PDA

View Full Version : OnG Combo Question



Treant
23-12-2007, 22:23
Is there any reason that I could be wrong in thinking that a Warboss in an OnG army that has the enchanted item Iron Gnashas and the Spiteful Shield has the Killing Blow special rule on the ripostes granted him by the Spiteful Shield?

For those who are unaware of the rules for these items, the Gnashas grant the character KB in CC. The Shield makes the Warboss automatically do 1 str 5 hit to an enemy every time the enemy rolls a 1 to hit him. The way the rule is written the shield is doing the attacking, but I'm thinking that doesn't matter since the Gnashas don't do any attacking either, KB is granted to whatever weapon the Warboss is using.

Arnizipal
23-12-2007, 23:45
It says an opponent who rolls a 1 to hit the Greenskin character suffers a S5 hit, not that the character actually inflicts the hit. So no, the S5 hit cannot be made with Killing Blow.

The Gnashas don't make the Killing Blow themselves, but they do specifically grant that ability to the character that wears them, so that comparison is a bit off I think.

Treant
24-12-2007, 03:11
It says an opponent who rolls a 1 to hit the Greenskin character suffers a S5 hit, not that the character actually inflicts the hit. So no, the S5 hit cannot be made with Killing Blow.

The Gnashas don't make the Killing Blow themselves, but they do specifically grant that ability to the character that wears them, so that comparison is a bit off I think.

First off thanks for responding.

Perhaps what you say is the case, but there might be a hole in that logic.

If what you are saying about the Greenskin not inflicting the wound is true it's easy to extrapolate that since the Orc character isn't doing the wound the orc side wouldn't get to count the wound toward combat res. The orc didn't do the wound.

Take that even a step further and being that the rules on Combat Results state you " just add up all wounds caused by that side in the fight" [BRB page 37] these wounds would actually counted for the opponent's combat resolution instead of the orc's.

I have to say that I'm leaning toward the wound is a close combat wound and the Orc Character is the cause.

Since the orc character has been give the KB ability in Close Combat the wound should be capable of a killing blow. The Gnashas do not specify "his attacks" or anything the like, just KB in close combat.

Again, Thanks for the response and I'm actually willing to be a believer you just have to convince me.

Treant

hamster67
24-12-2007, 11:26
No offence, but if you want to pick holes in the rules go to the 40k forums :p.
The way i see it is the shield is seperate from the orc and therefore no killing blow on the shield. Also do you really want to use this "combo?" seems pretty unsporting to me and players like that just ruin the game for me.

Treant
24-12-2007, 12:34
No offence, but if you want to pick holes in the rules go to the 40k forums :p.

None taken, I'm just looking for something to sway my thoughts. I'm obviously on the pro side of the fence but I'm honestly open minded.




Also do you really want to use this "combo?" seems pretty unsporting to me and players like that just ruin the game for me.

I'm not a waac player and don't want to be considered one. I play OnG with 10+ animosity checks in the first turn. I would like to understand why this combo would be unsporting. I looked at this combo because I really didn't want to give my t5 orc lord the enchanted shield and Best 'At while on his boar, giving him a 1+ armour save and a 5+ ward. I just thought the attacking defense was more 'orcy'. Honestly, I'm not sure how this would get labeled unsporting, or ruin a game but I'd love to hear your thoughts and for you to elaborate.

Thanks and Merry Christmas
Treant

lparigi34
24-12-2007, 13:32
I do not believe the combo is unsporting. IMO, is pretty cool.

But not if you'd to confer the KB to the shield attack. It just does not apply.

Avian
24-12-2007, 13:44
The hit from the Spiteful shield is not made by the Orc, so there would be no Killing Blow. If you want a comparision, it is similar to how the KB ability would not apply to attacks from his mount.

It is debatable whether or not Killing Blow would apply if the attacking model had that ability.

Treant
24-12-2007, 14:22
Well put Avian.

I'm now leaning toward the "KB doesn't apply" argument.

Arnizipal
24-12-2007, 15:31
If what you are saying about the Greenskin not inflicting the wound is true it's easy to extrapolate that since the Orc character isn't doing the wound the orc side wouldn't get to count the wound toward combat res. The orc didn't do the wound.

Take that even a step further and being that the rules on Combat Results state you " just add up all wounds caused by that side in the fight" [BRB page 37] these wounds would actually counted for the opponent's combat resolution instead of the orc's.

It's still the Orc's side that ifnlicted the wound. The shield is carried, owned and used by the Orc after all.



I have to say that I'm leaning toward the wound is a close combat wound and the Orc Character is the cause.

Since the orc character has been give the KB ability in Close Combat the wound should be capable of a killing blow. The Gnashas do not specify "his attacks" or anything the like, just KB in close combat.

I can see where you're coming from, but I still say it's the item that makes the attack. See it like a bound spell if you will, sort of like Nibbla's Itty Ring but only in close combat.

T10
25-12-2007, 12:58
"If a model with the killing blow special rule rolls a 6 when rolling to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent."

While I do not find anything particularilly pleasing about the idea of applying the Killing Blow rule to the hits caused by the Spiteful Shield, I can't really see why not. If any "model" is making the to wound roll it is the bearer of the shield.

So unless there is a good argument to the tune that the roll to wound is not made by "a model", then the Iron Gnashas + Spiteful Shield must be accepted as a legal combination.

-T10

theunwantedbeing
25-12-2007, 13:17
Yes I agree with t10.
Unless the weapon states something about only attacks made by the weapon get killing blow the hits from the sheild are indeed with killing blow.

Similarly, chaos can pull the same trick with a model with the axe of khorne and the bane sheild.
And I belive skaven can as well with the things catcher and the warpstone armour.
Or wood elves with the murder of spites and the spear of the twilight.
Or Vampire counts with a blood dragon with the killing blow ability and the talon of death.

So its not that uncommon really.

Urgat
25-12-2007, 18:01
How about this:
The killing blow gives back a S5 attack. It's not the attackers strenght attack, it's an attack set by the shield. If it was saying something like the hit is instead taken back by the attacker, well, I guess I'd carry the killing blow rule over too. But it's not the attacker's attack, it's a S5 hit from the shield. I kind of imagine the guy hitting the shield, and guches of green energy slapping him back, not his own sword going back in his chest.

Arnizipal
26-12-2007, 00:49
Indeed. The description of the shield doesn't say the Orc character actually inflicts the hit. It just says the model that rolls a 1 when rolling to hit suffers a S5 hit (no source specified).

knightime98
26-12-2007, 07:43
Follow this logic.

The Orc Character has the magic items.

Those magic items bestow certain characteristics.

In one instance, Killing Blow is added to the profile.

In another - a S5 hit against an opponent.

In both cases, it is because the Character has these abilities that this happens.

The character, in my opinion must be the center stage for the reason of the "added/bonus" attack(s). So, it would stand to reason that this additional attack(s) in my opinion would also have the killing blow ability.

Once again, it is because the character is bestowed with these 2 abilities cumulatively that it happens.

On a side note, GW does not think of these things when they write the rules. After 7 editions they finally started realizing they can not use the word "always" or "never". The "always strike first" rule for example. They finally added, if both sides have it then works in initiative order.... It only took 2 editions to hash that out....

the vicar
26-12-2007, 10:16
It really depends on the exact wording, doesn't it? Not having the book in front of me, I can't look it up, but I would imagine that if the wording for the gnasha said something like "gives the character KB ability," then I would say that the shield doesn't apply to it, as the shield isn't the character. However, if the wording of the gnasha says something about giving KB to "the model," I would have to assume that the shield is part of the model as he is portrayed on the field, thus the shield would grant KB.

Avian
26-12-2007, 13:14
In both cases, it is because the Character has these abilities that this happens.
If a character had a boar, the mounts attack would only happen because the character owned it, but still it would not benefit from any bonuses the character had. :p

So this isn't really an argument. The hit from the Shield might not have happened if the Orc had not lugged the shield onto the battlefield, but it was caused by the attack of the enemy model.

T10
26-12-2007, 14:53
If a character had a boar, the mounts attack would only happen because the character owned it, but still it would not benefit from any bonuses the character had. :p

So this isn't really an argument. The hit from the Shield might not have happened if the Orc had not lugged the shield onto the battlefield, but it was caused by the attack of the enemy model.

The hit is most certainly not caused by the attacker but is caused by the shield.

-T10

Avian
26-12-2007, 17:20
On the contrary, the hit is caused by the attacking model rolling a 1 to hit.

Urgat
26-12-2007, 17:32
Yes, but the attack is not an attack from the dude who rolled 1, and that's all that matters, no?

tanglethorn
26-12-2007, 17:54
This isnt a card game like "Magic the gathering" where we look for all sorts of sneaky combos in which are usually encouraged.

One ability gives killing blow and the other a S5 attack when a certain condition is met. Keep it simple stupid is a common saying. Keep the items seperate from each other as I guarantee GW did not imply this rule (Ask your self if GW honestly wanted this combo, is it good sportsmanship on your part and would you considered it overpowering).

With that in mind you should be able to come up with your own answer to ensure everyone playing is having a good time.

Remember, this isnt a card game...

Arnizipal
26-12-2007, 18:05
It really depends on the exact wording, doesn't it? Not having the book in front of me, I can't look it up, but I would imagine that if the wording for the gnasha said something like "gives the character KB ability,"
That's what it says indeed.

Treant
26-12-2007, 18:42
This is a card game like "Magic the gathering" where we look for all sorts of sneaky combos in which are usually encouraged.

One ability gives killing blow and the other a S5 attack when a certain condition is met. Keep it simple stupid is a common saying. Keep the items seperate from each other as I guarantee GW did not imply this rule (Ask your self if GW honestly wanted this combo, is it good sportsmanship on your part and would you considered it overpowering).

With that in mind you should be able to come up with your own answer to ensure everyone playing is having a good time.

Remember, this isnt a card game...

Although I'm thinking the wound is coming from the character who has KB in close combat I'm not sure how someone could think this underhanded or overpowered.

If the shield is granted killing blow the combination happens less than 3% of the times he's attacked (1 in 36). Over powered? Come on, really?

If GW doesn't want combinations of items working together they could easily make them of the same item type. Although I would never argue intent unless I were the author or on the team that came up with the item list, to be honest this combination is pretty tame considering some of the options out there. In no way does this push the extreme. I find it hard to believe a rational opponent would have some sort of problem with this.

Avian
26-12-2007, 20:30
Yes, but the attack is not an attack from the dude who rolled 1, and that's all that matters, no?
Considering that the enemy was the one that made the attack roll, I would think it easier to make a case for his abilities applying than the abilities of the Orc, who is after all just sitting there.

Treant
26-12-2007, 22:12
Considering that the enemy was the one that made the attack roll, I would think it easier to make a case for his abilities applying than the abilities of the Orc, who is after all just sitting there.

But to be fair, the "to hit" roll has nothing to do with it. According to the rules a killing blow happens "If a model with the killing blow rolls a 6 to wound in close combat..." [page 95, BRB]

The orc is doing the wounding, the wounding roll is his, his KB effects his rolls to wound.

T10
27-12-2007, 02:23
On the contrary, the hit is caused by the attacking model rolling a 1 to hit.

That's like saying that the start of the turn causes Terror tests since that's when units whithin range of monsters test. :) Seriously though, "cause" is perhaps not the best point of debate since the trigger certainly contributes to the effect. The shield has an effect that kicks in under a certain circumstance, and is certainly the source of the effect, though not the sole cause.

The argument, however, is probably moot. To re-address the original question:


Is there any reason that I could be wrong in thinking that a Warboss in an OnG army that has the enchanted item Iron Gnashas and the Spiteful Shield has the Killing Blow special rule on the ripostes granted him by the Spiteful Shield?


Firstly, the Spiteful Shield's effect is not explicitly described as any kind of "riposte". A riposte would mean that the hit was the result of the character making some kind of close combat attack.

While it is true that the character model is the source of the hit, by virtue of carrying the shield that is the source of the hit caused, this hit cannot be said to be completely analogous to the character's regular close combat attacks:

- The hit is not the result of the character making a to-hit roll.
- The hit is resolved at a fixed Strength rather than that of the character.

The Iron Gnashas + Spiteful Shield combo is valid if it can be said that the hit can be attributed to the character. In my opinion this is not the case.

-T10

Treant
27-12-2007, 02:47
Firstly, the Spiteful Shield's effect is not explicitly described as any kind of "riposte". A riposte would mean that the hit was the result of the character making some kind of close combat attack.


Riposte, noun, a retaliatory maneuver or measure. The orc (or shield) is retaliating against the enemy's poorly rolled attack. I think I am correct in the use of the word and meant no confusion.



- The hit is not the result of the character making a to-hit roll.
- The hit is resolved at a fixed Strength rather than that of the character.

The Iron Gnashas + Spiteful Shield combo is valid if it can be said that the hit can be attributed to the character. In my opinion this is not the case.

-T10

KB has nothing to do with anyone making a "to hit" roll. By the rules it is the "to wound" roll where KB is tested. I believe it is the greenskin equipped with the shield that is making the "to wound" roll.

In the end it really seems we may be stuck but it doesn't matter as our campaign's ombudsman has made his ruling.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
27-12-2007, 03:25
Wow, with this thread plus the Screaming Skull Catapult thread, I'm begining to wonder if I'm in the minority for wanting to keep some sort of common sense in my gaming. The Iron Gnasha gives your character the Killing Blow ability, and the Spiteful Shield deals a STR 5 hit for each 1 rolled against the character in close combat. It does not give your character any extra attacks, it is the special effect of the shield. And if you read the description, it talks about the shield having razor-sharp teeth and biting at attackers.

I'm not saying you can't read it that way. I will say, however, that it's kind of an odd way to look at it. Also, I'm glad, once again, that my friends and I play with fun as our main objective and common sense as our guide to the rules.

Have fun!

Felworth
27-12-2007, 14:25
Although I'm thinking the wound is coming from the character who has KB in close combat I'm not sure how someone could think this underhanded or overpowered.

If the shield is granted killing blow the combination happens less than 3% of the times he's attacked (1 in 36). Over powered? Come on, really?

I find it hard to believe a rational opponent would have some sort of problem with this.


I'm not joining into this rules debate because the answer is obvious to me, but I just thought it was amusing that you can't imagine someone *rational* not agreeing to your rules interpretation.


Okay, my super dead hard killy chaos lord of oblivion just charged your warboss, rolling to hit... and four hits!

What about the ones? Oh, you got the biting shield dealy? Yeah okay, roll wounds then.

Five and a six, not bad. Okay, I have a 1+ armor save-

Killing Blow? The shield causes that? Let me see that!

Yeah dude, the shield doesn't say anything about killing blow...

Iron Gnashas? Yeah, they give killing blow to the Orc... I don't follow.

What? No man, the Orc has killing blow not his shield. The two are totally not related at all...

Bare minimum, 10 minute rule arguement interupts the game about rule intent and whats a character or constitutes a model. Not fun for either player I assure you.

warlord hack'a
27-12-2007, 14:47
of course having a super dead hard killy chaos lord of oblivion is not fun for either players also, but that's beside the point here ;-). My view: the shield itself bites back at any enemy stupid enough to flunk his attacks (rolls a 1), this is done regardless of the combat prowess of the orc carrying the shield and with it's own strength. Thus fluff and logic would point me to say that the shield does not have killing blow.

By the way, who says the Orc players rolls to wound? When a stonethrower or fanatic veers of target and hits your own troops, you roll to wound yourself, the other player does not do this for you. The hit by the shield is caused during the enemy attacking, so it's a hit they cause themselves, thus they roll to wound themselves to see if they hurt themselves, or at least that's how we play it in our gaming group.

DeathlessDraich
27-12-2007, 16:26
Interesting debate.

1) The Killing blow rules does indeed use the unfortunate term 'model' but Iron Gnashas fortunately uses the term character.

2) I think trying to determine who or what is responsible for the S5 hit is a futile exercise.
Both the character and the shield is needed for the S5 hit and therefore both are partly responsible.
But, if you insist on working out the root cause of the S5 hit, then it is *neither* the shield itself nor the S.Shield bearer. It is the enemy model that is the root cause.

I think there are sufficient indicators to show that the S5 hit does not benefit from KB, even though the rules do not explicitly say so:

1) The S5 hit is initiated by the enemy model.
2) Its strength is fixed and not dependent on the bearer's strength. The S depends on the shield
3) It is inflicted when the enemy model strikes and not when the bearer strikes
4) It is similar to the Skaven combo of Things Catcher and Warpstone Armour and true to Skaven sportsmanship, all Skaven players do not pass on the KB ability to the Armour.:p
5) To benefit from KB, the Spiteful Shields rules must state it does and it does not.

feeder
27-12-2007, 19:26
Here's my 2 cents.

Officially, the Shield does not benefit from KB, for reasons given by Avian, DD, and others; and following the obvious (but completley un-enforceable) logic from the item descriptions. The Gnashas are a massive set of iron jaws that the Orc wears and uses to decapitate an opponent, and the Spiteful Shield is a minor possesed item which bites anyone who gets too close.

However, in a just for fun game, if you had modeled an Orc carrying a shield that was sporting a massive set of iron jaws upon it, then I would play along.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
27-12-2007, 22:04
I just got off the phone with GeeDub and they said that the Killing Blow special ability does NOT carry over to the STR 5 hit from the shield. I know, there are half of you already rolling your eyes because you don't believe those guys know their butts from a hole in the ground, however that is the straight dope, as it were. It makes sense to me, for all the reasons previously stated, so now I can cancel my subscription to this thread with a clear conscience.

Festus
28-12-2007, 08:34
Hi

How could this thread go on for so long?

Avian put it right in post #7 !


The hit from the Spiteful shield is not made by the Orc, so there would be no Killing Blow. If you want a comparision, it is similar to how the KB ability would not apply to attacks from his mount.
Festus

T10
28-12-2007, 12:20
I guess the thread kept going because people disagreed with Avian.

-T10

grishnakh99
28-12-2007, 16:28
If this combo were legal based on a model having killing blow in close combat and doing wounds, I would have a lot of cheap combos with Vampire Counts. Talon of Death on a Wight Lord, Blood Dragon Lord with killing blow and the lvl 6 Death spell (can't remember it's name), Hand of Death with Talon of Death (autokill anything..?)... anyways extrapolating killing blow ability to all wounds the model causes regardless of source is silly.

Bortus
29-12-2007, 19:01
You know what the scary thing is is when some of the biggies as I call them (those with over 2,000 posts and always seem to have the correct answers) are pretty much split with this topic of discussion. O&G's are the first army I ever built and played way back when and the way I would play it is that the shield inflicts possible damage against the attacker WITHOUT benefiting from the killing blow ability which belongs to the Orc and not the shield. This not to say that I am right but this would be my interpretation of the rule and I would never feel as if I was "short changing" myself.

Urgat
29-12-2007, 20:04
the Spiteful Shield is a minor possesed item which bites anyone who gets too close.

I kind of picture it as a squig strapped to a shield, in fact :p
yeah I know, that would not give the squig a very long lifespan, but it's an amusing picture :D

Warhammerrox
29-12-2007, 21:15
The Iron Gnashers do not pass on their killing blow to the Spiteful Shield.

Festus
29-12-2007, 21:40
Hi

I think that there is a model of this Shield as well - as long as a NightGobbo carries it...

Festus

Braad
29-12-2007, 21:52
My spitefull shield killed a saurus oldblood who rolled three 1's... There is no need for killing blow :p

But anyway, my little bit on this, is that the shield has an effect that does a S5 hit. It's not an actual attack made by the bearer, so no killing blow. It could not possibly be the intention, and probably will only cause argument if tried to enforce.

About the comparison with the boar, I do not think this is a valid argument though, since the boar has his own stat-line, while the shield does not.

But still I say, no KB to the shield.

Festus
30-12-2007, 09:29
Hi

About the comparison with the boar, I do not think this is a valid argument though, since the boar has his own stat-line, while the shield does not.
Oh, it has. it is:

- - - 5 - - - - -

;)

As it is equipment, it does not need W or A or I or such ... compare a Stonethrower: - - - - 7 3 - - - or a Pump Wagon: 2D6 - - 4 4 3 - - -
All that is needed are rules describing how the equipment works. The shield has its own set of rules governing it, as do the Stonethrower or the Pump Wagon.

And neither has Killing Blow BTW :D

Festus

Urgat
30-12-2007, 09:59
Hi

I think that there is a model of this Shield as well - as long as a NightGobbo carries it...

Festus


There's more convincing shields for that imho:

The gob on the right (sadly, can't see the pic very well), or, better: the plastic orc bigboss kit: http://fr.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.fr?do=Individual&code=99120209013&orignav=13 (the two bottom right corner pics )

Treant
30-12-2007, 13:45
Since it has it's own strength and doesn't use the hero's it doesn't get Killing Blow as it is now considered it's own entity?

That argument seems flawed as it must mean that Wallopa's One Hit Wunda which is s10 once a game would not get killing blow either.

It's silly to not attribute the wound to the greenskin who owns the shield.

Festus
30-12-2007, 13:50
The one is a weapon, wielded by the model (OneHitWunda) which needs the characters actions, the other is a hit by an item - dependent on the oponents misfortunes.

I do see a lot of difference. Don't you?

Festus (who doesn't really think that he is silly for thinking so... :( )

Treant
30-12-2007, 14:24
No Festus, I do not think you are silly, But i think that the idea that the shield is separate from the hero using it is quite.

If it is separate and the Orc isn't doing the wound, I should be able to use a great weapon and leave the shield "on my back." Granted I'd lose the shield's AS bonus but hey, the orc doesn't need to be using it to get the STR 5 riposte. The shield does that on it's own.

Festus
30-12-2007, 14:33
Hi

I did take no offense, really :)

But the points we are discussing simply require common sense. That is my firm belief. Reding the description of the item in question helps a lot with that...

I even find it somewhat dubious that the character with the gnasha gets KB as a blanket rule, too. He gets it even with a GW or a Magic Weapon :cries:

Well, that is GW for you, I guess.

But still: ruleswise the shield, as it is the Item, supplies the hit, the character does not. This is akin to a mount, or impact hits from a chariot or other pieces of equipment.

Festus

DeathlessDraich
30-12-2007, 15:17
It's silly to not attribute the wound to the greenskin who owns the shield.

The wound cannot be attributed to the greenskin solely.
It is initiated by the greenskin's opponent.
The miss hit, or roll of 1, from the opponent galvanises the magic item which then creates a S5 hit.

There are 3 partial causers here of the S5 hit. Making the greenskin more important than the other two is a biased view but all this is academic.

More importantly there are 5 reasons why the S5 hit should not benefit from Killing Blow.

Braad
30-12-2007, 21:30
Hi

Oh, it has. it is:

- - - 5 - - - - -

;)

WAAAGH!

You're so mean.
But I can see the point.

About the Onehitwunda thing, those are actually attacks delivered by the character, while the shield has nothing to do with it's A value or anything. It just comes from the shield itself as a sort of big spike the enemy slams itself into or something.
Common sense indeed says "NO KB" for me. Other then that, I can see this discussion going on for the next 22 centuries.

DaBrode
30-12-2007, 22:22
Since it has it's own strength and doesn't use the hero's it doesn't get Killing Blow as it is now considered it's own entity?

On the one hand you are willing to take advantage of what you feel is the possibility of the character's enhanced stat line and assign KB to the shield but on the other hand you are not willing to assign the characters str score to that attack because the shield is str 5.

Sounds to me like you are picking the best available stats for the situation in all cases and using what is best for you.

In other words, if the character's ability of killing blow applies in the spiteful shield's return attack then why would you turn around and ignore the character's strength score?

Answering for you...because the shield lists it's own rules for the attack back to be made and those rules DO NOT include killng blow.

Arnizipal
31-12-2007, 00:16
I even find it somewhat dubious that the character with the gnasha gets KB as a blanket rule, too. He gets it even with a GW or a Magic Weapon :cries:
The Gnashas are an enchanted item and need no hands to use. It's a metal jawplate possessed by some psychotic Orc spirit, which helps guide the attacks of the character wearing it.

I don't see how using different weapons would seem conflicting to you.

Festus
31-12-2007, 10:09
As I see it:
The Gnashas are a massive Jaw made out of metal, used to bite someones head off - hence the Killing Blow!

:D

Festus

DaBrode
31-12-2007, 15:04
As I see it:
The Gnashas are a massive Jaw made out of metal, used to bite someones head off - hence the Killing Blow!

:D

Festus


I believe this is the intention fluff wise. As a matter of fat in the actual entry it says CHOMP! doesn't it?

Arnizipal
31-12-2007, 17:41
Admittedly I was partially basing my statemnet on the fluff text from the 6th editon version of the item (which doesn't say chomp! ).

Braad
31-12-2007, 22:43
I even find it somewhat dubious that the character with the gnasha gets KB as a blanket rule, too. He gets it even with a GW or a Magic Weapon :cries:

I think that they did this because originally the gnashas added +1 attack that has KB (indeed, biting heads off!), but to be honest, I used it quite often, but that single killing blow attack never really attributed to anything important, gamewise. Then it's a lot of points to pay for that extra attack. It was a very expensive item if I remember correctly.

theweck
13-10-2009, 20:09
Now, if we equip shrike with iron gnashas and a spiteful shield, and throw him from a screaming skull catapault, can he infiltrate with a cannon and grossly overguess the range to hit a target that would otherwise not be in line of sight?

Milgram
13-10-2009, 22:10
necromancy!

but nice pointing out that most people are unaware of the search option.

Braugi
14-10-2009, 10:24
RAW the killing blow works with the sheild. RAI I'm not so sure.

BUT, for all you guys that say 'the sheild isn't a weapon' and such, remember, that a choppa is a weapon that gives +1 strength on the first round of combat if the model is on foot...

Lets say I have the Gnashas and Shaggas Sword...then I have a weapon that gives +1 strength...its not entirely my own strength, rather, its the magic weapon's strength, but that item benefits from KB.

A weapon is an implement the character uses to make his attacks more effective. A sheild is likewise an implement used by the character. There is nothing that states that killing blow has to be caused by a weapon...when a model has the Killing Blow ability...lets say you're playing 2 on 2 and your ally casts 'the bears anger' on the guy with Gnashas....he gets killing blow with unarmed attacks because the Gnashas are a jaw plate that gives the character killing blow.

So we all agree that any attacks he makes in close combat benefit from Killing Blow, despite some attacks and wounds being caused by the weapon, something that he is weilding. How do you not make the equivalence for all equipment?

To restate:
weapon: an item the character is weilding...since the character himself is given killing blow, whether he's using a hand weapon, magic weapon,
or unarmed, he gets to use killing blow because of this jaw plate he's wearing.
Sheild: an item the character is weilding. Its a sheild that has sharp stuff that bites at the attacker during the attack and grants a strength 5
hit. Per the rules, that means it causes a roll to wound, and just as a sword that grants a strength bonus to attack or that gives a
single strength 10 attack doesn't necessarily base everything on the characters strength, this is caused by a characters personal
equipment.

Both weapon and sheild are weilded in close combat as implements of close combat.

Killing Blow: states specifically that a model that makes a roll to wound auto kills the opponent on a roll of 6.

The sheild, just like a weapon, is weilded by the model. Wounds caused by a weapon are conferred killing blow in this case, as are wounds caused by the use of a sheild.

I also fail to see how this combination is so devastatingly effective...it helps sure, but if my opponent brought it, I would think nothing of it.

JHZ
14-10-2009, 11:03
Wonder if a Killing Blow would work with magic as well? I mean, it's the person with the Killing Blow casting it, so surely his fire balls would have it too, right?


But I'd say no. If you want Spiteful Shield combos, do as a friend does and combine it with Gork'll Fix It which turns 6s into 1s, so your opponent has a 1/3 chance of missing and getting their hits back as S5.

Milgram
14-10-2009, 11:07
Both weapon and sheild are weilded in close combat as implements of close combat.

wrong. the hits of the shield are not done by the bearer. rinse and repeat.

Deglosh
14-10-2009, 16:16
Follow this logic.

The Orc Character has the magic items.

Those magic items bestow certain characteristics.

In one instance, Killing Blow is added to the profile.

In another - a S5 hit against an opponent.

In both cases, it is because the Character has these abilities that this happens.

The character, in my opinion must be the center stage for the reason of the "added/bonus" attack(s). So, it would stand to reason that this additional attack(s) in my opinion would also have the killing blow ability.

Once again, it is because the character is bestowed with these 2 abilities cumulatively that it happens.

On a side note, GW does not think of these things when they write the rules. After 7 editions they finally started realizing they can not use the word "always" or "never". The "always strike first" rule for example. They finally added, if both sides have it then works in initiative order.... It only took 2 editions to hash that out....

This seems logical on all but one point. The shield is bestowed with the attack, and the orc is bestowed with the shield. I imagine that the shield is just so full of charms and spike orcy stuff, that the one who attacks it, well suit ureself, you might get a wound aswell cause of its pointy sharp surface.

I dont think the combo is cheesy, as long as you dont start to say taht the shields "attack" has killing blow.

I think GW ment for it this way...The shield is orcy, after all. And it has alot of spikes and wotnot on it, wich in case of thrusting youre attak against it might damage youreself, MUCH LIKE you standing in front of a concrete wall and throwing a punch at it. Youre hand will get hurt but was it really the wall that hit youre hand? Youre logic for giving the shield Killing blow will never sway my opinion of this. Cause imo its just stupid. Its how the shield is "put together" that makes it able to give the attacker a strenght 5 hit back, not the shield OR the orcs attack at all.

Deglosh
14-10-2009, 16:39
Braugi, you have written alot and if you ignore the fact that the hit is a cause of the opponents attack, it would make PERFECT sense and i would agree to 100%.

But this is not the case. The hit is not caused by the model, its caused by the attack from the opponent. You guys just want to exploit single stats and combos to youre best, as some1 so elegantly put it before.

rtunian
14-10-2009, 17:39
the words in the o&g book do not say that you roll to wound your opponent if he rolls a 1 when rolling to hit you. the book says "any foe that rolls a 1 ... suffers a strength 5 hit". it does not say "this shield causes a strength 5 hit every time a foe rolls a 1 to hit".

this wording has a specific meaning: if your opponent rolls a 1 to hit your spiteful shield bearing boss, then your opponent rolls a s5 hit on himself. he makes the rolls because he "suffers" the hit. you do not make the rolls, because you do not "cause" the hit. it is not an attack, it is a defense.

consider this: the wording in the miscast table for wounds inflicted due to miscasting is along the lines of "the caster suffers x strength y hits". if you had an item that could force your opponent to miscast (for example, if you turn his 6s into 1s), then you have caused him to miscast, but you do not roll his hits, because you do not cause the hits. he suffers the hits as a result of the miscast.

similarly, he suffers the hits as a result of rolling a 1 to hit against a spiteful shield

Malorian
14-10-2009, 18:32
the words in the o&g book do not say that you roll to wound your opponent if he rolls a 1 when rolling to hit you. the book says "any foe that rolls a 1 ... suffers a strength 5 hit". it does not say "this shield causes a strength 5 hit every time a foe rolls a 1 to hit".

this wording has a specific meaning: if your opponent rolls a 1 to hit your spiteful shield bearing boss, then your opponent rolls a s5 hit on himself. he makes the rolls because he "suffers" the hit. you do not make the rolls, because you do not "cause" the hit. it is not an attack, it is a defense.

consider this: the wording in the miscast table for wounds inflicted due to miscasting is along the lines of "the caster suffers x strength y hits". if you had an item that could force your opponent to miscast (for example, if you turn his 6s into 1s), then you have caused him to miscast, but you do not roll his hits, because you do not cause the hits. he suffers the hits as a result of the miscast.

similarly, he suffers the hits as a result of rolling a 1 to hit against a spiteful shield

I think this is the best explination I've heard.

Deglosh
15-10-2009, 13:19
agreed ***