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.

 Peasant wrote:

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.

I hate myself for getting involved in this, but that sentence is actually 100% correct by the rules.

The rules for poisoned ranged attacks even go so far as to instruct you that if you need greater than a "6" to hit, then Poison doesn't work. They've addressed that potential loophole. Theoretically, I would guess that if a unit Poisons on a 5+ but needs a "6" to-hit, then they'd still Poison on the "5," even though there wasn't actually a hit.

Though, it's interesting to wonder if a Wound generated from a to-hit roll of "6" from a Poisoned attack would count as a "hit" for that magic item that provides a save agains the first "hit" suffered in a game....

(Ugh, now I feel dirty.)

 Peasant wrote:
KB 5+ makes a successful S vs.T check.

Page and line.

You are making this up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peasant wrote:
I have shown how your roll 'to wound' is successful.

You have stated it.
Never shown anything other than your own words to back it.

The to-wound fails.
Killing Blow succeeds.

Successful Poison attacks don't hit. A Hit in WHFB just means you do your normal wound routine (S->T, Saves, etc). Stomp does an automatic Hit, you then do your normal test to see if it wounds. Successful Poison bypasses that and automatically wounds. It's not a Hit.

There is the English word hit and the game term Hit. You can, and do, cause wounds and kill people without ever hitting them. That's not some reality-bending concept of shooting a bow and it teleporting inside your enemy because you didn't hit them. It's the game term Hit. Poison never says it causes Hits. It completely bypasses that section, so it can't.

Again, this is the problem that some people can't comprehend that if something arrives at a point later in the process you must have completed everything that came before. You can cut in queues. You can Ambush/Vanguard/Scout without ever charging/moving across the map. You can cause multiple wounds with just 1 attack.

If something responded to how many Hits it took, successful Poison wouldn't count. Just like anything else that wounded automatically. Charmed Shield cannot block a successful Poison shot because it's not a Hit it's an auto wound. If Poison were a Hit, you would be required to roll to wound. Then when would you resolve the Poison special rule? Would you wound the target twice?

It's the same concept as KB. Or as nearly any other special rule that forces you to take different actions than the straight BRB. You roll a natural 6 with poison and you wound. You jump past the to-wound chart. The enemy's toughness is never consulted--if it's 1 or 10 it doesn't matter. Then you jump back into the regular process and take saves, if any.

If Ethereal, or something else, said it could only be Hit by magic weapons, you could still poison them. Because if you rolled a 6 you would auto-wound. If you didn't roll a 6, even if you would have normally scored a hit, it would bounce off your target because they are immune.

You only get immunity to what it says you're immune to. Poison can't poison things it can't hit, per its rules. Ethereal is immune to wounds only. Poison causes wounds and is clearly stated, just like every other rule and special rule and spell and item that causes wounds. KB doesn't.

Peasant - you apparently ignored that your logic, if extended, means that a poisoned hit still generates a hit, meaning you get a roll to wound. Yet we know that a Poison, KB attack has NO CHANCE to KB if you poison...because you dont get that hit. You bypass the hit entirely

KB bypasses the "wound" entirely. No wound is generated. INSTEAD you KB

Every time I state a fact, it stays a fact. Your assertions, without a single shred of rules to back them up, do not and WILL NOT alter that.

Good day. Ignore.

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
KB 5+ makes a successful S vs.T check.

Page and line.

You are making this up.

Pg 72
The annotation on the side says KB does nor care about toughness or armour saves. If you have KB 5+ or regular '6' the result is the same. Your target will be slain regardless of the number of wounds.

 Peasant wrote:
I have shown how your roll 'to wound' is successful.

You have stated it.
Never shown anything other than your own words to back it.

The to-wound fails.
Killing Blow succeeds.

You still have yet to explain this..remember the process is the same for all combat, let's say S4 v. T6.
1 wound models
roll to wound of 6>Infantry>KB>slays regardless of the number of wounds
roll to wound of 6>monster>No KB>1 wound
2 wound models
roll to wound of 6>Infantry>KB>slays regardless of the number of wounds
roll to wound of 6>monster>No KB>1 wound
Since KB as written does not care about S vs.T. The 5+ automatically triggers KB by passing your S.vs T test
2 wound models with banner
roll to wound of 6>Infantry>KB>slays regardless of the number of wounds
roll to wound of 6>monster>No KB>1 wound
roll to wound of 5>Infantry>KB>slays regardless of the number of wounds
roll to wound of 5>monster>No KB>No wound
Same process no shenanigans.
There are still many questions you have yet to address. I understand if you can't or don't want to.

 Peasant wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
KB 5+ makes a successful S vs.T check.

Page and line.

You are making this up.

Pg 72
The annotation on the side says KB does nor care about toughness or armour saves.

If it does not care about T how can it succeed to compare to T?

You are wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peasant wrote:
The 5+ automatically triggers KB by passing your S.vs T test

This is why.
You cannot pass a test that is bypassed.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Successful Poison attacks don't hit. A Hit in WHFB just means you do your normal wound routine (S->T, Saves, etc). Stomp does an automatic Hit, you then do your normal test to see if it wounds. Successful Poison bypasses that and automatically wounds. It's not a Hit.

So if your ghouls fight a model that is immune to poison you better hope you don't roll '6's

There is the English word hit and the game term Hit. You can, and do, cause wounds and kill people without ever hitting them. That's not some reality-bending concept of shooting a bow and it teleporting inside your enemy because you didn't hit them. It's the game term Hit. Poison never says it causes Hits. It completely bypasses that section, so it can't.

Those that say KB doesn't wound should be agreeing to this.

Again, this is the problem that some people can't comprehend that if something arrives at a point later in the process you must have completed everything that came before. You can cut in queues. You can Ambush/Vanguard/Scout without ever charging/moving across the map. You can cause multiple wounds with just 1 attack.

If something responded to how many Hits it took, successful Poison wouldn't count. Just like anything else that wounded automatically. Charmed Shield cannot block a successful Poison shot because it's not a Hit it's an auto wound. If Poison were a Hit, you would be required to roll to wound. Then when would you resolve the Poison special rule? Would you wound the target twice?

This is how it should work
no poison
roll to hit 6>roll to wound..6>success
with poison
roll to hit 6>automatic wound>success
with poison target immune to poison
roll to hit '6'>immunity to auto wound, roll to wound ..
Same processes no shenanigans
Poison tells you that you don't have to roll to wound.

It's the same concept as KB. Or as nearly any other special rule that forces you to take different actions than the straight BRB. You roll a natural 6 with poison and you wound. You jump past the to-wound chart. The enemy's toughness is never consulted--if it's 1 or 10 it doesn't matter. Then you jump back into the regular process and take saves, if any.

If Ethereal, or something else, said it could only be Hit by magic weapons, you could still poison them. Because if you rolled a 6 you would auto-wound. If you didn't roll a 6, even if you would have normally scored a hit, it would bounce off your target because they are immune.

You only get immunity to what it says you're immune to. Poison can't poison things it can't hit, per its rules. Ethereal is immune to wounds only. Poison causes wounds and is clearly stated, just like every other rule and special rule and spell and item that causes wounds. KB doesn't.

Yes poison causes wound but not hits, according to you.
So basically you are saying that a '6' from a model with poison attacks will never be hit on a 6.
I can't believe you are buying this
We really should step away from the poison because it will just extend all this.

How do you people play this game? Over complicating the basic steps in this game??

Surely the very fact that it doesn't care about oughness shows that it is not wounding? The rules "to wound" include looking up the table for S and T. No wound exists until the end of that process, bu KB is interrupting the process, so doesn't care about toughness at all.

The only unanswered question of yours, at least that I can see, is about immune to poison. Similarly to KB, immunity kicks you back in to the normal process - the rule is not effective.

 Peasant wrote:
So if your ghouls fight a model that is immune to poison you better hope you don't roll '6's

Preventing the Poison rule would prevent the Poison rule from causing the issues you are inventing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peasant - you apparently ignored that your logic, if extended, means that a poisoned hit still generates a hit, meaning you get a roll to wound. Yet we know that a Poison, KB attack has NO CHANCE to KB if you poison...because you dont get that hit. You bypass the hit entirely

KB bypasses the "wound" entirely. No wound is generated. INSTEAD you KB

Every time I state a fact, it stays a fact. Your assertions, without a single shred of rules to back them up, do not and WILL NOT alter that.

Good day. Ignore.

You either misread or you are trying to change the topic because you have realized you are backed into a corner. I am not putting poison and KB together. I am showing you how your misinterpretation of the process is the same with both
I didn't ignore my logic. I never have.
(edit..KB bypasses the S vsT. Not the wounds)
I followed your precise (though incorrect) line of thinking.
You said that KB doesn't wound because the 'to wound' roll doesn't count. It's now a KB not a wound.
So with that same process the roll 'to hit' doesn't count because it is an auto wound not a hit.
I even re typed the rules so that you could see their similarities.

I have shown you rules and pages that are consistent. You have never shown where or how you ignore the wound. All you have said is that it says a '6' is a KB not a wound.
Show me how your process works..across the board.
I've shown you how it all works. No shenanigans.
I understand if you can't or don't want to answer my questions.

If you have put me on ignore , I will take that as your concession.

 Peasant wrote:
I didn't ignore my logic.

No one accused you of that, to be fair. Just of ignoring actual logic.

You are 100% consistent. Wrong, but consistent.

A failed to-wound roll can succeed in KB, but as the to-wound is failed it is only "your logic" that gets to the to-wound succeed in causing a wound despite failing to cause a wound.
Not the rules.

Niteware wrote:
Surely the very fact that it doesn't care about oughness shows that it is not wounding? The rules "to wound" include looking up the table for S and T. No wound exists until the end of that process, bu KB is interrupting the process, so doesn't care about toughness at all.

The only unanswered question of yours, at least that I can see, is about immune to poison. Similarly to KB, immunity kicks you back in to the normal process - the rule is not effective.

Not caring about toughness and not caring about wounds are different.
Remove as a casualty and remove from play, i.e. instant kills don't care about wounds.
If you have an auto wound weapon..it doesn't care about toughness. Still cares about wounds though.
Poison attack don't care about tougness..it doesn't care about toughness. Still cares about wounds though.
Poison wind globes....magic weapons that wound on 2+, Any weapons that give you a specific number and avoid the chart all care about the wounds.

I have shown you how it is goes.
How does your process work?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
So if your ghouls fight a model that is immune to poison you better hope you don't roll '6's

Preventing the Poison rule would prevent the Poison rule from causing the issues you are inventing.

If '6's don't wound for KB, then '6's don't hit with poison attacks.
Wrong, but that follows the logic of KB not causing wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirsanth wrote:

 Peasant wrote:
I didn't ignore my logic.

No one accused you of that, to be fair. Just of ignoring actual logic.

You are 100% consistent. Wrong, but consistent.

A failed to-wound roll can succeed in KB, but as the to-wound is failed it is only "your logic" that gets to the to-wound succeed in causing a wound despite failing to cause a wound.
Not the rules.

It is your faulty logic that is telling you that there are no wounds. It should have been solved ages ago. You rolled to wound, it really is that simple. If you weren't causing wounds you would not be rolling to wound.

Then show me your process. Show me where you believe my mistakes are. How do you do it? Be consistent for all models.

 Peasant wrote:
If '6's don't wound for KB, then '6's don't hit with poison attacks.

Have you actually read this thread?

That is damn near trolling.

Ironically it is also actually true.

6s don't hit with poison. As I already stated. They are exactly the same in that regards. The roll is bypassed by the special rule. To-Hit is bypassed by Poison. To-Wound is bypassed by KB.

It's really obvious, really. Why do you care if you hit with Poison when you automatically Wound? That's the best a hit can ever do and you already got it.

Likewise, why do you care if you wound with a KB attack, if you've slain the target. The most you could have ever done is 1 wound without the KB and he would have gotten armor/regen/ward save but KB ignores all that except the ward and slays them.

That is very clear RAW and RAI. If KBs still did wounds and Poison still did hits, they would be double attacking the same model, often when it was already dead. But for multi-wound targets it would be huge. Skinks could poison an Ogre, then hit the same one after the poison was resolved and potentially do 2 wounds with 1 attack.

You got so nearly right Peasant, when saying that attacks that give you a number bypass the s/t table. What you missed is that the ones which wound say that they wound on a specific number, unlike KB.
We have gone through the process lots (roll to wound, compare number rolled to chart unless told to do otherwise by a SR, wound is dealt, roll saves, take unsaved wounds). It is quite a simple process, which you have described as too much detail.
So try and decide if there is no process being offerednor if it is being offerdd too much...
You also haven't actually gone in to any eetail of how you think the process works, apart from a very high level roll-> wounded->dead which doesn't address the mechanics / rules at all

Niteware wrote:
You got so nearly right Peasant, when saying that attacks that give you a number bypass the s/t table. What you missed is that the ones which wound say that they wound on a specific number, unlike KB.
We have gone through the process lots (roll to wound, compare number rolled to chart unless told to do otherwise by a SR, wound is dealt, roll saves, take unsaved wounds). It is quite a simple process, which you have described as too much detail.
So try and decide if there is no process being offerednor if it is being offerdd too much...
You also haven't actually gone in to any eetail of how you think the process works, apart from a very high level roll-> wounded->dead which doesn't address the mechanics / rules at all

Did you not see this? This is how it works...for everyone unless specifically told otherwise, i.e special rules like giants etc.
You still have yet to explain this..remember the process is the same for all combat, let's say S4 v. T6.
1 wound models
roll to wound of 6>Infantry>KB>slays regardless of the number of wounds
roll to wound of 6>monster>No KB>1 wound
2 wound models
roll to wound of 6>Infantry>KB>slays regardless of the number of wounds
roll to wound of 6>monster>No KB>1 wound
Since KB as written does not care about S vs.T. The 5+ automatically triggers KB by passing your S.vs T test
2 wound models with banner
roll to wound of 6>Infantry>KB>slays regardless of the number of wounds
roll to wound of 6>monster>No KB>1 wound
roll to wound of 5>Infantry>KB>slays regardless of the number of wounds
roll to wound of 5>monster>No KB>No wound

Where is the flaw? Remember the whole process is the same for every model
How does your flow chart work?

Again: to-wound is the process, a wound is the result of rolling the number on the S vs T chart required

These things are differnet. They are not the same.

While you are indeed hoping to end up with a wound by rolling to-wound, you do not HAVE TO BE ABLE TO CAUSE said wound to be able to roll on that table

Consistently you have shown a complete lack of understanding of this basic distinction, and are now likely trolling, very successfully.

Your argument is, and will remain, flawed. Your concession is accepted.

DukeRustfield wrote:
6s don't hit with poison. As I already stated. They are exactly the same in that regards. The roll is bypassed by the special rule. To-Hit is bypassed by Poison. To-Wound is bypassed by KB.

It's really obvious, really. Why do you care if you hit with Poison when you automatically Wound? That's the best a hit can ever do and you already got it.

Likewise, why do you care if you wound with a KB attack, if you've slain the target. The most you could have ever done is 1 wound without the KB and he would have gotten armor/regen/ward save but KB ignores all that except the ward and slays them.

That is very clear RAW and RAI. If KBs still did wounds and Poison still did hits, they would be double attacking the same model, often when it was already dead. But for multi-wound targets it would be huge. Skinks could poison an Ogre, then hit the same one after the poison was resolved and potentially do 2 wounds with 1 attack.

To wound roll may be bypassed, the wound is not.
You care if you hit because it is the same dice if the model is immune to poison. You also care because after you hit a target what is the next step...to wound and poison did that step for you automatically.
You care if KB wounds because you need to wound it to slay it. KB did all the wounds instead of just one.
If you followed the rules and the gaming process you'd care too. YOU don't care if you hit or wound because of your interpretation of the rule.(edit)
It really is very clear. Simple too.

(edit) Part of your confusion is that you are assuming that the KB is generating new effects from the dice roll and wounds etc. It is all based on the same dice start to finish there is no additions
Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again: to-wound is the process, a wound is the result of rolling the number on the S vs T chart required

These things are differnet. They are not the same.

While you are indeed hoping to end up with a wound by rolling to-wound, you do not HAVE TO BE ABLE TO CAUSE said wound to be able to roll on that table

Consistently you have shown a complete lack of understanding of this basic distinction, and are now likely trolling, very successfully.

Your argument is, and will remain, flawed. Your concession is accepted.

Again..
Show me your process.
All you have ever done is make statements, just as in this post.
blah blah concession blah blah.
Show me how your combat process works with and without KB. It should be the same for all models.
Until you can show a process your roll to wound, but don't have to wound, to still cause a wound is just rhetoric. I can write a sentence and construct all sorts of things but that doesn't mean they work in the game.
I am also still waiting for a time that you EVER roll to wound to NOT cause wounds. It is after all the close combat phase.

I had to edit again to add this...
.You said...'While you are indeed hoping to end up with a wound by rolling to-wound, you do not HAVE TO BE ABLE TO CAUSE said wound to be able to roll on that table'
Are you aware how ridiculous this sentence actually is.? This alone should show you that you are using a strange rules interpretation.

I think you guys are thinking way too literal.

Can you chop off a ghosts head? No. That's why it is a ghost.
Is it a magic weapon or ability with killing blow? Then yes. That ghost is redead.

Ethereal is immune to killing blow.

No, you are being too literal. You don't play the game based on fluff.

Nothing in the world can survive a cannon shot. Yet in this game you can have an old lady stand at optimal range in front of a cannon, blindfold herself, tie herself to a post, have the cannon shoot perfectly and hit her square in the face, and the cannon ball do absolutely nothing. It's unlikely, but it can happen. In fact, assuming it hits, there's a 1:6 chance of it, which compared to real life would be like 1 in a quadrillion.

The game doesn't exist around fluff because that's a really boring game. Because whole swaths of units would be useless. The rules are rough approximations.

Whether someone is a ghost or not is 100% irrelevant. It's what rule they possess. As has been pointed out, skeletons, with no circulatory system, heart, lungs, organs, etc, can still be poisoned. That makes no sense at all. It's just a game mechanic.

 Peasant wrote:

Niteware wrote:
You got so nearly right Peasant, when saying that attacks that give you a number bypass the s/t table. What you missed is that the ones which wound say that they wound on a specific number, unlike KB.
We have gone through the process lots (roll to wound, compare number rolled to chart unless told to do otherwise by a SR, wound is dealt, roll saves, take unsaved wounds). It is quite a simple process, which you have described as too much detail.
So try and decide if there is no process being offerednor if it is being offerdd too much...
You also haven't actually gone in to any eetail of how you think the process works, apart from a very high level roll-> wounded->dead which doesn't address the mechanics / rules at all

Did you not see this? This is how it works...for everyone unless specifically told otherwise, i.e special rules like giants etc.
You still have yet to explain this..remember the process is the same for all combat, let's say S4 v. T6.
1 wound models
roll to wound of 6>Infantry>KB>slays regardless of the number of wounds
roll to wound of 6>monster>No KB>1 wound
2 wound models
roll to wound of 6>Infantry>KB>slays regardless of the number of wounds
roll to wound of 6>monster>No KB>1 wound
Since KB as written does not care about S vs.T. The 5+ automatically triggers KB by passing your S.vs T test
2 wound models with banner
roll to wound of 6>Infantry>KB>slays regardless of the number of wounds
roll to wound of 6>monster>No KB>1 wound
roll to wound of 5>Infantry>KB>slays regardless of the number of wounds
roll to wound of 5>monster>No KB>No wound

Where is the flaw? Remember the whole process is the same for every model
How does your flow chart work?

I did see that. What is missing is the point in your process where the wound is generated. This happens after the KB stage, so that no wound is generated at all on those iterations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Generalian wrote:
I think you guys are thinking way too literal.

Can you chop off a ghosts head? No. That's why it is a ghost.
Is it a magic weapon or ability with killing blow? Then yes. That ghost is redead.

Ethereal is immune to killing blow.

You can either follow the rules as they are wriitten (being literal) or you can make up your own (house rules). We are discussing the rules as written. You are free to add rules like "Ethereal is Immune to Killing Blow" if you like, but that isn't in the rule book.
In 16 pages, nobody has argued that Etheeal are immune to KB, just ahout whether being immune to kundane wounds also protefts them fiom mundane KB.

Niteware wrote:

I did see that. What is missing is the point in your process where the wound is generated. This happens after the KB stage, so that no wound is generated at all on those iterations.

Its not missing.
That '6' takes care of the wound or all wounds. It is the same dice for everyone.
How do you play it? You still have yet to say.

Peasant wrote:
.You said...'While you are indeed hoping to end up with a wound by rolling to-wound, you do not HAVE TO BE ABLE TO CAUSE said wound to be able to roll on that table'
Are you aware how ridiculous this sentence actually is.? This alone should show you that you are using a strange rules interpretation.

Sigh.

Find the rule that states that, even thoguh you cannot successfully generate a wound, you do not still have to roll on the table

Page and paragraph. Nothing else. FUrther trolling will be reported.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Peasant wrote:
.You said...'While you are indeed hoping to end up with a wound by rolling to-wound, you do not HAVE TO BE ABLE TO CAUSE said wound to be able to roll on that table'
Are you aware how ridiculous this sentence actually is.? This alone should show you that you are using a strange rules interpretation.

Sigh.

Find the rule that states that, even thoguh you cannot successfully generate a wound, you do not still have to roll on the table

Page and paragraph. Nothing else. FUrther trolling will be reported.

You accuse me of trolling?? Did you reread your post?
You are supposed to be rolling to wound.
Show me ANY time you are ever asked to roll dice, without the possibility of success or failure, and not to do what you were instructed to do.? Since it is your belief that KB does not cause wounds.
Have ever rolled a Ld test not to test your Ld? Ever rolled to hit not to hit? Ever rolled to wound not to wound? Do you roll 2d6 when you automatically fail your test? Do you roll charge dice when you wanted to charge but weren't in charge range? I could go on and on..well sometimes I do go on and on because it seems I need 1000 examples just to get the simplest idea across.
The whole idea of doing something that you can't actually do is asinine. Yes, it is an idea.
So a player should have to roll all 3 dice with their hellblaster, because they were going to shoot at the target but the modifiers made it impossible to hit, but they could still roll misfires.. But you probably don't like that because it generates a negative result.

If you can't generate wounds, then roll on table, no wounds no KB. It is TO WOUND.
Show me page and paragraph that states KB does not cause wounds.. Show me the page and paragraph that rolling to wound is NOT for the purpose, success or failure, based on your d6 NOT to cause wounds. Can you?. Or will you just type your interpretation again, rather than RAW?? Which is fine, I don't really care how you play it, I argue for fun.
Your Breaking down the paragraph to take sentences out of context does not prove your stance.
You have yet to show me your process..still. How you believe you are supposed to play this KB roll.? One dice for everyone.
And I'm still waiting for a page and paragraph where you roll to wound for anything other than to cause wounds. Rolls to wound are for wounds.

 Peasant wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Peasant wrote:
.You said...'While you are indeed hoping to end up with a wound by rolling to-wound, you do not HAVE TO BE ABLE TO CAUSE said wound to be able to roll on that table'
Are you aware how ridiculous this sentence actually is.? This alone should show you that you are using a strange rules interpretation.

Sigh.

Find the rule that states that, even thoguh you cannot successfully generate a wound, you do not still have to roll on the table

Page and paragraph. Nothing else. FUrther trolling will be reported.

You accuse me of trolling?? Did you reread your post?
You are supposed to be rolling to wound.
Show me ANY time you are ever asked to roll dice, without the possibility of success or failure, and not to do what you were instructed to do.? Since it is your belief that KB does not cause wounds.
Have ever rolled a Ld test not to test your Ld? Ever rolled to hit not to hit? Ever rolled to wound not to wound? Do you roll 2d6 when you automatically fail your test? Do you roll charge dice when you wanted to charge but weren't in charge range? I could go on and on..well sometimes I do go on and on because it seems I need 1000 examples just to get the simplest idea across.
The whole idea of doing something that you can't actually do is asinine. Yes, it is an idea.
So a player should have to roll all 3 dice with their hellblaster, because they were going to shoot at the target but the modifiers made it impossible to hit, but they could still roll misfires.. But you probably don't like that because it generates a negative result.

If you can't generate wounds, then roll on table, no wounds no KB. It is TO WOUND.
Show me page and paragraph that states KB does not cause wounds.. Show me the page and paragraph that rolling to wound is NOT for the purpose, success or failure, based on your d6 NOT to cause wounds. Can you?. Or will you just type your interpretation again, rather than RAW?? Which is fine, I don't really care how you play it, I argue for fun.
Your Breaking down the paragraph to take sentences out of context does not prove your stance.
You have yet to show me your process..still. How you believe you are supposed to play this KB roll.? One dice for everyone.
And I'm still waiting for a page and paragraph where you roll to wound for anything other than to cause wounds. Rolls to wound are for wounds.

Of course you roll to hit even if something cannot be hit and roll to wound if you can't wound - the rules tell you to. Of course you don't roll to charge if you are out of charge range, the rules don't let you. Saying that there is no point in something ergo you don't do it is not a rules arguement, it is HIWPI.
Saying "6 takes care of it" is exactly the lack of detail that I was criticising in your approach. Reread the rules for to wound. There is a process. Only at the end of that process does a wound exist. KB changes that process, so no wound is ever generated. If you don't even look at the process, you will never understand the rule.

 Peasant wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Peasant wrote:
.You said...'While you are indeed hoping to end up with a wound by rolling to-wound, you do not HAVE TO BE ABLE TO CAUSE said wound to be able to roll on that table'
Are you aware how ridiculous this sentence actually is.? This alone should show you that you are using a strange rules interpretation.

Sigh.

Find the rule that states that, even thoguh you cannot successfully generate a wound, you do not still have to roll on the table

Page and paragraph. Nothing else. FUrther trolling will be reported.

You accuse me of trolling?? Did you reread your post?

So trolling it is then.

I read my post, and reread, and noted I asked you a very simple question which you are apparenlty unable to answer. Your refusal to answer is noted.

The rest of your ranting has been snipped, as it still misses the core:

You are told, in close combat, to roll to hit, to wound, etc. Find a rule stating that you are allowed to not roll to-wound. Page and paragraph

Yes, if you declare you are shooting a hellblaster and cannot actually hit, you are still requried to see if yo ublow up. BEcause, and this appears to be a shock to you, the rules for shooting tell you what to do - and one step is to-hit. For example prior to 8th if you found you were out of range with skaven snipers, you still had to shoot in case you blew them up.

Here, you are told to roll to hit, and if you hit you are told to-wound. THese are distinct processes. If you are S3, vs a T3 ethereal creature, then you still according to the actual rules of the game have to roll to-hit, and if you manage to hit any roll of a 4+ to wound generates a wound. This wound is then discounted, because of the ethereal rule.

FInd a rule, ANYWHERE, stating you do not have to follow the rules for close combat

I think after 16 pages there's really nothing new to be said.

let's hope they provide an answer in the FAQs sooner rather than later.