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.

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