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:
@UncleGlock You have read those threads and are still making those mainly silly arguments? The only new things are the items. The DE item doesn't make your case at all, since it only talks about the presence of the rule. The HE item doea not make your case either, as Duke has pointed out.

A implies B does not mean that B implies A; the fact that you can take wards against wounds dowoes nit even suggest that you cannonly take them against wounds. That is why p43 ir irrelevant - it is talking about wounds. It is p44 that talks about wards. So when things which don't cause wounds (Black Horror for example) say that you can take a ward, this does not suddenly imply that they cause wounds.

Here is a very simple test to see if effects cause wounds. Read Pit of Shades. Does it say it causes wounds? No. So it doesn't. Read plague wind. Does it say it causes wounds? Yes. So it does. Read KB. Does it say it causes wounds? No. So it doesn't. The to wound process causes a wound at the same time, but that is a different thing from KB.
I agree that the language for Tyrion is sloppy, and it falls in to the "you know what they meant, so HiWPI is let them have a 2+ against kb", but tht is HIWPI not RAW.

Actually, I think that the text for killing blow from the BRB heavily implies it causes a wound. The very existence of Heroic Killing blow almost certifiably verifies it causes a wound. The KB special rule activates as part of rolling to wound. If you had a special rule that makes you immune to killing blow then you do not ignore the 6s rolled by an attacker with killing blow. Killing blow is a wound with a "slay outright" rider. Its why it is not listed as an instant kill effect in its text because that would imply it didn't cause a wound. This means that although the banner would not work against say black horror, it does work against a magical killing blow.

@ithinkibrokeit


correct. It has been readily apparent that KB does indeed cause a wound, however they just wont concede to the point.

Just because the writer forgot to put that "slays outright" means removes all remaining wounds on the models profile, they continue to argue. There are too many examples in the book supporting the argument however that KB does deal wound damage however.

Ahh well.......im sure GW will faq it one day.

Don't hold your breath on an FAQ, it's a silly argument. GW doesn't edit properly, and instead of sticking to single terminology, they complicate their own lives by saying too many different ways of removing models, "slain outright", "pulled to their doom", "removed as a casualty", "slain", etc. Is it too much to ask to just say, "if the (Whatever test / save/ etc.) is failed, the model immediately suffers all of its remaining wounds"...?

The butt-hurt from the BotWD will carry on through the ages as a 50 pt blunder by GW so people will do ALL they can to get around it.

This includes saying magic isn't magic, and killing a model outright doesn't remove wounds... oh well.

So you're saying that just because Tyrions item says it blocks wounds caused by KB doesn't mean that KB causes wounds?

UncleGlock wrote:
Problem is all 6s cause wounds. And both Tyrion in the HE book and Malekith in the DE book specifically call out Unsaved wounds caused by KB.

The point those against you are trying to make is that "this rule prevents any unsaved woulds caused by Killing Blow" does not mean--and this is strictly a grammar thing, now--that Killing Blow causes wounds. It sure as Hell suggests it, but it does not literally read as such.
As I said; I'd never play it this way. The RAW lead to many a silly situation.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peasant wrote:
It's all over the KB example that KB wounds...the trump card was 2 army book stating that KB causes wounds which never really should have been in doubt.

See above response. I totally agree with you, but those two items do not actually prove anything. They just very strongly imply it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(emphasis mine)

IthinkIbrokeit wrote:
Actually, I think that the text for killing blow from the BRB heavily implies it causes a wound. The very existence of Heroic Killing blow [b]almost certifiably verifies[i] it causes a wound.

Agreed. But implications and almost's are not what we're here to discuss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peasant wrote:
So you're saying that just because Tyrions item says it blocks wounds caused by KB doesn't mean that KB causes wounds?

That is, unfortunately, a perfectly sound argument. "Subject is immune to Effect caused by Situation" can still be absolutely, 100% true and valid whether or not the Situation could ever by any means cause the Effect.
Stupid as it is, there is nothing rhetorically wrong with it.

IthinkIbrokeit wrote:

Niteware wrote:
@UncleGlock You have read those threads and are still making those mainly silly arguments? The only new things are the items. The DE item doesn't make your case at all, since it only talks about the presence of the rule. The HE item doea not make your case either, as Duke has pointed out.

A implies B does not mean that B implies A; the fact that you can take wards against wounds dowoes nit even suggest that you cannonly take them against wounds. That is why p43 ir irrelevant - it is talking about wounds. It is p44 that talks about wards. So when things which don't cause wounds (Black Horror for example) say that you can take a ward, this does not suddenly imply that they cause wounds.

Here is a very simple test to see if effects cause wounds. Read Pit of Shades. Does it say it causes wounds? No. So it doesn't. Read plague wind. Does it say it causes wounds? Yes. So it does. Read KB. Does it say it causes wounds? No. So it doesn't. The to wound process causes a wound at the same time, but that is a different thing from KB.
I agree that the language for Tyrion is sloppy, and it falls in to the "you know what they meant, so HiWPI is let them have a 2+ against kb", but tht is HIWPI not RAW.

Actually, I think that the text for killing blow from the BRB heavily implies it causes a wound. The very existence of Heroic Killing blow almost certifiably verifies it causes a wound. The KB special rule activates as part of rolling to wound. If you had a special rule that makes you immune to killing blow then you do not ignore the 6s rolled by an attacker with killing blow. Killing blow is a wound with a "slay outright" rider. Its why it is not listed as an instant kill effect in its text because that would imply it didn't cause a wound. This means that although the banner would not work against say black horror, it does work against a magical killing blow.

That is not an implication that Killing Blow causes wounds, it implies that the To Wound process causes wounds. Exactly the same as for models without killing blow, except that an additional effect also happens. Killing Blow. The fact that they "forgot to put in that it removes the maximum number of wounds on the profile" means that it doesn't.

That is why p43 ir irrelevant - it is talking about wounds. It is p44 that talks about wards.

Page 44 is meaningless without page 43. Stop trying to claim Ward saves are not saves. They are.

the fact that you can take wards against wounds [does not] even suggest that you [can only] take them against wounds.

Cool so I can take BotWD ward saves against things other than wounds? That also states I can get a ward save against wounds.

However this is basically a massive misrepresentation of how a permissive ruleset works. The saves rules only give you permission to take them against wounds. Thus you can only take them against wounds, just like the banner. Then KB comes in and goes unlike normal you can take your ward save here and this is the effect (please also note that KB does a wound because it does not state you don't and a to wound roll has been made, that is completely cut a dry without needing the DE & HE items).

 FlingitNow wrote:

That is why p43 ir irrelevant - it is talking about wounds. It is p44 that talks about wards.

Page 44 is meaningless without page 43. Stop trying to claim Ward saves are not saves. They are.

the fact that you can take wards against wounds [does not] even suggest that you [can only] take them against wounds.

Cool so I can take BotWD ward saves against things other than wounds? That also states I can get a ward save against wounds.

However this is basically a massive misrepresentation of how a permissive ruleset works. The saves rules only give you permission to take them against wounds. Thus you can only take them against wounds, just like the banner. Then KB comes in and goes unlike normal you can take your ward save here and this is the effect (please also note that KB does a wound because it does not state you don't and a to wound roll has been made, that is completely cut a dry without needing the DE & HE items).

wow flight, just wow. I haven't claimed they aren't saves, just that you and Uncpe keep misrepresenting what saves are. Which you do. That does not mean that you can ignore the wounds clauseon BOTWD. Again, the opposite is true. You seem weirdly blind about this. Generally, saves are not defined as being specifically against wounds. BOTWD IS defined as specifically against wounds. How can you possibly fail to see the difference?
Saves do not define what they can be taken against (see p44 for the definition of a ward save). P43 tells you how to save wounds, it does not say that it is the sum total of the ways in which saves are taken. Hence ward saves not being defined as having anything to do with wounds.

Generally, saves are not defined as being specifically against wounds

Page 43 says otherwise.

BOTWD IS defined as specifically against wounds. How can you possibly fail to see the difference?

Because there isn't one?

Saves do not define what they can be taken against (see p44 for the definition of a ward save).

See page 43 the definition of a save, what are saves taken against? (Hint the answer is on page 43).

P43 tells you how to save wounds, it does not say that it is the sum total of the ways in which saves are taken.

Permissive rule set. The rules for saves only give you permission to take them against wounds.

Hence ward saves not being defined as having anything to do with wounds.

Unless of course ward saves are saves in which case they are taken against wounds as per page 43.

@Niteware, I havent once misrepresented what saves are. You apparenlty keep failing to understand what there are. Theres a very bold sentence at the top of the page on page 43 clearly defines what saves are.
A misrepresentation Niteware would be where you were trying to use the Lizardman Rule Predatory Fighter as some strange justification for wounds when its a roll of a 6 To Hit causes extra hits.

Saves save against wound, except where they are specifically allowed to saveagaisnt something other than wounds. Permissive ruleset satisfied.

A rolll of a 6 on a model with KB causes a wound, but if it fails its ward save it is dead befroe that wound can be applied

UncleGlock - nope, still cart before horse. An item saying it protects against unsaved wounds from KB does not mean the same thing as killing blow causes wounds. Protection against wounds caused by flying does not mean flying causes wounds. Basic logic.

Lol you make no sense. An unsaved wound is the last part of a series of steps. Please explain how you get to an unsaved wound. SInce you cant have an unsaved wound without an attempt at a save and since every single wound in the game that has no save will specifically say that no saves are allowed against it and not its an unsaved wound with no save permitted. Thats what logic is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heres a hint, there actually is a clear definition for Unsaved Wounds in the rule book.

Saves save against wound, except where they are specifically allowed to saveagaisnt something other than wounds. Permissive ruleset satisfied.

Yeah so you get BotWD against KB glad we agree.

A rolll of a 6 on a model with KB causes a wound, but if it fails its ward save it is dead befroe that wound can be applied

And if it passes KB is ignored. The wound and the KB would resolve at the same time if save is failed nothing in KB says it occurs before the wound and it is triggered by the same event so occurs simultaneously.

An unsaved wound is the last part of a series of steps. Please explain how you get to an unsaved wound. SInce you cant have an unsaved wound without an attempt at a save and since every single wound in the game that has no save will specifically say that no saves are allowed against it and not its an unsaved wound with no save permitted. Thats what logic is.

What he's saying is because you have an event triggered by an unsaved wound from KB does not mean a KB can lead to an unsaved wound. However the whole KB does not cause a wound argument has absolutely no basis in rules.

I understand what he was saying Flingit but the problem is that the rules under Tyrion clearly states Unsaved Wounds caused by KB, HKB, and Multi-Wound which means it can in fact cause unsaved wounds or else they would have said the effect of KB, HKB or MW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That and I was more referencing is logic argument about flying vs. actually reading the steps in the wounding process since theres an actual definition for Unsaved Wounds in the book and it clearly tells us how they are achieved. And in order to achieve you have to bypass a few steps to get there and nothing gives you permission to bypass a save attempt or else it wouldnt be stated as an Unsaved Wound but would instead be stated as a Wound with no saves permitted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goes back to a similar question i asked earlier. If i have a poison weapon and i roll a 6 i cause a wound. You in turn have a charm shield and you roll and discard the hit. Do you still take a wound from poison? Both effects happen on the hit roll so does it happen? If you save the wound that caused killing blow how does that still go off since a save say the wound is cancelled in BRB.

Okay UncleGlock, I do not think you read the other threads where this stuff has already been covered and those got shut down because it is an issue that requires a FAQ.

But seeing that you think that KB wounds because of rolling a 6 in the To wound phase is wrong.

A example was brought up in the other threads that shows that KB does not care if the to wound roll is successful or not.

The tomb kings have a spell, also there is a few magic items in other books that allow KB to work on a 5 or 6.

Let say a unit of Tomb Guard with the spell on them attack another unit of guys, whose toughness has been boosted to 7.

After rolling to hit, the TG now roll to wound, they need 6's to cause successful wounds, but they also KB on rolls of 5's and 6's.

Those 5's are not rolls for successful wounds, as KB does not care, it just cares about the number on the die.

As it has been stated in the other threads over and over again, no where in the rules does it say KB cause wounds, we've checked like 100 times. The only time it mentions wounding is for the purposes of scoring in the combat resolution section. It even states with errata added in,

"Attacks that kill a model outright (made with a Killing Blow, say -- see page 72) score the same amount of wounds as the slain model has on its profile." (pg. 52 with errata)

This is with that errata added in that made people say that it causes wounds, except they missed the part SCORE.

Also the only other time you see similar terms, kill a model out right is... wait for it...wait for it.... Instant Kills! (pg. 44 for instant kill info)


Like I said over and over again, this whole thing needs a FAQ, but GW is slow and people like to argue, I hope the mods will read this and shut this thread down again as this argument will not be solved with two sides yelling at each other.

Also you are doing what other posters did in the previous threads that got them in trouble, and that is trolling, aka posting opinions and rules that are made up with out any evidence to back them up, I would watch out for warnings by mods.

@Fling Trolling.
@Uncle I undrstand why you think that protection from X must mean that X exists. Although this presumably makes the Pentagon's alien defense and paranormal research programmes pretty scary for you. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually work in logic or in rules.
The fact is that the BRB gives no possibility of KB generating wounds. Even if an army book came out which actually did say that KB caused wounds, that could only apply when that army book was being used (weirdly changing a rule for some battles), and it would take a BRB errata to get KB to wound as is.

Sorry what is trolling about my post. I just pointed out what the rulebook says on subjects.

Niteware wrote:
@Fling Trolling.
@Uncle I undrstand why you think that protection from X must mean that X exists. Although this presumably makes the Pentagon's alien defense and paranormal research programmes pretty scary for you. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually work in logic or in rules.
The fact is that the BRB gives no possibility of KB generating wounds. Even if an army book came out which actually did say that KB caused wounds, that could only apply when that army book was being used (weirdly changing a rule for some battles), and it would take a BRB errata to get KB to wound as is.

Sorry, go read the HE book, ive qouted it enough. Pg 55, Tyrion, Heart of Avelorn. It specifically calls out UNSAVED WOUNDS from KB. Than by your reasoning its in the HE army book as is the BotWD which would work.
And dont attempt to be smart with silly comments such as the governments big bad scary alien programs. Just go back to qouting LM rules on to hit rolls because you were at least funny that time.

Ok, I got the LM one wrong. As you saw, I misremembered it. Your logic is still faulty now.

@Flight
You can protect penguins by saving ice flows.
Ice Flows are big areas of Sea Ice.
You can protect Polar Bears by saving ice flows.
Flight logic "So you are saying that all polar bears are penguins, since Ice Flows were defined under Penguins and that was the first use of the term ice flow".
Saves first appear in the context of "How do we stop wounds". The save itself is then defined onthe next page. This does not mean it can only ever apply to wounds. Especially since the Instant Kill section leaves open the door for saves.
@Uncle You still haven't proved that movement doesn't cause wounds.
The HE rule would work IF KB caused wounds, which it doesn't. The rule is still logically and linguistically fine, just doesn't do anything RAW. May be why they changed the wording for the DE book; that iem does arguably work RAW

I'm more inclined to say the Heart says it does wounds. But as I said, that doesn't change the fact that BRB doesn't say it does wounds. One thing we argued (endlessly) is that to do wounds it has to SAY it does wounds. The Heart literally says that. Which is what we were saying KB should say, yet it doesn't. You can't deny it doesn't--to use a double negative. If you take the text from Heart it isn't remotely like the text of KB.

"including unsaved wounds...as a result of...KB"

!=

"he automatically slays...regardless of the number of wounds on the profile"

Another aside on the concept that 6 is automatically a wound (who would think we could drag this dead horse further?): the KB special rule has text that says if an attack wounds automatically it can't KB. If a 6 is a RAW auto-wound then there is no such thing as KB, except on a TK-buffed unit who rolls a 5. So a 6 can't be the equivalent of a Wounds Automatically (even though there is no special rule as such) or it removes KB from existence.

You can protect penguins by saving ice flows.
Ice Flows are big areas of Sea Ice.
You can protect Polar Bears by saving ice flows.
Flight logic "So you are saying that all polar bears are penguins, since Ice Flows were defined under Penguins and that was the first use of the term ice flow".
Saves first appear in the context of "How do we stop wounds". The save itself is then defined onthe next page. This does not mean it can only ever apply to wounds. Especially since the Instant Kill section leaves open the door for saves.

Strawman is made of straw. The rules for saves are detailed in a section on pages 43-44. There are exceptions to those rules defined elsewhere in the rules but these are exceptions to the normal saves rules. In the saves rules saves are defined to be taken against wounds and nothing else.

 FlingitNow wrote:
In the saves rules saves are defined to be taken against wounds and nothing else.

Quote to back up your oft repeated nonsense?

Page 43 first paragraph. Please quote a rule from the saves rules that says you can take them against something other than wounds.

Which bit of the rules on "How do you take saves against wounds" are you talking abiut? Which states that saves are only for wounda I mean? It isn't there.
The definition of Ward Saves doesn't specify what they can be taken against. Your question is another version of prove that movement doesn't cause wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Incidentally though, the Instant Kills cut out says that some will let you take saves but that they do nt cause wounds.

@FlingitNow:

p.43 "Each wound suffered may be cancelled if the controlling player makes a saving throw...Models that are wounded still have a chance to avoid a grisly death by "saving" the wound"

I don't see anything on this page that restricts when I can make saves; I can take them for wounds, and for other stuff, if that other stuff says I can. Right?

p.44 "Some special attacks don't inflict wounds...When this is the case, not only are no saves of any kind allowed (unless specified otherwise), but the number of wounds on the victim's profile is completely irrelevant"

...as in, on this page. It tells me that things other than wounds can be saved, if the rules say they can. Killing Blow fits in this category without breaking any rules (though it certainly defies logic).
What am I missing, here?

p.72 "If a model with the Killing Blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound...he automatically slays his opponent-regardless of the number of wounds..."

You said "...note that KB does a wound because it does not state you don't and a to wound roll has been made", but I don't think that's quite right. Killing Blow does stuff when you rolll a 6 to wound, but it doesn't replace it. Technically, it looks like you both trigger KB and cause a wound, so they'd need to be dealt with separately.

@UncleGlock: Just to be clear, do you believe that:

(1)Tyrion's item so strongly implies that Killing Blow causes wounds, that this is evidence that Killing Blow is, in fact, meant to cause wounds

OR

(2)Tyrion's item protects against wounds caused by Killing Blow, and therefore KIiling Blow must cause wounds?

Because, I'll be blunt, #2 is a logical fallacy. #1 is what I believe, but it's not technically correct, according to the RAW.

@fattymac04: Excellent point about the 5-6 KB. I think that discounts the "you're rolling to wound, therefore KB causes wounds" argument quite nicely.

fattymac04 wrote:
Okay UncleGlock, I do not think you read the other threads where this stuff has already been covered and those got shut down because it is an issue that requires a FAQ.

But seeing that you think that KB wounds because of rolling a 6 in the To wound phase is wrong.

A example was brought up in the other threads that shows that KB does not care if the to wound roll is successful or not.

The tomb kings have a spell, also there is a few magic items in other books that allow KB to work on a 5 or 6.

Let say a unit of Tomb Guard with the spell on them attack another unit of guys, whose toughness has been boosted to 7.

After rolling to hit, the TG now roll to wound, they need 6's to cause successful wounds, but they also KB on rolls of 5's and 6's.

Those 5's are not rolls for successful wounds, as KB does not care, it just cares about the number on the die.

There are a few problems here.
1. So you believe that you can take the tomb kings book which changes the trigger role of KB to 5 and 6, yet the written statement about '...unsaved wounds from KB...' means less??
2.KB does not care about toughness or armour..annotation on brb pg 72. YOu are never permitted to ignore wounds.

It is now up to the naysayers to find new evidence to disprove the text about unsaved wounds from KB.

 Peasant wrote:

fattymac04 wrote:
Okay UncleGlock, I do not think you read the other threads where this stuff has already been covered and those got shut down because it is an issue that requires a FAQ.

But seeing that you think that KB wounds because of rolling a 6 in the To wound phase is wrong.

A example was brought up in the other threads that shows that KB does not care if the to wound roll is successful or not.

The tomb kings have a spell, also there is a few magic items in other books that allow KB to work on a 5 or 6.

Let say a unit of Tomb Guard with the spell on them attack another unit of guys, whose toughness has been boosted to 7.

After rolling to hit, the TG now roll to wound, they need 6's to cause successful wounds, but they also KB on rolls of 5's and 6's.

Those 5's are not rolls for successful wounds, as KB does not care, it just cares about the number on the die.

There are a few problems here.
1. So you believe that you can take the tomb kings book which changes the trigger role of KB to 5 and 6, yet the written statement about '...unsaved wounds from KB...' means less??
2.KB does not care about toughness or armour..annotation on brb pg 72. YOu are never permitted to ignore wounds.

It is now up to the naysayers to find new evidence to disprove the text about unsaved wounds from KB.

Logical fallacy as has been shown a few times. There is nothing to disprove.

I don't see anything on this page that restricts when I can make saves; I can take them for wounds, and for other stuff, if that other stuff says I can. Right?

So first I didn't say there was a restriction on saves of only ever against wounds. The rules you quoted give you permission to take the save against wounds it does not give you permission to take saves against anything else. Just like the BotWD gives you permission to take a ward save against wounds but restricts the sources to magical ones.

as in, on this page. It tells me that things other than wounds can be saved, if the rules say they can. Killing Blow fits in this category without breaking any rules (though it certainly defies logic).
What am I missing, here?

That's in the instant kills rules. It is an exception to the normal rules as it gives further permission. Just as the KB rules do. They are permission to take a save against something other than wounds and as dsuch work for normal ward saves and BotWD.

Warpsolution wrote:
@FlingitNow:


p.44 "Some special attacks don't inflict wounds...When this is the case, not only are no saves of any kind allowed (unless specified otherwise), but the number of wounds on the victim's profile is completely irrelevant"

...as in, on this page. It tells me that things other than wounds can be saved, if the rules say they can. Killing Blow fits in this category without breaking any rules (though it certainly defies logic).
What am I missing, here?

p.72 "If a model with the Killing Blow special rule rolls a 6 to wound...he automatically slays his opponent-regardless of the number of wounds..."

Your own typing shows where you are missing.
Instant kills says the wounds are irrelevant. So the wounds don't matter.
KB says regardless of the number of wounds. So the number doesn't matter, be it 1 or 100.

You said "...note that KB does a wound because it does not state you don't and a to wound roll has been made", but I don't think that's quite right. Killing Blow does stuff when you rolll a 6 to wound, but it doesn't replace it. Technically, it looks like you both trigger KB and cause a wound, so they'd need to be dealt with separately.

So deal with them separately, cause 1 wound from the dice roll and all the rest of them from the KB. The score would be the same. KB is an all or nothing result.,

@UncleGlock: Just to be clear, do you believe that:

(1)Tyrion's item so strongly implies that Killing Blow causes wounds, that this is evidence that Killing Blow is, in fact, meant to cause wounds

OR

(2)Tyrion's item protects against wounds caused by Killing Blow, and therefore KIiling Blow must cause wounds?

Because, I'll be blunt, #2 is a logical fallacy. #1 is what I believe, but it's not technically correct, according to the RAW.

@fattymac04: Excellent point about the 5-6 KB. I think that discounts the "you're rolling to wound, therefore KB causes wounds" argument quite nicely.

How else should ...protects against wounds caused by killing blow be taken?
You are specifically told where the wound came from. It came from KB
If your save is against wounds caused by poison attacks...where must the wound come from.? How do you know where the wound came from?
To go back to the flying example. Flying may not cause wounds, but if you are told you are wounded by flying and you are able to save against a wound caused by flying, then flying can cause wounds...it requires a dice roll to do so in our game.
KB doesn't cause wounds...unless you roll a 6 to wound...then KB has caused wounds. (edit to add last dfew sentences here)
The only reason you are finding fault in the logic is because you disbelieve that KB wounds, once you accept wounding then there is no problem in the logic in any process.
Same question for you, because KB can trigger on a 5 or a 6 in a different rule book that proves more about KB not wounding than 2 books that state ...unsaved wounds from KB..'
Actual text stating the result.
KB does not care about toughness or armor saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:


Logical fallacy as has been shown a few times. There is nothing to disprove.

So what does ..unsaved wound from KB mean?

We have a game that doesn't depend on logic, it depends on specific chain of events.

The army book > the BRB in terms of that specific army. But saying the Heart is some universal rule is incorrect. The item completely breaks the normal game rules for every other instance of attacks. It's just one item that has no reach beyond itself.

KB never says it causes wounds. Just like reducing someone's T to 0 never says it causes wounds. The Heart would not block the death caused by having Tyrion's S/T reduced to 0. The wording of that action is slain, exactly the same as KB. It is also the exact same wording as Dwellers Below, and the Heart would also not block that.