PDA

View Full Version : Killing blow



FarmerJoe16
06-08-2007, 18:08
Can anyone explain to me how Killing Blow works? i was looking in the rule book but couldnt find it.

Atrahasis
06-08-2007, 18:19
Killing Blow is on page 95. If you have any more specific questions once you've checked it out don't hesitate to ask :)

FarmerJoe16
06-08-2007, 19:15
alright thx

Damocles8
07-08-2007, 20:21
I've got a question regarding the Bretonian Vow (can't remember which one) but if a unit containing said hero charges a unit of Ogres...and the hero does score a 6 to wound....does the Ogre player remove a full health ogre model or do they take a model with the most amount of wounds?

lparigi34
07-08-2007, 21:05
None... Ogres are US3 each and KB only works with creatures US equal or less than 2.

Damocles8
07-08-2007, 21:06
no...the vow specifically overrides that....nice try though.....

theunwantedbeing
07-08-2007, 21:20
The vow only applies to large targets.
Ogres are not large targets.

The vow doesnt grant killing blow on them.

Alathir
08-08-2007, 03:30
The vow only applies to large targets.
Ogres are not large targets.

The vow doesnt grant killing blow on them.

This is correct.

DaBrode
08-08-2007, 03:53
no...the vow specifically overrides that....nice try though.....


The vow only applies to large targets.
Ogres are not large targets.

The vow doesnt grant killing blow on them.

Snakesh!t, Nice try though. :D

Atrahasis
08-08-2007, 15:59
no...the vow specifically overrides that....nice try though.....It doesn't actually. Strictly by RAW, the Vow grants killing blow against Large Targets that are US2 or less. Which makes it useless.

Masque
08-08-2007, 18:15
It's a Virtue, not a Vow. It also specifically overrides KB's limitation of man-sized models.

loveless
08-08-2007, 19:46
I'm pretty sure that they added in the line "This overrides the normal limitation of Killing Blow only affecting man-sized models." because simply granting Killing Blow against Large Targets really doesn't do much :P

It still won't work against Ogres or other multi-wound targets that don't have the Large Target special rule.

theunwantedbeing
08-08-2007, 19:55
They did add the line.
Bretonnian Armybook,Page 58,Virtue of heroism
The last sentence of the virtue.

(for anyone who wants to check rather than blindly belive what people online say,and to prove that those with this view know what they are on about)

loveless
08-08-2007, 20:02
Damn, the one time I leave out a page reference on a quote I get called out on it :P

Teach me, lol

Atrahasis
08-08-2007, 20:45
Yes, it overrides a restriction on man-sized models.

Now show me where it says "man-sized models" have anything to do with killing blow in 7th edition.

Crazy Harborc
09-08-2007, 01:28
Yes, it overrides a restriction on man-sized models.

Now show me where it says "man-sized models" have anything to do with killing blow in 7th edition.

Good point......I am wondering IF there are plans to have some new and strange non-man-sized US2 potental victims for a killing blow to do in?

Rereading about killing blow did remind me that it CAN work on a US2 or less rider on a dragon in HtH.:D

Damocles8
09-08-2007, 01:31
Don't have the page number....but it SPECIFICALLY mentions man-sized models or models with 2 wounds or less....

winter has ended
09-08-2007, 08:50
it says it works on unit strentgh two or less, but does it still work on a rider on a monster? or on a mount like a stead of slaanesh?

athamas
09-08-2007, 09:17
yes it will work on the rider, as you target them seperatly..

Lord Zarkov
09-08-2007, 11:47
In the official Rulebook FAQ it says to replace all instances of 'man-sized models' with 'Unit Strength 1'

Atrahasis
09-08-2007, 14:27
In the official Rulebook FAQ it says to replace all instances of 'man-sized models' with 'Unit Strength 1'No, it tells us that such references will be replaced on a single page of the rulebook.

Which again has no bearing at all on the Brettonian book.

explorator
09-08-2007, 15:06
In one of our Nemesis campaign mega-battles the Tree of Woe was the target of this Virtue. This issue caused quite a furious debate mid-game and I was unable to articulate this rule. Now I see I was correct. Another 6th/7th issue to throw on the bonfire.

Damocles8
14-08-2007, 16:49
so the question remains....does the ogre player remove a "full health" ogre model or does he pick one with wounds already taken?

Masque
14-08-2007, 16:53
so the question remains....does the ogre player remove a "full health" ogre model or does he pick one with wounds already taken?

As far as I know no multi-wound, multiple model unit is ever subject to killing blow (except, argueably, Salamanders) so it doesn't really matter.

theunwantedbeing
14-08-2007, 17:24
The virtue states it grants killing blow vs large targets,which overrides the normal limitations so it allows the killing blow to affect the large target.

Ogres arent large targets so it doesnt grant killing blow against them.

Each wound caused where you roll a 6 to wound just causes a single wound like any other successful roll to wound.The wounded model gets its saves as normal.(armour,ward,regeneration and whatever else it may have).

You always remove full models where possible.

Atrahasis
16-08-2007, 13:59
The virtue states it grants killing blow vs large targets,which overrides the normal limitations so it allows the killing blow to affect the large target.It does not override the limitation on US.

theunwantedbeing
16-08-2007, 14:04
So the virtue can only affect large targets of us2 or less?
Can you back this up?

explorator
16-08-2007, 14:44
So the virtue can only affect large targets of us2 or less?
Can you back this up?

What information do you need that is not already in this thread?

JonnyTHM
16-08-2007, 16:38
As far as I know no multi-wound, multiple model unit is ever subject to killing blow (except, argueably, Salamanders) so it doesn't really matter.

This is untrue.

Consult Throt from the Skaven book. The other option is an OOP dark elf character, but Throt still remains as a character with 'killing blow anything'.

sulla
16-08-2007, 20:07
So the virtue can only affect large targets of us2 or less?
Can you back this up?

? It only effects large targets... That's it. I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic (there should be a font for it)...


As far as I know no multi-wound, multiple model unit is ever subject to killing blow (except, argueably, Salamanders) so it doesn't really matter.

Well the DE venom sword (if it wounds) causes the opponent to take a toughness test on 2d6 or die. The vampire frost blade does similar. This will raise the same question of whether the enemy player can remove wounded models in preference to unwounded ones, so the question is not moot.

theunwantedbeing
16-08-2007, 20:09
Throt the unclean is specifically stated to be able to cause killing blow on upto ogre sized models,but not swarms.

The venom sword,frostblade,hagbane arrows(and whatever other insta-kill type items there are) are not killing blow so dont have the restrictions of killing blow.

I wasnt being sarcastic I was asking for why he came to that conclusion in a single post,instead of what I had to do in searching through the thread looking up all the particular referenced material.
If you want to play by RAW,by all means do so and cause lots of greif to your opponent.

As for the vow.
Yes it overrides the limitation of it normally only affecting man sized things,man sized things are those us2 or less are they not?
So the vow affects large targets regardless of their unit strength.

Damocles8
16-08-2007, 22:11
Thanks unwantedbeing...I had a case of the stupids and didn't see the "vs large targets"...... but seriously who has said anything that does NOT have or has NOT seen the Bretonian book??? You probably shouldn't be answering.....

logan054
16-08-2007, 22:31
I think you will find that it does kill ogres as the word if removing the limitation not being restricted to large targets. Guys you need to use some common sense here, the rules are a guide, they are not a bible. I must say im glad i havent played some of your people, i honestly think you would drain the fun from my games.

Urgat
16-08-2007, 23:56
This will raise the same question of whether the enemy player can remove wounded models in preference to unwounded ones, so the question is not moot.

Rules stipulate you always stack wounds till one mini is dead, no? So you'd remove a wounded ogre.

But as I'd read it it doesn't work on ogres anyway.

Crazy Harborc
17-08-2007, 00:04
IMHO.......wanting to only play by a strict interpretation of the rules WILL likely cause the opponent to do the same when YOU need him to view whatever rule, with an open mind. Put another way rules lawyering WILL cause the opponent to do the same.....What goes around does come around.;)

logan054
17-08-2007, 00:15
I have to post this pm i got on the subject



Look at page of 58 the bretonnian armybook.
Read the rule for the virtue.

Note how it says the words "against large targets"

Now look at the ogre kingdoms armybook.
Note how no ogres have the rule for being a
"large target".

See how that means no ogre is ever going to be affected by the virtue?

Thankyou.
Not kindly stop undermining what I say on the matter and causing unessecary confusion.

so basically no, im right your wrong, stop proving me wrong! anyways, rules lawyers really kill games, common sense is needed as wel as maybe a dictionary?

Atrahasis
17-08-2007, 01:59
I think you will find that it does kill ogres as the word if removing the limitation not being restricted to large targets.No, ogres are most definitely not affected.


Guys you need to use some common sense here, the rules are a guide, they are not a bible.

If you're suggesting allowing the loose interpretation of a RULEBOOK to the point where the result does not resemble what the rules actually say while at the same time considering a bible to require absolute literal interpretation then I'm not sure I consider that sense at all, let alone of the common variety.

Virtue of Heroism grants the Killing Blow special ability against Large Targets, overriding the limitation that KB affects only man sized models. Ogres are not Large Targets and so the Virtue is of no use against them.

Now, the Killing Blow ability allows a model to slay outright an opponent with US2 or less. The Virtue does not strictly remove that limitation, so by an absolute and literal RAW approach the Virtue is useless since no Large Targets exist with US2 or less. I now refer you to my sig.

Damocles8
17-08-2007, 04:26
true...but if you don't ingore the FAQ...
References to ‘roughly man-sized’ and ‘mansized’
will be replaced in reprints with ‘Unit size 1'

so if you put that in the Virtue.......overrides normal limitation on KB only affecting models with Unit size 1....

so it would work.....

logan054
17-08-2007, 06:20
My interpretation is loose, oh, so basically using a loop whole which is created via different editions isnt loose, thats more loose than cheap hooker. the virtue actually states it overrides the limitation, anyways, this topic is becoming silly

Gorbad Ironclaw
17-08-2007, 06:47
Rules stipulate you always stack wounds till one mini is dead, no? So you'd remove a wounded ogre.



No, that's not true. The rules says you always remove whole models if possible, and only then are wounds 'added' to the unit. So if you somehow could killing blow an ogre, it would kill one outright, and still leaves you with the number of wounds the unit might previously have suffered.

sulla
17-08-2007, 06:53
Now, the Killing Blow ability allows a model to slay outright an opponent with US2 or less. The Virtue does not strictly remove that limitation, so by an absolute and literal RAW approach the Virtue is useless since no Large Targets exist with US2 or less. I now refer you to my sig.

Yup, so the virtue allows killing blow only vs large targets but the main rules only allow KB vs US2. You would think most players would be able to use common sense to solve this seemingly simple problem but seemingly not...

Masque
17-08-2007, 09:12
As far as I know no multi-wound, multiple model unit is ever subject to killing blow (except, argueably, Salamanders) so it doesn't really matter.


This is untrue.

Consult Throt from the Skaven book. The other option is an OOP dark elf character, but Throt still remains as a character with 'killing blow anything'.

It wasn't untrue. I didn't know about Throt. :p

Atrahasis
17-08-2007, 11:36
true...but if you don't ingore the FAQ...
References to ‘roughly man-sized’ and ‘mansized’
will be replaced in reprints with ‘Unit size 1'

Get your facts straight. The FAQ tells us that such references will be replaced on one single, solitary page of the rulebook. Not "all" references at all.

That's the second time I've told you, and nothing has changed since.




My interpretation is loose, oh, so basically using a loop whole which is created via different editions isnt loose, thats more loose than cheap hooker. the virtue actually states it overrides the limitation, anyways, this topic is becoming sillyIt does not override the limitation. "US2 or less" is a different limitation to "roughly man-sized". The Virtue overrides only the latter.


Yup, so the virtue allows killing blow only vs large targets but the main rules only allow KB vs US2. You would think most players would be able to use common sense to solve this seemingly simple problem but seemingly not...
There are a multitude of items and abilities which have been rendered useless or at least far less useful by 7th edition. The Design Team have expressly stated that that's just hard luck until the army books are reprinted. "Common Sense" is all well and good between you and your friends, but this is a rules forum, not a "how can we ignore the rules to make the game work better? forum".

Urgat
17-08-2007, 12:38
IMHO.......wanting to only play by a strict interpretation of the rules WILL likely cause the opponent to do the same when YOU need him to view whatever rule, with an open mind. Put another way rules lawyering WILL cause the opponent to do the same.....What goes around does come around.;)

yeah, well THEY already all DO that so why should I care?
Furthermore that's not a minor point, there you're having a skill that can potentially wipe out a unit of ogres if lucky. Of course the ogre players will point out that ogres are not large targets. As you say, it does go and come around.

logan054
17-08-2007, 17:44
It does not override the limitation. "US2 or less" is a different limitation to "roughly man-sized". The Virtue overrides only the latter.

you have really just proven my point here, common sense clearly dictates mansize is replaced with unit strength 2 or less, we all know this, its not rocket science!

Atrahasis
17-08-2007, 18:03
We do not "all know this". Stating that it is true does not make it so.

There are several models which are clearly larger than man-sized which are US2 or less.

logan054
17-08-2007, 18:11
such as? (its roughly-mansize, i certainly wouldnt class things as wolves larger than man size, not dramatically) i know its my mistake for making the assumption you could use some common sense rather than quote things which strictly are loop holes created by the change in edition. If you had read all of the rule book you would know that is guide line and not to be taken raw and something about spirit of the game?

Honestly i stick by what i said, i honestly think some of the people here would be very dull to play, i think i would spend more time flicking through the rule book rather than enjoying my game

Atrahasis
17-08-2007, 18:17
You must have great LOS from up on that high horse :rolleyes:

Skaven Weapons Teams/Jezzails. If one skaven is man-sized, then how can 2 skaven also be mansized?
Screamers are almost as big as pegasi and ogres.

logan054
17-08-2007, 18:49
weapon teams - ah so because you have two guys on a base they treated like a ogre then? i cant see any logic in that.

Screamers -well yeah they are bigger than man size, they arnt ogre sized, then again a chaos warrior is bigger than the average man, i guess if you have the time to look you will always find faults.

I didnt mention names so obviously you believe that you fit the description of the player i mentioned in my last posting.

Atrahasis
17-08-2007, 18:58
i know its my mistake for making the assumption you could use some common sense

I didnt mention names so obviously you believe that you fit the description of the player i mentioned in my last posting.:rolleyes:



weapon teams - ah so because you have two guys on a base they treated like a ogre then? i cant see any logic in that.No, they aren't treated like an ogre, that's a nice straw man you've constructed yourself there. Is he man-sized?

My point is that a single skaven is "roughly man-sized". Two skaven with a weapon cannot also be "roughly man-sized" as they are more than TWICE the size. That's a lot rougher than I would consider "common sense".

Ganymede
17-08-2007, 19:25
Cavalry based skaven are a bit of an exception. While their base size is not man sized, they are stated as counting as man sized.



It does not override the limitation. "US2 or less" is a different limitation to "roughly man-sized". The Virtue overrides only the latter.



ASide from the application of common sense, there is no reason to believe that this virtue even overrides the latter limitation. Just as there are no US 1 or 2 large targets, the fact that there are no man sized large targets is no reason to assume that we can ignore the limitation of killing blow working on man sized models.

Masque
17-08-2007, 22:19
It does not override the limitation. "US2 or less" is a different limitation to "roughly man-sized". The Virtue overrides only the latter.


ASide from the application of common sense, there is no reason to believe that this virtue even overrides the latter limitation. Just as there are no US 1 or 2 large targets, the fact that there are no man sized large targets is no reason to assume that we can ignore the limitation of killing blow working on man sized models.

There is no reason to believe the virtue overrides the latter limitation except for fact that it explicitly says that it does so in the rules for the virtue.

logan054
17-08-2007, 22:45
:rolleyes:

you brought it, my first thought was guilty ....


No, they aren't treated like an ogre, that's a nice straw man you've constructed yourself there. Is he man-sized?

actually a straw man is man size but anyways ;) i think you will find that with wthout wings/fins it isnt muc larger than a man. I used a ogre as a good example as this would be the main question here, can it kill a ogre ;) ogre is the next logically step from man sized


My point is that a single skaven is "roughly man-sized". Two skaven with a weapon cannot also be "roughly man-sized" as they are more than TWICE the size. That's a lot rougher than I would consider "common sense".

so then if i have a unit of 5 guys they arnt man sized cos i have 5 of them? they are still man sized you just have 5 of them, this again is something you would common sense on and override the rule if you felt it didnt make sense. I can see it making sense as if you killing blow one guy (needing two guys to use) it wouldnt be usable, yeah its a stretch but is much of what you have like dismissing man-sized due to a change in addition, this was change to make it far more simple and you have created a mountain out of a mole hill.



ASide from the application of common sense,

i have been told many times this has no place in warhammer, i refuse to believe it :P

Crazy Harborc
17-08-2007, 23:22
Aaaand.......the debate goes on.:) Fortunately, my regular opponents and some not so regular ones, don't spend all of our gaming time in "official" events and or at "official" company stores. We also like to twik the rules and special perks of various armies. We choose/debate/agree when we will do a "RAW" and when we will do a twik/experiment/house rule/etc.;) For us wargaming is a hobby for fun.

Damocles8
19-08-2007, 22:09
We do not "all know this". Stating that it is true does not make it so.

There are several models which are clearly larger than man-sized which are US2 or less.


For something to be true all competent observers must agree....you don't fit in that equation......

I deal with this kind of crap at work....work in the spirit of the rulebook (SOP at work) derrrr what does the rulebook say about Killing Blow.......what does the Virtue say about Killing Blow......use your ******* head man.....

Atrahasis
19-08-2007, 22:18
So essentially your argument boils down to "You're a stupidhead if you don't agree with me"?

Damocles8
21-08-2007, 16:24
well if you can't tell that normal rules for Killing Blow (set up in the Main RUle Book) are ignored (as stated in the Bretonian Army book), regardless of what the EXACT text says....it still goes with the spirit of the Virtue and the Rule....I still fail to see your argument....

Ganymede
21-08-2007, 16:59
I see his arguement. He's saying that the virtue only works on US 1 or 2 large targets because the virtue does not specifically remove the rule that killing blow only works on models with a US of two or less. Maybe he is forgetting that we do not live in the hypothetical world of the devil's advocate, and people browsing this forum need relevent and useful rules advice.

One does have to realise that "man-sized" and "US 1 or 2" are virtually mutually exclusive, and were actually used interchangably in the rulebook before the eratta was issued. We can infer that the instances of "man-sized" in the rules were simply a carryover from 6th edition and that "US 1 or 2" is the new repalcement term for the new edition.

I think it is safe to assume that all instances of "man sized" can be interpreted as "US 1 or 2" without opening any cans of worms.

Atrahasis
21-08-2007, 17:00
We can only ignore the rules the Virtue tells us to ignore. It does not tell us to ignore restrictions on US.

I agree that the spirit of the rule is that they should be granted killing blow against all large targets, but the spirit and the written rule aren't always in agreement.

Ganymede
21-08-2007, 17:24
We can only ignore the rules the Virtue tells us to ignore. It does not tell us to ignore restrictions on US.


Remember though, there are more to the rules than simple "If A, then B" statements. Within the rulebook, there are trends and themes. Ideally, we should gear our interpretation of the rules to mesh with such trends and themes.

It would certainly be more helpful than telling someone who is curious about this particular virtue that its only use is to point out how GW sucks at rule continuity. We don't need to spend our character's point allowance to know that.

JonnyTHM
21-08-2007, 17:51
This is a bit ridiculous.

Everyone take one minute to read Atrahasis' signature, it's there for a reason.

The discussion should be summarized as follows:
1) Technically, using RAW, the bret virtue only works against large targets that are US 1 or US 2
2) No one (including, I'm nearly certain Atrahasis) is going to play it that way, they will play it as it working against anything that is a large target
3) One person dissents and claims that ogres are large targets because they are 'larger than mansized', this person is ignoring the fact that there is a rule called large target, and seems to be taking the 'in the spirit of the rules' in a very very different way than any legislator, rule maker, rules-lawyer, or (strictly in my opinion) reasonable person would take it.

Other than that, we really should all be in agreement no?

Atrahasis, just to avoid people making arguments against what you say that are absolutely ridiculous, can you just make your signature bigger/repeated/something that will get people to stop arguing a point that you could agree with against a point that is just a statement of the facts?

Crazy Harborc
22-08-2007, 00:58
But THAT would spoil the debates would it not?;) Good old RAW (really awful wargaming):angel:

Damocles8
22-08-2007, 09:17
[QUOTE=JonnyTHM;1845647]

3) One person dissents and claims that ogres are large targets because they are 'larger than mansized', this person is ignoring the fact that there is a rule called large target, and seems to be taking the 'in the spirit of the rules' in a very very different way than any legislator, rule maker, rules-lawyer, or (strictly in my opinion) reasonable person would take it.

QUOTE]

I never claimed to think of Ogres as large targets....I was mistaken in my reading of the Virtue....and admitted it later in the post....but the question was more about Killing Blow and if you take a fresh model vs a wounded one....which still seems valid.....

JonnyTHM
22-08-2007, 13:57
I actually wasn't referring to you on that one... that was earlier in the thread than your debate about the 7th edition word replacement.

Yes, I believe we still haven't gotten to the question about throt fighting a unit of ogres.

Can everyone agree to answer this question then:

"Given a world where there exists a character with the rule:
Uberkillingblow - the character may killingblow anything, regardless of unit strength, size, hair colour, or discernable anatomy

And assuming that this character has charged a unit of 3 bulls with 1 wound on one of the bulls.
Furthermore, assuming that this character hits three times, wounds three times (and 2 of those wound rolls were sixes).
How many wounds does the remaining ogre have?"

Damocles8
22-08-2007, 22:16
I would say two (the one bull with 1 wound takes the non KB wound) but there is no precedent in the rules.....so in lack of that evidence what would make sense? (I know that's asking a lot from a GW system....)

Atrahasis
22-08-2007, 22:50
I would say two (the one bull with 1 wound takes the non KB wound)That makes no sense. If the wounded bull takes the non-killing blow wound it will have 1 wound left, not two.

As for my answer - the general method of applying wounds to a unit is to apply hits in such a way as they do as much damage as possible to the unit as a whole; in other words a hit inflicting 3 wounds will remove a whole ogre, and not the already wounded ogre.

Similarly, a hit that kills outright (whether through killing blow or something like the skull wand) should remove a whole ogre if possible.

This does lead to the bizarre situation, of course, that the SO shaman in question charges the unit of 3 bulls, kills two and at best draws the combat, since the remaining ogre outnumbers him, and he has only caused one wound to the ogres.

theunwantedbeing
22-08-2007, 23:03
The character kills all the bulls.
You deal wounds to the unit,not individual models.
Each killing blow counts as 3 full wounds,which is 6 wounds,plus the third wound he dealt which wasnt a killing blow.
Thats 7 wounds in total.
The 3 bulls had 7 wounds in total as one of them was on a single wound.

So all the bulls die in that situation.

Atrahasis
22-08-2007, 23:09
I believe "with one wound on one of the bulls" means something different to "with one bull on one wound".

theunwantedbeing
22-08-2007, 23:23
Semantics.
The bulls suffer 7 wounds,which is the more important information.
3 full wounds per killing blow,then the non killing blow wounds are allocated to whatever is left in the unit.
Full models are removed where possible.

Atrahasis
22-08-2007, 23:30
The bulls suffer 7 wounds,which is the more important information.No. Only 3 wounds are inflicted.

There is no evidence that a killing blow inflicts more than one wound.

T10
23-08-2007, 06:39
General of the Empire: "Back in your grave, undead fiend!"

Wight Lord (attacks and misses, attacks again and misses): "Hisss!"

GE: "Hah! You could not fight your way out of a wet paper bag, knave! Now, men watch as I dispose-"

Wight Lord (attacks and strikes a killing blow): "Death!"

Trooper Gierd: "Dude! He like, totally chopped his head off!"

Sergeant Wolf: "Bah, I've seen worse. Like that time a Chaos Sorcerer poked our Battle Wizard with his Rending Sword. What a mess!"

TG: "Oh? What happened?"

SW: "Well, pretty much the same thing as this. Except it was somehow a lot more unsettling. Twice as unsettling in fact."

-T10

JonnyTHM
23-08-2007, 11:22
General of the Empire: "Back in your grave, undead fiend!"

Wight Lord (attacks and misses, attacks again and misses): "Hisss!"

GE: "Hah! You could not fight your way out of a wet paper bag, knave! Now, men watch as I dispose-"

Wight Lord (attacks and strikes a killing blow): "Death!"

Trooper Gierd: "Dude! He like, totally chopped his head off!"

Sergeant Wolf: "Bah, I've seen worse. Like that time a Chaos Sorcerer poked our Battle Wizard with his Rending Sword. What a mess!"

TG: "Oh? What happened?"

SW: "Well, pretty much the same thing as this. Except it was somehow a lot more unsettling. Twice as unsettling in fact."

-T10

If you could stretch this over a few hundred pages... I'd read it.

BeardyGit
24-08-2007, 17:57
I never really liked Killing Blow. Its only really useful against characters and only if the person with killing blow throws a lot of dice. And then it loses effect on monsters and ogres and single wound models. I found that Killing Blow (even those with special rules agasint Large Targets) is really just useless against Ogre Kingdoms as Orges are a niche between "under US2" and "large targets" and their gnoblars have no armous saves in the first place. Having this immunity when you only have 1 or 2 orge sized units is fine but not when you have a whole army of the brutes staring at you.

I missed the old rule where units caused D3 wounds instead of killing blow. Killing Blow would have been something like "where a unit rolls a 6 to wound, the enemy takes D3 wounds with no armour saves"

This would represent a skilled swordsmen being able to kill a character outright with one nice killing blow to the neck or at least causing critical damage to larger creatures with a blow to a vulnerabel spot. And for items and special rules that do extra damage to large targets like the Bretonian Virtue or the Carnosaur rule, you could just make it 2D3 or D6 wounds against Large Targets instead.

But hey, that's just my opinion on the matter.

BeardyGit
24-08-2007, 18:06
I actually wasn't referring to you on that one... that was earlier in the thread than your debate about the 7th edition word replacement.

Yes, I believe we still haven't gotten to the question about throt fighting a unit of ogres.

Can everyone agree to answer this question then:

"Given a world where there exists a character with the rule:
Uberkillingblow - the character may killingblow anything, regardless of unit strength, size, hair colour, or discernable anatomy

And assuming that this character has charged a unit of 3 bulls with 1 wound on one of the bulls.
Furthermore, assuming that this character hits three times, wounds three times (and 2 of those wound rolls were sixes).
How many wounds does the remaining ogre have?"


I would apply the same rules that you would use in a challenge for killing blow or multiple wound weapons. So if you scored 3 wounds on a character with 3 wounds and 2 of those wounds were 6's, your total score would be 5. First killing blow = 3 wounds, 2nd killing blow becomes just 1 wound and the last wound for 3+1+1 = 5.

With the ogres, i would do this:
First killing blow causes 3 wounds thus killing one orge, 2nd killing blow causes another 3 wounds whus killing the 2nd ogre and the third blow would be applied to the remaining ogre. It woudl just be the same rules as a weapon causing D6 wounds which i beleive has been answered in a FAQ before for the previosu edition.

If a sword caused D6 wounds and a player fought the 3 Ogres in the above situation and he rolled 6 wounds for first hit, 2 woudns for 2nd hit and 1 wound for 3rd hit, he would have caused the following ammount of wounds: 1st ogre takes 3 wounds (max amount he can take), 2nd ogre takes 2 wounds, 3rd orge takes 1 wound. Total wounds caused is 6 wounds so you remove 2 complete ogres and end up with one last orge with 1 wound.

Hope this makes sense.