Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Beast:

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

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

Beast:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beast:

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

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

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

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


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

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

Of course it doesn't.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes but my response was to you saying

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

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

DaIronGob:

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

The question is how, exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DaIronGob wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like the bullet analogy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beast:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So how about this example.

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

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

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

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

This is a good way to look at this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This argument is invalidated but Kinetics.

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

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

The vest does not stop the knockdown effect.

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

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

helgrenze wrote:

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

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

helgrenze wrote:

Same thing with the bullet analogy.

This argument is invalidated but Kinetics.

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

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

The vest does not stop the knockdown effect.

Agreed.

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


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

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

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

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

Shall we get back to talking about the following rules?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traskel:

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

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

Nurglitch wrote:Traskel:

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

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

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

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

Traskel:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traskel:

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

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

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

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

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

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