PDA

View Full Version : 2 Qs: flagellants and giants



ZeroTwentythree
06-12-2007, 19:07
One: Flagellants' martyrdom. If they receive hatred in the second round of combat, what does it do for them?

Two: Giant stuffs an Empire captain in his bag, and he "counts as a casualty." How does this affect CR?

Atrahasis
06-12-2007, 23:18
One : Absolutely zip.

Two : Absolutely zip.

Braad
07-12-2007, 09:10
Two : Absolutely zip.

No I don't have my books at hand...

But why?
He's dead, isn't he? +1 on combat resolution is what I would think. He is killed with an attack, even though it's a special one, and it counts as casualty.

Atrahasis
07-12-2007, 09:18
CR isn't awarded for casualties, it's awarded for wounds.

DeathlessDraich
07-12-2007, 11:59
CR isn't awarded for casualties, it's awarded for wounds.

This is inconsistent with your views on Killing Blow IIRC.

To regard a casualty as not suffering any wounds leads to insoluble situations where phrases like 'automatically killed/slain', 'a casualty', 'is destroyed' will not count as having wounds inflicted.

On the original question 2:
Assuming that the Captain is part of a unit

a) To stuff the captain (from Pick Up and), the Captain has to be specifically attacked/targeted.

b) Therefore Pick Up another does nothing - a few will disagree with this

c) Stuff into Bag - Whether this counts towards CR is unclear because of the phrase "*effectively* a casualty" suggests it cannot be regarded *exactly* as a casualty. In addition, the 'casualty' is *alive* and might be freed.
Roll a dice. Personally I agree with Atrahasis and do not to allow this form of 'casualty' to contribute to CR.

Atrahasis
07-12-2007, 13:29
This is inconsistent with your views on Killing Blow IIRC.Nope, I think KB grants 1 CR :)


To regard a casualty as not suffering any wounds leads to insoluble situations where phrases like 'automatically killed/slain', 'a casualty', 'is destroyed' will not count as having wounds inflicted.They're not insoluble, just unsavoury.

On the original question 2:
Assuming that the Captain is part of a unit


a) To stuff the captain (from Pick Up and), the Captain has to be specifically attacked/targeted.

b) Therefore Pick Up another does nothing - a few will disagree with thisNope - the giant attacks the unit as a whole when he selects little things, and then "pick up" expressly permits him to select a specific model.

DeathlessDraich
07-12-2007, 14:06
Nope, I think KB grants 1 CR :)
Nope - the giant attacks the unit as a whole when he selects little things, and then "pick up" expressly permits him to select a specific model.

The rule is "selects their victims as normal". IIRC (:p) you agreed with me on this the last time it was discussed

xmbk
07-12-2007, 18:19
CR isn't awarded for casualties, it's awarded for wounds.

Please tell me you hadn't taken your medication before posting this. :wtf:

Falkman
07-12-2007, 18:26
Please tell me you hadn't taken your medication before posting this. :wtf:
Why? That's how it works, for each wound you inflict you get one CR.

xmbk
07-12-2007, 18:37
Methinks there are some casualties of rules-lawyering around here.

It's ok. Just step away from the internet and play an actual game. ;)

Fulgrim's-Chosen
07-12-2007, 18:59
Did they ever FAQ the Killing Blow issue ?

Atrahasis is suggesting if a Bloodthirster of Khorne charged into the front of a ranked up unit with a 4-Wound Lord level character of some type in it ...was challenged by him and fought...scored only one hit on his 8 attack rolls (remarkably bad luck for the Thirster) ....yet got a 6 on his To-Wound roll (thus activating the Killing Blow ability he hast)....that the Lord would die...and be removed from the Instant Death effect of Killing Blow....yet when combat Resolution was totaled up...even though the Thirster killed off 4-Wounds worth of "Lord" with his attack....we should only count his Combat Resolution score as "1" ?

This seems odd. It would mean that even if the other attacking units failed to wound the Thirster (likely)...and they got +1 for Outnumber, +1 for Standard, +1 for Outnumbering...+1 for Ranks ...and had no musician in it......NORMALLY it would be a "tie" if you count the 4 Wounds of Dead Lord from Killing Blow.

But if you count the Lord as "only 1 Wound for CR purposes" - then the Bloodthirster loses the combat....loses his Frenzy....and has to roll Instability at a -3 Penalty from the Combat Resolution negatives he lost by... ?


:confused: This seems WAY to critical an issue/roll/question NOT to have been FAQ'd before or otherwise answered in some official capacty by GW....right ?

Falkman
07-12-2007, 19:03
I really don't see what's so hard to understand.
The rules for CR explicitly state that each wound inflicted counts towards CR.
The Bloodthirster in your example only inflicted one wound.
The Killing blow rules state that the model is instantly killed, they do NOT, however, state that the remaining wounds of the model is counted towards CR.

With all this summed up, it's pretty clear to me that the 'thirster in your example only gets +1 to his CR.
The 'thirster player don't deserve better either, for frontcharging with him :p

ZeroTwentythree
07-12-2007, 19:04
One: That's how I read it.

Two: Didn't think about it at the time, but wounds = CR is clear now.


Thanks.

Makaiju
07-12-2007, 21:27
I really don't see what's so hard to understand.
The rules for CR explicitly state that each wound inflicted counts towards CR.


I think the reason it is hard to understand is because of how many dozens upon dozens of times GW writes a rule that only applies to one specific situation, then creates other situations that don’t apply, and lists the clarifying rules in the most unobvious places.

More to the point, no where do I see a rule that reads “when killing a multi wound model with a single action/effect, don’t take credit for removing that models wounds from the game.”

I know CR descriptions talk about wounds. That’s the only way to cover ‘most’ of the situations that will come up. (Examples, what do I do in a dual when I inflict more wounds then my opponent has? What do I do when my unit inflicts 6 wounds but each of his models has 4 wounds?) The less common situation will be having a multi wound model killed with a single killing blow attack or a giant special chart that takes people out of the game as if killed but doesn’t use the word ‘wound’.

So do the rules ‘say’ you get credit for killing someone? They say you get credit for wounding. They say that because you get credit for hurting a hero even if you don’t kill that hero. Does the mean killing a hero without wounding him should “not” allow you to get credit for removing that models wound count from the game? Obviously you think yes. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with anyone who debates no. At least, I have no problems until a rule in the book is clearly found or added in an Errata.

Nurgling Chieftain
08-12-2007, 00:05
I think that killing a 4-wound model with a single killing blow counts as 4 wounds inflicted towards combat resolution, because that's how many wounds were lost and therefore how many wounds were inflicted. Since killing a one-wound model with a hit that inflicts 4 wounds only gains you one CR, I don't see why the vice-versa shouldn't apply.

Falkman
08-12-2007, 01:36
Since killing a one-wound model with a hit that inflicts 4 wounds only gains you one CR, I don't see why the vice-versa shouldn't apply.
Because a killing blow is just a single wound that happen to kill the guy.
It doesn't state anywhere in the rules that a killing blow count all the remaining wounds of a model towards CR, hence it doesn't.
If the rules don't say it does, it doesn't, simple as that.

Nurgling Chieftain
08-12-2007, 01:46
Because a killing blow is just a single wound that happen to kill the guy....Which, in turn, is four wounds inflicted.

You're harping a lot on this single wound, but the "single wound" you're talking about exists at the "to-wound" level. That's not where combat resolution comes from. Once he fails any ward save, he loses all 4 wounds, and that's where combat resolution comes from.

Atrahasis
08-12-2007, 03:03
Losing wounds is not the only way that a model can be removed as a casualty, and so assuming that when a model is removed it is because it has lost all of it's wounds is foolish and illogical.

Falkman
08-12-2007, 03:14
...Which, in turn, is four wounds inflicted.

You're harping a lot on this single wound, but the "single wound" you're talking about exists at the "to-wound" level. That's not where combat resolution comes from. Once he fails any ward save, he loses all 4 wounds, and that's where combat resolution comes from.
No, he just loses one wound and then dies.
As Atrahasis says, thinking that losing all wounds is the only way a character can be removed as a casualty is pretty silly.
Please point me to where in the rules it says that a character that has been killing blow'ed count as all his remaining wounds for CR.

Shank
08-12-2007, 03:15
Well if you roll martydom and get hatred in the second round, you re-roll misses. This is a special rule for flagellants. Now if your question is say they recieved Hatred in the "First" turn what happens when you roll it again in the 2nd, then I see a grey area.

Atrahasis
08-12-2007, 03:25
Well if you roll martydom and get hatred in the second round, you re-roll misses. No, you don't.

DeathlessDraich
08-12-2007, 11:04
Well this thread has moved on to Killing Blow but Zerotwentythree doesn't seem to mind so although we've discussed this too many times without agreement I might as well add my opinion and some facts.


No, he just loses one wound and then dies.
Please point me to where in the rules it says that a character that has been killing blow'ed count as all his remaining wounds for CR.

You're missed some rules, unfortunately.

1) The rules in the main rule book explains and *clearly* relates the word casualty to wounds.

2) There is no difference between 'casualty', 'dies instantly' and 'killed' which is in turn synonymous with 'losing[all] wounds'. This is explained in the rules and cannot be ignored.

Killing Blow:
Lets say a model with KB, rolls 3 sixes to wound against a character with multiple wounds, lets say 4 wounds, in i) a challenge or ii) normal combat.

The first six rolled (killing blow), 'kills'. Therefore *by the rules* the character has lost 4 wounds and they must count towards CR.

i) challenge: The second and third Killing blows cannot inflict more than 1 wound. Therefore they grant 2 overkills. (This is slightly debatable)

ii) normal: The second and third Killing blows do nothing and do not contribute to CR. - This is Atrahasis view.

Festus
08-12-2007, 11:54
Hi

Can you cool off? ;)

To a few posters: Read Atrahasis' sig. He is right from a strictly rules point of view. The rules say CR is given for Wounds caused, not for *casualties* or some such.

Face it, this is the rules. Not that I'd ever play that way:
Honestly I always calculate the number of Wounds that were *taken out of the game* (not finding a better term, although I see that some of those may be regained / Giant, and some of those were never part of the game anyways / Overkill. But you know what I mean... ;) )

As a bottom line, I see it as sloppy rules writing on GW's part, as they could have easily stated *loses all remaining wounds* instead of *casualty*, *is slain* or some such nonsense for the sake of linguistic variety.
And this is the main point: GW's rules writers oftern try to make the rules an *entertaining read* by varying the expressions used, so that it doesn't become too boring. But here's the crux: It becomes unspecified in rules terms by this. Hence the problems between intent and wording.

My advice? Play as you like, but be aware of what the rules actually say - even if you play in disagreement with the rules.

Or to use Atrahasis' sig again:
If this is the rules forum, then the above is RAW.
That doesn't mean that I think it is "right" in a fun sense.
Play as if you can decide which is more important - rules or fun...

Festus

Makaiju
10-12-2007, 18:08
While I try to never offend anyone when I post to any forum (seriously, despite what my words tend to sound like I really don’t mean any offense.), I will preemptively apologize as my forum spider-sense is warning me there is no way to talk about this without angering someone.

So…. Sorry.

Now I do find it strange when I hear people saying “It’s obviously not stated in the rules.” Because it sounds more like an excuse then a real belief. GW has written their rules poorly for years. Not intentionally to annoy us gamers but because they are game makers and not English/Writing degreed workers. Even the best fiction writers tend to horrible ‘writers’ and need editors to fix tons of grammar and spelling errors. (at least according to a few editors and writers who I have either talked to or read their blogs.)

Remember the high elf mega caster army lists in last edition? Or the Chaos Flying Circus? Where they legal by the way the rules were worded?? Of course they were. Did GW mean for people to do that? No. That’s why they tweaked the rules this edition.

GW makes mistakes all the time. They talk about rules all the time and later on list an exception or additional clarrification of the rule. Last edition’s Skaven book had a rule about how the unit works that you could only find in the sidebar mixed in with the fluff text. (or was that the Orc book??)

What I hear most of the posters here asking are the following:


Are we missing a rule clarification (or exception) listed out side of the core rule description?
Is the rule written with words that can have more then one meaning and in turn the same phrase can mean more then one result?


So far all I can see is that there is no rule that says “Dear Warseer poster <insert tag>, your question about X is interpreted as you are right and poster <insert other tag> is wrong.” There isn’t even a any rule written with the specific examples that we are bringing up. So the only really thing that I see as being clear is this…..

The rule is up to the opponents to agree upon before the battle starts. (Or if you forget, when the situation comes up.) Not because the players are making things up but because there is no 100% clear wording of the rule.

Da GoBBo
10-12-2007, 19:35
I'd like to point out "the most important rule" (page 3?). This rule was made because GW probably doesn't wan't to cover every single situation and because most players wouldn't want to read it (at the same time it's also an escuse for not hàving to cover every single situation). This rule tells us to play for fun (which is abvious). It also tells that the rulebook doen't cover every situation and that we sometimes have to make the best of it and make a proper interpretation. Proper interpretations have nothing to do with the rulesforum, as some people point out quiet frequently because that would mean logics and logics don't have anything to do with the rules. Abviously I don't agree but that's beside the point.

When I enterpret(?) these rules (CR, killing blow, and lords bein eaten by giants), I'd say the following: CR has everything to do with morale, hence the breaktests. When da ladz face A lord with 4 wounds and clubber im to death with their mighty choppa´s, this good for morale. The enemies just saw their leader get a good beating , which is bad for morale. Therefore the orcs get a +4 bonus on their CR.
When a unit of graveguards (they have killing blow right?) faces this same lord, it might so happen that this lord catches a spectacular blow in the neck, which penetrates his thick armour, slashes through the internals and effectively splatters the ones so proud warrior all over the place (a killing blow indeed). This is probably equally intimidating as bein swarmed by some crazed greenskins. the same counts for bein eaten by a giant. He's a big guy and not to be messed with. He just swallowed yer boss whole. This is also very bad for morale and should be awarded with a +4 CR bonus in my opinion.

Apparently this is not covered by the rules. Shame. In my opinion this is exactely why we have such a thing as this most important rule, since this is the way it is abviously meant to be. 4 wounds have been removed in a CC-situation by a CC-action by someone involved in the combat. Please give this the proper respect and reward em with a +4 bonus to CR.

DeathlessDraich
10-12-2007, 19:59
Now I do find it strange when I hear people saying “It’s obviously not stated in the rules.” What I hear most of the posters here asking are the following:
.

Well, I think it is stated in the rules albeit not 'obviously'.

I'll have to reiterate what I said before.



1) The rules in the main rule book explains and *clearly* relates the word casualty to wounds.

2) There is no difference between 'casualty', 'dies instantly' and 'killed' which is in turn synonymous with 'losing[all] wounds'. This is explained in the rules and cannot be ignored.


The rule for this is here:

"*Casualties*: ...wound suffered, one model is removed as a *'kill'*."

i.e. 1 wound suffered = casualty = kill

confirmed by this important sentence which follows the above:
"For our purposes the result [of being killed or losing all wounds] is the same"

and this
"treat all casualties as if they were killed"

and later reinforced by this:

"one model dead (3 wounds)" for a model with 3 wounds on its profile.

i.e. dead = all wounds inflicted. and therefore the rules confirm that:

killed = casualty = dead = all wounds inflicted

Atrahasis
10-12-2007, 20:06
I don't think you can infer that a becoming a casualty removes all of a model's wounds; having one's wounds reduced to zero is but one way of being slain.

Templar_Victorious
20-12-2007, 01:26
And if all wounds would not be remaining when the KB was done, would they then count as the actual wounds done? As the model isn't representing it's full number of wounds anymore for VP calculations? (If there is no KB taking him/her/it out of action before the game ends)