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.

forkbanger wrote:Both Acid Blood and Feel no Pain trigger have the same trigger- 'upon suffering an unsaved wound'.

Each wound inflicted and not saved by an armour/invulnerable save would cause both effects- an Initiative test from the Acid Blood and a Feel No Pain roll from Catalyst.

If you want to apply them sequentially (i.e. FNP and then Acid Blood from remaining wounds), there's no reason they can't be applied in the reverse order (Acid Blood and then FNP).

Acid blood does not say 'upon suffering an unsaved wound', FNP does. So upon suffering an unsaved wound FNP triggers if it passes it is ignored. Acid blood says for every unsaved wound.... which means that after all saves are taken you count up the unsaved wounds, since FNP says it is ignored if passed you ignore the wounds entirely.

The only reason FNP is not a save is to ignore the 'Take your best save' shenanigans.

Unsaved wound = wound that a save did not prevent.

FNP is not a save. (bgb page 20, 24, 39, 75)

forkbanger wrote:Why do you think Feel no Pain happens before Acid Blood?

Because you have to suffer a wound for acid blood to take effect.

Ignoring a wound due to FNP would not be suffering a wound.

Since P.15 says 'Remove casualties. The target unit suffers casualties for any wounds that have not been saved."

Unsaved wound = Casualty (A reduction of the Wound characteristic)

DeathReaper wrote:
Ignoring a wound due to FNP would not be suffering a wound.

Yes, it would. You may suffer a wound and ignore it's effects. The model was wounded, and didn't care! The wound was enough to be considered a wound by any normal being but not enough to remove a wound from the models characteristics. It's bleeding, there is a hole, you can see the wound, but the guy who suffered it simply. Doesnt. Care. It happened, and he ignored it. I don't know of any more logical or reasonable way to explain it.

DeathReaper wrote:Because you have to suffer a wound for acid blood to take effect.

You have to suffer a wound for Feel no Pain to take effect.
Why does that happen first?

Words-
Acid Blood: For every unsaved wound a model with acid blood suffers in close combat, the enemy unit that struck the blow must pass an initiative test or suffer a wound.
Feel no Pain: If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice. On a...

DeathReaper wrote:Since P.15 says 'Remove casualties. The target unit suffers casualties for any wounds that have not been saved."

p24, where there's more than a summary sentence. "For every model that fails it's save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." Casualties are removed after that determination. That determination is also the point where Feel no Pain and Acid Blood happen, and there's no order in which they resolve.

DeathReaper wrote:
Because you have to suffer a wound for acid blood to take effect.

This is true for FNP as well, you realize.

Monster Rain wrote:What won't be able to be explained, I guess, is why it counts for AB and not combat resolution.

Because the combat resolution rules specifically define what is and is not used for determining it, where as acid blood simply says "unsaved wounds" and makes absolutely no note about special rules that may allow the ignoring of wounds.

As such, I would say that acid blood would still fire off against all unsaved wounds (up to the maximum wound characteristic of the model) regardless of FNP rolls succeeded. But FNP does counter combat resolution because combat resolution rules say that it does.

Two effects, same trigger, both are viable and both should happen. Just because the wound is ignored does not mean it was not inflicted.

forkbanger wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Because you have to suffer a wound for acid blood to take effect.

You have to suffer a wound for Feel no Pain to take effect.
Why does that happen first?

Words-
Acid Blood: For every unsaved wound a model with acid blood suffers in close combat, the enemy unit that struck the blow must pass an initiative test or suffer a wound.
Feel no Pain: If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice. On a...

DeathReaper wrote:Since P.15 says 'Remove casualties. The target unit suffers casualties for any wounds that have not been saved."

p24, where there's more than a summary sentence. "For every model that fails it's save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." Casualties are removed after that determination. That determination is also the point where Feel no Pain and Acid Blood happen, and there's no order in which they resolve.

If you Ignore a wound through FNP, then no effects can trigger from it, if they did you would not be ignoring the wound.

DeathReaper wrote:If you Ignore a wound through FNP

then you have suffered an unsaved wound and all effects that trigger when that occurs do so, including FNP.

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:If you Ignore a wound through FNP

then you have suffered an unsaved wound and all effects that trigger when that occurs do so, including FNP.

I can see why people think this.

I can see why some do not.


as usual GW not 100% clear on the writing of the rules.

DeathReaper wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:If you Ignore a wound through FNP

then you have suffered an unsaved wound and all effects that trigger when that occurs do so, including FNP.

I can see why people think this.

I can see why some do not.


as usual GW not 100% clear on the writing of the rules.

I will not defend GW's writing of the rules but I don't see and lack of clarity in this particular situation. It seems clear cut to me.

Aldarionn wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:If you Ignore a wound through FNP

then you have suffered an unsaved wound and all effects that trigger when that occurs do so, including FNP.

I can see why people think this.

I can see why some do not.


as usual GW not 100% clear on the writing of the rules.

I will not defend GW's writing of the rules but I don't see and lack of clarity in this particular situation. It seems clear cut to me.

It seems clear to you?

It does not seem clear to me.

FNP lets you Ignore a wound, and having an effect that triggers off an Ignored wound would not be ignoring the wound...

Catch 22 anyone?

If you Ignore a wound through FNP, then no effects can trigger from it

Which means you couldn't have taken a FnP roll...

If you are claiming that a wound that is suffered after FnP is when you check for unsaved wounds then they trigger FnP again, this way a model with FnP would be immortal to non-armour ignoring or IDing weapons. This is the issue with your interpretation RaW. Saying you check for unsaved wounds after FnP means that FnP is triggered again as it is triggered when you check for unsaved wounds.

Lets be honest here the RaW is very clear the 2 rules have the same trigger therefore it is impossible for one rule to prevent the other rule from occuring. As soon as you are saying we are triggering FnP yopu must also be triggering Acid Blood.

However if this is ever FaQ'd GW will clearly rule that passing FnP would cancel AB and Lemartes rule. It is a case where their intention is clear but their rule writing doesn't follow suite.

FlingitNow wrote:

If you Ignore a wound through FNP, then no effects can trigger from it

Which means you couldn't have taken a FnP roll...

If you are claiming that a wound that is suffered after FnP is when you check for unsaved wounds then they trigger FnP again, this way a model with FnP would be immortal to non-armour ignoring or IDing weapons. This is the issue with your interpretation RaW. Saying you check for unsaved wounds after FnP means that FnP is triggered again as it is triggered when you check for unsaved wounds.

Lets be honest here the RaW is very clear the 2 rules have the same trigger therefore it is impossible for one rule to prevent the other rule from occuring. As soon as you are saying we are triggering FnP yopu must also be triggering Acid Blood.

However if this is ever FaQ'd GW will clearly rule that passing FnP would cancel AB and Lemartes rule. It is a case where their intention is clear but their rule writing doesn't follow suite.

Which means FNP is the ONLY thing that could have triggered from it. since after that point it is ignored.

Since when did WH40K become Magic: The Gathering? Do we need a stacking order for this?

Let's look at FNP's wording, it's actually right at the beginning:

"..If a model with this ability 'suffers an unsaved wound',..." (my emphasis)

Okay, so this written as is, tells us the model "has to" suffer an unsaved wound in order to roll for the effects of FNP.

Because you're not going to roll FNP against a saved wound, makes no sense. FNP is purely a mind over matter special rule. Perfect example, ever been cut or punched and you didn't feel it, or didn't feel it as much until later? Reason is adrenaline. This pulls your focus away from the injury and allows you to stay on your feet and take care what you need to, it's a natural defense mechanism. Doesn't mean you didn't get hurt, just means you're "ignoring" the injury. Which is exactly what FNP does, you didn't NOT get wounded, you did, you're just ignoring it.

Unsaved Wound = Yes.

So, Acid Blood states if a model takes an "unsaved wound", then inflicting model takes an initiative test.

Unsaved Wound = Yes.

Acid Blood Triggers = Yes.

The fact that your ignoring an injury which is what the FNP USR states, not that your ignoring the wound, but the injury. Which in terms of game play means you're not taking the wound off the model because the character in a sense is not reacting to it like he normally would.

This is not another save throw and I don't know where that even came up. If I cut you, you're going to bleed, now whether you fall to the ground crying and holding the wound, or choose to ignore it and smash my head into the wall is how FNP is really meant to work. You're still bleeding even if you smash my head into the wall, the wound is still there, you're just ignoring it.

So lets apply this to the topic at hand, you cut a Tyranid creature with acid blood, it's pissed off and has it's own version of adrenaline (I'm sure they would considering their evolution based methods of spawning), the Tyranid ignores the injury, but is still cut, there for his Acid Blood would still be spraying out forcing the afflicting enemy to react to it.

I really don't know why this is so complicated. GW even says they know they can't make rules for every single situation.

So yes, 5 Unsaved Wounds, 3 shrugged off and 2 making their mark would mean 5 Initiative rolls.

Simple logic, why rule lawyer this to death?

Oh well, just my thought process. Enjoy!

FlingitNow wrote:
However if this is ever FaQ'd GW will clearly rule that passing FnP would cancel AB and Lemartes rule. It is a case where their intention is clear but their rule writing doesn't follow suite.

Actually I don't agree with you here. I think it's actually working as intended. Would it not be safe to assume that even though a MC is ignoring an injury, that it is still bleeding? If it's blood were acid, don't you think that would be hazardous to the unit that inflicted the wound? The wound did not magically close, it is still there and bleeding, the model is just ignoring it.

Seems to make sense to me.

Aldarionn wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:
However if this is ever FaQ'd GW will clearly rule that passing FnP would cancel AB and Lemartes rule. It is a case where their intention is clear but their rule writing doesn't follow suite.

Actually I don't agree with you here. I think it's actually working as intended. Would it not be safe to assume that even though a MC is ignoring an injury, that it is still bleeding? If it's blood were acid, don't you think that would be hazardous to the unit that inflicted the wound? The wound did not magically close, it is still there and bleeding, the model is just ignoring it.

Seems to make sense to me.

Isn't that what I just said? lol

No one reads my posts. >_<

DeathReaper wrote:
Which means FNP is the ONLY thing that could have triggered from it. since after that point it is ignored.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

If something happens simultaneously, how does one happen before the other?

And you keep saying that Ignoring the wound makes it not happen. Just because you ignore something, doesn't mean it didn't happen. You could break a vase and ignore it. It doesn't put the vase back together again.

Aldarionn wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:
However if this is ever FaQ'd GW will clearly rule that passing FnP would cancel AB and Lemartes rule. It is a case where their intention is clear but their rule writing doesn't follow suite.

Actually I don't agree with you here. I think it's actually working as intended. Would it not be safe to assume that even though a MC is ignoring an injury, that it is still bleeding? If it's blood were acid, don't you think that would be hazardous to the unit that inflicted the wound? The wound did not magically close, it is still there and bleeding, the model is just ignoring it.

Seems to make sense to me.

It is not safe to assume' that even though a MC is ignoring an injury, that it is still bleeding?' If this were the case there should be bleed rules to govern this.

The Xeno could have some sort of fast healing ability that makes wounds close the instant they are inflicted, this along with regeneration of wounds that were grievous enough to stick would make for one powerful hive fleet.

But I will not get into the heretical properties of Xeno creatures.

GW's rules are unclear as usual.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Which means FNP is the ONLY thing that could have triggered from it. since after that point it is ignored.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

If something happens simultaneously, how does one happen before the other?

And you keep saying that Ignoring the wound makes it not happen. Just because you ignore something, doesn't mean it didn't happen. You could break a vase and ignore it. It doesn't put the vase back together again.

and it also does not trigger a beating from your mother for breaking it, because the vase is ignored.

DeathReaper wrote:

puma713 wrote:
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

If something happens simultaneously, how does one happen before the other?

And you keep saying that Ignoring the wound makes it not happen. Just because you ignore something, doesn't mean it didn't happen. You could break a vase and ignore it. It doesn't put the vase back together again.

and it also does not trigger a beating from your mother for breaking it, because the vase is ignored.

It may. Just because you ignore the vase, doesn't mean she does. Hence, just because you ignore the wound (FNP) doesn't mean the enemy does (AB). See what I did there?

Anyway, you still completely dodged the question above.

puma713 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

puma713 wrote:
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

If something happens simultaneously, how does one happen before the other?

And you keep saying that Ignoring the wound makes it not happen. Just because you ignore something, doesn't mean it didn't happen. You could break a vase and ignore it. It doesn't put the vase back together again.

and it also does not trigger a beating from your mother for breaking it, because the vase is ignored.

It may. Just because you ignore the vase, doesn't mean she does. Hence, just because you ignore the wound (FNP) doesn't mean the enemy does (AB). See what I did there?

Anyway, you still completely dodged the question above.

as for something happening simultaneously, you would have to check for FNP since it will 'save' your model from death.

DeathReaper wrote:

puma713 wrote:
Anyway, you still completely dodged the question above.

as for something happening simultaneously, you would have to check for FNP since it will 'save' your model from death.

Then it's not simultaneous, is it?

DeathReaper wrote:It is not safe to assume' that even though a MC is ignoring an injury, that it is still bleeding?' If this were the case there should be bleed rules to govern this.

The Xeno could have some sort of fast healing ability that makes wounds close the instant they are inflicted, this along with regeneration of wounds that were grievous enough to stick would make for one powerful hive fleet.

But I will not get into the heretical properties of Xeno creatures.

GW's rules are unclear as usual.

Uhm...Carnifex "Regeneration" Special Rule anyone?

I mean really, you think you can stab something with a knife, have it go inside of their flesh and have them not bleed? I think we call them Necrons. They just re-assemble.

And the "bleeding" rule is Acid Blood. Are you really trying to make a point or just be argumentative?

DeathReaper wrote:as for something happening simultaneously, you would have to check for FNP since it will 'save' your model from death.

It saves the model from the "injury" not the wound.

Since FNP and Acid Blood are triggered simultaneously by the exact same conditions, wounds eligible for FNP rolls are counted for Acid Blood. YMMV

However, 40K has no guidance for timing/stacking issues like these, unlike some other rulesets.

Scott-S6 wrote:Since FNP and Acid Blood are triggered simultaneously by the exact same conditions, wounds eligible for FNP rolls are counted for Acid Blood. YMMV

However, 40K has no guidance for timing/stacking issues like these, unlike some other rulesets.

This is most clear and concise way to summarize this entire thread.

Furthermore, in order for wounds eligible for FNP to NOT trigger Acid Blood, FNP would have to be resolved entirely before Acid Blood is triggered.

There is no language in either rule to suggest this.

If acid blood was triggered by casualties, for example, then FNP would resolve before acid blood was triggered.

by that logic, Lemartes can be uninjured and still suffer an unsaved wound...

Lemartes rule is "Fury Unbound: If a foe harms lemartes, the chaplains rage grows stronger for the provocation. If lemartes suffers an unsaved wound, but is not slain, his..."

I.E. you have to reduce your wound characteristic by one to have suffered a wound.

Unsaved wounds are inflicted. Then casualties are removed.

FNP happens between these two stages as it is triggered by the inflicting of an unsaved wound. Acid Blood and Fury Unbound are both triggered at this point also.

It would make sense for FNP to have priority over other effects but 40K does not have event stacking or timing in the ruleset.

Does FNP engage when the saving throw is failed, creating an unsaved wound? Or when the wound is applied to the profile (and the model is immediately removed if it is single wound)?

If it's the latter then FNP doesn't function for single-wound models. If it's the former then Acid Blood and Fury Unbound can be triggered by wounds that are negated by FNP.

You seem to be arguing that FNP is triggered when the saves are failed but Acid Blood and Fury Unbound aren't triggered until the wound stat is adjusted. This would be incorrect since all three are triggered by the exact same thing.

A 1 wound model has not suffered a wound if they are not a casualty.

A multiple wound model has not suffered a wound if they have not reduced their wound characteristic.

Wound = Injury.

If you Ignore the wound, you have not suffered a wound.

DeathReaper wrote:A 1 wound model has not suffered a wound if they are not a casualty.

Only if you ignore later rules that specify they apply after unsaved wounds, like FNP (and by extension AB).

Your page references?