as having scored" to "score the same amount of wounds". Once again they have changed this language under the "Wounds Inflicted" subsection.

But just to add something more, though it really shouldn't be needed

p103 section on overkill

QUOTE

Overkill
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

Once again in black and white

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

I'll simplify it slightly

add up all of the wounds inflicted even those by repeated killing blows

One more time

all..the...wounds inflicted..by..killing blows

Now, are you still going to argue that Killing Blow isn't causing wounds?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
It is entirely possible to slay a model without reducing its wounds characteristic to 0, most commonly through reducing other characteristics to 0 and Removes from Play effects.

Agreed

So would ethereal work against a unit with mundane weapons but a special rule which means that for every roll of six to wound (regardless of whether that would normally cause a successful wound) the targeted models Toughness characteristic is reduced to zero and therefore the model is removed as a casualty unless it passes a ward save?

Arguable, strictly RAW it would be removed from play. RAI is another matter, but lets not care about that for now as I can show how you have broken killing blow if you play it like this.

If you are arguing that KB is a replacement effect that activates on a roll of 6 (which you are) then you would do nothing to any target that was ineligible for Killing Blow.

In the BRB on p72 it says

"Killing Blow is only effective against infantry,
cavalry and war beasts"

But at no point does it say "killing Blow is not in effect". I mean, a water pistol is ineffective against a tank but you can still use one to fire at one. If you can find a place in the BRB or a FAQ which contradicts this I'll be happy to read it.

So being that your Killing Blow is ineffective against Monstrous Infantry, but at no point is it not in effect, every 6 you roll to wound in combat would have to be discarded. If you were fighting a Gorebeast chariot with some St4 Grave Guard or Tomb Guard they would be incapable of wounding it on anything other than a 6 which would trigger a killing blow which would then be ineffective against the chariot. Ergo they could not wound it.

If you are arguing that it is also doing a wound in addition to the killing blow, then you are arguing that a wound happens that I am allowed an armor, regeneration or ward save against, and then a killing blow which I would be able to ward save against the effects of. Phoenix Guard would be forced to make 2 separate saves against the same wound giving them double the chance of failure.

Killing Blow simply doesn't work either of these ways.