PDA

View Full Version : Overkill with Killing blow and regular wounds



grishnakh99
01-01-2008, 06:44
Greetings,

What happens if you're in a Duel, you have killing blow, and with your attacks you do a combination of killing blow(s) and regular wound(s) on a multi-wound character? Example, said character has 3 wounds, and you roll 4 wounds and a killing blow.

Do you:
a) Resolve the killing blow, and get +4 overkill (Total +7 CR)
or b) Do the wounds first and then killing blow for +2 overkill (Total +5 CR)
or c) Does it matter the order you roll? (anywhere from a total of +5 to +7 CR)

Thanks,
-Grish

knightime98
01-01-2008, 08:41
Answer A seems to be the most correct.

The Killing Blow ability means that provided the model fails or does not have a ward save then it is slain outright. In this case it would count as 3 wounds. You would then be entitled up to an additional +5 for overkill. In this case however, you would get 3 for killing blow, and an additional +4 for extra wounds actually caused.

I would even venture to say that if you had an extraordinary roll and were able to pull off 3 killing blow results only one would count and the additional 2 would only count as 1 wound each. You can only slay a model once. However, the model would be required to take 3 ward saves if available for all 3 killing blow attacks if said model has a ward save.

As far as the order is concerned, it seems to be lacking in the rules as to when in sequence killing blow is "exactly" accounted for. After all, when you roll to hit - you usually pick up all your attack dice and roll them together. After that you roll all your hits to see if you wound. The fair way to do it in my opinion is one at a time and take saves accordingly from there. It is not in the rules as far as I can tell. However, this in my opinion would be the fairest. So, if you get a normal wound and then killing blow - you are not discounting it and both sides are given a fair shake. So, it seems to me.

It would only ever be in a challenge that this situation would come up. I am sure some astute member may come up with another scenario but I am unable.

Chiungalla
01-01-2008, 10:36
The Killing Blow ability means that provided the model fails or does not have a ward save then it is slain outright. In this case it would count as 3 wounds.

No, the model is slain, and it caunts as one wound.
There is no wording like "he looses all his remaining wounds" (like for chariots and strengh 7+ hits) or such stuff, so one wound remains one wound.

T10
01-01-2008, 10:44
The Killing Blow rules are a bit vague on this issue. Some argue that the instant kill effect is in stead of a wound, so the killing blow contributes *nothing* to combat resolution.

Looking at the bigger picture and taking into account the effects of Strength 7+ hits on chariots, weapons with wound multipliers and so on, I must say I find option A to be the most appropriate.

-T10

Festus
01-01-2008, 10:51
Hi

I am with T10 on this one (and indeed against Atrahasis, who takes the oposite stance IIRC).

Festus

Leogun_91
01-01-2008, 11:46
I think b) would be best beacouse if you are arguing about it you could just be nice (after all you slayed one of his characters) to make something that´s better for your opponent. In tournament however a) might be the best.

knightime98
02-01-2008, 06:01
No, the model is slain, and it counts as one wound.
There is no wording like "he looses all his remaining wounds" (like for chariots and strengh 7+ hits) or such stuff, so one wound remains one wound.

Wow, How interesting that is...
Indeed, I stand corrected. It does say, "this wound"....
So, it is a single wound.

However, most people (as did I) interpret the killing blow as you get combat resolution for all remaining wounds left on the model.

Elrond
02-01-2008, 16:33
The logic should be you count the killing blow as the amount of wounds the slained character had, and other wounds up to an additional +5 for overkill (max bonus).

Makaiju
02-01-2008, 16:51
We can make this even worse if we really wanted... mainly because there is no rule in the basic rule book that covers this.

The KB rule says that "if when rolling to wound you roll a 6...." and does say "... are allowed against this wound."

However that doesn't explain the rule. What if you did 4 hits and to wound you rolled a 6 four times? Do you get credit for 4 wounds or (if you opponent had 3 wounds) 12 wounds? (Again, we also have to assume this is a challenge overkill.) There really isn't anything in the rules to guide you either way... well, very much.

If you didn't use the words "against this wound" then the phrase implies you can't roll armor saves against any wound from a KB weapon but only the 6 auto kills. We all know the basic intent of the KB rule and that my exmpale wouldn't be allowed in most games... but legally, it wouldn't be an incorrect way to agrue the rule.

So GW clarified the rule to avoid people from cheating on forcing no saves on people... but now it's really unclear on their intent for CR.

Think about example D:

KB kills him first (but only gives 1 CR) and then you do 4 more wounds. (for a total of +5) that's the same as your example B.... does that make B or D right... or is it just coincidence?

knightwire
02-01-2008, 17:45
As I read the rules, KB is a wound that cannot be saved from armor or regeneration and always slays the model. (If it has multiple wounds and is under US 2)

CR counts the number of wounds you do, so if you do 3 normal wounds and a KB wound you get +4 to CR from the challenge. If you only do one would that happens to be a KB, that's still only one wound. (+1 CR)

As I read it anyway.

Elrond
03-01-2008, 11:44
I'd like you were right Knightwire, due to the fragility of my High Elves Prince vs KB. Unfortunally KB counts for the CR as much as the remaining wounds lost by the slained character in that combat phase by that stroke..

knightwire
03-01-2008, 13:12
I'd like you were right Knightwire, due to the fragility of my High Elves Prince vs KB. Unfortunally KB counts for the CR as much as the remaining wounds lost by the slained character in that combat phase by that stroke..


Empahsis mine. I guess that's the whole debate. Can you tell me why you have come to that conclusion?

DeathlessDraich
03-01-2008, 13:32
The problem occurs when there are a few rolls of 6s against a multi-wound model in a challenge.

My solution copied from a previous thread:

A) When a model is automatically slain from Killing blow, all his wounds are counted and contribute to combat resolution. A second, third or more Killing blows can only then inflict one overkill each.**

{Comments:
1) Killing blow states that it pg 93 “automatically slays”

2) However pg 31 shows that the term ‘killed’ [or slain] is the same as ‘casualty’ – “for our purposes the result is the same, we treat all casualties as if they were killed”.

3) Multiple casualties rules on pg 32, then show that a casualty has all its wounds inflicted.

4) Therefore Killing blow must cause all wounds to be inflicted}

Atrahasis objection is based on this part of the Killing Blow rules:
“no...saves are allowed against *this wound*” which might seem to indicate that KB inflicts one wound only.
However, I feel this can be discounted after reading pg 31 - uses the same terms and phrases for 1 wound before explaining how multiple wounds are inflicted.

**B) If more than one 6 is rolled in a challenge, the overkills rules on pg 77"even though they are not actually inflicted" is sufficient to indicate that overkills should be counted.
Exactly how this is done is uncertain but my suggestion is:

One 6 rolled accounts for all wounds which then counts towards CR
The other 6s rolled, if successful, can only add 1 Overkill each. If the combatants are not in a challenge, these extra 6s do nothing.

Elrond
03-01-2008, 18:45
And yes.. that's why me and many other players agreed about KB counts for the CR as much as remaining wounds of slained model in that combat phase. The differences occur between the terms "blow" and "wound". If you commit a KB, you did a "blow" (one) but you automatically do as much wounds as number of remaining to slained model. Cannot explain other ways using alternative terms from the rulebook.
Thanks DeathlessDraich for corroborating me so clear. :p

knightwire
04-01-2008, 13:17
DD,

Thanks for showing me your reasoning, my comments are below.



{Comments:
1) Killing blow states that it pg 93 “automatically slays”


Actually it says that roll of 6 for a wound "automatically slays" a model that is US 2 or less. It also says that that wound (i.e. only the wounds you rolled a 6 for) cannot be saved with armor or regeneration. It's taking about each wound and it's special rules for KB.



2) However pg 31 shows that the term ‘killed’ [or slain] is the same as ‘casualty’ – “for our purposes the result is the same, we treat all casualties as if they were killed”.


You've grossly taken this out of context DD to suit your own purpose as 1) the paragraph only deals with one wound models and 2) the sentence you left out is kind of important:


“Individual warriors are not neccessarily dead, they just may be too badly wounded to fight on. For our purposes the result is the same, we treat all casualties as if they were killed and remove them”.

Nice try on that one though. ;)

Lastly you equating 'slain' with killed is a big assumption on your part to use for rules clarifications.




3) Multiple casualties rules on pg 32, then show that a casualty has all its wounds inflicted.


Where are you extrapolating or paraphasing this from? The section you are referring simply explains how multiple wound models are removed from combat.



4) Therefore Killing blow must cause all wounds to be inflicted}

Atrahasis objection is based on this part of the Killing Blow rules:
“no...saves are allowed against *this wound*” which might seem to indicate that KB inflicts one wound only.
However, I feel this can be discounted after reading pg 31 - uses the same terms and phrases for 1 wound before explaining how multiple wounds are inflicted.


So far, I think Atrahasis is spot on if the above was the basis of yours and Elrond's argument.

Masque
04-01-2008, 13:45
/me hurls a monkeywrench into the works.

I can't believe nobody has pointed out that there is another possible complication to calculating overkill from killing blow. Since killing blow slays (and removes) the model at the to-wound step it's possible that any non-killing blow wounds are never inflicted as you never actually get to the part where you make armour saves for them.

So, for example, if a one wound champion had a killing blow and three other wounds inflicted on him this might only count for a single combat resolution.

/me runs like hell.

DeathlessDraich
04-01-2008, 15:30
DD,
You've grossly taken this out of context DD to suit your own purpose

My purpose?
There is none.

I express an opinion and put forward my reasoning using quoted rules as always.



Nice try on that one though. ;)
.

Nice try? Phrases like that don't apply to me or my posts.

If you read all my posts, you'll notice

1) I don't choose sides to suit me but always scrutinize all sides of the argument
2) I'm not bothered about who is right but what is the best interpretation. I don't profer my interpretation as the correct one.
3) Getting the answer right or showing how other posts might be wrong or denouncing them are immature considerations which are beneath me.

Sorry, not having a go here.
Just felt like saying it. :D

On your comments on the rules: Sorry, I'm not convinced.:D

Masque: It seems to me I have covered the scenario you mentioned.

knightwire
04-01-2008, 15:39
Ok... let's try it again. (All the dubious references to your personal motives are now removed.)



2) However pg 31 shows that the term ‘killed’ [or slain] is the same as ‘casualty’ – “for our purposes the result is the same, we treat all casualties as if they were killed”.


You've taken this out of context as 1) the paragraph only deals with one wound models and 2) the sentence you left out is kind of important:

“Individual warriors are not neccessarily dead, they just may be too badly wounded to fight on. For our purposes the result is the same, we treat all casualties as if they were killed and remove them”.


Lastly no where is 'slain' equated to 'killed' in the context of the paragraphs you're looking at for KB. How are you applying that to KB?

DeathlessDraich
04-01-2008, 16:02
“Individual warriors are not neccessarily dead, they just may be too badly wounded to fight on. For our purposes the result is the same, we treat all casualties as if they were killed and remove them”.

That does mean dead = too badly wounded to fight
and casualty = killed [model]



Lastly no where is 'slain' equated to 'killed' in the context of the paragraphs you're looking at for KB. How are you applying that to KB?

'Casualty' and 'wounds' are words with specified meaning in Warhammer.

Two whole subsections are devoted to explaining what constitutes a casualty and their relationship to wounds. Their rules taken as a whole must be adhered to in any uncertainty regarding casualties and wounds.
Do you agree with this at least?

'Slain' and 'killed' are not terms in Warhammer. Aren't they synonyms in normal usage and shouldn't that be the way they should be construed? i.e. that slain = killed
What better criteria would you use and how would this then differentiate 'slain', 'killed' 'destroyed' etc etc.

Masque
04-01-2008, 20:31
Masque: It seems to me I have covered the scenario you mentioned.

Your earlier post makes no mention of a combination of killing blow wounds and regular wounds, only multiple killing blow wounds.

knightwire
04-01-2008, 23:09
That does mean dead = too badly wounded to fight
and casualty = killed [model]


Yes... that section of rules titled "Causualties" is telling you: For models with one wound on their profile, remove a model for every unsaved 'single' would caused. (Even if that wound only incapacitated the soldier, for Warahmmer purposes it's the same as him being killed by the wound.) And that's the complete and entire context of the sentence you quoted. You can not extend it to our situtation that involves the KB special rule on a multiple wound model in a challenge, because it's outside of the text's context.




'Casualty' and 'wounds' are words with specified meaning in Warhammer.

Two whole subsections are devoted to explaining what constitutes a casualty and their relationship to wounds. Their rules taken as a whole must be adhered to in any uncertainty regarding casualties and wounds.
Do you agree with this at least?


I would agree that 'Their rules taken as a whole must be adhered to in any uncertainty regarding causualties and wounds' when removing models from a unit.



'Slain' and 'killed' are not terms in Warhammer. Aren't they synonyms in normal usage and shouldn't that be the way they should be construed? i.e. that slain = killed
What better criteria would you use and how would this then differentiate 'slain', 'killed' 'destroyed' etc etc.

I think the term that is tripping you up is 'wounds'. In WFB that term means more than one thing:

1) It's a stat on a model that tells you how many wounds are applied to it before it can be removed as a casualty. The rules you are quoting apply to this meaning.

2) It also describes a combat result of successfully rolling your strength against a models toughness. (i.e. I hit you 10 times and caused 5 wounds.)

For combat resolution you count the number of unsaved wounds inflicted, (meaning #2) not the number of wounds from casualties. KB is a single wound that can also remove the model as a casualty.

DeathlessDraich
05-01-2008, 10:33
O.K. we'll have to agree to disagree.

Elrond
07-01-2008, 10:49
Tryng to understand interpretation of missing rule about uncovered situations are the best way to lose the philosophy of the game and the easier way to understand it.
I just try to think about the taste and the logical within WH, obviously my interpretation could be wrong.
I guess counting all remaining wounds for a slained model by KB in CR is more fitting the rule feeling and logical of WH (through the covered situations by rules).
:confused::D