PDA

View Full Version : Giant vs Vampire Count in HtH???



hunter4925
28-08-2007, 10:28
If the Giant rolls to grab at a Vampire Count and stuff him in his sack, assuming the Vampire fails his attack and or damage roll, does his army start to fall around him? This weekend it came up during a game between my OnG and a buddies VC army.

The Giant got the charge on his cav block that held the Vampire Count and after rolling my attack I had the option of pick up and. I nominated the VC as the model for which the Giant was reaching for and he made his attack, but failed to wound the Giant. With that the Giant stuffed the VC into his bag and stilled lost the combat anyways, but never ran from the fight for the rest the game. The other guy said as per the wording in the rules for the attack, the VC counted as a casualty and as such his army would start to fall apart. Is this situation true?

Another question is that is the VC himself counted as a casualty for combat, when it comes to combat resolution, do I only get a bonus of 1 to CR or do I get all the wounds the character had at that point in time toards CR?

Any help answering this would be great and I thank all of those able to help in advance.

Atrahasis
28-08-2007, 10:45
Yes, the Count counts as a casualty, with all the effects that entails.

As for combat resolution, unless the giant's attacks specify otherwise, simply follow the rules found in the combat section - how many wounds were dealt?

theunwantedbeing
28-08-2007, 11:02
No wounds were dealt if the model was the only one put in the bag,as its not stated to be a wound,merely that he is effectively a casualty.

Just like how killing blow only does 1 wound.

knightime98
28-08-2007, 14:24
Well the short and quick of this one is that the VC can be rescued if the Giant is slain. However, for as long as the VC is in the bag he can not participate in the game in any manner. In this respect, he is a casualty. So, in my opinion if the model is "removed" from the game then the wounds that model has remaining would be the wounds that count towards combat resolution.
Secondly, as long as he is considered a casualty - The VC player would have to test for crumbling as per the VC rules. This is so long as the VC player has nominated that model to be the one the army "crumbles" too....

On a side note, how cool is that to stuff a VC lord in a bag!! I need to do that!!!.... Or squish him like tooth paste... Good job, well done!!!

Atrahasis
28-08-2007, 14:39
So, in my opinion if the model is "removed" from the game then the wounds that model has remaining would be the wounds that count towards combat resolution. I'm sure a lot of people would agree, but it is completely unsupported by the rules.

DaBrode
28-08-2007, 16:13
The only definitives in my mind are that the Count is counted out of the game and therefore the VC player should have to test.

The amount of wounds counted in combat resolution question will follow the same path as all the Giant rules squabbles so I don't see a clear answer being found. As the Giant player I'd be happy to have squashed a VC Lord and at that be happy to roll a stubborn leadership test.

EvC
29-08-2007, 09:51
I had this happen in a recent game too, we took it at the simplest level, the Vampire was a casualty, and the army would start crumbling. I wasn't quite sure what would happen if the Giant was killed (Would the army stop crumbling?!) but it never came up.


Just like how killing blow only does 1 wound.

If you do a Killing Blow in close combat do you get +1CR or one CR for every wound the model had?

Atrahasis
29-08-2007, 11:41
If you do a Killing Blow in close combat do you get +1CR or one CR for every wound the model had?Killing Blow does not modify the standard Combat Resolution rules in any way, and they award +1 for each wound caused. A successful Killing Blow causes one wound and then removes the model from play.

Atrahasis
29-08-2007, 11:41
the only guide we have on this issue is the old FAQ, so we really should use it. On the contrary, the only guidance we have is the rulebook, and it says you get 1 CR for each wound caused.

Atrahasis
29-08-2007, 11:41
Well, the question then is, whose fun are you thinking of?

How much "fun" would it be for a Nurgle General to lose a combat by 10 because some lucky Bret rolled a 6?

T10
29-08-2007, 11:41
Well the short and quick of this one is that the VC can be rescued if the Giant is slain.

Models the giant has stuffed into the bag are essentially out of the game. Slaying the giant will allow you to "rescue" them, but that only occurs after the battle.

-T10

ZomboCom
29-08-2007, 11:41
In 6th the killing blow wounds issue was cleared up in an FAQ. You'd have thought they'd have known that it needed mentioning in the 7th rulebook.

Like the issue on ranking up large based characters in infantry regiments, the only guide we have on this issue is the old FAQ, so we really should use it.

It makes sense that you'd get CR for all the remaining wounds, and the current BRB doesn't say one way or the other.

ZomboCom
29-08-2007, 11:41
Athrahasis: RAW, perhaps, but I'll follow your sig and mine on this one.

hunter4925
29-08-2007, 11:41
Well as we could not find a clear cut answer to this question, we played it as such. The Vampire's power is what is keeping his army up and going. Being in a bag doesnt mean he is helpless as far as keeping his army moving. So whilest he was in the bag and he himself cold not fight, we decided tolet the army stay as is. We figured he would be commanding his undead forces to rescue him from said back. It just seemed a better way to go about things as the game would have been rather boring after that if his amry just started to crumbled.

As for the CR, we simple counted it as 1 wound as we couldn't find any answer as to how to work it. This in turn never mattered, as the Giant never ran away, despite the best efforts of the undead knights, the dire wolves, and a unit of skeleton spearmen. So 1 Giant, took the general out of the game in turn 2, held the entire left side of the board on his own, and allowed my other Giant to push around the other flank and force the rest of the VC into the heart of my force, much to Urgak Ardnuks delight.

explorator
29-08-2007, 11:41
Killing Blow does not modify the standard Combat Resolution rules in any way, and they award +1 for each wound caused. A successful Killing Blow causes one wound and then removes the model from play.

I am stumped on this one. I read "automatically slays" as removing all the wounds a model has. Would anyone be willing to direct me to a thread that explains this, or give me the run-down. Thanks.

explorator
29-08-2007, 11:41
This is from a thread in March of this year. (Took me a bit to find it.)


This might be the rule people are searching for, and it is no wonder it is difficult to find. Warhammer Chronicles 2004 pg. 114 Q&A

Q. Can a model regenerate if slain by a model with Killing Blow that rolls a 6 on its roll to wound?
A. You cannot regenerate a wound caused by Killing Blow. Note that for the purpose of combat resolution, use the remaining wounds of a model slain by Killing Blow.

My gaming group follows this rule. Imagine a Blood Dragon Vampire Lord with an extra hand weapon, Red Fury, Heart Piercing, and Killing Blow (7 attacks) challenges a Nurgle Lord of Chaos (4 wounds) on the charge. Let's say the Vampire hits with all 7 attacks and his to wound rolls are 1,4,5,6,6,6,6. Let's say none of the wounds are saved. The first Killing Blow nets 4 points of combat resolution for the 4 wounds the Chaos Lord had. The other 5 unsaved wounds add another 5 points to combat res. for a total of plus 9 to combat res.

I do not know if this helps or not, but there it is.

Krankenstein
29-08-2007, 11:41
Personally, I wouldn’t venture into guessing what the ”spirit of the game” dictates in either the Vampire in a Bag issue or the Killing Blow Resolution issue.

theunwantedbeing
29-08-2007, 11:41
Explorator all that is needed to be said about killing blow has been stated in this thread.

Look to page 95
A model with killing blow rolling an X to wound automatically slays his opponent,no A save or B save but he may use any C save if he has it against this wound.

Note wound singular,not plural.
And nowhere does it state that all the wounds are removed like it does with a chariot thats gets wounded by a st7+ hit.

It should really count as causing however many wounds are remaining on the model...but that isnt what it says.

sulla
29-08-2007, 19:26
Personally, I wouldn’t venture into guessing what the ”spirit of the game” dictates in either the Vampire in a Bag issue or the Killing Blow Resolution issue.

Not all of us can play so dispassionately...

ZomboCom
29-08-2007, 23:14
How much "fun" would it be for a Nurgle General to lose a combat by 10 because some lucky Bret rolled a 6?

About as fun as it is for a VC player to lose a combat by 30 because a pimped up black coach gets S7 smashed in a combined combat...

And yes, that has happened to me.

Atrahasis
30-08-2007, 00:36
About as fun as it is for a VC player to lose a combat by 30 because a pimped up black coach gets S7 smashed in a combined combat...So you'd agree that it would be no fun?

Tell me again how you justify your decision to ignore the rules then?

ZomboCom
30-08-2007, 11:32
No, I don't think it would be no fun. I think it would be hillarious. I laughed my head off when my coach got smashed, crumbling my general and 20 grave guard in the process. That's half the fun of the game. I was just pointing out that a similar CR mechanic does exist which can produce very similar circumstances.

Under 6th edition an FAQ was released that explicitly made killing blow do CR for all remaining wounds. Under 7th there is no explicit statement either way, and I think the designer's intent is that it does CR for all the wounds.

In your example, do you think it's fair on a bretonnian character to run into a combat, slay a greater deamon and then run away because of ranks and outnumber and a fear autobreak? That seems equally unfair to me.

WLBjork
30-08-2007, 12:38
You mean that this is not explicit?


No armour saves or regeneration saves are allowed against this wound...

Perfectly clear - it causes 1 wound.

Likewise, the chariot rules are quite clear - a wound from a S7+ hit removes all remaining wounds.

It might not be "fair" or "balanced" (at least on appearances), but that's how GW have worded it.

PS Zombo - how did you get so many wounds on the Black Coach? Mine never seem to do that well!

EvC
30-08-2007, 12:50
Not really, no. It's like a Hydra Sword (does that even still exist) where you do one wound then it is multiplied to D6, only instead it seems multipled to whatever the number of wounds the now-dead model has. But the way you and Atrhasis argue it, it does become clear. It would just be preferable if they'd been a bit clearer about it...

Festus
30-08-2007, 13:09
Hi

Yes, KB causes one Wound, an then proceeds to slay the model outright.

If you ask me, it will then have caused as many W as the model had before the KB. Playing it any differently is ignoring the woods for all the trees there :(

But that's just me, of course...

Festus

T10
30-08-2007, 13:23
As far as I can tell, an attacker "causing" a wound and a target "losing" (or "taking", or "suffering") a wound are just different sides to the same coin. So it is reasonable to assume that a close combat attack that makes the target lose all remaining wounds will give the attackers a CR bonus equal to the number of wounds lost.

-T10

Ganymede
30-08-2007, 13:45
So you'd agree that it would be no fun?

Tell me again how you justify your decision to ignore the rules then?


What on earth are you talking about man? Catching an unlucky result, while not normally desirable, does not make a game less fun.

The vast majority of gamers out there want to play a game that is satisfying, not that is 'technically correct.' Hence, I don't think you have a place to judge him for playing differently than you do.


As for the question at hand, the loss of all remaining wounds is implicit in "automatically slaying." In the profile section, the wounds on one's profile is described as the number of wounds one can take before he is slain. Being automatically slain and/or counting as a casualty therefore entails the loss of all remaining wounds.

Krankenstein
30-08-2007, 13:46
Not all of us can play so dispassionately...

I don’t see how all the passion in the world will tell you whether a Vampire in a Bag will cause crumbling tests. Unless it’s the “I want to win so bad I interpret every thing to my advantage” passion.

I can say what’s simplest though: treating being put in a bag as a kill.

Atrahasis
30-08-2007, 13:51
As far as I can tell, an attacker "causing" a wound and a target "losing" (or "taking", or "suffering") a wound are just different sides to the same coin. So it is reasonable to assume that a close combat attack that makes the target lose all remaining wounds will give the attackers a CR bonus equal to the number of wounds lost.

If losing wounds was the only way a model could die I would agree with you; it isn't, so I can't.

@Ganymede : my point was that justifying a departure from the rules because it is more or less "fun" is entirely subjective and therefore completely unhelpful in a rules discussion. If it isn't more fun to play that KB causes multiple wounds, then why ignore the rules? I suppose I just like consistency.

Ganymede
30-08-2007, 13:57
How so? The logic continues with "other" ways to die, such as being run down. If you are run down, you are automatically slain. As you're slain, you lose all of the wounds on your profile. Such is probably the reason why so many items have exceptions on them which disallow the benefit of these wounds, such as when a black coach runs down a fleeing unit.

Atrahasis
30-08-2007, 14:02
Strength or Toughness being reduced to 0 cause death just as Wounds being reduced to 0 does.

Ganymede
30-08-2007, 14:25
Hmm... I think it is safe to assume that, because the killing blow or 'pick up and' rules do not state that they reduce a model's strength or toughness to zero, they do not reduce a model's strength or toughness to zero.

On a tertiary note, is it even possible to reduce someone's strength or toughness to zero?

Atrahasis
30-08-2007, 14:27
Hmm... I think it is safe to assume that, because the killing blow or 'pick up and' rules do not state that they reduce a model's strength, toughness or wounds to zero, they do not reduce a model's strength, toughness or wounds to zero.

Fixed your post :)

Ganymede
30-08-2007, 17:14
Ahh, but we have a reason to believe that those abilities reduce their wounds to zero. We know that if a model loses all of his wounds then he is slain, and the description of the wounds characteristic seems to indicate that such is an "if and only if" relationship. So we know that whenever a model is slain, he loses all of the wounds left on his profile. Certainly, it could also be argued that as soon as he is slain, that his strength and toughness automatically drop to zero as well, but I don't think such a distinction ever actually matters in the game.

Basically, someone could make the case that whenever a model is slain, that his wounds, strength, and toughness are all dropped to zero.

Atrahasis
30-08-2007, 18:29
"If at any time a model's strength, toughness, or wounds are reduced to 0 or less by magic or a special rule, it is slain and removed from play."

The description of "wounds" does not include the word "slain" at all, and the quotation above does not in any way justify an iff relationship.

Being slain is a result of one of those three characteristics being reduced to zero - not the other way round.

There is no way a case such as you describe could hold any water at all.

warlord hack'a
30-08-2007, 19:52
as the model picked up and stuffed into the bag is 'effectively a casualty' (O&G armybook page 31) I think it is just that: it is EFFECTIVELY a casualty. So this character is treated as a casualty though it actually is not strictly speaking a casualty.

Now to me this means that the affected character can not cast spells, generate power dice, use magic items, attack, move etc. It also means that the army of the undead will start to crumble as would happen when the vampire count was a real casualty, seeing that as long as the guy is in the bag staring at a cow and some vats of beer it is 'effectively a casualty'.

explorator
30-08-2007, 20:15
"If at any time a model's strength, toughness, or wounds are reduced to 0 or less by magic or a special rule, it is slain and removed from play."

The description of "wounds" does not include the word "slain" at all, and the quotation above does not in any way justify an iff relationship.

Being slain is a result of one of those three characteristics being reduced to zero - not the other way round.

There is no way a case such as you describe could hold any water at all.

"This is my General of the Empire."
"Yes I know, one of my Black Knights just killed him with Killing Blow."
"He is Strength 4."
"Well...ok, but he is dead."
"He is also Toughness 4."
"Uh...that's nice."
"He also has two wounds left."
"Wha...? Your dead General still has two wounds!?!...He is DEAD!"
"I am just going by the rules."
"Aaahhhhhh". BOOM *head explodes* *smoke clears*

Ganymede
31-08-2007, 00:20
"If at any time a model's strength, toughness, or wounds are reduced to 0 or less by magic or a special rule, it is slain and removed from play."

The description of "wounds" does not include the word "slain" at all, and the quotation above does not in any way justify an iff relationship.



It uses the word 'dies', a synononym for slain. It even goes on to describe how multi wound models can withstand wounds that would 'slay' lesser men.

Atrahasis
31-08-2007, 01:08
The one rule that tells us how characteristic reduction leads to death includes S, T and W in a single sentence with no favour shown to any.

W(0) -> Slain
S(0) -> Slain
T(0) -> Slain

Nothing about any of those relationships allows you to conclude that "Slain" implies anything.

Killing Blow adds a fourth relationship:

KB -> W(W-1) + Slain

Again, nothing about this relationship allows us to conclude that "slain" implies W(0).

Unless the cause of death is wounds being reduced to 0 we cannot assume that a slain model's wounds are 0. The only exception is a chariot hit by S7+, where the rules explicitly state that the chariot loses all remaining wounds.

You (Ganymede) asserted earlier that there was an "if and only if" relationship between W(0) and Slain. You have provided no evidence for that relationship, and cannot because no such evidence exists.

Ganymede
31-08-2007, 01:25
You (Ganymede) asserted earlier that there was an "if and only if" relationship between W(0) and Slain. You have provided no evidence for that relationship, and cannot because no such evidence exists.

Sure there is. Being "automatically slain" implies that they suffer the lead up to death in one fell swoop.


The only way for a model to die in the basic rules is for their wounds, strength, or toughness to be dropped to zero. We can't just use the colloquial definition of the word slain. We have to treat it as a condition caused by certain factors. As the basic rules only recount certain ways to be slain in the game, the killing blow rule (and similar rules) have to follow the previously presented structures. So, when a model is 'automatically slain' their wounds, strength, and toughness are automatically dropped to zero.

The only alternative is to concede that there is no solution as covered by the rules.

empireguard
31-08-2007, 02:56
So, when a model is 'automatically slain' their wounds, strength, and toughness are automatically dropped to zero.


No you’re using incorrect logic. If I was a general in the army I am also a solider, but if you where a solider you aren’t a general.

Also you can’t say if a model is 'automatically slain' their wounds, strength, and toughness are automatically dropped to zero. As there have been some special characters that have a get back up rule. If you killed them (W=0) usually it says they get back up with one wound however according to you logic their S=0 now, so they die again. That would mean any “get back up” rule doesn’t work?

Ganymede
31-08-2007, 03:03
Nah, it would mean the get back up rule is wholly unique. And it is.

I am not relying on logic alone, I'm using conjecture and interpretation too. It seems like an "if and only if" situation.

Call me a rules philosopher, but the other interpretation (about as supportable as mine) doesn't seem very wise. I could just imagine someone blowing up a couple models in melee with the skull wand, then being told that he generated absolutely no CR from it.

Masque
31-08-2007, 07:40
The only way for a model to die in the basic rules is for their wounds, strength, or toughness to be dropped to zero.

Or a fleeing model could leave the table or flee into the enemy (US5+) or impassable terrain. Or a fleeing model could be caught by chargers or pursuers.

Atrahasis
31-08-2007, 10:10
I am not relying on logic alone, I'm using conjecture and interpretation too. It seems like an "if and only if" situation."If and only if" is a logical relationship, and so using it to support conjecture is ridiculous.


Call me a rules philosopher, but the other interpretation (about as supportable as mine)So you contend that an argument supported by "conjecture" is "as supportable" as one supported by the rules and logic? :confused:

warlord hack'a
31-08-2007, 10:33
okay, here are my two cents (happy so far that nobody attacked my position on the 'vampire in giant bag dilemma'):

A model can be slain by reducing wounds, S or T to 0 (or less I assume as otherwise strictly by the rules I am not slain if my strength in one go is dropped from 1 to -1). Also, when fleeing units get caught they are removed as casualties (which is not the same as slain as they might hide under a rock for the remainder fo the game, so they do not actually have to die).

Now Killing Blow kills/slays a man sized creature with a natural role of 6 for to wound, irrespective of the victim's munber of wounds. Killing blow does NOT reduce someones T or S to 0, nor makes them flee and catches them immediately.

Hence we can safely assume that chopping someones head of clear at the shoulders in game terms result in this person dying due to losing all remaining wounds, as that is the only dying option that a killing blow attack can have influence on. Hence the victim has lost all remaining wounds, meaning that for CR the number of wounds it started with that turn are counted for +1 CR each, so if you remove 4 wounds with a KB, you have scored a CR of 4.

Atrahasis
31-08-2007, 10:37
Hence we can safely assume that chopping someones head of clear at the shoulders in game terms result in this person dying due to losing all remaining wounds, as that is the only dying option that a killing blow attack can have influence on. Hence the victim has lost all remaining wounds, meaning that for CR the number of wounds it started with that turn are counted for +1 CR each, so if you remove 4 wounds with a KB, you have scored a CR of 4.That is a MASSIVE leap of (lack of) logic, especially given that the Killing blow rules specifically state the blow inflicts a single wound.

warlord hack'a
31-08-2007, 10:40
can you point out the leap in the logic? this is not a leap:
Hence we can safely assume that chopping someones head of clear at the shoulders in game terms result in this person dying due to losing all remaining wounds, as that is the only dying option that a killing blow attack can have influence on.

This might be a leap: Hence the victim has lost all remaining wounds, meaning that for CR the number of wounds it started with that turn are counted for +1 CR each, so if you remove 4 wounds with a KB, you have scored a CR of 4.

Atrahasis
31-08-2007, 10:56
The leap comes because losing wounds is not the only way to be slain.

You are assuming that the mechanic "killing blow" needs to slay a model through an already existing mechanic (wounds reduced to 0). This is not the case - a model can be slain by any mechanic that says it kills a model without the need to make use of any other mechanic.

Your argument fails Occam's Razor - Killing Blow states that the model is removed as a casualty, so the simplest explanation is that he is removed - bringing another mechanic into it brings in unnecessary complication.

warlord hack'a
31-08-2007, 11:26
oops, I agree, if it says: 'the model is removed as a casualty' then indeed it is not dead per se, so it is indeed not logic to assume KB removes all remaining wounds. I thought it mentioned the character dying.

p.s. I wonder why they call it KILLING blow then..

Atrahasis
31-08-2007, 11:30
You're still missing my point :)

To slay a model all you need is a rule that says "If x then model is slain".

There are 4 (5 if you count chariots) of "slaying" a model: Reducing S, T, or W to zero or through a successful Killing Blow.

None of the 4 depends on any of the others. Assuming that any one of them causes any of the other is just that; an assumption and one that has no support in the rules.

warlord hack'a
31-08-2007, 11:50
the only rules that says when a character is dead, that I know of, is when S, T or W are reduced to 0 or they are hit by a skull wand of Kaloth and fail their Ld test. Killing blow removes a model as a casualty, as you just stated. It does not make it die (or at least it does not mention this (I do not have the rulebook at hand)). So in that you are correct, we can not assume that KB causes wounds to drop to 0.

However, I dispute that KB is another way of killing characters besides the S=0, T=0, W=0, because, as you said earlier, the model affected is removed as a casualty and this is different from dying. So it should not be on the list of 'what makes you die', the skull wand should be.

which brings me at a very similar question: what if a character dies because of the skull wand, how does that affect CR?

theunwantedbeing
31-08-2007, 12:14
A model with st10 t10 and wounds 0 is slain.
A model with st10 t0 and wounds 10 is also slain,the wounds dont go down by losing your toughness.

So being slain and having your wounds reduced to 0 are 2 entirely different things.

If the item or ability or special rule in question states "the model is slain,counts as slain or whatever involving the words slain" he doesnt lose any remaining wounds.
(ie. killing blow...states the model is slain,nothing more)

Similarly,if the item/ability/special rule states that the model loses all remaining wounds then it loses all remaining wounds.
(ie. chariots...specifically stated to lose all remaining wounds)

In regards to combat resolution you only count the wounds caused,slaying a model doesnt cause any wounds beyond the ones needed to be inflicted to cause the effect.

Yes it needs an errata to say that when a model is slain its wounds are reduced to zero,this would make much more sense.

Atrahasis
31-08-2007, 12:17
Well the Killing Blow rules say that the model is slain ("he automatically slays his opponent"), so "removed as a casualty" was apparently a confusing paraphrase on my part. Sorry.

When The Skull Wand's special attack is successful, it does not inflict any wounds.

warlord hack'a
31-08-2007, 12:55
okay, so both the killing blow and the skull wand belong in the row of 'things that can kill you, together with S0 T0 or W0. I am convinced and learned to to mess in a discussion before reading the rules on what is being discussed..

as for the skull wand and CR, I guess this means that you get 0 CR out of it?

explorator
31-08-2007, 13:44
That is a MASSIVE leap of (lack of) logic, especially given that the Killing blow rules specifically state the blow inflicts a single wound.

No it does not specifically state that. It says if X is rolled, the opponent is automatically slain. Nowhere is it stated that KB does a single wound. It does not say the model is a 'casualty', or that that model is 'removed', it says the model is slain. Slain = ZERO wounds.

Atrahasis
31-08-2007, 15:36
No it does not specifically state that. It says if X is rolled, the opponent is automatically slain. Nowhere is it stated that KB does a single wound. It does not say the model is a 'casualty', or that that model is 'removed', it says the model is slain. Slain = ZERO wounds.

"No armour saves or regeneration saves are allowed against this wound."

Slain does not mean something has zero wounds. Having zero wounds means something is slain.

To illustrate the difference:

A bird can fly.
A plane can fly.
Is everything that flies a bird?

Obviously not.

warlord hack'a
31-08-2007, 16:09
no, it's supergrover ;-) (the dutch name for the muppet that flies aroudn sesamy street)

T10
31-08-2007, 16:29
As far as I can tell, an attacker "causing" a wound and a target "losing" (or "taking", or "suffering") a wound are just different sides to the same coin. So it is reasonable to assume that a close combat attack that makes the target lose all remaining wounds will give the attackers a CR bonus equal to the number of wounds lost.

-T10


If losing wounds was the only way a model could die I would agree with you; it isn't, so I can't.


Sorry, I wasn't arguing against your new-found 6th vs. 7th edition rules quirk.

The thing here is about the Black Coach (a chariot) with, say, 30 wounds, being destroyed by a S7 hit. In this case the rules for chariots state that it "loses all it's remaining wounds". Whichs would mean that the attacker may, in fact score an impressive +30 to CR.

Which is fun until we realize that the Black Coach has killed at least 25 wounds worth of models before we got him! :)

-T10

explorator
31-08-2007, 18:03
@Atrahasis
Do you reckon the following is how you would play these different scenarios? A pimped out BD Lord charges a Nurgle-marked Chaos Lord, challenges, and hits with all seven attacks.

Scenario 1; All seven of the to wound rolls are X, which is a killing blow. No wounds are saved and the Nurgle Lord is dead. BD side gains +1 CR.

Scenario 2; All seven of the to wound rolls are 5’s, no killing blow. No wounds are saved, and the Nurgle Lord is dead. BD side gains + 7 to CR via Overkill.

I just want to understand.

Nedar
31-08-2007, 22:08
I'm a VC player, and love my Grave Guards...but, as the rules are written, I'd have to agree with Atrahasis. All of his arguments thus far are correct. Slain and having Zero wounds are not equal, zero wounds just leads to being slain...that seems to be the biggest dividing factor in here.

As the killing blow rule states, the model takes the ONE wound and is slain...that's it: One wound, and slain. As stated by Atrahasis, Slain does not equal ZERO wounds, while zero wounds does equal slain.

@explorator: As those scenarios are written, they are both correct...sadly. By the way the rules are written in 7th edition, scoring a KB as your first hit is not exactly good for your CR, while scoring 7 regular wounds is better.

However, someone stated that 6th edition rules had an errata that stated killing blow removed the remaining wounds which leads people to thing that is what GW intended for KB...yet they seemed to omit that from the 7th edition rules. So while it seems GW wanted KB to remove all wounds in 6th, rules change and balancing ensues...so we can't really use what GW intended for 6th ed rules and apply it direclty to 7th ed rules.

So as it stands now, by 7th edition rules and no errata to clear it up: KB causes ONE wound and slays the model. Think of it this way...a greater nurgle demon is big and fat and thus has 10 wounds worth of fat protecting him; a simple GG soldier chops off his head with his magical sword and it drops. The "neck" suffered ONE wound and slayed the beast, but he technicaly still has 9 more wounds of fat around...though it does seem silly you wouldn't get the CR from killing the big thing, but that IS how the rules are written.

Essentialy it comes down to how you and your opponent (or Tournament organizer) decide to play the rule...i'd rather get the full +10 CR than +1 on that demon being a VC player, but i'd take the +1 if that is what the rules are agreed to be (rules can always be changed if people agree upon them), but the official RAW are you get 1 and only 1 wound/CR.

W0lf
31-08-2007, 22:25
'Slain and having Zero wounds are not equal, zero wounds just leads to being slain...'

arguement over.

killing blow is +1 cr.

Nedar
31-08-2007, 22:30
Oh, and to the OP :D

By the rules you're army would start crumbling.

By logical thought (ignoring the rules) it would not since he is still there to control the army technicaly.

So, just like KB rule it comes down to what you and your opponent agree upon really...the rules state it one way, and logic of the situation seem to decree another course.

Atrahasis
01-09-2007, 01:49
@Atrahasis
Do you reckon the following is how you would play these different scenarios? A pimped out BD Lord charges a Nurgle-marked Chaos Lord, challenges, and hits with all seven attacks.

Scenario 1; All seven of the to wound rolls are X, which is a killing blow. No wounds are saved and the Nurgle Lord is dead. BD side gains +1 CR.

Scenario 2; All seven of the to wound rolls are 5’s, no killing blow. No wounds are saved, and the Nurgle Lord is dead. BD side gains + 7 to CR via Overkill.

I just want to understand.

Overkill turns it into a whole different ball game - in a challenge excess wounds still count. How much CR is possible depends upon how many wounds the model slain had.

Nedar
01-09-2007, 08:57
Aw, I just read up on Overkill...Atrahasis is correct again. If you roll 5 wounds, you get 5 wounds in a challenge for overkill purposes. Even if you landed a killing blow before the rest of your wounds.

Though i'm not sure how you might figure the start of the actual "Overkill" wounds, such that if you KB someone then score 6 more wounds, would you only get the +1 CR for the wound, then +5 Overkill CR since +5 is the max and the enemy is slain, thus putting the next 6 wounds towards overkill and not wounds on the model? /shrug, prob not a huge problem either way :)