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.

DukeRustfield wrote:
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.

Sometimes magic items do break the rules.
Tyrions item isn't breaking a rule with the KB statement.
Reducing someones toughness to zero doesn't cause wounds, it kills them.
Dwellers is nowhere near the exact same wording. It is a Strength test as opposed to a roll to wound, and it says the model is slain, where KB says the model is slain regardless of the number of wounds.
They both use slain though, along with about 20 other times in the book.

Uncle =glock / Peasant (as you are both makig the same logical error) - the game does depend on a certain amount of logic, actually. It has to, otherwise basic concepts would .not work,

Something saying "I protect you against wounds from flying" does not automatically mean that suddenly flying in and of itself causes any wounds. That isnt how language works. What it says is IF you have any wounds caused by flying, then you get save against them.

That does not suddenly mean flying causes wounds.

Same with Killing Blow - it says you get a save against unsaved wounds caused by killing blow; killing blow however does not itself cause wounds - it slays you, regardless of your wounds. Meaning strictly speaking the item has no function in this instance.

Cart before horse. You have an abilty that triggers on a specific effect; that does not mean that effect can happen. VERY basic concept.

Fling - no, do not put words in my mouth. You WOULD get a save, except KB has already killed you as you do not get a ward against KB. Oh, and they do not have to happen at the same time - KB occurs on a 6, the wound also occurs but you get a save. Your trolling is ignored.

Fling, you are still trying a) to say that BOTWD is a different thing from a ward save and b) that saves are defined in terms of wounds.
Instant Kills are not an exception for saves any more than wounds are, since the definition of saves does not say that they are to do with wounds. There are placez where you are told you can take aaves. One of those places is under wounds.
Unlike ward saves in general, BOTWD specifically restricts itself to wounds which means that it cannot be used in the other situations where aaves are allowed.

Fling, you are still trying a) to say that BOTWD is a different thing from a ward save and b) that saves are defined in terms of wounds.

I have never claimed a) and b) is obviously correct. You then makes some comments based on Ward saves not being saves which I just dont really get. Ward saves are a subset of saves. Therefore they are defined as something you may take to avoid a wound as per the saves rules.

They are defined as something that can save against wounds, OR against other effects - being killed instantly.

Given that we know this, are you now claiming that saves can ONLY be taken against wounds, and therefore effets which explicitly do NOT cause wounds, cause wounds?

That is some bizarre illogic, if so.

 FlingitNow wrote:
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.

So we're agreed that the book has given us permission to save things that are not wounds then. Right? But how does that give us permission to use the BoTWD for things other than wounds, when the Banner doesn't give us that permission?

OR against other effects - being killed instantly

No permission to do this exists in the saves rules. Each special case that allows a save to be taken against it instead of (or as well as in the case of KB) details this exception to the normal saves rules and the impact that passing has (by the normal saves rules passed saves only prevent wounds).

Given that we know this, are you now claiming that saves can ONLY be taken against wounds, and therefore effets which explicitly do NOT cause wounds, cause wounds?

No saves are normally taken against wounds. Any rule that allows saves to be taken against something other than wounds details how those saves are taken and the impact that passing those saves has.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

That is some bizarre illogic, if so

Coming from the guy that thinks the rules aren't what the GW design team designed...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So we're agreed that the book has given us permission to save things that are not wounds then. Right? But how does that give us permission to use the BoTWD for things other than wounds, when the Banner doesn't give us that permission?

Those rules give us permission to take saves against something other than wounds. It works for normal saves just aswell as the banner. Unless you're stating it works for neither?

 Peasant wrote:

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.

I don't follow you. Instant kills don't care about the number of wounds, and Killing Blow doesn't care about the number of wounds...what are you trying to show me?

 Peasant wrote:
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.

That's not how it technically works though. You roll a 6, which both causes a wound and triggers KB. So you make a Ward save versus Killing Blow. If you're still alive, you have to make any armour/Ward/Regen saves versus the regular wound.
I'd never dream of playing it this way, but that is how it works, when you follow the book to the letter.

 Peasant wrote:
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...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.

"protects against wounds caused by Killing Blow" does not prove that Killing Blow causes wounds. It implies it, very strongly, but that's not a sound argument. The flying example is a perfect one, but I don't think you're using it correctly: can the special rule Flying cause wounds? No. Of course not. "Flying" means that a unit can move 10" in a straight line over terrain and units and such. It has absolutely nothing to do about wounds. So if there was an item that said it "protects against wounds caused by Flying", it would prevent zero wounds, because none would ever be caused.
Again, it's just as stupid as can be. But it's the rhetorical truth.

 Peasant wrote:
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...

The Tomb King book tells us how Killing Blow works. The High Elf book tells us how it reacts to a situation involving Killing Blow. And that situation, in the silliest and most literal of ways, never comes up.

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

WHAT? Pretty sure we depend on logic (from the Greek λογική, logos: the use of valid reasoning in some activity) to do everything ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Those rules give us permission to take saves against something other than wounds. It works for normal saves just aswell as the banner. Unless you're stating it works for neither?

But...but the Banner says "wounds caused by..." right in its rules. The line in p.44 says we're allowed to take saves against things that aren't wounds, if the rules tell us to. And the Banner most certainly does not.

That's not how it technically works though. You roll a 6, which both causes a wound and triggers KB. So you make a Ward save versus Killing Blow. If you're still alive, you have to make any armour/Ward/Regen saves versus the regular wound.
I'd never dream of playing it this way, but that is how it works, when you follow the book to the letter.

I disagree RaW you take an armour save against the wound. If you pass you take a ward against the KB if you fail you take a ward against both the KB and Wound with 1 roll negating both effects. Hence nobody bothers rolling the irrelevant armour save.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I disagree RaW you take an armour save against the wound. If you pass you take a ward against the KB if you fail you take a ward against both the KB and Wound with 1 roll negating both effects. Hence nobody bothers rolling the irrelevant armour save.

I will always play it that way, but no where in the RAW does it that say that Killing Blow replaces the rules for normal wounding. It just adds to it. Separate rule.

I will always play it that way, but no where in the RAW does it that say that Killing Blow replaces the rules for normal wounding. It just adds to it. Separate rule.

I agree it adds to it and that passing the ward save satisfies both rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I agree it adds to it and that passing the ward save satisfies both rules.

I...do not understand. You've got two rules. They create two situations. How does it make sense that you roll once for both? That's like rolling one Leadership test that counts for both a Panic and a Terror test.

So Fling -you believe that the banner, which specifies it gives you a ward save against Wounds, works against something the explicitly does not cause any wouns?

Can you agree or disagree with that?

I believe GW designed the rules that appear in the rulebook under the heading "THE RULES", and those are the rules they wrote. You believe they wrote something else, just didnt tell anyone about it - and only YOU know the real rules.

So Fling -you believe that the banner, which specifies it gives you a ward save against Wounds, works against something the explicitly does not cause any wouns?

I believe the banner is no more specifically for wounds than any other save and yes you get to take saves against stuff other than wounds when those rules allow you to.

I believe GW designed the rules that appear in the rulebook under the heading "THE RULES", and those are the rules they wrote. You believe they wrote something else, just didnt tell anyone about it - and only YOU know the real rules.

An out right lie I have never claimed greater insight into the rules than anyone else. I believe the GW design team designed the rules and the rules are what the GW design team designed. You believe the rules where created by accident during the process in which they are communicated to us. As you believe what the GW design team designed are not the rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Fling, you are still trying a) to say that BOTWD is a different thing from a ward save and b) that saves are defined in terms of wounds.

I have never claimed a) and b) is obviously correct. You then makes some comments based on Ward saves not being saves which I just dont really get. Ward saves are a subset of saves. Therefore they are defined as something you may take to avoid a wound as per the saves rules.

Fling, since you believe that saves are only against wounds, do you also believe that "to hit" only happens in shooting? I ask, because like saves it is first defined there and also does not specify that it only happens there.
Presumably you take ward saves against shooting in the close combat round, since CC is an exception to "to hit" in exactly the same way as saves on an instant kill are exceptions.

High Elf rule doesn't do what it seems to intend RAW (although we know that Fling prefers RADBF (rules as determined by Fling) instead of RAW). Dark Elf rule arguably works, but is a bit shaky.

What the pro side need is a simple errata to change the KB text to be the same as the Combat Rez text dealing with KB. That would change KB so it actually dealt wounds and would make a whole lot more sense than the current rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I believe the banner is no more specifically for wounds than any other save.

Quoted for posterity.

Reality, next left.

Re: OP
Banner of the World Dragon: Grants a 2+ Ward Save to WOUNDS caused by Magical Weapons, Spells and Magical Attacks.

Note the specific word in caps.

Adding that makes it specific.
Not adding it, like Heavy Armour, is not specific.

Fling, since you believe that saves are only against wounds, do you also believe that "to hit" only happens in shooting? I ask, because like saves it is first defined there and also does not specify that it only happens there.
Presumably you take ward saves against shooting in the close combat round, since CC is an exception to "to hit" in exactly the same way as saves on an instant kill are exceptions.

Your straw man is pretty terrible. Yes the shooting to hit rolls apply in the shooting phase the combat to hit rules apply in the combat phase unless there is an exception to use them at another time. I assume this is because you know you're wrong hence making laughable statements like this. The only way I could be more sure you knew you were wrong was if you resorted to personal attacks...

High Elf rule doesn't do what it seems to intend RAW (although we know that Fling prefers RADBF (rules as determined by Fling) instead of RAW). Dark Elf rule arguably works, but is a bit shaky.

Well I'll take this as you conceding.

 kirsanth wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I believe the banner is no more specifically for wounds than any other save.

Quoted for posterity.

Reality, next left.

Re: OP
Banner of the World Dragon: Grants a 2+ Ward Save to WOUNDS caused by Magical Weapons, Spells and Magical Attacks.

Note the specific word in caps.

Adding that makes it specific.
Not adding it, like Heavy Armour, is not specific.

+1

Fling - I woudnt take it as concession, since your argument is essentially voided by the very simple word you ignore.

The fact the save specifically states it can only be used against wounds

You can keep ignoring that, and pretending you know better, but not one single person here will ever be convinced by that argument.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Fling, since you believe that saves are only against wounds, do you also believe that "to hit" only happens in shooting? I ask, because like saves it is first defined there and also does not specify that it only happens there.
Presumably you take ward saves against shooting in the close combat round, since CC is an exception to "to hit" in exactly the same way as saves on an instant kill are exceptions.

Your straw man is pretty terrible. Yes the shooting to hit rolls apply in the shooting phase the combat to hit rules apply in the combat phase unless there is an exception to use them at another time. I assume this is because you know you're wrong hence making laughable statements like this. The only way I could be more sure you knew you were wrong was if you resorted to personal attacks...

Ok, so it is only sometimes that things being first defined in one section makes you think they can only be used there. What about ti wound? CC references shooting again.
Genuinely interested, since you seem to have a bizarre blindspot when it comes to saves.
How to save against wounds is defined (but doesn't define what the saves are).
Then "What is a ward save" is defined.
Then you are told that there are situations which do not have wounds that can also use saves.
Somehow you have managed to conflate these in to:
Saves can only be taken against wounds so things that do not wound do wound but don't wound but do wound.
Even for the few saves which specifically limit themselves to wounds. That really is RADBF.
Incidentally, you keep saying "strawman", but I think you must be misunderstanding. I have been giving analogy, rather than saying that those are the ways rules work. This is not the same as "strawman".
I do note though that you have not managed to quote anything which suggests that saves are only for wounds. You have said "look at this page", but there is nothing on page 43 that supports your argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Uncle =glock / Peasant (as you are both makig the same logical error) - the game does depend on a certain amount of logic, actually. It has to, otherwise basic concepts would .not work,

Something saying "I protect you against wounds from flying" does not automatically mean that suddenly flying in and of itself causes any wounds. That isnt how language works. What it says is IF you have any wounds caused by flying, then you get save against them.

That does not suddenly mean flying causes wounds.

Of course it uses logic, but it is not the same logical reasoning as you are trying to apply because we know the answers already and they are completely reliant on each other.
You never roll a save unless something has caused you to roll that respective save.
If you have a save versus a flaming attack. Where did the wound you are saving come from. A flaming attack, if it didn't, you wouldn't be rolling. If you haven't attacked you don't roll to wound, not wounded you won't roll a save. The save requires the specific context that you can only get to from said specific point.
If tyrions item saves against wounds from KB..where MUST that wound come from?
It is the linear process of the game.
It follows the same course forward and backwards.
Let's look at your sentence with a few changes
"Something saying "I protect you against wounds from KB" does not automatically mean that suddenly KB in and of itself causes any wounds. What it says is IF you have any wounds caused by KB, then you get save against them."
This is an accurate statement of our game play.
Now...how do you know IF you were wounded by KB..because you rolled a dice and got the proper score. Because nothing happens until you roll a dice.
The problem again, is that we should not be talking about language, it is the written rule of the game. YOu are creating difficulties by applying language where it is not intended, and if the language is intended, then you have just taken out your RAW.
IF you are wounded from a cannon, you are wounded from the cannon. Why because the game shows the steps and tells you that the cannon wounded you. IF your armour gives saves against a war machine then you can save. IF not, then you can't.

Same with Killing Blow - it says you get a save against unsaved wounds caused by killing blow; killing blow however does not itself cause wounds - it slays you, regardless of your wounds. Meaning strictly speaking the item has no function in this instance.

Cart before horse. You have an abilty that triggers on a specific effect; that does not mean that effect can happen. VERY basic concept.

You always forget regardless of the NUMBER of wounds.
The book states you are saving a wound from KB.
If you save against poison, where must that wound come from?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They are defined as something that can save against wounds, OR against other effects - being killed instantly.

Given that we know this, are you now claiming that saves can ONLY be taken against wounds, and therefore effets which explicitly do NOT cause wounds, cause wounds?

That is some bizarre illogic, if so.

Actually ward saves are only allowed against wounds (brb pg 44) unless you are given specific permission to apply the ward elsewhere.
But you know this.

To the crowd that thinks KB doesn't cause wounds I have a question. How exactly do you think the model is killed?

titaniumkiz wrote:
To the crowd that thinks KB doesn't cause wounds I have a question. How exactly do you think the model is killed?

By being Killing Blowed? There are lots of things in the BRB that kill without wounding. KB is one of them.

Old age maybe? Snap my fingers poof you're dead? No, it is a critical wound like being impaled or decapitated. "Regardless of wounds" doesn't mean it doesn't cause a wound, it means it doesn't matter if it has 1 wound or 10 they are all gone. The fact that it even says that after "slays his opponent" highly suggests that it IS causing a wound. Otherwise "slays his opponent" would be sufficient text and make it an instant kill stopping there. However, they go on to note the specific stat that is being targeted, wounds. The way it reads tells me KB does 1 wound = to all wounds, which is why one save is made and not however many wounds actually get removed.

Warpsolution wrote:

 Peasant wrote:

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.

I don't follow you. Instant kills don't care about the number of wounds, and Killing Blow doesn't care about the number of wounds...what are you trying to show me?

You mis read or mis typed.
Instant kills don't care about wounds at all.
Kb doesn't care about the NUMBER of wounds.
They are not the same thing at all.

That's not how it technically works though. You roll a 6, which both causes a wound and triggers KB. So you make a Ward save versus Killing Blow. If you're still alive, you have to make any armour/Ward/Regen saves versus the regular wound.
I'd never dream of playing it this way, but that is how it works, when you follow the book to the letter.

I am trying to avoid the same arguments from the previous KB thread, but KB is just a wound multiplier. You have already rolled to wound, no instruction to disregard it. If you don't meet the criteria it is 1 wound, if you do it is ALL wounds left. playing by the book.

"protects against wounds caused by Killing Blow" does not prove that Killing Blow causes wounds. It implies it, very strongly, but that's not a sound argument. The flying example is a perfect one, but I don't think you're using it correctly: can the special rule Flying cause wounds? No. Of course not. "Flying" means that a unit can move 10" in a straight line over terrain and units and such. It has absolutely nothing to do about wounds. So if there was an item that said it "protects against wounds caused by Flying", it would prevent zero wounds, because none would ever be caused.
Again, it's just as stupid as can be. But it's the rhetorical truth.

As stated in an earlier post in my string...
The way our game works...you don't need protection unless it does cause a wound..once the flying has wounded you, then you are saving the wound caused by flying.
You have KB, which doesn't cause wounds..until you have scored the proper roll. Then where did those wounds come from?

The Tomb King book tells us how Killing Blow works. The High Elf book tells us how it reacts to a situation involving Killing Blow. And that situation, in the silliest and most literal of ways, never comes up.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean?

WHAT? Pretty sure we depend on logic (from the Greek λογική, logos: the use of valid reasoning in some activity) to do everything ever.

Again previous post, but of course we have logic. But the logic is determined by the game system. If the game says 1+1=3 that's how it goes.

titaniumkiz wrote:
Old age maybe? Snap my fingers poof you're dead? No, it is a critical wound like being impaled or decapitated. "Regardless of wounds" doesn't mean it doesn't cause a wound, it means it doesn't matter if it has 1 wound or 10 they are all gone. The fact that it even says that after "slays his opponent" highly suggests that it IS causing a wound. Otherwise "slays his opponent" would be sufficient text and make it an instant kill stopping there. However, they go on to note the specific stat that is being targeted, wounds. The way it reads tells me KB does 1 wound = to all wounds, which is why one save is made and not however many wounds actually get removed.

That may be what you think, but it isn't supported in rules. Your idea makes sense, but it isn't supported in rules. Your idea is how I would play it, but it isn't supported in rules.

It is directly supported by rules. Nowhere does KB say bypass the wound caused. All it states is that it doesn't matter how many wounds the opponent has because this one is good enough to slay the model.

Niteware wrote:

titaniumkiz wrote:
To the crowd that thinks KB doesn't cause wounds I have a question. How exactly do you think the model is killed?

By being Killing Blowed? There are lots of things in the BRB that kill without wounding. KB is one of them.

There are only 2 ways to kill models.
Reduced statistics to '0' (Wounds, Strength, Toughness)
Or remove from play or remove as a casualty.

 Peasant wrote:

Niteware wrote:

titaniumkiz wrote:
To the crowd that thinks KB doesn't cause wounds I have a question. How exactly do you think the model is killed?

By being Killing Blowed? There are lots of things in the BRB that kill without wounding. KB is one of them.

There are only 2 ways to kill models.
Reduced statistics to '0' (Wounds, Strength, Toughness)
Or remove from play or remove as a casualty.

Rules basis for that? Because KB doesn't fit either of those, unless you now think it is remove as a casualty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

titaniumkiz wrote:
It is directly supported by rules. Nowhere does KB say bypass the wound caused. All it states is that it doesn't matter how many wounds the opponent has because this one is good enough to slay the model.

Nobody is talking about ignoring the wound that is cause by the to wound roll. KB is a seperate effect which happens oj the same roll. It does not state that it does wounds therefore it does not do wounds.

It says nothing to support what you are saying at all and you are blatantly ignoring the wound that it causes. It is an added effect to the wound that kills the target. If it was a separate effect it would state that, which it doesn't. To wound rolls DO tell you if it is a wound or not and in the case of KB, it is.