Hi all,

Its come to our attention that the new codex daemons across the board immunity to instant death, coupled with the feel no pain saves for certain units seem to be a point of contention.

For example a plague bearer unit versus a demolisher cannon shot.

The weapon is twice the targets toughness so causes instant death and therefore feel no pain cannot be used.

It can be argued that since all daemons are immune to instant death they should always get their feel no pain save.

Personally I believe that the wording of the feel no pain rule itself means they lose it versus strength 10 weapons but i'll leave it to the masses.

How do you think this should be interpreted?

If you check the current rulebook, FNP says you don't get FNP against ID, so I'd rule "no". Besides, Nurgle is plenty good enough as it is.

I think what he's asking is: Since all daemons from Codex: Demons are immune to Instant Death, do Plaguebearers always get FNP since they don't ever recieve wounds that cause instant death. If the BGB says FNP is negated by instant death (as opposed to it literally saying strength double the models toughness), and plaguebearers are immune to instant death, would their FNP be unaffected by instant death?

Was that a good clarification Beefy?

I guess this should also include Force Weapons. Didn't they recently get FAQ'd as causing instant death?

Force Weapons are a non-issue, since they're close combat weapons that ignore armour saves.

Not so sure on the rest, though.

Ah. Good call.

The Demolisher shell inflicts instant death

Daemons are immune to Instant Death

Feel no Pain says "This ability cannot be used against weapons that inflict instant death"

So the weapon inflicts instant death and thus negates FNP. Eternal Warrior then causes the effect of Instant Death to be ignored.

So no; Plaguebearers cannot use FNP against Demolisher shells.

Instant Death is dependent on the target as well as the weaopn. A Lascannon inflicts Instant Death on a Space Marine but not on a Plaguebearer. Why? The weapon is exactly the same. It's because the Plaguebearer has T5. This means that ID is determined by the target.

Thus, if a target is immune to ID then no attack against it inflicts ID. Therefore they will get the FNP roll.

No.

The weapon is checked against the targets toughness to determine if it inflicts instant death (this is the effect FNP looks for)

The Daemon itself is immune to ID, but the weapon still inflicts the effect that is subsequently ignored.

Anyways the point will be moot in 2 months when the rulebook comes out and states this in black and white (feel free to waste time arguing about it however until it does come out...)

Aeon wrote:No.

A compelling and well structured argument!

The weapon is checked against the targets toughness to determine if it inflicts instant death (this is the effect FNP looks for)

Which is exactly what I said. Thank you for backing me up. Since the ability of a weapon to inflict ID is dependent on the target - then the target's immunity to ID means that it still gets FNP.

Anyways the point will be moot in 2 months when the rulebook comes out and states this in black and white (feel free to waste time arguing about it however until it does come out...)

True enough. Though it's amusing that you call it a waste of time while simultaneously engaging yourself in the argument.

A compelling and well structured argument!

Kind of a cheap shot considering he goes on to state his argument, no?

Anyway, I'm in the "no FNP" camp. The rule states that FNP "cannot be used against weapons that inflict Instant Death (those with a Strength double or more the model's Toughness)." The sentence in the parentheses define the phrase that precedes it. What is a weapon that "inflicts Instant Death?" Per this rule, it is a weapon "with a Strength double or more the model's Toughness."

Edit: Eh, just after posting I noticed a problem with this position. If the Eternal Warriors rule in the Daemon dex is similar to that in the Eldar dex, then it states that the model with this rule is "immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule." Isn't nullifying FNP one of these effects/

"immune to the effects of the ID rule" only applies to the text under ID. It does NOT affect the text under FNP.

Non-Daemon models would suffer ID *and* lose FNP. A W3 Chaplain (with FNP) goes -splat- when he's hit by a Demolisher and fails his Rosarius.

Basically, EW splits the difference. EW says you don't suffer ID, but you still lose FNP. In the same situation above, the Daemon only loses a single wound when he fails his Ward save. He doesn't get FNP, but that's better than going splat.

"immune to the effects of the ID rule" only applies to the text under ID. It does NOT affect the text under FNP.

Why not?

JohnHwangDD wrote:"immune to the effects of the ID rule" only applies to the text under ID. It does NOT affect the text under FNP.

Non-Daemon models would suffer ID *and* lose FNP. A W3 Chaplain (with FNP) goes -splat- when he's hit by a Demolisher and fails his Rosarius.

Basically, EW splits the difference. EW says you don't suffer ID, but you still lose FNP. In the same situation above, the Daemon only loses a single wound when he fails his Ward save. He doesn't get FNP, but that's better than going splat.

Feel no Pain cannot be used against "attacks that inflict Instant Death."

If you're immune to Instant Death, the attack does not inflict Instant Death, thus you can use Feel no Pain.

This also affects Fuegan, from the Eldar Codex.

The people who are voting 'no' here are playing as though the FNP rule reads something like:

"Feel No Pain cannot be used against attacks that would cause instant death".


That IS NOT what the rule actually says. If the wound inflicts instant death, then FNP cannot be used.

Does a S10 hit vs. a Beat of Nurgle (T5, 2W) actually inflict instant death on the model?

Of course it doesn't.

If someone tried to deny the beast of Nurgle his FNP save against such a wound what would be the rationale? That the beast suffered instant death but then ignored that effect?

That isn't what the FNP rules say! If instant death is not "inflicted" on the model, then the FNP save may be used.

I think Yakface is right but I don't think they need to get any better :(. If the rule says that instant death has to be inflicted to negate FNP then they still get it.

Hmmm I think Yak has a point, unfortunately. There go my hopes of melta-killing Nurgle lords.

As an aside, is it just me, or is the amount of "immune to instant death" on the chaos side of the board a little frustrating? Cannoness Cammomile pays a hefty chunk of points to avoid instant death once only.

I am going to take my 3rd edition codex and go cry in the corner now...

Ill sign with Yak on this..

If you are immune to ID you are immune to all effects of it. Dont even see where anyone finds an exception to this.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:

"immune to the effects of the ID rule" only applies to the text under ID. It does NOT affect the text under FNP.

Why not?

Because 40k operates under explicit and limited rules scope. Rules only scope as far as they are specifically stated to do so. You can't imply rules that aren't explictly stated.

So if EW doesn't say you always get FNP, then you don't get it.

It's same as when Nurglitch argued that you implictly score a regular hit on a unit when firing with a Blast Weapon, rather than only applying those rules which are explicitly stated (i.e. place template evaluate Full / Partial hits by base coverage).

Arguing that EW implies automatic FNP is going beyond the scope of ID as stated.

Also, in the future, how about we start requiring rules-related queries to quote the relevant rules verbatim in the initial post?

I mean, think of the children!

The only thing I can see is if the rule has an exception stated in it..

"This ability cannot be used against weapons that inflict Instant Death (by having a high enough Strength or a special rule to that effect; even if the model is an Eternal
Warrior)"

Wich ofc implies that the rule would actually work without that exception. Anyway this is from the old leaked pdf so I guess we just have to wait and see.

Mhhh...without knowing the exact wording on eternal warrior for the daemons (I work with the rulebook/eldar codex and chaos codex here):

The special rules save the target form the effects of instant death. What effects has the instant death rule? The target loses all his wounds and not just one.

What does the Feel no pain rule says: It doesn't work if a weapon inflicts instant death. The weapon still inflict instant death (which is ignored) but still negating the fnp save, because the rule for eternal warrior doesn't say anything in reference to the fnp rule.

Sooo I voted no. But I realize the delicate matter on this one and would roll for it in a game I guess...

Greets
Schepp himself

How can a weapon inflict "Instant Death," and so negate FNP, when daemons are immune to instant death?

Got to go with Yak on this one - daemons are immune to Instand Death, so no weapon can "inflict" Instant Death, so no weapon negates FNP.*

*In that manner - armor-ignoring CC attacks still negate FNP as usual.

Im going to go with Yak on this. this is how we have played fuegen and it makes sense to me, going off of what the RAW FNP rule says.

if you are instant killed you dont get FNP. if you are not instant killed then you get FNP.

i personally believe that if the wording was "unless the weapon has a str value twice of the model" then your argument would be supported. but because it says "FNP cannot be used against attacks that inflict instant death" it means just that. if a model will be instant-killed Fnp cannot be used. Models that are immune to ID never fall under that clause, because they are exempt to that affect.


edited once for clarity

DeathGod wrote:I think what he's asking is: Since all daemons from Codex: Demons are immune to Instant Death, do Plaguebearers always get FNP since they don't ever recieve wounds that cause instant death. If the BGB says FNP is negated by instant death (as opposed to it literally saying strength double the models toughness), and plaguebearers are immune to instant death, would their FNP be unaffected by instant death?

Was that a good clarification Beefy?

Thanks DeathGod.

The part in the brackets were what we felt that the rule was "Intended" to be, but as far as RAW goes i'm going to switch teams and side with yak...until such time that it is officially clarified.

Note: We may still play it to be "no" as a house rule in our games.

JohnHwangDD wrote:It's same as when Nurglitch argued that you implictly score a regular hit on a unit when firing with a Blast Weapon, rather than only applying those rules which are explicitly stated (i.e. place template evaluate Full / Partial hits by base coverage).

Wrong, Warhammer rules apply to their universe of discourse, are 'reiterated within that scope' in logical parlance, unless specifically contradicted or limited. Hence I was arguing that the Blast rules were in addition to the normal shooting rules, as directed in the Blast rules.

Regardless...

Aeon is correct.

P1. A Demolisher Cannon inflicts Instant Death on a T4 Daemon that it wounds (because ID iff S10>2xT4=T).

P2. Daemons are immune to suffering Instant Death (because of Eternal Warrior?)

P3. Feel no Pain says "This ability cannot be used against weapons that inflict instant death" and not 'This ability cannot be used when the model suffers instant death'.

C1. A Daemon wounded by a Demolisher Cannon does not suffer Instant Death, because Daemons in general do not suffer from Instant Death (because P1 & P2).

C2. That Daemon cannot use Feel No Pain because the Demolisher Cannon inflicts Instant Death on T5- models, and therefore including T4 models (because P1 & P3).

So no; Plaguebearers cannot use Feel No Pain against weapons that inflict Instant Death, although they do not suffer from Instant Death if so wounded (on the condition that they have Eternal Warrior).

Nurglitch wrote:

P1. A Demolisher Cannon inflicts Instant Death on a T4 Daemon that it wounds (because ID iff S10>2xT4=T).

Premise 1 is false because in this case instant death has not been inflicted on the model as it has a special rule which prevents it from suffering instant death.

Instant death is a game effect that causes models to be immediately removed from the game. It can be cause by a couple different ways. A weapon whose strength is double or more than a target's toughness is one way, but there are also weapons that simply denoted as causing instant death.

Regardless, if a model has a special rule which ignores instant death, then that effect does not occur and it cannot be said that the model suffered instant death (or that instant death was "inflicted" upon the model).


In other words, if I go to strike you with a "mortal blow" but you have a shield which prevents my attack from killing you, can I claim that I struck you with a "mortal blow"? Of course not!

A S10 weapon hitting a T5 (or less) model would normally inflict instant death on that model, but in this case the model has a special rule which prevents instant death from being inflicted.

Yakface:

Premise 1 is true, a S10 weapon wounding a T4 model, Daemon or otherwise, inflicts Instant Death upon that model. It serves the conditions listed in the Instant Death rule.

Likewise Premise 2 is true, models with the Eternal Warrior rule, such as Daemons, are immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule.

The effect of the Instant Death rule is that the model is removed as a casualty, "if [it] is wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater and fail their save" (Rulebook, p.27).

Premise 2 does not contradict Premise 1 because Eternal Warrior does not stop a weapon from inflicting Instant Death, it makes a model immune to suffering the effects of Instant Death.

So if a S10 weapon wounds a T4 model with both the Eternal Warrior rule and the Feel No Pain rule, say a Daemon, then that model is not removed as a casualty if it has wounds remaining, and that wound cannot be negated by Feel No Pain.

What seems to be confusing you, and others, is the fact that the Feel No Pain rule and the Instant Death rule share conditions. If these conditions are obtained, then it is the case that a model suffers Instant Death and does not get a Feel No Pain roll to negate the wound. The Eternal Warrior rule says that if these conditions are obtained, then a model does not suffer Instant Death.

Hence the first premise of my argument states one condition for Instant Death, ID iff S10>2xT4=T. The logical structure of the Instant Death rule is:

P1. ID iff S>2T=T

Likewise, since the Eternal Warrior rule negates the antecedent of the Instant Death rule (the effect, not its causes), then logical structure of the Eternal Warrior rule is:

P2. ~ID iff S>2T=T & EW=T

Finally, the logical structure of the Feel No Pain rule is:

P3. FNP iff ~(S>2T=T v ~Sv=T)

The first conclusion, the fact that a model with Eternal Warrior (a Daemon) does not suffer from Instant Death, follows logically because it simply reiterates Premise 2.

C1. ~ID

The second conclusion, the fact that a model with Feel No Pain cannot use that rule if wounded by something matching the conditions for Instant Death, follows logically (via the form of argument known as 'modus ponens') because the conditions for Instant Death are the negation of the conditions under which a model can use Feel No Pain.

C2. ~FNP

If we really simplify this, to demonstrate validity via a derivation in a propositional logic, let's say that:

A = S>2T=T
B = EW=T
C = ID=T
D = FNP=T

UD. A & (B v D)
P1. A ├ C
P2. A & B ├ ~C
P3. A ├ ~D
4. B v D (Simplification, UD)
5. A (Simplification, UD)
6. ~D (Modus Ponens, P3 & 5)
7. B (Disjunctive Syllogism, 4 & 6)
8. A & B (Conjunction, 5 & 7)
C1. ~C (Modus Ponens, P2 & 8)
C2 ~D (Modus Ponens, P3 & 5)
C3. ~C & ~D (Conjunction, C1 & C2)

As you can see (if I've done this right...) the argument is valid.

Of course, the universe of discourse (UD) presumed is that there is a model meeting the conditions of the Instant Death rule, which has both Feel No Pain and Eternal Warrior.

This universe of discourse provides a model by which we can judge the argument to be sound.

The combined conclusion (C3), that the model does not suffer Instant Death but cannot use its Feel No Pain rule follows trivially.

I think Yak has it...

I don't think Nurgle really needs this ability, and it makes them maybe a little too good, but Yak's argument is the clearest and most concise I have seen. If I could make sense of nurglitch's hieroglyphics in his post, I might have a comment for him, but alas, I'm not sure what some of the symbols he used are supposed to mean... My ignorance is staggering I suppose...

So work it out; you're obviously intelligent enough to do so

sorry, but what we are capable of reading and what is comfortable to read are different things.

How are you finding that difficult to read?

Nurglitch wrote:Yakface:

Premise 1 is true, a S10 weapon wounding a T4 model, Daemon or otherwise, inflicts Instant Death upon that model. It serves the conditions listed in the Instant Death rule.

Likewise Premise 2 is true, models with the Eternal Warrior rule, such as Daemons, are immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule.

The effect of the Instant Death rule is that the model is removed as a casualty, "if [it] is wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater and fail their save" (Rulebook, p.27).

Premise 2 does not contradict Premise 1 because Eternal Warrior does not stop a weapon from inflicting Instant Death, it makes a model immune to suffering the effects of Instant Death.

So if a S10 weapon wounds a T4 model with both the Eternal Warrior rule and the Feel No Pain rule, say a Daemon, then that model is not removed as a casualty if it has wounds remaining, and that wound cannot be negated by Feel No Pain.

What seems to be confusing you, and others, is the fact that the Feel No Pain rule and the Instant Death rule share conditions. If these conditions are obtained, then it is the case that a model suffers Instant Death and does not get a Feel No Pain roll to negate the wound. The Eternal Warrior rule says that if these conditions are obtained, then a model does not suffer Instant Death.

Hence the first premise of my argument states one condition for Instant Death, ID iff S10>2xT4=T. The logical structure of the Instant Death rule is:

P1. ID iff S>2T=T v ~Sv=T

Likewise, since the Eternal Warrior rule negates the antecedent of the Instant Death rule (the effect, not its causes), then logical structure of the Eternal Warrior rule is, :

P2. ~ID iff (S>2T=T v ~Sv=T) & EW=T

Finally, the logical structure of the Feel No Pain rule is:

P3. FNP iff ~(S>2T=T v ~Sv=T)

The first conclusion, the fact that a model with Eternal Warrior (a Daemon) does not suffer from Instant Death, follows logically because it simply reiterates Premise 2.

C1. ~ID

The second conclusion, the fact that a model with Feel No Pain cannot use that rule if wounded by something matching the conditions for Instant Death, follows logically (via the form of argument known as 'modus ponens') because the conditions for Instant Death are the negation of the conditions under which a model can use Feel No Pain.

C2. ~FNP

If we really simplify this, to demonstrate validity via a derivation in a propositional logic, let's say that:

A = (S>2T=T v ~Sv=T)
B = EW=T
C = ID=T
D = FNP=T

UD. A & (B v D)
P1. A ├ C
P2. A & B ├ ~C
P3. A ├ ~D
4. B v D (Simplification, UD)
5. A (Simplification, UD)
6. ~D (Modus Ponens, P3 & 5)
7. B (Disjunctive Syllogism, 4 & 6)
8. A & B (Conjunction, 5 & 7)
C1. ~C (Modus Ponens, P2 & 8)
C2 ~D (Modus Ponens, P3 & 5)
C3. ~C & ~D (Conjunction, C1 & C2)

As you can see (if I've done this right...) the argument is valid.

Of course, the universe of discourse (UD) presumed is that there is a model meeting the conditions of the Instant Death rule, which has both Feel No Pain and Eternal Warrior.

This universe of discourse provides a model by which we can judge the argument to be sound.

The combined conclusion (C3), that the model does not suffer Instant Death but cannot use its Feel No Pain rule follows trivially.

Nurglitch... it's a shame I have to do this, as I generally agree with your posts, but...

I have to call shenanigans.

With your "propositional logic" statement, I had to call my little brother... who majored in philosophy and got a masters in Logic. He has no idea what you're trying to say. He couldn't decipher your cryptic proof. He also went on to say, "I bet he had his Logic textbook in front of him, trying to use the most complicated proof he could find so that people wouldn't be able to argue with him. And i'm pretty sure he still did it wrong."

Then may I suggest working through it step by step, since I've gone to the trouble of laying it out step by step, labeling all the steps, and the reiterating all the steps as a derivation to show the correct conclusion?

Nurglitch, I also don't believe your premise 1 to be true. In my view, a model immune to the effects of instant death cannot have instant death inflicted upon it. I thus agree with Yakface.

Yak's argument seems to me to be that saying that a model "suffers the effects of ID" is equivalent to saying that ID is "inflicted" upon that model. Thus, EW does stop a weapon from inflicting instant death.

I will, however, grant that your interpretation is also possible, though I strongly disagree with any contention that it is inescapable. If one divides the ID rule, as you do, into "infliction of instant death," characterized by failing a save/not being allowed a save against a weapon with the necessary characteristics to cause ID and "suffering the effects of instant death," i.e., removing the model regardless of wounds, then your argument follows nicely, as you say. I accept that someone may make that distinction, but it is certainly not required.

One may just as easily mentally divide the ID rule into "meeting the requirements to invoke the ID rule" (S=2xT, target is not a synapse creature, target does not possess the EW rule, etc.) and "infliction of ID." In this view, no attack/weapon/etc. can "inflict" or "cause" ID unless all requirements are met, including lack of the EW rule.

In other words, it seems to me that you believe that a weapon has inflicted/caused ID as soon as its usual conditions have been met, regardless of whether some other factor will prevent it from taking effect. Many others contend that ID has not been inflicted/caused unless the model in question can actually "die instantly"... that special rules such as EW do not merely repeal the effects of ID once inflicted, but actually constitute additional preconditions (i.e., their absence) which must be met before instant death can be caused.

This is the way I would understand the interplay of these rules, and from an admittedly subjective standpoint, I suspect that this is the most likely interpretation of the wording for most speakers of English, which is really the only useful criterion we have for resolving this sort of semantic argument. (I must admit, though, that the poll results above suggest I may be wrong; if everyone voting is fully informed and has given the question due consideration, then it would seem that my interpretation is slightly in the minority, albeit in a small sample size)



[One side note, and I intend this as an observation and not any kind of personal attack. Nurglitch, you obviously have some background in formal construction/critique of arguments (study philosophy in university, by any chance?), but as someone with a background in linguistics, I've noticed that you sometimes seem to overlook syntactic or semantic ambiguity in the rules. You and I went around in a similar vein a while back in another thread (I believe it centered on whether "weapon symbiotes" meant "classes of w.s." or "individual w.s."). Your arguments are generally rigorous and thorough, but I think it's worth recognizing that we're talking about the rules for a game that were clearly not written with rigorous semantics in mind. An argument based on very precise semantics will only be conclusive if it is limited to a discourse community which shares those precise semantics. I think this may be why so many of these arguments end up with two sides shouting at each other with well-formed arguments that are nevertheless built on premises that seem self-evident to one side and ridiculous to the other. If that sounded pompous or condescending, I apologize; it's just something I've been seeing a lot of lately, and felt like offering the observation.]

Dire Wombat:

Premise 1 is the Instant Kill rule. If you agree that the Instant Kill rule exists, then the premise is true.

As a conditional premise, the Instant Kill rule is divided into two parts, the antecedent and the consequent (or the condition and the effect, respectively, as I'll call them).

Condition:
"If a creature is wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater and fail their save,"

Effect:
"they are killed outright and removed as a casualty."

The Eternal Warrior rule cancels out the effect, not the condition for that effect.

Feel No Pain has the negation of the Instant Death rule's condition, so if the Instant Death rule's condition is true, then the Feel No Pain rule has no effect.

To reiterate:

One set of conditions affects both the Instant Death rule and the Feel No Pain rule. The Eternal Warrior rule does not affect those conditions, but it does affect the effect of the Instant Death rule. Hence the Eternal Warrior rule does not allow a model that would be otherwise Instantly Killed to roll for Feel No Pain.

Nurglitch:

I actually agree with your argument (with all due respect our learned colleagues yakface et al) but you seem to think the best way of of getting a point across is to write the most obtuse and convoluted statement possible.

For somone who quotes Bertrand Russell in his signature, you seem to have missed his point. All you're doing is trying to sound as clever as possible so you can then turn round and say 'ah, I'm right - but you are all too stupid to understand me'.

I have to say this is NOT the way to ingratiate yourself with people.

Sadly, this particular question (ID/FNP) needs clarification from a GW FAQ as both arguments are valid depending on your personal interpretation of the semantics of the RAW.
I'd go for daemons to not get FNP vs ID weaponry but would accept a ruling either way - we'll all probably have to roll for it in a tournament setting anyway!

POST EDITED BY WAAAGH_GONADS

The funny thing is that I tried to write something very very clearly, to leave no mistake about what it could mean, and to make sure that anyone capable of logging into these forums could understand what I was writing.

Apparently I failed.

At least in my PDF of the leaked old version of 5th the FNP special rule has a condition that says: Even if the unit has the EW special rule they still get no FNP save.

Without it I dont see how you can suffer any effect from the instant death when you are immune to it.

Kallbrand:

A model cannot suffer any effect from the Instant Death rule when it is immune to the effect of Instant Death. No one is arguing that.

I, at least, am arguing that the conditions for ignoring Feel No Pain are not an effect of Instant Death.

The effect of Instant Death is simply being removed as a casualty.

What disqualifies a model from having a Feel No Pain roll is being wounded by (1) something that inflicts Instant Death or (2) a close combat weapon that ignores armour saves.

Eternal Warrior does not make you immune to being wounded by weapons that inflict Instant Death or by close combat weapons that ignore armour saves. That is because these are conditions of both Feel No Pain and Instant Death, not effects.

Edit: Corrected.

I think the question here is whether or not the model is having the instant death effect inflicted on them and then EW negating the effect, or does EW make it so that the effect does not even reach the model. I think that the first is correct.

Also, I think that the FNP rule is dependent on the weapon not the actual ID rule. It says that a weapon that inflicts instant death negates FNP not that instant death itself negates FNP. Because I think that the weapon is still a weapon that does inflict instant death (but EW negates the effect) it still negates FNP without actually having the ID effect affect the model. So therefore I think I'll have to flip flop and go with nurglitch on this, which is shocking to me..

Does a meltagun inflict Instant Death? Well, there's no way to know unless you have the stats for the target. The answer is "yes" for a model with a toughness of 4 or less, and "no" for a model with a toughness of 5 or more.

A weapon can't inflict ID unless the target allows it. Eternal Warrior doesn't allow ID, so the weapon doesn't inflict it. Therefore FNP will work.

That exactly what I'm saying, it's dependent on the weapon and the T of the model. It is still a weapon that "inflicts instant death" EW says that it isn't affected by instant death but FNP is negated because the wound was caused by such a weapon that causes instant death.

Nurglitch wrote:The combined conclusion (C3), that the model does not suffer Instant Death but cannot use its Feel No Pain rule follows trivially.

Which is precisely what I said earlier...

The problem with not allowing FNP is that you have a contradiction. The model is not suffering ID but is still feeling its effects. If a model is immune to instant death, than the ID rule has no bearing on the model whatsoever.

Basically any model with the eternal warrior special rule, just ignores the instant death rule in regards to himself.

No I think you are inferring too much into what the effects of ID are. The effects are losing all of your wounds and dying. Losing FNP is not an effect of the ID rule it's part of the FNP rule.

I think the most important factor is that it is a condition of the FNP rule not the ID rule. Along with that, the wording does not say "if the model suffers instant death then it may not make a FNP roll", it simply states that if it is a weapon that inflicts instant death, then FNP doesnt apply. RAW, a weapon of double-strength (S10 v T5) will not allow FNP under any circumstances. Eternal Warrior only makes the model immune to ID, it doesnt change the fact that a weapon will inflict ID though.

therefore, i am in the NO FNP for plaguebearers vs demo-cannon camp. and lets look at it logically. anyone, no matter who it is, is gonna feel the pain of a demolisher shell exploding on top of them

If the wording is a weapon that inflicts instant death, then the only weapons I can think of that inflict instant death are wraith canons, D-cannons, and S D weapons. In all other cases, it is the S of the attack not the weapon that causes it.

Nurglitch wrote:
What disqualifies a model from having a Feel No Pain roll is being hit by something that inflicts Instant Death or a close combat weapon that ignores armour saves.

False. The FNP roll does not reference being "hit" by something. It says "weapons that inflict Instant Death".

Again, the key here is whether the weapon actually inflicts instant death, not whether it is capable of inflicting instant death. If there is a special rule which prevents instant death from being inflicted (as is the case with Eternal Warrior), then instant death has not been inflicted and the FNP save may be used.

When next years Adepticon rolls around, I'm sure Yak's rulling will make it in unless the 5th ed rule book says otherwise, and at that point it will be standardized for most gamers.

the weapon indeed *inflicts* instant death

The ability of the Eternal warriors ignores the effects of instant death.

Thus while ID is inflicted thus negating FNP the PB's ignore the effects of ID

Eternal warrior affects the PB's; whilst FNP is dependent on weather the weapon would usually inflict ID

Aeon wrote:the weapon indeed *inflicts* instant death

We seem to have a different understanding of the word "inflict". A weapon can attempt to inflict instant death on a model but until the model actually suffers from instant death then it is categorically impossible to say that the model has had instant death inflicted upon it.

The problem I have with the thought that EW prevents ID and therefore allows FNP (feeling like I should be on the set of "Good Morning Vietnam" here) is that it seems to be a circular argument. Or, at any rate, that it requires a feedback loop into the process.

From the way the rules have been quoted, I agree that Yakface is right. But it doesn't feel right.

It feels right to me that the check for ID vs EW happens at the end, right before the model is removed from play. It doesn't feel right that EW inserts itself into the FNP process.

Really though, regardless of anything else in 5th edition it is pretty clear that FNP saves will not be allowed in this situation so honestly I'd personally play the 'no' route today as long as my opponent is okay with it.

Yakface:

You're correct, I was in error when I wrote that "What disqualifies a model from having a Feel No Pain roll is being hit by..." I have corrected the mistake.

Eternal Warrior does not prevent Instant Death from being inflicted, it simply makes the model immune to the effects of Instant Death, i.e. being removed from the table as a casualty after suffering a wound from a weapon that inflicts Instant Death (or at least the Eldar version does...).

A model cannot be immune to the effects of Instant Death if Instant Death cannot be inflicted on it.

So you are also quite correct in saying that the key here is whether the weapon actually inflicts Instant Death.

Having Instant Death inflicted upon a model does not mean that model will suffer the effects of the Instant Death rule. It simply means that the model has suffered a wound satisfying the conditions of the Instant Death rule. Whether the effects of that rule are applied depends on other rules (or their absence...).

The model may have a rule such as Eternal Warrior or Synapse that prevents it from suffering the effects of any Instant Death so inflicted upon them.

At this point, we just need to wait till 5th. If it doesnt answer this question then its time for the debate once again.

I think it would be more productive to continue working on resolving disagreements.

Nurglitch wrote:A model cannot be immune to the effects of Instant Death if Instant Death cannot be inflicted on it.

No? I'd call that the very definition of being immune to Instant Death.

Here's the thing: Eternal Warrior does not make a model immune to the Instant Death rule, it makes them immune to its effects. You can still inflict Instant Death on the model, it's just not removed as a casualty if it has wounds remaining.

yakface wrote:

Aeon wrote:the weapon indeed *inflicts* instant death

We seem to have a different understanding of the word "inflict". A weapon can attempt to inflict instant death on a model but until the model actually suffers from instant death then it is categorically impossible to say that the model has had instant death inflicted upon it.

This is the crux of the argument. Inflict is to actively do something. It has to be done, not attempt to be done - you either inflict instant death or you fail to inflict instant death. The key is did the weapon inflict ID or did it just attempt to do so and fail. I believe this is just a simple comprehension error.

From websters:
In*flict"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Inflicted; p. pr. & vb. n. Inflicting.] [L. inflictus, p. p. of infligere to strike on, to inflict; pref. in- in, on + fligere to strike. Cf. Flail.] To give, cause, or produce by striking, or as if by striking; to apply forcibly; to lay or impose; to send; to cause to bear, feel, or suffer; as, to inflict blows; to inflict a wound with a dagger; to inflict severe pain by ingratitude; to inflict punishment on an offender; to inflict the penalty of death on a criminal.

The word is "inflicts" not "inflict". It makes an interesting difference.

Nurglitch wrote:Yakface:

Premise 1 is true, a S10 weapon wounding a T4 model, Daemon or otherwise, inflicts Instant Death upon that model. It serves the conditions listed in the Instant Death rule.

Likewise Premise 2 is true, models with the Eternal Warrior rule, such as Daemons, are immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule.

The effect of the Instant Death rule is that the model is removed as a casualty, "if [it] is wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater and fail their save" (Rulebook, p.27).

Premise 2 does not contradict Premise 1 because Eternal Warrior does not stop a weapon from inflicting Instant Death, it makes a model immune to suffering the effects of Instant Death.

So if a S10 weapon wounds a T4 model with both the Eternal Warrior rule and the Feel No Pain rule, say a Daemon, then that model is not removed as a casualty if it has wounds remaining, and that wound cannot be negated by Feel No Pain.

What seems to be confusing you, and others, is the fact that the Feel No Pain rule and the Instant Death rule share conditions. If these conditions are obtained, then it is the case that a model suffers Instant Death and does not get a Feel No Pain roll to negate the wound. The Eternal Warrior rule says that if these conditions are obtained, then a model does not suffer Instant Death.

Hence the first premise of my argument states one condition for Instant Death, ID iff S10>2xT4=T. The logical structure of the Instant Death rule is:

P1. ID iff S>2T=T v ~Sv=T

Likewise, since the Eternal Warrior rule negates the antecedent of the Instant Death rule (the effect, not its causes), then logical structure of the Eternal Warrior rule is, :

P2. ~ID iff (S>2T=T v ~Sv=T) & EW=T

Finally, the logical structure of the Feel No Pain rule is:

P3. FNP iff ~(S>2T=T v ~Sv=T)

The first conclusion, the fact that a model with Eternal Warrior (a Daemon) does not suffer from Instant Death, follows logically because it simply reiterates Premise 2.

C1. ~ID

The second conclusion, the fact that a model with Feel No Pain cannot use that rule if wounded by something matching the conditions for Instant Death, follows logically (via the form of argument known as 'modus ponens') because the conditions for Instant Death are the negation of the conditions under which a model can use Feel No Pain.

C2. ~FNP

If we really simplify this, to demonstrate validity via a derivation in a propositional logic, let's say that:

A = (S>2T=T v ~Sv=T)
B = EW=T
C = ID=T
D = FNP=T

UD. A & (B v D)
P1. A ├ C
P2. A & B ├ ~C
P3. A ├ ~D
4. B v D (Simplification, UD)
5. A (Simplification, UD)
6. ~D (Modus Ponens, P3 & 5)
7. B (Disjunctive Syllogism, 4 & 6)
8. A & B (Conjunction, 5 & 7)
C1. ~C (Modus Ponens, P2 & 8)
C2 ~D (Modus Ponens, P3 & 5)
C3. ~C & ~D (Conjunction, C1 & C2)

As you can see (if I've done this right...) the argument is valid.

Of course, the universe of discourse (UD) presumed is that there is a model meeting the conditions of the Instant Death rule, which has both Feel No Pain and Eternal Warrior.

This universe of discourse provides a model by which we can judge the argument to be sound.

The combined conclusion (C3), that the model does not suffer Instant Death but cannot use its Feel No Pain rule follows trivially.

It pains me to quote this in its entirety, but it is for a reason.

First of all, deductive reasoning says that your first premise of your argument is indeed false.
Instant death has not been inflicted because Eternal warrior rule makes anything protected by that rule immune to instant death.
How can you inflict upon something that is immune to said infliction?

The basis of your argument has failed and the rest of your argument has thus collapsed with it.

Does the logical fallacy Proof by verbosity mean anything to you?

Do you really expect to be taken seriously due to verbosity?

I cannot see trying to use your argument in any type of game with any type of opponent due to the pedantic and esoteric verbosity and sheer boredom it would draw. Thus, it is impractical and of no use to the current discussion at hand.
Again, you cite more proof by assertion without deductive reasoning skills sufficient to realize that your first premise in incorrect. You have been shown that your first premise in infact false, yet you continue to assert that it is true, despite evidence to the contrary.

Nurglitch wrote:I think it would be more productive to continue working on resolving disagreements.

Since you have shown you continually ignore proof contrary to your first premise (the entire basis of your argument), I would have to say continuing this discussion with you would be quite counterproductive.
In fact, I would cite that you are borderline trolling, just enough to be under the radar of the Mods, but enough to draw ridiculing statements to your premise, and thus make you look like the victim.

Antryg:

The Instant Death rule is very clear on both what it is to inflict Instant Death and what it is to suffer the effects of Instant Death:

"If a creature is wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater and fail their save, they are killed outright and removed as a casualty."

The argument I have provided, cited, and diagrammed for your convenience shows that not only is Premise 1 true (something inflicts Instant Death where conditions obtain), but also how the Instant Death, Feel No Pain, and Eternal Warrior rules interact and the only valid conclusion we can logically derive about their interaction.

The diagram (the derivation) shows that the structure of Premise 1, the Instant Death rule, is a conditional with two parts, and that the Eternal Warrior rule negates one part, the effect of being removed as a casualty, rather than negating the entire rule (including the conditions that also apply to negating Feel No Pain).

As such, your attempt to distract from the issue at hand fails. Your unwillingness to address my argument directly is noted.

Moving on...

What seems to be the problem here is that some people think that immunity to the effects of Instant Death is the same as immunity to the entire Instant Death rule.

I think it's because people are using the phrase "Instant Death" as interchangeable with the effect of the Instant Death rule, being removed from the board as a casualty.

Since the effect of the Instant Death rule is not the whole of that rule, it seems that some people are confusing the whole rule with a part of it.

Of course, the argument that I provided and diagrammed shows how such confusion may be avoided where we remember that the Instant Death rule, the first premise of my argument, is a conditional (iff) relation composed of two parts.

As such, they are ignoring the textual evidence that makes it true that the Eternal Warrior rule specifically negates the effects of Instant Death, rather than the entire rule.

Immunity to the effects of Instant Death does not grant a model immunity to the causes of Instant Death, and hence does not grant a model a Feel No Pain Roll where something inflicts (i.e.: causes) Instant Death upon that model.

Nurglitch wrote:The word is "inflicts" not "inflict". It makes an interesting difference.

Not really, see "inflicts" when used in the contest of "a weapon that inflicts ID". What does the weapon inflict ID on? How is ID calc'ed {x2 models toughness or special rules} The question is simply "for a weapon that inflicts ID did it do so on this occasion". If the weapon didn't inflict ID for a reason ID cannot have taken place. Therefore if ID didn't take place the FNP applies.

Okay, I beleive that the nurgle daemons do get the FNP save even through ID because the ID is not inflicted on the models. The rule specifically states "[FNP] cannot be used against weapons that inflict< instant death (those with strength double or more the target's toughness)..."

Now, it says inflict. The definition of inflict is:

1. to impose as something that must be borne or suffered: to inflict punishment.
2. to impose (anything unwelcome): The regime inflicted burdensome taxes on the people.
3. to deal or deliver, as a blow.

So in order for something to inflict ID, it has to actually impose it, which it doesn't.

A model cannot be inflicted ID without it actually occuring, which never happens. The daemons are never dealt or delivered the ID and therefore are never inflicted ID. So they do get FNP.

fullheadofhair:

When a weapon inflicts Instant Death when "a creature is wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater and fail their save".

When a model suffers the effects of Instant Death "they are killed outright and removed as a casualty."

By the Eternal Warrior rule, a Daemon would be "immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule", which are being killed outright and removal as a casualty even when it has wounds remaining.

Instant Death is inflicted on something that is immune to its effects, therefore no Feel No Pain roll is permitted.

Edit: Incidentally, the text of the Feel No Pain rule does specifically state that: "This ability cannot be used against weapons that inflict instant death (those with a Strength double or more the model's Toughness). It follows that this ability cannot be used against weapons with a Strength double or more the model's Toughness...

no ID is not inflicted on something that is Immune. That's why I put the definition up

Immunity (Immune only talks about disease...):

1. exemption from any natural or usual liability.

Now, just because I want to be ahead, Exempt:

1. released from, or not subject to an obligation

now I'll put the definitions into your sentence and show you that it doesn't make sense.

Instant Death is dealt or delivered on something that is released from, or not subject to its effects, therefore no Feel No Pain roll is permitted.

Tell me how that is true at all...

Nurglitch, your posting style seems deliberately obtuse to create dissension.

Suffer: undergo or be subjected to

Inflict: to impose upon

To suffer something, it must first be inflicted.

trentonator:

My point is that if a model is wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater, and fail their save, then that something inflicts Instant Death upon that model.

Put another way, if models are wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater, and fail their save, then the conditions of the Instant Death rule have been satisfied.

Eternal Warrior merely renders a model immune to the effects of Instant Death, not immune to the conditions.

For if Eternal Warrior negated Instant Death entirely, then models with that rule could not be wounded by weapons with a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater, and Feel No Pain would be irrelevant.

Nurglitch wrote: The diagram (the derivation) shows that the structure of Premise 1, the Instant Death rule, is a conditional with two parts, and that the Eternal Warrior rule negates one part, the effect of being removed as a casualty, rather than negating the entire rule (including the conditions that also apply to negating Feel No Pain).

How do you figure? C:CSM, page 32 "Eternal Warrior: Having been elevated by the Chaos Gods, the Daemon Prince has little to fear from mortal weapons. A Daemon Prince is immune to the Instant Death rile."

NOT "A Daemon Prince suffers no ill effect from Instant Death" or something lile that. IMMUNE TO THE RULE.

DeathGod:

That's true, but I'm working off Codex: Eldar which actually has an option whereby a single model can have Feel No Pain and Eternal Warrior.

Codex: Eldar, p.54 wrote:Eternal Warriors
Phoenix Lords can never truly be destroyed, and are hence immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule.

I'm curious to see what the text of Codex: Chaos Daemons says regarding Eternal Warrior.

Nurglitch wrote:

Codex: Eldar, p.54 wrote:Eternal Warriors
Phoenix Lords can never truly be destroyed, and are hence immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule.

Would you not call negating Feel no Pain one of the effects of the Instant Death rule?

No. The effect(s) of the Instant Death rule is to be "killed outright and removed as a casualty".

Nurg, here is the wording in Codex Demons:

"Every model in the Army has the Eternal Warrior universal special rule (see the Warhammer 40,000 rule book) and is therefore immune to Instant Death"

unless i am wrong i dont think eternal warrior is in the 4th ed rulebook, from which one could surmise that the BGB reference is there for when 5th comes out (note the lack of a specific page as in all 4thed codices, but all 5thed codices simply say "the rulebook" to avoid citing an incorrect page when the new BGB hits)

that being said, it is a different wording from both the Eldar and CSM codices. RAI all it is saying is that Demons can not be reduced to zero wounds because of the Instant Death rule. as the actual Instant Death rule says nothing about FNP, and we are debating the meaning behind the wording of the FNP rule i would still maintain that Plaguebearers lose FNP to Demolisher shots.

Ztryder:

Yes, we are discussing the Feel No Pain rule and whether models with the Eternal Warrior rule can make a Feel No Pain roll if something inflicts Instant Death upon them.

According to a certain .pdf floating around, the 5th edition Eternal Warrior rule will make a model "immune to Instant Death". Moreover it suggests that Eternal Warrior will not exempt a model from losing that roll if wounded by weapons that inflict Instant Death.

But this merely makes explicit what so many of us already know, that being immune to Instant Death does not protect a model's access to its Feel No Pain roll.

We know this because the Instant Death rule is a conditional rule: If you meet the conditions, the same conditions that negate the Feel No Pain roll, then you suffer the effects.

If something is to be immune to the Instant Kill rule, it must be immune to the effects of the Instant Kill rule, rather than immune to both the conditions for the Instant Kill rule to take effect and the effects themselves.

Quite simply, if Eternal Warrior makes a model immune to Instant Death, and the effect of Instant Death is to be removed as a casualty, then all Eternal Warrior means is that the model is not removed as a casualty when it sustains wounds that would otherwise satisfy the conditions of Instant Death.

It would not mean that those conditions do not apply to other rules that share them, such as Feel No Pain. That would be confusing the conditions for the rule with the effects of the rule.

deleted

But this merely makes explicit what so many of us already know, that being immune to Instant Death does protect a model's access to its Feel No Pain roll.

surely you meant to say "does not"

Ztryder:

Oops, good eye. I stand corrected.

This is like a model saved by a medic.

The model takes a wound and fails a save. The effect of this is to remove the model. Instead the medic allows you to ignore the effect (he was still wounded and failed a save) by not removing the model. The Demon is ignoring the effects (removal), not the ID itself which is only based on the condition of having double toughness.

No FNP.

Also the 'whole army ignores a basic rule' crap is annoying.

snooggums wrote:This is like a model saved by a medic.

The model takes a wound and fails a save. The effect of this is to remove the model. Instead the medic allows you to ignore the effect (he was still wounded and failed a save) by not removing the model. The Demon is ignoring the effects (removal), not the ID itself which is only based on the condition of having double toughness.

No FNP.

Also the 'whole army ignores a basic rule' crap is annoying.

instant death is far from a basic rule, it is situational.

they dont ignore the rule, they just have Aces to instant death's Kings.. in other words they beat it.

putting the topic back on track. the demon IS ignoring the ID itself, otherwise it would die outright. the fact of the matter remains that the weapons still inflict instant death, the demons however are just immune to dieing outright.

think of it like getting bitten by a black mamba and by some miracle of nature you are immune to the venom.. the snake still inflicted the wound, and injected the venom (metaphor for instant death, in case you are missing the point).
however you are immune to the venom but that bite sure as hell still hurts no? the inflicted wound still is one that would have caused you to die (ID) but since you are immune to the venom (EW) you didnt die outright. You still feel the pain if you will (thus no FNP).

Ztryder wrote: instant death is far from a basic rule, it is situational.

Instant death is a rule listed in the core rule book for the 40k system. I'm not sure how much more basic it can get than this. I do, however, subscirbe to the notion that models with the eternal warrior special rule who are wounded by a 2x strength weapon will not get FNP.

Eternal warrior is immune the ID rule. Therefore, this 2x str weapon check is never made with the FNP. ID is completely eliminated from the equation.

I like it how people state things that are irrefutable without any reference to the rulebook...

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:Eternal warrior is immune the ID rule. Therefore, this 2x str weapon check is never made with the FNP. ID is completely eliminated from the equation.

incorrect. instant death is most definitly included. see my black mamba analogy above.
A wound that inflicts instant death occurs. however being an EW demons are just immune to dieing as an effect of instant death.
as instant death was "inflicted" (albeit ignored/nullified) the demon/phoenixlord/etc. is not eligible for FNP. (under the rules of FNP)
its sort of like a psychic hood frying an opponents power (effectively making your whole army immune to that power for one turn, sound like a similarity to an army of eternal warriors anyone?) that rolled snake eyes.. the power doesnt go off but the psyker must still suffer perils of the warp.

what it really comes down to is that it is a condition of the FNP rule, not the instant death rule.
if under ID it says "models suffering from instant death make not make a FNP roll" then yes the demon would indeed get their roll (being immune to ID.
however, the ruling is under FNP and uses the word "inflict".

no FNP.

Ztryder wrote:think of it like getting bitten by a black mamba and by some miracle of nature you are immune to the venom.. the snake still inflicted the wound, and injected the venom (metaphor for instant death, in case you are missing the point).
however you are immune to the venom but that bite sure as hell still hurts no? the inflicted wound still is one that would have caused you to die (ID) but since you are immune to the venom (EW) you didnt die outright. You still feel the pain if you will (thus no FNP).

This is the problem with real world examples. You obviously forgot about the drugs I take that don't allow me to feel any pain. Only extreme and greivous wounds will slow me down.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:Eternal warrior is immune the ID rule. Therefore, this 2x str weapon check is never made with the FNP. ID is completely eliminated from the equation.

By that logic, would not the model be immune to the weapon period? You see, the weapon causes instant death. Since the demon is immune to instant death it cannot be hurt by the weapon.

Obviously this is false, but it is the same reasoning used. Feel no pain says "this ability cannot be used against weapons that inflict instant death (those with a strength double or more the model's toughness)..."

The FNP check is made based on the attack first. If an attack doubles it's target's toughness then the save is negated. Eternal warrior then kicks in and says that if the model is multiple wound, then it does not lose all remaining wounds because of being wounded by a 2x toughness attack.

Dakkaladd wrote:

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:Eternal warrior is immune the ID rule. Therefore, this 2x str weapon check is never made with the FNP. ID is completely eliminated from the equation.

The FNP check is made based on the attack first. If an attack doubles it's target's toughness then the save is negated. Eternal warrior then kicks in and says that if the model is multiple wound, then it does not lose all remaining wounds because of being wounded by a 2x toughness attack.

Umm... how would you know which order the rules are applied? There is no specific way stated in the BGB that say FNP is made first.


Also the whole venom analogy. What about someone that has no nerve endings(FNP)? They wouldn't feel the bite at all and if they were also immune to the poison(EW), then they wouldn't die instantly and they also wouldn't feel the pain.


And as I pointed out earlier, in order to inflict something unto another the victim must have been dealt the effects, which doesn't ever occur.



Also, I don't know if anyone else realized... But we aren't making any progress, no one is going to change their mind on the topic so what's the purpose of this?

trentonator wrote:

Umm... how would you know which order the rules are applied? There is no specific way stated in the BGB that say FNP is made first.

it is however a completely separate rule, each with different conditions that pertain to satisfying said rule.

example:
Demolisher Cannon shoots a unit of Plaguebearers.
S10 v T5 = 2xstr wep. instant death inflicted but EW makes them immune to being reduced to zero wounds as a result of instant death. it is however inflicted. roll saves and fail X number of them.
plaguebearers have FNP usr, so X failed saves are eligable for FNP. HOWEVER, since ID was inflicted (by 2xstr wep), no FNP.

A little flow-chart I whipped up.

Except your flowchart COULD begin with "Does the model have Eternal Warrior?" If yes - skip the ID check; if no - check the ID check. If a model is immune to ID, we don't invoke any of its provisions, INCLUDING the "S >= 2xT" check.

Not if we're going to represent how Feel No Pain and Instant Death share that initial condition of being wounded by a weapon that has a Strength double or more the model's Toughness.

EW is only going to apply after the wound that causes instant death, so you cannot start the chart with EW.

edit: bah nurglitch beat me to it

read through some of the posts.

It is my opinion that the ability's are separate.
EW and FNP
FNP doesn't benefit from EW

Though the wording for FNP does cause me to raise this OT question. A weapon with variable effects (wraithcannon) have the ability to inflict instant death, but not in every circumstance(you didn't roll for it). By the wording of FNP you wouldn't receive the feel no pain roll as "the weapon inflicts instant death".

Except, Nurglith's flowchart is showing how the rules actually work, not now Nurgle's boys want to twist them.

Good on you for the Chart Nurg, you rule. The Logic layout table before was a nightmare. That table was great.

Personally, I see where both sides are right.

I'd like to say that I'm building a C:CD Nurgle army and I originally thought that being shot by a double strength weapon would removed FNP but not outright kill the model.

Although the argument for keeping FNP when shot by a double strength weapon is compelling. It also helps me out against the stray S10 rail gun, ect.

I'm going to talk to the manager of the GW Store I go to play, see what he thinks and get his ruling. Then live by that until a FAQ comes down about it.

1BadZ wrote:
I'm going to talk to the manager of the GW Store I go to play, see what he thinks and get his ruling. Then live by that until a FAQ comes down about it.

If you ask for his ruling, I think you might be better off doing the exact opposite of whatever he says... Past experience suggests that would be the better choice.

Janthkin wrote:Except your flowchart COULD begin with "Does the model have Eternal Warrior?" If yes - skip the ID check; if no - check the ID check. If a model is immune to ID, we don't invoke any of its provisions, INCLUDING the "S >= 2xT" check.

Agree

Beast wrote:

If you ask for his ruling, I think you might be better off doing the exact opposite of whatever he says... Past experience suggests that would be the better choice.

Point taken, but this guy is pretty much on the ball. The few other past GW managers though, I would agree.

Nurglitch wrote:Not if we're going to represent how Feel No Pain and Instant Death share that initial condition of being wounded by a weapon that has a Strength double or more the model's Toughness.

sorry but you keep insisting that EW says, "immune to the EFFECTS of the ID rule" but no it doesnt
it says that "Is immune to the instant death rule" blocking the the ID rule as a whole. so yeah fnp still happens.
since EW is IMMUNE to the instant death RULE and not the instant death EFFECTS.

enmitee wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Not if we're going to represent how Feel No Pain and Instant Death share that initial condition of being wounded by a weapon that has a Strength double or more the model's Toughness.

sorry but you keep insisting that EW says, "immune to the EFFECTS of the ID rule" but no it doesnt
it says that "Is immune to the instant death rule" blocking the the ID rule as a whole. so yeah fnp still happens.
since EW is IMMUNE to the instant death RULE and not the instant death EFFECTS.

The Chaos version of the rules says immune to the rule, the Elder version says immune to the effect.

It's the same thing insofar as the Instant Death rule is concerned. Eternal Warrior makes a model immune to (the effects of) Instant Death, not immune to weapons with a Strength twice or more its Toughness. Immunity to a rule makes a model immune to the effects of that rule, not its conditions for taking effect.

After this long and much debate, I think its confusing enough to require a FAQ from GW before anybody will be silent about it (and even then who knows who won't make a fuss!). I know that this probably isn't a statistically relevant sub-section of the gaming community but if 75 odd people are 50/50 I think it should be diced for in a tourney. Although this should be cleared up in 5th edition with the rumoured clarification in the Feel No Pain USR.

In the mean time it makes sense for our group to play it as them receiving no feel no pain roll to shots twice their toughness as the other interpretation doesn't seem instinctual or RAI to us.

60/40 is the new 50/50?

it makes a model immune to suffering the effects of Instant Death.

One of the effects of "instant death" as noted above is that FNP rolls can not be used against it. The part of the rule is in the FNP wording but it is still an effect of instant death.

If a model is immune to the effects of Instant Death then all effects from it are ignored, including the negation of FNP.

Except that Feel No Pain is not an effect of the Instant Death rule. The only effect listed in the text on the Instant Death rule is the affected model being removed from the board as a casualty.

One condition that negates Feel No Pain is the wound being caused by a weapon that inflicts Instant Death, that has a Strength value twice or more the model's Toughness value.

As I have shown using two diagrams, a derivation of the rules and a flowchart of the rules, the Feel No Pain rule is not conditional upon the Instant Death rule.

These rules are concurrent and share the condition of being wounded by something that has a Strength value twice or more the model's Toughness value.

Hence being immune to the Instant Death rule does not make the model's Feel No Pain roll categorical.

So yes, actually, the fact that the part of the rule, one condition for negating the Feel No Pain roll, is part of the Feel No Pain rule, and not the Instant Death rule, means that Feel No Pain is not an effect of Instant Death.

Nurglitch wrote:60/40 is the new 50/50?

As I said its a statistically small portion of the community...

Close enough to it that you'd dice for it, or phone a friend

No one is saying Feel no Pain is an effect of Instant Death... not sure where you got that from.

What is being said is cause and effect.

Effect=the negation of or inability to use Feel No Pain.

Cause=wound causing Instant Death.

Cause and effect. This cannot be denied. The effect caused by ID is that one cannot use Feel No Pain on that wound. If one is immune to ID then there is no cause to the effect and thusly the model gets it's FNP roll.

FYI this came up with the old Slaanesh Combat Drugs providing the ability to shrug off a wound per turn, combined with the 'no instant death' wargear causing even a high strength hit to be irrelevant.

GW ruled then it was a legal combination, and as Yak (correctly) points out you cannot negate a special rule with a special rule that has itself been negated by another special rule.

You have played GW games before, right? This is how they work, fellas.

Now if it was a S10 hit in CC that did not have the power weapon effect, you'd get to FNP it. Currently only Ork Tankhammers have this effect, but it is another example.

DaIronGob:

You said: "One of the effects of "instant death" as noted above is that FNP rolls can not be used against it."

So yes, you are in fact saying that negating Feel No Pain is an effect of Instant Death.

But let's talk about "cause and effect", or more accurately when talking of rules: "conditions and effects".

What does the text of the rule say?

[quote=Feel No Pain]This ability cannot be used against weapons that inflict Instant Death (those with a Strength double or more the model's Toughness) or against close combat weapons that allow no Armour Save (such as power fists, powers swords, Dreadnought close combat weapons, rending attacks that roll a 6 to hit, etc).

Was there a point? I see 10 lines of nurgibberish and no point.

Please use laymans english not attempted hoighty toighty nurgibberish, so when someone actually reads your posts they don't wander away wondering just wtf it was that guy said.

I think you said FNP is removed by a double toughness hit which for demons is incorrect, but I really can't tell.

So what's giving you trouble with your reading-comprehension, Stelek? Anything you'd like explained?

Nurglitch wrote: Eternal Warrior makes a model immune to (the effects of) Instant Death...

Wow dude, you don't get to ADD WORDS to the RAW just to win an argument. The fact that you went that far to prove a point (and fail, I might add) is jusr vindication for everyone who disagrees with you.

PS: I went to Cali for three days and you guys couldn't let it drop??? lol

Who's adding words? We've established that being immune to the effects of Instant Death is the same thing as being immune to Instant Death. If it makes you more comfortable, I can edit "(the effects of)" out of my post.

Nurglich is right.

In order for an immunity to become utilized a target must first be inflicted with whatever the immunity protects against. The triggering situation still occurs, it just has no effect. A model with EW can still have ID inflicted upon it, it just doesn't die. That same model would be stripped of the benefits of FNP.

A bullet can be lethal (ID).
A cop has a bulletproof vest (EW).
The cop also has a life insurance policy that is voided if he ever gets shot (FNP).

He gets shot by a hood. His vest rendered him immune to the bullet but he still loses his insurance coverage.

Nurgibberish always throws me off.

I don't understand your point(s) since you don't clearly state them.

Here's an example of clearly stating a point:

Feel No Pain on Demons works against all non-power weapon hits inflicted regardless of source or strength.

Have a nice day!

Hilarious. You had 'instant death' inflicted but you didn't...sorry, did you fail...boy did you ever.

Stelek:

I think I can see what's confusing you.

I was not stating a point, I was explaining how the conclusion I've reach is correct, given the text of the rules and their logic.

In addition, I also explained how the opposite conclusion is incorrect and what sort of mistake is involved in reaching that conclusion.

This is what is called a constructive discussion of rules.

Instead of simply stating your own conclusion and then churlishly mocking other people's opinions, a constructive discussion involves offering an explanation of your own position, and offering analysis of dissenting positions in an effort to decide the truth of the matter.

Arstahd:

That's an apt analogy.

Guh. I can't handle the nurgibberish, there's a whole paragraph of uselessness.

yakface wrote:
The people who are voting 'no' here are playing as though the FNP rule reads something like:

"Feel No Pain cannot be used against attacks that would cause instant death".


That IS NOT what the rule actually says. If the wound inflicts instant death, then FNP cannot be used.

Does a S10 hit vs. a Beat of Nurgle (T5, 2W) actually inflict instant death on the model?

Of course it doesn't.

If someone tried to deny the beast of Nurgle his FNP save against such a wound what would be the rationale? That the beast suffered instant death but then ignored that effect?

That isn't what the FNP rules say! If instant death is not "inflicted" on the model, then the FNP save may be used.

Wow. Four pages in this thread and yak made the right call way back on page one.... I think Nurglitch, et al, are trying to pull meaning out of the rule's wording that just isn't there... Yak's reasoning and justification are the only ones, as I see it, that take the rule interactions correctly into consideration.

Cheers.

Beast:

Could you show us how Yakface's reasoning and justification is the only reasoning and justification that takes the rule interactions correctly into consideration?

Sure... Re-read his posts in this thread. You are probably smarter than me and I was able to grasp his clear reasoning. I have read your reasoning and I understand your view (despite the pain your syntax creates in my brain), but your position requires us to make assumptions and inferences about what is in the wording of the rules (aka RAI) and their interactions. Yak's position does not require this- it only requires us to look at what is actually written (RAW). I do admit that in order to accept yak's point, you must adhere to standard dictionary definitions, which is something people don't always want to do...

Beast:

Let me re-phrase my question: Could you please show us how Yakface's reasoning is clear, accurately reflects the rules and their interactions, and requires only what is stated in the text of the rules.

I would like to add a request: Could you please show us how my reasoning is unclear, how it twists the rules and misrepresents their interactions, and how it goes beyond what is stated in the text of the rules?

I mean I've read Yakface's posts, and haven't found his argument to be as you've described it. Naturally I'd like to understand what I'm missing about Yakface's reasoning. I'd appreciate some explanation so that I can connect the dots, so to speak.

I can't show yak's reasoning any better than he did the first time around.

Your second request: Open a dictionary as you read the rules in question here and then follow along with yak's reasoning, looking up each word as you go (then do the same with yours)... In addition, you might want to have a Strunk and White's next to you as well... The rules were, admittedly written by Brits, but their version of English is not so different from ours... Your metaphoric dots are not difficult to connect, you just can't be predisposed to one view before you start. If you haven't found his point to be correct, then I suspect you are already pre-disposed to a different interpretation...

I actually would rather your view be the case, as I stated much earlier, but yak's point is actually the one that is supported by the rules (when using standard English defintions). Again, I can't lay it out any better than he did... Simple and succinct, clear and concise.

Beast:

I'm not asking you to restate Yakface's reasoning, I'm asking you to explain why it is correct.

I've explained why I think it is incorrect, and would like a hand from someone spotting what I'm apparently missing.

yakface wrote:
The people who are voting 'no' here are playing as though the FNP rule reads something like:

"Feel No Pain cannot be used against attacks that would cause instant death".


That IS NOT what the rule actually says. If the wound inflicts instant death, then FNP cannot be used.

Does a S10 hit vs. a Beat of Nurgle (T5, 2W) actually inflict instant death on the model?

Of course it doesn't.

This is the crux of the arguement. I DO believe that a S10 hit would inflict ID on the above Beast of Nurgle.

Inflict means: to impose, to deal, to lay upon <usually something negative>. The Beast is still being dealt a S10 hit. A S10 hit imposes ID upon a target with T5 or less. The Beast has just had ID inflicted upon it. Now the immunity granted by EW can kick in preventing the Beast from being removed as a casualty, provided it still has wounds left. FNP is left in the lurch because while EW granted immunity from ID, ID still occured.


The polio vaccine grants immunity to polio to Johnny. Johnny is coughed on by some unfortunate who has polio. The polio virus enters Johnny's lungs and bloodstream. His boosted antibodies prevent him from contracting the disease and all is well.

Polio was still inflicted upon Johnny, he just didn't suffer ill effects from it.

The polio vaccine grants immunity to polio to Johnny. Johnny is coughed on by some unfortunate who has polio. The polio virus enters Johnny's lungs and bloodstream. His boosted antibodies prevent him from contracting the disease and all is well.

Polio was still inflicted upon Johnny, he just didn't suffer ill effects from it

No polio was not inflicted as there were no effects since Johnny was immune. It was never inflicted it was merely thrown at Johnny. Johnny never suffered any ill effects from it therefore how would one even KNOW if he was inflicted if he never has it?

Same thing with the bullet analogy. The officer was not shot, the vest was. Not too mention that analogy is severely comparing apples to oranges and requires the reader to make giant assumptive leaps in that the Insurance company would have to somehow find out....

The bullet was shot at the officer but he was immune to the bullet due to the wearing of the vest. He then felt none of the effects of the bullet (blood loss, organ failure, death). You are also asking the reader to assume that the officer's vest stopping the bullet is equal to the insurance company's definition of "being shot". If the bullet struck a wall the officer was hiding behind he was also be immune to that bullet and would then not be "inflicted" with any of the bullet's effects. Same as the vest.

Your analogies support Yak's position more than Nurglitch's. Immunity = no effects suffered.

You said: "One of the effects of "instant death" as noted above is that FNP rolls can not be used against it."

So yes, you are in fact saying that negating Feel No Pain is an effect of Instant Death.

Yes but my response was to you saying

Except that Feel No Pain is not an effect of the Instant Death rule.

in which you are claiming that someone is saying that FNP is an effect of Instant Death which is what is NOT being said. Read your own english my friend. What is being said is FNP is EFFECTED by Instant Death. The FNP rule is EFFECTED by Instant death, that cannot be denied.

DaIronGob:

Actually, denying that the Feel No Pain rule is affected by the Instant Death rule is precisely what I am doing.

The question is how, exactly.

The effect is this: If a weapon inflicts a wound satisfying the conditions of the Instant Death rule, such that it has a Strength twice or more the wounded model's Toughness, then that model does not get a Feel No Pain roll.

The Feel No Pain rule does not say that: This ability cannot be used against weapons that inflict Instant Death (those where the model is killed outright and removed as a casualty). Instead, the Feel No Pain says that: This ability cannot be used against weapons that inflict Instant Death (those with a Strength double or more the model's Toughness).

The Instant Death rule says that if a creature is wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater and fail their save, then they are killed outright and removed as a casualty.

Obviously the Instant Death rule, like the Feel No Pain rule, has two parts: the condition(s) and the effect. The condition of the Instant Death rule is being wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater and fail their save. The effect of the Instant Death rule is being killed outright and being removed as a casualty.

The Feel No Pain rule specifies that it is negated by the condition of Instant Death. It cannot be used against weapons with a Strength double or more the model's Toughness.

Now, reading my own English, as you suggest, it seems that where I am claimed that Feel No Pain is not an effect of the Instant Death rule, I did in fact mean that the Feel No Pain rule is not affected by the Instant Death rule. I argued that they share a condition, that they are concurrent rules (as shown in the flowchart that I provided), and that as such a rule that specifically affects Instant Death is irrelevant to Feel No Pain.

After all, if Eternal Warrior made a model immune to the Instant Death rule, then it would not be the case that a creature could be killed outright and removed as a casualty when wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater (and fail their save).

It follows that if it is not the case that a creature could be killed outright, then it may still be the case that a model is denied a Feel No Pain roll when wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater or by a close combat weapon that denies an armour save.

Clearly, to be immune to the Instant Death rule is to be immune to its effect. Likewise, to be immune to the Instant Death rule is not to be immune to having a model's Feel No Pain roll denied.

DaIronGob wrote:

The polio vaccine grants immunity to polio to Johnny. Johnny is coughed on by some unfortunate who has polio. The polio virus enters Johnny's lungs and bloodstream. His boosted antibodies prevent him from contracting the disease and all is well.

Polio was still inflicted upon Johnny, he just didn't suffer ill effects from it

No polio was not inflicted as there were no effects since Johnny was immune. It was never inflicted it was merely thrown at Johnny. Johnny never suffered any ill effects from it therefore how would one even KNOW if he was inflicted if he never has it?

In order for the vaccine to have any effect, the polio must be in the bloodstream. If there is polio in the bloodstream the target has obviously been inflicted with polio. The fact that the target has been immunized does not in any way prevent a virus from entering the body, it just changes what happens afterwards.


How can an immunity trigger without the target of the immunity first being present? Simple, it can't.

EW immunizes against ID. It doesn't prevent the ID condition from happening, it just changes what happens when it does.

DeathGod wrote:Re-reading this thread always ALWAYS makes me laugh. Nurglitch's reasoning is the same fallacious reasoning that gets us things like Inappropriate political commentary/opinion deleted. Neither of which are in the United States RAW.

Haha, nothing like showing your political colors, huh? I've disagreed with Nurglitch, but to his credit his reasoning tends to be much better than what typically comes out of the Court, and that's a critique of both sides of the political spectrum.

But the Constitution was written with intended ambiguity, so RAW might not be the appropriate tool for the job. (Not wanting to derail this thread.)

DaIronGob wrote:Same thing with the bullet analogy. The officer was not shot, the vest was. Not too mention that analogy is severely comparing apples to oranges and requires the reader to make giant assumptive leaps in that the Insurance company would have to somehow find out....

The bullet was shot at the officer but he was immune to the bullet due to the wearing of the vest. He then felt none of the effects of the bullet (blood loss, organ failure, death). You are also asking the reader to assume that the officer's vest stopping the bullet is equal to the insurance company's definition of "being shot". If the bullet struck a wall the officer was hiding behind he was also be immune to that bullet and would then not be "inflicted" with any of the bullet's effects. Same as the vest.

I like the bullet analogy.

The "bulletproof" vest prevents the bullet (and only the bullet) from penetrating the skin, in much the same way that Eternal Warrior prevents Instant Death from causing any effects. It is a limited effect, but no matter how good the vest is, it cannot stop the immutable laws of physics, which state that, "for any action, there must be an equal and opposite reaction", in much the same way that FNP will be negated by Instant Death.

So yeah, the officer was shot, and the vest prevented *some* effects, but it is not possible for the vest to prevent *all* effects, because reality intervenes.

And FWIW, if you actually look into "bulletproof" vests and body armour, you'd find that physics is pretty good stuff. It causes a lot of blunt force trauma - i.e. impact damage. If I give you a MIL-SPEC bulletproof vest, stand you up against a concrete wall, and empty an couple clips from an AK-47 into you full-auto, point-blank that bulletproof vest may stop every bullet. But you will almost certainly die from the impact of those 7.62mm rounds because each round is going to be like a heavyweight champ swinging an aluminum baseball bat into your chest. And I stood you against that concrete wall because it has no give, just to make sure that your bones and internal organs absorb every bit of impact. I'd figure that 2 clips contain enough kinetic energy to break most of your ribs, collapsing both lungs; the broken ribs would do a helluva a number on your internal organs, BTW. Best case, you survive the initial shooting, receive medical attention, but die of sepsis. But hey, at least you had the bulletproof vest to prevent any of those bullets from breaking the skin...

Nurglitch wrote:Who's adding words? We've established that being immune to the effects of Instant Death is the same thing as being immune to Instant Death. If it makes you more comfortable, I can edit "(the effects of)" out of my post.

You may have established it in your mind, but that does not make it true or correct in terms of RAW.

I re-read back again to maybe see where Nurglitch (et al.) is confused. This quote is revealing... Being immune to the Instand Death rule is NOT exactly the same thing as being immune to the effects of instant death. There is a subtle difference. The first means you do not even consider the Instant Death rule for the unit/model in question- ever (no conditions, inter-actions, effects, etc). The second means that you do apply the Instant Death rule, but you ignore the effects of it... A subtle but very important distinction...

Where this comes into play here is that if a Daemon (T5 and immune to the ID RULE) is wounded by a S10 weapon, it will take a wound as normal, but treat that wound just like any other (this allows the FNP rule to come into play). The Daemon is wounded but the conditions and effects of ID rule are never considered. He can then make a FNP roll just as he would from a lasgun, bolter, etc.

Beast:

First, I'd like to thank you for staying on topic, and posting in a mature and constructive manner.

That said, I'd like to point out that when I say "We've established that being immune to the effects of Instant Death is the same thing as being immune to Instant Death" I mean that I've given a proof that being immune to the Instant Death rule is the same as being immune to the effect of that rule.

Let me repeat it: Since being immune to both the conditions and the effect leads to the bizarre situation of models being immune to weapons that inflict instant death, such as a Demolisher Cannon being unable to wound Feugan, for example, being immune to the Instant Death rule does not make a model immune to both its effects and conditions.

Even if we ignore the entire Instant Death rule, the text of the Feel No Pain rule still requires that the Feel No Pain roll be lost when the model is wounded by a weapon with a Strength double or more the model's Toughness.

Therefore, if a Daemon with T5 W2 Sv5++ and the Eternal Warrior and Feel No Pain rules is wounded by a S10 weapon, it will take a wound if it fails its invulnerable saving throw as per the normal rules for wounding.

Now, the wound satisfies the condition of the Instant Death rule, but the Daemon has Eternal Warrior. If Eternal Warrior means that the model is immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule, then it is not removed as a casualty since it has a wound left. If Eternal Warrior means that the model is immune to the Instant Death ruel, then it is not removed as a casualty since it has a wound left. Either way, the model is left on the table with 1 wound remaining.

The wound also satisfies a condition for denying the Daemon its Feel No Pain roll, being made by something that inflicts Instant Death such as those weapons with a Strength double or more the model's Toughness. The player cannot negate the wound on a 1D6 roll of 4+.

Being immune to Instant Death does not mean the model is immune to weapons with a Strength double or more its Toughness.

FNP only looks to see if the weapon inflicts ID, not if ID actually occurs

Ah!!! Now, I see what your point is Nurglitch. In all of your previous posts, I couldn't pull out your essential meaning (I need things explained a bit more simply than you normally post). Not sure I agree with you yet- I still think Yak has the strongest argument, but now I will go back with your reasoning and look again at the rules in question...

So how about this example.

Person A and Person B both work in an industrial facility. Person A who is a firm believer in following the Rules, always wears his hard hat. Person B who feels the rules are merely suggestions decides the hard hat will give him hat hair and so does not wear one.

Both of them are walking in the facility when a co-worker slips and knocks a bucket of tools over and 2 identical wrenches fall over 50ft and strike both Person A and Person B in the head.

Now to draw similarities here lets say the hard hat represents feel no pain. The falling wrench becomes a S10 hit. Each of the people have T5. The hard hat has a property that will protect the wearer from falling object and prevent brain damage.

Now when the wrenches hit both people the one who has the helmet will most likely walk away from this incident with little to no damage to his head but still be able to shrug off the blow. Where as the one who did not wear the hard hat is now a vegetable.

This is a good way to look at this.

Also by RAW Yak is 100% correct. There is nothing that can dispute that fact in the rules.

Being subject to the normal rules for wounding and being subject to ID are separate.

A weapon with twice the T of the target can wound, and it can also cause ID.

A model with EW is immune to the effects of ID. (under this version of the rules - no fifth ed. is covered here, and those rules may be different.)

A model with FnP and EW therefore is immune to ID. Therefore, a hit from a weapon of twice the target's toughness is simply that; a hit. Roll to wound and save as normal. Then, FnP applies; since the hit is a hit, and nothing more, that is where the discussion ends.

Nurglitch & crew; you can easily see that your logic has gone astray when you are contemplating a position that EW makes a model immune to 2x str. weapons; that is not the point, and has no relevance at all.

Also, Nurglitch & Crew; your position reminds me of the bizarre, though oddly common, misconception that ID removes armor saves. a hit from a 2x strength weapon causes ID normally (unless there is an exception) and also can wound; but that 2x strength hit, by itself, and when you ignore the ID rule, does not magically morph into some other form of hit, with different and unique characteristics.

I am a little scared by the results of the poll, frankly. As pointed out by Yak, Negativemoney, etc., there is zero question about how this should be played, under the current rules.

Same thing with the bullet analogy. The officer was not shot, the vest was. Not too mention that analogy is severely comparing apples to oranges and requires the reader to make giant assumptive leaps in that the Insurance company would have to somehow find out....

The bullet was shot at the officer but he was immune to the bullet due to the wearing of the vest. He then felt none of the effects of the bullet (blood loss, organ failure, death). You are also asking the reader to assume that the officer's vest stopping the bullet is equal to the insurance company's definition of "being shot". If the bullet struck a wall the officer was hiding behind he was also be immune to that bullet and would then not be "inflicted" with any of the bullet's effects. Same as the vest.

This argument is invalidated but Kinetics.

A given vest is rated to halt penetration of a maximum caliber round. A vest rated to stop a 10mm round will still stop a .22 caliber round as it is smaller than the rating. However, the kinetic difference between a 10mm and a .22 is huge.

At close range, with a 10mm rated vest, a shot from a .22 may be felt but only mildly. A 10mm, however, would still knock a person down from the kinetic force. Knockdown is an effect of the shot fired. A hit in the right place may even cause temporary loss of consciousness.

The vest does not stop the knockdown effect.

Applying this to the discussion, there are two factors I dont remember seeing.
1) A weapon with a strength higher than the toughness of the model, as I recall, denies any but invulnerable saves. Fail that save and the model takes a wound..... At least One.
2) As I recall, Demons are NOT Space Marines, And Chaos Mairnes are NOT Demons. Thus the rules for one may not apply to another.

Of course, I have not seen anything concerning 5th ed rules. They may now be considering Chaos Marines to be demons and associated demons to be Chaos Marines.

helgrenze wrote:

Applying this to the discussion, there are two factors I dont remember seeing.
1) A weapon with a strength higher than the toughness of the model, as I recall, denies any but invulnerable saves. Fail that save and the model takes a wound..... At least One.

Huh?? Are you sure you're not getting AP and Weapon Strength mixed up here? There's nothing that says a weapon with a ST higher than the target's Toughness denies a save.

helgrenze wrote:

Same thing with the bullet analogy.

This argument is invalidated but Kinetics.

A given vest is rated to halt penetration of a maximum caliber round. A vest rated to stop a 10mm round will still stop a .22 caliber round as it is smaller than the rating.

Knockdown is an effect of the shot fired. A hit in the right place may even cause temporary loss of consciousness.

The vest does not stop the knockdown effect.

Agreed.

Also, vests are rated not so much by caliber per se but by round / energy, as caliber isn't a very good measure. After all, M16 rifle fires a ".22 caliber" round (OK, it's actually .223). So while a .22 handgun (about 50 ft-lb / 70J) is much less than a 10mm Auto (about 650 ft-lb / 900J), that .223 M16 round (around 1300 ft-lb / 1800J) is like an AK-47 round with twice the powr of a 10mm Auto.


Knockdown can be amazingly bad. If I have a shotgun loaded with "non-lethal" SWAT beanbags, and I blast you point-blank, the impact shock is very likely to knock you out, vest or no vest.

Firing a tank cannon at a person wearing a flak vest will cause ID. I don't think that line of discussion is a good analogy.

While this discussion of the mechanics of being shot is pretty interesting, I think it exposes a definite weakness of analogical with regard to arguments about rules.

Instead of clarifying or exposing some property of the rules in question, they distract and obscure the matter at hand by introducing extraneous and irrelevant information.

Shall we get back to talking about the following rules?

Feel No Pain
This ability cannot be used against weapons that inflict Instant Death (those with a Strength double or more the model's Toughness) or against close combat weapons that allow no Armour Save (such as power fists, powers swords, Dreadnought close combat weapons, rending attacks that roll a 6 to hit, etc).

Instant Death!
If a creature is wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater and fail their save, they are killed outright and removed as a casualty.

Eternal Warriors Codex: Eldar
Phoenix Lords can never truly be destroyed, and are hence immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule.

Eternal Warrior Codex: Chaos Daemons
Every model in the Army has the Eternal Warrior universal special rule (see the Warhammer 40,000 rule book) and is therefore immune to Instant Death.

Eternal Warrior Codex: Chaos Space Marines
A Daemon Prince is immune to the Instant Death rule.

Antonin wrote:A model with EW is immune to the effects of ID. (under this version of the rules - no fifth ed. is covered here, and those rules may be different.)

A model with FnP and EW therefore is immune to ID. Therefore, a hit from a weapon of twice the target's toughness is simply that; a hit. Roll to wound and save as normal. Then, FnP applies; since the hit is a hit, and nothing more, that is where the discussion ends.

Wrong. Just because the model is immune doesn't mean that ID never happened. In fact ID must first have occured for there to be anything to be immune to.

Antonin wrote:
Nurglitch & crew; you can easily see that your logic has gone astray when you are contemplating a position that EW makes a model immune to 2x str. weapons; that is not the point, and has no relevance at all.

Nurglitch was only pointing out a hole in your camp's line of reasoning. ID is defined as a hit with S x2 T or greater. Your camp states that a model with EW can ignore ID as if it never happened. Well if ID never happened, and ID = a hit with S 2x T or greater, then by that same reasoning a hit with S 2x T or greater never happened.

Antonin wrote:I am a little scared by the results of the poll, frankly. As pointed out by Yak, Negativemoney, etc., there is zero question about how this should be played, under the current rules.

I'm more scared by the fact that while more than half of the people polled favor my take on the rules, you and others can come to the preposterous conclusion that "there is zero question about how this should be played".

Nurglitch wrote:
Shall we get back to talking about the following rules?

Eternal Warriors
Phoenix Lords can never truly be destroyed, and are hence immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule.

Isn't that the wrong codex? The codex actually being discussed doesn't even have anything remotely close to actual information regarding RAW, as the 5th ed rules aren't out. Unless you're claiming a rule from the Eldar codex is the same as a USR in 5th edition, I think that's a pointless argument to make. There's even the discrepancy in the naming (singular and plural) between the two rules. The entire discussion on what exactly the rules say is about as informative as trying to argue how to properly make a toughness test for Boon of Mutation.

It's obvious that you've been arguing on rules written outside of the codex, which doesn't really have much merit. If you strictly went by RAW, I think you can look at the 40k rulebook and see there isn't an actual eternal warrior USR. I don't think you can have any reasonable discussion other than what you think might be an appropriate way to play the rule until 5th ed comes out. Using the ruling from the Eldar codex is an alternative, but there are other rules with different wordings.

Traskel:

The rule from the Daemon Codex is somewhere in this thread. We've established that the rule in the Daemon Codex and the Eldar Codex are the same rule, and that being immune to Instant Death is the same thing as being immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule.

To make you more comfortable, I'll dig through the thread to find the quote from the Daemon Codex and substitute it for the Eldar rule.

Nurglitch wrote:Traskel:

The rule from the Daemon Codex is somewhere in this thread. We've established that the rule in the Daemon Codex and the Eldar Codex are the same rule, and that being immune to Instant Death is the same thing as being immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule.

To make you more comfortable, I'll dig through the thread to find the quote from the Daemon Codex and substitute it for the Eldar rule.

Every model in the army has the Eternal Warrior universal special rule (see the Warhammer 40,000 rule book) and is therefore immune to Instant Death.

I agree that it means the model is immune to Instant Death, but you anything more than that is just speculation. The actual wording in the rulebook could be more specific, and give actual insight into this ruling (or it could do nothing), but anything else is just speculation. Given the fact that there isn't actual an Eternal Warrior USR, is it even logical to say they're immune to ID if that rule doesn't currently exist?

Traskel:

Well, we have all the relevant rules cited in this thread, and they're specific enough (or not, depending on one's view of dissenting opinions...).

If the old 5th edition rumoured .pdf is anything to go by, it's a moot point because Eternal Warrior is specifically mentioned in the Feel No Pain rule of that document.

As for speculation, so long as we don't go beyond deductive certainty in our speculations they won't be any less true than the facts on the page.

Nurglitch wrote:Traskel:
If the old 5th edition rumored .pdf is anything to go by, it's a moot point because Eternal Warrior is specifically mentioned in the Feel No Pain rule of that document.

That's based on a rumor though, and there have been numerous changes to things both within the pdfs and otherwise. Strictly looking at it, the other immune to instant death rules are pointless in the context of the discussion. Without specifically knowing the eternal warrior USR, how can you claim to know specifically how the rules will interact?

What if the 5th edition rumored ruling for FNP said the exact opposite (that models with EW always get a FNP)? No matter how you do it, you're looking at the rule out of context.

Traskel:

From my perspective, from what I'd like to call a purely formal perspective, all of the Eternal Warrior rules cited are the same rule: They negated the Instant Death rule, not the Feel No Pain exceptions.

I can claim to know specifically how the rules will interact because the rules are very simple and their interactions can be mapped using a variety of deductively valid methods ranging from flow-charts to derivations. These methods will ensure that the truth of any conclusion will reflect the truth of the premises inputted into them.

Whatever the rules for the 5th edition will be, right now we're talking about how the rules work in the 4th edition, and we have sufficient information to make that determination.

But the only way they get the ability to being immune to Instant Death is a result of having the Eternal Warrior USR. There's nothing saying that's the only result of having the Eternal Warrior USR.

You're making assumptions about how to play it in 4th edition. There are things in the Chaos Daemons codex that cannot possibly be played according to RAW. This includes the Eternal Warrior USR, Boon of Mutation, and Aura of Acquiescence.

It's nice that you can assume things and make flow charts. I'm sure they help you understand simple rules. It doesn't change the fact that you're assuming how 5th edition rules will work in a 4th edition rules set.

Given that the rule described by texts of Eternal Warrior is the same in each case, and these texts are part of the 4th edition, there's quite good reason to say that being immune to Instant Death is the only result of having the Eternal Warrior rule. Because that's what each version of the rule states. Moreover the Codex: Daemon version not only refers to the universal special rule, it reiterates that rule.

Since we have three versions of the Eternal Warrior rule that agree on its substance, we need not make any assumptions about how to play it in 4th edition: we need only make deductions.

Which is what the diagrams (including the flow chart) are about, they represent the reasoning by which we can deduce how the Eternal Warrior rule works in combination with the 4th edition Instant Death and Feel No Pain rules. Where this reasoning in represented by some deductively adequate method or system, we can check to see whether any conclusion follows from the cited rules with deductive validity.

The flowchart only works if you think that you can be affected by instant death but not affected by its effect(huh?). This is pretty much rules lawyering and word twisting in the extreme.

DeathGod wrote:Re-reading this thread always ALWAYS makes me laugh. Nurglitch's reasoning is the same fallacious reasoning that gets us things like Inappropriate political commentary/opinion deleted Neither of which are in the United States RAW.

At the risk of veering into politics...the comparison is flawed. Because the 40K rules are a permissive set of rules. The Constitution isn't.

Kallbrand:

I think that's a misrepresentation. The flow chart I provided made the distinction between a condition for Instant Death and the effect of Instant Death. Something inflicts Instant Death, it has a Strength double or more the Toughness of the wounded model, and the effect is the model is removed as a casualty.

More to the point, Eternal Warrior either makes a model immune to the effect of Instant Death, in which case it is not removed as a casualty, or it makes that model immune to Instant Death, in which case it is not removed as a casualty.

Either way being immune to Instant Death does not make a Feel No Pain role categorical.

The flow chart simply pictures where Instant Death and Feel No Pain overlap, and where they don't.

Ok.. I think this is a point some are missing...

Instant Death!
If a creature is wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater and fail their save, they are killed outright and removed as a casualty.

In order for this rule to be enacted, a condition causing a Save must occur. And what causes the need for a save?
Taking a hit that causes at least one wound.

Is this not correct? You roll to hit.
Roll to wound.
THEN your opponant makes his Saves.

If he makes it, fine no wounds taken.
If he FAILS..... then the rule for EW would come into play.

Since a wound would have to be "inflicted" to cause a Save, and A failed save would cause Instant Death to be applied, Then ...

Feel No Pain
This ability cannot be used against weapons that inflict Instant Death (those with a Strength double or more the model's Toughness)

Nurglitch wrote:
I think that's a misrepresentation. The flow chart I provided made the distinction between a condition for Instant Death and the effect of Instant Death. Something inflicts Instant Death, it has a Strength double or more the Toughness of the wounded model, and the effect is the model is removed as a casualty.

"Instant Death" is a rule that has a connotation associated with its name. This is established both by the definition of the words used in the title and by the description provided by the rules themselves. That connotation is that the model is actually being instantly killed.

A model which suffers instant death is therefore "dead" and removed as a casualty; hence the name of the special rule.

It is categorically impossible to say that death was inflicted upon something that is still alive.

A model that is not removed due to the instant death rule has not had "instant death" inflicted upon him any more than a bullet aimed at a person's heart that is stopped by a bullet-proof vest has had death inflicted upon them.



And Nurglitch, while I respect your healthy love for debate the fact remains that true consensus on many rules disagreements is essentially an impossibility. The fact that the 5th edition rules seem to fully answer this particular question it is perfectly reasonable, IMHO, to call for an end to the discussion pending the quickly approaching revision of the game rules.

Yakface:

Consensus is irrelevant to truth, fortunately. In any discussion with an objective answer, such as this one, it is more reasonable to get to the bottom of things than to stifle debate where we have the time and leisure to discuss things. If you wish to end the discussion, then you should lock the thread.

Onto the Instant Death rule. The Instant Death rule says:

"If a creature is wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater and fail their save, they are killed outright and removed as a casualty."

This sentence expresses a conditional, it denotes that if some condition, then some effect. The condition is being wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater and fail their save. If a model suffers this condition, the effect is that it is removed as a casualty (unless it is an Eternal Warrior...).

Given that Instant Death is the name given to this conditional in the game rules, we get a counter-intuitive situation where Eternal Warrior is concerned: A weapon inflicts Instant Death on a model, and the model survives. Notice the equivocation between the condition of the rule, and the name of the entire rule.

To say that a model suffered the condition of Instant Death, and was not killed outright and removed as a casualty, is quite reasonable when there is a rule in play such as Eternal Warrior that makes a model immune to certain effects where certain conditions apply.

Furthermore, to say that a model gets its Feel No Pain roll, despite the wound meeting at least one condition of negating that roll, because it is immune to the Instant Death rule, is unreasonable where the Feel No Pain rule is not conditional upon the Instant Death rule and merely shares a condition.

That is, of course, where we are concerned merely with the structure of the rules in question, and what structures the text of the rules denote.

I would have to agree with Yak on this one.

The Chaos Deamons codex says that they are Immune to Instant Death. Period. They are Immune to the whole rule. The conditional doesn't apply because the rule doesn't apply.

Furthermore, you can't argue that the model suffers the conditional without suffering the effect without selectively applying sequence to the rules, a sequence that is not given.

But this doesn't matter anyways because soon the issue will be cleared up and the subject will no longer matter.

You know this problem was adressed before like Stelek posted a while back, in the old chaos combat drugs ruling.

If you got hit by a weapon that caused instant death, you couldnt use the ignore first unsaved wound part. But if you got the daemonic rune, becomming immune to instant death the combat drugs worked. This is pretty much the same and was the official ruling.

Mahu:

Yes, I'd already pointed out, several times, that whether you ignore the whole rule or just the effect, you don't ignore the condition that the Instant Death rule shares with Feel No Pain.

One certainly can argue (by the by, the conditional is the whole rule, the condition and the effect) that the model suffers the conditions while not suffering the effect, particularly if some rule such as Eternal Warrior is also in effect.

In fact, logically one must agree that if some condition obtains, but the effect is negated, that the condition is still obtained. To deny this would commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Affirming the consequent goes like this: P1. If A then B, P2. Not B, C. Therefore not A.

That is what people are doing when they argue that because Eternal Warrior makes a model immune to Instant Death, it also makes a model immune to losing its Feel No Pain roll.

They say: If a model is wounded by a weapon that inflicts Instant Death, that model suffers Instant Death. But if a model has Eternal Warrior, then it is immune to Instant Death. Therefore Instant Death is not inflicted on such a model.

Besides the fallacy of affirming the consequent, this argument has several other deficiencies.

It ignores the fact that the Instant Death rule indicates that: "If a model is wounded by something with a Strength value double or more the model's Toughness, then it is removed as a casualty."

Instead, Instant Death seems to be taken to mean either 'whenever a model is wounded by something with a Strength value double or more the model's Toughness' or 'whenever a model is killed instantly and removed as a casualty'.

This reading yields the premise that the Instant Death rule is when something inflicts Instant Death upon a model, that model suffers Instant Death. It follows, in such a situation, that a model cannot have Instant Death inflicted upon it and not suffer from Instant Death.

One reason this reading might be considered reasonable is that there are 'somethings' in the game that inflict Instant Death but do not have a Strength value that can be double or more the model's Toughness. After all, where some weapons inflict Instant Death, and Instant Death is the common nomenclature for a model being immediately removed as a casualty, the application of that manner of speaking to all weapons capable of inflicting Instant Death is a simple mistake.

Another reason why this reading might be considered reasonable is why discussing the matter is important: the fact that there can be disagreement on the matter of three simple rules. As Mahu says, this won't matter in terms of game play if/when the 5th edition of the rules clarifies matters, but it will matter in terms of the ongoing project of YMDC: developing effective community habits for analyzing and resolving disputes involving the rules and their application.

Given the relatively even division in numbers between groups of disputants, it is clear that there are at least two different ways of reading the rules. This disagreement in methodology will simply turn up in another thread where it might distract from the topic at hand. Therefore even if everyone agreed on a particular interpretation of the rules, discussion of the hows and whys would be merited so that we could make sure we're not simply all agreeing on the wrong answer.

Nurglitch wrote:Yakface:

Consensus is irrelevant to truth, fortunately. In any discussion with an objective answer, such as this one, it is more reasonable to get to the bottom of things than to stifle debate where we have the time and leisure to discuss things. If you wish to end the discussion, then you should lock the thread.

Consensus maybe be irrelevant to the truth but it is not irrelevant to game play or life in general. You can debate all you like but as many people disagree with you main argument (if they managed to actually read it without wading through some of your unreadable verbose posts of oh why use one word when 4 long ones can be used instead) who is to judge what the truth actually is. If two sides disagree and neither is willing to admit the other is right and disputes their reasoning and evidence then consensus and compromise is what is left.

8 pages later and both sides firmly entrenched holding onto their version of the truth seems quite pointless.

Not all arguments when presented logically give one answer, especially if no-one agrees to the main premise, otherwise there would never be an argument.

fullheadofhair:

There is no doubt I could learn a thing or two from you about the fine art of prose. However, you seemed to have missed my point. Maybe I was too verbose. Let me try again:

When we discuss how the truth is reached, as well as what that truth might be, we have the groundwork for both judging what the truth actually is, and a consensus.

If two sides disagree, and neither is willing to admit that the other is right, then they need to take a step back and discuss the hows and whys of the disagreement.

If it was one hundred pages later, and the disagreement persisted, then it would be all the more important to work on find the truth and resolving the disagreement. We have the time and leisure, and the message board format allows us to keep track of the discussion for reference purposes.

Giving up in the face of mere disagreement is not merely pointless, it's counter-productive since the conversation arose out of disagreement.

Given that I've supplied a version of the opposing opinion, could you suggest what I might have gotten wrong in my presentation and analysis of that argument? Because it would move things along to be able to compare the relative logical merits of the competing arguments, and this discussion requires co-operation (as well as correct method) to be productive.

"it is more reasonable to get to the bottom of things than to stifle debate where we have the time and leisure to discuss things. "

this is lol. sorry but yak's posts are like 1/4 the posts you made and he actually makes more sense. and please? more reasonable when the fact your long arguments and yak's argument will be rather pointless when gw clears things up with an faq etc.

Nurglitch:
I agree that the "No FNP" interpretation most likely follows from RAI and is probably the best way to play it. However, the assertion that it is also RAW is incorrect. The most favorable logical conclusion from RAW is that the rule ambiguous and that there is no clearly correct means of resolving the situation.

I'll try to lay out my argument as concisely as possible.

FNP is denied by weapons that inflict instant death.

Aside from things like wraithcannons, "weapons that inflict instant death" are those that have S twice or more the target's toughness. Thus, aside from things like wraithcannons, the question of whether or not a weapon "inflicts instant death" depends on its target. For example, an AC "inflicts instant death" on a T3 model, but not a T4 model.

Models with the EW rule are immune to/do not suffer the effects of instant death, and thus cannot have ID inflicted upon them. (I'll come back to the part in italics).

Thus, no weapon is a "weapon that inflicts instant death" against a model with EW, just as an AC is not a "weapon that inflicts instant death" against a T4 model. So models with EW get FNP regardless of the strength of the weapon they were wounded by.



All that said, I need to stipulate a couple things. First, I don't think that's the way it was intended to work, and there's clearly some ambiguity to the rule, and so I think it's best to play that such models don't get their FNP save. Second, this argument hinges on the bit above that I put in italics. If that clause doesn't actually follow, then the whole argument falls apart.

To me, the truth of that conclusion is obvious; it follows inarguably from the meanings of "inflict" and "suffer the effects of" (or equivalent phrases). Clearly, you disagree, and I grant that your argument follows from your understanding of the semantics of the wording used. The trouble is that no one here can prove their semantics to be "correct."

That's why we can't all agree on this. This is fundamentally not an argument about rules or logic, but about the semantics of the English language, and language is arbitrary. In this sort of linguistic disagreement, there's no such thing as "truth" since no one can prove that their version of English is "right." The closest thing to truth that one can hope for in these situations is a general consensus amongst a discourse community, and clearly that's not going to happen here. (That's not to say that correct logical conclusions or truth can't exist, just that in this particular case they can't be obtained because different conclusions follow from different semantic models, neither of which can be proven "right").

Bottom line: RAW for this case depends on the reader's understanding of the meaning of the words ("inflicts," etc.), and, in the presence of disagreement as to that meaning, can only be ruled "Ambiguous - Unresolved pending FAQ/5th ed."

Dire Wombat:

I feel that I should try to clear up some miscomunication here. I am not making a "RAI" argument. I am arguing about what the text of the rules states, not what anyone might want it to state.

Firstly, I am not asserting the position that the Feel No Pain roll is negated by the text, I have made an argument to that effect using the text as my premises and the position that the negation of the Feel No Pain roll is the only logical conclusion given the text.

Secondly, the text of the Feel No Pain rule says:

"If a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice."

And:

"This ability cannot be used against weapons that inflict Instant Death (those with a Strength double or more the model's Toughness)"

This means that the Feel No Pain roll is negated when a model is wounded by a weapon that inflicts Instant Death: a weapon that provides the conditions for the Instant Death rule to take effect, either by stipulation or by being a weapon that has a Strength double or more the model's Toughness.

Thirdly, if a model is immune to the effects of Instant Death, then the players do not apply the effects of that rule when the conditions of that rule are met. The conditions are not ignored or negated.

Hence the argument that no weapon provides the conditions for the Instant Death rule when they wound a model with the Eternal Warrior rule, a rule that negates the effect of the Instant Death rule, and that these conditions do not negate the Feel No Pain roll is a fallacious argument.

The fallacy in question is sometimes called the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Where we avoid this fallacy, we get the situation represented earlier in the flow chart I posted: The condition, a weapon having a Strength value double or more the wounded model's Toughness, is a condition shared by two concurrent rules, Instant Death and Feel No Pain.

The presence of the Eternal Warrior rule means that the condition does not trigger the Instant Death effect, since it specifies the Instant Death rule, and the model is not removed as a casualty if it has wounds remaining. Since the Eternal Warrior rule does not change the conditions for Feel No Pain, the model's Feel No Pain roll is negated.

So as you suggest, the italicized bit in your post misrepresents what is actually being described in the text of the rules.

Hmm...

For the sake of discussion, consider the following.

1) A S4 weapon hits and wounds a model with one wound, T4, EW, and FNP.

2) The defending player fails his armor save for that model.

3) FNP applies due to taking a wound from a weapon not classified for Instant Kill due to its strength not being double the models toughness.

4) Player fails his FNP.

5) EW does not apply, though TECHNICALLY the model would be "Instantly Killed" from the above, due to the weapon failing to fall into the classification of an "Instant Kill" weapon.

6) Same player then has a model hit with a S8 weapon, double the T4, bringing the IK rule into play.

7) IK states there must be a FAILED SAVE before removing the model due to Instant Kill.

8) FNP is disallowed due to the rule itself stating it does not work against weapons with a strength double the models toughness.

9) EW applies due to the weapon falling into the classification of being an "Instant Kill Weapon" in this case.

10) This now creates a paradox. The model only has one wound to lose. FNP cannot allow the model to keep going because the IK rule trumps it. EW trumps IK. The Failed save means the model still takes a wound. The model would still be removed because it only had ONE WOUND to lose.

People seem to want to apply EW before FNP, but the IK rule only begins to apply AFTER A FAILED SAVE!
FNP can only be rolled AFTER A FAILED SAVE!

Applying these rules BEFORE the save roll basically translates into single wound model cannot be killed.

A successful save roll negates the entire arguement.

My position is this....
Nearly every weapon can cause a W1 model to be removed after a single wound if saves and FNP rolls are failed.
BUT, NOT ALL weapons meet the conditions of being an "Instant Kill Weapon".
EW cannot save a model with only one wound, if it is hit, wounded, and a failed save is rolled.
FNP DOES NOT apply to wounds done by weapons that meet the requirements for IK.
EW is only effective for models with more than one wound.

From what I have read here, my understanding of the rulebook and the fact I don't have access to the literal wording of the codex for immune special rule. Here's my thoughts...

Feel No Pain: Allows a normal wound to be ignore on 4+
Instant Death: If str is double Tg then model is killed outright regardless of wounds. (inv save allowed)
Immune: Guess this would say "ignores Instant Death rule, duh!"
(we all know it, but thought I'd explain my reasoning)

The special rules page 78? state that you do not get FNP from Instant Death or power weapons.

So as the two rules for FNP and instant death are used in seperate circumstances depending on the weapon fired at them then you would not get FNP when hit with Instant Death or power weapons.

For the immune bit, I can hazard a guess, but as I said, don't have the codex so I'd be blindly making a point without any evidence to back it up.

Hope it helps

Feel No Pain cannot be used against attacks that inflict instant death.

Eternal Warrior daemons are immune to instant death.

To me, here's what the two camps of argument boil down to:

There's a red car sitting outside.

One person says, "this car is red".

The second person says, "No, actually this car is every color *but* red. This car is blue, and orange, and yellow, and magenta, and it is because these colors are absorbed out of the visible spectrum that red is reflected back and gives the exterior the appearance of being red while actually the car is anything but!"

I say bollocks to the second person. The car is red, and a Plaguebearer shot by a demolisher cannon gets two invulnerable saves before taking a wound.

Sourclams, I like how you think.

The book says that Instant Death negates FNP. Daemons don't suffer instant death, so their FNP is unaffacted.

What complicates things is that the rulebook says something along the lines of "blah blah blah not against Instant Death (Weapons with Strength double or more than the model's Toughness)."

So is that ( ) portion just an example/clarification or also a condition for ignoring? If the latter, then they wouldn't get FNP because regardless of whether it causes ID, it's double their toughness.

Nice ...

Think the one in the book would just be a example
Cause for them they'd negate ID.

sourclams wrote:
The second person says, "No, actually this car is every color *but* red. This car is blue, and orange, and yellow, and magenta, and it is because these colors are absorbed out of the visible spectrum that red is reflected back and gives the exterior the appearance of being red while actually the car is anything but!"

I say bollocks to the second person. The car is red, and a Plaguebearer shot by a demolisher cannon gets two invulnerable saves before taking a wound.

Good one sourclams!!! After looking back at the rules again, once I figured out what Nurglitch was actually proposing, I think I still side with Yak's view. It is a simpler, clearer take on the inter-action of the rules involved. Nurglitch, et al, do have a point and hopefully this will be a moot issue in a very few weeks. I suspect that they will be vindicated once the 5th BGB is published, but for now, I'm going with the KISS principle... Even though I don't play Daemons (or against them) yet...

Just my worthless $.02

Cheers

Ok lets break the Instant Death Rule down for everyone.

Instant Death!
If a creature is wounded by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater and fail their save, they are killed outright and removed as a casualty.

If a creature is wounded

Meaning: If the model TAKES A WOUND.

by something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater

Meaning: Well this part kind of explains itself.

and fail their save,

Meaning: Again explains itself.

Ok.. at this point we see that the rule has a set of conditions that must be applied for this rule to be in effect....
A wound MUST be taken.
A specified S/T Ratio MUST be met.
A Save Must be failed.

All before the model is removed.

Breaking down FNP:

Feel No Pain:
This ability cannot be used against weapons that inflict Instant Death (those with a Strength double or more the model's Toughness).

This ability cannot be used

Meaning: This is a Restriction.

against weapons that inflict Instant Death

Meaning: This defines the above restriction. Note the word WEAPONS is included in the rule.

(those with a Strength double or more the model's Toughness).

Meaning: This clarifies what WEAPONS the restriction includes.

You will note that the ID rule flatly states what would CAUSE Instant Death.
FNP uses () to clarify what weapons would cause Instant Death.

At this point I believe we have no disagreement.

The disagreement is over Eternal Warrior, and how it is applied to a given situation.

Eternal Warrior:
Every model in the Army has the Eternal Warrior universal special rule (see the Warhammer 40,000 rule book) and is therefore immune to Instant Death.

Ok....Not breaking this down.
It clearly states that the Models are immune to Instant Death.

FNP Also Clearly states it cannot be used against WEAPONS of a specified S/T Ratio.

This is not a matter of the car is/is not "red".

Its a matter of what the rules CLEARLY STATE.

In a demolisher cannon VS a plaguebearer situation: The WEAPON (S10) clearly fits the profile given VS the plaguebearer (T5) of being
"something which has a Strength value of double their Toughness value or greater" from the Instant Death rule.
AND
"weapons that inflict Instant Death (those with a Strength double or more the model's Toughness)." From the FNP rule.
As clearly stated by those rules themselves.

The EW rule Clearly states that the Plaguebearer is immune to being removed from the table AFTER being Hit, Wounded, and Failing his normally allowed Inv save.

It still takes A Wound and if that is all it had THEN it would still be removed as a casuality. But if it had more than one (PBs have 2 as I recall) It can continue to fight on.

Every model in the Army has the Eternal Warrior universal special rule (see the Warhammer 40,000 rule book) and is therefore immune to Instant Death.

That's where I stop reading. By my argument, the car is red.

Now insert your very long and detailed post, including the parenthicated bit that you are taking as a categorization of weapons that inflict instant death whereas I treat it as only an example addendum for clarification.

By your argument, the car is not red, but by absorbing every other color, appears red.

It all depends on what order you decide to prioritize EW, FNP, and ID. Some people read it ID, FNP, EW. I read it EW, and stop, because it's the most simple, parsimonious solution. In a month, we'll know for certain. Until then, my argument is going to be exactly one sentence long.

The thing that everyone (except Yak, very briefly) seems to be ignoring is that this codex was written for 5th ed. So how is this going to work in 5th?

No Feel No Pain, even if you have Eternal Warrior.

Nuff said?

It is kind of a moot point isn't it?

I read the 5th edition rulebook and as everyone expected, Feel No Pain does not work against weapons that inflict instant death, even if the model has eternal warrior. It also doesn't work against AP 1 or 2 shooting weapons too, wow!


So anyway, unless you think I'm a big fat liar this "issue" should really be done with.

I'm just glad to see that GW's new policy of spelling it out for their end-users is working.

YAY 5th edition

this will make the death company fear deep striking chaos combi plasma termies

Although I think the Ap1/2 rule is more than a little over-harsh, I do appreciate GW's spelling things out as explicitly as possible.

Whoa. I was always for the Eteranl Warrior doesn't help feel no pain but now even plasma weapons and such slive right through FNP. Seems like it went from overpowered to underpowered.

It makes a difference in the Chaos Codex actually.
Tzeentch and Plague Marines were exactly the same when getting hit with a Low AP weapon... that doesn't make much sense to me.

I would say that the rule does not mention anything about "If they are immune to ID then ....." I just says that somthing along the lines of.. If it were enough to insta kill em then they don't get it... So I would vote no.

Okay, this thread just won't die.

As I stated on the previous page of the thread, the v5 rulebook makes the answer to this question perfectly clear (FNP cannot be used against any weapon that would normally cause ID if the model didn't have Eternal Warrior).