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.

Didn't want to write wound multiplier because it's crass??? That's your argument? Like, I don't know, like the entire multiple wound special rule? Is that the dirty joke of special rules because it multiplies? Rules can't be crass. "As if some prissy barbarian is going, omg, we don't use the term kill, we say make non-active-undead when we behead someone."

Again, you completely ignored the combat resolution problem. If KB is a wound multiplier, you're still causing numerous instance of wounds to a target. CR specifically has rules for counting KB and it has separate section for counting wounds dealt. If KB was simply a wound multiplier it wouldn't need to address it, it would be a given in the fact it was just wounds. And, you know how multiplication works, right? You haven't done a wound yet. Because KB never states it causes a wound and the normal CC rules require you to take whole different battery of saves.

If slay is just a wound multiplier, it has to multiply by something. There are no wounds when KB takes effect. As in normal combat you would still get normal saves. This odd term "wound multiplier" that keeps getting tossed around isn't mentioned once or even hinted in any of the rules.

There are vast number of instances for slay. Starting at about page 4. If your S/T drops to 0 you're slain. There is no wound. It is not multiplied. You don't even have to be in combat or be attacked. You still die. Models can die in the game without rolling on to wound, without taking a wound. If they are transformed into giant rats, they aren't wound multiplied and then wound divided into rats.

Eihnlazer wrote:
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).

KB irrefutably does not wound. You can argue that the "to wound roll" still wounds, but KB would have to say that it wounded. Like, for example, the multiple wounds rule does.
There are majy times in the game where what are called "special rules" happen. This means that something different from the basic rules can happen. This is almost always instead of what would normally happen. You are given very clear instructions on what to do if you roll a 6 on a to wound roll. This is a special rule and replaces the normal rule.

Ehh its ok, I have no doubt that killing blow doesnt do anything to ethereal unless its magic due to how its worded. I also know i am not a good enough debater to ever convince you guys.

Im stepping out of this.

Peasant - the process is called "to-wound". If succesful if can cause a wound. Rolling "to-wound" is, in of itself, NOT THE WOUND - by definition.

Not sure how else to put it. You never get as far as actually causing a wound

Killing blow does not cause a wound when it slays, so ethereals protection against non-magical wounds doesnt apply. It never has, in 14 pages.

Nothing you have ever posted alters that simple fact.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peasant - the process is called "to-wound". If succesful if can cause a wound. Rolling "to-wound" is, in of itself, NOT THE WOUND - by definition.

Not sure how else to put it. You never get as far as actually causing a wound

Killing blow does not cause a wound when it slays, so ethereals protection against non-magical wounds doesnt apply. It never has, in 14 pages.

Nothing you have ever posted alters that simple fact.

+1

Eihnlazer wrote:
I also know i am not a good enough debater to ever convince you guys.

No one is. It would take a rule written to convince me of the RAW.
The fact that RAW does not agree with you is the issue, not anyone's debate skills.

editing to add:
If you meant that more as an agree to disagree, cheers.

Half of the interesting part of threads like this are the random times someone actually finds something new.
The repetitions are good to get people to actually read things.
Most of the time people read what they think is there.
Critical reading and analysis once in a while gets to something that is rather new.
This is really an example, for most people.
The number of people I have met IRL and asked about this rule has been split.

That said, talking about it and asking them to actually read it, every one of them agrees with the RAW as I have stated.
It does come up quasi-regularly for me in games (I like my Halberd Tomb Guard), but so far every opponent has also agreed.
Note that the discussion occurred prior to the game and I stated I was entirely willing to play the other way if there was contention.

DukeRustfield wrote:


Again, you completely ignored the combat resolution problem. If KB is a wound multiplier, you're still causing numerous instance of wounds to a target. CR specifically has rules for counting KB and it has separate section for counting wounds dealt. If KB was simply a wound multiplier it wouldn't need to address it, it would be a given in the fact it was just wounds. And, you know how multiplication works, right? You haven't done a wound yet. Because KB never states it causes a wound and the normal CC rules require you to take whole different battery of saves.

KB has a different section because the formula is different depending on circumstance. It wounds, but it doesn't 'just' wound. KB on 1w model. Score +1, KB on 2W model +2, KB on 2W model with 1W left +1. KB causes the remaining wounds. The exception is Challenges, which is also addressed.

If slay is just a wound multiplier, it has to multiply by something. There are no wounds when KB takes effect. As in normal combat you would still get normal saves. This odd term "wound multiplier" that keeps getting tossed around isn't mentioned once or even hinted in any of the rules.

Get past slay. Slay is just a term. KB is the same as multiple wounds,except it is all the wounds on remaining on the profile. It also has the special effect of bypassing armor.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:

KB irrefutably does not wound. You can argue that the "to wound roll" still wounds, but KB would have to say that it wounded. Like, for example, the multiple wounds rule does.
There are majy times in the game where what are called "special rules" happen. This means that something different from the basic rules can happen. This is almost always instead of what would normally happen. You are given very clear instructions on what to do if you roll a 6 on a to wound roll. This is a special rule and replaces the normal rule.

Yes the irrefutability shows in 15 pages. Your disagreement does not make it irrefutable.
Why are you assuming it must say you wounded?
The wording is simple. You rolled to wound, logical progression is that it is to wound. You will either die or live with KB. So it is either ALL your wounds or nothing. d3/d6 wounds needs to state wounds because you can have 3 wounds and a 1 could be rolled.
Can you tell me a time (other than your KB assumption) that you have EVER rolled to wound, not to cause wounds?
Why does it not ask you to roll a dice for KB?
You are given very clear instructions on what to do when you roll a six. Yet you are never instructed that wounds become irrelevant.

So all of you that say KB doesn't wound/work on ethereal, you play this right??
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..

@ Duke- Are you going to address this?
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

 kirsanth wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
I also know i am not a good enough debater to ever convince you guys.

No one
Half of the interesting part of threads like this are the random times someone actually finds something new.

And that was ~10 pages ago? Where killing blow can slay even though the roll to wound fails.


-Matt

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peasant - the process is called "to-wound". If succesful if can cause a wound. Rolling "to-wound" is, in of itself, NOT THE WOUND - by definition.

Not sure how else to put it. You never get as far as actually causing a wound

Killing blow does not cause a wound when it slays, so ethereals protection against non-magical wounds doesnt apply. It never has, in 14 pages.

Nothing you have ever posted alters that simple fact.

Then why is your model not 'removed as a casualty' or 'removed from play' ?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
I also know i am not a good enough debater to ever convince you guys.

No one
Half of the interesting part of threads like this are the random times someone actually finds something new.

And that was ~10 pages ago? Where killing blow can slay even though the roll to wound fails.


-Matt

As rules go this is after the fact. Before the magic banner a 6 always wounded. Many magic items change things.

 Peasant wrote:
As rules go this is after the fact.

It did not change anything.
The rules are the same.

PEasant - so you are unwilling / able to respond to the point you are misunderstanding, and that I explained?

Instead you will raise a "why didnt they word this differently?" question?

Helpful.

Cna this be put to bed? NOt a single rules argument from the no-side that manages to explain why,when you dont cause a wound, the ethereal protection about wounds somehow comes into play

Not a one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peasant - the process is called "to-wound". If succesful if can cause a wound. Rolling "to-wound" is, in of itself, NOT THE WOUND - by definition.

Not sure how else to put it. You never get as far as actually causing a wound

Killing blow does not cause a wound when it slays, so ethereals protection against non-magical wounds doesnt apply. It never has, in 14 pages.

Nothing you have ever posted alters that simple fact.

Is this the nonsense you want response to? It is not fact. It is your opinion.
The most basic logic is that since you are rolling to wound, it is causing wounds.
That same dice that you roll..to wound..is the exact same dice that generates the wounds on non affected models. That is the purpose of that dice roll.
Without that same dice you have no wounds. Period.
You are assuming, incorrectly, that, it does not wound.
Though your dice is not 'the wound', it is all part of the wound process.
You cannot have a wound or killing blow without that dice.
Your 6 is a wound or KB . KB is one wound or all wounds.
How do you prove no wound is caused? Is it simply because it does not state it causes a wound?
It doesn't say it causes a wound. It doesn't say it doesn't cause a wound.
6>infantry>KB>all wounds
6>monster>no KB>1 wound
Same dice,same process, all models. No shuffling, no back tracking, no exceptions, no rule changes.

Make sure you stay consistent and don't let poison attacks work on anyone immune to poison either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Cna this be put to bed? NOt a single rules argument from the no-side that manages to explain why,when you dont cause a wound, the ethereal protection about wounds somehow comes into play

Not a one.

As I just asked..where is your rules argument?
Assumption based on the idea that the roll to wound was for nought


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
As rules go this is after the fact.

It did not change anything.
The rules are the same.

It is after the fact but I will address it even though many of my questions get ignored.
The only thing the 5 changes is the score required for KB to trigger.
5>infantry kb>all wounds
As I stated even the annotation says it doesn't care about toughness or armor.
It still cares about wounds. That is why you roll to wound and you aren't rolling to KB , or rolling to remove the model from play, or rolling to remove as a casualty.
However you want to spin the language, rolling to wound and the dice involved are all part of that process. KB modifies damage and saves but there is no suggestion that it doesn't wound.

Same for you...I hope you stay consistent and make those poison to hit 6's do nothing against models that are immune to poison. It never says you hit.

 Peasant wrote:
That is why you roll to wound and you aren't rolling to KB

This is still where you go wrong. Conflating two separate things.
The facts are that you can have Killing Blow take place when you are rolling to-wound.

You then wrongly assert that it is impossible to have something occur during a to-wound roll that is not a wound. (NOTE: This includes failing roll to-wound.)

Why?
Where is the rule for that?
Page and line.
(editing to add:
The repeated nonsense about it counting for combat resolution is not a rule stating that wounds are caused.
See Challenge rules and DukeRustfield's concise descriptions and refute them if you want to claim otherwise.
The rules are explicitly clear that this "counts as" is literally to add to resolution score and has no other bearing on the game.)

You are wrong.

You can wound when rolling to-hit with Poison.
Same. . .exact. . .thing.

How does a giant do the same thing and you keep ignoring it?

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
That is why you roll to wound and you aren't rolling to KB

This is still where you go wrong. Conflating two separate things.
The facts are that you can have Killing Blow take place when you are rolling to-wound.

Let me try and break this down for you because just starting with this first sentence you seem to be confused with what I have said.
YES you can have a KB take place when you are rolling to wound. I have NEVER said you can't. That is when it happens. When rolling to wound.

You then wrongly assert that it is impossible to have something occur during a to-wound roll that is not a wound. (NOTE: This includes failing roll to-wound.)

I have never said nothing can happen during the to wound roll. I have said if it is during the 'to wound' roll..it is causing wounds. Or failing the roll. It is successful or it fails. Those are the only options.
KB happens during the process and therefore causes wounds.
Show me ANY time (other than KB because you can't use it as proof upon itself.) that the roll to wound is not for the purpose and effect of causing wounds.

Why?
Where is the rule for that?
Page and line.

I don't need to prove contrary. The roll to wound shows that it causes wounds. It is up to you to prove that it does not.

(editing to add:
The repeated nonsense about it counting for combat resolution is not a rule stating that wounds are caused.
See Challenge rules and DukeRustfield's concise descriptions and refute them if you want to claim otherwise.
The rules are explicitly clear that this "counts as" is literally to add to resolution score and has no other bearing on the game.)

The rule with KB in challenges is to even up the score for models with KB. If you have 5 attacks and KB against a 2 wound model scoring a KB would short you the potential overkill for your expensive character.
You are wrong that it is irrelevant, but for argument sake... show any thing that says in writing that you do not cause wounds.
You can't because it doesn't exist. Text neither states causing nor not causing wounds. If you are rolling to wound the logical conclusion is that you are causing wounds.
There is no foundation to the idea that it doesn't wound other than a weak interpretation and is nonsense.

You are wrong.

You can wound when rolling to-hit with Poison.
Same. . .exact. . .thing.

How does a giant do the same thing and you keep ignoring it?

A giant doesn't do the same thing.
Again, you are misreading.
You claim that KB does not cause wounds, because in the description for KB you roll to wound and then you get a natural 6 and it changes the order of things so the wound gets ignored and the model is slain, correct?
Well with poison, the text (paraphrase) states that on a natural '6' you automatically wound the target. It never states you hit then automatically wound.
So by your reasoning..that '6' never hits..it jumps to a new chart and wounds the target. So if the target is immune to poison any natural '6' does nothing because it never actually hit.
Another ridiculous idea, but on your (incorrect) reading that should be RAW.
Same...exact...thing. With your thought process.

I have never ignored the giant..I said it could be a different thread.
Giants are different. Giants have there own chart, some of which I have stated RAW may bypass Ethereal for some of the effects because they say 'remove as a casualty or remove from play, although I would play it as not working because it is silly.
KB NEVER uses that language (per giant or instant kills) and the roll to wound shows that it is wounding. Period.

 Peasant wrote:
I have said if it is during the 'to wound' roll..it is causing wounds. . .

Why?
Where is the rule for that?
Page and line.

I don't need to prove contrary.

Gotcha.
There are no rules that you claim to be following.
Yet you state that it is the written rules.

Yes, we have all read you stating things.
No one has read GW stating those things, nor can you find any reference to them doing so.

It has been proven that KB works without successful to-wound rolls.

As above. There is literally no point responding further, when Peasant admits they have no need to prove their contention - that to-wound = wound - when GW never states it

The process of rolling to-wound is a process, not the end result. EVen if you cannot succeed on your to-wound, nothing exempts you from rolling

FACT: KB does not cause a wound.

Nothing the nay side can provide shows otherwise, and hasnt for 14 pages.

 Peasant wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:


Again, you completely ignored the combat resolution problem. If KB is a wound multiplier, you're still causing numerous instance of wounds to a target. CR specifically has rules for counting KB and it has separate section for counting wounds dealt. If KB was simply a wound multiplier it wouldn't need to address it, it would be a given in the fact it was just wounds. And, you know how multiplication works, right? You haven't done a wound yet. Because KB never states it causes a wound and the normal CC rules require you to take whole different battery of saves.

KB has a different section because the formula is different depending on circumstance. It wounds, but it doesn't 'just' wound. KB on 1w model. Score +1, KB on 2W model +2, KB on 2W model with 1W left +1. KB causes the remaining wounds. The exception is Challenges, which is also addressed.

If slay is just a wound multiplier, it has to multiply by something. There are no wounds when KB takes effect. As in normal combat you would still get normal saves. This odd term "wound multiplier" that keeps getting tossed around isn't mentioned once or even hinted in any of the rules.

Get past slay. Slay is just a term. KB is the same as multiple wounds,except it is all the wounds on remaining on the profile. It also has the special effect of bypassing armor.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:

KB irrefutably does not wound. You can argue that the "to wound roll" still wounds, but KB would have to say that it wounded. Like, for example, the multiple wounds rule does.
There are majy times in the game where what are called "special rules" happen. This means that something different from the basic rules can happen. This is almost always instead of what would normally happen. You are given very clear instructions on what to do if you roll a 6 on a to wound roll. This is a special rule and replaces the normal rule.

Yes the irrefutability shows in 15 pages. Your disagreement does not make it irrefutable.
Why are you assuming it must say you wounded?
The wording is simple. You rolled to wound, logical progression is that it is to wound. You will either die or live with KB. So it is either ALL your wounds or nothing. d3/d6 wounds needs to state wounds because you can have 3 wounds and a 1 could be rolled.
Can you tell me a time (other than your KB assumption) that you have EVER rolled to wound, not to cause wounds?
Why does it not ask you to roll a dice for KB?
You are given very clear instructions on what to do when you roll a six. Yet you are never instructed that wounds become irrelevant.

So all of you that say KB doesn't wound/work on ethereal, you play this right??
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..

@ Duke- Are you going to address this?
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

So here might be where you are going wrong. The multiple wounds rule does not wound. A wound is caused by the to wound roll, after comparison to the table. The multiple wounds rule then says what the effect of that wound is. That does not mean that the multiple wound rule is wounding, it is just multipling.
The whole time you seem to be confused about the differences between trying to wiund, actually wounding and wounds themselves.
Trying to wound is when you roll.
Wounding is when you compare that attempt to the table and get a sucfesful result.
Wounds are the actual markers themselves.
It is the difference between a noun and a verb.
KB does not wound. You are in the middle of the process of trying to wound, but it is interrupted before any actual wounds are generated.
Even if it wee not, KB would nit be wounding - the wound mechanic would be wounding, just like with the multiple wounds rule. That iw not what happens, since he process is clearly interuptted, but there is no rational arguement to say that anything is wounding other than the wounding mechanic itself.

 kirsanth wrote:

Gotcha.
There are no rules that you claim to be following.
Yet you state that it is the written rules.

Yes, we have all read you stating things.
No one has read GW stating those things, nor can you find any reference to them doing so.

It has been proven that KB works without successful to-wound rolls.

And where is your evidence that no wounds are caused.?
As is common by many of you, you call for 'evidence' whilst providing none of your own.
All you have is weak interpretation, breaking down portions of the same process, taking the entire process apart when they are all part of the same and require each other.
And again...you take a single sentence out of context instead of the whole. This is the only explanation I can find as to why you are struggling here.
I'll ask again..Show me ANY time (other than KB because you can't use it as proof upon itself.) that the roll to wound is not for the purpose and effect of causing wounds.

You're on board for poison example then right??
Immune to poison makes them safe from '6's from models with poison??
You really should answer that.

 Peasant wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

It has been proven that KB works without successful to-wound rolls.

And where is your evidence that no wounds are caused.?

Re-read that.

And the rules for challenges.

You are again conflating terms.

Cursed Blades on my Tomb Guard rolling vs WS10 and given a -1 to-hit rolling a 5 against a model susceptible to KB.
Failed to-wound, successful KB resulting in a slain model, without wounding it.

Following your inserted rules KB wreaks absolute havok on challenges.

Assuming a 4 wound target model gets wounded 5 times with KB - how much CR is generated by that challenge?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. There is literally no point responding further, when Peasant admits they have no need to prove their contention - that to-wound = wound - when GW never states it

The process of rolling to-wound is a process, not the end result. EVen if you cannot succeed on your to-wound, nothing exempts you from rolling

FACT: KB does not cause a wound.

Nothing the nay side can provide shows otherwise, and hasnt for 14 pages.

You should stop calling...FACT.
KB activates during the roll to wound..fact
KB works on infantry/cavalry/war beasts..fact
KB slays regardless of the number wounds...fact
KB happens during the 'rolling to wound' process of the game.. fact
KB counts wounds in combat resolution..fact

KB does not wound...your interpretation.. based on what?
You claim that KB does not cause wounds, because in the description for KB you roll to wound and then you get a natural 6 and it changes the order of things so the wound gets ignored and the model is slain, correct?
How do you prove no wounds are caused? Is it simply because it does not state it causes a wound?
It doesn't say it causes a wound. It doesn't say it doesn't cause a wound.
6>infantry>KB>all wounds
6>monster>no KB>1 wound
Same dice,same process, all models. No shuffling, no back tracking, no exceptions, no rule changes.
EPIPHANY---KB exempts you from the S vs.T.(hence the banner allowing 5+) Negates armor,(both shown in the annotation) plus removes all wounds(...slain regardless of the number of wounds). You are not exempt from wounds.
You always claim to need written proof. Provide some of your own. Show where the rule is that states the wounds are irrelevant and not caused? Because every time you play a game that to wound roll does the same things. It wounds or doesn't..that's its purpose.
I pose the same challenge to you
Show me ANY time (other than KB because you can't use it as proof upon itself.) that the roll to wound is not for the purpose and/or effect of causing wounds.
I have stated why I should not have to show more than I have... yet being crazy I still try
KB is part of the wounding process/section, that should be plenty to show it is dealing wounds. Again it is your interpretation that is making this difficult

You're on board for poison example right??

Maybe you;ll respond to questions rather than just saying you are right and I am wrong.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:

So here might be where you are going wrong. The multiple wounds rule does not wound. A wound is caused by the to wound roll, after comparison to the table. The multiple wounds rule then says what the effect of that wound is. That does not mean that the multiple wound rule is wounding, it is just multipling.
The whole time you seem to be confused about the differences between trying to wiund, actually wounding and wounds themselves.
Trying to wound is when you roll.
Wounding is when you compare that attempt to the table and get a sucfesful result.
Wounds are the actual markers themselves.
It is the difference between a noun and a verb.
KB does not wound. You are in the middle of the process of trying to wound, but it is interrupted before any actual wounds are generated.
Even if it wee not, KB would nit be wounding - the wound mechanic would be wounding, just like with the multiple wounds rule. That iw not what happens, since he process is clearly interuptted, but there is no rational arguement to say that anything is wounding other than the wounding mechanic itself.

See upper post.
The annotation says KB does not care about toughness.
So your 6 automatically makes it a successful chart comparison. KB 5+ makes a successful S vs.T check.
Your ultra specific mentality is making this more complicated than it is.
There is nothing that states that KB does NOT cause wounds. That is your interpretation.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

It has been proven that KB works without successful to-wound rolls.

And where is your evidence that no wounds are caused.?

Re-read that.

And the rules for challenges.

You are again conflating terms.

Cursed Blades on my Tomb Guard rolling vs WS10 and given a -1 to-hit rolling a 5 against a model susceptible to KB.
Failed to-wound, successful KB resulting in a slain model, without wounding it.

Following your inserted rules KB wreaks absolute havok on challenges.

Assuming a 4 wound target model gets wounded 5 times with KB - how much CR is generated by that challenge?

See above for S vs. T. and success.
I have shown how your roll 'to wound' is successful.
As for the challenge..read the FAQ.
Lets just say that it is 5 '6's...technically that's a score of 20 but overkill caps you at +5.
So your answer is +5
4 normal wounds and one '6' would be 8..overkill still caps at +5

When you rolled to wound you still have yet to show that wounds have become irrelevant.

So you still can't see the difference between different parts of the procedure... do you also think that rolling to hit causes wounds? After all, that is also part of the process...
You claim that by looking specifically at what happens, I am making the matter too complicated. I would contend that your black box "roll a die, some mechanics I don't understand happen and wounds come out" approach is too simplistic - as is evudenced by your argument.
The fact that you could consider that either KB or multiple wounds actually do any wounding isproof that you ddon't understand the process. That is also why you fail to see that a process can be changed.
So imqgine, for a second, that you have something that normally happens when you rolla certain number, 6 for example. Then you get a special rule, which tells you to do a specific thing if you roll a 6. Guess what happens when you get a more specific rule. It replaces the normal rule! Hooray!

Niteware wrote:
So you still can't see the difference between different parts of the procedure... do you also think that rolling to hit causes wounds? After all, that is also part of the process...
You claim that by looking specifically at what happens, I am making the matter too complicated. I would contend that your black box "roll a die, some mechanics I don't understand happen and wounds come out" approach is too simplistic - as is evudenced by your argument.
The fact that you could consider that either KB or multiple wounds actually do any wounding isproof that you ddon't understand the process. That is also why you fail to see that a process can be changed.
So imqgine, for a second, that you have something that normally happens when you rolla certain number, 6 for example. Then you get a special rule, which tells you to do a specific thing if you roll a 6. Guess what happens when you get a more specific rule. It replaces the normal rule! Hooray!

You still continue to avoid answering my questions.
Yet I answer yours, and will continue to.
The problem with your break up of the procedure is that it is neither stated nor required. Of course I understand your break up. The problem is YOU are unnecessarily breaking it up into different parts. You are never, told, asked, required, or suggested to deviate from the standard game mechanic.
Your '6' did give you specifics. You ignored toughness, you Ignore armor and slay regardless of the number of wounds. NEVER does it not refer to wounds. YOur specifics NEVER state ignore wounds or that wounds are irrelevant. NEVER does it state remove from play or remove as a casualty. This is still your assumption
6>infantry>KB>all wounds
6>monster>no KB>1 wound
Show me how your process works?
Because mine follows all the rules, mechanics and processes and it changes the required ones. Just like when you hit a model with a weapon that ignores armour saves. That is the specific change. Nothing gets added or taken away.

Still thinking about poison attacks against a model immune to poison??
.

Among many problems of the nays is the fact they can't understand the rules aren't written in easy step 1-10 but often vary depending on situations and units.

If you roll to charge into combat with an chariot and succeed, you make impact hits. Whatever normal process exists for all the non-chariots is changed, because not everyone has impact hits.

Even before that, the enemy could have chosen to flee as a charge reaction. So the process is short-circuited. Or they could have held and shot missile weapons.

CC rules say you view who strikes first based on Initiative order. But if someone has ASF or ASL, that's also not the case. That rule is thrown out.

There are a vast number of cases where this happens. Special Rules can turn everything from movement all the way to break tests into spaghetti. If you're Unbreakable, all that crap that says you need to test because you lost combat is out the door.

Like those good old Giants again, they got a rule that says they win combat by 2. Forget all the combat resolution rules, like 2 pages of what you're supposed to do are thrown out because of one sentence of giant special rules. You don't come back to CR after the giant just won it, it's over. Likewise, you can't say that the giant inflicted wounds or had extra ranks or charged or had a standard or any of the other rules of CR, all it says is he won by 2. A nameless, formless 2. If you did 4 wounds to him and charged and had the high ground and a banner, you still lose by 2. That means he had more of that stuff, right? Nope, it means there's a special rule that you lose by 2.

Just because other stuff dies when it loses wounds doesn't mean a special rule has to kill things the same way. If there's a special rule in the next army book called "Don't Do Wounds But Take The Damn Model Off The Table," then that's what you do. You don't have to prove it doesn't do wounds, just like you don't have to prove it doesn't happen in a pie plate template, or force everyone to have Random Movement. You go by RAW and what it tells you. Nowhere is slay ever said to cause wounds, lower attributes, directly cause LD tests, bend space-time. You don't have to prove it doesn't do those things either. The game would be infinitely long if you had to prove every archer wasn't a cannon and wasn't a stone thrower and wasn't poison and everything else in existence.

Just because I read through 4 or 5 pages, why wouldn't flaming attacks kill ethereal creatures? Flaming is an effect just as killing blow is an effect. So is poison, that's an effect.

Otherwise, we can continue to argue over the sentence structure of how we put together a list or whether the Brits are just too cheap to print an Oxford comma. The US interpretation would be magical attacks or effect could imply both to be magical because the writer has put together a list using multiple conjunctions (and & or). The confusion here is the Brits are not fond of the Oxford comma. In the US, we would have a comma either before "and magical weapons or effects" to imply they are lumped together or we would put a comma before "or" to split "effect" from magical.

It's just a difference in grammar between two countries. Armor and armour, behavior and behaviour and color or colour.

Personally, I have always interpreted the piece related to "effects" to be hits from the miscast table. I believe it was FAQed to be included shortly thereafter.

Sorry if there are any typos or incorrect spellings - I had my nightcap but it doesn't seem to be working. Hence the reason I'm on Dakka and its almost 1 AM...


Just because I'm curious now, why is this really an issue? Most ethereal units will die to combat resolution against any unit of similar points. The one ethereal unit you would send at that type of enemy is immune to killing blow because its a swarm. I wouldn't send a unit of wraiths to fight or tie up a unit with killing blow - that's what zombies or spirit hosts are for. I would use something with a high number of attacks or on a larger base to get around the whole killing blow. There are what 4 or 5 units with non magic killing blow attacks (haven't read the elves books) but almost all other killing blow abilities come via a magic weapon or banner right?

DukeRustfield wrote:
Among many problems of the nays is the fact they can't understand the rules aren't written in easy step 1-10 but often vary depending on situations and units.

If you roll to charge into combat with an chariot and succeed, you make impact hits. Whatever normal process exists for all the non-chariots is changed, because not everyone has impact hits.

Even before that, the enemy could have chosen to flee as a charge reaction. So the process is short-circuited. Or they could have held and shot missile weapons.

CC rules say you view who strikes first based on Initiative order. But if someone has ASF or ASL, that's also not the case. That rule is thrown out.

There are a vast number of cases where this happens. Special Rules can turn everything from movement all the way to break tests into spaghetti. If you're Unbreakable, all that crap that says you need to test because you lost combat is out the door.

Like those good old Giants again, they got a rule that says they win combat by 2. Forget all the combat resolution rules, like 2 pages of what you're supposed to do are thrown out because of one sentence of giant special rules. You don't come back to CR after the giant just won it, it's over. Likewise, you can't say that the giant inflicted wounds or had extra ranks or charged or had a standard or any of the other rules of CR, all it says is he won by 2. A nameless, formless 2. If you did 4 wounds to him and charged and had the high ground and a banner, you still lose by 2. That means he had more of that stuff, right? Nope, it means there's a special rule that you lose by 2.

Just because other stuff dies when it loses wounds doesn't mean a special rule has to kill things the same way. If there's a special rule in the next army book called "Don't Do Wounds But Take The Damn Model Off The Table," then that's what you do. You don't have to prove it doesn't do wounds, just like you don't have to prove it doesn't happen in a pie plate template, or force everyone to have Random Movement. You go by RAW and what it tells you. Nowhere is slay ever said to cause wounds, lower attributes, directly cause LD tests, bend space-time. You don't have to prove it doesn't do those things either. The game would be infinitely long if you had to prove every archer wasn't a cannon and wasn't a stone thrower and wasn't poison and everything else in existence.

Exactly!
Everything listed here has specific rules on how to play it. Anything that changes is VERY specifc.
The giant specifically changes the combat resolution. It told you change the combat res.
ASF said strike first.
KB told you to ignore armour, it told you to slay regardless..
Your roll to wound should prove that it wounds. You rolled to wound. That was your first step towards KB and you have no instruction not to. You wound til you are told not to.
NOWHERE does it say don't do wounds.
What purpose does the effort to prove it does not wound serve?
Finally.
This really should not be this difficult.

boyd wrote:
Just because I read through 4 or 5 pages, why wouldn't flaming attacks kill ethereal creatures? Flaming is an effect just as killing blow is an effect. So is poison, that's an effect.

It's just a difference in grammar between two countries. Armor and armour, behavior and behaviour and color or colour.

No one cares it's an "effect," which isn't a game term. It's a special rule. We care about the text of that special rule. You may have read 4 or 5 pages here, but you didn't read the BRB. Flaming doesn't kill anything, Ethereal or not. Poison specifically causes wounds. It's what it does. It cannot affect Ethereal unless it's magic because Ethereal can't be harmed by non-magic wounds. KB doesn't cause wounds. If you want to see what a special rule looks like when it causes wounds, read Poison.

However, Flaming attacks cause Fear in cavalry. Hexwraiths are fast cav. But they are also undead and thus unbreakable and cause Fear. But the owner of said flaming attack would be immune to the fear of the hexwraiths. Kinda like that scene in LOTR where Strider is waving around a torch(!!!) at those ringwraiths even though they're...you know, ringwraiths. Fire is scary, I guess. That said, if the Ethereal unit has regeneration, it wouldn't be cancelled by Flaming because you have to cause a wound.

This has nothing to do with grammar differences. All this stuff is written out. You can put a comma here, and here and here. Or here, and here, and here (Oxford). But it still doesn't say KB ever does a wound which is the only thing Ethereal protects against.

Peasan t - no, its a fact

With poison I am rolling to-hit, but can also cause a wound on a 6. Under your bizarre idea that KB still generates a wound, you MUST AGREE that poison STILL causes a hit - so do yo uroll to wound, as well as getting your succesful wound from the poison?
No, because that would be absurd. POison successfully activating shortcuts, and takes your to-hit and turns it directly into a wound.

(Poison 5+ needing a to-hit of 6 also poisons on a 5+, before you attempt yet another strawman)

WHen you roll a 6 TO_WOUND, the *process*, you Killing Blow. This slays, it does not cause a wound.

You have no permission to cause a wound, because the rule for KB states it slays.

Fnid permission, or concede your are still attempting to argue RAI when the RAW argument was won page 1.

Are you allowed to attempt to roll to wound in the first place?

 Daba wrote:
Are you allowed to attempt to roll to wound in the first place?

Yes because nothing in the Ethereal section says you don't get to roll. Most people won't roll when using mundane weapons (without Killing Blow) as there's no point, but there's no rule saying "If you cannot wound then you don't roll".

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peasan t - no, its a fact

With poison I am rolling to-hit, but can also cause a wound on a 6. Under your bizarre idea that KB still generates a wound, you MUST AGREE that poison STILL causes a hit - so do yo uroll to wound, as well as getting your succesful wound from the poison?
No, because that would be absurd. POison successfully activating shortcuts, and takes your to-hit and turns it directly into a wound.

(Poison 5+ needing a to-hit of 6 also poisons on a 5+, before you attempt yet another strawman)

WHen you roll a 6 TO_WOUND, the *process*, you Killing Blow. This slays, it does not cause a wound.

You have no permission to cause a wound, because the rule for KB states it slays.

Fnid permission, or concede your are still attempting to argue RAI when the RAW argument was won page 1.

Again, stating it is a fact, does not make it a fact.
Poison attacks BRB pg73
A model with the Poisoned Attacks special rule wounds his target automatically if his natural dice roll to hit is a 6. Armour saves are modified as usual....
KB BRB pg72
If a model with KB special rule rolls a 6 to wound in combat, he automatically slays his opponent - regardless of the number of wounds...
(edit..for example...I want to buy all of your birds- regardless of the number of birds. The birds..i.e wounds..are still relevant it is the quantity that is not. Use the complete context ..slays regardless.....)
You and several have stated that KB does not wound because you are never told that you wound. The dice roll 'to wound' is just a process and the grammar takes you away for that because it never actually states you wound.
Following your logic the grammar for poison attacks never actually states you hit. Your natural '6' automatically wounds. It never says to compare the dice to the hit chart..It wounds, it never actually hits.
Etehreal are immune to KB as Immune to poison are safe from being hit under your logic.

Of COURSE poison hits, just as KB causes wounds. The whole idea of it being anything otherwise is ridiculous.
That is my point. The activation doesn't disallow the process unless it is stated.
Like the giants yell and bawl for combat resolution, it states the specific change.
Poison attacks grant you and auto wound, it never disallows the roll to hit..
KB grants you all the wounds, it says regardless of the number of wounds. It grants you no armour save. It never disallows the wounds.
And I have permission. The permission was granted when rolling to wound.
The rules are written this way.
You are attempting RAI.
I'm still waiting on how your process works also.