If I were to shoot an ap3 weapon and wound a command squad space marine with armor 3, would he still be able to make his feel no pain save?

Yes. FNP may be taken against any wound except those that cause instant death, combat attacks that ignore armour saves or any other attack that ignores any armour save (a terminator may still take an armour save against your AP3 gun).

Thank you Regwon

Yes, they still get the feel no pain. Against shooting attacks they get their FNP as long as it does not inflict instant death, is AP1 or AP2. Close combat attacks are a little different.

You take your feel no pain in all cases except for the following:

If the wound allows no saves to be made no feel no pain save is made. This is from power anything (fist, sword, etc), anything that rends (on a 6 to wound of course), Perils of the Warp, and failed Dangerous Terrain Tests.

There it is in a nutshell with no extra jibberish..

You forgot to list AP 1 & 2 weapons.

Well, I'm sure his list wasn't meant to be comprehensive, but Mindwar doesn't allow FNP either.

Indeed it was basically off the top of my head trying to write it sounding like the rulebook. And mindwar doesn't allow FNP either? I don't remember that but that'd sure make it a lot more attractive.

Why doesn't Mind War allow FNP?

I'm guessing because you cant ever take Armour Saves against Mind War, which is one of the criteria listed in the FNP rule. The list in the Rulebook isn't exhaustive, the qualifier "Can't ever take armour saves against" is (and by default includes things like AP1 and AP2 weapons, Power Weapons etc etc)

FNP cannot be used against Mind War because FNP cannot be used againt "any other wound against which no armor save can ever be taken" (pg 75 BRB). You may not take armor saves against mind war, so you cannot use FNP against it.

Dang..ninja'd

And mind war states specifcally that no saves may be taken?

yes it does.

"...The target loses a wound, with no armour saves allowed."

it is, in essence, a special shooting attach who's special rules say you cannot get Armour Saves, and therefore negates FNP.

Its the same reason why Breath of Chaos negates FNP also.

So if a fire prism lobs a str5 ap4 large blast template shot on a biker nob squad, the unit gets no FNP because it defeats their basic 4+ armor, even though the unit has a 4+ cover save due to their special rules?

Only if a prism shot ignores armour, which to my knowledge is not true. If it's an ap4 then saves are allowed, hence allowing FNP to be used. FNP isn't used, as sated before, against attacks that completely ignore armour (power weapons, rending, etc.)

And Waagh, thanks for the clarification. I see that it is a special shooting attack with its own special rules. A good thing for chaos players to remember right?

@Sazzlefrats: They can take FNP just fine. It does Ignore their Armour save, but FNP is negated only* by things that will never under any circumstances allow an Armour save. Such things Include AP1 and AP2 weaponry, Power Weapons, Force Weapons etc.

*By "only" I refer to the No Armour Save clause, not the Instant Death Clause.

@Grunt_For_Christ: That they are. Autohitting, wounding on 4+ even though they are like T5 or T6 I forget, ignoring whatever cover they are in, and their Armour AND their FNP. These "Awesome Nob Bikers of the Waaaaaaaagh! Cheese" suddenly died very quickly to a Unit Half their cost.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:@Sazzlefrats: They can take FNP just fine. It does Ignore their Armour save, but FNP is negated only* by things that will never under any circumstances allow an Armour save. Such things Include AP1 and AP2 weaponry, Power Weapons, Force Weapons etc.

*By "only" I refer to the No Armour Save clause, not the Instant Death Clause.

@Grunt_For_Christ: That they are. Autohitting, wounding on 4+ even though they are like T5 or T6 I forget, ignoring whatever cover they are in, and their Armour AND their FNP. These "Awesome Nob Bikers of the Waaaaaaaagh! Cheese" suddenly died very quickly to a Unit Half their cost.

Rather than "died" you mean "took 3 or 4 wounds from." Breath of chaos still only wounds on a 4+ (with re-rolls with warptime) and does not cause ID, so you're really unlikely to remove a whole model before the DP/Sorcerer+unit gets charged and wiped out.

its been posted alot now, so i wont re-post old junk.


style, thats why flamers are taken in units of around 5
5 templates, wounding on 4's and causing a wound with no saves.
every bikernobz fear

or, throw some letters at them for the same effect.

Well considering a 12 Strong Flamer unit, hitting say, half the unit (5 models), is 5*12 (60) hits, that's 30 Wounds with no possible save. Last I checked a 10 Man Nob Biker Squad had only 20 Wounds.

Flamers are great against most stuff. The trick is to get them before they get you, they are 35 points each and die easier than a space marine to both shooting and close combat.
Nob bikers generally have a 5+ inv save btw. It should also be hard to cover more than 2-3 bikers per template. If I saw flamers near I'd be sure to spread them out if I failed to get someone to assault them/shoot them before they could breathe.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:@Sazzlefrats: They can take FNP just fine. It does Ignore their Armour save, but FNP is negated only* by things that will never under any circumstances allow an Armour save. Such things Include AP1 and AP2 weaponry, Power Weapons, Force Weapons etc.

*By "only" I refer to the No Armour Save clause, not the Instant Death Clause.

@Grunt_For_Christ: That they are. Autohitting, wounding on 4+ even though they are like T5 or T6 I forget, ignoring whatever cover they are in, and their Armour AND their FNP. These "Awesome Nob Bikers of the Waaaaaaaagh! Cheese" suddenly died very quickly to a Unit Half their cost.

WOW. That's about all I can say to that.

The best way to look at this are plaguebearers (and to a lesser extent, Ork boyz joined by Grotsnik) What would be the point in giving plaguebearers a FNP roll then (which they do) when they have no armor save? It has to work that way.

explain how the flamer would not allow the nob bikers a save of any kind?

The only way a flamer would deny a Nob FNP is if it was AP1/2, S8+, or specified that no armor saves could be taken against it. This excludes just about every "regular" flamer-template weapon in the game, including Burnas, Skorchas, Flamers, Heavy Flamers, and Inferno Cannons.

people mean flamers as in the daemons
breath of chaos (thier ranged attack) allows no saves.

camcam_HALO wrote:explain how the flamer would not allow the nob bikers a save of any kind?

In this Case "Flamers" Means Flamers of Tzeentch and their Special Attack "Breath of Chaos"

ok I was just confused.

I'm not at home, so i dont have a rule book to look at the FNP rule, it states i thought "weapons that alow no armor save", now are we saying AP 1 and 2 weapons because theres no armor out right now that there can be saves against or is it part of the rule. I was thinking it only was ment for items that said in is special rule "may not take armor saves against this weapon."

Thanks,
Loredragon2

It's essentially 'weapons which never allow armor saves.' So AP1, AP2, power weapons, things with special rules which say, 'no armor saves may be taken,' etc.

Yeah, many people I know get confused because they were hit by say an AP 3 weapon and claiming no FNP. The Weapon has to either "Never under any circumstances give an armour save at any time ever" or be inflicting ID (Or if the rules say it "counts as" something that "Never under any circumstances give an armour save at any time ever" such as a Rending Wound which counts as AP2).

So what exactly is the verdict of this thread atm. My interpretation of what is going on is that FNP doesn't apply to wounds from AP1 and AP2, ID, and weapons that ignore armour saves. In the case of the AP3 or more weapon, they are still entitled to FNP for two reasons.

Reason one: As Waaaaaaagh! said, "The Weapon has to either "Never under any circumstances give an armour save at any time ever" or be inflicting ID (Or if the rules say it "counts as" something that "Never under any circumstances give an armour save at any time ever" such as a Rending Wound which counts as AP2).

Reason two: The FNP rule specifically says AP1 and AP2 weapons. The rule would state that FNP isn't allowed for ID, weapons that ignore armour saves, as well as ALL AP weapons.


Just my two cents.

Yep, I do believe you've got it. AP 3, 4, 5, 6, -, will not negate FNP based on AP or no armor save. They might still do so based on the Strength of the weapon, ie Instant Death.

Sorry for the slight Threadomancy but due to a recent discussion ( and several searches ) I thought I'd mention something: specifically in defense of AP3 weapons WOULD deny FNP on MEQs...

Page 75 - Feel No Pain... although this is a Universal Special Rule, the description of it is MODEL specific: ...if a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound...

For the purpose of discussion lets go with a unit of Blood Angels - Death Company.

...this ability cannot be used against wounds from x-y-z... and any other wound against which no armour save can ever be taken...

And now for the purpose of discussion lets fire a round of Inferno Bolters at the unit of Blood Angels - Death Company.

-- Could someone please tell me when the Death Company ( FNP Models ) can ever get an armour save against an AP3 weapon ?

Try reading the rule. The rule says "and any other wound against which no armour save can ever be taken", not "and any other wound against which no armour save can be taken" (without the ever) nor does it say "and any other wound against which some models get no armour save but others do".

Since AP3 weapons sometime allow armour saves, you can always get FNP against them (so long as they don't cause Instant Death)

i agree 100% with Gwar on this one (which has to be a 1st)
it does state it.

Oh, that is so sigged and placed out of context

lol, its fine, i can allways call you a few choice names to make up for it

Gwar! wrote:Try reading the rule. The rule says "and any other wound against which no armour save can ever be taken", not "and any other wound against which no armour save can be taken" (without the ever) nor does it say "and any other wound against which some models get no armour save but others do".

Since AP3 weapons sometime allow armour saves, you can always get FNP against them (so long as they don't cause Instant Death)

I have read the rule. And as I pointed out it refers to model specific - not written as a blanket rule to cover all models with FNP. That would be like saying since Hellions HnR at I6 then all other HnR units test at I6.

Feel No Pain is a general rule, which the way is written would apply on a model-to-model basis:

"If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound..." insert model example: Death Company. "Neither can it be used against wounds... which no armour save can ever be taken" No armour save vs AP3 can ever be taken by the Death Company so their FNP would be denied

"If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound..." insert model example: FNP TEQs. "Neither can it be used against wounds... which no armour save can ever be taken" An armour save vs AP3 can always be taken by the FNP TEQs so their FNP would be granted

If you can see the rule the way it is written in the book then you can see how both examples would be accurate.

So you're saying that plague bearers never receive their FNP... riiiight.

Yes, the initial part of the phrase does specify a model, but the "against which no armor save can ever be taken" part of the phrase does not specify the model receiving the wound. If it said "against which the model can never make an armor save" you'd have a leg to stand on, but you don't.

willydstyle wrote:So you're saying that plague bearers never receive their FNP... riiiight

close combat weapons do not ignore armor saves.

willydstyle wrote:Yes, the initial part of the phrase does specify a model, but the "against which no armor save can ever be taken" part of the phrase does not specify the model receiving the wound. If it said "against which the model can never make an armor save" you'd have a leg to stand on, but you don't.

well, grammatically it is a continuation - the model being the subject.

Try this and maybe what I am trying to get across would make sense. Replace the portion MODEL WITH THIS ABILITY in the rule with an actual FNP type unit - for example Plague Bearers ( If Plague Bearers suffer an unsaved wound... ).

toxic_wisdom wrote:

willydstyle wrote:So you're saying that plague bearers never receive their FNP... riiiight

close combat weapons do not ignore armor saves.

So what? A model will get FnP against AP3, non ID causing weaponry. Period. End. Full fething Stop.

We have told you why, yet you refuse to believe us, focusing on an irrelevant part of the rule. Yes, the MODEL must take the wound/save whatever, but the fact is, the wording of the FnP Rule clearly states that it is only "wound[s] against which no armour save can ever be taken". That is why they list off examples of things that NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WILL GIVE AN ARMOUR SAVE EVER such as Ap1, Ap2, Power Weapons, Force Weapons etc. Since weapons with an AP3 will conceivably let some things take an armour save, that alone does not deny FnP.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

willydstyle wrote:So you're saying that plague bearers never receive their FNP... riiiight

close combat weapons do not ignore armor saves.

Still, to say that the intent of the rule is that they will never get FNP from shooting attacks is still pretty ridiculous. I like to see that you've addressed the rest of my post as well.

We have repeated the same thing like 20 times already I think this is starting to become spam guys and I think we understand when FNP has no effect so stop posting the same thing please.
EDIT: If you STILL don't get it then go READ the rulebook instead of making people post the same subject again and again please.




-Orkishly

willydstyle wrote:Still, to say that the intent of the rule is that they will never get FNP from shooting attacks is still pretty ridiculous. I like to see that you've addressed the rest of my post as well.

Why would it be ridiculous ? Grotesques have a similar status but reversed - they can take damage well from shooting but die horribly in close combat.

Even if you replace the "this model" part of the rule with "plague bearer," here is how it reads:

"If a plague bearer receives a wound against which no armor saves may ever be taken..."

The second part of the sentence is still clear, and does not refer to the Plague Bearer's armor save, or lack of one.

orkishlyorkish wrote:We have repeated the same thing like 20 times already I think this is starting to become spam guys and I think we understand when FNP has no effect so stop posting the same thing please.
EDIT: If you STILL don't get it then go READ the rulebook instead of making people post the same subject again and again please.

Spamming ? No. I've added my two cents and replied to other comments. But yet my input has been ignored.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

orkishlyorkish wrote:We have repeated the same thing like 20 times already I think this is starting to become spam guys and I think we understand when FNP has no effect so stop posting the same thing please.
EDIT: If you STILL don't get it then go READ the rulebook instead of making people post the same subject again and again please.

Spamming ? No. I've added my two cents and replied to other comments. But yet my input has been ignored.

It hasn't been ignored. Several posters have in fact quoted you. You're simply wrong.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

willydstyle wrote:Still, to say that the intent of the rule is that they will never get FNP from shooting attacks is still pretty ridiculous. I like to see that you've addressed the rest of my post as well.

Why would it be ridiculous ? Grotesques have a similar status but reversed - they can take damage well from shooting but die horribly in close combat.

Well, lets see here..

First: Dark Eldar Codex is incredibly outdated, so to compare ANYTHING in it to a modern codex is analogous to comparing the Building Techniques of the Ancient Egyptians to the Agricultural Methods of Modern Day Belgium.

Second: Grotesques have a different Feel No Pain rule, so why bring them up?

Thirdly: To both of you, stop trying to argue "Intent". That get's us nowhere. The fact of the matter is though that Plaugebearers do get their FnP Roll against AP's - through 3.

And your input has been Ignored because it is, how do I say this nicely, utterly fething wrong?

willydstyle wrote:Even if you replace the "this model" part of the rule with "plague bearer," here is how it reads:

"If a plague bearer receives a wound against which no armor saves may ever be taken..."

The second part of the sentence is still clear, and does not refer to the Plague Bearer's armor save, or lack of one.

If a Plague Bearer suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice. On a 1, 2, or 3, take the wound as normal ( removing the Plague Bearer if it loses its final Wound ). On a 4, 5, or 6, the injury is ignored and the Plague Bearer continues fighting. This ability cannot be used against wounds from weapons that inflict instant death ( by having a high enough Strength or a special rule to that effect; even if the Plague Bearer is an eternal warrior ). Neither can it be used against wounds from AP1 and AP2 weapons, power weapons and any other wound against which no armour save can ever be taken.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

willydstyle wrote:Even if you replace the "this model" part of the rule with "plague bearer," here is how it reads:

"If a plague bearer receives a wound against which no armor saves may ever be taken..."

The second part of the sentence is still clear, and does not refer to the Plague Bearer's armor save, or lack of one.

If a Plague Bearer suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice. On a 1, 2, or 3, take the wound as normal ( removing the Plague Bearer if it loses its final Wound ). On a 4, 5, or 6, the injury is ignored and the Plague Bearer continues fighting. This ability cannot be used against wounds from weapons that inflict instant death ( by having a high enough Strength or a special rule to that effect; even if the Plague Bearer is an eternal warrior ). Neither can it be used against wounds from AP1 and AP2 weapons, power weapons and any other wound against which no armour save can ever be taken.

Wow, that's an interesting rule there! I've looked long and hard in my Rulebook, and I just cannot find it. I've found some things about models and such, but nothing about Plague Bearers. Who thought they were so special they had a whole rule in the Rulebook written about them!

And btw, you still have the "can ever be taken" bit. Can armour saves ever be taken by a "Model" against Ap3? Yes or No please.

Still doesn't change the "wound against which no armor save can ever be taken [emphasis mine]."

Gwar! wrote:Wow, that's an interesting rule there! I've looked long and hard in my Rulebook, and I just cannot find it. I've found some things about models and such, but nothing about Plague Bearers. Who thought they were so special they had a whole rule in the Rulebook written about them! And btw, you still have the "can ever be taken" bit. Can armour saves ever be taken by a "Model" against Ap3? Yes or No please.

Perhaps if you got off the high horse and did not ignore my posts ( because they're utterly fething wrong ) then you'll notice why I posted the material.

And btw, can Death Company ever take armour saves against Inferno Bolters ? Yes or No please.

EDIT: All I'm trying to get at is... the rule for Feel No Pain is written from the standpoint of a model-by-model situation ( ie - mentions model specific ). It is not written as a blanket rule for all things with Feel No Pain ( ie - units with FNP share the same characteristics listed below ). And because of this there is some room for discussion that could lean the issue ( AP3 denial versus MEQs ) one way or the other - sorry if you are too one-sided to see this.

What does that have to do with anything?
The rule does not say "FnP is denied if hit by a Shooting Attack that denies the model its own armour save". It says that it is denied by shooting attacks that never allow an armour save ever.

An "Inferno Bolter" (assuming it is Ap3) allows models with 2+ save to take Armour Saves against it, so it is not a Weapon that never allows an armour save.

Gwar! wrote:"...It says that it is denied by shooting attacks that never allow an armour save ever..."

Again, going with the notion that the rule in the book is written on a MODEL and NOT BLANKET perspective - a 2+ model would be granted FNP against AP3 weaponry but a 3+ model would be denied FNP against AP3 weaponry... Armour Saves page 20 - AP value equal or lower than model's armour save... target gets no armour save at all.

Sorry, thought this topic could be discussed with an open mind based on certain findings - rather it seems people have a predetermined stand on the issue and are not willing or capable of looking at the issue from both sides of the fence. Ciao...

But it is written as a blanket perspective.

It HAS to be or it wont ever work.

And we don't have pre-meditated stances, we have what's known as "The rules"

And for god sake, the fact that the AP3 denies Sv3+ a save MEANS NOTHING! It has to NEVER allow anything to EVER get a save to negate FnP.

And I showed you how, grammatically, the rule is not actually judged on a model-by-model basis, but you seem to be ignoring that...

It gives only 2 examples in the rules. AP 1 and AP 2 (for shooting) either follow it or keep arguing that an ork nob with FNP won't get a FNP roll against a bolt pistol which is AP5 ok toxic?




-Orkishly

Bookwrack wrote:It's essentially 'weapons which never allow armor saves.' So AP1, AP2, power weapons, things with special rules which say, 'no armor saves may be taken,' etc.

FNP specifically mentions AP 1 and AP 2 weapons as denying FNP. As Alerian posted earlier, it also says FNP cannot be used against "any other wound against which no armor save can ever be taken" (pg 75 BRB). Wound, not weapon. Doesn't matter what causes the wound, all that matters is that the source of the wound has a clause that says no saves allowed.
Bottom line, if the wound was caused by something that allows anybody a regular save, you get FNP, unless it happens to cause Instant Derath.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

Gwar! wrote:"...It says that it is denied by shooting attacks that never allow an armour save ever..."

Again, going with the notion that the rule in the book is written on a MODEL and NOT BLANKET perspective - a 2+ model would be granted FNP against AP3 weaponry but a 3+ model would be denied FNP against AP3 weaponry... Armour Saves page 20 - AP value equal or lower than model's armour save... target gets no armour save at all.

Sorry, thought this topic could be discussed with an open mind based on certain findings - rather it seems people have a predetermined stand on the issue and are not willing or capable of looking at the issue from both sides of the fence. Ciao...

I can see your point. However, open-minded has nothing to do with the way the rules are written. Your mind is equally as closed, by your own logic, anyway. I do not feel that this is a closed-minded discussion, as your points are taken, and validly refuted by what the rules actually say. There are enough qualifiers in the FNP rule to determine that the only AP values that would deny FNP are 1 and 2. 3, 4, 5, 6, and - shooting attacks will allow an FNP rule as long as they do not cause instant death. Period.

The biggest hole in your argument is - and I'll put it in terms closer to the argument you're making - the definition of the term "universal". FNP is a Universal Rule, thus it MUST be taken as a blanket statement.

KaloranSLC wrote:The biggest hole in your argument is - and I'll put it in terms closer to the argument you're making - the definition of the term "universal". FNP is a Universal Rule, thus it MUST be taken as a blanket statement.

Does the entry for FNP specify ALL UNITS -or- A MODEL ?

From p.75 of the AoBR rulebook, "any other wound against which no save may ever be taken." The "no save part" is regarding any other wound, not a specific wound on a specific model. Do you see the "any"? Can saves ever be taken against Ap3 weapons? The anser is yes.

Some further holes in your interpretation. I shoot at Plaguebearers with a Devourer (Ap -). This is a wound against which they cannot take an armor save, thus, no FnP. I hit a Plaguebearer with a IG Conscript in CC. This is a wound against which the Plaguebearer may not take an armor save, thus, no FnP. So, why do Plaguebearers have FnP? Does GW just like writing random rules in unit entries?

There is a distinction to be made between weapons that deny armor saves like power weapons, wind of chaos etc and weapons that penetrate a model's armor. That is what appears to me to be where the disagreement lies. AP3 shots penetrate power armor, but they don't deny armor saves as a general principle the way power weapons and other special weapons do.

Fething irrelevant. the context of the "against which no armour saves may EVER be taken" does nto in any way refer to an individual model

Seriously, don't you get this yet?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Fething irrelevant. the context of the "against which no armour saves may EVER be taken" does nto in any way refer to an individual model

Seriously, don't you get this yet?

He said he was done with the thread because we're closed-minded.

We have repeated the same thing to him over and over. If he doesn't get it he doesn't get it. It's like teaching a caterpillar to fly, you can't but one day it will learn when it becomes a butterfly by it's self. One day he'll figure it out... I hope. Anyone who doesn't get this must being playing chaos. Stupid heresy =P



-Orkishly

Seriously guys if he doesn't get it then his mind can't hold the information so just leave it to him to have a hellload of angry opponents when he says his AP 5 wep won't allow a nob a FNP roll......

toxic_wisdom wrote:

willydstyle wrote:So you're saying that plague bearers never receive their FNP... riiiight

close combat weapons do not ignore armor saves.

But they don't have an armour save so they can't take one... no FNP by your own "model" specific interpretation.

Spetulhu wrote:

toxic_wisdom wrote:

willydstyle wrote:So you're saying that plague bearers never receive their FNP... riiiight

close combat weapons do not ignore armor saves.

But they don't have an armour save so they can't take one... no FNP by your own "model" specific interpretation.

Exactly, they only have an Invulnerable save. A plague bearer has no armor.

Nurgling Chieftain;3547256 wrote:"...Perhaps "state no model is permitted an Armour Save" - the whole point is to not be specific to the model being fired at in terms of armour saves..."

What ? Now you'd be changing the rule. Per RAW - the entry for FNP IS specific to the FNP model being fired at ( or hit with, or failed to, or etc ), and as described below is denied Feel No Pain for the most part when no armour save is allowed.

Culven;3546880 wrote:"...I don't follow. Are you claiming that a model with FNP and a 3+ Armour Save that is Wounded by an AP3 will be denied its FNP?.."

Yep, that's exactly what I am claiming.

What difference does it make that some models in the game have a 2+ save when they aren't the actual models being wounded ? Claiming such an advantage is IMHO ( and rule supported below ) one of the biggest attempts at searching for Easter Eggs that I've ever witnessed on these forums.

My position on the issue is this: yes, Feel No Pain is a universal rule but it is not a blanket rule that covers all units with FNP. As the rule is written it must be handled on a model-to-model basis. If it were meant to cover all units with the FNP ability then the application would have to be handled equally - obviously this isn't the case however since a S8 source would be a FNP denial for T4 but the same cannot be said against T5 ( consider Daemonhunters: Hammerhand ).

Feel No Pain ( page 75 ) the subject matter is A ( singular ) MODEL with FNP

If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice. On a 1, 2, or 3, take the wound as normal ( removing the model if it loses its final Wound ). On a 4, 5, or 6, the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting. This ability cannot be used against wounds from 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 ). Neither can it be used against wounds from AP1 and AP2 weapons, power weapons and any other wound against which no armour save can ever be taken.

So here is the beak down of the rule as it is written, and again why it pertains only to the model being wounded ( thus other models -- cough 2+ save -- have no bearing on the issue... other than if they were the ones being wounded )...

If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice...

-- Okay, which model ? Important because not all models with the FNP ability are equal. As mentioned above something like DH Hammerhand when used against a Plague Marine would not be resolved the same way it would against a member of the Death Company. Likewise a ranged weapon with an AP4 would have to be resolved differently when it scores an unsaved wound against an FNP model with a SV5+ as compared to when it scores an unsaved wound against an FNP model with a SV3+

On a 1, 2, or 3, take the wound as normal ( removing the model if it loses its final Wound )...

-- The rule continues to address a model with the ability. Which model ? For the sake of discussion lets say it is a Death Company model. So on a 1, 2, or 3 the DC model is removed. Which leaves some other option if a 4, 5 , or 6 is rolled...

On a 4, 5, or 6, the injury is ignored and the ( Death Company ) model continues fighting...

-- So now we now what happens when we roll a 4, 5, or 6 for the wounded Death Company model. Seems like a really good ability - so what is the catch ? There has to be some limitations, right ?

This ability cannot be used against wounds from weapons that inflict instant death ( by having a high enough Strength...

-- Okay, so this part of the rule almost sounds like a generic blanket statement but we must keep in mind that models with FNP could have different Toughness values. Nonetheless, should we now approach the rule from the standpoint that it is generic to all FNP models or a specific case that is handled on a model-to-model basis ?

...or a special rule to that effect; even if the model is an eternal warrior )...

-- Well, by GW's own writing the rule once more is specific to the wounded model with the FNP ability. And as further example of why the rule has to be resolved individually: not all FNP models are Eternal Warriors. Now, is Instant Death ( and the like ) the only thing that will deny a model the opportunity to use its Feel No Pain rule ?

Neither can it be used against wounds from AP1 and AP2 weapons...

-- This is a continuation of what can deny the wounded model a Feel No Pain roll. So when our Death Company model gets wounded by a Meltagun or a Lascannon ( ignoring the ID factor for the moment ) it is denied FNP. Anything else ?

power weapons...

-- Side note: models wounded by PWs are not allowed armour saves. Anything else ?

and any other wound against which no armour save can ever be taken...

-- can the DC model ever take an armour save against Power Fists ? No.
-- can the DC model ever take an armour save against DCCWs ? No.
-- can the DC model ever take an armour save against Rending 6s ? No.
-- can the DC model ever take an armour save against PotW ? No.
-- can the DC model ever take an armour save against failed Dangerous Terrain tests ? No.

There seems to be some kind of pattern here when the MODEL is wounded by something that does not allow an armor save. And GW was kind enough to include ETC at the end of the rule. So, what other examples can we include when no armour save can ever be taken by the wounded model ?

01. Eldar Mind War
02. Dark Eldar Agoniser
03. Wind of Chaos
04. Monstrous Creatures
05. AP equal to or less than SV

Going back to the original quote at the top: Are you claiming that a model with FNP and a 3+ Armour Save that is Wounded by an AP3 will be denied its FNP? ...once more my answer, as I have demonstrated here - note Number 05 above, is YES.

I made an earlier reference in this post regarding AP versus SV, and would like to expand on it slightly. Despite some claims...

I disagree that Toxic_Wisdom's interpretation is acceptable RaW. It hinges entirely on claiming that context OVERRIDES a specific wording. That's nonsense; it's a misapplication of the rules of context. If it were correct, it would mean it was ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE for GW to have written that particular phrase in such a way as to work the way it is written to work.

...perhaps there are some who just want it to work differently than the way it IS actually written. It works quite well and certainly not ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE to handle the situation.

SV2+ FNP Model wounded by AP4 = Feel No Pain allowed
SV3+ FNP Model wounded by AP4 = Feel No Pain allowed
SV4+ FNP Model wounded by AP4 = Feel No Pain denied

SV2+ FNP Model wounded by AP3 = Feel No Pain allowed
SV3+ FNP Model wounded by AP3 = Feel No Pain denied
SV4+ FNP Model wounded by AP3 = Feel No Pain denied

SV2+ FNP Model wounded by AP2 = Feel No Pain denied
SV3+ FNP Model wounded by AP2 = Feel No Pain denied
SV4+ FNP Model wounded by AP2 = Feel No Pain denied

All I can say is you honestly think that Plaguebearers do not get FNP ever, as they do not have an armour save.

That alone invalidates your argument.

Gwar! wrote:All I can say is you honestly think that Plaguebearers do not get FNP ever, as they do not have an armour save. That alone invalidates your argument.

I never said that.

As the rule for Feel No Pain reads IMHO - yes Plaguebearers would be more vulnerable now to ranged attacks, however close combat weapons for example do not deny armor saves so FNP would be allowed ( by the wording - not having an armor save is not the same as being denied an armor save ).

If that seems unjust then perhaps find a way to have Games Workshop update their FAQs ( one way or the other on the issue ). There are other elements in the game that took a hit with the release of 5E. Perhaps not everything was taken into consideration - and how rules might not work now with other models exactly the way they planned - there's a lot of gaming information in the 40K realm and one simple word or phrase ( if used or not used ) can alter players opinions and/or interpretations... as demonstrated quite well here.

The fact is - by GWs own writing they have left this issue in a grey area. I can view the subject from either side of the fence - though some of you can't or refuse to. Quite frankly some of you need to back off - not only are these my opinions and interpretations, but they also supported by the rules as I have taken the time to show.

Actually, the rules do not support your argument, as we have shown over the course of this thread, and the one on warseer, many, MANY times. You just dress up a flawed argument to make it seem valid.

Or is my Argument not as valid as yours because I don't have pretty colours?

toxic_wisdom wrote:Wrote a lot of stuff, underlining the word "model" a lot

But you still haven't addressed the fact that the sentence that you're hinging everything on "against which an armor save may never be taken" does not have the word "model" in it and grammatically does not specify the model making the FNP roll. It is an absolute statement. An AP3 weapon is not in the rules a weapon against which no armor save may ever be taken.

Wow, just wow, it gives you a list of the sorts of things that are included in the statement "and any other wound against which no armour save can ever be taken" and not a single example is dependent on the model recieving the wound, all of them are things that would deny any model in the game (excepting special rules on the target model) of an armour save.

While it's a logical fallacy to assume a list of examples is exhaustive, I find it hard to believe anyone genuinely believes that the intention of that phrase was what toxic_wisdom is suggesting.

Personally I look at the definitions and think that resolves it, What is a wound? A wound is an effect that is created by an attacking unit, wounds are applied or assigned to models.

While a wound can certainly be owned by a model, the wound itself is not model specific, a wound cannot be "an ap4 weapon against a guardsmen" because a wound is "an ap4 weapon" which is assigned to a guardsmen.

While it may not be perfect that's my take on why the argument is flawed.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

As the rule for Feel No Pain reads IMHO - yes Plaguebearers would be more vulnerable now to ranged attacks, however close combat weapons for example do not deny armor saves so FNP would be allowed ( by the wording - not having an armor save is not the same as being denied an armor save ).

If that seems unjust then perhaps find a way to have Games Workshop update their FAQs ( one way or the other on the issue ). There are other elements in the game that took a hit with the release of 5E. Perhaps not everything was taken into consideration - and how rules might not work now with other models exactly the way they planned - there's a lot of gaming information in the 40K realm and one simple word or phrase ( if used or not used ) can alter players opinions and/or interpretations... as demonstrated quite well here.

The fact is - by GWs own writing they have left this issue in a grey area. I can view the subject from either side of the fence - though some of you can't or refuse to. Quite frankly some of you need to back off - not only are these my opinions and interpretations, but they also supported by the rules as I have taken the time to show.

1. Daemons is a 5th ed codex, as demonstrated due to the "offensive / defensive" grenades. Therefore at the time they wrote the codex they knew of 5th ed FNP, yet you honestly, truly believe they meant for Plaguebearers to have essentially useless FNP? That in the very, very streamined rule set they wanted you to have different strengths of FNP depending on whether you were PA, Carapace or no armour? wow.

2. as has been explained to you many times, while you had pretty underlining of the word model (which was needed, as gasp! ID IS model dependent) you quickly glossed over that there was no subject in the crucial sentence under debate. You keep on doing this - the subject of "against which no armour saves may ever be taken" cannot be the model, as it is now weapon dependent.

Unlike you I can see both sides of the argument, just it is quite clear that one side, "yours", is wrong. totally and unutterably so.

* makes some popcorn and sits back to watch *

Green Blow Fly wrote:* makes some popcorn and sits back to watch *

Honestly, we're on the third sequel, and the story has been rehashed a few times because they wanted to save money by firing the original writers.

willydstyle wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:* makes some popcorn and sits back to watch *

Honestly, we're on the third sequel, and the story has been rehashed a few times because they wanted to save money by firing the original writers.

I thought this was the Directors Cut which was released on DVD and Blueray 3 times each with slightly different Extras... or was that LotR I forget :(

-Steals GBF's Popcorn-

toxic_wisdom wrote:

Gwar! wrote:All I can say is you honestly think that Plaguebearers do not get FNP ever, as they do not have an armour save. That alone invalidates your argument.

I never said that.

As the rule for Feel No Pain reads IMHO - yes Plaguebearers would be more vulnerable now to ranged attacks, however close combat weapons for example do not deny armor saves so FNP would be allowed ( by the wording - not having an armor save is not the same as being denied an armor save ).

But by the logic you've given several times over, the Plaguebearers don't get armor saves, so they wouldn't get FNP. You haven't said it specifically, but your logic did.

Gwar! wrote:I thought this was the Directors Cut which was released on DVD and Blueray 3 times each with slightly different Extras... or was that LotR I forget :(

-Steals GBF's Popcorn-

It's Blu-ray silly, e is for squares, not hipsters like me.

Drunkspleen wrote:"...While a wound can certainly be owned by a model, the wound itself is not model specific, a wound cannot be "an ap4 weapon against a guardsmen" because a wound is "an ap4 weapon" which is assigned to a guardsmen.
..."

Just for the record: check the rule regarding complex units.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:"...While a wound can certainly be owned by a model, the wound itself is not model specific, a wound cannot be "an ap4 weapon against a guardsmen" because a wound is "an ap4 weapon" which is assigned to a guardsmen...."

Just for the record: check the rule regarding complex units.

There are a lot of rules regarding Complex Units. What rule are you talking about?

toxic_wisdom wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:"...While a wound can certainly be owned by a model, the wound itself is not model specific, a wound cannot be "an ap4 weapon against a guardsmen" because a wound is "an ap4 weapon" which is assigned to a guardsmen.
..."

Just for the record: check the rule regarding complex units.

Way to address the fact that the word "model" is not actually in any way applied to the phrase "against which an armor save may never be taken."

No No, he addressed that on Warseer:

Irrelevant, really ? The rule in its entirety begins with a wounded model. And since when do models that ARE NOT wounded ever take an armour save ?

And just curious, would you have a problem with a Necron player saying his Warriors get WBB against Lascannons, Railguns, and the like - without the aid of a Resurrection Orb - because their Strength is not twice the Warriors Toughness ?

Still Utter tripe however, just like the rest of his argument, but hey, lets not let THAT stop anything eh?

Also, newsflash Toxic, Lascannons are S9, Railguns are Strenght 10. Unless you live in a weird Base 32 Land, 9 is more than double 4 and 10 is also more than double 4. At least try to make sense!

I find it hilarious that someone is accusing others of being close-minded while sticking fingers in his ears and going, "CAN'T HEAR YOU, LA LA LA LA...".

Toxic_wisdom (name choice FTW?), you are wrong. Continuing to argue points that have been proven wrong by four different posters just makes you look foolish. And seriously, the first time you try this "logic" in a gaming group you are going to get laughed at.

willydstyle wrote:

toxic_wisdom wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:"...While a wound can certainly be owned by a model, the wound itself is not model specific, a wound cannot be "an ap4 weapon against a guardsmen" because a wound is "an ap4 weapon" which is assigned to a guardsmen.
..."

Just for the record: check the rule regarding complex units.

Way to address the fact that the word "model" is not actually in any way applied to the phrase "against which an armor save may never be taken."

Way to address an issue that wasn't even quoted

Gwar! wrote:

toxic_wisdom wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:"...While a wound can certainly be owned by a model, the wound itself is not model specific, a wound cannot be "an ap4 weapon against a guardsmen" because a wound is "an ap4 weapon" which is assigned to a guardsmen...."

Just for the record: check the rule regarding complex units.

There are a lot of rules regarding Complex Units. What rule are you talking about?

When a complex unit takes wounds from shooting that has different AP values it is possible to assign a specific wound to a specific model.

Gwar! wrote:"...Also, newsflash Toxic, Lascannons are S9, Railguns are Strenght 10. Unless you live in a weird Base 32 Land, 9 is more than double 4 and 10 is also more than double 4. At least try to make sense!.."

Ah, newsflash Gwar !.. it was a demonstration of RAW - and since we're all playing RAW here ( let's not even consider intent ) then it should be played FULLY... and then you should read the entry for We'll Be Back more clearly.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

toxic_wisdom wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:"...While a wound can certainly be owned by a model, the wound itself is not model specific, a wound cannot be "an ap4 weapon against a guardsmen" because a wound is "an ap4 weapon" which is assigned to a guardsmen.
..."

Just for the record: check the rule regarding complex units.

Way to address the fact that the word "model" is not actually in any way applied to the phrase "against which an armor save may never be taken."

Way to address an issue that wasn't even quoted

Isn't that your whole (flawed) argument? Or are you just posting for the hell of it now? Do you not consider, even just a little bit, that not one, but at LEAST two huge threads that have utterly broken apart your flawed argument means that you are 100% wrong?

toxic_wisdom wrote:

Gwar! wrote:"...Also, newsflash Toxic, Lascannons are S9, Railguns are Strenght 10. Unless you live in a weird Base 32 Land, 9 is more than double 4 and 10 is also more than double 4. At least try to make sense!.."

Ah, newsflash Gwar !.. it was a demonstration of RAW - and since we're all playing RAW here ( let's not even consider intent ) then it should be played FULLY... and then you should read the entry for We'll Be Back more clearly.

Oh you want to play RaW? Fine, we'll play mathematical RaW then. 9 is equal to (2x4)+1. That is still double 4, but it is Double 4 plus 1. Still Double 4 though.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

Gwar! wrote:"...Also, newsflash Toxic, Lascannons are S9, Railguns are Strenght 10. Unless you live in a weird Base 32 Land, 9 is more than double 4 and 10 is also more than double 4. At least try to make sense!.."

Ah, newsflash Gwar !.. it was a demonstration of RAW - and since we're all playing RAW here ( let's not even consider intent ) then it should be played FULLY... and then you should read the entry for We'll Be Back more clearly.

here is something to look for ( and take note it is written differently than something like ID )

S8 = 2x T4 ... S9 =/= 2x T4 ... S10 =/= 2x T4

Ok toxic, seriuously now, If I had not posted just then, that would be a Quadruple post. There is a Multiquote, use it

-Reported for Multiple Posting-

Gwar! wrote:"...Isn't that your whole (flawed) argument? Or are you just posting for the hell of it now? Do you not consider, even just a little bit, that not one, but at LEAST two huge threads that have utterly broken apart your flawed argument means that you are 100% wrong?.."

First, if you actually read my posts completely over at Warseer ( rather than skimmed them for bits and pieces ) you would have noticed I have no problem playing the rule either way - it all started with a Blood Angels opponent that claimed his Death Company unit did not get to make FNP rolls against a round of fire from Sustained Disintegrators - I believe the issue is worthy of a FAQ.

Second, by telling me I am 100% wrong that would mean every one of my statements is false. And sorry but there's nothing at all that proves the standpoint of AP denying Saves = Deny FNP is inaccurate: just a lot of Copy-N-Paste type statements and moaning about Plaguebearers. Check your statistics again, there are some that agree with me and some others that have taken the issue under consideration ( just as I have ). By telling me

Gwar! wrote:Ok toxic, seriuously now, If I had not posted just then, that would be a Quadruple post. There is a Multiquote, use it

-Reported for Multiple Posting-

Honestly I would much rather use the Multiquote feature, but for some reason it isn't recognized ( for lack of better terms ) by my computer and/or browser. So please do report me for not having a perfect system.

toxic_wisdom wrote: And sorry but there's nothing at all that proves TO ME the standpoint of AP denying Saves = Deny FNP is inaccurate:

Edited for clarity.



The rules, and they have been quoted to you, actually do prove this.

shrug

Now apologies to Meriwether from Warseer for stealing his post, but I thought It was a nice indicator of how wrong and self contradictory Toxic_Wisdom's argument is:

Meriwether wrote:

toxic_wisdom wrote:
Bear in mind first the condition for denying FNP is that the wounding source allows no armour save. Now to answer your question - yes, a Plaguebearer is allowed to take an armour save against a standard close combat weapon ( the Plaguebearer just happens to not have an armour save though ).

This flies fully in the face of your interpretation of whether or not *that particular model can take the save* being relevant.

The particular model -- a plaguebearer -- cannot ever take an armor save against any close combat attack. And thus, by your interpretation, he cannot ever get FNP against one, either.

IMO this illustrates perfectly why you _are_ flat wrong, and obviously so.

Meri

Props for the Old Skool Bold and Underline tags

kirsanth wrote:

toxic_wisdom wrote: And sorry but there's nothing at all that proves TO ME the standpoint of AP denying Saves = Deny FNP is inaccurate:

Edited for clarity.



The rules, and they have been quoted to you, actually do prove this.

shrug

In all seriousness I would suggest you remove that mis-quote above. That can be grounds for a felony - and if you don't believe me I'll send you copies of a few Alt-Print Screens that includes mis-quoted material ( evidence that could cost a shop owner his place of business ).

toxic_wisdom wrote:In all seriousness I would suggest you remove that mis-quote above. That can be grounds for a felony - and if you don't believe me I'll send you copies of a few Alt-Print Screens that includes mis-quoted material ( evidence that could cost a shop owner his place of business ).

HAHA... HAHAHAHAHAAH!

Wait wait.... PFFFFFFFFFT HAHAHAHAH! Aww man, I know they say Laughter is the Best medicine, and I hope to God/Allah/The Flying Spaghetti Monster that is true because if It is I think I just Cured AIDS.

Seriously get over yourself mate. Reporting THAT one as well for thinly veiled threats.

Satire is protected under the 1st amendment by Fair Use!

willydstyle wrote:Satire is protected under the 1st amendment by Fair Use!

Satire sure - when written as first person. The quote however treads in the waters of slander and libel.

Ok, internet tough guy. There is no slander in his post. There is a quote of a statement you freely posted in a public place.

InquisitorFabius wrote:Ok, internet tough guy. There is no slander in his post. There is a quote of a statement you freely posted in a public place.

Tough guy? No... Read the "quote" again and tell me that's what I originally wrote.

Yes, it is a paraphrase of your statement. Still not slander.

It is not Slander, it is Satire. Get off your high horse. Until you show us some diplomas you are just talking gak.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

willydstyle wrote:Satire is protected under the 1st amendment by Fair Use!

Satire sure - when written as first person. The quote however treads in the waters of slander and libel.

Woot... the last resort of the failed debater: make things so hopelessly off-topic that the thread must be locked, hiding your shame in the depths of the internets forever!

It would have been libel if he'd changed your quote to "I'm a poopy poop head who eats poop."

But honestly, guess what, since Dakka is not a public institution (it's owners have control over it, not the government or users) 1st amendment protections don't actually apply here.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

willydstyle wrote:Satire is protected under the 1st amendment by Fair Use!

Satire sure - when written as first person. The quote however treads in the waters of slander and libel.

How? He said in his post that he edited your quote.

I guess that's the last grasp, you can't convince us that your argument is correct (cause we aren't dumb) so you resort to veiled threats and general internet tough-guyness.

This thread has clearly gone off the rails and is therefore being locked.