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.

Getting out the popcorn. This is going to be good.

GoonBandito wrote:


Regardless, the 7th book clearly says wounds with double the Strength of the target's Toughness have the Instant Death special rule.

Has anyone read this?

Sigvatr wrote:

GoonBandito wrote:


Regardless, the 7th book clearly says wounds with double the Strength of the target's Toughness have the Instant Death special rule.

Has anyone read this?

Looking at the book as I write this, and that's how it works:

page 36 wrote:Any wound allocated to a model has the Instant Death special rule (see below) if the Strength value of that attack is at least double the Toughness value (after modifiers) of that model.

Thanks for the exact quote!

Guess OP has had his question answered then =)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

niv-mizzet wrote:

Does this mean what I think it means? Can I finally have a defense for my BA against s8 ap2 ignore cover large blasts?

 Locclo wrote:
Any wound allocated to a model has the Instant Death special rule (see below) if the Strength value of that attack is at least double the Toughness value (after modifiers) of that model.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I had read the thread, but I don't re-read the whole thread every time I respond to a statement. Also MTG players often attribute Tactics, Arguments, and actions to specific cards, or even slang terms for cards.

Although with this context it completely changes my understanding of Elric's post to which only the 3rd(after the semicolon) and 4th points remain valid.

I could be wrong, but it seems that you stated that you respond to a post without knowing what it's referencing.

I also recall something that you posted about "we" are moving on, but continue to post.

I'm confused.

I was directly questioned about the content of my post, I responded to it.

That is the polite thing to do, like how I am responding to you.

We have not even been discussing the actual rules situation, just my response to Elric; Grendel and I have moved on from the rules question as we do not have the rules in hand to actually discuss them.

This is a question?

rigeld2 wrote:[
The poster's name is niv-mizzet.

I think it's a statement.
But, now I'm moving on. And seeing that after tomorrow, I will be out of the "Buying GW stuff" hobby. I bid you all, Adieu.

 Idolator wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I had read the thread, but I don't re-read the whole thread every time I respond to a statement. Also MTG players often attribute Tactics, Arguments, and actions to specific cards, or even slang terms for cards.

Although with this context it completely changes my understanding of Elric's post to which only the 3rd(after the semicolon) and 4th points remain valid.

I could be wrong, but it seems that you stated that you respond to a post without knowing what it's referencing.

I also recall something that you posted about "we" are moving on, but continue to post.

I'm confused.

I was directly questioned about the content of my post, I responded to it.

That is the polite thing to do, like how I am responding to you.

We have not even been discussing the actual rules situation, just my response to Elric; Grendel and I have moved on from the rules question as we do not have the rules in hand to actually discuss them.

This is a question?

rigeld2 wrote:The poster's name is niv-mizzet.

I think it's a statement.
But, now I'm moving on. And seeing that after tomorrow, I will be out of the "Buying GW stuff" hobby. I bid you all, Adieu.

Take some more English courses; A statement can question your statements in the correct context(this is one of them) so yes,

rigeld2 wrote:[
The poster's name is niv-mizzet.

is a question in this context, well not exactly but it is questioning why I responded in the manner I did while simultaneously correcting me.

At any rate the direct rules quote(which has been confirmed to me by a friend who just bought the new rules an hour ago) so much like how myself and grendel(again the "We") had already figured, the rules themselves clear up the original question.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:First off, beyond googling the fact that niv-mizzet is a magic card, I have no idea what you mean by that.

Read the thread.

niv-mizzet wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
Hmm, so we know for certainty that the book says it in the phrasing that double str over t hits "gain the ID rule" and not just some other meek phrasing like "cause ID?".

Meek? It's the same thing. Even if it just said "Causes Instant Death".

I disagree. From a RAW standpoint, I believe there's a difference between something "having the instant death special rule" and "causes instant death."

Unless you think a weapon that has Rending, doesn't have Rending unless it says "This has the Rending Special Rule".

But they generally do say the words "special rule" at the end. Flamer templates in the 6 ed rulebook specifically say they have the ignores cover special rule for example, not just "ignores cover."

I know offhand that the mysterious forest result that rends specifically says "with the rending special rule" as well.

I believe it's enough of a pattern that if it weren't followed, it would indicate a designed difference.

The poster's name is niv-mizzet.

He was clarifying. You stated that you had no idea what he meant by using the term niv-mizzet. He let you know by stating that it was the guys name.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I had read the thread, but I don't re-read the whole thread every time I respond to a statement. Also MTG players often attribute Tactics, Arguments, and actions to specific cards, or even slang terms for cards.

Although with this context it completely changes my understanding of Elric's post to which only the 3rd(after the semicolon) and 4th points remain valid.

I could be wrong, but it seems that you stated that you respond to a post without knowing what it's referencing.

I also recall something that you posted about "we" are moving on, but continue to post.

I'm confused.

I was directly questioned about the content of my post, I responded to it.

That is the polite thing to do, like how I am responding to you.

We have not even been discussing the actual rules situation, just my response to Elric; Grendel and I have moved on from the rules question as we do not have the rules in hand to actually discuss them.

This is a question?

rigeld2 wrote:The poster's name is niv-mizzet.

I think it's a statement.
But, now I'm moving on. And seeing that after tomorrow, I will be out of the "Buying GW stuff" hobby. I bid you all, Adieu.

Take some more English courses; A statement can question your statements in the correct context(this is one of them) so yes,

rigeld2 wrote:[
The poster's name is niv-mizzet.

is a question in this context, well not exactly but it is questioning why I responded in the manner I did while simultaneously correcting me.

At any rate the direct rules quote(which has been confirmed to me by a friend who just bought the new rules an hour ago) so much like how myself and grendel(again the "We") had already figured, the rules themselves clear up the original question.

What English course teaches that a written statement that ends with a period and not a question mark is an interrogative? A statement can be a question? You don't say? It still requires a certain punctuation mark to be a question when written. How about a source to this magical grammar school?

A question in this context? Questioning why you responded? I believe it's a simple declarative clarification.

I know I was going to be done with this, but I am truly intrigued at these special English courses. They sound.....amazing?!?

Edit:Grammar

 Sigvatr wrote:
Thanks for the exact quote!

Guess OP has had his question answered then =)

Yes, that answers it completely with no wiggle room. Not the answer I was hoping for, but at least the person writing FNP and Instant death knew how to word things so that it would be completely clear.