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.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 HoverBoy wrote:
It will not die

Theads that won't die rule:
Roll of D6 for each page of circular logic. On a 2+, add another page of circular logic and roll again.
It's like the Red Fury of pointless arguments.

-Matt

On a 2+ roll again, reroll 1s surely...

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 HoverBoy wrote:
It will not die

Theads that won't die rule:
Roll of D6 for each page of circular logic. On a 2+, add another page of circular logic and roll again.
It's like the Red Fury of pointless arguments.

-Matt

Can I sig that?

Niteware wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Okay, I think we've pretty well exhausted this.

Just like the 'catching fleeing units' rule, I think it's pretty clear that KB was not INTENDED to be a way to bypass ethereal. Even those that are arguing that RAW it could, don't intend to play that way because it would make them TFG.

So... why are we still arguing this? Isn't it about time to let this thread just die?

We are still arguing it because we are pedants who like to make their point
Why do you want the thread to die?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We've passed the 5k views point, so one of the most viewed questions of the last 2 years. Good going.

He wants it to die because no matter how much he hates it, he still keeps coming back and reading it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:


First off, a wound is not an "unsaved wound" until you have taken any ward saves that you have, so a wound with no armour save is just a wound with no armour save.
Secondly, lets look at the actuql rule for wounding.

Ridiculous. So if you have a s10 with a d3 multiple ounds, then wound your opponent and they have no ward... you don't get to do d3 wounds because its not an 'unsaved wound??
It's just a wound with no armour save.
This is more of the overthinking that I have been talking about.

P 51Roll to Wound
Roll a d6 for each attack which hit. Compare the Strength of the attacker with the Toughness of the defender to find the score required to wound.

So you roll a d6, then compare the s to t, then consult the table. Only at that point is the wound extant.
KB substitutes alternative instructions;
On a To Wound roll of a 6, the target is slain
You do not reach the comparison of s and t, so you do not reach the to wound table, so no wound exists.
You claim that I am assuming there is no wound, but I have shown that there is no wound.

Well, apparently someone rolled that 2+....

 Peasant wrote:

Niteware wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Okay, I think we've pretty well exhausted this.

Just like the 'catching fleeing units' rule, I think it's pretty clear that KB was not INTENDED to be a way to bypass ethereal. Even those that are arguing that RAW it could, don't intend to play that way because it would make them TFG.

So... why are we still arguing this? Isn't it about time to let this thread just die?

We are still arguing it because we are pedants who like to make their point
Why do you want the thread to die?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We've passed the 5k views point, so one of the most viewed questions of the last 2 years. Good going.

He wants it to die because no matter how much he hates it, he still keeps coming back and reading it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:


First off, a wound is not an "unsaved wound" until you have taken any ward saves that you have, so a wound with no armour save is just a wound with no armour save.
Secondly, lets look at the actuql rule for wounding.

Ridiculous. So if you have a s10 with a d3 multiple ounds, then wound your opponent and they have no ward... you don't get to do d3 wounds because its not an 'unsaved wound??
It's just a wound with no armour save.
This is more of the overthinking that I have been talking about.

P 51Roll to Wound
Roll a d6 for each attack which hit. Compare the Strength of the attacker with the Toughness of the defender to find the score required to wound.

So you roll a d6, then compare the s to t, then consult the table. Only at that point is the wound extant.
KB substitutes alternative instructions;
On a To Wound roll of a 6, the target is slain
You do not reach the comparison of s and t, so you do not reach the to wound table, so no wound exists.
You claim that I am assuming there is no wound, but I have shown that there is no wound.

Edits to try and fix quotes...failed..

Even your example shows you to be incorrect.
Where are you told not to compare that 6 to the chart?
Where is the instruction to substitute.
The 6 to wound and the 6 to KB work together.
Slain regardless of the number of wounds. Not just one wound which would slay a single model, but all the profile which is required to slay any that meet criteria. It makes no sense through the rules that KB does not wound.
Where have you shown no wound? I missed it.
You've assumed as you did in your example that you skip but it is just your intent.

First off, adding in "no ward save" would make a wound with no armour saves an "unsaved wound", but that was not what you had originally sttated. I would appreciate you retracting that "Ridiculous" as that partof my post was undenyably ccorrect.
Secondly, multiple wounds work from automatic wounds, KB does not, so they are clearly different.
Thirdly, there are lots of things that the rules don't tell you not to do. This is because the rules tell you what to do. KB would need to tell you to consult the wound table as well. Except that that would be stupid, becaus the target is being Killing Blowed instead of wounded.
Finally, the instruction to substitute is the same as it is for every other rule. They tell you how to do things normally. Occasionally, you get exceptions to these rules, which take the same input but give you different rules for what to do. Poison is a good example; it says on a roll of a 6 you hit. It does not go on to say that you do not need to look at the to hit table. Similarly, KB tells you to do something exceptional on the roll of a 6.

 Peasant wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
You roll one time for everything. The roll to wound that shows the '6' negates your armour and becomes a wound multiplier just like multiple wounds

I agree with you, obviously. Any other interpretation is silly. But I don't think the rule, in the most technical and literal sense, support that interpretation. Can you find any textual evidence? I've got nothing.

Other than the text in KB itself, no. The other side has nothing new either. That is why we are so many pages in. It is really down to interpretation and at this point most reasonable.
As stated permissive system does not give you any instruction to ignore the roll to wound. Slain is a descriptive term not a game action.
There is no other time you roll to wound, other than to wound.

So you agree that, when you roll a 6 to wound, you both successfully wound and score a Killing Blow. Since these're two separate rules, and nothing stated allows us to assume that one replaces the other, they both occur at once. Roll Ward versus Killing Blow. If successful, roll armour/Ward/Regen for the normal wound.

Silliness! But yeah, I guess that's what it technically says. Good thing it's not something any tournament organizer would ever OK.

 Peasant wrote:

I'm sorry that wasn't as clear as I had hoped. It did sort of ramble.
Let me try a more concise ramble.
KB, you roll to wound. Would you ever make an assumption after rolling to wound that you didn't wound?
When playing, the RAW would tell you that you wounded and killed the model. Game process, wound, fail save, die.
RAW for ethereal you need magic to wound.
But now the intent becomes the issue. They no longer want KB to wound so the interpretation gets changed.
Raw is not incorrect it's what is on the pages.
Since language is, for lack of a better word, 'flexible' we change RAW into RAI and back again as we see fit and try to claim it as gaming gospel and try to thro the term RAW/RAI for strength.
Ergo the rules as written must be played as intended. They require each other. Both equally important.
Nite plays his way, I play mine. We disagree. If we can iron it out during game great, if not it's time to find a new player.

So, at this point, I would say the true focal point of the debate is as follows:

- is the term "slain" a mechanical game term?

If it is, we don't need to assume anything about wounding, and Killing Blow, for some comically stupid reason, can take out ghosts.
If it isn't, we need to assume something. Since we're rolling on the to-wound table, the easiest assumption is that we are wounding.

Again, thugh, I don't think anyone here would actually play this rule as they're claiming it. If I ever run a giant, you can be damn sure that he won't be stuffing Tomb Banshees down his pants.

Warpsolution wrote:
If I ever run a giant, you can be damn sure that he won't be stuffing Tomb Banshees down his pants.

All giants need their pants modeled as bags.

Slain is a game term. It is used across the BRB for death/removed from game/killed/casualties. Which are all synonyms that are used interchangeably. (See shooting remove casualties vs. CC remove casualties vs. spell death vs. attribute death.)

You can see the first example on page 4.

"If at any time a model's S, T or W are reduced to 0 [snip] it is slain and removed from play."

The next time (I think) is p.51 under Remove Casualties.

"With saving throws made or failed, you now need to remove the slain."

"It is a good idea not to immediately remove models that are slain from the table, but instead temporarily place them next of their unit -- you will need to know how many casualties have been caused when working out who won the combat."

Under shooting they use the words killed, remove from play, casualties.

You can't cause wounds to something that is slain. The only exception (and stated as the only exception in the BRB) is in a challenge for combat resolution.

As soon as you roll a 6, (or 5+ in case of a buffed TG or such) KB is activated. Target takes a ward save if they have one, if failed they are slain immediately. The rule doesn't say to wait and see what other good stuff happens. Whatever they were going to do after is gone. They can't be wounded, they can't take armor saves, they can't move, they can't wave to their moms, they are slain.

This all has been stated at least twice in this thread. It took some time to put it all together but it's pretty well established now. If you want to join the thread late, that's fine, but I recommend at least reading it.

DukeRustfield wrote:
This all has been stated at least twice in this thread. It took some time to put it all together but it's pretty well established now. If you want to join the thread late, that's fine, but I recommend at least reading it.

Was this directed at me? Because at this point, I agree with your stance on the subject.
But since at least one person on this thread still doesn't see "slain" as a game term, there's obviously something missing. It might be a piece of your argument, it might be an ability for your opponents to admit they're wrong. But it's something. I'm just trying to figure out what, exactly, it is, and get everyone to focus on it, instead of quoting other people's quotes of other people's quotes of pages upon pages of text. Because that gets us nowhere even slower than normal debates, and is a real pain to read.

Niteware wrote:

First off, adding in "no ward save" would make a wound with no armour saves an "unsaved wound", but that was not what you had originally sttated. I would appreciate you retracting that "Ridiculous" as that partof my post was undenyably ccorrect.
Secondly, multiple wounds work from automatic wounds, KB does not, so they are clearly different.
Thirdly, there are lots of things that the rules don't tell you not to do. This is because the rules tell you what to do. KB would need to tell you to consult the wound table as well. Except that that would be stupid, becaus the target is being Killing Blowed instead of wounded.
Finally, the instruction to substitute is the same as it is for every other rule. They tell you how to do things normally. Occasionally, you get exceptions to these rules, which take the same input but give you different rules for what to do. Poison is a good example; it says on a roll of a 6 you hit. It does not go on to say that you do not need to look at the to hit table. Similarly, KB tells you to do something exceptional on the roll of a 6.

First..really?
You said ' Multiple woundsnis totally diffeent, as it is explicitly off unsaved wounds (ie, after saves have been attempted).' That was your comment.
I am still saying... If you roll a six to wound and have no armour it is an unsaved wound. That is what happens in this game. I guess again I have to type every step. This is why you are struggling with the concept I am trying to explain to you.

Second. Yes they are different. Multiple wounds is all the time, KB is only on a wound roll of six against specific targets. Multiple wounds does d3/d6/2 whatever it is. KB does all the wounds on the profile. Yet they take place similarly by following the same steps.

Third, Why? Why does KB need to tell you to consult the chart? When have you ever rolled to wound, not to consult the chart? Everything that does not consult the chart gives you a different description/chart/stat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warpsolution wrote:


So you agree that, when you roll a 6 to wound, you both successfully wound and score a Killing Blow. Since these're two separate rules, and nothing stated allows us to assume that one replaces the other, they both occur at once. Roll Ward versus Killing Blow. If successful, roll armour/Ward/Regen for the normal wound.

Silliness! But yeah, I guess that's what it technically says. Good thing it's not something any tournament organizer would ever OK.

Not quite, as I have stated many times, the 6 does wound. It has to because that is what the roll to wound is.
If the criteria is not met you cause 1 wound (failing armour and/or wards)
If criteria is met you'll get wounded with no armour save and if you have none/fail ward it will multiply to all the wounds on the profile. Just like d3/d6/2 wounds.
It has it's own category because it is dependent on a dice roll and criteria.
It doesn't break any part of the game system.

So, at this point, I would say the true focal point of the debate is as follows:

- is the term "slain" a mechanical game term?

If it is, we don't need to assume anything about wounding, and Killing Blow, for some comically stupid reason, can take out ghosts.
If it isn't, we need to assume something. Since we're rolling on the to-wound table, the easiest assumption is that we are wounding.

Again, thugh, I don't think anyone here would actually play this rule as they're claiming it. If I ever run a giant, you can be damn sure that he won't be stuffing Tomb Banshees down his pants.

I'm not quite sure if this is directed my way..but...
Again, not quite. It is easy to establish that slain is a description, not a game mechanic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
Slain is a game term. It is used across the BRB for death/removed from game/killed/casualties. Which are all synonyms that are used interchangeably. (See shooting remove casualties vs. CC remove casualties vs. spell death vs. attribute death.)

Yes, it is a game term but not a game mechanic. If someone says 'slay that model' you have to ask how. Remove wounds, remove as casualty, toughness test, initiative test etc.
With KB how are you 'slaying' the model.?
By removing all the wounds remaining on the profile.
Pretty clear that that is wounding.

You can't cause wounds to something that is slain. The only exception (and stated as the only exception in the BRB) is in a challenge for combat resolution.

As soon as you roll a 6, (or 5+ in case of a buffed TG or such) KB is activated. Target takes a ward save if they have one, if failed they are slain immediately. The rule doesn't say to wait and see what other good stuff happens. Whatever they were going to do after is gone. They can't be wounded, they can't take armor saves, they can't move, they can't wave to their moms, they are slain.
.

You are working backwards.
You roll to wound in order to slay. You don't slay to cause wounds.
How did you slay the model?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Nite- You never answered which is more reasonable?

@Warpsolution- I can't put things any more basic than I have. Let me know if you want me to type it again. The whole crux to this is whether or not KB wounds. Once we all accept that it does, which there is no logical gaming sense that it does not, the KB vs. Ethereal problem is solved.

Niteware wrote:

Taking the last bit first, you bet £500 that GW would say that because KB is ineffective on MI they are unharmed? I would take that bet.

Either you're being facetious or you've highlighted why this is giving you such an issue; reading comprehension.

As I said, your argument depends on interpretation of language, not of rules.

Isn't the whole basis of your argument the word "slain"? A word which is used most often throughout the manual as a description of models that have lost all their wounds and left the table as I have shown with direct page references from the BRB?

"KB is only effective against" - what does effective mean? You are choosing a position meanng that you can do it but it does not do anything to.

A perfectly reasonable assumption and the more correct parsing of that sentence.

Another, more reasonable interpretation, is that KB does not come in to play against. Both are literal translations of the written words (look at a dictionary if you don't believe me), but one works and makes sense.

Sorry... aren't you the guy arguing that something that happens when you roll to wound, is described in the BRB as inflicting wounds, that says...

"the ward save prevents all
damage from the Killing Blow"

...with damage being defined in the BRB as wounds (BRB p3), is being unreasonable in my interpretation? When yours is based around the word slain meaning "instant kill" when it doesn't use the word slain in the description of instant kills and doesn't reference Killing Blow at all? OK.....

Also note in the previous that it does not say prevent the effect of Killing Blow, it says "prevent all damage"

As you admit ahove that KB replaces the normal wounding rules on a 6, you would presumably agree that you should follow those rules?

Just like multiple wounds you mean?

As written?

Like where it says "prevents all damage"? And damage as defined in the BRB on p3

QUOTE
"WOUNDS (W)
This shows how much damage a creature can
take "

Like, on the roll of a 6, the model is slain.

Yes, just like a model that has 1 wound is slain when it takes 1 wound or a model with 3 is slain when is a 4 is rolled on the d6 for a multi wound hit.

I would love to use Peasant's interpretation of KB, simply to abuse his rules.
KB in challenges is ridiculously more broken as he states than it is the way the rules do, and the Ethereal interaction is also just about infinitely more rare.

 kirsanth wrote:
I would love to use Peasant's interpretation of KB, simply to abuse his rules.
KB in challenges is ridiculously more broken as he states than it is the way the rules do, and the Ethereal interaction is also just about infinitely more rare.

How is it broken? How do you abuse it? Overkill caps you at +5.

And getting to that +5 much easier isn't abuse?

 HoverBoy wrote:
And getting to that +5 much easier isn't abuse?

This doesn't answer how it's broken or abused.

 Peasant wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:


So you agree that, when you roll a 6 to wound, you both successfully wound and score a Killing Blow...

Not quite, as I have stated many times, the 6 does wound. It has to because that is what the roll to wound is.
If the criteria is not met you cause 1 wound (failing armour and/or wards)
If criteria is met you'll get wounded with no armour save and if you have none/fail ward it will multiply to all the wounds on the profile. Just like d3/d6/2 wounds.

Warpsolution wrote:
you wound and also trigger Killing Blow. Since neither replaces the other, like Multiple Wounds replaces normal wounding, they both occur when you roll a 6.

But KB does replace the whole wounding process--if it's successful. Because we have to do operations in order. We aren't multi-tasking CPUs. When a 6 is roll on the to wound that is the very first start of the entry point of KB. That happens immediately. You have not exited the to wound table. Evaluated it. Done anything other than roll 6 (or 5 if modified). That triggers a special rule. Which you then follow. As it happens it has a sub-rule that says you roll a ward save. The To Wound operation is frozen in time waiting for this Special Rule (KB) and sub-rule to conclude so it can figure out if the target was wounded. If the ward fails, however, the target is slain. You can't do anything to slain models because they're slain. That is exactly wording used in close combat for casualties and removed from play. You don't even come back to the to wound roll because everything you were going to do is irrelevant because the model is no only a counter for combat resolution. You can turn him on his side or otherwise move him away. His wounds (or movement or armor or whatever) are all of no concern. If the ward save DID succeed, you jump out of the entire KB Special Rule and check your to wound roll as if KB never happened. The two, by their very definitions, are mutually-exclusive.

The only place they are not is in combat resolution in a challenge. If you're fighting a 4 wound lord and he takes 1 wound and then is KB'd, he would contribute +5 to combat resolution. In this case, even if you KB'd first, you could still do wounds or KB again. As laid out in the section on challenges. And where it explicitly states this is the only place it can happen.

@DukeRustfield: I feel like you've agreed with me, but in such a way that it sounded like you didn't.

I get the idea that, once someone is dead, you can't wound them any more. That's not what I'm saying.
My point is: when you roll a 6 to wound, you trigger Killing Blow. So you have to roll your Ward or die.
But, since Killing Blow doesn't ever say "instead", you continue following the CC rules after that, so, if you fail to kill your opponent, you might wound them.

I guess it's not as stupid a concept as I originally thought; it could make sense. But it's complicated enough that I'll still assume that GW didn't mean for it to work that way.

 Peasant wrote:
He wants it to die because no matter how much he hates it, he still keeps coming back and reading it.

I just wonder why certain people here keep proving they are TFG by continuing to argue the point.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
He wants it to die because no matter how much he hates it, he still keeps coming back and reading it.

I just wonder why certain people here keep proving they are TFG by continuing to argue the point.

I do it for entertainment. Gives me something extra to do and my group already knows how we play it. Share the knowledge.

Do you classify as TFG that stands there listenening, asking why we don't shut up, instead of just walking away.

Peasant is not being TFG. He is wrong, but arguing in a reasonable way. Also, other threads confirm that he is articulate and often correct.

Warpsolution wrote:
I guess it's not as stupid a concept as I originally thought; it could make sense. But it's complicated enough that I'll still assume that GW didn't mean for it to work that way.

I don't think it's very complicated. We only made it complicated because we were lazy and extrapolated that not being able to be wounded means we're not going to bother with any of the steps that come before, one of which generates KB. It's a noble thought to speed the game up, but not when it throws away actual results. Every single rule, subrule, sub sub rule, and bit of wording everywhere in the book points that it works. In this entire mega thread of doom there hasn't been one page and rule cited that states otherwise. Just a lot of teeth gnashing and trollery that it shouldn't work because ghosts are ghosty, and combat resolution seems wound-like.

As for complicated, ITP isn't Unbreakable and isn't Steadfast and isn't Stubborn and doesn't have Fear/Terror and isn't Undead and isn't Daemonic. That's a lot of variations on LD rules. But you have to read them all and see where they don't overlap. You don't just go, meh, he's Unbreakable so he can never fail any LD tests. A casket of souls can still zap him. And a giant can still smash an ethereal. As for it making sense, people are reloading black powder rifles in 3 seconds, aiming and firing; having a boulder from a catapult land on their head and surviving; having a damn comet hit them and not only living but staying in formation and holding their position until the general says move. Maybe giants, formerly titans, still retain some magic. Maybe they're just so damn big they punch shockwaves through the realm of chaos.

Warpsolution wrote:


Again, I agree. But since neither of us can offer any proof to the otherwise, the most rigid reading of the rules would say that, on a 6, you wound and also trigger Killing Blow. Since neither replaces the other, like Multiple Wounds replaces normal wounding, they both occur when you roll a 6.

Remember though, multiple wounds multiplies the caused wound it does not replace it.
KB slays regardless of the number of wounds on the profile.
This is really the only way to write a number that can vary so much.

Warpsolution wrote:



@Peasant: And as far as whether or not Killing Blow wounds, that seems to hinge upon whether or not rolling on the to Wound table and triggering a rule separate from it (Killing Blow) causes wounds. Right?
I can see where you're coming from. And, from a logical, outside-the-game perspective, I agree with you. But I'm just not quite there as far as what's technically "true".

I guess it depends on your viewpoint. I don't see anything that separates that '6' from the roll to wound. Wounding is wounding.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:
Peasant is not being TFG. He is wrong, but arguing in a reasonable way. Also, other threads confirm that he is articulate and often correct.

Well thank you. And I respectfully disagree Because I believe that you are incorrect


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:
I guess it's not as stupid a concept as I originally thought; it could make sense. But it's complicated enough that I'll still assume that GW didn't mean for it to work that way.

I don't think it's very complicated. We only made it complicated because we were lazy and extrapolated that not being able to be wounded means we're not going to bother with any of the steps that come before, one of which generates KB. It's a noble thought to speed the game up, but not when it throws away actual results. Every single rule, subrule, sub sub rule, and bit of wording everywhere in the book points that it works. In this entire mega thread of doom there hasn't been one page and rule cited that states otherwise. Just a lot of teeth gnashing and trollery that it shouldn't work because ghosts are ghosty, and combat resolution seems wound-like.

As for complicated, ITP isn't Unbreakable and isn't Steadfast and isn't Stubborn and doesn't have Fear/Terror and isn't Undead and isn't Daemonic. That's a lot of variations on LD rules. But you have to read them all and see where they don't overlap. You don't just go, meh, he's Unbreakable so he can never fail any LD tests. A casket of souls can still zap him. And a giant can still smash an ethereal. As for it making sense, people are reloading black powder rifles in 3 seconds, aiming and firing; having a boulder from a catapult land on their head and surviving; having a damn comet hit them and not only living but staying in formation and holding their position until the general says move. Maybe giants, formerly titans, still retain some magic. Maybe they're just so damn big they punch shockwaves through the realm of chaos.

I have never made the ghostly ghost argument we play a fantasy game with magic and ratmen.
I have always followed the steps.
Following game processes You have your model you roll to hit then roll to wound. No magic, no wound. Stop. You are done there.
The KB crowd wants to skip part of the process by trying to bypass the actual process written into the rule. Rolling to wound.
You said "It's a noble thought to speed the game up, but not when it throws away actual results" But you want to throw away the game process of rolling to wound.
Your rulebook must be different to mine. Nothing ever tells me to wound not to wound.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Slain is a game term. It is used across the BRB for death/removed from game/killed/casualties. Which are all synonyms that are used interchangeably. (See shooting remove casualties vs. CC remove casualties vs. spell death vs. attribute death.)

Being that you have me on ignore because... well because you couldn't answer my arguments and rather immaturely decided to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la not listening" I don't really feel the need to be tremendously polite, nonetheless I am going to try... well at least a little.

Anyways, this is complete and total bollocks. Slain is not a game term, it has never been a game term, it is not listed in any index, glossary, subheading, or FAQ as one and has zero rules attached to the term at any point or in any way in WFB. End of.

Killing Blow does not even use the term slain, it uses slay just as a heads up. Yes, I know slain is the past participle of slay.

Do you want to know where else slay comes up? Page 3 under the description of WOUNDS

QUOTE BRB p3
"Large monsters and mighty heroes are often
able to withstand several wounds that would
slay a smaller creature"

Or for War Machines

QUOTE BRB p82
"or even slay fearsome monsters with a single,
well-placed shot."

Do War Machines have some mythical slay special rule that I am not playing properly? a Special slay effect?

You can see the first example on page 4.

"If at any time a model's S, T or W are reduced to 0 [snip] it is slain and removed from play."

No actually you can see the first example of slay on page 3 under wounds where it explains that "Large monsters and mighty heroes are often
able to withstand several wounds that would slay a smaller creature". You know where it says removing somethings wounds would slay it, after which we would refer to it as having been slain.... are you keeping up there?

You can't cause wounds to something that is slain. The only exception (and stated as the only exception in the BRB) is in a challenge for combat resolution.

No, causing wounds to something causes it to become slain. Also the exception you are talking about, is that the one that tells you how to add up the "wounds inflicted by Killing Blow"?

This all has been stated at least twice in this thread. It took some time to put it all together but it's pretty well established now. If you want to join the thread late, that's fine, but I recommend at least reading it.

It's been established you don't like facts that don't support your point of view.

Tell me, being that a "ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow", what damage am I trying to prevent? Being that damage is wounds in this game as defined on p3 of the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
Every single rule, subrule, sub sub rule, and bit of wording everywhere in the book points that it works. In this entire mega thread of doom there hasn't been one page and rule cited that states otherwise. Just a lot of teeth gnashing and trollery that it shouldn't work because ghosts are ghosty, and combat resolution seems wound-like.

You are suffering under one of the worst cases of confirmation bias and delusion I've ever seen. I've shown how neither of your assumptions even work in game and nobody has even made a stab at answering that except Niteware to his credit. Very poorly admittedly and without realizing that attacking my strictly correct reading of "only effective against", when the whole basis of your argument lays in trying to twist the word slays into your own contextual meaning, which it simply doesn't have, and isn't backed up in the BRB, oozes hilariously unintentional irony...

Niteware wrote:
Peasant is not being TFG. He is wrong, but arguing in a reasonable way. Also, other threads confirm that he is articulate and often correct.

+1 and exalted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BooMeRLiNSKi wrote:
Tell me, being that a "ward save prevents all damage from the Killing Blow", what damage am I trying to prevent? Being that damage is wounds in this game as defined on p3 of the BRB.

See above (i.e. any of the 12 pages have examples for you).
There are many ways to do what anyone would call damage (including the rules) without a wound.

Do you think unit is not damaged by a giant stuffing a model into its bag?
(Note: Nothing in the rules dealt wounds. Yet there are rules stating the model is slain, which is damage - NOT WOUNDS - to the unit, via the removal of models.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait.

Are you trying to say that the removal of models without wounding them is wounding a unit?

That would almost make sense, it seems, except for the exceptions that allow it - naming the rules for KB.
(I am literally struggling to understand the basis of your disagreeing with the rules as written in a RAW debate. A roll to wound that causes a new effect to occur is not able to be ignored on the basis that the effect that it is replacing could be ignored. If I can re-roll misses, I do not get to reroll any 3 because it could have been a miss. In this case you are claiming exactly that. I want to ignore the to-wound roll of 6 even though that is not related to the rule we are discussing? Ethereal does not make them immune to anything non-magical that rolls to-wound.)

Maybe I misread again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Curious.
Poison worked in the previous editions versus models with a Toughness too high to possibly wound right?
(Half wondering if it is side-note legacy that, being as rare as we all know, no one really thought to update.)

There are no toughnesses too high to possibly wound. S1 can still wound T10. Poison has to hit. It specifically has rules that say if you can't hit, you can't poison. KB does not have that language that if you can't wound, you can't KB. It has language that says if you auto-wound you can't KB, likely because KB is a 1:6 chance of happening and if you auto-wound, you never roll that die. So would you auto-KB? That would be insanely powerful.

I meant previous BRB editions.
I know that S1 v T10 was impossible to wound prior to the current edition (maybe not all, but at least the last), but my question was whether poison (et al) worked in these cases - my impression was yes.

That was where I read it as the ball being dropped - assuming people think it was not a deliberate exception despite the literal fact that it made it to being written in the printed rules.

 kirsanth wrote:

See above (i.e. any of the 12 pages have examples for you).
There are many ways to do what anyone would call damage (including the rules) without a wound.

Do you think unit is not damaged by a giant stuffing a model into its bag?
(Note: Nothing in the rules dealt wounds. Yet there are rules stating the model is slain, which is damage - NOT WOUNDS - to the unit, via the removal of models.)

You are even stating here that 'slay' does nothing to help your argument. 'slay' in no way suggests that KB does or does not wound. It is just describing the fact that the model will be dead
The thing about this is that no one is saying there are no other ways to slay a model. Toughness tests kill models..probably more often than killing blow, except from those damn grave guard with great weapons...back on topic..
Giants are a whole different ball game as I stated long ago. As much as I dislike the giant idea, they 'may' work by RAW on ethereal, though we would probably agree with 'no' in our group..but that's enough on that because it is a whole other topic that really has no relevance to KB. A thread, if opened, that I will NOT be joining

Wait.

Are you trying to say that the removal of models without wounding them is wounding a unit?

That would almost make sense, it seems, except for the exceptions that allow it - naming the rules for KB.
(I am literally struggling to understand the basis of your disagreeing with the rules as written in a RAW debate. A roll to wound that causes a new effect to occur is not able to be ignored on the basis that the effect that it is replacing could be ignored. If I can re-roll misses, I do not get to reroll any 3 because it could have been a miss. In this case you are claiming exactly that. I want to ignore the to-wound roll of 6 even though that is not related to the rule we are discussing? Ethereal does not make them immune to anything non-magical that rolls to-wound.)

Maybe I misread again.

As stated..Rolling to wound and checking the chart are all part of the same process. They are not separate. KB does not have a separate process
If KB said to roll a dice and on a six you KB, then I would be inclined to agree.
But it doesn't. It says to roll to wound. I'm unable to find anything that suggests that the game process becomes irrelevant.
Some weapons ignore armour saves.
KB has a trigger effect on 'to wound of 6'
Some weapons have multiple wounds.
KB triggers on 'to wound of 6'
No instruction to change standard game process

A triggering on a 'to wound of 6' is an instruction to change standard game process. Literally.
Standard rules have nothing trigger on a 'to wound of 6'.

editing to add for the obtuse:
A roll of 6 is in the standard rules causes a wound.
Full stop.

Nothing is triggered.
KB, pick up and . . . stuff in a bag, et al are not causing wounds not matter what table is rolled.
Claim that different books make the difference and we will find KB in armies with giants.
The rules are the same.

They are not ignored by Ethereal which ignores wounds.



Still.

Again - if this ever actually comes up and people disagree with RAW, my army is about 20% BETTER. (editing to add: more like 10%, but still! it is vs. the parts I am weak against.)
I would love to be wrong.

 Peasant wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
He wants it to die because no matter how much he hates it, he still keeps coming back and reading it.

I just wonder why certain people here keep proving they are TFG by continuing to argue the point.

I do it for entertainment. Gives me something extra to do and my group already knows how we play it. Share the knowledge.

Do you classify as TFG that stands there listenening, asking why we don't shut up, instead of just walking away.

Intriguing that you throw that my way, since from my point of view you're the primary offender.

But you make a valid point. I shouldn't keep coming back and looking at your 'I'm TFG!!!!11!!1!1!' posts. I'll be leaving this thread now.

Have fun trolling, but don't think for a second it makes anyone think any better of you, or your position on the point in question.