[tarzen]

There's an amusing thread over on EO right now about a carni in CC with some scarabs. The scarabs inflicted 2 wounds on the carnie, he in turn inflicted one on them, insta killing the base. Who wins the combat?

I know the answer, just curious to your take on it.

 

[Daedelus]

It should be the Carnie.

But I can see how it can be interpreted either way.

 

[Ostsol]

Strictly speaking, a model that suffers Instant Death has lost only one wound. Instant Death kills the model outright, dealing no extra wounds; the model is simply removed as a casualty. As such, in that case, the Scarabs should technically win combat.

However, I would prefer not to play it like that. I prefer to equate the value of a kill to the number of wounds the model had remaining prior to taking damage during that round of combat.

 

[Cheredanine]

Ostol is right on both counts, oparticularly to the first one you need to read the wording carefully, I believe instakill says something like "Kills the model outright, regarless of the number of wounds left", note it does not say it inflicts more wounds. This is partly to compensate for the old D&D approach - my level 6 fighter has 39 hit points, your guy with a 2 handed sword can not kill him in one go - clearly a hit from a las cannon between the eyes will kill a person, regardless of how much combat experiance he has.

 

[Laplace]

There's an amusing thread over on EO right now about a carni in CC with some scarabs. The scarabs inflicted 2 wounds on the carnie, he in turn inflicted one on them, insta killing the base. Who wins the combat?

I know the answer, just curious to your take on it.

EO?

 

[The_Outsider]

Eldar online.

 

[Laplace]

Oh boy that was a heated thread.

I admit it's not entirely clear and can be (obviously) open to some interpretation.

Sometimes the rules don't pass the logic tests at all.

For example say you had the Chaos HQ Abaddon hit with his demon weapon which says
"Any HIT results in instant death" and it kills a multiwound model. Now say that when the other side swung back they inflicted a wound, it was unsaved, and a Chaos SM died.

Are we saying that the Chaos player LOST close combat because "no wounds were inflicted"?

Seems strange to me.

 

[Daedelus]

Yeah, I concede, should have checked the rules first.

Ostsol is 100% correct.

 

[The_Outsider]

I think it all comes down to how you define 'inflicted'.

In the example tarzen gave, the 'fex only inflicted one wound, but that wound caused instant death, in that case the scarabs would win.

If you interpreted it the other way that although the 'fex inflicted one wound (which caused instant death) the actual number of wounds lost are counted, thus the 'fex won combat.


hmmm...after reading the passage about instant death in the rulebook (page 27) it does not say that you count how many wounds are inflicted, it simply says that the target is removed as a casualty, it does not say you count actual wounds.

However, in the section regarding CC does it not say you count actual wounds inflicted to decide who won combat.

I would say that the carnifex won combat.

 

[H0urg1ass]

Anyone got any documentation to back this one up? After spending a few years doing MI work, I don't take things just based on "say so" much anymore.

I mean, if a model starts with three wounds and it is subsequently removed from the playing surface, then it has lost all three wounds, no matter how they were inflicted..... so where does this whole "It only lost one wound" statement come from? Got something official?

 

[Ostsol]

Indeed. Logically, killing a model outright is equivalent to removing all of its wounds. However, the rules speak only of "inflicted wounds" and Instant Death does not say anything about any more "inflicted wounds" beyond the first. As such, a literal reading of the rules say that Instant Death has caused only one wound.

EDIT: To conclude: While one may make the logical conclusion that more wounds have effectively been inflicted, there is room for argument that no interpretation is needed beyond the literal reading of the rules.

 

[H0urg1ass]

Well, as long as you declare that it's just your interpretation of the text, then that's ok. I thought that perhaps you had some official GW correspondance for it.

I just happen to interpret it differently. None of my multiple wound models will ever leave the table until they've lost all of their wounds, so by my interpretation, they've lost all wounds to one shot/hit.

 

[Ostsol]

Actually, that's my interpretation, too. To paraphrase my first reply to this thread: there's the literal interpration and I understand the arguments for it, but my preference is to say that Instant Death removes all remaining wounds.

 

[H0urg1ass]

Well, then, I guess we're on the same page, which is fine by me. (Y)

I wonder if there IS a ruling on this somewhere? A quick google search brought up zilch.

 

[Laplace]

What about Dreadnoughts then? They have no wounds at all.

So if you have a squad of marines (Squad A) and a separate dreadnought go against another squad of marines (Squad B), and squad B destroys the dreadnought but squad A kills 1 marine through normal means, are you saying Squad B LOSES close combat???

Really strange.

 

[darkreever]

Thats two combats against one squad. Squad A vs squad B is one combat while squad B vs Dread is another. You just dont get everyones attacks in both caombats, only those who can attack in the given combat and those who can attack in either who have to choose which one to make attacks into.

 

[Laplace]

Thats two combats against one squad. Squad A vs squad B is one combat while squad B vs Dread is another. You just dont get everyones attacks in both caombats, only those who can attack in the given combat and those who can attack in either who have to choose which one to make attacks into.

But you can easily get into a situation where squad B is swinging at BOTH squad A and the dreadnought. Thus when you are comparing who won/lost you take the aggregate (if I'm wrong, please cite source).

 

[tarzen]

La Place, as was pointed out there, each glance or pen roll on walkers counts as a wound.

Further, there is nothing in the rules that says a model is dead when it has 0 wounds left. In fact, it's wounds profile always stay constant.

But, when enough wounds have been inflicted to match the number in the stats, then it can no longer battle on.

Another case of where common sense doesn't apply to GW's rules, but reading things like force weapons and insta death, and actually how to wound clearly illustrates that no more than one wound is ever applied.inflicted.

Anyone got any documentation to back this one up? After spending a few years doing MI work, I don't take things just based on "say so" much anymore.

I mean, if a model starts with three wounds and it is subsequently removed from the playing surface, then it has lost all three wounds, no matter how they were inflicted..... so where does this whole "It only lost one wound" statement come from? Got something official?

Actually, you are assuming all this. Read the rules and you can tell that no more than one wound is ever implied by force weapons, instant death, tank shock (another good example), or other such rules. Reading the rules on wounds in stats, in how to inflict them in shooting, and how to remove models all tell us that it's consistant to follow that the carni only inflicted a single wound, thus lost combat.

 

[Laplace]

La Place, as was pointed out there, each glance or pen roll on walkers counts as a wound.

Ok, found the reference. Fair enough.

Further, there is nothing in the rules that says a model is dead when it has 0 wounds left. In fact, it's wounds profile always stay constant.

But, when enough wounds have been inflicted to match the number in the stats, then it can no longer battle on.

Unless you get some strange rule like Abaddon's Demon blade (or tank shock I suppose) where you inflict zero wounds but it still dies.

Another case of where common sense doesn't apply to GW's rules, but reading things like force weapons and insta death, and actually how to wound clearly illustrates that no more than one wound is ever applied.inflicted.

I would not say "clearly" as there is so much debate over it, but again, I can be convinced from prior prejudices based upon pressing people to their point.

I still think it's quirkly that a squad with Abaddon can LOSE close combat if Ab's blade kills something with its blade and only has one of his guys killed in return, or that a squad of marines loses cc because they took 2 casualties even though they killed a dread (or sentinal, or whatever) with 1 penetrating hit and have to roll to run away.

 

[darkreever]

Your right about those things Laplace, but its an easy bet that only the worst of players will make you run away for, killing a dread that caused more wounds for example...8)

[Mind you there are those people out there that cry, whine, bi***, and question every move and rule in the game so that it works for them and will make you run. Those people are just few in number and thankfully]