You cannot use FNP if the wound you suffer causes Instant Death.

How about if your unit (i.e.plaguebearers) are immune to Instant Death (Eternal Warriors)? Say you drop a vindicator or manticore blast on top of them. Will they still get their FNP saves?

If you want to use a multi-wound model, say they drop a vindicator blast on top of Epidemius.

This has come up multiple times already. The main thing is that not being able to take FNP for ID wounds is part of the FNP rule, not ID. The Wound is still an ID Wound, just the model doesn't suffer ID.

This will need to be FAQ'ed and/or cleared with TO/opponent.

I see both sides.

FYI... my FLGS allows FNP from ID causing wound in an EW model.

Happyjew wrote:This has come up multiple times already. The main thing is that not being able to take FNP for ID wounds is part of the FNP rule, not ID. The Wound is still an ID Wound, just the model doesn't suffer ID.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but couldn't there be another intepretation to this?

You shoot at Epidimeus with a S10 gun. He is still alive afterwards. Have you really inflicted Instant Death on him?

I agree that it needs a FAQ.

But you don't have to have actually killed the model for the wound to be considered inflicting Instant Death. The wound inflicts it, and then Eternal Warrior ignores it, but the wound still had the Instant Death attribute, simply because its strength is double the victim's toughness.

SCvodimier wrote:But you don't have to have actually killed the model for the wound to be considered inflicting Instant Death. The wound inflicts it, and then Eternal Warrior ignores it, but the wound still had the Instant Death attribute, simply because its strength is double the victim's toughness.

Not really. If you look at the rules for Instant Death more closely (on p.16), part of its requirement is "it is reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty." EW units aren't necessarily reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty (unless, of course, it was their last wound or they only have 1W).

IMO, as the rule doesn't mention EW like it did in 5th, RAI I believe it does allow. But just my opinion

I would say that "a model with this special rule is immune to the effects of instant death" (Pg 35) would mean that ID has zero bearing on that model and they are allowed a FNP roll.

jy2 wrote:

SCvodimier wrote:But you don't have to have actually killed the model for the wound to be considered inflicting Instant Death. The wound inflicts it, and then Eternal Warrior ignores it, but the wound still had the Instant Death attribute, simply because its strength is double the victim's toughness.

Not really. If you look at the rules for Instant Death more closely (on p.16), part of its requirement is "it is reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty." EW units aren't necessarily reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty (unless, of course, it was their last wound or they only have 1W).

If that is part of the requirement for Instant Death, what does Instant Death do then?

Nothing, if the model has EW.

Hmm...Intriguing, I'll have to look more closely at it when I get home

We're discussing this in our FLGS now as well and as usual there's two camps It needs to be FAQ'd or house ruled

One effect of ID is negating FNP. An EW is immune to all of its effects. Personally i think its that simple, and i will agree to all fnp rolls from EW models in my games, and i don't ever play a single model with that set of rules anyway

jy2 wrote:
Not really. If you look at the rules for Instant Death more closely (on p.16), part of its requirement is "it is reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty."

That is not a 'requirement' of ID, that is the *result* of ID.


It is a crime to give someone deadly poison.

Bob gives you deadly poison

You are a freak of nature, and are immune to that poison.

It is still deadly poison, Bob still goes to jail.

"Deadly" is a description of the poison, not a description of what it does to you.

Instant Death" is a descriptor of the type of wound, what it actually accomplishes doesn't change what it is.

Yep, the ignores instant death of EW means that no shot that hits it is an instant death hit, hence FNP can be taken against it.

No, it means that you don't suffer the effects of Instant Death. All Instant Death does is set your Wounds to 0 and remove you as a casualty. FNP not being taken is part of the FNP special rule, NOT Instant Death.

coredump wrote:

jy2 wrote:
Not really. If you look at the rules for Instant Death more closely (on p.16), part of its requirement is "it is reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty."

That is not a 'requirement' of ID, that is the *result* of ID.


It is a crime to give someone deadly poison.

Bob gives you deadly poison

You are a freak of nature, and are immune to that poison.

It is still deadly poison, Bob still goes to jail.

"Deadly" is a description of the poison, not a description of what it does to you.

Instant Death" is a descriptor of the type of wound, what it actually accomplishes doesn't change what it is.

But the rule is:

p. 16 - "(1) If a model suffers an unsaved Wound form an Attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater (after modifiers), (2) it is reduced to 0 Wounds and removed as a casualty."

You're just taking into consideration #1. Wouldn't you also have to take into consideration #2?

That is, if I am not removed as a casualty after getting hit by a weapon 2x my Toughness, then it isn't Instant Death to me?

Yeah, you can't ignore just part of the ID rules. You ignore the whole thing, so it doesn't happen and as such the rule where ID ignores FnP must also be ignored.

Being removed as a casualty is the effect. Just because you are immune to the effects of ID (removed as a casualty) does not mean the wound was double your toughness.

Again not taking FNP is not part of ID, it is part of a completely different rule, FNP.

BTW, FYI 5E FNP explicitly says that Eternal Warrior doesn't prevent Instant Death. However, they took that out in 6E.

If they had included "It also negates any FNP rolls as described under the FNP USR" then everyone would be happy it was one of its effects right?

SCvodimier wrote:But you don't have to have actually killed the model for the wound to be considered inflicting Instant Death. The wound inflicts it, and then Eternal Warrior ignores it, but the wound still had the Instant Death attribute, simply because its strength is double the victim's toughness.

I agree with this (though it will cause me no end of amusement if it's FAQ'd the other way)

So the EW model is immune to the effects of Instant Death..
...but their FNP roll isn't.

grendel083 wrote:So the EW model is immune to the effects of Instant Death..
...but their FNP roll isn't.

Let's examine the rules for FNP. p. 35 - "Note that FNP rolls cannot be made against unsaved Wounds that inflict Instant Death."

However, what is Instant Death? Do the rules for FNP tell you what ID is? No. For that you actually have to refer to the rules for ID itself on p.16.

So then the rules for ID says that if the attack is 2x your Toughness (or if the attack has the ID special rule), then you remove your model as a casualty after an unsaved wound. However, if your model is still standing after getting hit by an Instant Death attack, haven't you have just contradicted the rules for Instant Death? Thus, it isn't Instant Death to you?

jy2 wrote:
But the rule is:

p. 16 - "(1) If a model suffers an unsaved Wound form an Attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater (after modifiers), (2) it is reduced to 0 Wounds and removed as a casualty."

You're just taking into consideration #1. Wouldn't you also have to take into consideration #2?

That is, if I am not removed as a casualty after getting hit by a weapon 2x my Toughness, then it isn't Instant Death to me?

No. 1) is the Cause that invokes the ID rule. 2) is the EFFECT of the ID rule. If you consider it a requirement then ID has no function whatsover.

Ignoring FNP due to ID is a restriction on FNP, it is NOT a component of ID

grendel083 wrote:So the EW model is immune to the effects of Instant Death..
...but their FNP roll isn't.

That is because Instant Death's effects only set the models wounds to 0 and EW does not mention that they get a FNP save, so we look at what FNP says:

FNP states "Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved Wounds that inflict Instant Death." P.35

The Wound Inflicts Instant Death, model fais its save, Model has EW so he is immune to being set to 0 Wounds because of the Instant Death Rule, and simply loses just one wound. The Wound still Inflicted Instant Death, so Feel No Pain can not be taken against this wound.

DeathReaper wrote:

grendel083 wrote:So the EW model is immune to the effects of Instant Death..
...but their FNP roll isn't.

That is because Instant Death's effects only set the models wounds to 0 and EW does not mention that they get a FNP save, so we look at what FNP says:

FNP states "Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved Wounds that inflict Instant Death." P.35

The Wound Inflicts Instant Death, model fais its save, Model has EW so he is immune to being set to 0 Wounds because of the Instant Death Rule, and simply loses just one wound. The Wound still Inflicted Instant Death, so Feel No Pain can not be taken against this wound.

Right, so the wound inflicts Instant Death, doesn't matter if the model is effected by it or not.

jy2 wrote:

grendel083 wrote:So the EW model is immune to the effects of Instant Death..
...but their FNP roll isn't.

Let's examine the rules for FNP. p. 35 - "Note that FNP rolls cannot be made against unsaved Wounds that inflict Instant Death."

However, what is Instant Death? Do the rules for FNP tell you what ID is? No. For that you actually have to refer to the rules for ID itself on p.16.

So then the rules for ID says that if the attack is 2x your Toughness (or if the attack has the ID special rule), then you remove your model as a casualty after an unsaved wound.

So Epidemius has T5 and gets hit by a Vindicator blast. He suffers a wound that, according to the rules, is an ID wound.
EW allows him to not suffer the effects of the ID wound. It's still an ID wound as EW doesn't change the type of wound.
We look at FnP. FnP is not allowed to be taken for ID wounds. We still have an ID wound, we just will not suffer the effects of it.

However, if your model is still standing after getting hit by an Instant Death attack, haven't you have just contradicted the rules for Instant Death? Thus, it isn't Instant Death to you?

EW ignores the effects of an ID wound. If being sent to 0W and removed is a requirement for ID, you don't ignore it.

I'm sure this has come up before.
This is one thing that definitely needs FAQd.

Testify wrote:I'm sure this has come up before.
This is one thing that definitely needs FAQd.

Only if you do not read/Ignore what the RAW say.

Doesnt EW say "ignore the EFFECTS of ID" and denying FNP is one of the effects of ID, so isnt this one cut and dry?

rigeld2 wrote:

jy2 wrote:

grendel083 wrote:So the EW model is immune to the effects of Instant Death..
...but their FNP roll isn't.

Let's examine the rules for FNP. p. 35 - "Note that FNP rolls cannot be made against unsaved Wounds that inflict Instant Death."

However, what is Instant Death? Do the rules for FNP tell you what ID is? No. For that you actually have to refer to the rules for ID itself on p.16.

So then the rules for ID says that if the attack is 2x your Toughness (or if the attack has the ID special rule), then you remove your model as a casualty after an unsaved wound.

So Epidemius has T5 and gets hit by a Vindicator blast. He suffers a wound that, according to the rules, is an ID wound.
EW allows him to not suffer the effects of the ID wound. It's still an ID wound as EW doesn't change the type of wound.
We look at FnP. FnP is not allowed to be taken for ID wounds. We still have an ID wound, we just will not suffer the effects of it.

However, if your model is still standing after getting hit by an Instant Death attack, haven't you have just contradicted the rules for Instant Death? Thus, it isn't Instant Death to you?

EW ignores the effects of an ID wound. If being sent to 0W and removed is a requirement for ID, you don't ignore it.

This 100%

EW ignores Instant Death. It is not Inflicted.

If it is not Inflicted, then how can FnP be ignored?

DeathReaper wrote:

Testify wrote:I'm sure this has come up before.
This is one thing that definitely needs FAQd.

Only if you do not read/Ignore what the RAW say.

The rules no not specifically state one way or the other, and logically there are two over-lapping statements.

You can pick either of those and validly claim it to be RAW.

Denying FNP is not an effect of ID. It's a clause in the FNP rule.

Yes, but it requires ID to have been inflicted.

Eternal Warriors, by the very definition of their rule, cannot have ID inflicted upon them. Therefore, there is no ID to negate their FnP.

Formosa wrote:Doesnt EW say "ignore the EFFECTS of ID" and denying FNP is one of the effects of ID, so isnt this one cut and dry?

Denying FNP is NOT one of the effects of ID, Read ID again, FNP is not mentioned.

A model with EW never suffers instant death that has been inflicted by a wound, so I don't see how FNP's stipulation that it doesn't work against wounds that inflict instant is at all relevent to them, unless you were taking the unsupported stance that said stipulation applies to any attack that CAN (as opposed to DOES) inflict instant death (to a model without EW.)

This is an error of unintended consequences. I liken it to the Ironfist on an Ogre Wizard situation. My gut feeling is that GW will ultimately decide that EW always gets FNP, even though it has never worked that way before and likely was not their intention. I think strictly reading the RAW, it is difficult to make any other conclusion.

The wound still inflicts ID, The Model with EW ignores the EFFECTS of the ID rule, it DOES NOT ignote that the Wound inflicted ID in the first place.

But it never did inflict instant death, not to this model.

Did it inflict instant death to any other model? yeah probably, but why would that shut down FNP for this guy?

Grey Templar wrote:EW ignores Instant Death. It is not Inflicted.

Absolutely 100% false.
EW ignores the effects of Instant Death. What is the effect of Instant Death?

If it is not Inflicted, then how can FnP be ignored?

The wound is still an ID wound. It absolutely meets the rule requirements to be one.
EW just stops the effect (going to 0W and being removed). It does not change it to be not an ID wound.

If thats the line of reasoning you are going to use, then the best possible outcome you could have under RAW right now is that you apply the order of operations based on who's turn it is, since the timing on the ID check and FNP trigger is identical. In other words, on your turn, you check FNP first, then ID, denying FNP and on the other guys turn the order is reversed and his immunity to ID effects from EW kicks in prior to FNP.

I agree it is complete garbage, but it is how it is written and butthurt bloodangel players will do anything they can to rules lawyer GK further into the ground. GW FAQ could honestly go either way, if they even address it.

The timing does not matter.

The wound still inflicts ID.

The model with EW ignores the EFFECTS of ID, it does not ignore that the wound was ID in the first place.

Falconlance wrote:But it never did inflict instant death, not to this model.

Doesn't matter. If FnP said "Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved wounds that would normally reduce a model's wounds to zero." I'd agree with you.
It doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phazael wrote:If thats the line of reasoning you are going to use, then the best possible outcome you could have under RAW right now is that you apply the order of operations based on who's turn it is, since the timing on the ID check and FNP trigger is identical. In other words, on your turn, you check FNP first, then ID, denying FNP and on the other guys turn the order is reversed and his immunity to ID effects from EW kicks in prior to FNP.

I agree it is complete garbage, but it is how it is written and butthurt bloodangel players will do anything they can to rules lawyer GK further into the ground. GW FAQ could honestly go either way, if they even address it.

This isn't even about GK vs BA or whatever other bias you're implying.

Also, there is no order of operations to determine if the wound is ID or not. The wound either inflicts Instant Death or it doesn't - it's not a situation of "Well, it doesn't inflict ID yet, so..."

Okay, help me out here, I'm on the verge of a break through but theres still something I'm confused about.

How does a wound meet the prerequisite of inflicting instant death, if it incapable of inflicting instant death?

Because it is not incapable of inflicting instant death. EW does not make the wound incapable of inflicting instant death. The model simply ignores the EFFECTS of the ID wound.

The effects are that the model loses all of its remaining wounds.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the wound causes ID.

Falconlance wrote:Okay, help me out here, I'm on the verge of a break through but theres still something I'm confused about.

How does a wound meet the prerequisite of inflicting instant death, if it incapable of inflicting instant death?

Instant death has a requirement and an effect.
EW ignores the effect.
Nothing is changing the requirement.

DeathReaper wrote:Because it is not incapable of inflicting instant death. EW does not make the wound incapable of inflicting instant death. The model simply ignores the EFFECTS of the ID wound.

The effects are that the model loses all of its remaining wounds.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the wound causes ID.

Alright, I see what you're saying. So basically, the model has still had instant death inflicted upon it, it just suffers none of the repercussions listed under the instant death rule.

Do I have it right?

Falconlance wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Because it is not incapable of inflicting instant death. EW does not make the wound incapable of inflicting instant death. The model simply ignores the EFFECTS of the ID wound.

The effects are that the model loses all of its remaining wounds.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the wound causes ID.

Alright, I see what you're saying. So basically, the model has still had instant death inflicted upon it, it just suffers none of the repercussions listed under the instant death rule.

Do I have it right?

Exactly.
And the rule that denies a FnP roll isn't under ID - it's under FnP.

rigeld2 wrote:

Falconlance wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Because it is not incapable of inflicting instant death. EW does not make the wound incapable of inflicting instant death. The model simply ignores the EFFECTS of the ID wound.

The effects are that the model loses all of its remaining wounds.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the wound causes ID.

Alright, I see what you're saying. So basically, the model has still had instant death inflicted upon it, it just suffers none of the repercussions listed under the instant death rule.

Do I have it right?

Exactly.
And the rule that denies a FnP roll isn't under ID - it's under FnP.

Alright, gotcha. Makes sense to me now.

rigeld2 wrote:

Falconlance wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Because it is not incapable of inflicting instant death. EW does not make the wound incapable of inflicting instant death. The model simply ignores the EFFECTS of the ID wound.

The effects are that the model loses all of its remaining wounds.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the wound causes ID.

Alright, I see what you're saying. So basically, the model has still had instant death inflicted upon it, it just suffers none of the repercussions listed under the instant death rule.

Do I have it right?

Exactly.
And the rule that denies a FnP roll isn't under ID - it's under FnP.

But FnP only says that you can't take it against wounds that inflict instant death.

You cannot inflict Instant Death on someone with Eternal Warrior, ergo you cannot ignore FnP. Because to ignore it you MUST have inflicted Instant Death. Which you cannot do.

If a model is immune to the effects of something and one of those effects affects another rule then you're breaking that first rule. You're looking at this as two separate things (or three), and while the model does get hit by an instant death attack (no matter the source) it is immune to all effects of it and even though FNP has that caveat of being ignored by instant death attacks the particular model in question is immune to *ALL* instant death effects, which includes it's ability to take FNP rolls against them.

Being able to inflict Instant Death on someone with Eternal Warrior does not matter.

As the model does not ignore that an ID wound was caused, he just ignores the effects of the ID rule.

FNP is not an effect of the ID rule.

Grey Templar wrote:But FnP only says that you can't take it against wounds that inflict instant death.

You cannot inflict Instant Death on someone with Eternal Warrior, ergo you cannot ignore FnP. Because to ignore it you MUST have inflicted Instant Death. Which you cannot do.

And there's the crux of our matter. what counts when referencing "inflicting"?

Edit: ninja'd but anyway, I would say it definitely matters whether or not you can "inflict" instant death on a model; that is what this whole argument is hinging on. If inflict meant to actually go through, then EW would protect the FnP, but if Inflict simply means hinges upon a wound being instant death, then EW is irrelevant.

We use Websters, thats what.

Grey Templar wrote:But FnP only says that you can't take it against wounds that inflict instant death.

You cannot inflict Instant Death on someone with Eternal Warrior, ergo you cannot ignore FnP. Because to ignore it you MUST have inflicted Instant Death. Which you cannot do.

Is it a wound that inflicted Instant Death? It is. Models with EW ignore the effect of Instant Death but the wound still inflicted it.

Again, you're trying to say that the 2nd half of the sentence is a requirement for it to be an ID wound.
If that's the case EW doesn't save the model as it only ignores the effect, not the requirement.

You cannot inflict Instant Death on someone with Eternal Warrior,

That was my original understanding of it as well, but after it was pointed out to me that EW makes a model "immune to the effects of Instant Death," rather making than them immune to the Instant Death rule itself, that lead me to believe that Instant Death (the rule) CAN be and IS inflicted on a unit with EW, but the effects listed under the Instant Death rule are ignored.

No,

Feel No Pain is ignored by WOUNDS THAT INFLICT INSTANT DEATH.

Not instant death itself.

A S8 Wound on a S4 Model inflicts instant death, whether or not the model is EW.

EW kicks in when ID is taken into account, not when you determine whether or not a wound inflicts it.

A wound inflicting ID is not an Effect of ID, it is a property of the wound unrelated to ID or EW, and it is this property that results in FnP being Ignored

^ The last two posters get it.

The old wording for FnP used to be "would have cause ID" which is the wording they should have kept. I don't have a dog in this fight, personally. In fact, if anything, I should have more of a bias against FnP, but the way the rules are presently worded, if I had no prior experience with 40k the conclusion I would draw is that a model with EW can always benefit from FnP. It is a poorly worded rule that needs a FAQ and they clearly intended it to work in the old way, though. I totally agree on that.

"A model with Eternal warrior is immune to the effects of instant death"

"Note that feel no pain rolls cannont be taken against unsaved wounds that INFLICT instant death"

Emphasis mine.

So roll dice, fail AS and see if ID is caused, if yes no FNP.
Roll dice , fail AS and see if ID is Caused, if no take FNP

Since ID cannot be "inflicted" to a model with EW it can take the FNP save

To people saying you cant look at one rule and apply it to another..really????

A wound with its Strength Double the targets Toughness INFLICTS instant death.

The model may be immune to the effects of the ID rule, but the wound still INFLICTS instant death because it has a Strength that Doubles the targets Toughness.

Emphasis mine.

Formosa wrote:"A model with Eternal warrior is immune to the effects of instant death"

"Note that feel no pain rolls cannont be taken against unsaved wounds that INFLICT instant death"

Emphasis mine.

So roll dice, fail AS and see if ID is caused, if yes no FNP.
Roll dice , fail AS and see if ID is Caused, if no take FNP

Since ID cannot be "inflicted" to a model with EW it can take the FNP save

The ID is inflicted to the model. He just doesn't suffer the effects.

EW does not make an ID wound a normal wound. There is no rule you can quote saying that it does.
EW just allows you to ignore the effect (the reduction to 0W) of an ID wound.

ID wounds still ignore FnP.

What is a special rule if not an effect? You appear to be imbueing the abstract concepts of special rules with what can only be called "souls".
In short, you need to create a form of life in order to prove your argument.
I think we can call Occam's razor here.

Testify wrote:What is a special rule if not an effect? You appear to be imbueing the abstract concepts of special rules with what can only be called "souls".
In short, you need to create a form of life in order to prove your argument.
I think we can call Occam's razor here.

...

What?

Instant Death has a requirement: S of double the model's T.
Instant Death has an effect: The model is reduced to 0W.

Eternal Warrior has an effect: The effect of an Instant Death wound is ignored.

You still have a wound that's S is double the model's T, therefore it is still an Instant Death wound.

Then you get to Feel no Pain - you cannot make a Feel No Pain roll if the wound inflicts Instant Death. It still does - you're just free to ignore that part.

This is a big problem, glad to see I'm not the only one who was mistaking the name of the rule with the effect it causes.

rigeld2 wrote:
...

What?

Instant Death has a requirement: S of double the model's T.
Instant Death has an effect: The model is reduced to 0W.

Eternal Warrior has an effect: The effect of an Instant Death wound is ignored.

You still have a wound that's S is double the model's T, therefore it is still an Instant Death wound.

Instant death is an effect that's triggered by a requirement. In programming terms:

if (Strength>(toughness*2) ) { instant_death(); } function instant_death(); { if isset(model['eternalWarrior'])){takewound(1, true)} else {takewound(9, false) } function takewound($wounds, $EW_Flag) { while($wounds>0) if (!$EW_Flag) { $model['wounds']--; $wounds--; } else { if(!FNPSave(5)) { $model['wounds']--; $wounds--;}

That's actually rubbish but I cba making it better. It's late and I'm not being paid

The way i see it, the rules of immunity to instant death and feel no pain are entirely independent of each other; so therefore are affected individually instead of both together.

Say you take a wound that causes instant death, it negates FNP as per FNP's rules, but doesn't instant kill the model as per EW rules.

DeathReaper wrote:A wound with its Strength Double the targets Toughness INFLICTS instant death.

The model may be immune to the effects of the ID rule, but the wound still INFLICTS instant death because it has a Strength that Doubles the targets Toughness.

Emphasis mine.

So what your saying, is that even though ID did not occur... it still has?
Because if the model hasnt died from ID it hasnt been inflicted, it has just suffered a normal wound, since to be able to inflict an ID wound you have to apply its effect, which EW tells us its immune to.

Thank you GW, for having an effect and a universal special rule with the same name. That really helps.



Man, I hate to say it, but it looks like to me that you do not get a FNP roll even if you have Eternal Warrior. My reasoning?

EW makes you immune to Instant Death's effects. What effects do the Instant Death rules have? If you get hit by a weapon and fail the save and its Strength is double your Toughness OR a weapon with the special rule, you are reduced to 0 Wounds.

Attacks can inflict Instant Death without you being susceptible to the effects.

In game example: Sniper Rifles are Pinning attacks that, when you take a casualty, inflict a pinning test. If your unit is Fearless you still take the pinning test, you just pass automatically (see page 40). So it makes sense to me that the rules for FNP are such that you don't get your FNP save against those wounds.

On the plus side, your immune to the effects of Instant Death so its not like its going to kill you outright, just take away your last wound (the important one!).

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
...

What?

Instant Death has a requirement: S of double the model's T.
Instant Death has an effect: The model is reduced to 0W.

Eternal Warrior has an effect: The effect of an Instant Death wound is ignored.

You still have a wound that's S is double the model's T, therefore it is still an Instant Death wound.

Instant death is an effect that's triggered by a requirement. In programming terms:

if (Strength>(toughness*2) ) { instant_death(); } function instant_death(); { if isset(model['eternalWarrior'])){takewound(1, true)} else {takewound(9, false) } function takewound($wounds, $EW_Flag) { while($wounds>0) if (!$EW_Flag) { $model['wounds']--; $wounds--; } else { if(!FNPSave(5)) { $model['wounds']--; $wounds--;}

That's actually rubbish but I cba making it better. It's late and I'm not being paid

Don't take this too harshly, but that's a terrible attempt at making things clear and simple.

Let me try.

A model doesn't need to suffer the effect of the "Instant Death" rule (which is losing all of its wounds and becoming a casualty) to be ineligible for Feel No Pain.

To be ineligible for Feel No Pain, it simply must have been wounded by an attack meets the criteria for the "Instant Death" rule.

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
...

What?

Instant Death has a requirement: S of double the model's T.
Instant Death has an effect: The model is reduced to 0W.

Eternal Warrior has an effect: The effect of an Instant Death wound is ignored.

You still have a wound that's S is double the model's T, therefore it is still an Instant Death wound.

Instant death is an effect that's triggered by a requirement. In programming terms:

if (Strength>(toughness*2) ) { instant_death(); } function instant_death(); { if isset(model['eternalWarrior'])){takewound(1, true)} else {takewound(9, false) } function takewound($wounds, $EW_Flag) { while($wounds>0) if (!$EW_Flag) { $model['wounds']--; $wounds--; } else { if(!FNPSave(5)) { $model['wounds']--; $wounds--;}

That's actually rubbish but I cba making it better. It's late and I'm not being paid

There's your problem. You're using EW to ignore all of ID. It doesnt. It ignores the effect.
It absolutely does not ignore the entire rule. There is still an Instant Death wound, it just doesn't kill you.

right, and one of the effects of instant death is that you don't get FNP.

Testify wrote:right, and one of the effects of instant death is that you don't get FNP.

Absolutely false.

One of the requirements of FnP is that the wound not be an ID wound.
There's a difference.

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:right, and one of the effects of instant death is that you don't get FNP.

Absolutely false.

One of the requirements of FnP is that the wound not be an ID wound.
There's a difference.

Its not false lol, it tells us in the FNP section, do not try and tell us that others rules have no effect on each other.

"note that FNP cant be used against unsaved wounds that inflict ID"

By your reasoning we totally ignore that bit as its not in the ID section of the book.. and vice versa

Formosa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:right, and one of the effects of instant death is that you don't get FNP.

Absolutely false.

One of the requirements of FnP is that the wound not be an ID wound.
There's a difference.

Its not false lol, it tells us in the FNP section, do not try and tell us that others rules have no effect on each other.

"note that FNP cant be used against unsaved wounds that inflict ID"

By your reasoning we totally ignore that bit as its not in the ID section of the book.. and vice versa

No, that's not my reasoning at all.
It's just not an effect of ID.
It's a requirement of FnP.

rigeld2 wrote:

Formosa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:right, and one of the effects of instant death is that you don't get FNP.

Absolutely false.

One of the requirements of FnP is that the wound not be an ID wound.
There's a difference.

Its not false lol, it tells us in the FNP section, do not try and tell us that others rules have no effect on each other.

"note that FNP cant be used against unsaved wounds that inflict ID"

By your reasoning we totally ignore that bit as its not in the ID section of the book.. and vice versa

No, that's not my reasoning at all.
It's just not an effect of ID.
It's a requirement of FnP.

ok you cleared that up fair enough.

I argue it is part of the ID rules since it refers to them, otherwise we would not know what it meant or how ID works

Formosa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Formosa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:right, and one of the effects of instant death is that you don't get FNP.

Absolutely false.

One of the requirements of FnP is that the wound not be an ID wound.
There's a difference.

Its not false lol, it tells us in the FNP section, do not try and tell us that others rules have no effect on each other.

"note that FNP cant be used against unsaved wounds that inflict ID"

By your reasoning we totally ignore that bit as its not in the ID section of the book.. and vice versa

No, that's not my reasoning at all.
It's just not an effect of ID.
It's a requirement of FnP.

ok you cleared that up fair enough.

I argue it is part of the ID rules since it refers to them, otherwise we would not know what it meant or how ID works

So all wounds are part of shooting then?
So is Overwatch - that's cool.

Do you have rule basis for your argument? Or just "well, erm, it makes sense for 2 rules on different pages with completely different sections are actually part of one rule."

Ah, the eternal argument.

This has actually been going for editions now without GW FAQing it. Back when SM Nartheciums used to ignore the first armor save a unit failed, but they had the proviso that this wouldn't work against wounds that inflicted instant death...and then you had SM characters who were immune to instant death wanting to know if they got to use the Narthecium to save against a wound that would otherwise inflict instant death.

The problem has always been that 'instant death' is *both* a weapon effect AND it is a result that a model can suffer.

Therefore when the FNP rule says that it does not work on wounds that 'inflict instant death', we cannot possibly know if they are referring the weapon effect (that the weapon inflicts instant death) or whether they're referring to the outcome on the model (the model suffered instant death).

No amount of arguing can solve the problem because both sides are potentially right and wrong depending on how you look at it.

yakface wrote:
Ah, the eternal argument.

This has actually been going for editions now without GW FAQing it. Back when SM Nartheciums used to ignore the first armor save a unit failed, but they had the proviso that this wouldn't work against wounds that inflicted instant death...and then you had SM characters who were immune to instant death wanting to know if they got to use the Narthecium to save against a wound that would otherwise inflict instant death.

The problem has always been that 'instant death' is *both* a weapon effect AND it is a result that a model can suffer.

Therefore when the FNP rule says that it does not work on wounds that 'inflict instant death', we cannot possibly know if they are referring the weapon effect (that the weapon inflicts instant death) or whether they're referring to the outcome on the model (the model suffered instant death).

No amount of arguing can solve the problem because both sides are potentially right and wrong depending on how you look at it.

Agreed with everything stated here...

If GW won't FAQ it... could we have an INAT ruling?

whembly wrote:
Agreed with everything stated here...

If GW won't FAQ it... could we have an INAT ruling?

It'll go on the list of stuff to add in case GW doesn't feel like FAQ'ing it.

I did go back and check the old INAT ruling for those situations previously and if we were following suit with those then it would be negative against allowing FNP to work against a wound that would otherwise cause instant death if the model did not have Eternal Warrior.

But those rulings were made on an old edition of the rules with different voting members than we have now, so I really couldn't guess how the INAT would end up ruling on this issue until the voting actually goes down.

yakface wrote:

whembly wrote:
Agreed with everything stated here...

If GW won't FAQ it... could we have an INAT ruling?

It'll go on the list of stuff to add in case GW doesn't feel like FAQ'ing it.

I did go back and check the old INAT ruling for those situations previously and it looked like those old rulings and if we were following suit with those then it would be negative against allowing FNP to work against a wound that would otherwise cause instant death if the model did not have Eternal Warrior.

But those rulings were made on an old edition of the rules with different voting members than we have now, so I really couldn't guess how the INAT would end up ruling on this issue until the voting actually goes down.

Fair enough... I do know that my local Tourny uses the INAT for any disputed rules.

Sometimes I just want a ruling so that we all know what to expect. Hopefully, GW will FAQ it soon.
(btw, I'm sure I can speak for the community... THANKS for all that you do for Dakka. )

rigeld2 wrote:

Formosa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Formosa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:right, and one of the effects of instant death is that you don't get FNP.

Absolutely false.

One of the requirements of FnP is that the wound not be an ID wound.
There's a difference.

Its not false lol, it tells us in the FNP section, do not try and tell us that others rules have no effect on each other.

"note that FNP cant be used against unsaved wounds that inflict ID"

By your reasoning we totally ignore that bit as its not in the ID section of the book.. and vice versa

No, that's not my reasoning at all.
It's just not an effect of ID.
It's a requirement of FnP.

ok you cleared that up fair enough.

I argue it is part of the ID rules since it refers to them, otherwise we would not know what it meant or how ID works

So all wounds are part of shooting then?
So is Overwatch - that's cool.

Do you have rule basis for your argument? Or just "well, erm, it makes sense for 2 rules on different pages with completely different sections are actually part of one rule."

are all wounds part of shooting... yes of course they are, one follows the other and work together, same with over watch.

what your claiming is rules dont interact..which is clearly wrong

So close combat wounds are part of shooting?

And I'm not claiming that. At all. Rules absolutely interact.

What you're claiming is that part of the FnP rule is an effect of Instant Death. Except the effects of Instant Death are listed under the Instant Death rule.

For ease of use, especially for Yakface, I would consider it BOTH the cause and the effect. Both are ID, does the wound cause ID? Yes (Cause) and Yes (Effect). Does EW ignore ID? No (Cause) and Yes (Effect). Thus no FnP from ID wounds.

rigeld2 wrote:So close combat wounds are part of shooting?

And I'm not claiming that. At all. Rules absolutely interact.

What you're claiming is that part of the FnP rule is an effect of Instant Death. Except the effects of Instant Death are listed under the Instant Death rule.

Yep thats what im claiming, it clearly says you cannot take a save from wounds inflicting ID, for ID to be inflicted you have to be reduced to 0 wounds from it (after modifiers, which EW is).

"so close combat wounds are part of shooting" Really??? do i really have to spell out "and all wounds are part of close combat too" after my first statment?? kinda thought you would have got it.. i mean your clearly not stupid.

Nope, if you Inflict ID you have triggered the ID rule

An effect of ID is to reduce wounds to zero

A S8 weapon against a T4 model triggers the ID rule. IF the model ignores the EFFECT of the ID rule it doesnt matter - you have still trigggered, ie inflicted, ID

Formosa wrote:Yep thats what im claiming, it clearly says you cannot take a save from wounds inflicting ID, for ID to be inflicted you have to be reduced to 0 wounds from it (after modifiers, which EW is).

False. You're trying to change the state of an ID wound into a non-ID wound. You don't have permission to do that. You have permission to be immune to the effects of Instant Death.
I'd been using the word "ignore" the whole thread without re-referencing the BRB. Using the word immune is even more support for the no-FnP side.

Immune means that you ignore things that effect your model. Not being able to take FnP isn't an effect on your model, it's a side effect of having taken an Instant Death wound.

cowmonaut wrote:Thank you GW, for having an effect and a universal special rule with the same name. That really helps.

Spoiler:

Instant Death Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book, page 16
If a model suffers an unsaved Wound from an Attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater (after modifiers), it is reduced to 0 Wounds and removed as a casualty.

Eternal Warrior Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book, page 35
A mode with this special rule is immune to the effects of Instant Death.

Feel No Pain Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book, page 35
Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved Wounds that inflict Instant Death.

Instant Death Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book, page 38
Unsaved Wounds inflicted by an Attack with this special rule automatically inflict Instant Death, regardless of the victim's Toughness.

Man, I hate to say it, but it looks like to me that you do not get a FNP roll even if you have Eternal Warrior. My reasoning?

EW makes you immune to Instant Death's effects. What effects do the Instant Death rules have? If you get hit by a weapon and fail the save and its Strength is double your Toughness OR a weapon with the special rule, you are reduced to 0 Wounds.

Attacks can inflict Instant Death without you being susceptible to the effects.

In game example: Sniper Rifles are Pinning attacks that, when you take a casualty, inflict a pinning test. If your unit is Fearless you still take the pinning test, you just pass automatically (see page 40). So it makes sense to me that the rules for FNP are such that you don't get your FNP save against those wounds.

On the plus side, your immune to the effects of Instant Death so its not like its going to kill you outright, just take away your last wound (the important one!).

Sorry if this has been responded to already, but the fearless/pinning example is invalid because it does not say they ignore or are immune to pinning, it says they auto pass the test which implies they take the test (the same wording used on wraiths and dangerous terrain Vs. C'Tan and their terrain ignoring rule). It's not really a valid example for this discussion.

Now, in light of what Yakface said I'm not going to continue discussing my personal opinion on how it should be played, as he said both sides could be potentially right and until it's official then it will just have to be a roll off. Also, in my meta, this situation has never come up anyway. Not yet, I should say.

I don't see why people are arguing this. It's obvious that both rules counter-dict each other.

So what is the fair way to play this?

ID wounds cause 1 wound to EW's and FNP can't be used for these wounds.

Seems pretty fair.

Instead of calling it "Feel No Pain", they should have called it "Only Feel Pain from Tx2 Wounds". Then instead of abbreviating it a FNP, we would write OFPFT2W.

(Just a joke guys - I have nothing constructive to say about the rules.)

This argument came up before on other forums and everyone agrees it will need to be FAQed for everyone to be happy.

My 2 cents.

Is there such a thing as an "ID wound" in the rulebook?

All I remember seeing is circumstances in which wounds inflict instand death.

There are no "poison wound" "power weapon wound"
Just "wounds" with different effects and attributes.

ID is an effect, not an attribute. An attribute is AP2 for instance. Does not matter if shoot vs T3 or T8 the wound will have AP2.

ID is an effect as the same wound will not affect a T3 and a T8 in the same way. It might not affect them at all.

If the effect cannot be applied because of EW nothing was inflicted on the model. All that is left is an unsaved wound against which FnP can be taken.

Its not about effect, it is about cause.

A Str 10 attack will cause ID on a T5 or less model.

The effect of that Unsaved wound is the Instant edath rule where the wounds are reduced to 0, instead of just losing one wound.

EW only ignores the effects.

I think at this point we are just going in circles and the thread can be locked.

DeathReaper wrote:Its not about effect, it is about cause.

A Str 10 attack will cause ID on a T5 or less model.

The effect of that Unsaved wound is the Instant edath rule where the wounds are reduced to 0, instead of just losing one wound.

EW only ignores the effects.

A STR10 attack will cause ID on a T5 or less model without eternal warrior. A str10 attack will never cause ID on Fuegan - his FnP is negated by 'weapons which cause ID" - you can argue it needs an FAQ but the 40k rulebook isn't written with some sort of explicit difference between effects and causes WRT things like FnP.

It makes far less sense for a FnP model with EW to take a wound, attempt to roll FnP, and have the opponent say ''well, if he was like, a different model, that HAD his toughness, but did NOT have FnP, then he would have been instant killed, therefore your completely different EW model over here with FnP can't attempt FnP"

MikeMcSomething, you are missing one important fact.

Ignoring FNP is not and effect of ID, It is a restriction on FNP itself.

EW only ignores the Effects of the ID rule.

DeathReaper wrote:MikeMcSomething, you are missing one important fact.

Ignoring FNP is not and effect of ID, It is a restriction on FNP itself.

EW only ignores the Effects of the ID rule.

We can go in circles for days with this but you are leaving out key parts in the wording of the rule.

EW ignores the effect of the ID rule.

FnP does not work if ID is inflicted (in other words applied).

The actual wording is inflict not "can cause instant death".

Look up the definition of inflict. It implies a change something unpleasant being imposed. Nothing unpleasant happened and nothing was imposed since no effects were felt. If no effects were felt, nothing was inflicted

ID was never inflicted or applied to the model since the wounds are not instantly being reduced to 0.

ID is defined as unsaved wounds inflicted with this special rule automatically inflict instant death regardless of the target's toughness.

No where does it say: "Wound becomes instant death type." Instant death is not an attribute or a flag on a particular attack. It is an effect and nothing else.

If a rule is defined as being an effect and another rule ignores the effect, what is left of the first rule? Absolutely nothing.

Now you will mention that it is a provision of FnP and not ID but it does not matter at this point. ID is ignored and nothing is left to trigger the provision within FnP.

In 5th edition FnP had a clause to bypass Eternal Warrior. Now it does not anymore.

Except the ID wound was inflicted - not doing so would be against the rules.
The effect of the ID wound was ignored, but the wound is being applied - that's why you're trying to roll FnP remember?

rigeld2 wrote:Except the ID wound was inflicted - not doing so would be against the rules.
The effect of the ID wound was ignored, but the wound is being applied - that's why you're trying to roll FnP remember?

First, let me repeat: There is no such thing as an "ID wound", it does not exist in the rulebook. It is something that was made up into something it is not.

How can ID be inflicted if it is ignored?

Re-read the text for instant death.

It says "ID is defined as unsaved wounds inflicted with this special rule automatically inflict instant death regardless of the target's toughness."

The wound was inflicted but not it's effect. Therefore instant death was not inflicted since it is an effect and not a type or class of wounds.

A mate of mine noticed something that I and others have not, EW says it ignores the "effectS" (plural) of ID, what other effects are there appart from being droped to 0 wounds? thats right... FNP negation.


On a side note, I agree this one does need FAQ'in

Except it is a class of wounds - you just quoted it. It's a wound with the ID special rule.

ID cannot refer to the effect and must refer to the special rule.
If it referred to the effect, all wounds would get FnP because the ID effect isn't applied until the wound is applied to the model, even for models without EW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Formosa wrote:A mate of mine noticed something that I and others have not, EW says it ignores the "effectS" (plural) of ID, what other effects are there appart from being droped to 0 wounds? thats right... FNP negation.

It's actually 0w and being removed as a casualty - both are effects of ID.

And you're trying to say that a requirement of one special rule is an effect of another. That doesn't make sense.

On a side note, I agree this one does need FAQ'in

Absolutely.

No. Eternal Warrior allows you to ignore the 'effects' of Instant Death not ignore the entire rule itself.

Does the unsaved wound inflict instant death? If yes, FnP cannot be used. Instant Death then reduces the models wounds to 0. Eternal Warrior then kicks in and ignores the 'effects' of Instand Death and thusly only removes the one wound.

But "FnP is ignored by wounds that inflict instant death"

Can Instant Death be inflicted on an Eternal Warrior?

No.

Grey Templar wrote:But "FnP is ignored by wounds that inflict instant death"

Can Instant Death be inflicted on an Eternal Warrior?

No.

Yes, it most certainly can, but the 'effects' of being reduced to 0 wounds are ignored.

Grey Templar wrote:But "FnP is ignored by wounds that inflict instant death"

Can Instant Death be inflicted on an Eternal Warrior?

No.

At the time you're checking to see if it's an ID wound (wound that inflicts ID for those people) EW doesn't apply.
It's only when the wound is applied to the model that EW kicks in and the effect is ignored and you suffer a single wound.

I completely disagree.

Grey Templar wrote:I completely disagree.

Nice and succinct.

Do you have a reason for trying to apply EW before the wound gets resolved?

My previous post.


ID was not inflicted on the Eternal Warrior, and never can be. Thus, the FnP denial trigger is never satisfied.

Grey Templar wrote:My previous post.


ID was not inflicted on the Eternal Warrior, and never can be. Thus, the FnP denial trigger is never satisfied.

Right.
So you're trying to apply EW (ignoring the effects of ID) before the wound is resolved, and you're saying "inflict" must mean the actual effect when it cannot mean that.

I mean it means exactly what the definition means.

The ID wound is not an ID wound against Eternal Warrior. Therefore it was never inflicted, its exactly like a regular wound against them.

If it cannot be inflicted it cannot ignore FnP.

I'm done with this argument. Until GW FAQs it against my position I will play it like this.

So let me get this straight.

EW = Can't be ID.
FNP = Can be ID? Or can't use FNP from ID wounds?

So my EW with FNP can't be ID but my EW with FNP can be ID.

Try to tell someone in a Tourney that. I'd like to see them laugh in your face.

MJThurston wrote:So let me get this straight.

EW = Can't be ID.
FNP = Can be ID? Or can't use FNP from ID wounds?

So my EW with FNP can't be ID but my EW with FNP can be ID.

Try to tell someone in a Tourney that. I'd like to see them laugh in your face.

That's absolutely nothing like what I'm saying. But have fun straw manning.

rigeld2 wrote:Except it is a class of wounds - you just quoted it. It's a wound with the ID special rule.

ID cannot refer to the effect and must refer to the special rule.
If it referred to the effect, all wounds would get FnP because the ID effect isn't applied until the wound is applied to the model, even for models without EW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Formosa wrote:A mate of mine noticed something that I and others have not, EW says it ignores the "effectS" (plural) of ID, what other effects are there appart from being droped to 0 wounds? thats right... FNP negation.

It's actually 0w and being removed as a casualty - both are effects of ID.

And you're trying to say that a requirement of one special rule is an effect of another. That doesn't make sense.

On a side note, I agree this one does need FAQ'in

Absolutely.

"And you're trying to say that a requirement of one special rule is an effect of another. That doesn't make sense."

Apart from the whole rulebook where this happens alot right... thats what you mean yeah?

So if you go to a movie and you ignore the 'gentleman' sitting right behind you talking very loudly on his cell phone does that mean he doesn't exist? No. Ignore =/= never happened.

Formosa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Except it is a class of wounds - you just quoted it. It's a wound with the ID special rule.

ID cannot refer to the effect and must refer to the special rule.
If it referred to the effect, all wounds would get FnP because the ID effect isn't applied until the wound is applied to the model, even for models without EW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Formosa wrote:A mate of mine noticed something that I and others have not, EW says it ignores the "effectS" (plural) of ID, what other effects are there appart from being droped to 0 wounds? thats right... FNP negation.

It's actually 0w and being removed as a casualty - both are effects of ID.

And you're trying to say that a requirement of one special rule is an effect of another. That doesn't make sense.

On a side note, I agree this one does need FAQ'in

Absolutely.

"And you're trying to say that a requirement of one special rule is an effect of another. That doesn't make sense."

Apart from the whole rulebook where this happens alot right... thats what you mean yeah?

No. Other special rules interact, yes. I don't know of a single other one that interacts in this manner.