Hey folks, decided to make a poll out of this issue, since it was fairly evenly debated last time. How do Feel No Pain, Instant Death, and Eternal Warrior interact? Original thread with various arguments here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/460734.page

A) Eternal Warrior completely ignores the wound, so Feel No Pain can still be taken. After all, it does "ignore the effects of Instant Death".

B) Instant Death always negates Feel No Pain. After all, Feel No Pain is not allowed against wounds that inflict Instant Death.

C) Explain how you think it should work!

To clarify before I vote, do you want strict RAW, or how people would play the situation?

Eternal Warrior
A model with this special rule is immune to the effects of instant death

Feel no pain
Feel no pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved wounds that inflict instant death.

Thats right from the codex. So RAW, your IC that has Eternal Warrior is immune to the effects of instant death (being death instantly), but FNP states it cannot be used against wounds that are made by sources that inflict instant death.

So your IC ignores the deathy part, but FNP is still made in relation to the source... EW does not pass its immunity on to FNP.

B

hazal wrote:Eternal Warrior
A model with this special rule is immune to the effects of instant death

Feel no pain
Feel no pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved wounds that inflict instant death.

Thats right from the codex. So RAW, your IC that has Eternal Warrior is immune to the effects of instant death (being death instantly), but FNP states it cannot be used against wounds that are made by sources that inflict instant death.

So your IC ignores the deathy part, but FNP is still made in relation to the source... EW does not pass its immunity on to FNP.

B

I have the opposite interpretation. You inflict an unsaved wound. Check to see if the wound would cause instant death. Eternal Warrior says the wound 0does not cause instant death. Therefore, FNP can be taken as the unsaved wound did not cause instant death.

As above.

Instant Death can't be inflicted on an Eternal Warrior, therefore the negation of FnP is impossable.

Good point... I reverse my decision untill a FAQ changes it

I say that FNP is actually negated.

I say this because Eternal Warrior states that the "Effects" of instant death are negated, not that the Instant Death rule does not apply to the unit.

I say the "effect" of instant death is removing all wounds. Eternal warrior keeps this from happening with the model losing only one wound. But, the instant death rule still applies it just doesn't cause multiple wounds. Because the attack is still an instant death one it has negated any FNP.

As I see it:

A model with EW and FNP gets to make the FNP roll against non-ID wounds. The model doesn't get to make FNP rolls against ID wounds, even though the models is immune to its effects and will suffer 'normal' wounds.

When FNP is pitted against special ID rules that also trigger upon 'unsaved wounds' (Force, Boneswords, etc.), the Exceptions rule on page 9 is used.

Tidy, simple and intuitive IMO. Maybe GW will explain things differently in a FAQ/errata, but until then...this is my group's RAW/RAI/GAP.

If you're immune to instant death, you get a FNP. It's a no-brainer imo.

I have the opposite interpretation. You inflict an unsaved wound. Check to see if the wound would cause instant death. Eternal Warrior says the wound 0does not cause instant death. Therefore, FNP can be taken as the unsaved wound did not cause instant death.

False. Eternal Warrior says the wound causes ID and you simply ignore it. The weapon still caused ID, you don't have to suffer the consequences of it if you fail the save, but EW does not say it takes away the weapons ability to inflict ID. There is a huge gaping hole between the two.

Eternal Warrior states that it "ignores the effects of Instant Death"

One of the "effects" of instant death is the ability to ignore FNP

ergo Eternal warriors with fnp always get it

Captain Antivas wrote:

I have the opposite interpretation. You inflict an unsaved wound. Check to see if the wound would cause instant death. Eternal Warrior says the wound 0does not cause instant death. Therefore, FNP can be taken as the unsaved wound did not cause instant death.

False. Eternal Warrior says the wound causes ID and you simply ignore it. The weapon still caused ID, you don't have to suffer the consequences of it if you fail the save, but EW does not say it takes away the weapons ability to inflict ID. There is a huge gaping hole between the two.

EW says you ignore the effects of instant death. An effect of instant death is that it removes your ability to roll FNP. Since EW negates all effects of instant death, it still allows you to take a FNP roll if you have EW.

False. FNP cannot be taken against weapons that inflict ID. The only effect of ID is the model is reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty. The weapon inflicts ID, the model ignores it, but it is still there. ID gets put in the corner but it is still present.

Captain Antivas wrote:False. FNP cannot be taken against weapons that inflict ID. The only effect of ID is the model is reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty. The weapon inflicts ID, the model ignores it, but it is still there. ID gets put in the corner but it is still present.

Need to edit my earlier post but here are the relevent quotes:

Eternal Warrior (page 35) "A model with this special rule is immune to the effects of instant death."

Feel No Pain (page 35) "Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved wounds that inflict Instant Death."

Models with Eternal Warrior are immune to instant death. Since the model is immune, it cannot suffer unsaved wounds that would cause inflict instant death. Since the unsaved wound never inflicts instant death, the model may still take FNP saves.

But that is just it, he is immune to the effects.

The unsaved wound still inflicts instant death, but the model with EW is not reduced to 0 wounds because of it. (Being reduced to 0 wounds is an effect of ID. Ignoring FNP is not).

Ignoring FNP is not an effect of ID, it is a restriction in the FNP rule.

False again. The weapon inflicted ID the model simply ignored it. The model still suffered an unsaved wound from a weapon that inflicts ID.

Edit:ninja'd. False again is not directed at Death Reaper but the guy before.

ID has two effects.
1. Reduces Wounds to 0.
2. Removes the model as a casualty.

EW, ignores these effects.

Not being able to use FNP is a restriction on FNP. Not an effect of ID.

Captain Antivas wrote:False again. The weapon inflicted ID the model simply ignored it. The model still suffered an unsaved wound from a weapon that inflicts ID.

Edit:ninja'd. False again is not directed at Death Reaper but the guy before.

And I believe you are wrong. My interpretation hinges on the word "inflict" and "immune". Instant Death is never inflicted when a model has Eternal Warrior. Since ID is never inflicted because of the immunity, the model may still roll FNP. Being immune to the effects of instant death means being immune to (1) having your wounds reduced to 0, (2) being removed as a casualty, and (3) having FNP saves stripped away because the unsaved wound did not inflict instant death.

Where in the rule does it mention FNP? I'll wait.

Oh, it doesn't? Ok. Then it is not an effect of ID. Therefore it is not ignored by EW. Like I said, ID is inflicted by a certain set of rules that EW does not modify. Ignoring the end result does not negate the trip you had to take to get there.

Captain Antivas wrote:Where in the rule does it mention FNP? I'll wait.

Oh, it doesn't? Ok. Then it is not an effect of ID. Therefore it is not ignored by EW. Like I said, ID is inflicted by a certain set of rules that EW does not modify. Ignoring the end result does not negate the trip you had to take to get there.

One, there is no need for you to be rude or condescending.

Two, the ID rule does not have to mention FNP. FNP specifically says it is negated by wounds that inflict instant death. Where does it say that weapon that would normally inflict ID still does so against a model with EW? It doesn't. The unsaved wounds never inflicted instant death because of the EW rule. You cannot selectively read ID and EW and then attempt to apply them to FNP when a model has all rules applying to it at once. The best you can do is look at all three rules holistically and attempt to make a logical interpretation.

Your argument is ID trumps FNP, EW trumps ID and both FNP and EWP are compared individually to ID.

My argument is EW prevents ID from being inflicted, which means that ID has not occurred when you go to check FNP. Both arguments can be supported by the rules based on the order you resolve them in and how you compare them to each other.

My reading is the following.

A) A wound is caused.mMake armour saves, if failed go to step B.
B) If wound causes instant death go to step D, if not go to C.
C) Attempt FNP roll, if failed remove wound. If no wounds remain go to D.
D) Remove model.

When you come to step C if something ignores the effects of instant death ie: all ramifications of a wound that would cause instant death. Then the wound cannot be said to inflict instant death.
As such the clause in FNP is not invoked and you may make your save as normal.

PanzerLeader wrote:

hazal wrote:Eternal Warrior
A model with this special rule is immune to the effects of instant death

Feel no pain
Feel no pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved wounds that inflict instant death.

Thats right from the codex. So RAW, your IC that has Eternal Warrior is immune to the effects of instant death (being death instantly), but FNP states it cannot be used against wounds that are made by sources that inflict instant death.

So your IC ignores the deathy part, but FNP is still made in relation to the source... EW does not pass its immunity on to FNP.

B

I have the opposite interpretation. You inflict an unsaved wound. Check to see if the wound would cause instant death. Eternal Warrior says the wound 0does not cause instant death. Therefore, FNP can be taken as the unsaved wound did not cause instant death.

I have to give PanzerLeader a +1 as this is also how I see this playing out. A model with Eternal Warrior can not be instantly killed, so should always be able to make a feel no pain roll because the only way to counter feel no paint is with a wound that would cause instant death.

But the wound does cause ID. the model with EW just ignores the effects of being dropped to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty.

The Wound still Inflicts ID, but the model does not suffer any adverse effects.

PanzerLeader wrote:Instant Death is never inflicted when a model has Eternal Warrior.

This is not correct. Being immune to the effects of something does not mean that something never happened. Using your logic the model would have not been wounded at all. Is that the case?

PanzerLeader wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:Where in the rule does it mention FNP? I'll wait.

Oh, it doesn't? Ok. Then it is not an effect of ID. Therefore it is not ignored by EW. Like I said, ID is inflicted by a certain set of rules that EW does not modify. Ignoring the end result does not negate the trip you had to take to get there.

One, there is no need for you to be rude or condescending.

Two, the ID rule does not have to mention FNP. FNP specifically says it is negated by wounds that inflict instant death. Where does it say that weapon that would normally inflict ID still does so against a model with EW? It doesn't. The unsaved wounds never inflicted instant death because of the EW rule. You cannot selectively read ID and EW and then attempt to apply them to FNP when a model has all rules applying to it at once. The best you can do is look at all three rules holistically and attempt to make a logical interpretation.

Your argument is ID trumps FNP, EW trumps ID and both FNP and EWP are compared individually to ID.

My argument is EW prevents ID from being inflicted, which means that ID has not occurred when you go to check FNP. Both arguments can be supported by the rules based on the order you resolve them in and how you compare them to each other.

My most sincere apologies if you interpreted what I said as being condescending, but that was not the intention. It was intended to make a point. The point being that you cannot claim something to be an effect of something else unless it specifically says it is.

I personally don't see what was rude or condescending but i will make sure to be more careful around you. (no sarcasm intended, being 100% truthful)

The problem is that your interpretation is not supported by the rules. EW and FNP are two separate rules, neither of which modify ID. EW ignores, not changes, the effects of ID. The effects of the ID rule are the same, we just ignore them. The ID rule says a weapon with this special rule and weapons that are double the model's toughness inflict ID. EW does not take away either condition, therefore the argument that ID is not inflicted is wrong as the rule for ID is still present and applies. Khan hits a Nurgle Daemon and wounds with a 6. His weapon inflicts ID. Being an EW does not change that. The weapon inflicts ID, even though the Daemon can ignore its effects. The only effect being reducing the model to 0 wounds (technically being removed as a casualty is an effect of being reduced to 0 wounds, but thats not really that big a deal). ID is a restriction placed on FNP not an effect.

Panzer, if I may semi-quote rigeld from previous threads:

There is a law that says if you poison someone you go to jail.
You poison Bob.
Bob does not suffer any effects from the Poison.
You still poisoned Bob, you still go to jail.

Also I do realise that bringing real world examples is not a good idea, I just like rigelds logic in this case.

Happy: I may be stupid but how does that impact this one?
I understand that example would be perfect for any intent based rules but not this one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the word that my interpretation hinges on is "inflicts" does an unsaved wound with instant death, where instant death is ignored inflict an unsaved wound with instant death. I think not but YMMV.

I think some people have an odd definition of 'inflict.' It seems silly to me to say that instant death has been inflicted, when the model does not die.

My interpretation is that you cannot inflict instant death upon an Eternal Warrior, so FNP works.

But this whole thing hinges on definition of word 'inflict', so there is no definite answer.

Ghaz wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:Instant Death is never inflicted when a model has Eternal Warrior.

This is not correct. Being immune to the effects of something does not mean that something never happened. Using your logic the model would have not been wounded at all. Is that the case?

This, amongst others on this side, is the correct parsing of the two rules.


Ignoring the effects of one rule does not mean you get to ignore the restrictions on the other rule. ID is a restriction on FNP, it is not something that is ignrored by EW.

In the case of an undefined term, we use the common english definition. from Websters Dictionary http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=inflict&use1913=on&use1828=on

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

By this definition, ID cannot be inflicted upon Eternal Warrior. Therefor, FnP cannot be denied.

Yes it inflicts ID either way. The conditions exist for it to inflict ID so it does. EW does not remove those conditions. In my Khan example I still rolled a 6 to wound, I inflict ID. Your ability to ignore that does not negate the fact that I still inflicted it.

Happy's example is our logical flow made simple. I tried to kill Bob with poison. This poison would kill a normal person immediately. It doesn't kill Bob because he ignores the effects of poison. I am still guilty of attempted murder and still go to jail even though Bob didn't die. There was still poison in his body despite the fact that he didn't die. It's the same concept. I inflicted a wound that would kill someone else outright but you ignore it. It would still kill another person outright, but you don't die.

GT - why would you fall back on Websters, when the game isnt US English?

ID is a restriciton on FNP, not EW. Prove otherwise.
Plus, im sure you know the forum rules by now...

Is the british definition different?

Irrelevant, when you havent answered the central issue. ID is a restriction on FNP, it is not a part of EW.

I did.

My argument is that since ID cannot be inflicted on an Eternal Warrior, as I read it, then the restriction never comes into play.

Captain Antivas wrote:
Happy's example is our logical flow made simple. I tried to kill Bob with poison. This poison would kill a normal person immediately. It doesn't kill Bob because he ignores the effects of poison. I am still guilty of attempted murder and still go to jail even though Bob didn't die. There was still poison in his body despite the fact that he didn't die. It's the same concept. I inflicted a wound that would kill someone else outright but you ignore it. It would still kill another person outright, but you don't die.

Yes, attempted murder*, but not murder, and that's what we are talking about here.It is absurd to say that someone was inflicted death, when they remain alive.

* (if you knew that Bob was immune to the poison, then it probably wouldn't even be an attempted murder.)

ID is still inflicted on the model, the model just ignores the effects. ID is a rule with effects - EW ignores the effects of ID, NOT ID itself

Yeah, for all we know Bob chugs Anti-freeze because it tastes good.

Grey Templar wrote:I did.

My argument is that since ID cannot be inflicted on an Eternal Warrior, as I read it, then the restriction never comes into play.

How does that definition agree with you?
In*flict
1. To give, cause, or produce by striking, or as if by striking; (A weapon that causes ID causes ID by the nature of their rules. EW causes them to ignore, but by this definition of the word the weapon still "gives/causes/or produces by striking" ID. Khan rolls a 6 to wound against a Nurgle Daemon, EW does not make his 6 not a 6, he still inflicts ID he simply ignores it)
2. to apply forcibly; (I hit you and wound you, you fail your save. I have applied forcibly a wound with a weapon that causes ID. Still the same. You ignore ID, but you do not ignore the entire wound caused by a weapon that inflicts ID.)
3. to lay or impose; (Same as above, I impose a wound upon you from a weapon that causes ID, therefore it is inflicted.)
4. to send; (Same as above, I send you ID from my weapon to your model. Your model ignores the ID but I still sent you a wound from a weapon that causes ID.)
5. to cause to bear, feel, or suffer; as, to inflict blows; to inflict a wound with a dagger; to inflict severe pain by ingratitude; to inflict punishment on an offender; to inflict the penalty of death on a criminal. (I inflict the penalty of death on a criminal i a court of law, he appeals the death penalty and wins his case getting life in prison instead. Was the penalty of death not inflicted on him? It was, he just gets to ignore it. He still was convicted of the crime that is punishable by death, but the court decided that (for whatever reason) he is not to be killed. The death penalty was still inflicted.)

You are ignoring the major point and it is frankly getting bothersome. My weapon causes ID even if you do not suffer ID. I still inflicted it. I will post my Khan example for the 4th time. I roll a 6 to wound and the Daemon does not die, but he does not get FNP either because I still inflicted ID.

I still don't buy it.

Agree to disagree till the FAQ comes out.

Captain Antivas wrote:
How does that definition agree with you?
In*flict
1. To give, cause, or produce by striking, or as if by striking; (A weapon that causes ID causes ID by the nature of their rules. EW causes them to ignore, but by this definition of the word the weapon still "gives/causes/or produces by striking" ID. Khan rolls a 6 to wound against a Nurgle Daemon, EW does not make his 6 not a 6, he still inflicts ID he simply ignores it)
2. to apply forcibly; (I hit you and wound you, you fail your save. I have applied forcibly a wound with a weapon that causes ID. Still the same. You ignore ID, but you do not ignore the entire wound caused by a weapon that inflicts ID.)
3. to lay or impose; (Same as above, I impose a wound upon you from a weapon that causes ID, therefore it is inflicted.)
4. to send; (Same as above, I send you ID from my weapon to your model. Your model ignores the ID but I still sent you a wound from a weapon that causes ID.)
5. to cause to bear, feel, or suffer; as, to inflict blows; to inflict a wound with a dagger; to inflict severe pain by ingratitude; to inflict punishment on an offender; to inflict the penalty of death on a criminal. (I inflict the penalty of death on a criminal i a court of law, he appeals the death penalty and wins his case getting life in prison instead. Was the penalty of death not inflicted on him? It was, he just gets to ignore it. He still was convicted of the crime that is punishable by death, but the court decided that (for whatever reason) he is not to be killed. The death penalty was still inflicted.)

You are ignoring the major point and it is frankly getting bothersome. My weapon causes ID even if you do not suffer ID. I still inflicted it. I will post my Khan example for the 4th time. I roll a 6 to wound and the Daemon does not die, but he does not get FNP either because I still inflicted ID.

No. There is no weapon that can cause instant death on Eternal Warrior. Therefore he is not wounded by a weapon that causes instant death.

Entirely incorrect. EW ignores the EFFECTS of ID. It does not turn an ID wound into a non-ID wound.

No difference to 5th edition, of Eldar 4th edition.

Antivas is right.

EW does not modify the source of the attack, it tells you to ignore its effect (reduce model to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty).

An unsaved wound caused by an ID attack is ineligible for FNP saves because it is still an ID attack.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Entirely incorrect. EW ignores the EFFECTS of ID. It does not turn an ID wound into a non-ID wound.

Effect of instant death is instant death, and that is ignored. No intstant death happening. No instant death inflicted.

Crimson wrote:

No. There is no weapon that can cause instant death on Eternal Warrior. Therefore he is not wounded by a weapon that causes instant death.

Show me the rule that says that ignores = negates. By your logic since the weapon didn't cause a wound that inflicts ID it didn't inflict a wound at all since EW negates the condition that applies to my weapon causing ID, which is an unsaved wound I rolled a 6 to get.

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Entirely incorrect. EW ignores the EFFECTS of ID. It does not turn an ID wound into a non-ID wound.

Effect of instant death is instant death, and that is ignored. No intstant death happening. No instant death inflicted.

The effect of ID is to have your wounds reduced to 0 and be removed as a casualty. The effect isnt "Instant Death", the cause is ID. EW ignores effects, as it tells you.

Drunkspleen wrote:To clarify before I vote, do you want strict RAW, or how people would play the situation?

I would suggest both... maybe. However you want to vote is fine. The debate was on RAW, and I personally play RAW unless something really ridiculous comes along. Currently 4+ this issue until it's clarified by GW, I just want to know what everyone else thinks as well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Entirely incorrect. EW ignores the EFFECTS of ID. It does not turn an ID wound into a non-ID wound.

Effect of instant death is instant death, and that is ignored. No intstant death happening. No instant death inflicted.

The effect of ID is to have your wounds reduced to 0 and be removed as a casualty. The effect isnt "Instant Death", the cause is ID. EW ignores effects, as it tells you.

This. Read the rule on ID. Both in the USR section and on page 16.

Here is another scenario I want you to consider:

Lets say a BA Librarian casts Ironarm on himself making him an EW. He is joined by a Sanguinary Priest. He now has both EW and FNP. On my turn I charge with Khan. Khan gets really lucky and hits all 4 times and rolls 4 6s. 4 ID wounds are rolled. The Librarian rolls poorly and fails his saves. He takes 2 wounds and is removed as a casualty. There are 2 wounds left. They get applied to the SP. Do these wounds cause ID on the SP?

Captain Antivas wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Entirely incorrect. EW ignores the EFFECTS of ID. It does not turn an ID wound into a non-ID wound.

Effect of instant death is instant death, and that is ignored. No intstant death happening. No instant death inflicted.

The effect of ID is to have your wounds reduced to 0 and be removed as a casualty. The effect isnt "Instant Death", the cause is ID. EW ignores effects, as it tells you.

This. Read the rule on ID. Both in the USR section and on page 16.

Here is another scenario I want you to consider:

Lets say a BA Librarian casts Ironarm on himself making him an EW. He is joined by a Sanguinary Priest. He now has both EW and FNP. On my turn I charge with Khan. Khan gets really lucky and hits all 4 times and rolls 4 6s. 4 ID wounds are rolled. The Librarian rolls poorly and fails his saves. He takes 2 wounds and is removed as a casualty. There are 2 wounds left. They get applied to the SP. Do these wounds cause ID on the SP?

Does the SP have EW? If not then this is not a relevant example.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

The effect of ID is to have your wounds reduced to 0 and be removed as a casualty.

And making this to happen is 'inflicting instant death'. And this doesn't happen.

I think the EW kicks in the point where you check whether the weapon can cause instant death to the target, ie. the same time you'd check whether the stregth of the attack is high enough to inflict instant death.

Can this weapon inflict instant death on this model? If yes, then no FNP; if no, then FNP.
The reason why instant death cannot happen really shouldn't matter.

No. You ignore the EFFECTS of ID. You still Inflict the Instant Death RULE on the person, they just ignore the effects

Thasts it

No change from 4th or 5th. None at all.

I'm wondering when this would actually happen in game. Besides Nurgle daemons, who else has FNP and ET?

liturgies of blood wrote:Does the SP have EW? If not then this is not a relevant example.

According to the logic displayed earlier once a wound is applied to an EW it cannot inflict ID anymore so it magically re-gains the ability to inflict ID after the fact? It either always inflicts ID, even on an EW, or once it is applied to an EW it loses the ability to inflict ID and it doesn't get it back after the fact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brothererekose wrote:I'm wondering when this would actually happen in game. Besides Nurgle daemons, who else has FNP and ET?

Psychic power Ironarm. Any BA psyker who rolls a 1 to pick their power who is within range of a Sanguinary Priest, Darnath Lysander with a Command Squad or blessed with Endurance, Marneus Calgar who is blessed with Endurance, basically any EW blessed with Endurance or any one with FNP blessed with Ironarm.

Captain Antivas wrote:

According to the logic displayed earlier once a wound is applied to an EW it cannot inflict ID anymore so it magically re-gains the ability to inflict ID after the fact? It either always inflicts ID, even on an EW, or once it is applied to an EW it loses the ability to inflict ID and it doesn't get it back after the fact.

A bit like how space marine powerfist 'magically' loses its ability to ID against toughness five opponents. Yes, your ID weapons can in fact ID non-EW opponents just fine.

Instant death is relative; some weapons can inflict instant death on some models, while not on others. This should not be that remarkable.

And your argument still bears no relation to the actual rules.

ID has a number of effects. EW ignores the effects. FNP has a restriction - if the wound is ID you dont get it. NOthing about EW alters whether a wound is ID or not.

Crimson wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

According to the logic displayed earlier once a wound is applied to an EW it cannot inflict ID anymore so it magically re-gains the ability to inflict ID after the fact? It either always inflicts ID, even on an EW, or once it is applied to an EW it loses the ability to inflict ID and it doesn't get it back after the fact.

A bit like how space marine powerfist 'magically' loses its ability to ID against toughness five opponents. Yes, your ID weapons can in fact ID non-EW opponents just fine.

Instant death is relative; some weapons can inflict instant death on some models, while not on others. This should not be that remarkable.

It's not the weapon, it's the wound.
You're saying that the ID portion of a wound is transient. Do you have a rules quote or example to back that up?

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not the weapon, it's the wound.
You're saying that the ID portion of a wound is transient. Do you have a rules quote or example to back that up?

I cause a number of wounds with a strength 8 weapon on a squad with bunch of toughness 4 models and one multi-wound toughness 5 character. One wound is allocated to the character. Is the character insta-killed?

Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not the weapon, it's the wound.
You're saying that the ID portion of a wound is transient. Do you have a rules quote or example to back that up?

I cause a number of wounds with a strength 8 weapon on a squad with bunch of toughness 4 models and one multi-wound toughness 5 character. One wound is allocated to the character. Is the character insta-killed?

No, because the wound does not meet the requirements for ID.

A Str8 wound is allocated to a T4 EW model. You're asserting that it is not an ID wound?

rigeld2 wrote:
A Str8 wound is allocated to a T4 EW model. You're asserting that it is not an ID wound?

You were claiming that ID was property of the wound, not the weapon. This cannot be, as with my example you roll to wound against majority toughness of 4, and the wounds from strength 8 weapon would thus be insta-kill wounds. If the ID was part of the wound, they'd ID the character regardless of his toughness when allocated to him.

So ID has to be a property that some weapons have against some models. Krak missile doesn't have it against a Warboss because he has toughness 5 , nor against Lysander because he is EW.

Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
A Str8 wound is allocated to a T4 EW model. You're asserting that it is not an ID wound?

You were claiming that ID was property of the wound, not the weapon. This cannot be, as with my example you roll to wound against majority toughness of 4, and the wounds from strength 8 weapon would thus be insta-kill wounds. If the ID was part of the wound, they'd ID the character regardless of his toughness when allocated to him.

So ID has to be a property that some weapons have against some models. Krak missile doesn't have it against a Warboss because he has toughness 5 , nor against Lysander because he is EW.

Lysander is still T4 so the weapon is still ID against him, he simply ignores the effects of ID which are, as has been repeated ad nauseum, being reduced to 0 wounds and being removed as a casualty. Nowhere in the EW rule does it say that Khan's 6 no longer causes ID.

Order of Operations

Your model inflicts ID.
Opponents model has EW. (x) wounds that have ID attribute do not ID that model. Model gets to make normal saves.
(x) wounds get past. Now we apply FNP.
Enemy model is unable to apply FNP as the wounds still have the ID rules applied to them, ignored by the EW special rule. EW rule does not apply to FNP, otherwise it would be written as such.

The contention is still over the meaning of the word 'inflict'. It is not a precise rules term. I'd still claim that in order to 'inflict' instant death, the actual instant death rules need to come to play. It seems bizarre to say that instant death was inflicted on a character, but he was immune to it. So is he somekind of a zombie now or what? That is not natural use of the word.

This is like inflicting casualties on a squad. If squad manages to save all wounds caused, you wouldn't say that casualties were inflicted but the squad negated them. you'd say no casualties were inflicted. (and no rule that would trigger upon inflicting casualties would activate.)

After a bit of thinking I think that the effect of instant death is look at pg 16 and resolve that.

On a model with EW an ID wound still has a wound with a modifier, admittably a modifier that means nothing to the outcome of the wound but one that prevents FNP from happening.

Crimson wrote:The contention is still over the meaning of the word 'inflict'. It is not a precise rules term. I'd still claim that in order to 'inflict' instant death, the actual instant death rules need to come to play. It seems bizarre to say that instant death was inflicted on a character, but he was immune to it. So is he somekind of a zombie now or what? That is not natural use of the word.

This is like inflicting casualties on a squad. If squad manages to save all wounds caused, you wouldn't say that casualties were inflicted but the squad negated them. you'd say no casualties were inflicted. (and no rule that would trigger upon inflicting casualties would activate.)

1. The rule doesn't say he is immune to ID, he simply ignores the effects. He doesn't ignore ID he ignores the effects. ID is inflicted but the effects if it are ignored. This is where the problems are coming from, people are ignoring the words that are inconvenient.

2. A saving throw negates a wound. Nowhere in the EW rule does it say that ID is negated. As I have asked for many times please show me where in the EW rule does it say it negates ID. It doesn't. It ignores the effects. These two things are not the same.

3. Not being removed as a casualty does not remove the fact that my weapon is 2x your toughness or has the instant death rule on it. Until it does you suffered an unsaved wound that caused ID. You have the ability to live through that, but it still happened. You ignored the effects but jot the wound itself.

Captain Antivas wrote:

Crimson wrote:The contention is still over the meaning of the word 'inflict'. It is not a precise rules term. I'd still claim that in order to 'inflict' instant death, the actual instant death rules need to come to play. It seems bizarre to say that instant death was inflicted on a character, but he was immune to it. So is he somekind of a zombie now or what? That is not natural use of the word.

This is like inflicting casualties on a squad. If squad manages to save all wounds caused, you wouldn't say that casualties were inflicted but the squad negated them. you'd say no casualties were inflicted. (and no rule that would trigger upon inflicting casualties would activate.)

1. The rule doesn't say he is immune to ID, he simply ignores the effects. He doesn't ignore ID he ignores the effects. ID is inflicted but the effects if it are ignored. This is where the problems are coming from, people are ignoring the words that are inconvenient.

2. A saving throw negates a wound. Nowhere in the EW rule does it say that ID is negated. As I have asked for many times please show me where in the EW rule does it say it negates ID. It doesn't. It ignores the effects. These two things are not the same.

3. Not being removed as a casualty does not remove the fact that my weapon is 2x your toughness or has the instant death rule on it. Until it does you suffered an unsaved wound that caused ID. You have the ability to live through that, but it still happened. You ignored the effects but jot the wound itself.

Actually, the word in EW is "immune" not "ignore". Models with EW are immune to the effects of Instant Death (pg 35). Now, I see your point on the sequencing because you are comparing FNP and EW individually to ID. But as has been pointed out, we will be spinning in circles until an FAQ comes out because everything hinges on the word inflict. ID can only be inflicted when its effects have been executed. A 3W, T4 model hit by S8 suffers from ID when it fails all applicable saves (i.e. ID has been inflicted as shown by the effects of reducing the W from 3 to 0 and removing the model as a casualty). When you add EW to the same stat line, ID has not been inflicted because the conditions defining ID no longer exist (i.e. the W stat is reduced from 3 to 2 and the model remains in play). FNP can be taken so long as the wound does not inflict ID and I contend ID is not inflicted without the effects.

Yes, he's immune to the effects of Instant Death while your interpretation means that the Instant Death rule never occurs.

Can someone make a Poll out of this? (i'm not 'Net savvy nor Dakka savvy enough to do it). Shameful, i know.

My BloodCrusher takes a Vindicator smack to the face. It's a STR 10 ID to my T5. ... but my BloodCrusher has ET, like any daemon, so ...

a. I have to roll against it and if I fail take 1 wound (skipping FNP)
b. I have to roll against it, and if my Invuln fails, I *get* to take a FNP to stay totally healthy?

Brothererekose wrote:Can someone make a Poll out of this? (i'm not 'Net savvy nor Dakka savvy enough to do it). Shameful, i know.

My BloodCrusher takes a Vindicator smack to the face. It's a STR 10 ID to my T5. ... but my BloodCrusher has ET, like any daemon, so ...

a. I have to roll against it and if I fail take 1 wound (skipping FNP)
b. I have to roll against it, and if my Invuln fails, I *get* to take a FNP to stay totally healthy?

This thread has a Poll attached to it.

PanzerLeader wrote:Actually, the word in EW is "immune" not "ignore". Models with EW are immune to the effects of Instant Death (pg 35). Now, I see your point on the sequencing because you are comparing FNP and EW individually to ID. But as has been pointed out, we will be spinning in circles until an FAQ comes out because everything hinges on the word inflict. ID can only be inflicted when its effects have been executed. A 3W, T4 model hit by S8 suffers from ID when it fails all applicable saves (i.e. ID has been inflicted as shown by the effects of reducing the W from 3 to 0 and removing the model as a casualty). When you add EW to the same stat line, ID has not been inflicted because the conditions defining ID no longer exist (i.e. the W stat is reduced from 3 to 2 and the model remains in play). FNP can be taken so long as the wound does not inflict ID and I contend ID is not inflicted without the effects.

Yes, he is immune to the effects, meaning the effects are ignored. But if you really insist here is an amended statement that doesn't change the facts:

1. The rule doesn't say he is immune to ID, he simply is immune to the effects. He doesn't ignore ID he ignores the effects. ID is inflicted but the effects if it are ignored. This is where the problems are coming from, people are ignoring the words that are inconvenient.

Like it or not ID happens, you simply fight on. It still happens and until you can show me a rule that tells you that my weapon loses its special rule or the ability to inflict ID then you cannot deny that it still happens. You can try, but you look really ridiculous. The definition of inflict was already posted and was shown to agree with us. If you are gonna deny the definition of the word inflict, and all logical derivatives of that then I fear I have nothing else to say to you.

Captain Antivas wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:Actually, the word in EW is "immune" not "ignore". Models with EW are immune to the effects of Instant Death (pg 35). Now, I see your point on the sequencing because you are comparing FNP and EW individually to ID. But as has been pointed out, we will be spinning in circles until an FAQ comes out because everything hinges on the word inflict. ID can only be inflicted when its effects have been executed. A 3W, T4 model hit by S8 suffers from ID when it fails all applicable saves (i.e. ID has been inflicted as shown by the effects of reducing the W from 3 to 0 and removing the model as a casualty). When you add EW to the same stat line, ID has not been inflicted because the conditions defining ID no longer exist (i.e. the W stat is reduced from 3 to 2 and the model remains in play). FNP can be taken so long as the wound does not inflict ID and I contend ID is not inflicted without the effects.

Yes, he is immune to the effects, meaning the effects are ignored. But if you really insist here is an amended statement that doesn't change the facts:

1. The rule doesn't say he is immune to ID, he simply is immune to the effects. He doesn't ignore ID he ignores the effects. ID is inflicted but the effects if it are ignored. This is where the problems are coming from, people are ignoring the words that are inconvenient.

Like it or not ID happens, you simply fight on. It still happens and until you can show me a rule that tells you that my weapon loses its special rule or the ability to inflict ID then you cannot deny that it still happens. You can try, but you look really ridiculous. The definition of inflict was already posted and was shown to agree with us. If you are gonna deny the definition of the word inflict, and all logical derivatives of that then I fear I have nothing else to say to you.

We will simply agree to disagree. I have already remarked that there was no need to be rude or condescending and you have done so again. It is possible to hold a discussion on rules without referring to someone as looking ridicilious or implying that they are stupid and incapable of logical reasoning. The mere fact of how split the poll results and the responses have been show that there is no simple solution to this (acknowledging that the majority does agree with you). Please try to watch your language when you respond to posts. The internet forums remove all vocal and body language cues and what might sound normal to you might not necessarily convey as such.

Xzerios wrote:Order of Operations

Your model inflicts ID.
Opponents model has EW. (x) wounds that have ID attribute do not ID that model. Model gets to make normal saves.
(x) wounds get past. Now we apply FNP.
Enemy model is unable to apply FNP as the wounds still have the ID rules applied to them, ignored by the EW special rule. EW rule does not apply to FNP, otherwise it would be written as such.

Your example doesn't work as the game developers failed to include something like an order of operations. Works wonderfully for games like MTG, but it might get in the way of the upgraded narrative elements of 6th edition.

I feel that ID is never inflicted on a model with EW, and therefore that model may take a FNP save.

When you ignore arguments made you look ridiculous. You don't look ridiculous because you are wrong but because you ignore points that are made and don't address them. This is not an insult but how I view people who argue without following the rules of debate. I also never said anything about you being stupid or unable to understand, I simply said you are choosing to ignore the logical derivatives. I chose the word ignore on purpose to avoid the implication that your choice of interpretation made you stupid. May I suggest not taking things so personally? This is an online forum afterall, not real life. I already told you I mean no insult and yet you continue to interpret it that way. Nothing else I can do.

It should also be pointed out that although I was quoting you I was not directing my words towards just you. This was directed at all people who refuse to address any point they cannot or simply do.t want to refute.

I said it once and I will say it again to everyone: I mean no disrespect or insult in anything I say. Please don't look too much into things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

helium42 wrote:

Xzerios wrote:Order of Operations

Your model inflicts ID.
Opponents model has EW. (x) wounds that have ID attribute do not ID that model. Model gets to make normal saves.
(x) wounds get past. Now we apply FNP.
Enemy model is unable to apply FNP as the wounds still have the ID rules applied to them, ignored by the EW special rule. EW rule does not apply to FNP, otherwise it would be written as such.

Your example doesn't work as the game developers failed to include something like an order of operations. Works wonderfully for games like MTG, but it might get in the way of the upgraded narrative elements of 6th edition.

I feel that ID is never inflicted on a model with EW, and therefore that model may take a FNP save.

Where is your proof? Where is the information I asked for? We have proven our point with rules and definitions. Where is yours?

helium42 wrote:

Xzerios wrote:Order of Operations

Your model inflicts ID.
Opponents model has EW. (x) wounds that have ID attribute do not ID that model. Model gets to make normal saves.
(x) wounds get past. Now we apply FNP.
Enemy model is unable to apply FNP as the wounds still have the ID rules applied to them, ignored by the EW special rule. EW rule does not apply to FNP, otherwise it would be written as such.

Your example doesn't work as the game developers failed to include something like an order of operations. Works wonderfully for games like MTG, but it might get in the way of the upgraded narrative elements of 6th edition.

I feel that ID is never inflicted on a model with EW, and therefore that model may take a FNP save.

There is an order of operations - it's implicit in how things resolve.
Wound is caused.
Model makes saves.
The ID status of a wound must be determined before FNP is rolled.
FNP is denied because of ID wounds.
Wounds are applied - because of EW the model is not reduced to 0 wounds nor is it removed (unless the wound would do that anyway).

Trying to imply that "inflict" must mean "wound is applied" means that FNP does nothing, ever. Because you're saying that the wound has to be applied before FNP is rolled.

helium42 wrote:I feel that ID is never inflicted on a model with EW, and therefore that model may take a FNP save.

Then why don't the rules say that? Because you can inflict Instant Death on a model with Eternal Warrior, it just doesn't do anything because you're immune to its effects. Its like a gretchin swinging on a Land Raider in close combat. He may not be able to harm it, but he is attacking it. By your logic, he never even took a swing at it.

Ghaz wrote:

helium42 wrote:I feel that ID is never inflicted on a model with EW, and therefore that model may take a FNP save.

Then why don't the rules say that? Because you can inflict Instant Death on a model with Eternal Warrior, it just doesn't do anything because you're immune to its effects. Its like a gretchin swinging on a Land Raider in close combat. He may not be able to harm it, but he is attacking it. By your logic, he never even took a swing at it.

That is actually a really good point.

DeathReaper wrote:

Brothererekose wrote:Can someone make a Poll out of this? (i'm not 'Net savvy nor Dakka savvy enough to do it). Shameful, i know.

My BloodCrusher takes a Vindicator smack to the face. It's a STR 10 ID to my T5. ... but my BloodCrusher has ET, like any daemon, so ...

a. I have to roll against it and if I fail take 1 wound (skipping FNP)
b. I have to roll against it, and if my Invuln fails, I *get* to take a FNP to stay totally healthy?

This thread has a Poll attached to it.

Well, I did say I wasn't too 'Net nor Dakka savvy.
Again, I'll put in a emoticon.

I think this is more like someone suffering a wound and then saving it. We would say that no wound was inflicted.

The difference here is that some of us feel that to 'inflict' instant death, instand death rules actually have to resolve, and there's no chance of this happening. Also, I would not make difference between being immune to effects of something and being immune to something. It's the same thing. In the end this is not clear rule, but I believe that my reading is how it is intended to work. GW rules are often written in a way that makes the intuitive common sense approach to be correct one over the legalistic hairsplitting one. Rules are not a logical syntax. And I would say that to average person it seems silly and counter intuitive to say that inflicting death happens but the character remains alive (unless he is a some sort of headless zombie wandering about thereafter.)

"The difference here is that some of us feel that to 'inflict' instant death, instand death rules actually have to resolve, and there's no chance of this happening"

Then prove, using rules, that this is actually correct, and do so without ignoring the quotes proving the contrary is actually true.

EW has never stopped FNP from being negated, so your "RAI" is also off

nosferatu1001 wrote:"The difference here is that some of us feel that to 'inflict' instant death, instand death rules actually have to resolve, and there's no chance of this happening"

Then prove, using rules, that this is actually correct, and do so without ignoring the quotes proving the contrary is actually true.

'inflict' is a vague term so it cannot be conclusively proven to either direction.

EW has never stopped FNP from being negated, so your "RAI" is also off

So is there an FAQ on the matter for older editions then? This actually could possibly convince me, as the rules concerned seem not to have changed.

It isnt vague - you have Inflicted Instant Death if you have fulfilled the criteria for the rule. Being immune to the effects doesnt stop ID having been inflicted.

Captain Antivas wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:Actually, the word in EW is "immune" not "ignore". Models with EW are immune to the effects of Instant Death (pg 35). Now, I see your point on the sequencing because you are comparing FNP and EW individually to ID. But as has been pointed out, we will be spinning in circles until an FAQ comes out because everything hinges on the word inflict. ID can only be inflicted when its effects have been executed. A 3W, T4 model hit by S8 suffers from ID when it fails all applicable saves (i.e. ID has been inflicted as shown by the effects of reducing the W from 3 to 0 and removing the model as a casualty). When you add EW to the same stat line, ID has not been inflicted because the conditions defining ID no longer exist (i.e. the W stat is reduced from 3 to 2 and the model remains in play). FNP can be taken so long as the wound does not inflict ID and I contend ID is not inflicted without the effects.

Yes, he is immune to the effects, meaning the effects are ignored. But if you really insist here is an amended statement that doesn't change the facts:

1. The rule doesn't say he is immune to ID, he simply is immune to the effects. He doesn't ignore ID he ignores the effects. ID is inflicted but the effects if it are ignored. This is where the problems are coming from, people are ignoring the words that are inconvenient.

Like it or not ID happens, you simply fight on. It still happens and until you can show me a rule that tells you that my weapon loses its special rule or the ability to inflict ID then you cannot deny that it still happens. You can try, but you look really ridiculous. The definition of inflict was already posted and was shown to agree with us. If you are gonna deny the definition of the word inflict, and all logical derivatives of that then I fear I have nothing else to say to you.

1) EW says he is immune to the effects of ID. One of the effects of ID is to negate FNP. Ergo, EW gets FNP.

Why is this so hard to understand??

"1) EW says he is immune to the effects of ID. One of the effects of ID is to negate FNP. Ergo, EW gets FNP.

Why is this so hard to understand??"

Well, when yhou change the rules to suit your viewpoint then its hard to understand why people are still arguing

ID stopping FNP is a RESTRICTION on FNP, it is NOT part of the ID rules nor EW.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"1) EW says he is immune to the effects of ID. One of the effects of ID is to negate FNP. Ergo, EW gets FNP.

Why is this so hard to understand??"

Well, when yhou change the rules to suit your viewpoint then its hard to understand why people are still arguing

ID stopping FNP is a RESTRICTION on FNP, it is NOT part of the ID rules nor EW.

It is still an effect of ID. ID has an effect on the FNP rule, which applies to a model with EW. Ergo, said effect is ignored. Not changing any rules...

So there was no FAQ on this for previous editions either?

Althornin wrote:It is still an effect of ID.

No, it's not. We know it because ID has listed effects.

ID has an effect on the FNP rule, which applies to a model with EW. Ergo, said effect is ignored. Not changing any rules...

ID has no effect on the FNP rule.
FNP has a restriction that references ID.

There's a difference.

Althornin wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:"1) EW says he is immune to the effects of ID. One of the effects of ID is to negate FNP. Ergo, EW gets FNP.

Why is this so hard to understand??"

Well, when yhou change the rules to suit your viewpoint then its hard to understand why people are still arguing

ID stopping FNP is a RESTRICTION on FNP, it is NOT part of the ID rules nor EW.

It is still an effect of ID. ID has an effect on the FNP rule, which applies to a model with EW. Ergo, said effect is ignored. Not changing any rules...

Show me where in the EW rule FNP is changed. In fact, show me in the ID rule itself where it has an effect on FNP. You seem to be forgetting that this is a permissive ruleset. If it doesn't say it you don't get to do it. You cannot claim that something is the effect of something else simply because you think it is. Unless the rule states that it is modifying something it has no effect on that rule. As I have been told before, deduce = making up rules. Ergo = making up rules.

An effect is something that happens as a result of something. A restriction is something that cannot happen as a result of something. Effects happen, restrictions stop things from happening. Effects are written in the rules for something, restrictions are written within their own rules. The FNP rule is restricted by ID by nature of the FNP rule itself, not ID. ID makes no mention of FNP so it has no effect on it. EW restricts ID, it has no effect on FNP. EW is a restriction not an effect. The effects of ID are clear and not being able to take a FNP roll is not one of them.

thisisnotpancho wrote:Eternal Warrior states that it "ignores the effects of Instant Death"

One of the "effects" of instant death is the ability to ignore FNP

ergo Eternal warriors with fnp always get it

The FNP rule doesn't have Eternal Warrior - it can't ignore ID.

Althornin wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:"1) EW says he is immune to the effects of ID. One of the effects of ID is to negate FNP. Ergo, EW gets FNP.

Why is this so hard to understand??"

Well, when yhou change the rules to suit your viewpoint then its hard to understand why people are still arguing

ID stopping FNP is a RESTRICTION on FNP, it is NOT part of the ID rules nor EW.

It is still an effect of ID. ID has an effect on the FNP rule, which applies to a model with EW. Ergo, said effect is ignored. Not changing any rules...

Wrong. FNP has a restriction. EW ignores the effects of ID. The two are not connected, no matter how much you try to change tyhe rule to say exactly what the "FNP works" side have been incorrectly using all the way through.

Find the restriction on FNP in the ID or the EW rule. You cant? Then they dont work as you say.

RAW, Eternal warrior allows you to ignore the effects of Instant death. One of the effects of instant death is denies feel no pain RAW directly states that you do in fact get the Feel No Pain roll.
RAI, could be argued either way, personally I don't think it makes a ton of sense that you would get the feel no pain. If a railgun puts a bullet through your shoulder your going to feel it, you might have the strength of will to keep fighting with a watermelon sized hole in you but your definitely going to feel that.

Tekik wrote:One of the effects of instant death is denies feel no pain RAW directly states that you do in fact get the Feel No Pain roll.

Absolutely false. Denying FNP is not an effect of Instant Death. You cannot cite a rule saying that it is because one doesn't exist.

PanzerLeader wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:False. FNP cannot be taken against weapons that inflict ID. The only effect of ID is the model is reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty. The weapon inflicts ID, the model ignores it, but it is still there. ID gets put in the corner but it is still present.

Need to edit my earlier post but here are the relevent quotes:

Eternal Warrior (page 35) "A model with this special rule is immune to the effects of instant death."

Feel No Pain (page 35) "Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved wounds that inflict Instant Death."

Models with Eternal Warrior are immune to instant death. Since the model is immune, it cannot suffer unsaved wounds that would cause inflict instant death. Since the unsaved wound never inflicts instant death, the model may still take FNP saves.

This. A model with EW gets a FNP roll if they somehow have FNP. It's a no brainer.

We will simply agree to disagree. I have already remarked that there was no need to be rude or condescending and you have done so again. It is possible to hold a discussion on rules without referring to someone as looking ridicilious or implying that they are stupid and incapable of logical reasoning. The mere fact of how split the poll results and the responses have been show that there is no simple solution to this (acknowledging that the majority does agree with you). Please try to watch your language when you respond to posts. The internet forums remove all vocal and body language cues and what might sound normal to you might not necessarily convey as such.

+1

Im also in the fnp works camp. However as with all these discrepancies so far it seems the only solution is to await FAQ info.

Those of you saying that inflict must mean that the wound is applied:

You do realize you're saying that the wound must be inflicted before FNP is resolved right?

Meaning the wound has already been removed from your profile and you're trying to go back and re-add it when FNP doesn't allow that.

I believe you are mistaken.

Lt.Soundwave wrote:I believe you are mistaken.

Do you want to explain your belief? Perhaps with rules quotes or examples?
That'd be great.

How I see this working.

1) An attack successfully wounds a model, roll saves if applicable. If save fails -->

2) Check whether instant death can be inflicted. (Strength high enough, target has no EW, etc.) If conditions for ID are not met -->

3) Roll Feel No Pain.



Also, I think getting hung up on the word 'effects' on EW is unnecessary. What else can rules have but effects? Flavour? No. it means EW is immune to ID.
Can you cause Instant Death on an Eternal Warrior? No, he is immune to it.

This has probably already been said but here is my take on this:

1. A model with EW and FNP is allocated a wound.
2. Armor, Cover or Invul save is failed.
3. Check to see if the wound is capable of causing ID. If yes, skip to step 5.
4. FNP save is taken. If successful, we're done here, continue with the game.
5. Apply the wound to the model. If it is capable of causing ID, ignore the effect.

Crimson wrote:How I see this working.

1) An attack successfully wounds a model, roll saves if applicable. If save fails -->

2) Check whether instant death can be inflicted. (Strength high enough, target has no EW, etc.) If conditions for ID are not met -->

3) Roll Feel No Pain.

Also, I think getting hung up on the word 'effects' on EW is unnecessary. What else can rules have but effects? Flavour? No. it means EW is immune to ID.
Can you cause Instant Death on an Eternal Warrior? No, he is immune to it.

And you're ignoring (or glossing over) the fact that FNP not working on ID wounds is not an effect of ID.
It's a restriction on FNP.

"Not being able to assault" is not an effect of Running - it's a restriction on Assault.

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're ignoring (or glossing over) the fact that FNP not working on ID wounds is not an effect of ID.
It's a restriction on FNP.

No I'm not. I'm merely claiming that it is impossible to inflict Instant Death on Eternal Warrior, and thus conditions for negating FNP are not met.

But I think we are just repeating the same things over ans over. I understand why many people have said that this is agree to disagree territory.

Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're ignoring (or glossing over) the fact that FNP not working on ID wounds is not an effect of ID.
It's a restriction on FNP.

No I'm not. I'm merely claiming that it is impossible to inflict Instant Death on Eternal Warrior, and thus conditions for negating FNP are notmet.

But I think we are just repeating the same things over ans over. I understand why many people have said that this is agree to disagree territory.

rigeld2 wrote:Those of you saying that inflict must mean that the wound is applied:

You do realize you're saying that the wound must be inflicted before FNP is resolved right?

Meaning the wound has already been removed from your profile and you're trying to go back and re-add it when FNP doesn't allow that.

rigeld2 wrote:Those of you saying that inflict must mean that the wound is applied:

You do realize you're saying that the wound must be inflicted before FNP is resolved right?

Meaning the wound has already been removed from your profile and you're trying to go back and re-add it when FNP doesn't allow that.

FNP kicks in the moment the model suffers a wound, so yes, in a way the wound is inflicted at this point. And I think this is the same point when you check whether the weapon is capable of insta-killing the model.

But this is actually quite vague. It is not a logical syntax. Words like 'inflict', 'suffer', 'negate', 'immune' and 'effect' are not strictly defined, nor is the fine minutiae of the order of operations clear. This is a similar mess than FNP and Force Weapons. FNP could definitely use a FAQ.

Now what about force weapons? They aren't instant death wounds until the weapon is activated after the wound has been taken, are we ignoring FNP here or not?

Not that it matters much now, but i could've sworn that somewhere in 5th it said that EW did not effect FNP in reference to ID. If it did, it's safest to follow that ruling even if it is not longer "Legitimate"

@juraigmer: IMHO this is a case where FNP could theoretically be taken, however there are some caveats:
1. Every model has the same save and FNP or
2. The unit consists of mixed armour saves.

In either case, as soon as a FNP is failed, any Wound in the Force Weapon Wound pool afterwards would be ID and FNP would no longer work. (May not be RAW, but definitely HIWPI)

@ Vindicare-Obsession: EW did not affect FNP in 5th ed, because one of the restrictions was could not be used if strength was double toughness. FNP also could not be used if the attack ignores armour saves (which just about every weapon with the Instant Death "rule" already did.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Not that it matters much now, but i could've sworn that somewhere in 5th it said that EW did not effect FNP in reference to ID. If it did, it's safest to follow that ruling even if it is not longer "Legitimate"

Yes, it would at least give insight to the designer intent. However no-one has managed to produce such a quote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Force Weapons and FNP is a mess. At least with certain reading of the rules applicability of FNP would depend on whose turn it is, and that is just silly. There should be a clear 'Check for Instant Death' step before applying the wounds, and Eternal Warrior and Force Weapon checks should be applied then. It would be much clearer.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Not that it matters much now, but i could've sworn that somewhere in 5th it said that EW did not effect FNP in reference to ID. If it did, it's safest to follow that ruling even if it is not longer "Legitimate"

Considering the fundamental rule of FNP changed drastically from 5th to 6th I'd say that's a poor approach to take.

People keep trying to compare 6th to 5th, 4th, and earlier editions. Take a moment to read the rules as if it were a completely new game, because if you keep getting caught up on "well it used to be this way" you'll never be able to move forward with the current edition. It is what it is...you get FNP if you have EW. You get FNP if you are hit by rending weapons that actually rend. You get it for everything except something that inflicts instant death.

not in regards to ID it hasnt.

And I have moved forward quite effectively. All I am suggesting is that when we dont have a clear answer, an earlier one could suffice until we are given one.

And I would be more inclined to say you dont get FNP. Again, not that it matters, but in Malifaux, even if you are immune to an effect, you still recive an effect. Thus anything that triggers off of you reciving an effect, still triggers even if you are immune.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:not in regards to ID it hasnt.

And I have moved forward quite effectively. All I am suggesting is that when we dont have a clear answer, an earlier one could suffice until we are given one.

The point is, we keep going back to "it used to be this way in 5th, 4th, etc." That's just a poor method to do things IMHO. I did the same things when I first picked up 6th. I kept trying to find things like "where does it say fearless units must make armor saves when they lose close combat?" Oh...it isn't in there. That is just one example. And yes FNP did change drastically enough to warrant this conversation did it not? Before, this wouldn't even come to question as most weapons whose str were high enough to actually inflict instant death on most models was ap 1 or 2 which you didn't get a FNP roll for anyway. Now, you do, so yes, in regards to instant death, the FNP rule has changed dramatically from 5th to 6th.

No. If a model suffers ID, it cannot take FNP. It has been this way since 5th and before. So no, in regards to ID, FNP has not changed. And there were plenty of weapons that could cause ID without being ap2 or 1.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:No. If a model suffers ID, it cannot take FNP. It has been this way since 5th and before. So no, in regards to ID, FNP has not changed. And there were plenty of weapons that could cause ID without being ap2 or 1.

Yes, there were but the large majority of weapons I'd say that could cause ID (via str being double toughness) were ap 1 or 2 usually.

I understand what people are saying in regards to EW not granting FNP, however if a model is immune to the effects of instant death, then they get a FNP roll if capable of doing so.

robzidious wrote:Yes, there were but the large majority of weapons I'd say that could cause ID (via str being double toughness) were ap 1 or 2 usually.

Heavy Venom Cannons, Impaler Cannons, Rupture Cannons...

Must be nice to have a SM viewpoint

I understand what people are saying in regards to EW not granting FNP, however if a model is immune to the effects of instant death, then they get a FNP roll if capable of doing so.

Show me where denying FNP is an effect of ID.

Not just that,
Lottas, Partical Whip, Fabius bile

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Not just that,
Lottas, Partical Whip, Fabius bile

Oh, I'm not trying to say that I gave an exhaustive list. Just that there were/are MANY Str8+ nonAP1-2 weapons. Heck, Krak missiles.

There are many yes. There are still many of course.

Regardless this is moving off topic. My point was, before this subject came up less because a lot of weapons that were double toughness were ap 1 or 2. Not that there weren't plenty of weapons that were double toughness that were ap 3 or higher...there were and still are most certainly.

I can see where the debate could arise, but in my opinion, based on my reading of the rules, if a character is immune to the effects of instant death, than no weapon can cause instant death to him, thus he gets a FNP roll. This situation has never come up in one of my games, though. It would be interesting to get some perspective on it from my buddies who play with me regularly.

For those interested 5th ed specifically stated in the FnP rule that EW did not protect you from losing FnP to ID. That sentence was removed in 6th. Now both camps can claim that proves their point and others can say it's irrelevant as from an earlier ruleset. Does this even count as helping?

FNP doesn't allow that.

FNP is allowed vs unsaved wounds. A wound you've taken is unsaved. It might not be how its meant to be interpreted but it is a valid way of reading it. its clear that the situation is vague enough so that statements such as yours are no more valid then the other side of the argument. Until such time as it is FAQ'd the discussion is moot.

Hence i believe you are mistaken when you interpret FNP working in the manner you describe as it can also be interpreted to work in the manner I have outlined.

Lt.Soundwave wrote:

FNP doesn't allow that.

FNP is allowed vs unsaved wounds. A wound you've taken is unsaved. It might not be how its meant to be interpreted but it is a valid way of reading it. its clear that the situation is vague enough so that statements such as yours are no more valid then the other side of the argument. Until such time as it is FAQ'd the discussion is moot.

Hence i believe you are mistaken when you interpret FNP working in the manner you describe as it can also be interpreted to work in the manner I have outlined.

There's a difference. I've supplied rules support for timing. You've provided, well, nothing.
Your side has provided a definition for inflict (that I've shown cannot be used), assertions that EW allows it despite the fact that the restriction on FNP is not an effect of ID, and little else.

You can believe and house rule whatever you want. That doesn't mean the actual rules agree with you.

Drager wrote:For those interested 5th ed specifically stated in the FnP rule that EW did not protect you from losing FnP to ID. That sentence was removed in 6th. Now both camps can claim that proves their point and others can say it's irrelevant as from an earlier ruleset. Does this even count as helping?

You are right! And yes, now I will claim it supports my interpretation. To me leaving that part out seems like an intentional chance. They would not have done that if they didn't mean EW to apply.

Yet never changed any of the language to acutally allow EW to interact with FNP at all.

robzidious wrote:I can see where the debate could arise, but in my opinion, based on my reading of the rules, if a character is immune to the effects of instant death, than no weapon can cause instant death to him, thus he gets a FNP roll. This situation has never come up in one of my games, though. It would be interesting to get some perspective on it from my buddies who play with me regularly.

Show me where it is written that denying FNP is an effect of ID. Show me where EW removes my weapon's ability to inflict ID. Show me where your EW gives permission to take a FNP roll against a weapon that inflicts ID even if you are immune to the effects. Show me these things. Your opinion is irrelevant. This is a rules discussion about what is written. Show me rules, not opinions or your take on it but rules.

Captain Antivas wrote:

robzidious wrote:I can see where the debate could arise, but in my opinion, based on my reading of the rules, if a character is immune to the effects of instant death, than no weapon can cause instant death to him, thus he gets a FNP roll. This situation has never come up in one of my games, though. It would be interesting to get some perspective on it from my buddies who play with me regularly.

Show me where it is written that denying FNP is an effect of ID. Show me where EW removes my weapon's ability to inflict ID. Show me where your EW gives permission to take a FNP roll against a weapon that inflicts ID even if you are immune to the effects. Show me these things. Your opinion is irrelevant. This is a rules discussion about what is written. Show me rules, not opinions or your take on it but rules.

Ok. EW makes you immune to the effects of instant death.

FNP cannot be made against an unsaved wound that would inflict instant death.

The rule stating EW does not affect FNP is no longer written.

Thus if you have EW you get a chance to make FNP roll if you are immune to ID.

That is per the rules.

On the other hand, I do indeed see the point being made with verbage being an unsaved wound that would inflict ID vs being immune to the effects of ID. I totally get that. It is something that needs to be clarified IMO. I don't think anyone would argue that. If it didn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Thus, until it is errata/FAQd we can only utilize our take on the what the rule means. If you have a disagreement with an opponent, you dice off for it and continue on. Simple really.

I'm thinking you work the saves like so:

A model takes a wound.

It takes it's save, if it has one, and then you check for instant death.

If there's instant death, it dies, if not, you take FNP.

What we need to figure out is were eternal warrior removes the instant death rule. If a model is immune to instant death, doesn't that mean the rule doesn't effect the model at all?

If the model was immune to instant death, yes. However the model is only immune to the effects of instant death.

Happyjew wrote:If the model was immune to instant death, yes. However the model is only immune to the effects of instant death.

As happy is saying, the effects of instant death are on page 16, instant death is a usr. A wound with a usr has an effect, negating the effect doesn't mean it is not still a wound with a usr.

Happyjew wrote:If the model was immune to instant death, yes. However the model is only immune to the effects of instant death.

Exactly. I see that side of it, most definitely.

Happyjew wrote:If the model was immune to instant death, yes. However the model is only immune to the effects of instant death.

I do not think this is a meaningfull distionction to make. Only thing that rules have is effects. To be immune to effects of a thing makes you immune to that thing.

And I truly do cannot believe that they would have intentionally remove the specific mention of EW in the FNP rules, and then let the rules hang on word 'effect' on EW rules.

I hear ya.

You're saying EW only makes the model immune to the effects of instant death. I'm saying one of the effects of Eternal Warrior is it ignores Instant death. So logically, if we are ignoring instant death...

WHOOPS wrong word in the wrong place, continue please...

juraigamer wrote:You're saying EW only makes the model immune to the effects of instant death. I'm saying one of the effects of instant death is it ignores FNP.

Except its not. That's why it's not listed as an effect for Instant Death.

rigeld2 wrote:

Tekik wrote:One of the effects of instant death is denies feel no pain RAW directly states that you do in fact get the Feel No Pain roll.

Absolutely false. Denying FNP is not an effect of Instant Death. You cannot cite a rule saying that it is because one doesn't exist.

To add fuel to it, and really upset people.

Last night we discussed Bone Swords Instant Death vs FNP.

After much

We decided we would call GW

On the phone they put us on hold to "discuss it amongst the team". When they came back they said they would play it that the leadership test would be done first and the instant death affect if failed would in fact kill the unit.

They also made it a point to say that there will be an upcoming FAQ including this ? !?

Thanks
Dan

Lol, call centre people are great for their jokes.

Crimson wrote:

Happyjew wrote:If the model was immune to instant death, yes. However the model is only immune to the effects of instant death.

I do not think this is a meaningfull distionction to make. Only thing that rules have is effects. To be immune to effects of a thing makes you immune to that thing.

To be immune to the effects of a poison means you're immune to the poison.
It doesn't mean you weren't poisoned though.

thisisnotpancho wrote:Eternal Warrior states that it "ignores the effects of Instant Death"

One of the "effects" of instant death is the ability to ignore FNP

ergo Eternal warriors with fnp always get it

This is wrong.
ID does NOT have the effect of removing FNP.
FNP removes itself when ID is present.
Its a FNP rule, not an ID rule.
Therefore its not an ID effect.

Thus FNP ignores ID wounds. Not the other way around.

rigeld2 wrote:
To be immune to the effects of a poison means you're immune to the poison.
It doesn't mean you weren't poisoned though.

Well it kinda does. Chocolate is toxic to dogs, but not to humans. If I were to give chocolate to my dog, he would be poisoned. However, when I eat chocolate I am not poisoned.

Your 'analogy' is patently false and misleading. In order for it to be a proper analogy it would have to be something that is poisonous to both you and your dog.

Ghaz wrote:Your 'analogy' is patently false and misleading. In order for it to be a proper analogy it would have to be something that is poisonous to both you and your dog.

If it were poisonous to me then I wouldn't be immune to it! Do you people understand what 'immune' means?

If it weren't poisonous then by your analogy it wouldn't be a hit that inflicts Instant Death.

We understand what 'immune' means perfectly well. You on the other hand are trying to make 'immune' mean 'never happened'.

Chocolate is poisonous to a human, just has to be in really high doses, too high for you to be able to eat. There is a difference between poisonous and an effective dose.

Alcohol is a good example, I can drink bottle of wine and be grand. My dog drinks half a bottle of wine and nearly dies.
I have eternal alcoholic, I still suffer the wound (the hangover) but am nothing more. The dog nearly dies (removed as a casualty).
I am immune to the toxic effects of alcohol at that doseage but I still suffer the hangover due to dehydration. If I had fnp then I would be not suffering the hangover.
Doggy isn't immune to the toxic effects.

Lets try your analogy Crimson, but lets make it fit.

making humans or dogs eat chocolate is illegal and you will go to jail for 10 years.

If you give chocolate to a dog it dies, you spend 10 years in jail for making a dog eat chocolate.

If you give chocolate to a human you still go to jail for 10 years even though the human did not die from the chocolate, because the human was immune to that particular poison.

Either way you still go to jail.

DeathReaper, your analogy does not make sense. To make sense it would have to be that poisoning someone was illegal, and the victim was immune to the poison.

I'm sure then in the court the lawyers would argue, much like we here, whether it was really a poisoning or not.

But it was not me that brought up the poison in the first place.

Crimson wrote:DeathReaper, your analogy does not make sense. To make sense it would have to be that poisoning someone was illegal, and the victim was immune to the poison.

I'm sure then in the court the lawyers would argue, much like we here, whether it was really a poisoning or not.

But it was not me that brought up the poison in the first place.

and that is why analogies should not be used in a rules debate.

Remember that the model is only immune to the effects of instant death.

Negating FNP is not an effect of instant death.

I'm including a bunch of quotes for context as I think having them all next to each other might add clarity.

Oxford English Dictionary wrote:
Inflict

verb
[with object]

cause (something unpleasant or painful) to be suffered by someone or something:
they inflicted serious injuries on three other men

(inflict something on) impose something unwelcome on:
she is wrong to inflict her beliefs on everyone else

I'm going to plug the values for what we are talking about into the above.

A wound with Instant Death causes Instant Death to be suffered by a model with Eternal Warrior

A wound with Instant Death imposes Instant Death on a model with Eternal Warrior

BRB p35 wrote:
Eternal Warrior
A model with this special rule is immune to the effects of Instnat Death

BRB p35 wrote:
Feel No Pain
...Note that Feel no Pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved wounds that inflict Instant Death

BRB pg38 wrote:
Instant Death
Unsaved Wounds inflicted by an Attack with this special rule inflict Instant Death regardless of the targets toughness.

BRB pg16 wrote:
Instant Death
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

So an Eternal Warrior is immune to the effects of instant death, the effect of the USR is to inflict instant death, feel no pain is negated when instant death is inflicted. Therefore you get a feel no pain save as Eternal Warrior makes you immune to the effects of the USR, the effect of the USR is to inflict instant death.

If it is not a rule with the USR, but is double the models toughness the effect is directly ignored (unless you are saying that it doesn't say it is immune to the instant death heading in the rulebook). For this reason you still get FnP.

Can someone who disagrees please explain how being immune the effect of Instnat Death, which is to inflict Instant Death still means that Instant Death has been inflicted.

Both the ID USR and the FnP USR use the word inflict. EW clearly makes you immune to the effects of the ID USR, which is to inflict ID, you are therefore immune to the infliction of ID and therefore can take FnP. Just reading all three USRs in question seems to make this clear, but I might be missing something.

The only other thing I've noticed is the timing argument, but as ID clearly states that it triggers when a model suffers an unsaved wound this happens simultaneously with FnP, as FnP has the caveat about wounds that inflict ID it is logical to conclude that ID must trigger before FnP in order to allow FnP to check if the unsaved wound does indeed inflict ID.

Again if I'm missing something let me know.

Instant death's effect is to remove a model as a casualty after reducing it's wounds to 0.
Instant death USR says that a wound with this usr does what pg 16 says regardless of toughness.

A wound with ID does not inflict instant death, it counts as having a strength double the models toughness. That is the effect that you ignore. So it would still be instant death, it just no longer counts as being a strength double the models toughness.

liturgies of blood wrote:Instant death's effect is to remove a model as a casualty after reducing it's wounds to 0.

Read Instant Death USR. Instant Death's effect is to inflict Instant Death.

liturgies of blood wrote:Instant death's effect is to remove a model as a casualty after reducing it's wounds to 0.

That is not the effect of the Instant Death USR, that is the effect of the Instant Death rule on page 16. The effect of the instant death USR is to inflict instant death. Given that I quoted both in my post that should be obvious.

The argument given by people saying that being immune tot eh effects of instant death does not mean instant death has not been inflicted were talking about the USR as far as I could tell. If they were talking about the rule (not a USR) on pg 16 then they are claiming a subheading is being inflicted, which does not make sense.

Did you guys read the 2nd line of that post?

The so if we are talking about the USR only then double toughness strength hits would be dealt with separately to things that have the USR.
Since the USR references the paragraph then we deal with the paragraph, which means that the effect is the outcome of the paragraph not the USR.

I didn't see the second section, nor did the Dakka board when I quoted you, I certainly didn't delete it. Maybe you added it whilst I was typing.

Are you saying that:

Unsaved Wounds inflicted by an Attack with this special rule inflict Instant Death regardless of the targets toughness.

Is not saying it inflicts instant death?

A wound with ID does not inflict instant death, it counts as having a strength double the models toughness. That is the effect that you ignore. So it would still be instant death, it just no longer counts as being a strength double the models toughness.

That's what this looks like to me. And it doesn't appear that counts as having double the models toughness is what it says, it says it inflicts instant death.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liturgies of blood wrote:Did you guys read the 2nd line of that post?

The so if we are talking about the USR only then double toughness strength hits would be dealt with separately to things that have the USR.
Since the USR references the paragraph then we deal with the paragraph, which means that the effect is the outcome of the paragraph not the USR.

The EW USR says you are immune to the effects of Instant Death. This would mean both the USR and the paragraph. As the USR says it inflicts instant death clearly wouns inflicted by, for example, a husk blade at str 3 allow FnP. If it is also immune to the effects of instant death the paragraph (which it is), then clearly it has not been inflicted (see inflict definition above, plus the two sentences that could support your argument I posted below it).

No Drager, what I am saying is that the USR is applied to a wound due to the weapon or attack having the USR.
The wound then is an ID(USR) wound, ie a wound that causes ID(pg 16) regardless of toughness.
If the effect of EW is to negate the effect of the USR then EW does not negate double strength wounds. This is plainly false. Hence EW refers to ID(pg 16)'s effect to remove as a casualty.

The effect of one is to kill your model outright, the effect of the other is to cause the wound no matter the toughness to kill your model outright.

Why should it not refer to both?

So if we proceed on the assumption that the USR ID is irrelevant to this discussion then what is the argument that ID has been inflicted? Clearly if you are immune to the effects of instant death it has not been inflicted, by the English definition of inflict quoted above. As infliction of ID is what negates FnP then you get FnP against an ID wound if you have EW.

As inflict is not a game specific term we have to go with the English definition, which also tells us that ID has not been inflicted upon something that is immune to it's effects.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liturgies of blood wrote:According to your definition, because the effect of ID(pg 16) is to remove as a casualty this would be what is ignored. The so a double strength wound still inflict ID but have it's effect negated, negating FNP?

No, it would not. It would inflict nothing. It can't inflict the paragraph heading, the only thing it can inflict is the effects, to which the model is immune.

Additionally the fact that the two would work differently is an important part of the argument. Under your argument the two work differently as being immune to Instant Death surely makes you immune to both the paragraph and the USR, thus if the paragraph still inflicts ID even though it is negated and the USR does nothing as its effect is to inflict ID and thus the infliction is negated you get a situation which does not make sense, even if it is almost (but not quite) arguable as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liturgies of blood wrote:
The effect of one is to kill your model outright, the effect of the other is to cause the wound no matter the toughness to kill your model outright.

The effect of one is to kill the model outright (this is pg16) agreed.

The effect of the other is to inflict instant death, no matter the toughness (pg38).

You keep trying to change what the USR says. I am simply reading it as written. If you argue that pg16 inflicts ID even though the removal of the model and the 0 wounds are ignored then you are arguing that double strength negates FnP, but USR FnP is not negated.

The usr causes the effect of pg 16 regardless of the model's toughness. Am I wrong?

This is wrong!

No! This is wrong!

/repeat

liturgies of blood wrote:The usr causes the effect of pg 16 regardless of the model's toughness. Am I wrong?

Its effect is that it causes instant death which is those effects.

liturgies of blood wrote:The usr causes the effect of pg 16 regardless of the model's toughness. Am I wrong?

For practical purposes that don't involve EW? That's what happens.

For RAW or any circumstances that do involve Eternal Warrior, yes, you are wrong.

As this is a RAW debate that involves EW then you are wrong.

If you think that your interpretation fo the USR is correct please give rules support as I can't see any.

Also I'd point out that the USR inflicts ID, which is crucial in this discussion as the word inflict is so central.

I'm going to sleep now. Will respond more in the morning.

T4 model is hit with S8 attack. The effect of this attack is to apply a wound and the paragraph on page 16.
Go to page 16, if it has EW you ignore the effect of ID on page 16 but the effect is not inflicting ID it is removing a model as a casualty (unless it has 0 wounds left anyway).
So the wound would still inflict a wound with ID just not it's effects. RAW.
For EW to prevent the application of ID (pg 16) it would need to prevent the effect of a double strength attack.

A dichotomy is now introduced by your logic. Where FNP cannot work from a double strength attack as it inflicts ID(pg 16) which has an effect we all agree on.

While at the same time FNP can work against an attack that has the USR because the effect of the USR is to inflict ID.

So while I am sure that the RAW reading that means that GW have messed up is probably the right one, I think the spirit of the rules is needed in this situation. No FNP against anything with the USR or double strength. Since the rules try to avoid dichotomies we look at the simplest interpretation, FNP and EW refer to pg 16 not the USR.

The answer is literally in front of your face and yet you refuse to see it...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:The usr causes the effect of pg 16 regardless of the model's toughness. Am I wrong?

Its effect is that it causes instant death which is those effects.

So wait, let me understand...the rule is its own effect? Instant Death is a rule, not an effect. The effect of ID USR is explained in the ID section, as it explains in the rule itself. Why does it tell us to refer to page 16 if it didn't have to? Please explain to me how that works because apparently I am too stupid to understand how that works. How can something be the effect of itself?

Captain Antivas wrote:

So wait, let me understand...the rule is its own effect? Instant Death is a rule, not an effect. The effect of ID USR is explained in the ID section, as it explains in the rule itself. Why does it tell us to refer to page 16 if it didn't have to? Please explain to me how that works because apparently I am too stupid to understand how that works. How can something be the effect of itself?

Because the effect is the thing. If you stop assuming that things can exist without their effects it all makes sense.

A faraday cage dampens electromagnetic signals, their effects (more or less) cannot be felt within the cage, do the signals stop existing?

liturgies of blood wrote:A faraday cage dampens electromagnetic signals, their effects (more or less) cannot be felt within the cage, do the signals stop existing?

They probably do not exist inside the cage, but I'm no expert in physics, I might be wrong.

Your argument is now that you can't feel the effect, hence it doesn't exist.
That is not what the rules say. The rule is still in play the effects are not. So EW is akin to a monsterous creature and your armour. The monster ignores your armour, the armour is still there you just don't get to put it into effect against the wound.

With ID and EW, the ID effect is ignored but ID is still in effect.

Crimson wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

So wait, let me understand...the rule is its own effect? Instant Death is a rule, not an effect. The effect of ID USR is explained in the ID section, as it explains in the rule itself. Why does it tell us to refer to page 16 if it didn't have to? Please explain to me how that works because apparently I am too stupid to understand how that works. How can something be the effect of itself?

Because the effect is the thing. If you stop assuming that things can exist without their effects it all makes sense.

The effect cannot be the thing that is insane. Instant Death is a rule and a defined gave term. The definition is found on page 16. The effects of said game term are clearly defined on page 16. This is not ambiguous, you do not get to decide what is an effect, nor do you get to decide what the effects of a rule are; the rules do that. So either show me a rule that supports you or concede. Your opinion and what you think makes sense is not relevant so keep it out of this discussion. This is a rules discussion not a philosophical discussion about how you feel about things.

Antivas, tell me what is the effect of Instant Death USR.

Think of it like this:
Unit A casts a fireball spell which has an effect of burn and stun.

Unit B is immune to the effects of the fireball spell so hence it would not be burnt nor stunned.

But the Unit B also has a skill that will be nullified when somebody casts a fireball spell on them.

Hence Unit B would still be hit by the fireball spell but just not burnt and stunned.

That is clearly defined on page 16. ID is defined on page 16. The ID USR says that a weapon with that rule inflicts ID, the pre-defined game term found on page 16, even when the strength is not 2x toughness, which is a requirement for ID to take place. Then it tells you to look at page 16 for the ID definition so you know what to do with this pre-defined game term you are now faced with. The effects of which are being reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty. Those are the effects.

And if you are immune to Instant Death USR, then such weapon do not inflict Instant Death. Inflicting Instant Death is the effect of that USR.

EW are not immune to the ID USR they are immune to the effects of the ID pre-defined game term on page 16.

Captain Antivas wrote:EW are not immune to the ID USR they are immune to the effects of the ID pre-defined game term on page 16.

How do you know? It just says immune to effects of Instant Death.

People keep saying that FnP is negated by a wound that has the ID rule. This is not true. FnP is negated by a wound that inflicts instant death. If you are immune to the effects of ID it has not been inflicted. For evidence of this look at the definition of inflict posted earlier.

To use an above posters Faraday cage example if you are in a Faraday cage and I attempt to electrocute you with a Tesla coil have I inflicted electrocution upon you? No I have not. Have I attacked you with a Tesla coil? Sure and sorry about that I wouldn't have done it if I didn't know you were safe in that cage.

If the FnP rule said FnP cannot be used to ignore an attack with the Instant Death rule, then I'd be on the other side of the fence. If it said FnP cannot be used to ignore an attack that would inflict ID, then I'd be on the other side of the fence. It doesn't. It says "Wounds that inflict Instant Death" as an Eternal Warrior wounds do not inflict instant death for any definition of inflict I know of.

So we now have people saying

1) "Immune to Instant Death" does not mean Immune to the Instant Death USR?

2) And that at least one of the following sentences is true?

A wound with Instant Death causes Instant Death to be suffered by a model with Eternal Warrior

A wound with Instant Death imposes Instant Death on a model with Eternal Warrior

If any of the above contentions are accurate please provide either rules support for 1 or any from of logical support for 2 (please note that the quotes I have used are from the Oxford English Dictionary definition of inflict, simply with ID and EW substituted for the example words).

If I am misrepresenting your position, please clarify.

Because ID is a pre-defined game term. The USR directs you to the pre-defined game term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:People keep saying that FnP is negated by a wound that has the ID rule. This is not true. FnP is negated by a wound that inflicts instant death.

I'm just going to stop you here as this is the problem. The ID USR says the weapon inflicts ID regardless of toughness. It inflicts. If EW said you ignore ID I would be on the other side of the fence but it doesn't. It only ignores the effects. ID is still inflicted by Khan when he rolls a 6, ID being a pre-defined game term has certain effects applied that you are immune to. Show me where it says that Khan loses his ability to inflict ID when you simply ignore its effects.

A model takes a wound.
The model takes it's saves
Is the wound instant death? If no go to the end, if yes continue
The wound causes instant death, is the model immune to instant death? if yes go to the end, if not continue
The model loses all wounds and dies
-----------------------------------
The model only loses one wound, and may take a feel no pain save if it has the USR.

Why? Because the EW rule states you ignore the effects of instant death. An effect of the instant death rule is it ignores FNP.

This is cut and dry. In the above example, khan swings and hits, and rolls a 6 to wound. You go through the table I made above, because while the attack is still instant death, and never stops being instant death, the ID rule doesn't affect a model with EW, or the EW models rules.

It's like saying you hit kharn with that one SW power that causes damage and the target counts as being in terrain for it's next movement phase. Kharn ignores both since he ignores the psychic power, even though one of the effects of the power is the terrain rule.

Remember, an attack never loses it's rules, the effect of it's rules on the model change.

Captain Antivas wrote:
I'm just going to stop you here as this is the problem. The ID USR says the weapon inflicts ID regardless of toughness. It inflicts. If EW said you ignore ID I would be on the other side of the fence but it doesn't. It only ignores the effects.

How so? How is ID being inflicted for any reasonable definition of inflict? Which of the Inflict related sentences is true? What definition of inflict are you using?

Captain Antivas wrote:
ID is still inflicted by Khan when he rolls a 6, ID being a pre-defined game term has certain effects applied that you are immune to. Show me where it says that Khan loses his ability to inflict ID when you simply ignore its effects.

Khan does not lose his ability, just as a bolter does not lose its ability to wound when you make an armour save. The FnP rule never once references the ability of the wounding model to cause instant death, it doesn't say a wound caused by a model that could inflict instant death. Whether Khan loses his rule or not is irrelevant, Instant Death is not inflicted. Khan attempts to inflict it and fails, not because he loses his rule, but because the EW model is immune to said infliction.

Show me where it says that Immune to Instant Death does not mean Immune to the Instant Death USR. Immune to Instant Death is all that is required to say that Khan does not inflict Instant Death when he rolls a 6.

juraigamer wrote:A model takes a wound.
The model takes it's saves
Is the wound instant death? If no go to the end, if yes continue
The wound causes instant death, is the model immune to instant death? if yes go to the end, if not continue
The model loses all wounds and dies
-----------------------------------
The model only loses one wound, and may take a feel no pain save if it has the USR.

Why? Because the EW rule states you ignore the effects of instant death. An effect of the instant death rule is it ignores FNP.

The underlined is not true.

The effects of instant death are being dropped to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty. That is it.

EW does not mention FNP being ignored as an effect of the EW rule.

Not taking FNP against wounds that cause ID is a restriction on the FNP rule.

The RAW tells us this is correct, so your way is false.

As you say:

juraigamer wrote:This is cut and dry.

juraigamer wrote:An effect of the instant death rule is it ignores FNP.

False. As has been stated numerous times before it is a restriction on Feel No Pain and not an effect of the Instant Death rule. If it were, then it would be a part of the Instant Death rule which it most clearly is not.

Drager wrote:Khan does not lose his ability, just as a bolter does not lose its ability to wound when you make an armour save. The FnP rule never once references the ability of the wounding model to cause instant death, it doesn't say a wound caused by a model that could inflict instant death. Whether Khan loses his rule or not is irrelevant, Instant Death is not inflicted. Khan attempts to inflict it and fails, not because he loses his rule, but because the EW model is immune to said infliction.

^The underlined is false, the EW model is immune to the EFFECTS of the ID rule, not immune to the ID rule, slight but important difference.

So do people seriously believe that GW did not intend EW to allow FNP when they removed the mention of EW in FNP for the sixth edition? That they instead chose to hang this entire thing on nebulous word 'effects' on EW.

Yeah, I don't think so. They intended EW to allow FNP, and that's why they changed the wording.

And Death Reaper, in the Instant Death USR, the effect clearly is incliction of Instant Death.

So you seriously believe they made you immune to the ID USR but not S>=2xT ?

RAW you remain incorrect on this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you seriously believe they made you immune to the ID USR but not S>=2xT ?

Well I don't certainly believe they intended to, nor that is how I would play, but it is quite possible that strictly speaking this might be the RAW. And as it makes no bloody sense, we are back at quessing how they actually intended it to work. I've given my reasons why I believe that they intended EW to allow FNP.

So when it makes no sense your way, the idea is you remove 2 editions of precedent? Just because?

nosferatu1001 wrote:So when it makes no sense your way, the idea is you remove 2 editions of precedent? Just because?

I don't, GW did. That's why they changed the rule.

Except, as proven, they HAVENT changed the rule

The effects of the ID USR are the entries listed under the ID rule on p16.

No change. None. You are clinging to the removal of a reminder as evidence that the rule has changed.

They removed AP restriction from FNP, and I believe they intended to restrictiction regarding instant death when EW is involved. That's why the wording has been changed.

And repeating it over and over do not change the fact that effect of Instant Death USR is clearly infliction of Instant Death.

The wording hasnt been changed. A reminder has been removed.

Your repetition that the effect of the ID USR is NOT to remove all wounds still doesnt hold any water.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The wording hasnt been changed. A reminder has been removed.

Reminder, clarification or perhaps addition? I see it as an additional restriction that has now been removed. In any case, why would they remove if if they didn't intend EW to allow FNP? This thread makes it evident that the rules are not clear without it if they intended EW not to apply.

Your repetition that the effect of the ID USR is NOT to remove all wounds still doesnt hold any water.

It is an result of an effect, which is to inflict instant death. Wording there is pretty clear.

Well if the instant death rule causes a model that ignores instant death to not be able to take feel not pain, it needs to say this, as you can't ignore half a rule unless it states so.

Still cut and dry. It's just not everyones got both pieces of bread in their hands.

If you ignore the effects of instant death, then you ignore the effect of it removing the ability to take FNP.

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The wording hasnt been changed. A reminder has been removed.

Reminder, clarification or perhaps addition? I see it as an additional restriction that has now been removed. In any case, why would they remove if if they didn't intend EW to allow FNP? This thread makes it evident that the rules are not clear without it if they intended EW not to apply.

Your repetition that the effect of the ID USR is NOT to remove all wounds still doesnt hold any water.

It is an result of an effect, which is to inflict instant death. Wording there is pretty clear.

So you're arguing intent now?

juraigamer wrote:Well if the instant death rule causes a model that ignores instant death to not be able to take feel not pain, it needs to say this, as you can't ignore half a rule unless it states so.

Still cut and dry. It's just not everyones got both pieces of bread in their hands.

If you ignore the effects of instant death, then you ignore the effect of it removing the ability to take FNP.

The rule does state so. It's in FnP, not in any ID rule (USR or page 16).

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're arguing intent now?

Yes, as always when the rules are unclear or RAW nonsensical.

I disagree that it's unclear or nonsensical - but FYI it's a good idea to clarify you're arguing intent - I might've missed it though.

I think intent matches RAW - that EW does not allow FNP when theres a double toughness wound.

Crimson - it was a reminder. Clear as day.

rigeld2 wrote:I disagree that it's unclear or nonsensical - but FYI it's a good idea to clarify you're arguing intent - I might've missed it though.

I think this thread and the poll demonstrate quite well that it is unclear. And I talked about the intent when we we started to speculate what the different wordings between editions might mean.

I think intent matches RAW - that EW does not allow FNP when theres a double toughness wound.

Wait! So you really believe that they intended EW to allow FNP against weapons with ID USR but not against double strength weapons? Because I for a moment cannot believe that this could be the intent. It is either FNP with EW or no FNP even with EW. I think it is the former, but latter is not ludicrous. Different rules depending on the source of ID however is.

I do not believe that GW intentionally builds complex hidden rules, only to be deduced by the enlightened. Usually the common sense interpretation is what they intended, and here I believe it to be that EW allows FNP. I think that is what most average people without knowledge of the prior editions of the game would conclude upon reading what is in the 6E rulebook. It is however also conceivable that they intended it to work like in prior editions, but the sentence that was present in 5E got somehow accidentally lost. They would not intentionally remove it unless they meant to change the rule.

No, either I misspoke or you misunderstood.
EW in no way shapes how FNP is resolved.
EW does not in any way reference FNP.
FNP does not in any way reference EW.

Trying to make a link is Easter egging.
Trying to say that EW allows FNP when an ID wound comes in has zero rules support - which should be obvious since you've moved to intent.

rigeld2 wrote:No, either I misspoke or you misunderstood.

You specificly mentioned double toughness strength, wound, and concept of p16 and ID USR being different has been mentioned, so that was what confused me.

EW in no way shapes how FNP is resolved.

EW does not in any way reference FNP.

FNP does not in any way reference EW.

ID affects how FNP is resolved and EW affects how ID is resolved.

Trying to make a link is Easter egging.
Trying to say that EW allows FNP when an ID wound comes in has zero rules support - which should be obvious since you've moved to intent.

I mentioned intent because the rules are unclear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And let's make one thing clear. Page 16 does not any point use words 'inflict instant death.' It is not 'if this thing happens, then instant death is inflicted and these are effects of it.'

Instead it says: 'If a model suffers an unsaved Wound from an attack that has Strength value of double of its Toughness value or greater (after modifiers), it is reduced to 0 Wounds and removed as casualty.'

Words Instant Death are not mentioned in the whole paragraph, merely in the heading. There is no separate 'Instant Death effect' to which one could be immune to. There are only two cases of Instant Death one can be Immune to. The Instant Death rule on p. 16 and Instant Death USR. Being immune to effects of either means that Instant Death cannot be inflicted upon you via them.

Crimson wrote:
ID affects how FNP is resolved and EW affects how ID is resolved.

And here's the key.
Where does IDs resolution effect FNP? Still hinging on inflict even though it's been proven to not work that way?

I mentioned intent because the rules are unclear.

Only if you are Easter egging.

rigeld2 wrote:
And here's the key.
Where does IDs resolution effect FNP? Still hinging on inflict even though it's been proven to not work that way?

Your definition of 'proof' seems to be rather forgiving in this case.
EDIT: and read my previous post that the forum decided to add to the post you quoted.

Only if you are Easter egging.

I think the poll results and many opinions in this thread reflect genuine confusion on this subject. Personally I am genuinely trying to decipher how the game makers intended this game to work. I have no models that would be affected to this either way, I am definitely not arguing this to gain some sort of an advantage in the game.

You are building bridges to nowhere and making links that don't exist to try to understand? It's clear. Let's pretend the ID USR is replaced with the Killey Death USR with the exact same wording, now what is your opinion?

The problem is that you can't seem to get over there being 2 IDs. One is a USR that is applied to a weapon, one is a pre-defined game term. ID USR amends the game term it is nit a separate rule in and of itself.

Yes, there is two: Instant Death rule on p. 16 and Instant Death USR. What there is not, is a separate instant death effect one could be immune to.
You are immune to effects of these two rules, and this means instant death cannot be inflicted upon you.

Crimson wrote:
Yes, there is two: Instant Death rule on p. 16 and Instant Death USR. What there is not, is a separate instant death effect one could be immune to.
You are immune to effects of these two rules, and this means instant death cannot be inflicted upon you.

So FNP does nothing ever?

You're trying to resolve the wound before FNP is rolled, and if it's already resolved FNP doesn't allow you to undo it.

It is 'Wound that inflicts Instant Death', not 'Wound that have inflicted Instant Death. There is no issue. It means wounds that inflict Instant Death once resolved, which happens right now because you won't get FNP. (Unless you're an Eternal Warrior, and ID cannot be inflicted.)

ID and FNP kick in at the same time, the moment you are about to apply the wounds.

rigeld2 wrote:[

juraigamer wrote:Well if the instant death rule causes a model that ignores instant death to not be able to take feel not pain, it needs to say this, as you can't ignore half a rule unless it states so.

Still cut and dry. It's just not everyones got both pieces of bread in their hands.

If you ignore the effects of instant death, then you ignore the effect of it removing the ability to take FNP.

The rule does state so. It's in FnP, not in any ID rule (USR or page 16).

Then you have a rules conflict, since EW ignores the instant death rule, but instant death disallows FNP to be taken.

You can't ignore a rule on a model and currently the rules conflict. I'm not quite sure why there is so much anger regarding this, it's pretty simple.

Then again, it ISN'T a rules conflict. Instant death states it just does what it does. The EW rule states it ignores the effects of instant death. FNP states that it cannot be taken against wounds that cause instant death. If you ignore the effects of instant death, you ignore the effect of it. This means you ignore any effect instant death causes, including but not limited to ignoring FNP.

juraigamer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:[

juraigamer wrote:Well if the instant death rule causes a model that ignores instant death to not be able to take feel not pain, it needs to say this, as you can't ignore half a rule unless it states so.

Still cut and dry. It's just not everyones got both pieces of bread in their hands.

If you ignore the effects of instant death, then you ignore the effect of it removing the ability to take FNP.

The rule does state so. It's in FnP, not in any ID rule (USR or page 16).

Then you have a rules conflict, since EW ignores the instant death rule, but instant death disallows FNP to be taken.

You can't ignore a rule on a model and currently the rules conflict. I'm not quite sure why there is so much anger regarding this, it's pretty simple.

Then again, it ISN'T a rules conflict. Instant death states it just does what it does. The EW rule states it ignores the effects of instant death. FNP states that it cannot be taken against wounds that cause instant death. If you ignore the effects of instant death, you ignore the effect of it. This means you ignore any effect instant death causes, including but not limited to ignoring FNP.

What conflict?
FNP not working on ID wounds is not an effect of Instant Death. It's a restriction on FNP.
Models that aren't slowed by difficult terrain still suffer the init drop because they moved through it.

rigeld2 wrote:
FNP not working on ID wounds is not an effect of Instant Death. It's a restriction on FNP.
Models that aren't slowed by difficult terrain still suffer the init drop because they moved through it.

But I bet that rule won't say that those models are immune to the effects of difficult terrain. 'Cause then I would damn well argue that their ini is unaffected.

I was hoping to not have to break it down so simply for you, but apparently this is not sinking in. So, here we go:

Basic Rule Book, Instant Death USR wrote:Unsaved Wounds inflicted by an Attack with this special rule automatically inflict Instant Death, regardless of the victim's toughness (see page 16).

Wounds caused with an attack that has this special rule inflict ID. It then mentions Toughness. What does Toughness have to do with it? Oh wait, because the Instant Death Rule (pre-defined game term) requires the weapon be 2X the toughness. If this is not an amendment to the earlier rule why include 2, count them 2, references to the earlier rule? If this was a stand alone rule why reference another rule? Because it modifies ID, it is not its own stand alone rule it is a rule that modifies an existing rule. Which is why it tells us to read page 16. We are not told to read page 16 for our health but for information on what Instant Death is, and what the effects of ID are.

Basic Rule Book, Feel No Pain USR wrote:Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be taken against unsaved Wounds the inflict Instant Death.

Notice the word inflict. Now go back up a quote and look at the wording there. An attack with this rule automatically inflicts ID. Inflicts. So the rule gives me permission to inflict ID. Show me a rule where I am not allowed to Inflict ID on an EW? I know what you are going to say, so I am going to say it for you. He is immune to the effects so it is not inflicted. But, it is. You see EW does not remove my ability to inflict ID, I still inflict it. How do I know this? The rule says I can. As long as the attack has this special rule I inflict ID. Show me a rule that says I cannot. And I don't want opinions or intent, I want RAW. Show me a rule that places a limit on my ability to inflict ID simply because your model refuses to die.

Basic Rule Book, Instant Death Page 16 wrote: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.

Notice the simplicity of the AND. If a weapon has 2X strength or more you a) are reduced to 0 wounds, and b) are removed as a casualty. Last time I checked two things counted as plural. Effects, there are two of them. The rule is clear. This is under the Instant Death section, and there are two things here: conditions and effects. As soon as the conditions are met the effects take place. Ignoring the effects does not mean the condition is not still met, it simply means you ignore the rest of it after the condition is met. You still suffer an unsaved Wound that would kill you outright if you were not an EW.

By your logic we would ignore the whole thing and you would not take a wound at all since the backup to not being removed as a casualty is to only suffer 1 wound. You would have us ignore the whole thing, including the unsaved wound.

Basic Rule Book, Eternal Warrior Special Rule wrote:
A model with this special rule is immune to the effects of Instant Death.

Cut and dry. Effects of ID. You do not ignore ID, but the effects.

The USR referencing other rules doesn't matter one bit. EW, is immune to effects of that USR, and effect of that USR is to make an attack to Inflict Instant Death. Stop referencing the rule effects of which EW is immune to. These effects do not happen.

I am not sure if this is the intent, I can only guess, but that certainly is RAW.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So when it makes no sense your way, the idea is you remove 2 editions of precedent? Just because?

For the past 2 editions, power weapons didn't have AP values. Now they do. Furious Charge always added +1 S and +1 I. Now it doesn't. Rules change with different editions, sometimes invalidating any previous "precedents."

4th edition rule for FNP had no mention of EW, as EW was introduced as a Universal Special Rule later on. But it also did not state models wearing Adamantine Mantles or Demonic Runes could not take a FNP save. And up until 5th edition came about, I do believe Demons were using FNP against ID wounds.

5th editon rule for EW was worded as "The model is immune to the effects of the instant death rule."

6th edition rule for EW states ""A model with this special rule is immune to the effects of instant death."

5th edition rule for FNP specifically stated that it could not be used against ID even if the model had EW.

6th edition rule for FNP has removed the previous 5th edition restriction regarding EW.

New edition. New rules changes. Thus FNP can be used against ID as long as a model has EW.

Simple enough for me.

My friends and I will play it that FNP is allowed against wounds that cause ID if the model has EW. The rules aren't really ambiguous here, but some people are grasping at straws against it anyway. I don't typically play tournaments anymore (got bored) so I don't have to worry about TOs ruling against it. If I play a pickup game against someone new, and they want to discuss it, we can, but they best have a damn good argument as to why it shouldn't be allowed, since the rulebook is pretty obvious. FNP is negated by instant death, which is negated by Eternal Warrior. A negation of a negation is a positive, therefore FNP is allowed. Math is at work people-try to keep up.
(I'm not being snide unless you disagree with me )

timetowaste85 wrote:My friends and I will play it that FNP is allowed against wounds that cause ID if the model has EW. The rules aren't really ambiguous here, but some people are grasping at straws against it anyway. I don't typically play tournaments anymore (got bored) so I don't have to worry about TOs ruling against it. If I play a pickup game against someone new, and they want to discuss it, we can, but they best have a damn good argument as to why it shouldn't be allowed, since the rulebook is pretty obvious. FNP is negated by instant death, which is negated by Eternal Warrior. A negation of a negation is a positive, therefore FNP is allowed. Math is at work people-try to keep up.
(I'm not being snide against any of the people who agree with me )

It's like you didn't even read the thread. Thanks for your opinion, however non-rules based it is.

You're right-I didn't read it-I looked at the poll and the original question and went from there. I didn't need to read the full thread, but good attempt at being condescending anyway. I addressed the rules and how I think it should be played, which is what the OP asked for. You're absolutely welcome to my opinion Rigeld, as well as how the book writes it-sorry the rules don't agree with you. Better luck next time. And, if you feel like my answer makes me too much of a smart-ass, feel free to look at your obnoxious response to my first post.

timetowaste85 wrote:You're right-I didn't read it-I looked at the poll and the original question and went from there. I didn't need to read the full thread, but good attempt at being condescending anyway. I addressed the rules and how I think it should be played, which is what the OP asked for. You're absolutely welcome to my opinion Rigeld, as well as how the book writes it-sorry the rules don't agree with you. Better luck next time. And, if you feel like my answer makes me too much of a smart-ass, feel free to look at your obnoxious response to my first post.

See, if you'd read the thread I've posted how the rules agree with me.
I'm not sure how my post was obnoxious. I said you didn't read the thread and thanked you. You admitted you didn't read the thread and treat me like I'm a jerk.

Have a good night.

Basic Rule Book, Instant Death USR wrote:
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.

Here are the effects of Instant Death.

Clearly this rule holds ID's effects. This is RAW.

This is what models with EW are immune to.

Basic Rule Book, Instant Death USR wrote:Unsaved Wounds inflicted by an Attack with this special rule automatically inflict Instant Death, regardless of the victim's toughness (see page 16).

The answer is right here.

Did you fail a save?

If yes then "this special rule automatically inflict[s] Instant Death"

So we look at ID's effects above, and we can not roll FNP.

rigeld2 wrote:
See, if you'd read the thread I've posted how the rules agree with me.

I think that part is just a bit debatable at the moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Death Reaper, you are arbitrarily declaring certain things not to be effects, and then arguing that immunity does not apply to them.

Your "thanks" came across as sarcastic because I didn't read the thread past the initial post, which is what I was answering. If you can't see the hostility in your post...I don't know what to tell you. If that wasn't your goal, I apologize (this is text based after all, emotion doesn't come through very well), but your post did come across as "well, thanks for making an uninformed opinion that doesn't agree with mine, or the rulebook." Whether or not that's how you intended it, that's how it reads. And my "view" is stated as clearly by the book as any: FNP is ignored by ID, but ID is ignored by EW. Therefore, if EW ignores ID, then anything ID ignores is no longer affected. A negative in this case cancels out a negative. That is using actual mathematical logic that is taught in algebra classes, plus information from the rulebook. So yes, my opinion is well-informed, mathematically sound, and is perfectly rule-based.

Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
See, if you'd read the thread I've posted how the rules agree with me.

I think that part is just a bit debatable at the moment.

Back to arguing rules and not intent? Found something you can cite finally?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

timetowaste85 wrote:Your "thanks" came across as sarcastic because I didn't read the thread past the initial post, which is what I was answering. If you can't see the hostility in your post...I don't know what to tell you. If that wasn't your goal, I apologize (this is text based after all, emotion doesn't come through very well), but your post did come across as "well, thanks for making an uninformed opinion that doesn't agree with mine, or the rulebook." Whether or not that's how you intended it, that's how it reads. And my "view" is stated as clearly by the book as any: FNP is ignored by ID, but ID is ignored by EW. Therefore, if EW ignores ID, then anything ID ignores is no longer affected. A negative in this case cancels out a negative. That is using actual mathematical logic that is taught in algebra classes, plus information from the rulebook. So yes, my opinion is well-informed, mathematically sound, and is perfectly rule-based.

You really should read the thread.

EW ignores the effects of ID - ID is still inflicted, it just doesn't have it's effect.
EW does not affect how FNP is processed. How can it when neither rule mentions the other?

Crimson wrote:Death Reaper, you are arbitrarily declaring certain things not to be effects

And you're arbitrarily arguing that the cause is a part of the effect.

timetowaste85 wrote:ID is ignored by EW.

Please stop saying this, it is not true.

ID is not ignored by EW.

EW only ignores the EFFECTS of ID, it does not ignore ID

Crimson wrote:Death Reaper, you are arbitrarily declaring certain things not to be effects, and then arguing that immunity does not apply to them.

Actually the ID rule has declared its effects, I have not.

ID specifically says what its effects are. re-read Page 16. it says:

Basic Rule Book, Instant Death Page 16 wrote:
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.

But you're still ignoring ID USR, Death Reaper.

Crimson wrote:But you're still ignoring ID USR, Death Reaper.

How so?

ID says:

Basic Rule Book, Instant Death USR wrote:
Unsaved Wounds inflicted by an Attack with this special rule automatically inflict Instant Death, regardless of the victim's toughness (see page 16).

it says unsaved wounds ... inflict ID. and refers you to P.16 to see what the effects of Instant Death are.

Nothing ignored, because you have to see what the effects of the ID rule are

timetowaste85 wrote:You're right-I didn't read it-I looked at the poll and the original question and went from there. I didn't need to read the full thread, but good attempt at being condescending anyway. I addressed the rules and how I think it should be played, which is what the OP asked for. You're absolutely welcome to my opinion Rigeld, as well as how the book writes it-sorry the rules don't agree with you. Better luck next time. And, if you feel like my answer makes me too much of a smart-ass, feel free to look at your obnoxious response to my first post.

As I have said many times your opinion is not important or relevant here. I could not possibly care any less about how you feel it should be played or what you think the rule says. Cite a rule to support your claim or keep it to yourself. This is a rules debate about what is there not a philosophical debate about how you feel the rules should be. Now, all these rules that prove you right, show me them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:But you're still ignoring ID USR, Death Reaper.

You are ignoring my point made. You are doing the classic move of ignoring the parts that prove you wrong and clinging for dear life to the ambiguous parts that let you sleep at night thinking there is the chance that you are right. Address what I said and stop distracting. Why would the USR reference the earlier rule if it is self contained? Why would they reference another rule twice if the two are separate? Why would the USR mention toughness if the rule just killed a model and wasn't referring to the earlier rule?

Captain Antivas wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:You're right-I didn't read it-I looked at the poll and the original question and went from there. I didn't need to read the full thread, but good attempt at being condescending anyway. I addressed the rules and how I think it should be played, which is what the OP asked for. You're absolutely welcome to my opinion Rigeld, as well as how the book writes it-sorry the rules don't agree with you. Better luck next time. And, if you feel like my answer makes me too much of a smart-ass, feel free to look at your obnoxious response to my first post.

As I have said many times your opinion is not important or relevant here. I could not possibly care any less about how you feel it should be played or what you think the rule says. Cite a rule to support your claim or keep it to yourself. This is a rules debate about what is there not a philosophical debate about how you feel the rules should be. Now, all these rules that prove you right, show me them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:But you're still ignoring ID USR, Death Reaper.

You are ignoring my point made. You are doing the classic move of ignoring the parts that prove you wrong and clinging for dear life to the ambiguous parts that let you sleep at night thinking there is the chance that you are right. Address what I said and stop distracting. Why would the USR reference the earlier rule if it is self contained? Why would they reference another rule twice if the two are separate? Why would the USR mention toughness if the rule just killed a model and wasn't referring to the earlier rule?

What people think the rules say is actually the whole point of a YMDC forum-it's not "Captain Antivas's awesome rules that everyone has to STFU and accept" forum. Congrats on the pathetic arrogance though-you've made it to a select group that only one other person had the pleasure of being part of.

DeathReaper wrote:
ID says:

Basic Rule Book, Instant Death USR wrote:
Unsaved Wounds inflicted by an Attack with this special rule automatically inflict Instant Death, regardless of the victim's toughness (see page 16).

it says unsaved wounds ... inflict ID. and refers you to P.16 to see what the effects of Instant Death are.

Nothing ignored, because you have to see what the effects of the ID rule are

Effect of USR is to inflict ID (Yes, details of which can be found elsewhere, but that doesn't matter.) If you are immune to that USR's effects, then the infliction never happens. And if they didn't mean that, then they shouln't have called that USR Instant Death. It should've been 'Deathblow' or something.

I'm going to ask this for the third time as its a central issue and maybe I was being unclear as no one seems to want to answer it.

Those saying EWs are denied FnP by ID, what definition of inflict are you using? I do not disagree with most of what your saying, but we come to opposite conclusions, largely based on this I think.

juraigamer wrote:A model takes a wound.
The model takes it's saves
Is the wound instant death? If no go to the end, if yes continue
The wound causes instant death, is the model immune to instant death? if yes go to the end, if not continue
The model loses all wounds and dies
-----------------------------------
The model only loses one wound, and may take a feel no pain save if it has the USR.

Why? Because the EW rule states you ignore the effects of instant death. An effect of the instant death rule is it ignores FNP.

This is cut and dry. In the above example, khan swings and hits, and rolls a 6 to wound. You go through the table I made above, because while the attack is still instant death, and never stops being instant death, the ID rule doesn't affect a model with EW, or the EW models rules.

It's like saying you hit kharn with that one SW power that causes damage and the target counts as being in terrain for it's next movement phase. Kharn ignores both since he ignores the psychic power, even though one of the effects of the power is the terrain rule.

Remember, an attack never loses it's rules, the effect of it's rules on the model change.

No it's a condition of feel no pain. Not an effect of instant death.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:I'm going to ask this for the third time as its a central issue and maybe I was being unclear as no one seems to want to answer it.

Those saying EWs are denied FnP by ID, what definition of inflict are you using? I do not disagree with most of what your saying, but we come to opposite conclusions, largely based on this I think.

In my mind FNP refers to page 16, because that is how and unsaved wound inflict ID.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
ID says:

Basic Rule Book, Instant Death USR wrote:
Unsaved Wounds inflicted by an Attack with this special rule automatically inflict Instant Death, regardless of the victim's toughness (see page 16).

it says unsaved wounds ... inflict ID. and refers you to P.16 to see what the effects of Instant Death are.

Nothing ignored, because you have to see what the effects of the ID rule are

Effect of USR is to inflict ID (Yes, details of which can be found elsewhere, but that doesn't matter.) If you are immune to that USR's effects, then the infliction never happens. And if they didn't mean that, then they shouln't have called that USR Instant Death. It should've been 'Deathblow' or something.

If you are saying that EW ignores the effect of the USR then you are back to the issue that I brought up and a false dichotomy of FNP works against some attacks that reference page 16 but not others when you have EW.
You have chosen to ignore the issue of double strength wounds inflict ID because it is awkward in your case.

timetowaste85 wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:As I have said many times your opinion is not important or relevant here. I could not possibly care any less about how you feel it should be played or what you think the rule says. Cite a rule to support your claim or keep it to yourself. This is a rules debate about what is there not a philosophical debate about how you feel the rules should be. Now, all these rules that prove you right, show me.

What people think the rules say is actually the whole point of a YMDC forum-it's not "Captain Antivas's awesome rules that everyone has to STFU and accept" forum. Congrats on the pathetic arrogance though-you've made it to a select group that only one other person had the pleasure of being part of.

This made me giggle and literally made my day, thank you for that. I think we should rename it to Captain Antivas' Awesome Rules That Everyone Has To STFU And Accept. I like it! And what select group am I in? I didn't even get a letter so if I win the internets I would like to know about it!

BTW, and since we are on the topic, I highly recommend you read over the rules of this forum. It might clear up a few apparent misunderstandings about how the forums work and what the purpose is. You know, to help you not look silly or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:I'm going to ask this for the third time as its a central issue and maybe I was being unclear as no one seems to want to answer it.

Those saying EWs are denied FnP by ID, what definition of inflict are you using? I do not disagree with most of what your saying, but we come to opposite conclusions, largely based on this I think.

I am using inflict as it is used in the basic rulebook. A weapon with this special rule automatically inflicts ID regardless of toughness. That then gives us an understanding about how ID is inflicted normally, which is when the condition exists that the weapon is 2x str. Until you show me a rule that states it removes my ability to inflict ID, or a rule that proves ID is the effect of ID, then you must concede. RAW is clear. It inflicts when the conditions exist to let it inflict.

Lets see how this plays out if you replace ID wounds with Red Bullets

EW - ignore the effects of red bullets
Red - Red bullets kill the model
FNP - 5+ save on bullets that arent Red

This means that there is no FNP for Red bullets but it doesn't kill the model, because the red bullets are still red.

If EW stated bullets are treated as normal bullets, then you would get FNP.

So my call is that you don't get a FNP save against red bullets. (and probably not ID wounds either)

Captain Antivas wrote:
I am using inflict as it is used in the basic rulebook.

This is a context, not a definition, if there is a definition in the BRB then please point me to it, else please tell me what definition of inflict you are using. Mine is quoted earlier from the OED.

Captain Antivas wrote:
A weapon with this special rule automatically inflicts ID regardless of toughness.

That is from the USR. I agree that this tells us when to inflict ID. I also contend that that infliction cannot occur due to it being an effect of ID.

Captain Antivas wrote:
That then gives us an understanding about how ID is inflicted normally, which is when the condition exists that the weapon is 2x str.

Absolutely agree here as well. Therefore in context and using the OED definition of inflict infliction of ID is an effect of the ID rule, which is modified by the USR mentioned above. Eternal Warrior makes you immune to the effects of both.

Captain Antivas wrote:
Until you show me a rule that states it removes my ability to inflict ID,

I agree that it does not remove that ability. It also does not need to, if you disagree with this please show me rules support for that position. FnP does not say that it may not be taken against wounds with the instant death special rule, it says wounds that inflict Instant Death.

Captain Antivas wrote:
or a rule that proves ID is the effect of ID, then you must concede.

Please note I have since I started posting been in agreement that infliction of ID and ID are different things. ID is not the effect of ID, infliction of ID is.

Infliction of ID is the effect of ID, absolutley 100% true of the USR as it is stated and by basic English understanding of the word infllict this is true of the general pg 16 rule as well.

Negation of FnP is not decided based on whether it is a wound that has the ID rule, it is decided based on whther the wound inflicts ID.

Captain Antivas wrote:RAW is clear.

I think so too. I also think that EW allows FnP.

As I am assuming you and the others who disagree are all intelligent people, then logically I must conclude that we are both wrong as although you and I both see things with clarity we disagree and thus that clarity must be false for us both. It is therefore an unclear rule, even though it does not seem so to you or I.

Captain Antivas wrote:It inflicts when the conditions exist to let it inflict.

Yep, but until I know what your definition of Inflict is that sentence is ambiguous. I agree with it. The rpesence of EW is inimical to the infliction of ID and therefore such conditions never exist against an ID model.

RFHolloway wrote:Lets see how this plays out if you replace ID wounds with Red Bullets

OK I'll play along.

EW - ignore the effects of red bullets
Red - Red bullets kill the model
FNP - 5+ save on bullets, except those that would inflict death due to being read.

This means that there is FNP for Red bullets as it doesn't kill the model, although the red bullets are still red.

If FnP stated 5+ save on bullets that arent Red, then you would not get FNP.

So my call is that you get a FNP save against red bullets. (and probably ID wounds as well)

I'll respond a little less flippantly below.

RFHolloway wrote:
EW - ignore the effects of red bullets

Agreed

RFHolloway wrote:
Red - Red bullets kill the model

Yup.

RFHolloway wrote:
FNP - 5+ save on bullets that arent Red

This is not what FnP says, it says that you don't get a save when Instant Death is inflicted, this is not the same as not getting a save against something with the instant death rule.

This means that there is no FNP for Red bullets but it doesn't kill the model, because the red bullets are still red.

RFHolloway wrote:
If EW stated bullets are treated as normal bullets, then you would get FNP.

You would, just as you do now. This would be a change, but not a significant one for this debate, as it is the wording of FnP that matters more than EW.

RFHolloway wrote:
So my call is that you don't get a FNP save against red bullets. (and probably not ID wounds either)

I disagree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liturgies of blood wrote:
If you are saying that EW ignores the effect of the USR then you are back to the issue that I brought up and a false dichotomy of FNP works against some attacks that reference page 16 but not others when you have EW.
You have chosen to ignore the issue of double strength wounds inflict ID because it is awkward in your case.

That is the inevitable path which thinking that EW does not allow FnP leads you to though. The only consistent interpretation is that FnP is allowed for EW models, otherwise you get inconsistent effects depending on whether it is double strength or USR.

I don't need a definition. FNP cannot be taken against a wound that inflicts ID. The USR says I inflict ID regardless of toughness. I inflict ID. You are creating a false dichotomy to prove your point and that is a fallacy.

In a situation with two possible interpretations the best method is to assume the simplest interpretation. Your interpretation results in mass confusion as half of the times ID is inflicted it is ignored. My interpretation results in a clear flow of the game. Which do you REALLY think makes more sense?This is not an intent argument, BTW. I don't argue intent anymore. This is simply a matter of interpreting the RAW. It is unclear.

Drager wrote:FNP - 5+ save on bullets, except those that would inflict death due to being read.
.

If you can read the bullet, it is obviously moving slow enough, that I'll allow you an Initiative test to dodge the bullet first.


Out of idle curiosity, when EW says you ignore the effects of Instant Death, do you consider that to be the USR Instant Death, or the generic Instant Death rule?

What about weapons that when they wound inflict instant death (i.e Bonesabres)?

Drager wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:
If you are saying that EW ignores the effect of the USR then you are back to the issue that I brought up and a false dichotomy of FNP works against some attacks that reference page 16 but not others when you have EW.
You have chosen to ignore the issue of double strength wounds inflict ID because it is awkward in your case.

That is the inevitable path which thinking that EW does not allow FnP leads you to though. The only consistent interpretation is that FnP is allowed for EW models, otherwise you get inconsistent effects depending on whether it is double strength or USR.

False. If there are two ID Special Rules then we have to consider both of them when determining when FNP can be taken. One, the entry on page 16, has undeniable effects; being reduced to 0 wounds and being removed as a casualty. These are ignored and the ID is still inflicted as my weapon is still 2X your toughness, so no FNP. The other, the USR, has (as you say and I disagree) the effect that ID is inflicted, which gets ignored by EW. So now ID is not inflicted (even though it says it is, but whatever makes you feel better) and FNP can be taken. Two situations with different results. Yes, that clearly makes sense.

And I am sorry but "To avoid confusion just let me win" is not a valid argument.