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.

Niteware wrote:

It was me who was arguing that the banner would not protect HE from KB because it specifices that it protects against wounds caused by magic.
BRB, as has been stated many times, does not say that KB causes wounds

Oh, I just reread the banner and it does specifically say magic wounds. Which isn't KB. I'm just used to ward vs. flaming and I was think it said ward vs. magic attacks. I think when someone brought it up before I basically pointed out that KB simply doesn't happen enough that you could use it as a counter to the banner. Even with a horde and frenzy you're only going to be getting maybe 3-5 KBs and that's simply not very much.

yeah the KB itself isnt a magical wound, but the successful wound roll of a 6 that cause it is.

Peasant - you are rolling to-wound, the process. This normally creates a wound, however in the case of KB you dont get that far - you just end up with the KB effect, which is that the model is slain.

At no point does a succesfull KB generate a wound - as pointed out, a KB on 5+ when needing a 6 to generate a wound STILL gives KB; your interpretation, that you have to be able to cause a wound in order to trigger KB, denies this

(and for reference it was also wrong in 7th edition, when it was possible to be unable to successfully wound (T4 vs T8, for example) but still be able to killing blow them)

 Peasant wrote:

Niteware wrote:

Boomer, KB does not cause wounds. Peasant has argued that wounds are also caused by the to wound roll , but KB is clearly seperate.
It was me who was arguing that the banner would not protect HE from KB because it specifices that it protects against wounds caused by magic.
BRB, as has been stated many times, does not say that KB causes wounds, it gives you a mechanic to deal with KB in CR. Also, damage is less of a game term than slay is, so your backwards reasoning is ridiculous.

It is obviously not clear, otherwise we wouldn't have 13 pages. It does not say it wounds, nor does it say it does not wound.
You have never answered these simple questions.
1.If you are not rolling to wound, why are you rolling 'to wound'?
2.Tell me any time you roll to wound that you do NOT use that chart?
Every time, with every effect, if it does not follow game process you are given a different process. Giants, poison wind globes, weapons that wound on a 4+(just to name a few) you are always told how the effect works.
If KB did not wound you would be told to 'roll a dice and on a six...'
If you are rolling 'to wound'...what do you think is the most logical conclusion?
It is written that you roll 'to wound'
I can't believe I came back..

You do not use the chart when following the rules tells you not to.
The rules for roll to wound tell you to roll, then compare numbers then check the chart hen determine if you have wounded. Killing Blow says that if you rolled a 6, the target is slain - no need to carry on to check chart.
Your first question has two possible answers, which I would call the imperative and the motivation. The imperative is that roll to wound is a game mechanic which you have to follow; there is jo option not to. The motivation would be to KB, if there were no other, more viable targets / the ethereals had tied you up in combat.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peasant - you are rolling to-wound, the process. This normally creates a wound, however in the case of KB you dont get that far - you just end up with the KB effect, which is that the model is slain.

At no point does a succesfull KB generate a wound - as pointed out, a KB on 5+ when needing a 6 to generate a wound STILL gives KB; your interpretation, that you have to be able to cause a wound in order to trigger KB, denies this

(and for reference it was also wrong in 7th edition, when it was possible to be unable to successfully wound (T4 vs T8, for example) but still be able to killing blow them)

Pg 72 There is an annotation that KB does not care about the toughness and armour saves of the target.
No where does this mention anything about wounds.
There is no other way to put this...
You roll to wound for wounds.
Twist things however you want.
Once you have rolled to wound, it is because you are causing wounds.
Yes KB on 5+ just changes it to a 5+ KB. And it still slays regardless of the remaining number of WOUNDS.
This is just sad...
Sad that I apparently have issues because I keep coming back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Niteware- You have rolled to wound. The only logical conclusion is causing wounds.
No instruction to ignore your wounds.

Eihnlazer wrote:
yeah the KB itself isnt a magical wound, but the successful wound roll of a 6 that cause it is.

Fixed.

No need for the 6 to be successful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peasant wrote:
@ Niteware- You have rolled to wound. The only logical conclusion is (you are making an attempt at )causing wounds.

This is true.
There are plenty of other things that can occur though.
Triggering rules, for example.

Like rolling to-hit means you are attempting to hit does not prevent poison from wounding too.

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
@ Niteware- You have rolled to wound. The only logical conclusion is (you are making an attempt at )causing wounds.

This is true.
There are plenty of other things that can occur though.
Triggering rules, for example.

Like rolling to-hit means you are attempting to hit does not prevent poison from wounding too.

We've been through this.
If you are letting KB work this way, you should be letting WS0 opponents with poison roll to hit in case the poison works. (ridiculous)
Yes, you trigger KB, by rolling to wound. The roll of a 6 'to wound' can trigger a KB.
There is still no evidence that it is no longer wounding.
Why are there all the references to wounds if you are not wounding?

WS0 would be dead wouldn't they? Otherwise ofc you would let them roll to hit - barring a rule stating that you don't roll, then you have to roll.

Given that you are talking about logical conclusions, you ae admitting that what you are saying isn't exactly what is written. Since what is written is that "on a to wound roll of a 6, the model is slain", then I agree with you that your interpretation is not as written.
Excellent - agreekent at last ; D

Niteware wrote:
WS0 would be dead wouldn't they? Otherwise ofc you would let them roll to hit - barring a rule stating that you don't roll, then you have to roll.

Given that you are talking about logical conclusions, you ae admitting that what you are saying isn't exactly what is written. Since what is written is that "on a to wound roll of a 6, the model is slain", then I agree with you that your interpretation is not as written.
Excellent - agreekent at last ; D

WS0 is auto hit in combat and cannot attack.
Weapon Skill 0 is possible with the new Dark Elves. They get a spell that drops WS and BS by D3, but it doesn't mention to a minimum of 1. The boosted version also drops Strength and Init (IIRC) by a D3, but the additional effect is specifically limited to a minimum of 1.
If you go with shadow and dark magic; you could Miasma for a D3 WS; and follow it up with another D3 from "Word of Pain".

It's only Strength Zero, Toughness Zero or Wounds Zero that kills you.

-Matt

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
WS0 is auto hit in combat and cannot attack.

Where do you see it's auto hit? Or anything for that matter.

DukeRustfield wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
WS0 is auto hit in combat and cannot attack.

Where do you see it's auto hit? Or anything for that matter.

A dark mysterious place that few have ever laid eyes upon known as "Rulebook page 4".

Niteware wrote:
WS0 would be dead wouldn't they? Otherwise ofc you would let them roll to hit - barring a rule stating that you don't roll, then you have to roll.

Given that you are talking about logical conclusions, you ae admitting that what you are saying isn't exactly what is written. Since what is written is that "on a to wound roll of a 6, the model is slain", then I agree with you that your interpretation is not as written.
Excellent - agreekent at last ; D

You're missing the point. If your opponent has ghouls and through some effect they are reduced to weapon skill zero they cannot attack. But poison (in your stance) should work like KB and they can roll 'to hit' and hope for '6's.
How is it not what is written? ...rolls a 6 to wound ....regardless of the number of wounds on the victims profile.
Again you have left out '... regardless of the number of wounds..'
roll to wound..slain regardless...wounds..
How are you reaching the point that there are no wounds?
Why reference wounds if they are not relevant?

Peasant - so your confusion is you think that "to-wound" can only be when you are trying to generate wounds, and it isnt possible for other effects to come from it?

For example, KB

You are protected from wounds, yet all I have done is roll to-wound - I have not actually caused a wound.

Same as page 1 - ethereal does nothing to prevent KB, RAW. RAI? Who knows. Apparently the designers think it is perfectly fine for non-magical attacks / effects to wound ethereal creatures, and have done for at least 3 editions now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and saying "damage" can only mean "wounds" is faulty logic. A -> B does NOT mean B -> A. So while wounds can be considered damage, it does not follow that all damage would be wounds.

 HoverBoy wrote:

A dark mysterious place that few have ever laid eyes upon known as "Rulebook page 4".

Don't have to be a douche. He wrote: WS0 is auto hit in combat and cannot attack.
Which can be read as

the owner of WS0 is automatically hit in combat
or
WS0 automatically hits in combat

I saw the second and it made no sense so I asked.

Oh, and saying "damage" can only mean "wounds" is faulty logic. A -> B does NOT mean B -> A. So while wounds can be considered damage, it does not follow that all damage would be wound

We went over the basics of this logic many pages ago and they refused to accept it, rehashing the same argument over and over even though it makes no logical sense. A knight was killed by a dragon, thus all dead knights must have been killed by dragons. Stupid dragons.

And acctually it states in the poison rules that if you ever need a 7+ to hit with poison weapons that the poison no longer auto-wounds on a 6.

The point that they were trying to make was poison in close combat, stating you could somehow still "hit" (poison on a 6) despite automatically missing. THis isnt true, and yet another badly created argument against what is a very simple concept

Rolling a 6 with KB does not cause a wound. It never states it casues a wound, and in fact it tells you what it does instead - whcih is slay them immediately. You have no chance to look up the table; theyre dead already.

13 pages of nonsensical counters later, and there is still no actual argument against this point which uses any real rules.

This thread has the Special Rule: "It will not die!"

Eihnlazer wrote:
And acctually it states in the poison rules that if you ever need a 7+ to hit with poison weapons that the poison no longer auto-wounds on a 6.

Although this only ever applies to ranged attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peasant wrote:

Niteware wrote:
WS0 would be dead wouldn't they? Otherwise ofc you would let them roll to hit - barring a rule stating that you don't roll, then you have to roll.

Given that you are talking about logical conclusions, you ae admitting that what you are saying isn't exactly what is written. Since what is written is that "on a to wound roll of a 6, the model is slain", then I agree with you that your interpretation is not as written.
Excellent - agreekent at last ; D

You're missing the point. If your opponent has ghouls and through some effect they are reduced to weapon skill zero they cannot attack. But poison (in your stance) should work like KB and they can roll 'to hit' and hope for '6's.
How is it not what is written? ...rolls a 6 to wound ....regardless of the number of wounds on the victims profile.
Again you have left out '... regardless of the number of wounds..'
roll to wound..slain regardless...wounds..
How are you reaching the point that there are no wounds?
Why reference wounds if they are not relevant?

Peasant, I miss out the " regardless of the number of wounds" bit because it says REGARDLESS of the number of wounds. You pay no attention to the wounds because they are irrelevant. You keep typing this and not seeming to read it.
KB is not wounding, so it doesn't matter how many wounds thee are.

This made me think of this thread:

Except both the cats are using the same rules.

What I find interesting is that in the new DE book for their new magic spells, the number 6 spell has nearly the exact wording as KB.

"Any model touched by,, or passed over by the template must pass a strength test or be slain outright with no armour saves allowed (a model may take a single ward save, if it has one -- the model remains in play if the save succeeds)."

One again they are using the term slain to describe what we have been saying, slayed, dead, remove from game.

All this argument is coming down to is people unwilling to accept that GW mixes up terminology that all mean the same damn thing.

That and the To wound roll does not mean wounding, to cause a wound you must have a successful to wound roll. KB does not care if it is successful or not, it just cares about the number on the dice roll.

That and the repeatedly mentioned Giant's bag.

It is being deliberately ignored.

Oh i never said KB cared about whether the wound was successful or not, but to say that it does not wound is a fallicy.

You still successfully wound the model, with a to wound roll of a 6 whether you KB or not.

KB just doesnt care how many wounds are remaining on the model or in the case of the 5+ KB whether or not the actual to wound roll was successful.

You are never given permission to ignore the actual successful wound should it happen.


This means, if there is an effect that blocks that wound through some means, it still works.

Since, the term slay itself has no game term definition, and is only brought up in the circumstances of killing multi-wound models with only a single failed saving through, it should be treated exactly as though it was dealing Multiple-wounds (all your remaining wounds).

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Rolling a 6 with KB does not cause a wound. It never states it casues a wound, and in fact it tells you what it does instead - whcih is slay them immediately. You have no chance to look up the table; theyre dead already.

13 pages of nonsensical counters later, and there is still no actual argument against this point which uses any real rules.

There is no need for it to state it causes wounds...you rolled TO WOUND.
What do you think you were rolling for?
You are rolling to wound hoping it will be a KB. You are not rolling for KB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:

Peasant, I miss out the " regardless of the number of wounds" bit because it says REGARDLESS of the number of wounds. You pay no attention to the wounds because they are irrelevant. You keep typing this and not seeming to read it.
KB is not wounding, so it doesn't matter how many wounds thee are.

Again, selective reasoning. Look at these two sentences, one of which is written in our rule book.

...Regardless of the number of wounds
...Regardless of wounds

'of' is the preposition connecting...regardless to number.

Regardless of the number...ie the 'number' is irrelevant.
KB not wounding is your incorrect interpretation.

Eihnlazer wrote:
You still successfully wound the model, with a to wound roll of a 6 whether you KB or not.

You are never given permission to ignore the actual successful wound should it happen.

I know it's tempting to not read 23894 pages of a thread, but if you're going to come in and post, it helps to actually read the arguments as this has been refuted quite easily numerous times already.

As soon as you roll a 6 (5+ in the case of some instances) you go into the KB special rule. There it gives you instructions on how to proceed, including to take a ward save, if any. If you fail, the model is slain. KB is then over. You cannot then return to the To Wound table and apply a wound. The model is dead from KB. You are given permission to "ignore the successful wound" because you can't wound a slain model. The model has no wounds, no armor save, no ward save, no nothing. The worst you could ever do in close combat has already been done via KB.

Further, if you could do the impossible and wound a slain model, when it came time to do combat resolution, you would score more wounds than the actual model possessed even in the case of non-challenges. Which is against the rules. I.e., if you attack a goblin with 1 wound, KB it on a 6+, slay it, and then wound it, you would score 2 wounds of CR on that one single attack, because the rules state that KB does the full wounds of the model in CR and you're trying to maintain that you also do another wound, which of course is a wound in CR.

fattymac04 wrote:
What I find interesting is that in the new DE book for their new magic spells, the number 6 spell has nearly the exact wording as KB.

"Any model touched by,, or passed over by the template must pass a strength test or be slain outright with no armour saves allowed (a model may take a single ward save, if it has one -- the model remains in play if the save succeeds)."

One again they are using the term slain to describe what we have been saying, slayed, dead, remove from game.

All this argument is coming down to is people unwilling to accept that GW mixes up terminology that all mean the same damn thing.

That and the To wound roll does not mean wounding, to cause a wound you must have a successful to wound roll. KB does not care if it is successful or not, it just cares about the number on the dice roll.

Close but not quite.
Statistic tests are instant kills. We know how those work. Statistic test or death. Notice there is ZERO reference to wounds...why because wounds are irrelevant to instant kills.
NOt to KB.

I don't need terminology. The game says roll to wound. It does not say roll to KB

This argument really boils down to this ridiculous assumption that KB does not wound.
All the arguments for it working against ethereal is based on wounds.
The 'slay' usage was brought up by those trying to get KB past ethereal.
The discussion goes back and forth because of those that are trying to say it does not wound, despite the fact that the text and game process repeatedly references wounds.
The text itself should be adequate to show how it works and that it wounds.
This idea that suddenly you are not wounding after rolling to wound because it doesn't say you wounded...
That is why there is nothing new to add.

 Peasant wrote:
The discussion goes back and forth because of those that are trying to say it does not wound, despite the fact that the text and game process repeatedly references wounds in relation to Combat Resolution.

Fixed what you must have left out unintentionally.

DukeRustfield wrote:


As soon as you roll a 6 (5+ in the case of some instances) you go into the KB special rule. There it gives you instructions on how to proceed, including to take a ward save, if any. If you fail, the model is slain. KB is then over. You cannot then return to the To Wound table and apply a wound. The model is dead from KB. You are given permission to "ignore the successful wound" because you can't wound a slain model. The model has no wounds, no armor save, no ward save, no nothing. The worst you could ever do in close combat has already been done via KB.

Further, if you could do the impossible and wound a slain model, when it came time to do combat resolution, you would score more wounds than the actual model possessed even in the case of non-challenges. Which is against the rules. I.e., if you attack a goblin with 1 wound, KB it on a 6+, slay it, and then wound it, you would score 2 wounds of CR on that one single attack, because the rules state that KB does the full wounds of the model in CR and you're trying to maintain that you also do another wound, which of course is a wound in CR.

So if as soon as you roll a 6 it is a KB and you can't go back to the table, what happens if it's a monster?? You can't go back and apply the wound.
roll>6>KB>monster>nothing
Remember the process is the same for every model.
No one is trying to add extra wounds. The rules are very clear on how many wounds are caused from KB. If you just follow the (quite simple) KB process, everything works out properly.
If a model has one wound, you roll a six, it dies and you get credit for 1 wounds
If a model has two wounds, you roll a six, it dies and you get credit for 2 wounds
Because of your incorrect interpretation of KB it is making things more complicated than they are.
I have stated over and over KB is simply a wound multiplier. Trying to make it anything more is overcomplicating things.
Even for the magic item that makes it a 5+, it is now just a wound multiplier on 5+
The idea that it does not wound makes no sense.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
The discussion goes back and forth because of those that are trying to say it does not wound, despite the fact that the text and game process repeatedly references wounds in relation to Combat Resolution.

Fixed what you must have left out unintentionally.

Cute...but no.

Re read KB page 72. Count how many times it refernces wounds in that section.
And you are right..it is in the combat resolution section also, when you score all the slain models remaining wounds.
You can try and pick out all the language you like but it doesn't change the fact that KB causes wounds.

The only intentionally left out parts are to try and keep posts short.
Too bad we can't do that for this thread It really shouldn't be this long

 Peasant wrote:
the fact that the text and game process repeatedly references wounds.

And never states one occurs - they go so far as to literally state that the remaining wounds are disregarded.

Rolling to wound may result in things other than wounding. Case in point, really.
Akin to rolling to-hit can cause wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peasant wrote:

The only intentionally left out parts are to try and keep posts short.

Finally.
RAI as you interpret it agrees with your interpretation. At least you acknowledge it.

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
the fact that the text and game process repeatedly references wounds.

And never states one occurs - they go so far as to literally state that the remaining wounds are disregarded.

Rolling to wound may result in things other than wounding. Case in point, really.
Akin to rolling to-hit can cause wounds.

Are you serious

Why does it need to state it? It's the game process. The dice roll is 'TO WOUND' You are never told to disregard that process
Even the annotation on pg 72 says.. KB doesn't care about toughness or armour saves. No mention of it not caring about wounds.
Where does it say remaining wounds are disregarded??
Other than your assumed woundless KB, there is NEVER a time you roll to wound, not to wound.
Why is KB referenced in the wounds inflicted section on page 52?

Rolling to hit cannot cause a wound, it is a hit. It needs the special direction to reach that point, you are told it is possible.
Let's follow your same logic with poison.
You roll to hit with poison and get a 6, it never says you hit, it just says a natural 6 to hit automatically wounds. But since you are immune to poison nothing happens because the six got converted to an auto wound. . Looks like you are safe from that too.

 Peasant wrote:

The only intentionally left out parts are to try and keep posts short.

Finally.
RAI as you interpret it agrees with your interpretation. At least you acknowledge it.

DukeRustfield wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
You still successfully wound the model, with a to wound roll of a 6 whether you KB or not.

You are never given permission to ignore the actual successful wound should it happen.

I know it's tempting to not read 23894 pages of a thread, but if you're going to come in and post, it helps to actually read the arguments as this has been refuted quite easily numerous times already.

As soon as you roll a 6 (5+ in the case of some instances) you go into the KB special rule. There it gives you instructions on how to proceed, including to take a ward save, if any. If you fail, the model is slain. KB is then over. You cannot then return to the To Wound table and apply a wound. The model is dead from KB. You are given permission to "ignore the successful wound" because you can't wound a slain model. The model has no wounds, no armor save, no ward save, no nothing. The worst you could ever do in close combat has already been done via KB.

Further, if you could do the impossible and wound a slain model, when it came time to do combat resolution, you would score more wounds than the actual model possessed even in the case of non-challenges. Which is against the rules. I.e., if you attack a goblin with 1 wound, KB it on a 6+, slay it, and then wound it, you would score 2 wounds of CR on that one single attack, because the rules state that KB does the full wounds of the model in CR and you're trying to maintain that you also do another wound, which of course is a wound in CR.

Been reading everything as its posted acctually.

The refutal is based on an incorrect assumption so i disreguard it.

KB is simply a wound modifier. Instead of dealing a single wound, it deals multiple wounds (whatever you have remaining). They just didnt want to write it as such because it sounds crass. They used the term slay as it sounds alot more interesting and fluffy.

And before you state "pg. number or citation", there isnt one. There isnt one for slay either.