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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

Andrew

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

Andrew

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

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

Jidmah wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Injury in this context is referring to the aforementioned wound.

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

AndrewC wrote:

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

But to who?...Andrew

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

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

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

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

Jidmah wrote:Ignored and never happened is the same.

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

Round and round we go.

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

DeathReaper wrote:

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

AndrewC wrote:

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

But to who?...Andrew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sniper weapons are pinning weapons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saldiven wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

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

AndrewC wrote:

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

But to who?...Andrew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

time wizard wrote:

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

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

Sniper weapons are pinning weapons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Timewizard has a good point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since we are ignoring it we pretend it never happened.

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

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

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

Does the blood angle player still take the pinning test?

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

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

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

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

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Does the blood angle player still take the pinning test?

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

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

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

Cheers

Andrew

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

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

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

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

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

Answer this question: Did you take an unsaved wound?

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

GW proof reading at its' best.

Cheers

Andrew