PDA

View Full Version : Killing Blow and Overkill???



Xaskus
13-06-2008, 07:23
So this happened the other night during a battle. My Bloodthirster with the Axe of Khorne, Obsidian Armour and Infinite Hatred was battling a Wood Elf Wardancer Lord in a challenge. He had all the usual, amber pendant, blades of loec and annoyance. He went first and did nothing, even with the re-rolls. So I go ahead and get really lucky with the sixes, I rolled four in total.
So with 4 hits, I rolled to wound and got one 6 (Killing Blow) and 3 wounds on him, he rolled the killing blow save first and failed. I asked him to roll the other ward saves and he saved one. Now here's my question, was I in the right to get him to roll the other saves and determine how many wounds there was in total for overkill? Would it be 3 for the killing blow and 2 more for the failed saves, totaling 5 for combat resolution?

Thanks for the help guys

Leogun_91
13-06-2008, 07:25
Yes you would get a total of five CR bonus for that challenge but this should be in the rules section.

Griefbringer
13-06-2008, 07:26
Please notice that here in Warseer we have a deidcated rules section for questions like this. (Edit: ooops, too slow!)

Xaskus
13-06-2008, 07:29
Oops, crap, sorry. It's late. Mods I apologize.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
13-06-2008, 10:00
Arrr. Leogun is correct.

If you had walloped him with 2 killing blows, and he failed both Wardsaves, you would likewise have 6 points of Combat Res, but only in a challenge.

Remember, Overkill specifically is about making such a mess of the enemy Champion that they lose their nerve....

Braad
13-06-2008, 11:31
Nah, really? I remember reading sort of the same discussion here before (well... in the rules section, not really 'here') and I believe the conclusion was sort of like, when you do killing blow, you can only kill him once. So if he had 3 wounds, he lost 3 to the first killing blow, and only one to the second. Something like that.

Lijacote
13-06-2008, 11:34
Nah, really? I remember reading sort of the same discussion here before (well... in the rules section, not really 'here') and I believe the conclusion was sort of like, when you do killing blow, you can only kill him once. So if he had 3 wounds, he lost 3 to the first killing blow, and only one to the second. Something like that.

It depends on the nature of the Killing Blow. Is every Killing Blow a decapitation? If not, surely other limbs can be severed with mind-severing consequences. BLOOD, BLOOD, BLOOOOD!

Mad Doc Grotsnik
13-06-2008, 11:34
Not the way I read it. Each Killing Blow wallops their full wounds total, not the remaining one.

T10
14-06-2008, 13:17
Actualy, each killing blow "just" kills the target.

It does cause at least one wound for combat resolution purposes (unless other wound multipliers apply as well) since the kill effect is tacked onto the to wound roll.

I find it reasonable to deal with it the old fashioned way: The first killing blow scores the character's remaining wound. Additional killing blows add a single wound for overkill.

-T10

theunwantedbeing
14-06-2008, 13:39
The first killing blow slays the character and removes all remaining wounds.
This gives you 1+ however many wounds were left on the character.
The second(and third and 4th, etc) killing blows will deal the same, although the character will obviously have no remaining wounds left on them so it'll simply be an additional wound caused, as 1+0=1.

Similar to killing a chariot with a st7+ attack in a challenge, only the firts st7+ hit will cause however many wounds the chariot had left, the rest of them simply do 1 additional wound as the chariot has no extra wounds left to suffer after the first st7+ hit.

Joe_Pineapples*sniper*
19-06-2008, 12:14
Where is the ruling for this?

I have played it like this since I can remember, but following a game I had this week where my Kroxigor destroyed a chariot and my oppoent claimed I only score 1 CR instead of the 4 (auto destroying a chariot str 7).

I suggested the ruling was either in the errata or the rulebook but could find neither?!

The best I could find re: killing blow/str 7 on a chariot scoring maximum CR was in the chronicles 2004 and in the Tomb King army list under chariot units.

In fact killing blow in the BRB is almost worded to suggest it takes just 1 wound.

Can you guys give me anything more stella than the above? thanks!

kroq'gar
19-06-2008, 12:17
KB is one wound. It is worded that the wound kills regardless of remaining wounds. Any addittional attacks you had however can then cause overkill.

Auto destroy is full wounds. Its worded that remaining wounds are lost, rather than KB simply 'model is removed regardless of wounds it may have'.

theunwantedbeing
19-06-2008, 12:20
Page 5, characteristics of 0
If a model has it's wounds reduced to 0 it is slain.

So slain is when you have your wounds reduced to 0. Killing blow slays...thus reduces your wounds to 0.
Simple enough.

Joe_Pineapples*sniper*
19-06-2008, 12:25
KB is one wound. It is worded that the wound kills regardless of remaining wounds. Any addittional attacks you had however can then cause overkill.

Auto destroy is full wounds. Its worded that remaining wounds are lost, rather than KB simply 'model is removed regardless of wounds it may have'.

SO a killing blow causes only 1 wound? We don't count the remaining wounds towards CS?

kroq'gar
19-06-2008, 12:27
Page 5, characteristics of 0
If a model has it's wounds reduced to 0 it is slain.

So slain is when you have your wounds reduced to 0. Killing blow slays...thus reduces your wounds to 0.
Simple enough.

Not so simple sorry... 'slays automatically...against this wound'. pg95. KB becomes to powerful if a character can KB a lord, then proceed to cause overkill with their remaining attacks. Or how about 2 KB wound. That 6 resolution against a lord?

theunwantedbeing
19-06-2008, 12:33
2 killing blows against a lord is merely 4 wounds (in most cases)
3 for slaying the guy(assuming he was on full wounds when killing blowed) and then an additional wound caused by the second killing blow...the character has no wounds left on his profile so you dont gain any additional wounds caused.

kroq'gar
19-06-2008, 12:38
So KB can cause however many wounds remain (eg a wizard has cast drain soul, so 6 wounds). Thats 6 combat resolution if a wight gets lucky.

That both breaks game balance and is just retrded.

theunwantedbeing
19-06-2008, 12:49
No....
Read my post properly please.

Killing blow slays your opponent.
ie. reduces his wounds to nothing.
It still causes the wound.
So 2 killing blows will do 5 wounds according to your logic...not 6.

3 initially, then a further 2 (as the wizard has now suffered a wound from the first killing blow).
3 + 2 = 5

Either way, that's wrong.
As killing blow slaying your opponent reduces his wounds to 0.
So a second killing blow reduces his wounds to 0.
0-0 = 0
So you deal the first wound...that takes his wounds to 0, so you've caused 3 so far.
You then cause a second wound which reduces his wounds to 0, so that's just an extra wound as his wounds are already at 0.

3+1=4.

Not broken at all, plus most people dont have 3 wound wizards going around fighting wight lords with the sword of kings all the time.
So your example is pretty silly, you need 12 hits to cause 2 killing blows on average...most things have 4 attacks at best with killing blow.

drugar
19-06-2008, 15:44
Although I agree with theunwantedbeing's conclusion, it may be worth pointing out that there are multiple stats that, when reduced to zero, produce the effect of 'slaying' a model.

So, all the steps in theunwantedbeing's logic seem fine except slaying necessarily being, the model is reduced to 0 wounds. However, that is still probably the best assumption to be made.

Gazak Blacktoof
19-06-2008, 19:38
2 killing blows against a lord is merely 4 wounds (in most cases)
3 for slaying the guy(assuming he was on full wounds when killing blowed) and then an additional wound caused by the second killing blow...the character has no wounds left on his profile so you dont gain any additional wounds caused.

Agreed, this was how it was handled in 6th edition FAQs.

lparigi34
19-06-2008, 21:14
...
So slain is when you have your wounds reduced to 0. Killing blow slays...thus reduces your wounds to 0.
Simple enough...

Well, theunwantedbeing, I totally agree with you on your On Topic matter on this thread...

As for your syllogism, you just failed logics!!! The fact that it happens to work in this case does not mean it is alright. ;)

Fishes eat algae, my girlfriend eats algae*, ...thus my girlfriend if a fish (a Siren I hope)... :p.....

* in Sushi

The correct one must go like this:

So, slain is when you have your wounds reduced to 0. Killing blow reduces your wounds to 0, thus you are slain.

kroq'gar
20-06-2008, 03:24
That in effect then multiplies the KB wound to equal the number of wounds remaining on the model. Is that so?

drugar
20-06-2008, 06:58
To a minimum of 1 for combat res purposes.

lparigi34
20-06-2008, 14:17
Soooo simple.... Example with a 4 wounds remaining character:

You roll 5 to-wound dice: 2KB, 2 wounds, 1 fail

I does not matter how many KB you roll for, take ONLY ONE and that one takes all the remaining wounds, that mean 4 wounds.

Then the other KB and the 2 normal wounding causes 3 more for overkill

Total for CR 4 wounds +3 overkill.

JonnyTHM
21-06-2008, 03:43
I find it disappointing that very few if any of the opinions expressed here are backed up with the rules in any way.

I'd like to see a well reasoned explanation of any of the suggestions for how to calculate CR.

][nquist0r
21-06-2008, 03:51
Ok how about the fact that Killing Blow does NOT do multiple wounds except for the actual blow that kills. No where in the description will you find that additional killing blows inflict the same wounds as the first. Iparigi34 has it right.

sulla
21-06-2008, 04:41
I find it disappointing that very few if any of the opinions expressed here are backed up with the rules in any way.

I'd like to see a well reasoned explanation of any of the suggestions for how to calculate CR.

Perhaps it would be more insightful if you described how you thought it would work... then people could see where your opinion differs from theirs.

drugar
21-06-2008, 07:21
If you want to get really technical (possibly obnoxiously so) you should role to wound in order. Any unsaved wounds before a killing blow would be worse than, for example, unsaved wounds after a killing blow.

WLBjork
21-06-2008, 08:44
[nquist0r;2717316']Ok how about the fact that Killing Blow does NOT do multiple wounds except for the actual blow that kills. No where in the description will you find that additional killing blows inflict the same wounds as the first. Iparigi34 has it right.

Not in the rule description itself, no.

However, in the Vampire Counts' Q&A, the answer to a question about KB and the Red Fury bloodline power (which also relies on number of wounds inflicted) grants a bonus equal to all remaining wounds when a KB is inflicted.

][nquist0r
22-06-2008, 01:18
I didnt dispute that I said that KB will give you 3 cr for a 3w kill. However each additional wound is only 1 regardless of 6's rolled for calculating overkill. KB is NOT a meat tenderizer.

WLBjork
22-06-2008, 08:51
My bad, ][nquisitor, misread your post :D

Dark_Mage99
22-06-2008, 18:13
Actualy, each killing blow "just" kills the target.

It does cause at least one wound for combat resolution purposes (unless other wound multipliers apply as well) since the kill effect is tacked onto the to wound roll.

I find it reasonable to deal with it the old fashioned way: The first killing blow scores the character's remaining wound. Additional killing blows add a single wound for overkill.

-T10

The answer is here on the first page.

Killing blow kills, no matter how many there are. Each additional wound on top of this (whether they are KB's or not) add's 1 to combat resolution.

kroq'gar
23-06-2008, 02:46
I find it disappointing that very few if any of the opinions expressed here are backed up with the rules in any way.

I'd like to see a well reasoned explanation of any of the suggestions for how to calculate CR.

I find it disappointing you didnt read the whole thread.


Not so simple sorry... 'slays automatically...against this wound'. pg95.

The wording to me indicates that the wound slays automatically. This does not mean that it causes three wounds, rather that the model is removed irrespective of the wounds characteristic.

The Red Scourge
23-06-2008, 08:41
Sorry guys, but...

Nowhere does it state that killing blow deals extra wounds. The effect is that it kills the KB'ed model regardless of wounds – apart from causing the 1 normal wound.

Anything else is a houserule – unless of course you can come up with a BRB quotation to set me straight (which won't be easy).

Anyone up to the challenge?

][nquist0r
23-06-2008, 09:44
The wording to me indicates that the wound slays automatically. This does not mean that it causes three wounds, rather that the model is removed irrespective of the wounds characteristic.
so 3-3=1 combat rez eh? God I hope you dont write code :D

Dark_Mage99
23-06-2008, 10:34
Of course killing blow causes all wounds to become combat resolution. If they are dead, they have lost their wounds. Just like killing blow gives all extra attacks for Red Fury.

A High Elf Prince gets wounded 4 times, one of which is a killing blow. He dies, that's 3 wounds. The remaining 3 wounds are overkill (assuming a challenge), for a total of 6 combat resolution.

The Red Scourge
23-06-2008, 11:46
Of course killing blow causes all wounds to become combat resolution. If they are dead, they have lost their wounds. Just like killing blow gives all extra attacks for Red Fury.

A High Elf Prince gets wounded 4 times, one of which is a killing blow. He dies, that's 3 wounds. The remaining 3 wounds are overkill (assuming a challenge), for a total of 6 combat resolution.

Please give a BRB quote to base this on, thank you :rolleyes:

WLBjork
23-06-2008, 12:04
Check the Vampire Count Q&A (http://uk.games-workshop.com/download/download.htm?/news/errata/assets/wh/vampirecounts.pdf)

Page 3, sub-section "Vampiric Powers", question 2.

JonnyTHM
23-06-2008, 12:48
I find it disappointing you didnt read the whole thread.


I find nothing in my first post to indicate that I didn't read the entire thread. You might go back and read it yourself? It's a jumbled mess of argument without cogent reasoning (at least the reasoning itself is unexplained). People state their opinions as fact without relevant quotations and logical connections explained. Makes the whole thing rather worthless unless you want to just believe people have it right already.

(note: simply saying "it's page 95" does not qualify as giving a relevant rules quote)


Check the Vampire Count Q&A (http://uk.games-workshop.com/download/download.htm?/news/errata/assets/wh/vampirecounts.pdf)

Page 3, sub-section "Vampiric Powers", question 2.


Please give a BRB quote to base this on, thank you :rolleyes:


Now we have an interesting place to go from.

We start with the wording on page 95 "...he automatically slays his opponent. No armour saves or regeneration saves are taken against this wound..."

Page 5 " 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."

VC faq page 3
"In any situation where a vampire automatically kills an enemy model and he ahs the red fury power does he gain an additional attack for every wound remaining on the slain model's profile? Or does he only gain an additional attack for the initial wound caused?
A. he gains an additional attack for every wound remaining on the slain model's profile"

And the quote that isn't much help:
BRB pg 37
"Each side scores a number of combat result points equal to the wounds caused in the combat."
pg 38
"If a character fighting in a challenge kills his opponent and scores more wounds than the enemy has, each excess wound scores a +1 overkill bonus towards the combat result"


Now, logically page 5 shows that slaying a model does not imply their wounds being reduced to 0. Rather, the implication is the other direction.

So, based on the exact wording of pages 5, 95, 37, and 38, I would be inclined to say that the rules state that it's 1 point of combat res per.

(Note: this is not the same as getting hit by a cannonball which clearly states that it loses all its remaining wounds (see pg. 63)

However...
when you throw in the faq and the red fury power

pg. 83 VC "For each unsaved wound that the vampire causes it gets to immediately make an additional attack"



The ruling is nonsensical if you read the RAW from the BRB only, so the implication is that you would have to follow the ruling that killing blow would count as having inflicted each wound that it had on its profile.

As for multiple killing blows, I suggest that it is impossible to 'slay' a model multiple times, and therefore the effect is only granted once.

So, the correct formula would be the formula as used in last edition:

i.e. first killing blow does total number of wounds remaining, all other hits do just +1.

so: 3 wound remaining high elf prince suffers 2 killingblow and 1 normal hit, results in: 3+1+1 = 5 combat resolution.


Is this the same as other people have suggested? Yes, I never disagreed. I merely wanted relevant rules quotes.

(Note:
This is further backed up by the obscure quote of page 31 of the BRB from the 'hits inflicting multiple wounds' heading
"Finally, for each such wound that is not saved, roll the appropriate dice and add their results together to determine how many wounds are caused."
Which is not relevant, other than to demonstrate that when they talk about something as if it were a single wound that it can still be meant as something that causes multiple wounds or counts as such.)

kroq'gar
24-06-2008, 03:14
So, the correct formula would be the formula as used in last edition:

i.e. first killing blow does total number of wounds remaining, all other hits do just +1.

so: 3 wound remaining high elf prince suffers 2 killingblow and 1 normal hit, results in: 3+1+1 = 5 combat resolution.


Is this the same as other people have suggested? Yes, I never disagreed. I merely wanted relevant rules quotes.

So whats stopping me from taking my regular armour saves first to reduce overkill from the KB?

The wording in the rulebook overules anything not a direct contradiction in an army book (usual stated as exempt from the rules). A vampire FAQ by no means in any way safe to base anything upon- check out the knights errant vs the empire deamonslayer banner, they are direct contradiction to each other.

The rulebook implies a single wound is inflicted. Intereperet and play it how you want, but in my mind thats correct. The models other attacks are used for the purposes of overkill.

KB is powerful enough by instantly slaying a model without then adding addittional combat res.

To step into theory hammer: What if a model with a KB ability had a multi wounding blade? By your logic the KB would then turn into remaining wounds lost x the multiplication of the magical blade for overkill purposes. EG skink with bane head & dagger of sotek. If i cause one KB on the enemy lord, i'd get 6 combat res immediately, plus any addititonal wounds- which makes no sense.

Arbiter7
24-06-2008, 06:26
Unwantedbeing +1

nice arguments, convinced me.

drugar
24-06-2008, 06:42
So whats stopping me from taking my regular armour saves first to reduce overkill from the KB?


Nothing, not exactly anyway. As I've said, if you want to be really technical about it, the wounds should be rolled one at a time and order matters. They are only rolled all at once for convenience. Alternatively if you want to be picky but not a pain for all the instances in which kb does nothing, you could randomly determine the order after the fact, for when it does come up.


The wording in the rulebook overules anything not a direct contradiction in an army book (usual stated as exempt from the rules). A vampire FAQ by no means in any way safe to base anything upon- check out the knights errant vs the empire deamonslayer banner, they are direct contradiction to each other.

The BRB gets us as far as kb reduces a models strength, toughness or wounds to 0, possibly more than one, but there is no real indication of which. The VC faq tells us that kb reduces wounds to 0. While these two sources are not directly contradicting each other, the VC faq and your beliefs are.

Plus IMO it's the much more reasonable assumption that kb reduces the targets wounds to 0 rather than their strength or toughness...

Dark_Mage99
24-06-2008, 08:09
So whats stopping me from taking my regular armour saves first to reduce overkill from the KB?

Against the other wounds? Nothing. We're discussing unsaved wounds to make things easier.



The rulebook implies a single wound is inflicted. Intereperet and play it how you want, but in my mind thats correct. The models other attacks are used for the purposes of overkill.



No it doesn't, it implies that the model dies: to die, you need to lose all your wounds - or as others have pointed out, have a characteristic reduced to 0. If you have killed a 3 wound model, you have not done 1 wound, you have done 3. Hence the reason 3 additional attacks are generated for Red Fury, hence the reason 3 wounds are notched for combat resolution.

WLBjork
24-06-2008, 08:10
Now here's an evil one to throw out:

KB has been clarified to remove all remaining wounds.

If you inflict multiple killing blows in a challenge, the first therefore gains CR equal to number of wounds remaining. The subsequent KBs score zero, as there are no wounds remaining :evilgrin:

kroq'gar
24-06-2008, 22:38
Now here's an evil one to throw out:

KB has been clarified to remove all remaining wounds.

If you inflict multiple killing blows in a challenge, the first therefore gains CR equal to number of wounds remaining. The subsequent KBs score zero, as there are no wounds remaining :evilgrin:

Clarified where.

First order- you are looking at the definition on the characteristics page. This is not the only way to slay a model, just if a models characteristic of st, t or w is reduced to 0 they are killed.

Second. Look at the autodestroyed rule in the BRB 'all remaining wounds are lost'. This very important line is missing from the KB section, in which the wound is never referred to in plural, other than one wound is inflicted, and the model is slain. As above, wounds are not the only way to slay a model.

EG (farfetched but a parrallel). each unsaved wound causes the model to lose -1T. Model causes two wounds on teclis. Do they then get the third wound 'free', because he is now a casualty? KB is not a multiwounding weapon.

EvC
24-06-2008, 23:24
By being slain, he's gone from having three wounds to having zero wounds. The enemy caused it, therefore they should get the CR points for it. In my opinion :)

lparigi34
25-06-2008, 00:48
I posted here with quotes to drugar post... where has it gone??? Grrrrrr....

kroq'gar
25-06-2008, 02:33
By being slain, he's gone from having three wounds to having zero wounds. The enemy caused it, therefore they should get the CR points for it. In my opinion :)

A model reduced to 0 wounds is slain. This does not mean a model MUST be reduced to 0 wounds to be slain. The model has gone from being alive, to being dead. People are confusing this with somehow sustaining wounds. e.g Just like pit of shades.

The model takes ONE killing blow wound that causes its removal as a casualty. 'no armour or regeneration saves are allowed against THIS WOUND'. does it in anyway say 'all remaining wounds are lost'. a line which is specified under autodestroying a chariot.

1 wound = 1 wound unless its a multi wounding item.

Bac5665
25-06-2008, 03:37
Kog;gar is entirely correct. a 0 in a stat is one way to remove a model, not the only way. Killing blow is one wound that removes the model. Period. GWs ruling about VC, being blatantly against RAW only applies to that specific situation. It implies that a future ruling on this issue might also be against RAW, but has no relevance here.

As Kroq'Gat points out, no where does killing blow say that all remaining wounds are lost. They aren't. The model is removed with however many wounds it had remaining. If the KB wound is the first wound a WE lord takes, he is removed with 2 wounds remaining.

There is no requirement that a removed model not have wounds left. There are, in fact, several rules, mentioned above that demonstrate that a model can be removed regardless of wounds left. If a model has its S reduced to 0 it is removed. Does anyone here propose that its wounds would be reduced to 0 as well? In order to do something, there must be a rule instructing the player to do it. You cannot measure distance whenever you want, and you cannot reduce a models wounds without instruction either.

drugar
25-06-2008, 07:43
The ruling in the VC faq is not against RAW, I fail to see any logic in that statement or any attempt (by anyone) to back that up. Simply put, it is a clarification. It most likely became apparent when people looked at red fury and killing blow, that there is an issue with what stat is reduced to zero. The answer given was wounds. What exactly is so difficult to understand about this?

It is as if I said I'm thinking of a number and that it is either 3, 8 or 11 and then after a few moments said, oh and by the way, it is 8. While what the correct answer is isn't fully clear after the first round of information, that doesn't give us any reason to ignore the information added later.

Xaskus
25-06-2008, 08:37
Kog;gar is entirely correct. a 0 in a stat is one way to remove a model, not the only way.


First order- you are looking at the definition on the characteristics page. This is not the only way to slay a model, just if a models characteristic of st, t or w is reduced to 0 they are killed.

Just wondering, how else in close combat do you slay a model without taking it down to 0 wounds. Can you guys elaborate please and give examples.

EvC
25-06-2008, 09:01
Something with an S value of 1 being Netted by Night Goblins. Alternately a Giant putting a model in his pants (No wound is caused there, so no CR?).

The crux of the argument seems to be, if a model is killed, does it have any wounds left? Given that the wounds stat is a measure of vitality, I think it is a safe assumption that any dead model has zero wounds, whether it had all its wounds taken off in combat, from a killing blow, being run down, or being netted. To be honest, it's so obvious that a dead model has zero wounds I can understand why GW didn't think to actually write it down in the rulebook. And the VC FAQ backs it up too.

JonnyTHM
25-06-2008, 12:15
Three things:
1) The one place that Kroq'gar is correct (in my mind) is when he reminds everyone that just because a model is slain does not imply that one of its stats of S,T or W has been reduced to 0. The implication arrow only goes one way on this.

2) Much ado is being made of the fact that the killingblow rules say "No armour saves or regeneration saves are allowed against this wound, though ward saves can be taken as normal." This can be dispelled by regarding the fact that in this sentence 'the wound' can be ambiguous.

If you've already assumed that killing blow doesn't count as inflicting the other wounds, then it "shows" that there's only one wound involved.

If you've already assumed that killing blow counts as removing the other wounds, this is just referring to the one wound that you roll for (similar to the fact that you roll only one save for multi-wound weapons).

In effect, this statement cannot be used to prove things either way. Please stop using it.

3) The VC faq (as has been correctly pointed out by drugar) is not intended as a departure from RAW (such departures are clearly stated). As such, it becomes a clarifying document for the unstated mechanics of killing blow and IS relevant to the situation. On top of this, as it leaves no question for killing blow, it is also a brilliant example of RAI.

Given these factors:

unless you honestly believe that the killing blow rules are written in such a way that there is 0 space for debate on their meaning, then you have to take the VC faq into account as a relevant document, and the answer then is made clear.

Bac5665
25-06-2008, 15:12
Every effect where a model looses multiple wounds is explicitly stated. Auto killing chariots describes it

It is as if I said I'm thinking of a number and that it is either 3, 8 or 11 and then after a few moments said, oh and by the way, it is 8. While what the correct answer is isn't fully clear after the first round of information, that doesn't give us any reason to ignore the information added later.

Thats not at all what the VC ruling is like. The KB rules are clear, the only problem is that they are a deviation from the expected, since everyone seems to demand that a wound be lost on a dead model. This is more like you saying "I'm thinking of a number, and its 8. I know every other time I've though of a number its been 2, but this time its 8. Oh, but it is 2." In the VC ruling, they imply that the correct rule is 2, that the wounds are lost by a dead model, but nowhere is there any rule someone can show me that says that happens any time other than that specific weapon/power combination.


Much ado is being made of the fact that the killingblow rules say "No armour saves or regeneration saves are allowed against this wound, though ward saves can be taken as normal." This can be dispelled by regarding the fact that in this sentence 'the wound' can be ambiguous.

If you've already assumed that killing blow doesn't count as inflicting the other wounds, then it "shows" that there's only one wound involved.

If you've already assumed that killing blow counts as removing the other wounds, this is just referring to the one wound that you roll for (similar to the fact that you roll only one save for multi-wound weapons).

In effect, this statement cannot be used to prove things either way. Please stop using it.


In what way is "this wound" ambiguous? There is one wound being done. Even is your scenario that assumes all wounds are lost, you acknowledge that only one wound is being done in the first place. Someone find me the page number that shows where a model removed off the board has it wounds removed. Not where a model has its wounds reduced to 0 and is them removed, but is removed due to some other effect and then has its wounds reduced to one. If there is such a rule, then KB does count all wounds for combat res, otherwise, it counts as only one wound.

As the the VC ruling itself, "he [the vampire] gains an additional attack for every wound remaining on the slain model's profile." This, in responce, not to a question about killing blow, but about removing the model in one wound, which killing blow is a part of, to be sure. Nowhere does this ruling say that all the wounds are lost, it simply says that the vamp gain the attacks. Now, I'm not stupid enough not to get the implication, but thats what makes this ruling so sloppy; the implication. GW has answered a question about a specific situation involving magic items and V powers. They they did not specify a reason for their ruling, but there is only one obvious rational. In answering rules questions its a really really really bad idea to generalize rulings based on implication. GW could have meant for Vampires simply to be lightly cooler, and it would be kinda lame if the vamp only got one attack from offing a chaos lord in one ht, for example.

KB does not give extra wounds as read in the BRB. The VC ruling may give some headway to allow it, if you generalize an implication, in which case there are a few other ruling where we could do the same.

drugar
25-06-2008, 16:12
In what way is "this wound" ambiguous?

JonnyTHM said it, the passage could be referring to that you are rolling to wound and that roll.


In answering rules questions its a really really really bad idea to generalize rulings based on implication. GW could have meant for Vampires simply to be lightly cooler, and it would be kinda lame if the vamp only got one attack from offing a chaos lord in one ht, for example.

I think it is a worse idea to take any statements that go against what you believe as unimportant. That ruling is clear evidence that kb causes all the remaining wounds on a model to be removed. It is not unclear, it does not only relate to being undead, there is absolutely no reason not to generalize it past want kb to work in some way not supported by the ruling.

][nquist0r
25-06-2008, 17:19
Look guys, stop demanding that GW spoonfeed reality to you. The attack is called Killing blow! Not wonding blow, or crippling blow, etc. It represents having your head hacked off, or equally an FATAL (see attack name again) demise. Someone who's head has been hacked off has no wounds. That would be a big zero (0). It might be worth mentioning I play a Doombull list and have none of these attacks, but that fact hasnt labodemized me either.

lparigi34
25-06-2008, 18:12
[nquist0r;2728903']Look guys, stop demanding that GW spoonfeed reality to you. The attack is called Killing blow! Not wonding blow, or crippling blow, etc. It represents having your head hacked off, or equally an FATAL (see attack name again) demise. Someone who's head has been hacked off has no wounds. That would be a big zero (0). It might be worth mentioning I play a Doombull list and have none of these attacks, but that fact hasnt labodemized me either.

a "labodemized" hen can still run amok for a while, how do this happen it if it has 0 wounds left... :rolleyes:

Oh, well, we have no hens in WHFB, the closest is a bunch of Fighting Cocks... Forget it... I never posted this...

kroq'gar
26-06-2008, 03:31
[nquist0r;2728903']Look guys, stop demanding that GW spoonfeed reality to you. The attack is called Killing blow! Not wonding blow, or crippling blow, etc. It represents having your head hacked off, or equally an FATAL (see attack name again) demise. Someone who's head has been hacked off has no wounds. That would be a big zero (0). It might be worth mentioning I play a Doombull list and have none of these attacks, but that fact hasnt labodemized me either.

And that little fact means your lord wont get his head lopped off by a white. The wound inflicted is fatal. To hack off the models head you'd then proceed with any other wounds inflicted.

1) The fact i keep quoting the reference to kb as 'THIS WOUND' is because under autodestroying chariots, the closest parrallel, it CLEARLY STATES ALL REMAINING WOUNDS ARE LOST. something NOT said under KB.

2) I and others have established that a slain model does not have to have 0 wounds.

3) To address the FAQ:
read the empire, and bretonnian FAQ's, for two rules worded the SAME.
*Banner of the deamonslayer is FAQ'd- the empire knights much pass their fear test in order to declare a charge BEFORE they start causing fear for a turn (and thus immune to it)
*Knights Errant are FAQ'd- They don't have to test for fear when declaring a charge, and are immune to phyc for a turn.

This is a direct contridiction, so please stop quoting one armies obscure FAQ reference as gospel. Its not.

4) Read the RULE BOOK. Compare KB to autodestroying, and you'll see a deliberate difference in wording. Saying its not so 'because' or simply ignoring the fact wont make you correct.

drugar
26-06-2008, 06:04
3) To address the FAQ:
read the empire, and bretonnian FAQ's, for two rules worded the SAME.
*Banner of the deamonslayer is FAQ'd- the empire knights much pass their fear test in order to declare a charge BEFORE they start causing fear for a turn (and thus immune to it)
*Knights Errant are FAQ'd- They don't have to test for fear when declaring a charge, and are immune to phyc for a turn.

This is a direct contridiction, so please stop quoting one armies obscure FAQ reference as gospel. Its not.

You have made a very good point in that we cannot take much about fear tests, charging and being immune to psych or causing fear from the Empire and Bretonnian faqs. However, I fail to see what this has to do with the VC faq which does not have a contradictory counterpart. What you seem to be saying would be equivalent to deciding all rules in Warhammer must be diced off for when they come up, because some of them a so poorly worded, nothing can be resolved about them (assuming some of them are indeed so poorly worded... you get the point).

kroq'gar
26-06-2008, 07:09
You have made a very good point in that we cannot take much about fear tests, charging and being immune to psych or causing fear from the Empire and Bretonnian faqs. However, I fail to see what this has to do with the VC faq which does not have a contradictory counterpart. What you seem to be saying would be equivalent to deciding all rules in Warhammer must be diced off for when they come up, because some of them a so poorly worded, nothing can be resolved about them (assuming some of them are indeed so poorly worded... you get the point).

Its only poorly worded if your assuming all remaining wounds are lost. If you don't then the wording of 'instantly slain' makes perfect sense. Theyy are removed from play irrespective of remaining wounds. A decapitation is as fatal to a lord as to a peasant.

And im saying that FAQ's are often biased and unreliable. They are not rules inthemselves and have not been properly playtested- e.g maintaining beast heard must rank 4 wide. Its ludicrus. They are a guide at best, ignorable at worst.

WLBjork
26-06-2008, 08:18
Its only poorly worded if your assuming all remaining wounds are lost. If you don't then the wording of 'instantly slain' makes perfect sense. Theyy are removed from play irrespective of remaining wounds. A decapitation is as fatal to a lord as to a peasant.

And im saying that FAQ's are often biased and unreliable. They are not rules inthemselves and have not been properly playtested- e.g maintaining beast heard must rank 4 wide. Its ludicrus. They are a guide at best, ignorable at worst.

Sorry, but they are rules and clarifications. For starters, that's why they have the "errata" at the beginning of them. They aren't perfect, but when they do not contradict other rules, I see no problem with following the ruling given.

Whine all you like about the Beast Herds, that's been the case ever since 7th edition, and the regular Beasts player where I play has no problem winning.


As for the KB, I'm looking at the mechanic. If the mechanic in one case is that you gain the benefit of having removed all wounds, then in a parallel case, with similar requirements, you will again benefit from having removed all wounds.

To play otherwise is confusing, and could lead to mistakes where the wrong interpretation is applied.

Condottiere
26-06-2008, 08:46
I think the simplest method would be in a challenge, before you cast the die, declare that the model has a KB, and throw one dice in sequence. If after all wounds are removed, any additional hits count as one wound, regardless of any 6.

drugar
26-06-2008, 18:51
Its only poorly worded if your assuming all remaining wounds are lost. If you don't then the wording of 'instantly slain' makes perfect sense. Theyy are removed from play irrespective of remaining wounds. A decapitation is as fatal to a lord as to a peasant.

And im saying that FAQ's are often biased and unreliable. They are not rules inthemselves and have not been properly playtested- e.g maintaining beast heard must rank 4 wide. Its ludicrus. They are a guide at best, ignorable at worst.

It's poorly worded because, if your interpretation is correct, it introduces a new way to remove a model, through causing a wound, that is not otherwise in the book, without explicitly saying it is doing so. It also could be referring to multiple things when it says 'wound' which is poor wording in my mind.

FAQs aren't rules :eek: I've been playing so much wrong! Oh wait, yes they are :rolleyes: even if you don't like what they say, they are still rules.

kroq'gar
27-06-2008, 03:18
It's poorly worded because, if your interpretation is correct, it introduces a new way to remove a model, through causing a wound, that is not otherwise in the book, without explicitly saying it is doing so.

Its a special rule called killing blow, specifically described in the rule book.



It also could be referring to multiple things when it says 'wound' which is poor wording in my mind.

Examples please



FAQs aren't rules :eek: I've been playing so much wrong! Oh wait, yes they are :rolleyes: even if you don't like what they say, they are still rules.

Nice sarcasm there, your so witty i guess you automatically win this debate...

Oh wait

An FAQ is a clarrification, not a ruling, and referring to one instance in the VAMPIRE faq to create a universal rule will set a rather nasty precedent (as i said, look at the bret vs empire difference). FAQ's are race specific & do NOT override the BRB unless specifically stated.

Please stop clutching to the FAQ; its a very narrow example in relation to a special ability called red fury. This does not FAQ highelves (white sword), whites, bloodthirsters, wardancers, waywatchers, ludwig and a myriad of others. If this was a ruleing then a general Errata would have been created, rather than ONE to clarify ONE armies possible item/ability combination.

Please use the rulebook to base your arguments upon, and read ALL relevant sections. Please do not take anything out of context, and please provide a basis for argument other than 'the vampires tell me so'.

WLBjork
27-06-2008, 07:56
Please stop clutching to the FAQ; its a very narrow example in relation to a special ability called red fury. This does not FAQ highelves (white sword), whites, bloodthirsters, wardancers, waywatchers, ludwig and a myriad of others. If this was a ruleing then a general Errata would have been created, rather than ONE to clarify ONE armies possible item/ability combination.

Please use the rulebook to base your arguments upon, and read ALL relevant sections. Please do not take anything out of context, and please provide a basis for argument other than 'the vampires tell me so'.

You seem to think that they haven't done this before?

Sorry to rain on your parade, but this is fairly common by GW. Perfect example here is the ASF vs. ASF question for High Elves.

Otherwise we get the ludicrous situation where a VL with Red Fury and the Sword of Kings challeges the (unwounded) enemy General, inflicts a KB, gains 3A yet only scores 1 point for CR. Confused yet?

KISS. If in one case it's counted as inflicting all W remaining, in all cases it counts as inflicting all W remaining.

drugar
27-06-2008, 16:56
Examples please

It could be referring to a wound caused, or the roll to wound.


An FAQ is a clarrification, not a ruling, and referring to one instance in the VAMPIRE faq to create a universal rule will set a rather nasty precedent (as i said, look at the bret vs empire difference). FAQ's are race specific & do NOT override the BRB unless specifically stated.

Please stop clutching to the FAQ; its a very narrow example in relation to a special ability called red fury. This does not FAQ highelves (white sword), whites, bloodthirsters, wardancers, waywatchers, ludwig and a myriad of others. If this was a ruleing then a general Errata would have been created, rather than ONE to clarify ONE armies possible item/ability combination.

Please use the rulebook to base your arguments upon, and read ALL relevant sections. Please do not take anything out of context, and please provide a basis for argument other than 'the vampires tell me so'.

Asking me to stop clutching to the FAQ is like me asking you to stop referring back to the paragraph on KB. Using the FAQs in the manner you suggest creates all sorts of unbalanced, unresolvable non-nonsensical situations that will leave people standing there going :wtf:. Do you really think only in the case of Red Fury KB scores multiple wounds and why would that make any sense?

Also, the section in the BRB needs help IMO, the way it is written you could even argue that it doesn't cause any wounds. All we have to work on for it causing a wound is the ambiguous "this wound" part and the special rule never says it does any stat damage. So, if we decide it just mystically slays the model, then there is no real reason to believe it would function like a normal wounding roll.

kroq'gar
28-06-2008, 01:48
It could be referring to a wound caused, or the roll to wound.

exactly... the wound, or the roll for the wound. Either is singular.



Asking me to stop clutching to the FAQ is like me asking you to stop referring back to the paragraph on KB.


Using the FAQs in the manner you suggest creates all sorts of unbalanced, unresolvable non-nonsensical situations that will leave people standing there going :wtf:.

And using them in their crystal clear form, over the top of the rule book doesnt? Check this forum; most important FAQ's have been debated on these boards.

Also don't like being a smart a$$, but thats a double negative :P



Do you really think only in the case of Red Fury KB scores multiple wounds and why would that make any sense?

Yup, perfect sense.

"Vlad stepped forwards, bestial rage simmering through pale, lidless eyes. This thing, this... MAN thought to challange him. With a dull thud his oppoenents head fell to the gore streaked mud.

Vlad chuckled to himself, lapping at the blood that patterned his face. Sweet, still sweet after all this time.
Invigorated, he hoisted the corpse aloft, feeling the joy of his bloodlust. With a sickening crack, the body was torn asunder "next?" "



Also, the section in the BRB needs help IMO, the way it is written you could even argue that it doesn't cause any wounds. All we have to work on for it causing a wound is the ambiguous "this wound" part and the special rule never says it does any stat damage. So, if we decide it just mystically slays the model, then there is no real reason to believe it would function like a normal wounding roll.

No, because it clearly doesnt say that the wounding blow is discounted.




Sorry to rain on your parade, but this is fairly common by GW. Perfect example here is the ASF vs. ASF question for High Elves.

And sure, this FAQ like all others was watertight, and not at all hotly debated.



Otherwise we get the ludicrous situation where a VL with Red Fury and the Sword of Kings challeges the (unwounded) enemy General, inflicts a KB, gains 3A yet only scores 1 point for CR. Confused yet?


Not really, if you want the CR then roll your addittional attacks. If you cant get them through wounding, then why do you deserve them.