Jump to content


Photo

Slayer Deathblow And Removing Casualties

slayer deathblow rules

  • Please log in to reply
137 replies to this topic

#41 Kafki

Kafki

    Dwarf Warrior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 114 posts

Posted 12 April 2014 - 11:56 PM

Reading through all this really makes my head ache. I agree with Stymie and so here are 2 scenarios that illustrate my view on the matter.

S=Slayer G=Goblin B=Bigboss

 

SSSSSSSSSS

    GGGGB

 

the letters don't line up perfectly :S.

 

So if the bigboss goes 1st and kills 5 guys then I would give the models in contact with him 5 attacks to hit where they want. There are 3 models so I would split the attacks among those 3 as evenly as possible randomizing the extra one(s). The goblins go next and kill 10, they are in contact with 6 and so i would again split them among those 6 as evenly as possible. So in this case if the dwarf player wanted to kill the bigboss he could direct at least 2, most likely 3 or 4, attacks on him. The case could be made that the dwarf player chooses the position of the extra attacks like with shooting at a unit less than 5 in numbers but the counter argument could be that the goblins can choose who to hit, so random is the best imo. 

 

       SSSSS

 ZZZZZZZZWV

S=Slayer Z=zombie or whatever W=Wight King or some other character V=Vampire or some other character.

V goes 1st and kills 6 guys, here I would say that since he is only in contact with one slayer the deathblows also come from that one spot, all 6 of them. These 6 attacks can be directed against Z, W or V any of those since the model being struck is in contact with all of those. So the dwarf player would be free to split his attacks any way between those 3 or hit all 6 on the wight king possibly killing him before he swings with his Initiative which is lower than the vampire but higher than the slayers.

As for RNF attacks from one unit to another I think they should be split as evenly as possible among all models on base contact with the attackers.


Edited by Kafki, 13 April 2014 - 12:01 AM.


#42 Swordthain

Swordthain

    Dwarf King

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,004 posts

Posted 13 April 2014 - 03:29 AM

Maybe that's the most responsive way to deal with their attacks, but it isn't really congruous with the rule, is it? Here, again, I agree with Montegue after careful deliberation. "Base contact" must necessarily refer to all eligible models in base contact with the Slayers' unit, much like the rules--and subsequent FAQ ruling--indicate is the case for the Sword of Anti-Heroes.



#43 Swordthain

Swordthain

    Dwarf King

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,004 posts

Posted 13 April 2014 - 03:30 AM

This has turned out to be a tedious rule... I vote we go back to doing what we've done for he last few years and ignore slayers :)

Actually, this will probably be the way things turn out in the end, as I predicted with the advent of the 8th edition Dwarf army book.



#44 Montegue

Montegue

    Dwarf King

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,756 posts

Posted 13 April 2014 - 04:14 AM

Slayers die killing the big bad. That's their schtick, deathblow lets them do that. Think of it this way, they all jump on the character, trying to give their lives in service to their kin and buy back their honor with their life. As they push through to get there, other enemies may strike them, but they will not die until they take a shot at the big bad.

Edited by Montegue, 13 April 2014 - 04:14 AM.


#45 Wendersnaven

Wendersnaven

    Dwarf Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,874 posts

Posted 13 April 2014 - 04:31 AM

 

This has turned out to be a tedious rule... I vote we go back to doing what we've done for he last few years and ignore slayers :)

Actually, this will probably be the way things turn out in the end, as I predicted with the advent of the 8th edition Dwarf army book.

 

 

Despite the horde worth of slayers I've almost finished collecting- I mostly agree that the problems are not worth the headache.  However, I am starting to like using very small units of Slayers in dart formation. I won't be always leaving them at home or using characters only like before.
 



#46 Hoffa

Hoffa

    Dwarf Warrior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 103 posts

Posted 13 April 2014 - 10:24 AM

The use I see for slayer is as small units intended for character assassination. This is however dependent on how the death blow ends up being ruled. If it becomes base contact with unit, slayers have an incredible ability to concentrate attacks on a single model.

 

But otherwise I agree, slayers are a cool concept that gw just can not seem to get the rules right for. The unit is currently over costed for general use. I guess the root of the costing problem is that gw still points unbreakable the same as they did in 7:th edition were it was really, really good.



#47 Montegue

Montegue

    Dwarf King

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,756 posts

Posted 13 April 2014 - 02:28 PM

It doesn't really need a ruling. It's only complicated because folks don't think it should work as written.

#48 Hoffa

Hoffa

    Dwarf Warrior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 103 posts

Posted 13 April 2014 - 03:02 PM

No folks are unsure what base contact means exactly, please point to the place in the rules where it is defined.



#49 Montegue

Montegue

    Dwarf King

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,756 posts

Posted 13 April 2014 - 09:48 PM

Base contact is used frequently in the rules. We know what it means (the example of the sword of anti heroes is an excellent example. Also, our own three stack of slowness uses the term, I believe).

#50 Hoffa

Hoffa

    Dwarf Warrior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 103 posts

Posted 13 April 2014 - 10:08 PM

Sword of anti heroes is worded base contact with bearer or his unit. This is exactly what is not in the deathblow rule.



#51 dg1

dg1

    Dwarf Warrior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 84 posts

Posted 13 April 2014 - 11:34 PM

Montegue is correct in that there usually is not a debate (sword of antiheroes notwithstanding).  The basic rule in the BRB is that, in close combat attacks, models can only target opposing models in base contact with their unit (with a few exceptions, like Krox in the second rank with skinks).  Models are killed and then additional models step up to either be killed as well or to attack back.  However, for convenience, the BRB suggests removing rank and file models from the back of the unit.  That is only done as a convenience.  That means a slayer can only be killed by a model targetting it in base contact when killed by normal close combat attacks and stomps and thunderstomps.  One could at least argue about breath weapons on this issue, but, otherwise, the issue is pretty clear and arguing about if all seems a bit silly under both RAI and RAW.   

 

I've played around with slayers and really have concluded that they make the most sense run relatively narrrow and potentially in a smaller conga line unit to hold something up for a countercharge (where the +1S bonus comes in) and to deal with high T but modest AS units and models where the high points per wound of the opposing model works with the Great Wepaon option and death blow rules.  Monsters that have thunderstomp, like a terrorgheist, seem to be partically good targets from a points efficiency standpoint since the slayer gets to strike simultaneously with the thunderstomp and then each slayer killed by a thunderstomp gets a final deathblow attack and each attack will typically hit of a 4 and wound on a 4+.  I've also looked at a specialized Ungrim list but it really only works for the 100 point banner and as a unit designed to protect the special character until he can take something with multiple wounds on in combat or force it to refuse combat (if a character) and flee.  Then a unit with Ungrim and full command works well two wide as Ungrim can choose to make way and force models to re-roll their ward saves and the champ will limit the number of slayer models killed by the opponent round one in combat.  Ungrim can potentially take out something of value if a monster or character with ward saves (where the multiple wounds and re-roll ward save of Ungrim can really pay off).   


Edited by dg1, 13 April 2014 - 11:47 PM.


#52 Itsacon

Itsacon

    Young 'Un

  • Members
  • 42 posts

Posted 14 April 2014 - 08:23 AM

I must be a massive nob then, 'cuz I don't see how a Slayer that's killed on one end of the horde can make a Deathblow attack versus a model 8" away.  I've read the rules and the BRB uses "base contact" to refer to both a model in base contact with another model as well as a unit in base contact with another unit as well as a model in base contact with a unit.  So no, it's not as simple as you seem to think.


To this I reply:

Then how did the slayer get killed? He had to be in contact with some kind of enemy in order to be killed.

This is why I think the best thing to do would to always direct the deathblow attack towards the enemy/enemies that killed the slayer. It removes all this discussion about base contact, since the fact that there is killing taking place implies contact between the combatants.

Edited by Itsacon, 14 April 2014 - 08:24 AM.


#53 Hoffa

Hoffa

    Dwarf Warrior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 103 posts

Posted 14 April 2014 - 08:37 AM

always direct the deathblow attack towards the enemy/enemies that killed the slayer

 

This is a good house rule but not what is in the book.  (And sometimes you can not know who killed the slayer)



#54 Itsacon

Itsacon

    Young 'Un

  • Members
  • 42 posts

Posted 14 April 2014 - 10:27 AM

(And sometimes you can not know who killed the slayer)


Why not? You know what was rolled: Character, champion or line troops.

Edited by Itsacon, 14 April 2014 - 10:27 AM.


#55 Stymie Jackson

Stymie Jackson

    Dwarf King

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,555 posts

Posted 14 April 2014 - 11:45 AM

The only issue here I can think of is the example given before...you have 10 slayers left. 8 get killed by the enemy rank and file and 4 get killed by a hero who attacks at the same time as the RnF. Who gets death-blowed (hehehe) back?

 

The answer would be you can direct the attacks back anyway you wish. All 10 could go to the Hero, or all 10 to the RnF, or a mix. You'd obviously lose two Deathblows as you couldn't make more then the number of slayers killed.

 

This of course if 'base contact' means to the slayer unit and not the specific slayer models.


Edited by Stymie Jackson, 14 April 2014 - 11:46 AM.


#56 Itsacon

Itsacon

    Young 'Un

  • Members
  • 42 posts

Posted 14 April 2014 - 12:51 PM

But the Hero will have different stats, so those dice will be rolled seperately. And the Deathblow attacks are resolved immediately, before any other attacks are made.

so
1. rolls for hero,
2. deathblow rolls from slayers killed by hero,
3. rolls for RnF,
4. deathblow rolls from slayers killed by RnF,
5. rolls for any surviving slayers

And if there's different models fighting with exactly the same stats, simply ask your opponent to roll the attacks seperately anyway, so the DB rolls can be made less confusing.

#57 Ok Okri

Ok Okri

    Dwarf Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,682 posts

Posted 14 April 2014 - 01:50 PM

But the Hero will have different stats, so those dice will be rolled seperately.


If the hero is the same initiative as the troops, then both effectively swing at the same time, despite rolling separately. Consider a hero and infantry model against a single slayer. Both cause a wound. Which one kills the slayer, and which one kills 'air'? You may roll the hero's attacks first, but you should still roll for the infantryman in this situation as he should be striking simultaneously.

#58 Kohr the Unstable

Kohr the Unstable

    Dwarf Hammerer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 196 posts

Posted 14 April 2014 - 02:35 PM

Sounds to me like we have a tentatively workable interpretation here:

 

For each "unit" (meaning units or solo characters/monsters) attacking the Slayers, roll its set of attacks, then resolve Deathblows for that set of attacks.  Those Deathblows are *only* directed at either the unit doing the killing or another model/unit in base-to-base contact with the unit doing the killing.

 

This makes for a slightly slower combat round, but clearly identifies which models are being killed and which models can be attacked back while still allowing you to "snipe" at wizards and other models, per the Deathblow rule itself.



#59 Braugi

Braugi

    Dwarf Warrior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 51 posts

Posted 14 April 2014 - 04:13 PM

I do not agree step, up does not come into this, there is never any step up* as all 10 slayers in my example die at the same time. So how would you determine who the slayers could death blow against ?  All ogres strike at the same time so there is now way to tell who kills who.

 

You can not roll the Tyrants attack before the unit and claim that those 5 models are killed by the Tyrant. All Ogre attacks happen at the same time.

 

*In fact there is no step up rule. What the rule say is that you remove rnf models from the back rank until there is only one rank left, then you remove equally from each end.  This is not relevant here as you will remove the entire unit at once.

 

EDIT:  There is another reason why step up does not come into this. Step up deals with models being removed but death blow happens before the remove casualties step. All models are still standing in their original position when deathblow attacks are made. 

 

Damn, Death blow is a really poorly written rule. Feels like it was not play tested much There is just a staggering number of strange situations

For the slayers to be attacked, they HAD to have been in base contact.  While it is not a part of what we colloquially call the 'step up' rule, it IS a part of how we remove casualties, while maintaining B2B contact throughout the process.

 

In order for the Slayers to be attacked by the Ogres, per the rule book, they HAVE to be in base contact. 

The step up rule, as well as the way we remove models from the edges of a single rank (as outlined in page 48) also helps explain how models come to be in base contact so they can be attacked, as the rule book explicitly states you can only attack models you are in base contact with.

 

If you're going to read as much into it as you're noting, then you cannot inflict more wounds than those included on models in base contact with your ogres. 

Here's what you're saying:

I allocate my attacks, and am in base contact with 7 slayers.  I roll to hit and to wound, and get 15 wounds. 

 

Normal procedure has you then allocate those 15 wounds to the unit.  The unit has 10 Dwarfs, so 10 Dwarfs are removed.

 

Most are saying that those 10 Slayers then each recieve a Death blow, because, in order to have been attacked, they needed to be in base contact, so 10 death blows.  How many Dwarfs were able to be in b2b with the Tyrant is in question.

 

What is implied in the ruleset, and how you remove models is clear: each model death is resolved as if it were done individually, we just roll them together as shorthand.  One ogre kills a dwarf, the casualty is removed from the end of the line, then another attack is resolved, so ALL dwarfs killed end up in base contact with the unit and are killed.

 

If, OTOH, everyone is removed immediately, with no 'step up' or movement of individual models implied, the implication would be that only 7 Dwarfs could be killed, because 3 were not in base contact.



#60 Hoffa

Hoffa

    Dwarf Warrior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 103 posts

Posted 14 April 2014 - 05:13 PM

What is implied in the ruleset, and how you remove models is clear: each model death is resolved as if it were done individually, we just roll them together as shorthand.  One ogre kills a dwarf, the casualty is removed from the end of the line, then another attack is resolved, so ALL dwarfs killed end up in base contact with the unit and are killed.

 

 

Do we really do this. I thought the rule was to resolve all attacks on the same I step before any models are removed as the attackers strike at the same time.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: slayer, deathblow, rules

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users