So the DE weapon Hex rifle states that a model that suffers an unsaved wound from a hexrifle must pass a wound charactristics test or be removed from play. FNP states that if a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound he may roll a dice to ignore the wound. So even if he ignores the wound does he still take the test vs the hex rifle?

No. The wound is ignored, as such no unsaved wound is actually suffered.

To be prosaic FNP is an interrupt from old school magic.
Or a reflex based charm from something like Exalted.
Maybe even evasion in DOTA style games.

Ah, here we go again. There was a lot of fuss made about something similar with Lemartes over on Warseer.

If both abilities trigger from "suffers an unsaved wound" how do you determine which one takes precedence?

RAW, a model that passes FNP has still "suffered an unsaved wound," otherwise it wouldn't have had to take the FNP test in the first place.

And if the unsaved wound is ignored, then it's ignored, not just 'ignored for some things but not others.'

the best way to deal with the timing on these sorts of abilities is:

"Denial before enhancer"

The means any preventative abilities should go off before any extra effects, when they both have the same trigger.

For example: FNP would always go before any further effects caused by "When a model suffers an unsaved wound".

Corrode wrote:And if the unsaved wound is ignored, then it's ignored, not just 'ignored for some things but not others.'

Exactly what I was about to write. Ignored means it didn't happen.

Ignored means it functionally didn't happen, so the hex rifle doesn't get to trigger.

Mannahnin wrote:Ignored means it functionally didn't happen, so the hex rifle doesn't get to trigger.

OK say you all seem to be saying FNP comes first which I'm fine with but where does it state this in the rules, the trigger for both events is an unsaved wound (does the same apply to flesh guantlets that cause instant death with an unsaved wound?).

The phrase "the wound is ignored" doesn't appear in the FNP rules.

In order for FNP to trigger, the model must have suffered an unsaved wound. If FNP has triggered, the model has suffered an unsaved wound, and if the model suffers an unsaved wound it must suffer the effects of the Hexrifle.

I mean, the whole denial before enhancement is a nice house rule...but it's not supported by the RAW.

(does the same apply to flesh guantlets that cause instant death with an unsaved wound?).

FNP is denied by weapons that inflict instant death (by either doubling its toughness or having a special rule to that effect).

"On a 4, 5 or 6 the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting."(BRB pg. 75)

Seems like you are right, not just the unsaved wound is ignored, but the entire injury caused by the weapon, including any funky characteristic test.

Even if it weren't, if you are taking the hex rifle test, you are not ignoring the wound and thus breaking the rules.

Unsaved wound =/= injury.

Canadian 5th wrote:Unsaved wound =/= injury.

Cool, so FNP doesn't work at all then since all it does is ignore an 'injury'?

Corrode wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:Unsaved wound =/= injury.

Cool, so FNP doesn't work at all then since all it does is ignore an 'injury'?

Yup, no weapon causes injury in the entire game. Weapons cause wounds though.

Things to note about the hex rifle ...

1) it is a sniper weapon ... this means that any 6's are rending so ignore armour save and FnP

2) While it say it does not effect vehicels that is just the special characteristic test, as a sniper weapon it Str 3+ D6 and hopefully a rending D3.

3) If a model with wounds is effected by the special test then they die, with no saves.

4) Gargantuan creature cannot be affected by weapons without a strength characteristic.

Tri wrote:
2) While it say it does not effect vehicels that is just the special characteristic test, as a sniper weapon it Str 3+ D6 and hopefully a rending D3.

There's nothing to indicate that's true. It says vehicles can't be affected by hexrifles...so vehicles can't be effected by hexrifles.

Compare that with the poisoned weapon's rule: "These weapons confer no advantage against vehicles." Models with poisoned weapons have their base strength to fall back on (in close combat anyway). Models with sniper rifles rely on the special rule to damage a vehicle. The Hexrifle overrides that rule.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Corrode wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:Unsaved wound =/= injury.

Cool, so FNP doesn't work at all then since all it does is ignore an 'injury'?

Yup, no weapon causes injury in the entire game. Weapons cause wounds though.

Good to know that we've solved the problem of FNP spam with the realisation that it doesn't work anyway. Or we could stop pretending we play Magic and have keywords and so on and remember that injury and wound are synonyms which are close enough for the group of middle-aged casual players who wrote the game to think they'd mean the same thing to anyone who doesn't need help tying their own shoelaces.

If we can agree that injury and wound are synonyms, why can't we agree that "suffers an unsaved wound" and "suffers an unsaved wound" are very similar phrases?

I never said they weren't; my argument is that if FNP causes the unsaved woudn to be 'ignored' then it's ignored. There's nothing to suggest it's 'ignored but only a little bit.'

bushido wrote:If we can agree that injury and wound are synonyms, why can't we agree that "suffers an unsaved wound" and "suffers an unsaved wound" are very similar phrases?

The argument is that, if you still act as if an unsaved wound has occured, you have not ignored said unsaved wound

bushido wrote:The phrase "the wound is ignored" doesn't appear in the FNP rules.

In order for FNP to trigger, the model must have suffered an unsaved wound. If FNP has triggered, the model has suffered an unsaved wound, and if the model suffers an unsaved wound it must suffer the effects of the Hexrifle.

I mean, the whole denial before enhancement is a nice house rule...but it's not supported by the RAW.

(does the same apply to flesh guantlets that cause instant death with an unsaved wound?).

FNP is denied by weapons that inflict instant death (by either doubling its toughness or having a special rule to that effect).

I can run with this and amend my original idea:
Scratch what I had just said in this post prior to my edit.

FNP is itself negated by attacks that cause ID; ID itself is dependent upon unsaved wounds in all cases. Flesh gauntlets cause ID; therefore negate FNP. My original idea still functions with this case.

Corrode wrote:I never said they weren't; my argument is that if FNP causes the unsaved woudn to be 'ignored' then it's ignored. There's nothing to suggest it's 'ignored but only a little bit.'

And then you're back to: Where is it written that FNP takes precedence over other abilities that trigger off of models suffering unsaved wounds?

Compare this to the DE Clawed Fiend's special ability: "A Clawed Fiend gains +1A each time is loses a Wound."

You all seem to be under the assumption that the "unsaved wound" that triggers FNP is somehow different than the exact same "unsaved wound" wording that triggers other effects.

FNP allows you to ignore the effects of an unsaved wound, which is the model losing/taking a wound. The effect of FNP is not to allow you to ignore that an unsaved wound ever occurred, because that would be imposible.

Is this not in effect the same Arguement as Acid Blood and Feel No Pain?

bushido wrote:

Corrode wrote:I never said they weren't; my argument is that if FNP causes the unsaved woudn to be 'ignored' then it's ignored. There's nothing to suggest it's 'ignored but only a little bit.'

And then you're back to: Where is it written that FNP takes precedence over other abilities that trigger off of models suffering unsaved wounds?

Compare this to the DE Clawed Fiend's special ability: "A Clawed Fiend gains +1A each time is loses a Wound."

You all seem to be under the assumption that the "unsaved wound" that triggers FNP is somehow different than the exact same "unsaved wound" wording that triggers other effects.

FNP allows you to ignore the effects of an unsaved wound, which is the model losing/taking a wound. The effect of FNP is not to allow you to ignore that an unsaved wound ever occurred, because that would be imposible.

And then we are back to feel no pain does nothing at all.

BRB page 24, remove casualties, second sentence: "Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is removed as a casualty."

BRB page 26, Multiple wound models, second paragraph: When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one wound is removed from it's profile."

So if FNP does not function before any other effects triggered via suffering an unsaved wound, then it never works.

bushido wrote:

Corrode wrote:I never said they weren't; my argument is that if FNP causes the unsaved woudn to be 'ignored' then it's ignored. There's nothing to suggest it's 'ignored but only a little bit.'

And then you're back to: Where is it written that FNP takes precedence over other abilities that trigger off of models suffering unsaved wounds?

Compare this to the DE Clawed Fiend's special ability: "A Clawed Fiend gains +1A each time is loses a Wound."

You all seem to be under the assumption that the "unsaved wound" that triggers FNP is somehow different than the exact same "unsaved wound" wording that triggers other effects.

FNP allows you to ignore the effects of an unsaved wound, which is the model losing/taking a wound. The effect of FNP is not to allow you to ignore that an unsaved wound ever occurred, because that would be imposible.

In what way would the hexrifle effect not be an effect of suffering an unsaved wound?

I don't see the argument here... Both effects happen when an "unsaved wound" occurs. Roll for both, if the toughness test fails the model is removed as per Hexrifles ability. The text doesn't say, remove model from play only if the injury is not ignored. both are unsaved wounds, both abilities happen, FnP doesn't stop a remove from play

Built-in wrote:I don't see the argument here... Both effects happen when an "unsaved wound" occurs. Roll for both, if the toughness test fails the model is removed as per Hexrifles ability. The text doesn't say, remove model from play only if the injury is not ignored. both are unsaved wounds, both abilities happen, FnP doesn't stop a remove from play

FnP doesn't stop a remove from play, however, if the hex rifle takes effect the wound is hardly ignored.

You have one of two ways to go about things that trigger off unsaved wounds when FNP is involved.

Way #1:
Roll for FNP first, if passed ignore the wound (This is the same as the wound never happening and thus nothing else can trigger)

Way #2:
Roll for any effects except for FNP, and save FNP until last, then
Roll for FNP last and if passed ignore the wound then ignore all the results of any effects you have rolled for, since you have to Ignore the wound (as if the wound never happened) because of FNP.

and yes wound = injury, the terms are interchangeable.

Built-in wrote:I don't see the argument here... Both effects happen when an "unsaved wound" occurs. Roll for both, if the toughness test fails the model is removed as per Hexrifles ability. The text doesn't say, remove model from play only if the injury is not ignored. both are unsaved wounds, both abilities happen, FnP doesn't stop a remove from play

Death reaper has it; but in regards to your statement; if the effects caused from an unsaved wound happen before FNP; then see my earlier bit where FNP never works, one of the effects of suffering an unsaved wound is the loss of a wound or the removal of the model.

If you allow FNP to actually function and the unsaved wound is ignored, then the model has not suffered an unsaved wound and none of the ancillary effects caused by said unsaved wound can possibly take effect(as no unsaved wound was suffered).

Since when does ignored mean it never happened??

Ignored does not mean that the unsaved wound didn't happen, it just means that the model doesnt pay attention to the fact that he just got his spleen blown out of his body.

I can ignore that annoying kid in the corner who keeps making loud screeching noises whenever he rolls the dice., but that doesnt mean that he isnt still making the noises every time he rolls the dice. Just because you ignore something doesnt mean it never happened.

If you pass the FnP roll, the wound is ignored and you dont lose a wound, but its still an unsaved wound that you failed an armor test for, hence you would still have to abide by the rules for the hexrifle.

Meaning you havent ignored the wound - you are still paying attention to it, by doing something that triggers from that state.

So once again we're back to 'ignored doesn't actually mean ignored.'

Either the wound is ignored, in which case nothing happens, or it isn't ignored, in which case FNP doesn't ever work. You can't have it both ways.

The wound itself is ignored, the secondary effects aren't.

Canadian 5th wrote:The wound itself is ignored, the secondary effects aren't.

You'll be able to back this up with rules, I'm sure.

Both Feel No Pain (FnP) and the Hex Rifle Toughness Test (HRTT) trigger on an unsaved wound.

In the simplest of situations:
If you perform and succeed at FnP first, the wound is ignored and you don't perform HRTT. Therefore, you break the rules.

If you perform and fail the HRTT first, the model is removed from play and you don't perform FnP. Therefore, you break the rules.

However, as Canadian 5th says, if FnP only ignores the wound, but not the secondary effects (and therefore HRTT doesn't ignore FnP as well because the model is no longer there) you can perform both. So if you then perform both, succeed at FnP and fail the HRTT, the wound is still ignored (as in, "you don't suffer a -1 on your wound characteristic") but you are removed from play as per the Hex Rifle rules.

Canadian 5th wrote:The wound itself is ignored, the secondary effects aren't.

You are treating the trigger event (unsaved wound) as if it still existed, in order to propagate your "secondary" effects.

Meaning you arent ignoring the wound.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:The wound itself is ignored, the secondary effects aren't.

You are treating the trigger event (unsaved wound) as if it still existed, in order to propagate your "secondary" effects.

Meaning you arent ignoring the wound.

The same can be said in favour of the Hex Rifle. You are rolling FnP, but the model is no longer in play.

Which breaks FNP. Which was tghe point - you can either break FNP so it doesnt work, or accept that the hex rifle doesnt trigger from an unsaved wound that has been "saved" by FNP.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Which breaks FNP. Which was tghe point - you can either break FNP so it doesnt work, or accept that the hex rifle doesnt trigger from an unsaved wound that has been "saved" by FNP.

So what you are saying is that you can either break FnP or the Hex Rifle special rule. But you prefer to break the Hex Rifle rule.

This isn't magic, with triggers being like throwing grenades. If the cause of the trigger is gone, everything the trigger does is gone.

1. A painboy suffers an unsaved wound.
2. Roll feel no pain with this blue dice and hex rifle test with this red dice.
3 -> passes FNP, fails hexrifle
4. Ignore wound.
5. No reason for hexrifle to remove model, as no unsaved wound has been suffered.

Jidmah wrote:This isn't magic, with triggers being like throwing grenades. If the cause of the trigger is gone, everything the trigger does is gone.

1. A painboy suffers an unsaved wound.
2. Roll feel no pain with this blue dice and hex rifle test with this red dice.
3 -> passes FNP, fails hexrifle
4. Ignore wound.
5. No reason for hexrifle to remove model, as no unsaved wound has been suffered.

1. A painboy suffers an unsaved wound.
2. Roll feel no pain with this blue dice and hex rifle test with this red dice.
3 -> passes FNP, fails hexrifle
4. Remove model from play.
5. No reason to ignore the wound, as the model has been removed from play.

Fixed?

Except you didnt ignore the wound, as the hex rifle still triggered.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you didnt ignore the wound, as the hex rifle still triggered.

And you didn't remove the model from play, as FnP still triggered.

Its FNP that tells you to ignore the wound.

If you have ignored the wound, you have no cause to use the hex rifles ability

nosferatu1001 wrote:Its FNP that tells you to ignore the wound.

If you have ignored the wound, you have no cause to use the hex rifles ability

So you prioritize FnP over the Hex Rifle, even though both happen at the same time (the original unsaved wound). So you'd rather break the Hex Rifle rule than the FnP one.

You don't violate the hex rifle rule. The model didn't suffer a wound, so the hex rifle rule is intact, as it does nothing if the model didn't suffer a wound.
You do violate the rules if you apply the hex rifle rule, even though the target model never suffered an unsaved wound.

The definition of an unsaved wound:

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course, this also includes wound against which no save can be attempted, [...]

At this point you're just making stuff up to suit your argument.

The model/unit was hit.
The model was allocated a wound.
The model failed its save.
The model has suffered an unsaved wound.

FNP tells you to ignore the injury, it does not tell you to ignore the unsaved wound. FNP prevents the "remove casualties" effects of an unsaved wound in the same way that the Instant Death rule prevents the use of FNP.

A lot of combat and shooting resolution takes place simultaneously. It's strange to me that you have such a problem with the effects of an "unsaved wound" being resolved the same way.

bushido wrote:The definition of an unsaved wound:

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course, this also includes wound against which no save can be attempted, [...]

At this point you're just making stuff up to suit your argument.

The model/unit was hit.
The model was allocated a wound.
The model failed its save.
The model has suffered an unsaved wound.

FNP tells you to ignore the injury, it does not tell you to ignore the unsaved wound. FNP prevents the "remove casualties" effects of an unsaved wound in the same way that the Instant Death rule prevents the use of FNP.

A lot of combat and shooting resolution takes place simultaneously. It's strange to me that you have such a problem with the effects of an "unsaved wound" being resolved the same way.

The problem is the "ignore the injury" part of FnP. A lot of people resolve this as: roll back to a point in time where the wound has not occured yet.

I think people are ignoring a piece here FNP is not a "SAVE", it is a special rule, no where in its rule does it say that it is a save. so the model still takes an unsaved wound, which does not cause the model to be removed because of a "wound".

BBB p75 "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."

the hex rifle triggers on an unsaved wound, which has occured wether or not a special rule prevents the wound from being recorded on the model.

so in this case the model will not take a wound on it profile, but still must take the Wounds test to avoid being removed from the table, which has nothing to do with wounds.

If you " take the Wounds test to avoid being removed from the table" then you have not ignored the wound.

you have two ways to look at FNP.

It says if you fail you take the wound as normal, and if you make it you IGNORE IT!

now at the point we ignore it we have to actually ignore it, I.E. Pretend it did not happen.

So if we pretend the wound did not happen, we can not activate any effects from said wound, since we are ignoring it.

As I said earlier, take FNP first Ignore the wound, and the effects that triggered from the wound.

Take FNP second after you have rolled to determine effects caused from the wound, then roll FNP and ignore the wound, and the effects that triggered from the wound.

So you may as well roll FNP first because if you roll a 4+ you ignore the wound (As if it never happened.) therefore no effects can trigger since we are ignoring the wound(As if it never happened.)

DeathReaper wrote:If you " take the Wounds test to avoid being removed from the table" then you have not ignored the wound.

you have two ways to look at FNP.

It says if you fail you take the wound as normal, and if you make it you IGNORE IT!

now at the point we ignore it we have to actually ignore it, I.E. Pretend it did not happen.

So if we pretend the wound did not happen, we can not activate any effects from said wound, since we are ignoring it.

As I said earlier, take FNP first Ignore the wound, and the effects that triggered from the wound.

Take FNP second after you have rolled to determine effects caused from the wound, then roll FNP and ignore the wound, and the effects that triggered from the wound.

So you may as well roll FNP first because if you roll a 4+ you ignore the wound (As if it never happened.) therefore no effects can trigger since we are ignoring the wound(As if it never happened.)

At no point does it say you ignore the wound.

Also, you can ignore an injury all you like only to die of infection or blood lose.

Also, role for FNP when you've been removed due to the Hexrifle's rule... What's that, you can't?

Canadian 5th wrote:
At no point does it say you ignore the wound.

Also, you can ignore an injury all you like only to die of infection or blood lose.

Also, role for FNP when you've been removed due to the Hexrifle's rule... What's that, you can't?

The underlined above is why you have to roll for FNP first, otherwise you break FNP and it is useless.

Look at the context of FNP.
BBB p75 "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."

on one result you take the wound as normal, on the other you IGNORE IT. Wound = injury

In fact this is the only time the rules reference Injury, so either injury = wound, or FNP does nothing.

How does one take wound effects into account when you are told to ignore it?

How is this not resolved under the traditional "specific beats general" rule?

- FNP is a special rule that triggers on an unsaved wound.

- Hex Rifle is a special rule that triggers on an unsaved wound.

- The operation of one of the above negates the operation of the other.

- Therefore, because the Hex Rifle is a more specific rule (Codex) than FNP (rulebook), Hex Rifle wins out.

Submitted for consideration.

DeathReaper wrote:
How does one take wound effects into account when you are told to ignore it?

Easy. The model is removed from play with all his wounds intact.

I think everyone is missing an important part of the Hex Rifle rule:

"A model that suffers an unsaved wound from a hexrifle must take a characteristic test based on their Wounds value (i.e. the one on their profile, not the current Wounds). If they fail the test, they are removed from play, with no saves of any kind."

To me, this means that the Toughness test occurs after the armor save, and if failed, denies the ability to use FnP.

edited for typo.

this part is true for everyone

the general procedure is :

model is targeted
model is hit
model fails their armor/invul/cover save
model has suffered an unsaved wound.
model applies one wound to its profile
models with 0 wounds are removed.

now we have two special rules which take precedence over the general

hex rifle
model suffering an unsaved wound makes a T test or be removed from the table.

FNP
model suffering an unsaved wound rolls a die 1-3 as normal 4-6 the model [does not take a wound on its profile].

still there is no issue here
The special rule for the hex rifle is not dependant on the model to actually apply a wound to its profile, its only dependant on it suffering an "unsaved wound"

so it is completly reasonable for the model to make a FNP so it does not deduct a wound, but still fail the wounds test and be removed.

lixulana wrote:
we have two special rules which take precedence over the general

hex rifle
model suffering an unsaved wound makes a T test or be removed from the table.

FNP
model suffering an unsaved wound rolls a die 1-3 as normal 4-6 the [Wound is IGNORED] model [does not take a wound on its profile].

still there is no issue here
The special rule for the hex rifle is not dependant on the model to actually apply a wound to its profile, its only dependant on it suffering an "unsaved wound"

so it is completly [not] reasonable for the model to make a FNP so it [Ignores a wound not] does not deduct a wound, but still fail the wounds test and be removed.

fixed with the yellow.

Except that triggering effects off of a wound that you are told to ignore is breaking the rules. In the underlined, if you are ignoring the wound due to FNP then you can not trigger any effects of said unsaved wound, to do so would not be ignoring the wound.

To have suffered an unsaved wound, you would not have to be ignoring said unsaved wound.

lixulana wrote:model has suffered an unsaved wound.
model applies one wound to its profile
models with 0 wounds are removed.

Not to be pedantic, but this is only the procedure for single multi-wound models. It's slightly different (although mostly functionally identical) for units. However, it is irrelevant here.

lixulana wrote:hex rifle
model suffering an unsaved wound makes a T test or be removed from the table.

And if a model is removed from the table, it cannot take a FNP roll.

lixulana wrote:FNP
model suffering an unsaved wound rolls a die 1-3 as normal 4-6 the model [does not take a wound on its profile].

If it makes the save, it ignores the unsaved wound. If the unsaved wound is ignored, then the Hex Rifle can't trigger.

lixulana wrote:The special rule for the hex rifle is not dependant on the model to actually apply a wound to its profile, its only dependant on it suffering an "unsaved wound"

so it is completly reasonable for the model to make a FNP so it does not deduct a wound, but still fail the wounds test and be removed.

I don't think this is correct, for the reasons mentioned above. FNP means the model ignores the unsaved wound. If the unsaved wound is ignored, then you should treat the model as if it has never suffered an unsaved wound. Therefore, the operation of the Hex Rifle and FNP are independent and inconsistent.

DeathReaper wrote: [Wound is IGNORED]

It's customary to say "I don't meant to sound rude, but..." I think that time has passed, though. So if I come off as rude, deal with it.

The rules as printed in black and white DO NOT say to ignore the wound. If it did, you might have a leg to stand it. But it doesn't, so you don't. The rule says to ignore the injury. "Injury" is undefined as a term in 40k, so pretending that you know what the writers meant to say is inappropriate.

Even if FNP did say to ignore the wound, your opponent can just as easily say, "Hey, screw your FNP, take my Hexrifle test first, and then, if your worthless model is still there, we'll talk." Because you have NO EVIDENCE that FNP takes precedence over anything other than subtracting wounds from a model's profile. If it did, Instant Death would have no effect on models with FNP because, guess what, that triggers off of "suffering an unsaved wound" as well.

So pretend that your model that passed his FNP check never suffered an unsaved wound all you want. It doesn't make it true.

biccat wrote:

lixulana wrote:hex rifle
model suffering an unsaved wound makes a T test or be removed from the table.

And if a model is removed from the table, it cannot take a FNP roll.

And that's covered by the Hexrifle rule that states that the model gets no further saves after failing the Toughness test.

Interesting discussion to follow.

I wonder how closely this would parallel status effects of glancing a daemonically possessed walker in close combat. Glances and penetrates count towards combat resolution. If you get a glance against a Soul Grinder and shake it...it ignores the result. While it doesn't suffer from the result due to its rule, it was still glanced.

It seems like a good parallel to this discussion. A model fails a save against a Hex Rifle and takes an unsaved wound. FnP lets it ignore the result of the unsaved wound....but the status of having taken an unsaved wound still exists. Failing a save = an unsaved wound. Ignoring the effect of the unsaved wound via a special rule doesn't change the status of the model (having suffered an unsaved wound), it only modifies the consequences of having done so - no longer needing to apply a negative wound counter to the model.

Dashofpepper wrote:

I wonder how closely this would parallel status effects of glancing a daemonically possessed walker in close combat. Glances and penetrates count towards combat resolution. If you get a glance against a Soul Grinder and shake it...it ignores the result. While it doesn't suffer from the result due to its rule, it was still glanced.

Maybe, but:
pg.73

Each roll made on the Vehicle Damage table against a walker counts as a single wound for the purposes of working out who won the combat.

That just cares about the roll. Daemonic possession allows you to ignore Shaken and Stunned "results." Even normal walkers are unaffected by Shaken "results" in close combat.

The Hex rifle triggers on an unsaved wound suffered you have passed your FNP test, and the unsaved wound is ignored(thus no longer "suffered" by the model in question); why wound the secondary effect still occur?

FNP specifically retro-acts to ignore it's own trigger(Suffer the unsaved wound, test for FNP, go back and discount the unsaved wound sufferage, technically at this point you would no longer have had to take the FNP test, but the net result is that the unsaved wound is no longer suffered).

Kommissar Kel wrote:The Hex rifle triggers on an unsaved wound suffered you have passed your FNP test, and the unsaved wound is ignored(thus no longer "suffered" by the model in question); why wound the secondary effect still occur?

FNP specifically retro-acts to ignore it's own trigger(Suffer the unsaved wound, test for FNP, go back and discount the unsaved wound sufferage, technically at this point you would no longer have had to take the FNP test, but the net result is that the unsaved wound is no longer suffered).

Then please explain the bolded portion of the Hexrifle rule below:

"A model that suffers an unsaved wound from a hexrifle must take a characteristic test based on their Wounds value (i.e. the one on their profile, not the current Wounds). If they fail the test, they are removed from play, with no saves of any kind."

The armor/cover save has already occurred before the Characteristic test is called for. What other save would the rule be referring to, if not to Feel no Pain?

Saldiven wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:The Hex rifle triggers on an unsaved wound suffered you have passed your FNP test, and the unsaved wound is ignored(thus no longer "suffered" by the model in question); why wound the secondary effect still occur?

FNP specifically retro-acts to ignore it's own trigger(Suffer the unsaved wound, test for FNP, go back and discount the unsaved wound sufferage, technically at this point you would no longer have had to take the FNP test, but the net result is that the unsaved wound is no longer suffered).

Then please explain the bolded portion of the Hexrifle rule below:

"A model that suffers an unsaved wound from a hexrifle must take a characteristic test based on their Wounds value (i.e. the one on their profile, not the current Wounds). If they fail the test, they are removed from play, with no saves of any kind."

The armor/cover save has already occurred before the Characteristic test is called for. What other save would the rule be referring to, if not to Feel no Pain?

It is referring to the lose of any additional wounds the model had. Not to the wound it already lost.

It is an additional effect after the Hex rifle wound has been Suffered.

This means that if the hexrifle hits a model(we will assume the target has no FNP, just for ease of example), and wounds, and the Save is failed, you take a T Test; fail the test and you are removed. If the model in question has 3W and eternal warrior, but still failed the test, it is still removed with no saves of any kind.

Also FNP is in no way ever defined as a "Save", it is an ability. Saves are defined as Armor, Cover, or invulnerable saves. That bolded portion of the rule is to inform you that none of those 3 can prevent the removal from play(a clarification, that is not entirely needed since the Hex rifle ability does not cause any extra wounds, and saves can only be taken against wounds. then again were that not plainly stated people would still be on here asking if they can take an Armour or invulnerable save from the failed T Test).

jbunny wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:The Hex rifle triggers on an unsaved wound suffered you have passed your FNP test, and the unsaved wound is ignored(thus no longer "suffered" by the model in question); why wound the secondary effect still occur?

FNP specifically retro-acts to ignore it's own trigger(Suffer the unsaved wound, test for FNP, go back and discount the unsaved wound sufferage, technically at this point you would no longer have had to take the FNP test, but the net result is that the unsaved wound is no longer suffered).

Then please explain the bolded portion of the Hexrifle rule below:

"A model that suffers an unsaved wound from a hexrifle must take a characteristic test based on their Wounds value (i.e. the one on their profile, not the current Wounds). If they fail the test, they are removed from play, with no saves of any kind."

The armor/cover save has already occurred before the Characteristic test is called for. What other save would the rule be referring to, if not to Feel no Pain?

It is referring to the lose of any additional wounds the model had. Not to the wound it already lost.

I disagree. I see where you're going, but never in the existence of "Removed from play" has the presence of any additional wounds made any difference. I see no reason why GW would suddenly have those remaining wounds obtain some significance.

To me, that last line has the following significance.

1. Suffer wound from HR.
2. Fail armor save.
3a. Make characteristic test. If failed, remove from play with no save of any kind, or
3b. Pass characteristic test. Proceed to FnP to avoid the initial wound.

To me, this breaks no rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Also FNP is in no way ever defined as a "Save", it is an ability. Saves are defined as Armor, Cover, or invulnerable saves. That bolded portion of the rule is to inform you that none of those 3 can prevent the removal from play(a clarification, that is not entirely needed since the Hex rifle ability does not cause any extra wounds, and saves can only be taken against wounds. then again were that not plainly stated people would still be on here asking if they can take an Armour or invulnerable save from the failed T Test).

And then we return to the argument that has not been answered: Why does FnP trump the Hexrifle? You've just admitted that the FnP isn't a save, so passing that roll doesn't remove the "unsaved wound." Sure, you get to ignore the "injury." Unfortunately, the Hexrifle doesn't care if you've suffered an injury, merely an "unsaved wound." Regardless of whether or not you've ignored the injury and discounted the wound, you still suffered an "unsaved wound."

The two rolls would happen at the same time, so you roll two dice at once with different colors. There is no indication of any order. If the FNP dice rolls a success the injury is ignored, erasing the reason for hex rifle having any additional effect.

And "the injury" is of course referring to "unsaved wound" the word "wound" even appears on the exact same sentence. Injury is not defined in Warhammer 40k, the rules of FNP are using "wound" and "injury" as synonyms to not use "unsaved wound" three times in one sentence.

Just to show the error in your train of thought: If "injury" isn't "unsaved wound", then "wound" isn't either.
-> On a 1, 2 or 3 I suffer the wound as normal.
-> It's not an unsaved wound.
-> I get to roll armor/cover/invul again
-> If I fail it would become an unsaved wound, triggering FNP
-> Back to step one.
-> If I pass, the wound is saved, hexrifle doesn't trigger.
So the only way to actually suffer any additional wounds by hex rifle would be passing a feel no pain roll, while FNP models would be otherwise invincible.

Ignoring the injury is not defined. Therefore, its not possible to say with certainty whether you are ignoring the unsaved wound al together, or just ignoring the 1 wound you would remove from the profile.

After reading the thread I'm inclined to say that FNP does not stop the hexrifle's RFP ability, but may stop the model from removing a wound from its profile.

"ignoring _the_ injury", not ignore any injury. Obviously referring to something.

But you have still ignored the wound, as you did not remove the wound from the model, or remove the model as a casualty as a result of the wound.

The wound still happened, whether you ignore it or not. FnP states you ignore it, not that it doesnt happen. This is where the confusion lies. I can ignore the fact that I broke my finger and continue to fight, but that doesnt mean at the end of the fight my finger will be miraculously healed and unbroken, it just means I am shrugging off the pain and discomfort and continuing to fight on. The wound is still there, as it is still there in the game, your model just pushes through the pain and doesnt pay attention to it.

Correct, obviously its refering to something....

What that something is, however, is not obvious.

In case I wasn't clear on my position in relation to other models in other circumstances....

When a model suffers an unsaved wound, FnP offers the model to negate the effect of the unsaved wound. It does not redact the unsaved wound, nor make the unsaved wound not have occurred - it simply negates the wound profile modifier.

If a model with FnP fails an armour save, it has experienced an unsaved wound.
If a model with FnP passed a FnP check, it ignores the result of experiencing an unsaved wound.

The model still took an unsaved wound, however a special rule let it bypass losing a wound. That special rule (FnP) doesn't negate the fact that you were shot at, nor that you failed an armour save - those actions still took place.

Again; much like possessed vehicles - shoot a possessed vehicle and glance it for a stunned result. Possessed vehicles ignore shaken and stunned results. They don't ignore glances, nor does the fact that they ignore shaken and stunned results mean that the vehicle wasn't glanced - simply that the effect of the glance was negated.

Lets say a ranged weapon that causes a glance or penetrate on a vehicle gets to move the vehicle D6 inches on a scatter dice. You shake a possessed vehicle, which ignores the result. The vehicle STILL moves D6 because it was STILL glanced.

The same applies here. FnP bypasses the consequence of an unsaved wound (losing 1W), it doesn't negate the fact that the model suffered an unsaved wound.

There are only two options - "wound" or "unsaved wound". No other injuries mentioned in that paragraph. As "unsaved wound" is just a subtype of "wound" it does not really matter. In either case, the wound is completely ignored without any restrictions.

Galador: Real life examples have no bearing on rules whatsoever. Rhino self-repair, grot riggers and big meks also ignore "immobilized" results, this does not mean that the vehicle magically starts moving without tracks/wheels, but that it was fixed.
Ignoring an unsaved wound means nothing but that it never happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dash, possessed vehicles ignore results, while combat resolution, for example, counts rolls and your ranger weapon counts glances and penetrating hits(which would even occur before cover saves). For example, a striking scorpions biting blade would figure out it's strength(+1 for each hit) before making a single penetration roll.

Sadly, any occurrences of "ignore any penetrating or glancing hits" are cover or invulnerable saves, otherwise it would be a great place to look at.

Jidmah wrote:
Sadly, any occurrences of "ignore any penetrating or glancing hits" are cover or invulnerable saves, otherwise it would be a great place to look at.

Hrm....

Except that FnP doesn't say to ignore the unsaved wound does it? Doesn't it say to ignore the injury caused by the unsaved wound?

The model still suffered an unsaved wound; whether it suffers the injury caused by the unsaved wound is irrelevant to the Hex Rifle. That's why I keep going back to the possessed vehicle analogy. FnP doesn't negate the status, it negates the consequence.

Passing a FnP check puts a model here:

Did the model suffer an unsaved wound: Yes.
Did the model suffer the injury from the unsaved wound: No.

Hex Rifles (and other things that require a model to have suffered an unsaved wound) don't care what injury was caused, how many wounds a model has, what its leadership is...it is itself a check. Did the model fail to pass an armour save? If it did, it has triggered the effect caused by being dealt an unsaved wound.

The same would apply to what's his face that gets to ignore the first failed wound he rolls. Despite having not been reduced in wounds, and not having a wound applied to his profile, he suffered an unsaved wound - and a special rule came in and negated the result of the unsaved wound. That doesn't mean he didn't suffer an unsaved wound....otherwise he would be at full health, claiming that he can continue to ignore unsaved wounds because he hasn't suffered one yet.

Baron Sathonyx is another good analogy. The Shadowfield (2++ save) works until he suffers an unsaved wound. If the Baron has FnP, and fails his shadowfield save, but then makes a FnP...he has taken no wounds. And yet, the Shadowfield is gone because he suffered an unsaved wound.

I feel like Dash has hit the nail right on the head. I know other people will still not agree, but his interpretation of the rule is about as logical as you can get from GW rules.

I agree with the Hexrifle working for the rules reasons stated above (FNP canceling the removal of a wound, not it completely ignores all effects).

I also see the hexrifle as working from a fluff perspective. It doesn't care that you don't care that you just got shot... it just turns you to glass anyway.

Shrike325 wrote:I agree with the Hexrifle working for the rules reasons stated above (FNP canceling the removal of a wound, not it completely ignores all effects).

I also see the hexrifle as working from a fluff perspective. It doesn't care that you don't care that you just got shot... it just turns you to glass anyway.

Except that if you have the HR affect the model then you have not ignored the wound that was just caused.

DeathReaper wrote:

Shrike325 wrote:I agree with the Hexrifle working for the rules reasons stated above (FNP canceling the removal of a wound, not it completely ignores all effects).

I also see the hexrifle as working from a fluff perspective. It doesn't care that you don't care that you just got shot... it just turns you to glass anyway.

Except that if you have the HR affect the model then you have not ignored the wound that was just caused.

Which is just fine...because you're not instructed to ignore the fact that the model received an unsaved wound. Instead, you're told to ignore the injury caused by it. Again...see the ample correlations to similar situations in 40k that I've outlined.

Dashofpepper wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Shrike325 wrote:I agree with the Hexrifle working for the rules reasons stated above (FNP canceling the removal of a wound, not it completely ignores all effects).

I also see the hexrifle as working from a fluff perspective. It doesn't care that you don't care that you just got shot... it just turns you to glass anyway.

Except that if you have the HR affect the model then you have not ignored the wound that was just caused.

Which is just fine...because you're not instructed to ignore the fact that the model received an unsaved wound. Instead, you're told to ignore the injury caused by it. Again...see the ample correlations to similar situations in 40k that I've outlined.

If you're going to be that pedantic then you better also be able to define what an 'injury' is in the context of the 40k rules. If it's the wound, then we're back to ignoring the unsaved wound. If it's not, then FNP never works because an 'injury' isn't anything.

The problem we have here is the fact that we're trying to apply a uniform ruling to all situations when in reality the different writers of the game don't seem to follow that same kind of uniformity.

In the olden days, GW used to write rules that simply said: 'when a model suffers a wound X happens' or 'when a model is wounded X happens'. Of course people then naturally got confused as to whether those things still technically occurred when the wound was saved, since technically the model had still been wounded.

So more recently, GW has switched over to using the term 'unsaved wound' to show very clearly that, yes, when a model saves the wound, the effect does not occur.

But of course the problem with Feel No Pain is the ever nebulous wording that it simply ignores the 'injury' and the fact that Feel No Pain is triggered by an 'unsaved wound' which is the exact same thing that triggers other effects.

The issue with all of this is you have to figure out exactly what the rules writers should or should not be writing and compare it with what you think they are or are not writing.

Say you're a 40K rules writer and you want to create a rule that works when a model actually SUFFERS a wound. Not one that's saved by a save and not one that's stopped by Feel No Pain either...so what do you have to write?

If you're aware that Feel No Pain is worded so nebulously and you want to be super clear (and have no limitations on how much you can write) then you'd probably go with something like you find in the close combat resolution section of the rulebook (pg 39):

'Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count.'


So your brand new rule would probably read something like:

'anytime a model suffers an unsaved wound, not including wounds negated by Feel No Pain or other similar special rules, X happens...'


In fact, you might even think that GW's inclusion of such a rule in the rulebook presents clear evidence that any other rule which isn't so explicit would not be prevented by a successful Feel No Pain roll, but again that's a logical fallacy based upon the assumption that the multitude of different rules writers they have are even cognisant that there is such a distinction.

A very similar correlation (IMHO) can be drawn to the different authors' uses of when cover saves are allowed or not allowed. Depending on the particular author and the context of the particular rule at times it seems that cover saves are always allowed unless specified otherwise and in other cases it seems obvious that covers saves are not allowed unless specified otherwise. It really comes down to what author was writing the rule at the time and what their preconceived notions about cover saves were in that particular situation.


IMHO, the codex writers tend to use the term 'unsaved wound' to represent a situation when a model is actually taking a wound...I don't think they consider the effects of Feel No Pain at all when they write except for when they actually reference it. But even more importantly, I see these rules as being a reward/penalty for something good/bad happening to the model.

So, for example, with Acid Blood they allow a model getting wounded (penalty) to inflict damage on the enemy (bonus)...or with a Shadow Field you get a 2+ cover save (bonus) but in return you lose the save when you fail the first saving throw (penalty). Therefore, it is highly likely that with such nebulously written rules that the authors intended to be the case regardless of what other special rules (Feel No Pain) are involved, because if they wanted players to have special little easter eggs based on the ambiguous wording of feel no pain, then they probably would have taken the time to specify exactly that.

In other words, its far more likely that the authors intended for the basic principle of an unsaved wound penalty=bonus to apply by not specifically referencing Feel No Pain then it is to assume that they intended for players to get to ignore the penalty=bonus principle via Feel No Pain without it being clearly specified in the rule.

So I would imagine that if you were to ask the writers about the specific situations, rather than getting any kind of uniform ruling, you'd get different answers depending on the situation being asked. Since Acid Blood gives out its bonus (damaging enemy models) when the Tyranid is wounded (penalty), I would be highly surprised to find that the author intended for the model to dish out its Acid Blood attacks even when the injury was ignored by Feel No Pain.

And conversely with the Shadow Field, since the bonus (a 2+ invulnerable save) is tempered by the penalty of the first save being failed, I again would be surprised if the author intended a successful Feel No Pain save would ignore the penalty of the first failed saving throw.


Could the authors have intended the opposite of what I said? Of course, I just think its unlikely for the reasons I've laid out above.

At the end of the day I think you have to accept that this is a nebulous situation with rules that are not clear. There is clearly enough fuzzy material to divide plenty of people on the subject so I'd personally always go back to the mantra of sticking with the least advantageous interpretation whenever the rules aren't clear, which unsurprisingly goes back to the same interpretations that I posited above.

Yeah, they even threw a wrench in the DE codex with the Clawed Fiend. Their ability triggers when the model "loses a wound."

So even in the same codex there is "unsaved wound" and "loses a wound" Could have been a fluke, could have been intentional. There's no real way to tell.

Kommissar Kel wrote:The Hex rifle triggers on an unsaved wound suffered you have passed your FNP test, and the unsaved wound is ignored(thus no longer "suffered" by the model in question); why wound the secondary effect still occur?

FNP specifically retro-acts to ignore it's own trigger(Suffer the unsaved wound, test for FNP, go back and discount the unsaved wound sufferage, technically at this point you would no longer have had to take the FNP test, but the net result is that the unsaved wound is no longer suffered).

FNP does not ignore the wound, it ignores injury. No where in the section about what happens when you role above a 3 mentions the word wound at all.

Yak already posted up rebuttal.......hahahahahaha!

Canadian 5th - yet in context injury == wound. It has to be, otherwise you still take the wound (as nothing tells you not to) and the model is removed.

You cannot state injury is not the same as wound without making FNP functionally useless.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Canadian 5th - yet in context injury == wound. It has to be, otherwise you still take the wound (as nothing tells you not to) and the model is removed.

You cannot state injury is not the same as wound without making FNP functionally useless.

You can actually because the rules say the model remains in spite of the wound. It doesn't say anything about secondary effects however.

Canadian 5th wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Canadian 5th - yet in context injury == wound. It has to be, otherwise you still take the wound (as nothing tells you not to) and the model is removed.

You cannot state injury is not the same as wound without making FNP functionally useless.

You can actually because the rules say the model remains in spite of the wound. It doesn't say anything about secondary effects however.

It doesn't, because 'secondary effects' is a category you've just made up out of nowhere.

Canadian - that position makes no sense, ruleswise. By your reading you would stilll have a wound floating around, useless.

Conflating injury to wound, which is certain suggested by the text AND is logically consistent (it is a binary choice - wound or not wound, so no missing middle fallacy here) means that the wound itself IS ignored, and you end up with no "secondary" effects being able to take place as the trigger event no longer exists.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Canadian - that position makes no sense, ruleswise. By your reading you would stilll have a wound floating around, useless.

Conflating injury to wound, which is certain suggested by the text AND is logically consistent (it is a binary choice - wound or not wound, so no missing middle fallacy here) means that the wound itself IS ignored, and you end up with no "secondary" effects being able to take place as the trigger event no longer exists.

Show me the rules text that states the wound itself is ignored? What's that, you can't actually do that because the text doesn't say that you ignore the wounds, or any effects related to the wound. Oh wonder of wonders.

Sigh.

The text tells you the wound occurs as normal on a 1 - 3, and on a 4 -6 the "injury" is ignored.

Given context, which Im sure you understand, injury HAS to mean wound; if it didnt, a roll of 4 - 6 would do nothing.

So your position is an absurd one, as it results in FNP not working.

Oh wonder of wonders.

yakface wrote:At the end of the day I think you have to accept that this is a nebulous situation with rules that are not clear. There is clearly enough fuzzy material to divide plenty of people on the subject so I'd personally always go back to the mantra of sticking with the least advantageous interpretation whenever the rules aren't clear, which unsurprisingly goes back to the same interpretations that I posited above.

But to who?

FnP Player. "Okay I've been wounded by a hex rifle, so thats a FnP test and a wounds test then"
DE Player. "Okay I've wounded you with a hex rifle, so thats a FnP and if you pass you ignore the wounds test"

Both interpretations are the least advantageous to that relevant player but hugely advantageous to the other.

Both rules have the same trigger, an unsaved wound, as many have pointed out, why prioritise one SR over the other?

Cheers

Andrew

Because hexrifle is dependent on feel no pain. Feel no pain is not dependent on hexrifle. That's why you have to check whether any attention is given to the wound at all, before applying hexrifle.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh.

The text tells you the wound occurs as normal on a 1 - 3, and on a 4 -6 the "injury" is ignored.

Given context, which Im sure you understand, injury HAS to mean wound; if it didnt, a roll of 4 - 6 would do nothing.

So your position is an absurd one, as it results in FNP not working.

Oh wonder of wonders.

However, your position has the hex rifle not working. Can the system work the other way round? Yes I think it can and it doesn't result in FnP not working as you assert. It does reduce it's effectiveness massively I admit.

Unsaved wound

Take 1 wound and wounds test, if failed remove model.

Passed test, apply unsaved wound.

Use FnP ignore applied wound.

If the rumoured tiered system comes into 6th then this may not be an issue.

Both rules work, it's a question of which way round they go.

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote:Because hexrifle is dependent on feel no pain. Feel no pain is not dependent on hexrifle. That's why you have to check whether any attention is given to the wound at all, before applying hexrifle.

I disagree with this, the hex rifle is not dependent on FnP, the hexrifle is dependent on an unsaved wound.

Put it another way, I stick a knife in you, FnP allows you to ignore the injury, but it doesn't reset time to a point where the knife hasn't penetrated. The knife has still cut you, you just don't feel it.

So the hexrifle has still hit you, whether you ignore the physical injury or not doesn't matter, but do the secondary effects still occur?

Cheers

Andrew

Except the secondary effect CANNOT OCCUR - because you have ignored the event which triggers the effect: if you ignore the wound, the wound has not occured and so you cannot take the test that results from taking a wound.

Re: least advantageous - we "know" FNP works, so the only query is whether you reduce FNP to not ignoring wounds (which is technically rendering it useless) OR accepting that the hex rifle needs a real, solid, you have definitely taken an unsaved wound, which one saved by FNP cannot be.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The text tells you the wound occurs as normal on a 1 - 3, and on a 4 -6 the "injury" is ignored.

The text tells you to "take the wound as normal (removing the model if it loses its final wound)."

The unsaved wound has already occurred by the time you start rolling for FNP.

It's convenient to change the wording to suit your argument, but not all that helpful.

Nothing you have stated there alters the argument (that injury == wound, in this context) that ignoring the wound must mean entirely ignoring the wound.

Nothing you have stated alters the argument that ignoring the injury must mean simply not subtracting a wound from a model's profile.

You see how that works? Both of us have different interpretations of a nebulous wording. Neither of us can know for sure which is correct without an official clarification.

Unfortunately, you still have the hurdle of "why does FNP get applied before anything else?" to overcome.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nothing you have stated there alters the argument (that injury == wound, in this context) that ignoring the wound must mean entirely ignoring the wound.

yes but the hex rifle special rule only cares if you "saved" the wound. no where in the FNP rule does it say its a save of any kind, it does aloow you to skip the application of the wound to the profile. this is not a "save".

as has been pointed out there is specifically a different term "takes a wound" , and another one "suffers a wound" these would be ignored because they require a wound be deducted. The hex rifle doesnt care if the wound is applied or not, it only cares that it was not "saved".

if you fail your armor/invul/cover "save" you take the wounds test, because FNP is NOT a save, and does not say it is any kind of a "save" anywhere. and has been pointed out technically raw it does nothing as injury is not a defined term in the BBB.


<sarcasm>but 6th is coming and will make all of these rules arguments pointless because it will be perfect and have no uncertainites</sarcasm>

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nothing you have stated there alters the argument (that injury == wound, in this context) that ignoring the wound must mean entirely ignoring the wound.

In the case of FNP, I think it's pretty clear that "injury" refers to "unsaved wound" and not "wound."

Under the normal order of things, a hit may cause a wound, a wound may cause an unsaved wound, and an unsaved wound can cause a "wound" (that is, the model is removed from play or has it's wound characteristic reduced).

Under normal circumstances, an "unsaved wound" always directly corresponds to a "wound." FNP changes this, it makes the transition from "unsaved wound" to "wound" conditional on the FNP test. So, if you roll a 1-3 on a FNP test, the model suffers a "wound" as normal (is removed from play or reduces the model's wound characteristic). However, if you roll a 4-6, the rule tells us to "ignore the injury." This can't be a "wound" because the model hasn't suffered a "wound" yet, it still has an "unsaved wound" that the FNP test has not converted to a "wound."

Therefore, the only injury that can be ignored is the "unsaved wound."

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the secondary effect CANNOT OCCUR - because you have ignored the event which triggers the effect: if you ignore the wound, the wound has not occured and so you cannot take the test that results from taking a wound.

Re: least advantageous - we "know" FNP works, so the only query is whether you reduce FNP to not ignoring wounds (which is technically rendering it useless) OR accepting that the hex rifle needs a real, solid, you have definitely taken an unsaved wound, which one saved by FNP cannot be.

But the wound has occured, you just get to ignore it, and I think thats the crux. The test is not based on taking a wound, but the model suffering an unsaved wound, which it has to have otherwise FnP can't be initiated. Whether or not that wound is then discounted has confused the entire situation.

FnP has not been rendered useless, it just doesn't take effect on the RMFP wounds test, as highlighted in my earlier post.

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote:Because hexrifle is dependent on feel no pain. Feel no pain is not dependent on hexrifle. That's why you have to check whether any attention is given to the wound at all, before applying hexrifle.

I disagree with this, the hex rifle is not dependent on FnP, the hexrifle is dependent on an unsaved wound.

Put it another way, I stick a knife in you, FnP allows you to ignore the injury, but it doesn't reset time to a point where the knife hasn't penetrated. The knife has still cut you, you just don't feel it.

So the hexrifle has still hit you, whether you ignore the physical injury or not doesn't matter, but do the secondary effects still occur?

Cheers

Andrew

Dependent as opposite of independent. No matter what the result of Hexrifle is, it would never affect the the Feel No Pain roll. However, if the unsaved wound is ignored, Hexrifle does nothing.

Again, RL issues have no bearing on rules. A big mek allows you to ignore a weapon destroyed result. Does that mean further weapon destroyed results can destroy that weapon again? Of course, there is no "ignored destroyed weapon" floating around, the "damaged"-result simply counts as never happened.
Also, from the (irrelevant) fluff perspective, most sources of Feel No Pain are medics, healers or biotic implants, "ignoring an injury" might just as well being the effect of the shot being gone altogether due to first aid(in whatever form) on the battlefield. I don't know that, you don't know that, and no fluff author as even thought about that. That's why fluff is irelevant to rules.

lixulana wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nothing you have stated there alters the argument (that injury == wound, in this context) that ignoring the wound must mean entirely ignoring the wound.

yes but the hex rifle special rule only cares if you "saved" the wound. no where in the FNP rule does it say its a save of any kind, it does aloow you to skip the application of the wound to the profile. this is not a "save".

But what wound? There isn't one.

as has been pointed out there is specifically a different term "takes a wound" , and another one "suffers a wound" these would be ignored because they require a wound be deducted. The hex rifle doesnt care if the wound is applied or not, it only cares that it was not "saved".

Actually, a unit suffers a wound in the second the shooting unit succeeds its to-wound roll.

if you fail your armor/invul/cover "save" you take the wounds test, because FNP is NOT a save, and does not say it is any kind of a "save" anywhere. and has been pointed out technically raw it does nothing as injury is not a defined term in the BBB.

RAW, injury is referring to either wound or unsaved wound. Whichever it is, the wound never happened. Compare this to ignoring damage results on rhinos, grot riggers and big meks.

<sarcasm>but 6th is coming and will make all of these rules arguments pointless because it will be perfect and have no uncertainites</sarcasm>

Rumor has it, that they fired the guy who oversaw 5th. Even if it isn't a regular FAQ update or a consistent rules hotline/email, would make this forum a short questions and answers thing.

Okay Jidmah, lets out it another way,

What is the precondition for a FnP test?

What is the precondition for the HR test?

Does the result of the FnP say the wound is ignored or it never happened?

Cheers

Andrew

Ignored and never happened is the same.

Except that injury has no definition. I interpret injury as the result of suffering an unsaved wound - the removing a wound from the model's profile.

Some people here arguing that FNP superceeds the HR are stating that ignoring an injury inarguably means you ignore the unsaved wound. Yet, there is no rule delineating this.

Since the term injury is never defined, there is no clear raw answer to this. Both sides have valid interpretations, so it really just comes down to how you and your opponent can agree to play it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yakface wrote:
At the end of the day I think you have to accept that this is a nebulous situation with rules that are not clear. There is clearly enough fuzzy material to divide plenty of people on the subject so I'd personally always go back to the mantra of sticking with the least advantageous interpretation whenever the rules aren't clear, which unsurprisingly goes back to the same interpretations that I posited above.

I agree completely that this is not clear, and even though your attempt to infer the mindset of the authors seems solid, it is not solid enough to base an interpretation from. Try going over that with someone at your gaming table as a way of convincing them FNP denies the HR when they don't agree, and I bet you get an annoyed player.

AndrewC wrote:But to who?

FnP Player. "Okay I've been wounded by a hex rifle, so thats a FnP test and a wounds test then"
DE Player. "Okay I've wounded you with a hex rifle, so thats a FnP and if you pass you ignore the wounds test"

Both interpretations are the least advantageous to that relevant player but hugely advantageous to the other.

This was exactly my thoughts when I read the "least advantageous" argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the secondary effect CANNOT OCCUR - because you have ignored the event which triggers the effect: if you ignore the wound, the wound has not occured and so you cannot take the test that results from taking a wound.

Re: least advantageous - we "know" FNP works, so the only query is whether you reduce FNP to not ignoring wounds (which is technically rendering it useless) OR accepting that the hex rifle needs a real, solid, you have definitely taken an unsaved wound, which one saved by FNP cannot be.

I feel like you would not be making these arguments if you had read what I posted.

Let me try spelling it out another way. This is one of those A=B=!C things.

A model suffers an unsaved wound. FnP lets it ignore the wound. It still suffered an unsaved wound. Passing a FnP check does not reverse time prior to rolling a save against the wound. FnP lets a model with an unsaved wound make a check to not take the wound. It does NOT...it does NOT NOT NOT negate the fact that the model took an unsaved wound, it merely negates the wound caused by the unsaved wound.

Put another way:

A model with an unsaved wound passed a FnP check.
Fact: It suffered an unsaved wound.
Fact: It ignored the wound.

Both of those statements are true. Passing a FnP check does not let you *not* suffer an unsaved wound, it lets you ignore the effect of the unsaved wound: Taking a wound.

The hexrifle (like many other examples I've given) are reliant upon a status being caused, not upon a result of the status.

Another way to put it: You roll FnP on your model and pass your 4+ check.
I ask: Did your model suffer an unsaved wound?
You say: No, it did not.
I say: Then why did you roll FnP?
You say: ______________

There is no good answer there. FnP negates the wound caused by an unsaved wound, not the fact that an unsaved wound was caused in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the secondary effect CANNOT OCCUR - because you have ignored the event which triggers the effect: if you ignore the wound, the wound has not occured and so you cannot take the test that results from taking a wound.

And put another way yet again...you're misquoting here. You do NOT ignore the event that triggered the effect, you ignore the effect of the event.

Just food for thought, dash:

Battlewagon gets it's lone big shoota blown of, big mek rolls 4+ and ignores the weapon destroyed effect. Now the battlewagon gets hit again and the attacker rolls a three. By your train of thought, the weapon would still be ripped off, but able to shoot, so it can't be destroyed again and the wagon would become immobilized.
I think we both agree that the weapon destroyed result would not lead to an immobilized if there is a gun left able to shoot.

How your "conversation" should go:

Did your model suffer an unsafed wound?
- Yes, but it has no effect on the game anymore.

Dracos: Even though this should be the case, this is not a law or technical text. If a word is not defined, you get it's meaning from context, in this case either "unsaved wound" or "wound".
Also your interpretation is flat-out wrong. Suffering an unsaved wound can not be the same as removing a profile wound, otherwise force weapons would never work, among with feel no pain itself.

Of course suffering an unsaved wound is not the same thing as removing a wound from the model's profile. That's the point. The term "injury" can be interpreted as either, both of which carry different consequences.

I believe Dash is correct in his explanation.
In the Ork Trukk example you provide Jidmah, the weapon destroyed result is akin to a model taking a wound IMO. (or if you prefer a roll on the damage chart that resulted in the weapon destroyed result)

Why can it be interpreted as removing a profile wound? Even the first part does not refer to profile wounds(which are written with a capital W in the BRB, by the way, as any characteristic).

The German translation of the BRB calls the Wounds in the stat lines "Hitpoints", much less confusing to read in many parts of the book... I hope the original adapts this for 6th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deevil: It would? So if I repair my battlewagon(not trukk, they do funky stuff to damage tables) from immobilized, it can never be immobilized again, because it still is immobilized, just ignoring it?

Jidmah wrote:Ignored and never happened is the same.

if anyone said that to me during a RL rules discussion I would A: laugh in their face, and B: never discuss anything with them again

Well, that was productive. For rules, it is. Otherwise explain why my battlewagon from above should ever be immobilized again?

Jidmah, lets expand on your example and add in a secondary effect. Lets use an old rule and use the penetrating hit causes the passengers to disembark.

So if I obtain a penetrating hit and destroy a weapon what happens? Even though the big mek gets to fix the weapon destroyed result, the passengers still had to disembark, because of the penetrating hit. Even though the primary effect was negated the secondary effect still took place because the trigger, the penetrating hit, still occurred.

Same with the HR, primary effect of unsaved wound is ignored, but the secondary effect, which has the trigger of an unsaved wound, ignored or not still activates.

Oh and ignored =/= never happened. So if I fire a one shot weapon which is then negated by FnP I get to fire it again, because the shot never happened?

Cheers

Andrew

@jidmah, regarding battlewagon. A vehicle ignores a penetrating hit, the same way a model ignore a wound with an armor save. A repair function would work just like FNP.

With FNP you ignore the unsaved wound, it does not prevent anything else besides the removal of the wound itself.

With repair you ignore the roll on the damage table, it does not prevent anything else besides the roll on the damage table (which in this case is the immobilized or weapon desrtroyed result), there is no other secondary effect taking place here. If there was, repair would in no way affect that as it is not the roll on the damage table caused from the penetrating hit.

for example if there was a weapon that stated "remove from play any vehicle that suffers an unsaved penetrating hit", how can you repair it? or "if vehicle suffers a penetrating hit that is not saved move it back 6 inches" would you then move it forward 6 inches if you repaired it....no since repair only removes the effects of the roll on the damage table.

You are creating fictional examples and generally missing my point. A penetrating hit has nothing to do with a damage result, it could even be saved before rolling. You comparing hits to unsaved wounds here. Also additional immobilized turning into weapon destroyed/wrecked is a secondary effect.

Also, the shot isn't ignored. Anything from the to-wound roll up is. Feel no pain basically changes your to-wound roll to failed. I am aware that is is not 100% technically correct, but it perfectly describes the situation.

My point is, that ignored effects simply have no effect on any part of the game anymore. The only reason why hexrifle is an issue at all, is timing, something GW never addresses. So I assume they happen at the exact time, as they trigger of the exact same thing.

"A model that suffers an unsaved wound from a hexrifle must take a characteristic test based on their Wounds value (i.e. the one on their profile, not the current Wounds). If they fail the test, they are removed from play, with no saves of any kind."(As I don't have the codex, I assume this Quote from a previous poster is correct)

So, lets break this down:
Hexrifle:
If (suffered unsaved wound = true)
-> If (characteristic test failed = true)
--> removed from play

Feel no pain:
If (suffered unsaved wound = true)
-> If (rolled 4+)
--> suffered unsaved wound = false

As GW has no mention of any timing, we have to assume all of this happens at once. As soon you want to remove the model which turned to glass, the whole reason for it to turn to glass is gone. So the model must no longer take a test , nor suffer any consequences from it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

deevil wrote:@jidmah, regarding battlewagon. A vehicle ignores a penetrating hit, the same way a model ignore a wound with an armor save. A repair function would work just like FNP.

With FNP you ignore the unsaved wound, it does not prevent anything else besides the removal of the wound itself.

There are no rules to back this up. If you ignore an unsaved wound, you ignore it for anything in the game. Exactly what the bigmek example tries to show. Ignore = not there, never.

With repair you ignore the roll on the damage table, it does not prevent anything else besides the roll on the damage table (which in this case is the immobilized or weapon desrtroyed result), there is no other secondary effect taking place here. If there was, repair would in no way affect that as it is not the roll on the damage table caused from the penetrating hit.

for example if there was a weapon that stated "remove from play any vehicle that suffers an unsaved penetrating hit", how can you repair it? or "if vehicle suffers a penetrating hit that is not saved move it back 6 inches" would you then move it forward 6 inches if you repaired it....no since repair only removes the effects of the roll on the damage table.

Also missing the point. Repairs do not happen when the vehicle is hit, but during any shooting phase later. Also your forced move is triggered off the hit, not off damage result. That's like mindstrike missiles triggering on hits, rather than on wounds. The secondary effect is the wrecked or weapon destroyed result you suffer if the vehicle is already immobilized. By your logic, a vehicle that ignores a "Damaged - immobilized" result would still be immobilized for any other reasons but moving.

Jidmah wrote:My point is, that ignored effects simply have no effect on any part of the game anymore. The only reason why hexrifle is an issue at all, is timing, something GW never addresses. So I assume they happen at the exact time, as they trigger of the exact same thing...

As GW has no mention of any timing, we have to assume all of this happens at once. As soon you want to remove the model which turned to glass, the whole reason for it to turn to glass is gone. So the model must no longer take a test , nor suffer any consequences from it.

It doesn't matter if the original reason for the test is gone, both events trigger from the same thing. Once the process starts it continues.

I'm not missing your point, I understand it, but I disagree that the 'secondary effect' is ignored if the primary effect is negated in some manner.

Cheers

Andrew

@ Jidmah

I think you're the one who is missing the point here

Your logic example

So, lets break this down:
Hexrifle:
If (suffered unsaved wound = true)
-> If (characteristic test failed = true)
--> removed from play

Feel no pain:
If (suffered unsaved wound = true)
-> If (rolled 4+)
--> suffered unsaved wound = false

is actually incorrect

So, lets break this down:
Hexrifle:
If (suffered unsaved wound = true)
-> then roll d6 (characteristic test)
-> If (characteristic test failed = true)
--> removed from play

Feel no pain:
If (suffered unsaved wound = true)
-> then roll d6 (for FnP)
-> if (rolled 4+) = true
-> No wound is subtracted from characteristic (the unsaved wound, i repeat wound, is ignored)

at no point does FNP change the condition to suffered unsaved wound = false. Nor does it ever pre-empt that condition, as ignore means the condition did in fact take place.

So by the BRB what happens when you suffer an unsaved wound? You take 1 wound off your characteristic, in which case provided you make your FNP save you would ignore that wound removal.

btw a pentrating/glancing hit has eveything to do with damage table roll, as it is the result of having taken the hit in the first place (just like a wound is the result of taking a hit on a model with wound characteristic).

The fact that repair happens in another turn, generally, after the effect is irrelevant. Why? Because both FNP and repair require the effect to have taken place before they can be triggered. They are similar in the fact that both result in the condition (apply wound or apply damage roll) to be ignored after being triggered.

Also in the example I provided the movement applied to the vehicle is applied after any saves are taken and failed, just like an armor save would be that allowed you to take the FNP.

Could it be written better? Absolutely.

Jidmah, your vehicle example is false. You would role cover before they rolled for the result on the vehicle damage table. Try again.

deevil wrote:at no point does FNP change the condition to suffered unsaved wound = false. Nor does it ever pre-empt that condition, as ignore means the condition did in fact take place.

Assuming "ignore the injury" means "ignore the unsaved wound", does it matter whether the "unsaved wound" goes away or not? The rule tells us to "ignore the unsaved wound," not for FNP, but to ignore it altogether. For example, it would not count towards 25% casualties or combat resolution. Hex rifle would tell us to roll when there's an unsaved wound, but we're supposed to ignore that unsaved wound.

In short, the unsaved wound is still in existence, but it is ignored, and therefore is ignored for all purposes.

Canadian 5th wrote:Jidmah, your vehicle example is false. You would role cover before they rolled for the result on the vehicle damage table. Try again.

Eactly what I said:

Jidmah wrote:A penetrating hit has nothing to do with a damage result, it could even be saved before rolling. You comparing hits to unsaved wounds here. Also additional immobilized turning into weapon destroyed/wrecked is a secondary effect.

Before being rude, read my post. Mek Tools are not cover, nor a save, nor does it happen timed like FNP. The Bigmek never rolls a KFF roll for a vehicle. It simply proves that ignored effects in the rules are ignored for all purposes. Try again.

RAW, FNP does nothing since no weapon in the entire game deals 'injuries'.

RAI, I am pretty sure FNP was meant to just be an additional save that a model can take against wounds. Much like in WHFB where you can take an armor save AND a ward save. Pretty much the same thing.

ig·nore/igˈnôr/Verb
1. Refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally: "he ignored her question".
2. Fail to consider (something significant): "satellite broadcasting ignores national boundaries".

These are just the first two examples from dictionary.com, but I dont see anywhere that it ignore means it never happened. Ignore says that you refuse to take notice or acknowledge, not that it magically never happened. Hence, the unsaved wound still happened, you just "ignore the injury", as per the rule. It is ignored, but it still happened. So you still take the unsaved wound, you just ignore the fact that you got wounded, you dont magically get healed. So, you still suffer an unsaved wound, you just don't lose a wound to the injury as per the rules for Feel No Pain.

Galador wrote:ig·nore/igˈnôr/Verb
1. Refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally: "he ignored her question".
2. Fail to consider (something significant): "satellite broadcasting ignores national boundaries".

These are just the first two examples from dictionary.com, but I dont see anywhere that it ignore means it never happened. Ignore says that you refuse to take notice or acknowledge, not that it magically never happened. Hence, the unsaved wound still happened, you just "ignore the injury", as per the rule. It is ignored, but it still happened. So you still take the unsaved wound, you just ignore the fact that you got wounded, you dont magically get healed. So, you still suffer an unsaved wound, you just don't lose a wound to the injury as per the rules for Feel No Pain.

Nice.

biccat wrote:

deevil wrote:at no point does FNP change the condition to suffered unsaved wound = false. Nor does it ever pre-empt that condition, as ignore means the condition did in fact take place.

Assuming "ignore the injury" means "ignore the unsaved wound", does it matter whether the "unsaved wound" goes away or not? The rule tells us to "ignore the unsaved wound," not for FNP, but to ignore it altogether. For example, it would not count towards 25% casualties or combat resolution. Hex rifle would tell us to roll when there's an unsaved wound, but we're supposed to ignore that unsaved wound.

In short, the unsaved wound is still in existence, but it is ignored, and therefore is ignored for all purposes.

DUDE! YOU AND TEN PEOPLE BEFORE YOU!!!! Feel No Pain does *NOT* tell you to ignore the unsaved wound. Stop misquoting the rules. It tells you to ignore the injury caused by the unsaved wound. The state still exists, the ramification is negated.

Examples abound. I've given many, so have others.

Since I'm playing Blue Dragon during my free time right now, here's another one.

If I cast poison on you, but your magical resist is so high that you take no damage...you are still poisoned. Taking no damage does not negate the status. Just like FnP. Being dealt an unsaved wound does not flipping care whether you were wounded, how many wounds you have, or what your hair color is, it only cares about whether you failed to make your cover/armour/invulnerable save against a wound-causing hit.

Dashofpepper wrote:

biccat wrote:In short, the unsaved wound is still in existence, but it is ignored, and therefore is ignored for all purposes.

DUDE! YOU AND TEN PEOPLE BEFORE YOU!!!! Feel No Pain does *NOT* tell you to ignore the unsaved wound. Stop misquoting the rules. It tells you to ignore the injury caused by the unsaved wound. The state still exists, the ramification is negated.

See my post here.

FNP is essentially a binary condition:
Receive unsaved wound, fail, take "a wound".
Receive unsaved wound, pass, ignore "the injury".

The injury referred to in the second result can't mean "a wound" because the wond only results if the FNP test is failed. Therefore, "injury" must refer to the unsaved wound.

As to your examples, mostly they revolve around vehicles ignoring results on glancing hits. However, there is a specific rule on point that addresses those circumstances, as has been pointed out before.

Dashofpepper wrote:If I cast poison on you, but your magical resist is so high that you take no damage...you are still poisoned. Taking no damage does not negate the status. Just like FnP. Being dealt an unsaved wound does not flipping care whether you were wounded, how many wounds you have, or what your hair color is, it only cares about whether you failed to make your cover/armour/invulnerable save against a wound-causing hit.

Right, but magical resistance doesn't tell you to "ignore the spell," if it did, then a secondary effect that triggers from poison wouldn't trigger, because the spell would be "ignored."

This whole discussion essentially turns on what "injury" is supposed to be ignored by FNP. I think that I have made a good case that it should be the "unsaved wound." I understand that you may disagree.

It also seems that there are 3 positions: 1) FNP triggers, you can't test for Hex Rifle. 2) Test for FNP then test for Hex Rifle. 3) Only test for Hex Rifle.

I think the 3rd one is correct because it is a more specific rule than FNP and the rules contradict.

Galador wrote:ig·nore/igˈnôr/Verb
1. Refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally: "he ignored her question".
2. Fail to consider (something significant): "satellite broadcasting ignores national boundaries".

These are just the first two examples from dictionary.com, but I dont see anywhere that it ignore means it never happened. Ignore says that you refuse to take notice or acknowledge, not that it magically never happened. Hence, the unsaved wound still happened, you just "ignore the injury", as per the rule. It is ignored, but it still happened. So you still take the unsaved wound, you just ignore the fact that you got wounded, you dont magically get healed. So, you still suffer an unsaved wound, you just don't lose a wound to the injury as per the rules for Feel No Pain.

I hope you tell any ork and marine player you're playing against that any repaired vehicle is immune to the repaired result from then on. Also dictionary quotes have no bearing on rules and are against the tenets of YMDC.

You don't just ignore the effect of a damage result, you ignore it ever happened.

You don't take "Gets Hot!"-wounds from dice you ignored due to rerolls.

You don't roll for dangerous terrain skimmers, jump infantry or jetbikes ignore.

You don't get any effects from a wound that was ignored.

I'm going to use your DT test first. Skimmers. JI and JB ignore dangerous terrain. Does the dangerous terrain disappear? No it doesn't, they just get to ignore it, but the ground state, dangerous terrain still exists.

FnP gets to ignore an unsaved wound, but the ground state (GSt), an unsaved wound still exists, and thats all the HR requires.

Gets Hot, and rerolls. You are changing the GSt in this example. You are not ignoring wounds you are rerolling dice. Different situation.

Damage results, no nothing ever just 'never happens' you just ignore it. The result is still there, it is simply not applied.

Your last one, your justification while logical is flawed. HR is not the result of an applied wound, but the existence of an unsaved wound, which does exist because without it you were never able to take a FnP test.

Cheers

Andrew

It isnt different actually - the rules for rerolls tel you to ignore the first result. Same as you are told to ignore the [unsaved wound]

I'll need to double check as this is from the works computer.

However I would disagree with the ignore [unsaved wound] as the entry tells you to ignore the injury. The reason I point this out is because FnP is a binary rule yes/no and the first part tells you to apply a wound as normal, not the unsaved wound. Since it is a binary the injury should apply to the 'applied' wound not the unsaved wound.

You must ignore the unsaved wound; ignoring the wound makes no sense, ruleswise

A wound doesn't become anything else as soon at it is unsaved. A hit becomes a wound, a wound becomes a telling wound, a telling wound becomes an unsaved wound, an unsaved wound becomes a casualty(or lost profile wound). If you discard a hit, you don't get a wound. If you don't wound, the wound never becomes a telling wound, etc. If you ignore the wound, everything except for the hit is ignored(relevant for mindstrike missiles, for example)

Since I appear to be in the minority who doesn't own a GK Codex, whats the rules fo the MS missile?

Cheers

Andrew

Any psyker HIT by the blast suffers perils of the warp.

Entirely bypasses wound allocations, etc, as it is based off simply being covered by the marker.

Jidmah wrote:

Galador wrote:ig·nore/igˈnôr/Verb
1. Refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally: "he ignored her question".
2. Fail to consider (something significant): "satellite broadcasting ignores national boundaries".

These are just the first two examples from dictionary.com, but I dont see anywhere that it ignore means it never happened. Ignore says that you refuse to take notice or acknowledge, not that it magically never happened. Hence, the unsaved wound still happened, you just "ignore the injury", as per the rule. It is ignored, but it still happened. So you still take the unsaved wound, you just ignore the fact that you got wounded, you dont magically get healed. So, you still suffer an unsaved wound, you just don't lose a wound to the injury as per the rules for Feel No Pain.

I hope you tell any ork and marine player you're playing against that any repaired vehicle is immune to the repaired result from then on. Also dictionary quotes have no bearing on rules and are against the tenets of YMDC.

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

That would be the tenet your referring to I suppose? Read the last sentence and you will see that I was perfectly correct to post the dictionary definition because everyone seems to not be paying attention to what the word "ignore" means. It was quite obvious to me that it is not being used correctly, and I simply gave the definition so that it could be used in the correct sense of the word. So no tenets of YMDC were broken.

As per telling an ork player they are immune to repair, they don't have repair, they have mek tools. And in the rules for mek tools it negates a weapon destroyed or immobilized result, it doesn't ignore it. Big difference there. As far as the Marine codex, it states in the repair under the rhino rule that on a role of a 6, it is no longer immobilized. Nowhere does it state "ignore", so neither of your references have any relevance in this argument.

The rest of your comments were negated later on, so I feel no need to go back over them. Ignore never means that it didn't happen, it simply means that you dont pay any attention to what happened, that you refuse to acknowledge it.

Jidmah wrote:A wound doesn't become anything else as soon at it is unsaved. A hit becomes a wound, a wound becomes a telling wound, a telling wound becomes an unsaved wound, an unsaved wound becomes a casualty(or lost profile wound). If you discard a hit, you don't get a wound. If you don't wound, the wound never becomes a telling wound, etc. If you ignore the wound, everything except for the hit is ignored(relevant for mindstrike missiles, for example)

Lets look at the sequence, of being hit by a hexrifle:

Step #1 you roll to hit and hit successfully
Step #2 you roll to wound and wound successfully (we now have a wound in play)
Step #3 I roll a save, and fail my save
I now have an unsaved wound to contend with
FNP and Hexrifle's effects trigger
Step #4 I roll FNP I roll a 5 and make my FNP roll.

In the context of FNP, on a 1-3 you take the wound as normal, on a 4-6 you ignore the injury.

Injury in this context is referring to the aforementioned wound.

So If we are ignoring the wound that was caused at step #2 we have to ignore anything that comes after step #2, since we are pretending the wound never happened, AkA Ignoring it.

AndrewC wrote:

yakface wrote:... I'd personally always go back to the mantra of sticking with the least advantageous interpretation whenever the rules aren't clear, which unsurprisingly goes back to the same interpretations that I posited above.

But to who?...Andrew

The attacker that is using said ability should always take the least advantageous interpretation.

Feel no pain is basically a second save attempt. A model who successfully rolls his feel no pain is not wounded, and so hasn't suffered any unsaved wounds.

FNP saves the wound. If it didn't, the model would take a wound.

If the model does not take a wound, and the trigger is to take a wound, then the event in question does not trigger.

Jidmah wrote:Ignored and never happened is the same.

If this is true...then FNP doesn't kick in either. As it can only trigger when taking an unsaved wound. The rule itself is flawed.

Round and round we go.

"When is an unsaved wound not an unsaved wound?"
"I don't know, when?"
"When nerds on the internet are arguing about FNP!"
*Ba-dum-tish!*
...
...
*Crickets*

DeathReaper wrote:

1. So If we are ignoring the wound that was caused at step #2 we have to ignore anything that comes after step #2, since we are pretending the wound never happened, AkA Ignoring it.

AndrewC wrote:

yakface wrote:... I'd personally always go back to the mantra of sticking with the least advantageous interpretation whenever the rules aren't clear, which unsurprisingly goes back to the same interpretations that I posited above.

But to who?...Andrew

2. The attacker that us using said ability should always take the least advantageous interpretation.

1. Where does it say that? Oh, it doesn't say that anywhere. This is merely an assertion on your part with no backing in the rules.

2. Also, where does it say that? Another unsupported assertion on your part. It is equally valid to say that the user of FnP is using "said ability" and should take the least advantageous interpretation.

Again, an unsaved wound is an unsaved wound, and ignoring it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

DeathReaper wrote:So If we are ignoring the wound that was caused at step #2 we have to ignore anything that comes after step #2, since we are pretending the wound never happened, AkA Ignoring it.

Again you go back in time to change events. This is impossible. Make your argument without it and we can go on with this discussion.

augustus5 wrote:Feel no pain is basically a second save attempt. A model who successfully rolls his feel no pain is not wounded, and so hasn't suffered any unsaved wounds.

Feel No Pain is not a save, it is a Universal Special Rule and states nowhere in its rules that it is a save. The model is still wounded, it just ignores the wound, which means that the model refuses to acknowledge it was wounded, not that it wasn't wounded. There is a very critical difference there.

Saldiven wrote:
Again, an unsaved wound is an unsaved wound, and ignoring it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

In the same vein, a unit that takes an unsaved wound from a pinning weapon takes a pinning test.

Sniper weapons are pinning weapons.

If a model in a unit suffers a wound from a sniper weapon and fails the save, the unit has suffered an unsaved wound and must take a pinning test.

If the model has FNP and passes the roll, tho model does not suffer the injury.

Does the unit still take a pinning test from the unsaved wound?

The wording in the rule for pinning weapons and hexrifle are virtually identical.

If a model or a unit "...suffers an unsaved wound..." it must take the test.

Jidmah wrote:
You don't get any effects from a wound that was ignored.

But you're making that up. You don't take a wound (profile) from a wound (result) if you pass feel no pain. You have no permission to ignore anything else, least of all the fact that you suffered an unsaved wound (result).

The confusion here is coming from the multiple uses of "wound" in 40k. The two being mixed here....I shall call (profile) and (result).
Wound(result): Dice result against which saves are made. Let's call this type #1.
Wound(profile): Model stat-line counter. Let's call this type #2.

As a general rule, getting +1 of Type #1 wound causes -1 of Type #2 wound. However, I've illlustrated several instances in which different special rules (FnP among them) alter the relationship between Type #1 and Type #2 wounds.

The confusion in this thread is in confusing the two types of use of the word "wound."

Feel No Pain negates a Type #2 wound. It prevents an unsaved wound from causing a wound. Or, it prevents a Type #2 result from a Type #1 result.
Feel no Pain does not negate a Type #1 wound. It negates the Type #2 wound.

Other wargear, special weapons, and special rules create different relationships between Type #1 and Type #2 of the use of "wound." Some examples.
Causing a Type #1 wound without causing a Type #2 wound affects wargear via an unsaved wound.
Causing a Type #1 wound causes double the amount of #2 wounds suffered.
Causing a Type #1 wound removes the model from play without regard to Type #2 wounds suffered.

The crux of this is that the folks arguing that FnP negates the hex rifle believe that "I did not take a wound to my profile" is interchangeable with "I did not fail a save against a wound roll."

They are not. Nor does Feel No Pain change those two statements. Instead, it adds a new statement. "I failed a save against a wound roll, but did not take a wound to my profile." Feel No Pain is not special in this regard, other things can alter that relationship as well.

In short...yes: If you failed an armour/cover/invulnerable saved....you have suffered an unsaved wound. How that unsaved wound affects your wound profile is irrelevant.

Saldiven wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

1. So If we are ignoring the wound that was caused at step #2 we have to ignore anything that comes after step #2, since we are pretending the wound never happened, AkA Ignoring it.

AndrewC wrote:

yakface wrote:... I'd personally always go back to the mantra of sticking with the least advantageous interpretation whenever the rules aren't clear, which unsurprisingly goes back to the same interpretations that I posited above.

But to who?...Andrew

2. The attacker that us using said ability should always take the least advantageous interpretation.

1. Where does it say that? Oh, it doesn't say that anywhere. This is merely an assertion on your part with no backing in the rules.

2. Also, where does it say that? Another unsupported assertion on your part. It is equally valid to say that the user of FnP is using "said ability" and should take the least advantageous interpretation.

Again, an unsaved wound is an unsaved wound, and ignoring it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

As for #1 It says it in the FNP rule. on a 1-3 take the wound, on a 4-6 ignore it. it uses wound and injury to mean the same thing.

The order of operations for hitting and wounding tell us exactly what a wound is, and when the wound comes into being. It comes into being just after a successful roll to wound. FNP says we should ignore that, so we can not trigger anything that triggers off an unsaved wound. The wound itself, at step 2 is being ignored AkA we are pretending it never happened, thus nothing else that triggers off anything after the roll to wound was made can take effect since we are now ignoring the wound.

As for #2, I am not sure where yakface got the whole "mantra of sticking with the least advantageous interpretation whenever the rules aren't clear" its not a rule in the BRB, but It does make good sense to play that way, as to not appear to be cheating and using the rules to your advantage.

Dashofpepper wrote:
They are not. Nor does Feel No Pain change those two statements. Instead, it adds a new statement. "I failed a save against a wound roll, but did not take a wound to my profile." Feel No Pain is not special in this regard, other things can alter that relationship as well.

No it does not add that statement. It adds the statement " We are now ignoring this wound that was caused. This has the same effect as if the wound was never caused"

time wizard wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
Again, an unsaved wound is an unsaved wound, and ignoring it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

In the same vein, a unit that takes an unsaved wound from a pinning weapon takes a pinning test.

Sniper weapons are pinning weapons.

If a model in a unit suffers a wound from a sniper weapon and fails the save, the unit has suffered an unsaved wound and must take a pinning test.

If the model has FNP and passes the roll, tho model does not suffer the injury.

Does the unit still take a pinning test from the unsaved wound?

The wording in the rule for pinning weapons and hexrifle are virtually identical.

If a model or a unit "...suffers an unsaved wound..." it must take the test.

Actually Sniper weapons are AP1 right? FnP wouldn't apply.

Dashofpepper wrote:Actually Sniper weapons are AP1 right? FnP wouldn't apply.

For clarity Sniper weapons are AP6, but they act as rending on a to wound roll of a 6, that counts as AP2, not AP1.

But you are correct that FnP would not apply to sniper rifles that have rended.

But Timewizard has a good point.

If you are hit and wounded by a sniper rifle and you ignore the wound due to FnP, would you have to take a pinning test?

No Dashj, only the vindicare is, and normal snipers can hit AP2 on a rend

DeathReaper wrote:
No it does not add that statement. It adds the statement " We are now ignoring this wound that was caused. This has the same effect as if the wound was never caused"

No, it doesnt mean the wound was never caused, you are once again misunderstanding the definition of ignore. Ignore means that it happens, you just refuse to acknowledge it, not that it magically didnt happen. You still took the wound, you just refuse to acknowledge the wound. It is not the same as the wound having never been caused.

It does not mean the wound was never caused, but it does have the same effect.

Since we are ignoring it, it does not matter if it was caused or not.

Since we are ignoring it we pretend it never happened.

Would you make a unit that was wounded by a pinning weapon take a pinning test, even though we are told to ignore it as per FnP?

I would not make them take the test, since making them take a test is not ignoring the wound.

If a unit of TAU firewarriors with pulse carbines cause 1 wound to a unit of blood angles with FNP. The ba player fails his armor save but passes his fnp test.

Does the blood angle player still take the pinning test?

(People were confused about sniper weapons so I propose this example as there is no confusion with a pulse carbine)

nosferatu1001 wrote:It isnt different actually - the rules for rerolls tel you to ignore the first result. Same as you are told to ignore the [unsaved wound]

Sorry, the rules for rerolls dont tell you to ignore the first result.

Gets Hot, does not tell you to ignore the first result, it tells you you may reroll the dice without suffering the wound. No mention of ignoring the first result.

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yonush wrote:If a unit of TAU firewarriors with pulse carbines cause 1 wound to a unit of blood angles with FNP. The ba player fails his armor save but passes his fnp test.

Does the blood angle player still take the pinning test?

(People were confused about sniper weapons so I propose this example as there is no confusion with a pulse carbine)

Yes, because the Pulse carbines specify wounds not unsaved wounds, so even if all the wounds are saved by armour and FnP never even gets a look-in, they still have to take a pinning test.

(Seriously look it up in the carbine rules in Tau Empire)

Cheers

Andrew

If you make all saves and fnp tests the unit doesn't take any wounds therefor doesn't take a test. You still have to wound the target.

DeathReaper wrote:
Since we are ignoring it, it does not matter if it was caused or not.

Again, this is patently false. It does not matter to your WOUND PROFILE whether the wound was caused or not. However, there are many other things in 40k that depend upon the roll to wound and the save to trigger effects, regardless of whether a negative modifier was applied to the wound profile or not.

You get to ignore the modifier to the wound profile because you're buff, not pretend that you weren't shot at or didn't fail a save.

Its as simple as this: You fail an armour save. You roll Feel No Pain. You pass your check and ignore the wound.

Answer this question: Did you take an unsaved wound?

If you answer "No" then rolling Feel No Pain was illegal.
-------------------------------------
As an additional aside to the "pretend it never happened" crowd....if you get to pretend that a previous roll never happened, then all re-rolls are infinite. Since when you make a re-roll, the first roll (which must have failed) never occurred in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yonush wrote:If you make all saves and fnp tests the unit doesn't take any wounds therefor doesn't take a test. You still have to wound the target.

You're confusing the use of the word wound. You don't need to put a wound on the target's profile, you only need to make them fail an armour check with a wound roll.

Yonush wrote:If you make all saves and fnp tests the unit doesn't take any wounds therefor doesn't take a test. You still have to wound the target.

This would be correct in the context of most rules/codecii, but the Tau codex was written in en earlier edition, when there was no such thing as unsaved wounds. The new system is;

Step 1 Check LoS
Step 2 Check range
Step 3 Roll to hit
Step 4 Roll to wound
Step 5 Armour saves
Step 6 Casualty removal.

So technically the only point at which 'wounds' are referenced is at step 4. Which means that the codex rules, which only references wounds, get used. So the pinning test is determined at step 4 not step 6.

GW proof reading at its' best.

Cheers

Andrew

Dashofpepper wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Since we are ignoring it, it does not matter if it was caused or not.

Again, this is patently false.

Its only false if you do not know what Ignore means.

As for the pinning test, you can not suffer an unsaved wound if you are ignoring said wound.

So, no pinning test if no model is removed, or actually wounded.

AndrewC wrote: The new system is;

Step 1 Check LoS
Step 2 Check range
Step 3 Roll to hit
Step 4 Roll to wound
Step 5 Armour saves Cover Saves Invulnerable Saves
Step 5a Apply a special rule that might negate removing a wound or damage from the model's profile
Step 6 Apply the wound and remove the Casualty if the removal is warranted by reducing the model to 0 remaining wounds.

So technically the only point at which 'wounds' are referenced is at step 4. Which means that the codex rules, which only references wounds, get used. So the pinning test is determined at step 4 not step 6.

GW proof reading at its' best.

Cheers

Andrew

You can't oversimplify the process and declare it to be all encompassing.
Clearly, my ammendations show that 'wounds' are referenced in steps 4, 5a and 6.

Props to all, this has been a fun read that was generally kept civil. Gratz.

As for the rule, it seems to be what your definition of "ignore" means to you. Gratz to GW for another great rule to debate over beer.

I fall on the side that says if I'm ignoring it, then I'm ignoring it all the way and don't have to take the hex test.

time wizard wrote:[You can't oversimplify the process and declare it to be all encompassing.
Clearly, my ammendations show that 'wounds' are referenced in steps 4, 5a and 6.

Why isn't there a confused orkmoticon?.

Time, I was talking about how the special rules for Tau Pulse Carbines, written in last edition, merge with this editions rules. I wasn't referencing any others, such as pinning or HR.

Does that make more sense now?

Cheers

Andrew

Galador wrote:The rest of your comments were negated later on, so I feel no need to go back over them. Ignore never means that it didn't happen, it simply means that you dont pay any attention to what happened, that you refuse to acknowledge it.

By rolling for hex rifle you pay attention to what happened and you are acknowledging it. If you ever do anything because of this wound you are not ignoring it, and thus violating the rules.
Also ignoring rerolled dice and terrain rolls has not been refuted. Just because you ignore the terrain does not mean you ignore terrain rolls by the common logic of the pro-hex rifle camp. You still passed through terrain, even though you ignore the terrain itself.

Rymafyr wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Ignored and never happened is the same.

If this is true...then FNP doesn't kick in either. As it can only trigger when taking an unsaved wound. The rule itself is flawed.

It removes it's own trigger, which is perfectly functional. As there is no longer an unsaved wound, you wouldn't roll FNP again. How is this flawed? Do you get stuck in endless rolls for FNP when playing until you fail a roll, even though the wound is gone?

Saldiven wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
1. So If we are ignoring the wound that was caused at step #2 we have to ignore anything that comes after step #2, since we are pretending the wound never happened, AkA Ignoring it.

1. Where does it say that? Oh, it doesn't say that anywhere. This is merely an assertion on your part with no backing in the rules.

Actually the shooting rules do. BRB pg. 19, 20 and 24. If you ignore the wound, you would never have taken a saving throw, and it can never become an unsaved wound. Agree on your #2 though.

Mandor wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:So If we are ignoring the wound that was caused at step #2 we have to ignore anything that comes after step #2, since we are pretending the wound never happened, AkA Ignoring it.

Again you go back in time to change events. This is impossible. Make your argument without it and we can go on with this discussion.

You can't prove this events don't happen simultaneous. There are no rules about timing at all. Also the wound is present until the casualty is removed or it is saved, as the unsaved wound is the exact same thing as the wound you rolled for in the "to wound step".

Dashofpepper wrote:

Jidmah wrote:
You don't get any effects from a wound that was ignored.

But you're making that up. You don't take a wound (profile) from a wound (result) if you pass feel no pain.

You have no permission to ignore anything else, least of all the fact that you suffered an unsaved wound (result).

You can never take a profile wound. You can only lose one, which would be written with a capital 'W' in the BRB. FNP tells you to ignore the wound(result).

The confusion here is coming from the multiple uses of "wound" in 40k. The two being mixed here....I shall call (profile) and (result).
Wound(result): Dice result against which saves are made. Let's call this type #1.
Wound(profile): Model stat-line counter. Let's call this type #2.

As a general rule, getting +1 of Type #1 wound causes -1 of Type #2 wound. However, I've illlustrated several instances in which different special rules (FnP among them) alter the relationship between Type #1 and Type #2 wounds.

The confusion in this thread is in confusing the two types of use of the word "wound."

I really agree, and as pointed out, wounds(profile) are called Hitpoints in the German translation, making the whole thing much more readable. I won't quote from there, as any argument would be denounced as translation error anyways, even though the BRB was translated pretty good. Sigh.

Feel No Pain negates a Type #2 wound. It prevents an unsaved wound from causing a wound. Or, it prevents a Type #2 result from a Type #1 result.
Feel no Pain does not negate a Type #1 wound. It negates the Type #2 wound.

This is pretty much the reason for the thread. Feel no pain, rewritten with your terminology would read:

If a model with this ability suffers a #1 wound, roll a dice. On a 1, 2 or 3 take the #1 wound as normal(removing the model if it loses it's final #2 wound). On a 4, 5 or 6 the #1 wound is ignored and the model continues fighting.

Other wargear, special weapons, and special rules create different relationships between Type #1 and Type #2 of the use of "wound." Some examples.
Causing a Type #1 wound without causing a Type #2 wound affects wargear via an unsaved wound.
Causing a Type #1 wound causes double the amount of #2 wounds suffered.
Causing a Type #1 wound removes the model from play without regard to Type #2 wounds suffered.

The crux of this is that the folks arguing that FnP negates the hex rifle believe that "I did not take a wound to my profile" is interchangeable with "I did not fail a save against a wound roll."

I think while pinpointing the problem, you still failed to resolve it - GW defines three kind of "wounds" (well, actually four, but no one cares about telling wounds)
wound - an successful to-wound roll, no saves taken yet. These must be allocated to models.
unsaved wound - a wound that was not saved or can not be saved, but did not have any effect on the model yet. These are most important when wounding identical multi-wound models, as the model that failed the save didn't necessarily lose the Wound(profile).
Wound(profile) - a statline value that indicates how many unsaved wounds a model can suffer before being removes as casualty. Written with a capital 'W' in the BRB.

You also can't ever ignore, cause or suffer a Wound(profile), this is the one big misconception in your post. Much like you can't ignore, cause or suffer Toughness, Initiative, Weapon or Ballistic Skill. A model can only lose or gain those wounds, and once it doesn't have any left, it is removed as casualty.
Unsaved wounds do float around for a blink of an eye, to see if they do anything, other than reducing the Wound(profile) value. They can be ignored by feel no pain, cause extra attacks for blood talons, pin or glassify models hit by hexrifle or kill a poor tyranid warrior that made all his saves, just because he was already wounded.

They are not. Nor does Feel No Pain change those two statements. Instead, it adds a new statement. "I failed a save against a wound roll, but did not take a wound to my profile." Feel No Pain is not special in this regard, other things can alter that relationship as well.

You missed the point here. We're not arguing about not losing Wounds(profile). We're arguing that hex rifle's glass magic needs an unsaved wound to work, and can't work if the unsaved wound(as defined above) is ignored.

In short...yes: If you failed an armour/cover/invulnerable saved....you have suffered an unsaved wound. How that unsaved wound affects your wound profile is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant. Hex rifle does not say "If the target fails its save" or "If the target lost a Wound(profile)". Is says if you suffer an unsaved wound. If you make your FNP roll, your model no longer suffers an unsaved wound. The real question is, whether hex rile works against models if you are told to ignore that they suffered an unsaved wound.

Jidmah, could you please edit your post so that I can figure out what you are saying and what is a quote? Many thanks. Oops you already have, thank you.

I will assume though, that your last part is about the 'successfully wounds' issue that I was talking about.

Firstly as I said earlier, this issue is about Tau Carbines, the changes in BrB editions and is completely OT.

Tau Carbines cause a pinning test on a 'successfully wounds' trigger, there is no mention of unsaved wounds or casualty removal. The only point at which you can obtain 'successfully wounds' is at Step 4 of the new rules. I fully accept that this is an issue of the merging of rules and that it will be addressed either when;

1 A new Tau Codex comes out or
2 6th Edition comes out.

I did not propose it as a solution to the present discussion or even as a similar process to use, just as an interesting observation on GWs rules. Frankly, I regret ever mentioning it now. It's been distracting for everyone.

Cheers

Andrew

Yeah, should be done now... this forum has preview and submit exactly the other way around than most of my other forums, that's why you got the wreck. Sorry.

Wildstorm wrote:I fall on the side that says if I'm ignoring it, then I'm ignoring it all the way and don't have to take the hex test.

Wrong conclusion there buddy

If FNP would negate Hex, then the rules are in contradiction and you apply the more specific rule. Since Hex Rifle is more specific than FNP, then you have to take the Hex test.

The rules are not any more in conflict than feel no pain and power from pain or hex rifle and cover saves. To be in conflict, they would have to be directly contradicting each other.

Jidmah wrote:The rules are not any more in conflict than feel no pain and power from pain or hex rifle and cover saves. To be in conflict, they would have to be directly contradicting each other.

FNP and Hex both trigger on the existence of an "unsaved wound." There is no indicatation as to which triggers first, therefore they must go simultaneously.

If FNP is saved, however, you are told to "ignore the unsaved wound." However, Hex, triggering simultaneously, may destroy the model based on the same "unsaved wound." Therefore, you must either prioritize FNP and conclude that Hex doesn't trigger (essentially "go back in time" or prioritize Hex and conclude that FNP doesn't trigger.

This is a case where specific > general.

The whole point of Jidmah's argument is going back in time to ignore the wound caused by the to-wound test. It is possible to interpret the FnP rule this way, but this would lead to ... undesirable situations. This situation with the Hex Rifle (and basically all abilities that trigger off an unsaved wound) is just one kind. But as previously mentioned, if you use Feel no Pain in this way, you can also keep your Shadowfield by making your FnP save. You would ignore everything that happened after the to-wound roll, including the failed Shadowfield save.

Could you quote the shaowfield rules? I don't have a DE codex, does it deplete on being used or some other effect?

Again, I'm not going back in time. We don't even know if we have to. Hex rifle is a direct result from the injury FNP tells us to ignore. Nothing indicates that you never check the conditions for hex rifle(or any other trigger) again if they were true at any point of the resolution(like M:TG does by default).

Hex rifle removes a model if it suffered an unsaved wound and failed a test on its wound value. If any part of that condition is not true, you don't remove the model. If you passed your feel no pain roll, one part of the condition is no longer true.

Anyway, the whole back-in-time paradox only appeared because it was claimed that "injury" and "wound" are not "unsaved wound". Another indication that FNP is actually referring to the very thing it triggered off, you'd think that would be a logical conclusion.

By the way, hex rifle is the only effect of that kind that does not ignore armor. Blood talons, force weapons, nemesis force weapons and the vindicare's rifle all ignore armor(and thus FNP).

Jidmah wrote:Could you quote the shaowfield rules? I don't have a DE codex, does it deplete on being used or some other effect?

If the model fails its save, the shadowfield is destroyed. The model would then take a wound.

If the model had FNP and passed it, the injury (the wound taken) would be ignored.

The shadowfield however, would still be destroyed.

Jidmah, basically the Shadowfield provides a 2++ until the first unsaved wound is inflicted, at that point it collapses and no longer works for the rest of the game. As such if I wound you 5 times, rather than roll 5 dice, you have to roll 1 dice five times, say you roll a 1 for the first save, then you lose the 2++ for the next 4 saves.

According to you, if I have FnP as well and I completely ignore the wound in its entirety then my SF doesn't collapse because I never took the wound. Make sense?

Cheers

Andrew

"Basically" doesn't help. I know it is a one-use invul save by game practice, but not how it is worded.

The shadowfield provides a 2++ save until the model suffers an unsaved wound at which point the shadowfield collapses and is unusable.

It is not a oneshot item, but continues to work until it fails its' first save. So it could work for seven turns with an entire army shooting at it, or it could fail on the first turn. The problem is, ignoring an unsuccessful save via FnP using the interpretation of 'it never happened', would mean that the SF wouldn't have failed a save and it would be reinstated.

Cheers

Andrew

Wouldnt the FnP rule state that it ignores the unsaved wound rather than "injury" if it ment that? You can go assuming that one thing means another... Otherwise I can assume that fnp is a save (which I know it's not)

Except "injury" is not a key 40k term, so you have to assume, via context, that it means "wound"

Built-in: So, what does injury mean?

AndrewC, is that an exact quote? If it were, that would be an argument for hex rifle.

Jidmah, I would love to say that it is, but I'm at work and can't check, and a direct quote of the rules is against forum rules. {I don't know why I can type something from memory, but I can't copy from a book, grumble}

Cheers

Andrew

An 'injury' would be removing 'x' from the Wound (W) stat. Something which the Hex rifle is not contingent on achieving. This is where the FNP camp is wrong as they want to confuse 'Injury' as being the same as 'unsaved wound' when it is cleary not the case.

Rymafyr wrote:An 'injury' would be removing 'x' from the Wound (W) stat. Something which the Hex rifle is not contingent on achieving. This is where the FNP camp is wrong as they want to confuse 'Injury' as being the same as 'unsaved wound' when it is cleary not the case.

Imaginary rule is imaginary.

And so are yours. So either work to refute the obvious or leave your flames at home.

It has been refuted Ryma, read the last 6 pages....

No Nos..it hasn't and neither has your...self perceived view of said rules. So kindly step aside from making declarations about rules which you think you know inside out when your fail on even basic interpretation of said rules.

You can say all day what you want people to believe but unless you prove it your are as wrong as the people you believe to be wrong.

Actually it has. Wound and wound are two different things. Your attempts at conflating one to the other does count as "rules", sorry.

You claimed something out of the blue, while I proved the exact opposite in the long post above. You don't deserve any more. "tl;dr" has no place in a rules debate.

Rymafyr, this discussion now boils down to the order in which things take place. Setting aside Wound vs wounds or definition of injury, has helped, I think, to boil this down to two questions,

What order does FnP and HR interact?

FnP then HR,
HR then FnP,
Neither, both processes run simultaneously.

And does the term ignore injury refer to the alteration to the wounds profile or to the sucessfull wound at step 4 of the process?

Nos, does that seem a reasonable summary?

Cheers

Andrew

Seems sensible - the lack of capitalisation of "w" in the 1 - 3 result indicates it is not the Wound-stat alteration, as that is consistent in capitalisation.

AndrewC wrote:And does the term ignore injury refer to the alteration to the wounds profile or to the sucessfull wound at step 4 of the process?

The issue is whether "injury" refers to "unsaved wound" or "wound." A second issue is what GW means by "wound" in the FNP rule. To use Dash's terminology, type 1 or type 2?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except "injury" is not a key 40k term, so you have to assume, via context, that it means "wound"

Except you are injecting your own opinion in the rules here and declaring it raw. In fact, this assumption is not forced or implied by the text.

Dracos- erm, yes it is. It is a binary choice, like ALL "saves" in 40k; it saves or it does not saver.

We know what happens when you fail it. The opposite has to occur if you pass.

Otherwise you are claiming functional uselessness for FNP, which is absurd.

SWo, which is it? Do you claim FNP doesnt work?

biccat wrote:

AndrewC wrote:And does the term ignore injury refer to the alteration to the wounds profile or to the sucessfull wound at step 4 of the process?

The issue is whether "injury" refers to "unsaved wound" or "wound." A second issue is what GW means by "wound" in the FNP rule. To use Dash's terminology, type 1 or type 2?

As dash's type #2 is actually unsaved wound AND profile wound, neither, as such a wound doesn't exist. There are three kinds of wounds, not two, and FNP can never refer to profile wounds, as you can't take a profile wound. All this has been discussed above, please read it.

Jidmah wrote:Built-in: So, what does injury mean

if your insinuating that injury = unsaved wound, then it would be safe to assume that removed from play = instant death. So if the HR roll and the FnP roll ar made simultaniously, then a fail would negate fnp's roll

I am going to analyze this as how I would do for some of my computer programs that I write:

Rules:

Hex Rifle: If at least one unsaved wound happened, pass a Toughness test or remove the model.
Feel No Pain: If an unsaved wound happened, on a roll of 4+, ignore the unsaved wound.
Unsaved Wound: Any wounds in which was never saved.
All other rules in the Universal Rulebook.

Situation:

A Hex Rifle shoots a Plague Marine and wounds it. The Plague Bearer rolls a 2 on it's Armor save, therefore causing an unsaved wound. This triggers both the Toughness test and Feel No Pain. Seeing how both of these effects trigger off the same event, and no timing is given within the Universal Rulebook, both must be rolled for at the same time. In this example, the Plague Marine rolls the Feel No Pain roll of 4, ignoring the unsaved wound. Also, the Plague Marine rolls the Toughness test and fails on a 6, thus is removed from the table. Seeing how both of these are tested for at the same time, both must apply because while Feel No Pain does ignore the unsaved wound, the trigger for it is not ignored because Feel No Pain ignores the unsaved wound after it is considered an unsaved wound, not before it. Therefore, the Plague Marine ignores the unsaved wound but is removed from the table.

Conclusion:

I really see this no other way because for Feel No Pain to trigger, you must have received an unsaved wound, but the Hex Rifle is also triggered. And sense both are triggered, Feel No Pain does not tell you to ignore the unsaved wound as though it was never wounded at all, it says to ignore the unsaved wound, which is the removal of a single wound to the model. So the effects of the Hex Rifle still happens.

Jidmah wrote:

biccat wrote:

AndrewC wrote:And does the term ignore injury refer to the alteration to the wounds profile or to the sucessfull wound at step 4 of the process?

The issue is whether "injury" refers to "unsaved wound" or "wound." A second issue is what GW means by "wound" in the FNP rule. To use Dash's terminology, type 1 or type 2?

As dash's type #2 is actually unsaved wound AND profile wound, neither, as such a wound doesn't exist. There are three kinds of wounds, not two, and FNP can never refer to profile wounds, as you can't take a profile wound. All this has been discussed above, please read it.

I have read it, thanks.

FNP basically takes all of the normal rules and throws them out the window. The first trigger, "when a model suffers an unsaved wound" never occurs in a unit of models. Models don't take unsaved wounds, units do. Then it says the "unsaved wound" only translates to a "wound" when you roll a 1-3 on a dice. But unsaved wounds are never translated to "wounds" under the normal rules. Instead, unsaved wounds either cause casualties or are saved up for units of multi-wound models. Only on independent characters do unsaved wounds actually reduce the number of Wounds a model has.

To answer Nos's question above: "Do you claim FNP doesnt work?" No, because we know that it does work. But it shouldn't, according to the rules.

A Hex Rifle shoots a Plague Marine and wounds it. The Plague Bearer rolls a 2 on it's Armor save, therefore causing an unsaved wound. This triggers both the Toughness test and Feel No Pain. Seeing how both of these effects trigger off the same event, and no timing is given within the Universal Rulebook, both must be rolled for at the same time. In this example, the Plague Marine rolls the Feel No Pain roll of 4, ignoring the unsaved wound. Also, the Plague Marine rolls the Toughness test and fails on a 6, thus is removed from the table. Seeing how both of these are tested for at the same time, both must apply because while Feel No Pain does ignore the unsaved wound, the trigger for it is not ignored because Feel No Pain ignores the unsaved wound after it is considered an unsaved wound, not before it. Therefore, the Plague Marine ignores the unsaved wound but is removed from the table.

QFT - I see no reason for the debate; both FNP and Hexrifle are triggered by the same circumstance; therefor both tests are taken, if FNP is failed, the wound sticks, if toughness test fails, the model is removed. Unsaved wound does not meen 'un-felt, painless, wound' it means 'unsaved wound'. FNP is not a save. The wound is painted on the model, and FNP scrapes it off before the model is removed as a casualty.

biccat wrote:FNP basically takes all of the normal rules and throws them out the window. The first trigger, "when a model suffers an unsaved wound" never occurs in a unit of models. Models don't take unsaved wounds, units do.

???? how do you figure? seeing as how you need to allocate wounds to models before you make armor save rolls. This has nothing to do with the topic, just struck me as off

Zyllos wrote:Rules:

Hex Rifle: If at least one unsaved wound happened, pass a Toughness test or remove the model.
Feel No Pain: If an unsaved wound happened, on a roll of 4+, ignore the unsaved wound.

Not t nitpick, but there is an error here that is key to the argument.
The FNP rule states, "On a 4,5 or 6, the injury is ignored..."
It does not say the "unsaved wound" is ignored.

Considerable difference.

Many on the FNP > Hexrifle side are arguing that that's what it says.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to throw this out there.

To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents.[...]

Oh, sh**! But wait:

Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count.

*whew* That was close.

I wish they would have made it crystal clear that an "unsaved wound" can be distinct from a "wound." But I think that's a pretty significant example that it can be.

time wizard wrote:

Zyllos wrote:Rules:

Hex Rifle: If at least one unsaved wound happened, pass a Toughness test or remove the model.
Feel No Pain: If an unsaved wound happened, on a roll of 4+, ignore the unsaved wound.

Not t nitpick, but there is an error here that is key to the argument.
The FNP rule states, "On a 4,5 or 6, the injury is ignored..."
It does not say the "unsaved wound" is ignored.

Considerable difference.

If that is indeed true, it still does not change the outcome. The injury is ignored does not make the unsaved wound trigger from before disappear, therefore the Hex Rifle will still trigger. It still basically boils down to that if Feel No Pain triggers, the Hex Rifle will also trigger at the same time. Both rules do not care what happens to the wound, injury, ect after that has happened because their initial conditions were met for them to trigger.

Although I've read, followed and posted in this thread, I've not noticed the following before now.

Another reference to injury!

It's in the remove casualties step third paragraph....
But of course that then leaves us with the situation of allocating an unsaved wound, but not removing the model and all that that entails, but does seem to give an indication that FnP refers to the process after armour saves rather than doing a time warp and negating the wounding hit in the first place.

Cheers

Andrew

I think Zyllos has hit the nail on the head here. Both the hexrifle's effect and and Feel No Pain trigger off of an unsaved wound. To try and institute an "order" for the abilities to occur (FNP before hexrifle or vice versa) is wrong; both trigger at the same time. Therefore, if FNP is passed and the toughness test is passed, the model is fine and fights on as normal. If FNP is failed and the toughness test is passed, the model takes a wound but remains in play (if it has multiple wounds). If FNP is failed and the toughness test is failed, the model is removed from play. Finally, if FNP is passed but the toughness test is failed, the model is removed from play as per the hexrifle's rules.

Just my two cents. All in all, an interesting discussion.

That would be the case Roz if you were not told to ignore the wound with a passed FnP roll.

Even though they both trigger off the same event, if you make the FnP roll you can not roll for anything else because you have to now ignore the wound.

Even if you roll FnP last after any other effects, once you pass a FnP roll you Ignore the wound that was caused, AkA you pretend it does not exist, this has the same effect as if the opponent rolled a one on the to wound roll.

If you do not ignore any effects that have triggered off the wound, you are breaking the FnP rule, because we are told to ignore the wound in the first place.

@andrew it mentions "Too injured to carry on" that whole paragraph has no rules attached to it.

In the context of FnP, where you take the wound as normal, or ignore it(The injury), from the context The injury=wound, seeing as you either take the wound or you do not take the wound. injury is clearly referring to wound as noted when you roll a 1-3.

DeathReaper wrote:That would be the case Roz if you were not told to ignore the wound with a passed FnP roll.

Cool, because the text DOES NOT TELL YOU TO IGNORE THE WOUND.

Please either post proof somewhere where injury = unsaved wound, or stop espousing it as gospel.

Bah, wish I'd re-read this sooner. More fuel for the fire:

pg.26

When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one Wound from its profile. Once the model has lost all of its Wounds, it is removed as a casualty[...]

So...you have a model suffering an unsaved wound, and then losing a wound.

Now, how do you decide what the "injury" is? Since the language in FNP includes "take the wound" and "if it loses its final Wound" doesn't it make more sense to equate that to "loses one wound" (to avoid time-traveling shenanigans)?

If you knock over a vase and it shatters on the ground and your wife tells you to ignore it, does that mean the vase isn't broken?

Just because something/someone tells you to ignore something, doesn't mean the "something" never happened or never existed. One trigger begins two reactions. While one reaction tells you to ignore the trigger, it is too late because the secondary reaction is already active as well, telling you to remove the model.

People are putting a timing in place that is neither implied nor expressly permitted.

Basically, in a nutshell: Just because you ignore an "injury" doesn't mean the "injury" never occurred in the first place. As I pointed out in the Acid Blood vs. FNP thread:

puma713 wrote:This [argument] is an example of a logical fallacy called Denying the Antecedent. It is a fallacy of Propositional Logic:

If I took a wound, then I was wounded.
I didn't take a wound.
Therefore I wasn't wounded.

This is false. You could have been wounded and saved. You could've been wounded and rolled FNP. You could've been wounded and used a bodyguard to take the wound for you.

You can ignore the wound all you want. You're never given permission to ignore the wounding, which also sets off the Hex Rifle.







Edit: Here is the Acid Blood vs. FNP thread, where a similar argument is outlined.

DeathReaper wrote:
Even if you roll FnP last after any other effects, once you pass a FnP roll you Ignore the wound that was caused, AkA you pretend it does not exist, this has the same effect as if the opponent rolled a one on the to wound roll.

Not exactly. If you're taking Fnp to begin with, then you've been wounded, so it is nothing at all like rolling a one on a to-wound roll. Also, ignoring does not mean that something "doesn't exist"; it means you don't take notice of it. Puma's analogy is a very good one for this.

DeathReaper wrote:
If you do not ignore any effects that have triggered off the wound, you are breaking the FnP rule, because we are told to ignore the wound in the first place.

By the same line of reasoning, if you don't remove your model from play after failing the toughness test, you're breaking the hexrifle's rule. That line of arguing will not solve this debate.

puma713 wrote:
People are putting a timing in place that is neither implied nor expressly permitted.

Exactly this. This is what I was saying earlier about trying to institute an order to the abilities when there isn't one.

Built-in wrote:

biccat wrote:FNP basically takes all of the normal rules and throws them out the window. The first trigger, "when a model suffers an unsaved wound" never occurs in a unit of models. Models don't take unsaved wounds, units do.

???? how do you figure? seeing as how you need to allocate wounds to models before you make armor save rolls. This has nothing to do with the topic, just struck me as off

Page 24.

"For each model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."

Dracos wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:That would be the case Roz if you were not told to ignore the wound with a passed FnP roll.

Cool, because the text DOES NOT TELL YOU TO IGNORE THE WOUND.

Please either post proof somewhere where injury = unsaved wound, or stop espousing it as gospel.

See here.

biccat wrote:

Dracos wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:That would be the case Roz if you were not told to ignore the wound with a passed FnP roll.

Cool, because the text DOES NOT TELL YOU TO IGNORE THE WOUND.

Please either post proof somewhere where injury = unsaved wound, or stop espousing it as gospel.

See here.

Injury versus unsaved wound doesn't even matter. See my above post and Dash's post in the thread you referenced.

biccat wrote:In the case of FNP, I think it's pretty clear that "injury" refers to "unsaved wound" and not "wound."

Under the normal order of things, a hit may cause a wound, a wound may cause an unsaved wound, and an unsaved wound can cause a "wound" (that is, the model is removed from play or has it's wound characteristic reduced).

Under normal circumstances, an "unsaved wound" always directly corresponds to a "wound." FNP changes this, it makes the transition from "unsaved wound" to "wound" conditional on the FNP test. So, if you roll a 1-3 on a FNP test, the model suffers a "wound" as normal (is removed from play or reduces the model's wound characteristic). However, if you roll a 4-6, the rule tells us to "ignore the injury." This can't be a "wound" because the model hasn't suffered a "wound" yet, it still has an "unsaved wound" that the FNP test has not converted to a "wound."

Therefore, the only injury that can be ignored is the "unsaved wound."

There is nothing in the text of FNP that suggests the "unsaved wound" is what is ignored instead of a "wound" (the removing the wound from the profile). In fact, the text is ambiguous as to what it means by injury. It could be referring to the previous sentence where it says "On a 1,2 or 3, take a wound as normal...". It could be referring to the sentence before that, where it says "If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound..."

You have chosen to infer that "injury" it is talking about the unsaved wound, which is a valid interpretation of the text. However, the ambiguous wording makes it anything but clear. It is equally valid to think that "injury" is talking about the wound instead.

puma713 wrote:Injury versus unsaved wound doesn't even matter. See my above post and Dash's post in the thread you referenced.

It matters very much.

FNP says "on a 4, 6, or 6, the injury is ignored"

If the "unsaved wound" is ignored, then for all purposes, that model is treated as having not suffered an unsaved wound. It still has suffered the unsaved wound, but every rule that triggers from "unsaved wound" is ignored.

If it were otherwise, FNP would have no effect. "OK, you suffered an unsaved wound, we'll ignore it for purposes of FNP. Oh look, rule 24 says he dies anyway. GG."

biccat wrote:
*snip*

So you're trying to figure out if injury = wound, versus injury = unsaved wound? It still doesn't matter. The act of being wounded is what matters. It doesn't matter if you're allowed to ignore the wound, the unsaved wound or anything in between. The simple fact is as soon as you pick up the die to roll for FNP, you also need to pick up the die to roll for the Hex Rifle. The trigger has already been satisfied.

Once again, to say otherwise is to commit the fallacy Denying the Antecedent, to somehow say that because you ignore the product of an action, the action never happened.

puma713 wrote:Once again, to say otherwise is to commit the fallacy Denying the Antecedent, to somehow say that because you ignore the product of an action, the action never happened.

Or, you realize that FNP and Hex Rifle are inconsistent, and therefore default to the specific > general rule, and apply Hex Rifle.

It works.

biccat wrote:

puma713 wrote:Once again, to say otherwise is to commit the fallacy Denying the Antecedent, to somehow say that because you ignore the product of an action, the action never happened.

Or, you realize that FNP and Hex Rifle are inconsistent, and therefore default to the specific > general rule, and apply Hex Rifle.

It works.

I disagree. I think you apply both, and FNP does nothing. We have the same outcome in the end, but I think you technically still have to include FNP, even if you fail the Hex Rifle and FNP does nothing.

Injury is not 'unsaved wound'. A model with feel no pain has been wounded. It just doesn't care about the wound. If you look at it from the model's perspective; as you do when you're determining true los, you're essentially getting a better understanding of what's happening.


More importantly, FNP is not expressly a 'save' such as an invulnerable SAVE, an armor SAVE, or a cover SAVE. It's just not a save, the SAVE has either been failed or never occurred, the wound is UNSAVED. The rules on hexrifle don't say 'an unfelt wound'.

The wound is not saved, therefor the hexrifle effect occurs. I don't see ambiguity in the RAW.

junk wrote:Injury is not 'unsaved wound'. A model with feel no pain has been wounded. It just doesn't care about the wound. If you look at it from the model's perspective; as you do when you're determining true los, you're essentially getting a better understanding of what's happening.

More importantly, FNP is not expressly a 'save' such as an invulnerable SAVE, an armor SAVE, or a cover SAVE. It's just not a save, the SAVE has either been failed or never occurred, the wound is UNSAVED. The rules on hexrifle don't say 'an unfelt wound'.

The wound is not saved, therefor the hexrifle effect occurs. I don't see ambiguity in the RAW.

and FnP says to ignore the wound, if you have the hexrifle effect occuring, then you have not ignored the wound that was cause at step 2.

Step 1 Roll to hit
Step 2 Roll to wound, roll = or > on the to wound chart score a wound. (You get to ignore this wound with a successful FnP roll).
Step 3 Take save
Step 4 Take FnP, pass = Ignore the Injury/wound.

Dracos wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:That would be the case Roz if you were not told to ignore the wound with a passed FnP roll.

Cool, because the text DOES NOT TELL YOU TO IGNORE THE WOUND.

Please either post proof somewhere where injury = unsaved wound, or stop espousing it as gospel.

injury does not = unsaved wound, injury = wound as noted in the FnP entry.

Look at FNP it tells you to take the WOUND as normal or IGNORE the injury. In the context of FNP wound = Injury, and Injury = wound.

FNP is a binary choice, either take the wound, or ignore it. by saying injury they are referencing the wound.

When do you take FNP tests?

The answer - when you suffer an UNSAVED WOUND.

When is hexrifles effect triggered?

When you suffer an unsaved wound.

Nowhere does FNP say - this effect will also prevent the model being removed as a casualty from other effects.

It explicitly prevents the model from losing a wound (as in wound characteristic).

There's no debate that the INJURY being caused by the hexrifle isn't prevented by FNP. The model can ignore the 'injury' or the 'loss of a wound', however since the UNSAVED WOUND was still assigned to the model, the effect of hexrifle occured.

You can still ignore the wound (as in, the loss of a wound level [characteristic]) but you can't ignore the Model being lost as a casualty to the toughness test.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to be totally clear, YOU ARE IGNORING THE WOUND. The model will not die because it has 'lost a wound'. The model is ignoring the Injury - the wound is not being removed from the model. The model is being removed as a casualty because it failed a characteristic test, with its # of wounds still intact due to FNP.

Outside of the game, that model is hanging out, dead, but otherwise totally healthy. He didn't even feel it. He totally ignored the injury. He felt no pain at all. He just died.

I know I'm new, but I think I can add to this discussion.

In my opinion there are only two ways to deal with this situation:

1. We asume that the word 'injury' is a screw up and the rules writer actually ment wound, unsaved wound, Wound, hit or in my behalf he could have meant smurf, since we can't know. And probably we'll never know.
So only way to deal with it is make up a house rule and get over it, no one has even the slightest abillity to claim what is truly meant by this paragraph.

2. The, in my opinion, much more interesting option is to asume that the writer used 'injury' intentionally. So if he wanted to use 'injury', what could this mean? There are, few, but nontheless some instances where the word 'injury' is used in the BRB. Two are in the 'Feel no pain' paragraph itself, and pretty useless for definition purpose, the third, as mentioned before, on page 24 and not helping, too. But there is a forth: page 6, Wounds paragraph. This paragraph tells us what a Wound is supposed to be, which is the aballity to withstand several injuries; so each Wound after the first grants a model the ability to withstand an additional injury.
So what is an injury?
Everything that lowers your 'current Wound counter' by one.

So if the rule prompts us (intentionaly) to ignore the injury it asks us to ignore the actual lowering of the model's 'current Wound counter' and not the wound, neither normal, telling nor unsaved, because if it would, it would say so explicitly.

I'm not sure, if the four instances I found are all, but if somone finds another one mentioning 'injury' that either backs up my point or defeats it i'd like to read it, so feel free to reply.
Same goes for arguments, why my reasoning is either true or false.
But if you want to post that of course injury means unsaved wound (or anything else, not written out), please read point 1 and refrain from posting.
No offense, but i think 7 pages of the same presumptions should suffice.

P.S.: Considering the point:

Look at FNP it tells you to take the WOUND as normal or IGNORE the injury. In the context of FNP wound = Injury, and Injury = wound.

I'd like to add:
If ignoring the injury would mean to ignore the wound, it would say so, unless the rule was broken, wouldn't it?
Though it is true, that the rule tells us to take the wound as normal or ignoring the injury, that doesn't mean that 'injury == wound' or 'ignoring the injury == ignoring the wound' it just tells us that 'taking the wound as normal != ingnoring the injury' so, of course, if you ignore the injury, you can't take the wound as normal, since takeing the wound as normal doesn't include ignoring the injury.
If, for example, I asked you to either take breakfast as normal or ignore the scrambled egg, you wouldn't argue that breakfast and scrambled egg are the same, or even, that ignoring the scrambled egg would mean you can't take breakfast at all, would you?

edit: typo

With every second person in this thread misusing "unsaved wound" and "profile wounds", there isn't really a point anymore in arguing anything of this at all. Seriously, read the rulebook or one of the posts explaining it before posting 100% wrong statements like "suffering unsaved wounds is losing a wound from your profile".

I have yet to see any argument that does not result in any dodgy "you ignore the injury just for some things, but not for others" or "timing works like I say!" without rules back-up. The only real lead on how this was supposed to be resolved (Shadowfield) was never quoted, so I assume any mention of that was made up.

If the injury caused by hex rifle makes the model a glass statue, you didn't ignore the injury, simple as that. You broke a rule.

Jidmah wrote:With every second person in this thread misusing "unsaved wound" and "profile wounds", there isn't really a point anymore in arguing anything of this at all. Seriously, read the rulebook or one of the posts explaining it before posting 100% wrong statements like "suffering unsaved wounds is losing a wound from your profile".

I have yet to see any argument that does not result in any dodgy "you ignore the injury just for some things, but not for others" or "timing works like I say!" without rules back-up. The only real lead on how this was supposed to be resolved (Shadowfield) was never quoted, so I assume any mention of that was made up.

If the injury caused by hex rifle makes the model a glass statue, you didn't ignore the injury, simple as that. You broke a rule.

Show me in the rules where it states that Feel no Pain either is rolled before, or takes precedence over the characteristic test of Hexrifle, at which point in time, I will lay down my debate hat and agree with your conclusions. Until you can show me where Feel No Pain trumps things triggering off of an unsaved wound (which is the specific thing that triggers Feel No Pain also, so make sure that it doesn't negate itself there) then you cannot in all realism tell someone with a Hexrifle that you dont have to roll a test to see if they turn to glass. And seeing as the turning to glass is not a wound, FnP can still give you back the wound, it just wont matter as they are dead anyway.

Does it need to be rolled before? Isn't all shooting of a single unit happening at one point in time? There are no rules for timing. There is only a binary question whether you ignored an injury or not. If you didn't, you broke a rule. If did ignore it, you didn't break a rule. As pointed out before, Feel No Pain ignoring it's own trigger would work perfectly fine.

FnP can still give you back the wound

This is the exact misuse of terms I was talking about. Feel no pain can never do such a thing, as models without profile Wounds are immediately removed as casualty. Refer to Yarrik, Thawn or Necrons for rules that do work that way.
Note that while the German BRB does state that it does work that way, the original one doesn't.

So you want to break the Hexrifle's rule so you can avoid breaking FNP's rule? That's the only way your interpretation would work.

How is the hexrifle rule broken? Something that didn't suffer an injury from it doesn't suffer its effect. That's exactly what its rules say.

The Hexrifle tells you to do something when a model suffers an unsaved wound. You didn't do it. You broke the rule.

If you pass your FNP wound, you are told to ignore that exact event. So once you pull the model due to glassification, you did it for no reason, which is just the same as removing an enemy model for no reason while he isn't looking.

By your interpretation, you can take FNP against wounds caused by instant death weapons, because instant death triggers off of unsaved wounds as well. So no weapons can cause instant death because FNP ignores the unsaved wound...

Uh, no? All weapons causing Instant Death after wounding ignore armor and thus FNP. All unsaved wounds causing Instant Death by themselves(for example double strength) also ignore FNP.

An imaginary non-power but force weapon could indeed be prevented by FNP.

So according to you, a terminator with FNP getting hit by a Krak missile can take his FNP test?

Jidmah wrote:If you pass your FNP wound, you are told to ignore that exact event. So once you pull the model due to glassification, you did it for no reason, which is just the same as removing an enemy model for no reason while he isn't looking.

However, you must suffer an unsaved wound in order for FnP to get its trigger. It has the same trigger as the Hexrifle's characteristic test, so why should you get to use the trigger for FnP but not for the test??? Especially iff all shooting is done at the same time, you should have to do both because you suffered an unsaved wound, which then triggers both events simultaneously, hence both events would happen. If you pass FnP, and fail the char test for the Hexrifle, you still die, just not from the wound you ignored, from the char test that you failed.

Either way, you only ignore the injury, it says nowhere that it didnt happen. FnP gives you the ability to ignore the fact that all wounds take one away from your profile wounds, not that you can be wounded but not lose a wound, because that is exactly what FnP does, is that it allows you to be wounded without losing a wound, which is also called ignoring the wound. See my previous definition for better clarification.

bushido wrote:So according to you, a terminator with FNP getting hit by a Krak missile can take his FNP test?

Are you misreading my post on purpose? The answer to that question is right there. A krak missle never triggers instant death. Feel no pain can never be attempted against a wound causing instant death by itself.

Galador wrote:

Jidmah wrote:If you pass your FNP wound, you are told to ignore that exact event. So once you pull the model due to glassification, you did it for no reason, which is just the same as removing an enemy model for no reason while he isn't looking.

However, you must suffer an unsaved wound in order for FnP to get its trigger. It has the same trigger as the Hexrifle's characteristic test, so why should you get to use the trigger for FnP but not for the test??? Especially iff all shooting is done at the same time, you should have to do both because you suffered an unsaved wound, which then triggers both events simultaneously, hence both events would happen. If you pass FnP, and fail the char test for the Hexrifle, you still die, just not from the wound you ignored, from the char test that you failed.

You may not take that char test. You didn't suffer a wound to take it.

Either way, you only ignore the injury, it says nowhere that it didnt happen. FnP gives you the ability to ignore the fact that all wounds take one away from your profile wounds, not that you can be wounded but not lose a wound, because that is exactly what FnP does, is that it allows you to be wounded without losing a wound, which is also called ignoring the wound. See my previous definition for better clarification.

So you are sitting at a table with three people, and one says roll a dice, on a 4+ you buy me a drink. You pick up the dice and roll a 6. The other person then tells you to ignore the first guy. You get up and buy the first one a drink. Did you ignore him?
Your definition of "ignoring the wound" is made up. Ignoring something, is paying no attention to it all, by the very dictionary definition you insist on. If you pay any attention to it, you are not ignoring it. If you resolve something that was caused by something that you are told to ignore, you break the rules.

Also your definition of what Feel No Pain does is wrong, as your definition of unsaved wounds and profile Wound are wrong.
Suffering an unsaved wound is still not the same as losing a Wound from your profile. Check the rules for multi-wound models if you don't believe me.
You can't ignore a profile Wound. You can only ever ignore hits, wounds or unsaved wounds.

So you are sitting at a table with three people, and one says roll a dice, on a 4+ you buy me a drink. You pick up the dice and roll a 6. The other person then tells you to ignore the first guy. You get up and buy the first one a drink. Did you ignore him?

No of course you didn't, but if you ignore hime, does time rewinde to before he told you to go? If you ignore him and don't buy his drink, did he not say it? And if you are allowed to punch someone's face, if he trys to pull that off, and you ignore his request and don't buy him a drink, are you forced to not punch him, since you ignored him?

Feel no pain says: "the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting." It doesn't tell you to move back in time, nor that you were not being wounded in the first place. It tells you to ignore the injury and that the model continues fighting, not more, but not less!

If you argue that injury doesn't mean injury but something else, then as I said before no one can help you. I don't deny that it is your good right to interpret it that way, I just say, we can't know what it's supposed to mean, I can't know, you can't know, we all can't know beyond doubt, unless someone here claims to be either the writer of the rules or to have divine insight into the writer's mindset.

If we don't belive it means something else, but just that what is written; it doesn't work out the way you say.
The first way to resolve it is to interpret this sentence as:
'the model continues fighting' is the definition of 'ignoring the injury' and so it doesn't tell us anything about wounds, it just says the model isn't removed as a casualty.
A possible option, but it doesn't include a usefull solution for multi wound models.

The second possibility is to take these two parts as seperate, you 'ignore the injury' and additionally 'the model continues fighting'. If we take these route the only possible way to define injury is by other instances this word is used in the book and while there are not many, there some. I found four, and one of these is actually usefull, as it defines a Wound as the abillity to withstand an injury.

edit:typo

Jidmah wrote:

bushido wrote:So according to you, a terminator with FNP getting hit by a Krak missile can take his FNP test?

Are you misreading my post on purpose? The answer to that question is right there. A krak missle never triggers instant death. Feel no pain can never be attempted against a wound causing instant death by itself.

So when the rulebook says "If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness or greater [...]" for Instant Death it's somehow different than "A model that suffers an unsaved wound from a Hexrifle?" Your stance all along is that the unsaved wound never existed if you pass FNP. So how can it trigger instant death if it never existed?

If all this stuff happens at the same time, and FNP never tells you to ignore the "unsaved wound" why are you still insisting that it does?

Tiri Rana wrote:

So you are sitting at a table with three people, and one says roll a dice, on a 4+ you buy me a drink. You pick up the dice and roll a 6. The other person then tells you to ignore the first guy. You get up and buy the first one a drink. Did you ignore him?

No of course you didn't, but if you ignore hime, does time rewinde to before he told you to go? If you ignore him and don't by his drink, did he not say it? And if you are allowed to punch someone's face, if he trys to pull that off, and you ignore his request and don#t buy him a drink, are you forced to not punch him, since you ignored him?

If you punch him, you didn't ignore him. That's the whole point. If person #2 says "ignore him or I kill you", you're dead if you punch person#1. You don't need to "go back in time" to ignore something. You still heard him talk, rolled the dice and lost the bet, but you may neither punch him, nor get him a drink.

Feel no pain says: "the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting." It doesn't tell you to move back in time, nor that you were not being wounded in the first place. It tells you to ignore the injury and that the model continues fighting, not more, but not less!

Not being wounded and ignoring being wounded is the same in the game. While in fluff the soldier keeps fighting for whatever reason, in rules a model is 100% unharmed and well. As shown by the weird tau rules a few pages back, even if you saved the wound by armor, cover or invulnerable save, you were still wounded.

If you argue that injury doesn't mean injury but something else, then as I said before no one can help you. I don't deny that it is your good right to interpret it that way, I just say, we can't know, what it's supposed to mean, I can't know, you can't know, we all can't know beyond doubt, unless someone here claims to be either the writer of the rules or to have divine insight into the writer's mindset.

Injury is an undefined term, but you can narrow in what it means by context. Fact is, it must mean either "wound"(lowercase w!) or "unsaved wound", as the process of losing Wounds(capital W!) from your profile is always described as "taking/removing casualties" or "a model suffes a wound", but never "injury" as many people claim out of the blue. Also, it says the injury, referring to something mentioned before, which does not include anything but "unsaved wound" and "wound". It's just like "If you shoot a Grey Knight Terminator, roll a dice. On a 1, 2 or 3 the terminator stays the way it is, on a roll of 4, 5, or 6 the model becomes a squig." There is no question whether that "the terminator" or "the model" is aforementioned "Grey Knight Terminator" or not.
As there a quite a few fellow Germans in this discussion now, I'd also like to point out that the German BRB says "ignore the wound", rather than "ignore the injury".

If we don't belive it means something else, but just that what is written it doesn't work out that way.
The first way to resolve it is to interpret this sentence as:
'the model continues fighting' is the definition of 'ignoring the injury' and so it doesn't tell us anything about wounds, it just says the model isn't removed as a casualty.
Is possible, but it doesn't include a usefull solution for multi wound models.

I'd rather discard "and continues fighting" as fluff, otherwise someone would try to argue that hex rifle can't kill the model because FNP tells it to continue fighting. That would really be ridiculous.

The second possibility is to take these two parts as seperate, you 'ignore the injury' and additionally 'the model continues fighting'. If we take these route the only possible way to define injury is by other instances this word is used in the book and while there are not many, there sime. I found 4, and one of these is actually usefull, as it defines a Wound as the abillity to withstand an injury.

Actually it's not an ability, but a measure. It says that models with more wounds can suffer more injuries, which would work perfectly fine if injury is either "wound" or "unsaved wound".

In order for hex rifle to ignore feel no pain, injury must have been defined as the step of an unsaved wound becoming a loss of profile Wounds. Something that is never needed elsewhere in the whole game, and obviously not written with such an intent, as the BRB and Hexrifle are a few year apart in printing. This is really stretching the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bushido wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

bushido wrote:So according to you, a terminator with FNP getting hit by a Krak missile can take his FNP test?

Are you misreading my post on purpose? The answer to that question is right there. A krak missle never triggers instant death. Feel no pain can never be attempted against a wound causing instant death by itself.

So when the rulebook says "If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness or greater [...]" for Instant Death it's somehow different than "A model that suffers an unsaved wound from a Hexrifle?" Your stance all along is that the unsaved wound never existed if you pass FNP. So how can it trigger instant death if it never existed?

Uh, check FNP rules? If an unsaved wound causes instant death, you may not use Feel No Pain in the first place. Because Feel No Pain says so. As you can't ever use FNP against instant death wounds, the wording of instant death itself is completely irrelevant. Instant death could even say "if you make a successful FNP roll against this wound, you have to smash the model with a hammer", but as you can't ever take FNP against those wounds, you won't be needing a hammer during gaming anytime soon. There is no problem.

If all this stuff happens at the same time, and FNP never tells you to ignore the "unsaved wound" why are you still insisting that it does?

So what does it ignore? That sweet never defined perfect moment to make hex rifle work or something every codex uses for every similar rule?

Not being wounded and ignoring being wounded is the same in the game.

It is not the same.
A wound is taken by a model that fails to or is unable to save against it. Feel no pain interrupts this and states - ignore the injury [wound]. If a model is not wounded, it doesn't get to take an FNP test, and in your interpretation, if you ignore the wound, you wouldn't be able to take an FNP test, because you're ignoring the wound, therefore you are not taking the FNP test, and the model takes a wound... You can't interpret FNP that way because it creates a paradox, you are forced (by not being a complete idiot) to interpret FNP as a secondary failsafe against wounding, one that occurs at a fixed moment in time after an unsaved wound is applied to the model. As FNP tests occur AFTER the unsaved wound, the unsaved wound occurs and hexrifle's effect takes place as well as Feel No Pain.

You can't prioritize FNP over hexrifle because by the exact same logic, you could say 'The model can't (pass feel no pain) and ignore the wound, because the model has been removed for failing a toughness test'.


The only reasonable course of action is to take both tests. If the model fails the FNP test, it suffers the effects of a wound, and loses a profile wound. If it fails the hexrifle test, it is removed as per Hexrifle rules. You cannot choose which rule you want to break, so you have to apply both and let the game decide.

1. Calling people idiots isn't really my idea of a civilized discussion.
2. You are not breaking a rule by taking a test which has no effect. In a similar sense, nothing prevents you from using a force weapon against a model immune to instant death if you want to suffer perils really hard. Feel no pain is completely independent from hex rifle.
3. Boldening a statement does not make it more right.
4. You roll FNP and Hex rifle characteristic test at the exact same time. You know whether you ignore the trigger for hexrifle at the same time you would want to remove the model.
5. Feel no Pain does not create a paradox. Once the reason for both triggers is ignored you go on. You don't repeat checking for suffered wounds again, as suffering an unsaved wound happens only once. Otherwise any multi-wound model would instantly be killed when suffering an unsaved wound.

Jidmah wrote:

Tiri Rana wrote:

So you are sitting at a table with three people, and one says roll a dice, on a 4+ you buy me a drink. You pick up the dice and roll a 6. The other person then tells you to ignore the first guy. You get up and buy the first one a drink. Did you ignore him?

No of course you didn't, but if you ignore hime, does time rewinde to before he told you to go? If you ignore him and don't by his drink, did he not say it? And if you are allowed to punch someone's face, if he trys to pull that off, and you ignore his request and don#t buy him a drink, are you forced to not punch him, since you ignored him?

If you punch him, you didn't ignore him. That's the whole point. If person #2 says "ignore him or I kill you", you're dead if you punch person#1. You don't need to "go back in time" to ignore something. You still heard him talk, rolled the dice and lost the bet, but you may neither punch him, nor get him a drink.

I only wanted to say that it is absolutely possible to ignore his request, without ignoring that he said anything at all, which is still true afaik.

Jidmah wrote:

Feel no pain says: "the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting." It doesn't tell you to move back in time, nor that you were not being wounded in the first place. It tells you to ignore the injury and that the model continues fighting, not more, but not less!

Not being wounded and ignoring being wounded is the same in the game. While in fluff the soldier keeps fighting for whatever reason, in rules a model is 100% unharmed and well. As shown by the weird tau rules a few pages back, even if you saved the wound by armor, cover or invulnerable save, you were still wounded.

No, it is not. Being wounde is a state, while the wound is the result of this state, you can ignore the result, without making the state invalid. And yes, of course a model that passed its save was still wounded, the state of being wounded didn't vanish, it was just amended. The same goes for feel no pain, while you may ignore the implications of an unsaved wound the state of having suffered an unsaved wound did not vanish.

Jidmah wrote:

If you argue that injury doesn't mean injury but something else, then as I said before no one can help you. I don't deny that it is your good right to interpret it that way, I just say, we can't know, what it's supposed to mean, I can't know, you can't know, we all can't know beyond doubt, unless someone here claims to be either the writer of the rules or to have divine insight into the writer's mindset.

Injury is an undefined term, but you can narrow in what it means by context. Fact is, it must mean either "wound"(lowercase w!) or "unsaved wound", as the process of losing Wounds(capital W!) from your profile is always described as "taking/removing casualties" or "a model suffes a wound", but never "injury" as many people claim out of the blue.

No fact is it could mean wound, but it could mean anything else, because as much as you say 'injury' is not defined as the act of loosing a Wound, it is also not defined as wound or anything else. The only mentioning of injuries in a defining matter is the Wounds paragraph.

Jidmah wrote:
Also, it says the injury, referring to something mentioned before, which does not include anything but "unsaved wound" and "wound". It's just like "If you shoot a Grey Knight Terminator, roll a dice. On a 1, 2 or 3, the terminator stays the way it is, on a roll of 4, 5, or 6 the model becomes a squig." There is no question whether that "the terminator" or "the model" is aforementioned "Grey Knight Terminator" or not.
As there a quite a few fellow Germans in this discussion now, I'd also like to point out that the German BRB says "ignore the wound", rather than "ignore the injury".

Of course it says the injury. The 'the' is an indicator that not any wound is meant, but a very specific one, the one that the model would suffer, weren't it for FNP.
Additionally your example is false, since the the question is not if the 'model' equals the 'Terminator'. A better example would be: If you shoot a Grey Knight Terminator, roll a dice. On a 1, 2 or 3 resolve the hit as normal (rolling to wound, if it succedes). On a roll of 4, 5 or 6, the strike is ignored and the model continues laughing.
Your point is that strike and hit have to be equal, since it's an either or question, but as I said before this is not completely true, since a strike could be a part of a hit, or it could be something entirely different, that is just part of the act of resolving the hit.

Additionally I know that the German BRB uses the wourd wound, but it also uses Lifepoint for Wound and the german DE Codex even drops the unsaved in the Huskblade's description. So I don't think the german translation should play any part in rule problemes.
As I said before, we can't be sure, what the writer meant, if not that what he wrote, so how could we argue, that we know, what the translator meant, who also didn't know, what the author meant?

Jidmah wrote:

If we don't belive it means something else, but just that what is written it doesn't work out that way.
The first way to resolve it is to interpret this sentence as:
'the model continues fighting' is the definition of 'ignoring the injury' and so it doesn't tell us anything about wounds, it just says the model isn't removed as a casualty.
Is possible, but it doesn't include a usefull solution for multi wound models.

I'd rather discard "and continues fighting" as fluff, otherwise someone would try to argue that hex rifle can't kill the model because FNP tells it to continue fighting. That would really be ridiculous.

So you got to decide which part of the sentence is valid as a rule, and wich should be discarded, because you think it's ridiculous?

Jidmah wrote:

The second possibility is to take these two parts as seperate, you 'ignore the injury' and additionally 'the model continues fighting'. If we take these route the only possible way to define injury is by other instances this word is used in the book and while there are not many, there are some. I found 4, and one of these is actually usefull, as it defines a Wound as the abillity to withstand an injury.

Actually it's not an ability, but a measure. It says that models with more wounds can suffer more injuries, which would work perfectly fine if injury is either "wound" or "unsaved wound".

But there is a great difference between an injury, defined as everyithing that lowers the current Wounds, and a wound, a model could suffer a dozen wounds, without ever loosing a Wound, with regard to FNP this is even true for unsaved wounds. And if injury was wound, why did the author not use the word wound, instead of injury?

Jidmah wrote:
In order for hex rifle to ignore feel no pain, injury must have been defined as the step of an unsaved wound becoming a loss of profile Wounds. Something that is never needed elsewhere in the whole game, and obviously not written with such an intent, as the BRB and Hexrifle are a few year apart in printing. This is really stretching the rules.

It is never explicitly defined, what a wound is, nor what a hit is, these words are just used in context, while we have a pretty good reverse definition of injury.

If the author didn't mean to say injury, why did he?
That's a question we can't solve, we can either think he did it by accidant, then it's impossible to figure out, what he meant, or we can think he used injury intentionally instead of wound, then we can define, what injury is.

Tiri Rana wrote:I only wanted to say that it is absolutely possible to ignore his request, without ignoring that he said anything at all, which is still true afaik.

Yeah, but you're told to ignore him, not his request.

No, it is not. Being wounde is a state, while the wound is the result of this state, you can ignore the result, without making the state invalid. And yes, of course a model that passed its save was still wounded, the state of being wounded didn't vanish, it was just amended. The same goes for feel no pain, while you may ignore the implications of an unsaved wound the state of having suffered an unsaved wound did not vanish.

Every rule asking whether the model was wounded would receive a "false", because you're ignoring the fact that it was wounded. Compare to infantry models counting as jump infantry or bikes. While they are technically still infantry models, it would never, ever matter for the game. It's exactly as if they weren't infantry models. It's the same for the ignored wounds.

No fact is it could mean wound, but it could mean anything else, because as much as you say 'injury' is not defined as the act of loosing a Wound, it is also not defined as wound or anything else. The only mentioning of injuries in a defining matter is the Wounds paragraph.

That's still not a definition. It can't mean "anything" at all, as it is within a context. A context concerning wounds happing to a model within a functional rule in a functional rulesset. Not including injury being a synonym for wound.

Of course it says the injury. The 'the' is an indicator that not any wound is meant, but a very specific one, the one that the model would suffer, weren't it for FNP.
Additionally your example is false, since the the question is not if the 'model' equals the 'Terminator'. A better example would be: If you shoot a Grey Knight Terminator, roll a dice. On a 1, 2 or 3 resolve the hit as normal (rolling to wound, if it succedes). On a roll of 4, 5 or 6, the strike is ignored and the model continues laughing.
Your point is that strike and hit have to be equal, since it's an either or question, but as I said before this is not completely true, since a strike could be a part of a hit, or it could be something entirely different, that is just part of the act of resolving the hit.

You entirely missed the point. A Grey Knight Terminator is a terminator and a model. An unsaved wound is a wound and an injury. A shot, a hit and a strike are three things that might or might not have anything to do with each other. They don't need to be equal, they just have to describe the term they are refering to. That's how you write sentences, you don't use the same word four times, but rather synonyms. Even if you shouldn't do that in rules texts GW does. Just figure how stupid (though clear) the sentence would be if you replace the two additional terms by "unsaved wound". Also note that it's meaning does not change.

Jidmah wrote:

If we don't belive it means something else, but just that what is written it doesn't work out that way.
The first way to resolve it is to interpret this sentence as:
'the model continues fighting' is the definition of 'ignoring the injury' and so it doesn't tell us anything about wounds, it just says the model isn't removed as a casualty.
Is possible, but it doesn't include a usefull solution for multi wound models.

I'd rather discard "and continues fighting" as fluff, otherwise someone would try to argue that hex rifle can't kill the model because FNP tells it to continue fighting. That would really be ridiculous.

So you got to decide which part of the sentence is valid as a rule, and wich should be discarded, because you think it's ridiculous?

Uh, fine? FNP says the model continues fighting, so hex rifle is ignored, because a dead model can't continue fighting. Was that your point?

But there is a great difference between an injury, defined as everyithing that lowers the current Wounds, and a wound, a model could suffer a dozen wounds, without ever loosing a Wound, with regard to FNP this is even true for unsaved wounds. And if injury was wound, why did the author not use the word wound, instead of injury?

Actually it isn't defined at all. At maximum it's described. And it's described as a model with more Wounds can take more injuries and that a model with FNP can ignore them. Why the author did that? Because GW couldn't write solid rules if their life depended on it, just have a look at the GK codex.
This is also incorrect. A model suffering a wound would always lose a Wound from it's profile. The process of removing profile Wounds is describe as a model suffering a wound, as opposed to a unit or wound group suffering a wound.

It is never explicitly defined, what a wound is, nor what a hit is, these words are just used in context, while we have a pretty good reverse definition of injury.

Page 17 and 19 do define hit and wound. Injury has no definition, as stated above. You can replace "injury" with both "wound" and "unsaved" wound without changing the meaning in any of the occurrences.

If the author didn't mean to say injury, why did he?

Readability, ignorance of terms. See above.

That's a question we can't solve, we can either think he did it by accidant, then it's impossible to figure out, what he meant, or we can think he used injury intentionally instead of wound, then we can define, what injury is.

Option C: Get what the unknown word means from context. You know, "Dakkadakka" is never actually explained or translated in any fluff, and most people don't have an ork codex or the real BRB anyway. Everyone has a pretty good idea what it means though.

What we know about injuries:
1) Model with many Wounds can take more of them.
2) If you suffer an unsaved wound and you ignore them, you don't lose a Wound

So when do you lose a Wound? After you suffer an unsaved wound. So if we don't ignore that unsaved wound someone is going to lose a Wound. So injury must at least include unsaved wounds, otherwise FNP has no effect. So does this fit with 1)? Models mith many Wounds can take more unsaved wounds, works fine. Now you have a minimal definition of what injury has to be, which incidental fits perfectly with "the injury" refering to "unsaved wounds".

Sorry man, wasn't calling you an idiot, saying that interpreting the rules in such a way to create a paradox is idiotic behavior, perhaps idiot is stong, read: Intentionally interpreting the rules in such a way as to create a problem.

@Jidmah: But his whole point has been that that's not what was written. You are ascribing authorial intent without being the author. To illustrate my point, here's a funny story.

Nerdy people (like me and the ones I hang out with, and, let's face it, the vast majority of 40k players) tend to be more closeted and ignorant of the outside world. So it was that a friend of mine, upon reading his first Ork codex, asked me what a "Dakka" meant. He thought it was a system of currency. If you read the Ork codex, the "Dakka" war references "dakka" but it can just as easily be understood to be currency, even in the context of some fluff. My point being that yes, even Dakka can be misinterpreted.

Jidmah wrote:2) If you suffer an unsaved wound and you ignore them, you don't lose a Wound

But you were still wounded. The act of being wounded is what triggers both FNP and the Hex Rifle. We're just going in circles here. To say that because you ignore the product of an action, that the action never happened, is a logical fallacy.

puma713 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:2) If you suffer an unsaved wound and you ignore them, you don't lose a Wound

But you were still wounded. The act of being wounded is what triggers both FNP and the Hex Rifle. We're just going in circles here. To say that because you ignore the product of an action, that the action never happened, is a logical fallacy.

It does not matter if you were still wounded because we are told to IGNORE it.

Once we ignore the wound because of a 4-6 on our FNP roll, it does not matter what else was triggered, we can't trigger any effects of that wound because we are told to ignore it.

Since Hex rifle and FNP trigger simultaneously you resolve both effects simultaneously, but if you pass a FNP it does not matter what the outcome of the hex rifles test was, since we ignore the wound (AkA, pretend it never happened)

This whole debate really hinges on what ignore means. Since the BRB does not define Ignore it leaves it up to us to try and figure out.

DeathReaper wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:2) If you suffer an unsaved wound and you ignore them, you don't lose a Wound

But you were still wounded. The act of being wounded is what triggers both FNP and the Hex Rifle. We're just going in circles here. To say that because you ignore the product of an action, that the action never happened, is a logical fallacy.

It does not matter if you were still wounded because we are told to IGNORE it.

Once we ignore the wound because of a 4-6 on our FNP roll, it does not matter what else was triggered, we can't trigger any effects of that wound because we are told to ignore it.

Since Hex rifle and FNP trigger simultaneously you resolve both effects simultaneously, but if you pass a FNP it does not matter what the outcome of the hex rifles test was, since we ignore the wound (AkA, pretend it never happened)

This whole debate really hinges on what ignore means. Since the BRB does not define Ignore it leaves it up to us to try and figure out.

But it does matter that you were wounded, and suffered an unsaved wound, because as the definition from earlier states, its that You (in this case the model) refuse to acknowledge the wound, not that the wound never happened. I can refuse to acknowledge anything I like, but that doesnt make it not have happened. I can ignore the fact that a mortar round comes over the perimeter fence, but that doesnt mean it didnt come over the wire and hit something, it just means I dont acknowledge it. Even when you ignore something, it still happens.

So, going along the lines of that logic, yes, they both trigger simultaneously, however, you dont ignore the hexrifle roll, because it is the result of the unsaved wound that already happened and that you are trying to use Feel no Pain to ignore the pain of the wound and continue fighting. If you pass your char test and the FnP, then all is fine. Iff you pass the char test, but fail FnP, then you suffer the wound. If you pass FnP, but fail the char test, you suffer no negative to your wounds, but are still removed from play as per the failed characteristic test, which happened at the exact same time. IF you fail them both, then you suffer a negative to your wounds, and you are removed from play as per the Hexrifle rules. You can only ignore the wound, you cannot favor one rule over the other just because it suits your playstyle. Going back to the pinning test that time wizard brought up, I have been thinking about it and honestly, I think that even if you pass the FnP for it, you would also have to take the pinning test anyway, because it is a characteristic test, just like the Hexrifle rules. Honestly, I have never thought about it or played it that way, but now that it has been brought up, it does make sense that you were wounded, even if you ignore the wound.

Plain and simple, ignoring something doesnt mean it didnt happen, just that you choose to pretend it didnt. and there in lies the fault in your arguement, because reality and pretend very often do not coincide.

Galador wrote:Plain and simple, ignoring something doesnt mean it didnt happen, just that you choose to pretend it didnt. and there in lies the fault in your arguement, because reality and pretend very often do not coincide.

Exactly!!!

you pretend it didn't happen, so what other effects can trigger from an event we are ignoring/pretending never happened? none.

you can not be removed due to something you are told to ignoring/pretend never happened.

Acknowledging the existence of the wound, by doing any action based off that, is breaking a rule - you are no longer ignoring the wound.

You don't have to acknowledge the injury- the hex rifle has already been triggered. The hex rifle doesn't have a secondary check built into it to make sure that you have still suffered an unsaved wound after it has triggered. Any unsaved wound that triggers FNP from the hex rifle also triggers the hex rifle's ability, after which it doesn't care what happened to the unsaved wound.