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.

Dashofpepper wrote:

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

Again, this is patently false.

Its only false if you do not know what Ignore means.

As for the pinning test, you can not suffer an unsaved wound if you are ignoring said wound.

So, no pinning test if no model is removed, or actually wounded.

AndrewC wrote: 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 Cover Saves Invulnerable Saves
Step 5a Apply a special rule that might negate removing a wound or damage from the model's profile
Step 6 Apply the wound and remove the Casualty if the removal is warranted by reducing the model to 0 remaining wounds.

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

You can't oversimplify the process and declare it to be all encompassing.
Clearly, my ammendations show that 'wounds' are referenced in steps 4, 5a and 6.

Props to all, this has been a fun read that was generally kept civil. Gratz.

As for the rule, it seems to be what your definition of "ignore" means to you. Gratz to GW for another great rule to debate over beer.

I fall on the side that says if I'm ignoring it, then I'm ignoring it all the way and don't have to take the hex test.

time wizard wrote:[You can't oversimplify the process and declare it to be all encompassing.
Clearly, my ammendations show that 'wounds' are referenced in steps 4, 5a and 6.

Why isn't there a confused orkmoticon?.

Time, I was talking about how the special rules for Tau Pulse Carbines, written in last edition, merge with this editions rules. I wasn't referencing any others, such as pinning or HR.

Does that make more sense now?

Cheers

Andrew

Galador wrote: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.

By rolling for hex rifle you pay attention to what happened and you are acknowledging it. If you ever do anything because of this wound you are not ignoring it, and thus violating the rules.
Also ignoring rerolled dice and terrain rolls has not been refuted. Just because you ignore the terrain does not mean you ignore terrain rolls by the common logic of the pro-hex rifle camp. You still passed through terrain, even though you ignore the terrain itself.

Rymafyr wrote:

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.

It removes it's own trigger, which is perfectly functional. As there is no longer an unsaved wound, you wouldn't roll FNP again. How is this flawed? Do you get stuck in endless rolls for FNP when playing until you fail a roll, even though the wound is gone?

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.

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.

Actually the shooting rules do. BRB pg. 19, 20 and 24. If you ignore the wound, you would never have taken a saving throw, and it can never become an unsaved wound. Agree on your #2 though.

Mandor wrote:

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.

You can't prove this events don't happen simultaneous. There are no rules about timing at all. Also the wound is present until the casualty is removed or it is saved, as the unsaved wound is the exact same thing as the wound you rolled for in the "to wound step".

Dashofpepper wrote:

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).

You can never take a profile wound. You can only lose one, which would be written with a capital 'W' in the BRB. FNP tells you to ignore the 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."

I really agree, and as pointed out, wounds(profile) are called Hitpoints in the German translation, making the whole thing much more readable. I won't quote from there, as any argument would be denounced as translation error anyways, even though the BRB was translated pretty good. Sigh.

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.

This is pretty much the reason for the thread. Feel no pain, rewritten with your terminology would read:

If a model with this ability suffers a #1 wound, roll a dice. On a 1, 2 or 3 take the #1 wound as normal(removing the model if it loses it's final #2 wound). On a 4, 5 or 6 the #1 wound is ignored and the model continues fighting.

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."

I think while pinpointing the problem, you still failed to resolve it - GW defines three kind of "wounds" (well, actually four, but no one cares about telling wounds)
wound - an successful to-wound roll, no saves taken yet. These must be allocated to models.
unsaved wound - a wound that was not saved or can not be saved, but did not have any effect on the model yet. These are most important when wounding identical multi-wound models, as the model that failed the save didn't necessarily lose the Wound(profile).
Wound(profile) - a statline value that indicates how many unsaved wounds a model can suffer before being removes as casualty. Written with a capital 'W' in the BRB.

You also can't ever ignore, cause or suffer a Wound(profile), this is the one big misconception in your post. Much like you can't ignore, cause or suffer Toughness, Initiative, Weapon or Ballistic Skill. A model can only lose or gain those wounds, and once it doesn't have any left, it is removed as casualty.
Unsaved wounds do float around for a blink of an eye, to see if they do anything, other than reducing the Wound(profile) value. They can be ignored by feel no pain, cause extra attacks for blood talons, pin or glassify models hit by hexrifle or kill a poor tyranid warrior that made all his saves, just because he was already wounded.

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.

You missed the point here. We're not arguing about not losing Wounds(profile). We're arguing that hex rifle's glass magic needs an unsaved wound to work, and can't work if the unsaved wound(as defined above) is ignored.

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.

It is irrelevant. Hex rifle does not say "If the target fails its save" or "If the target lost a Wound(profile)". Is says if you suffer an unsaved wound. If you make your FNP roll, your model no longer suffers an unsaved wound. The real question is, whether hex rile works against models if you are told to ignore that they suffered an unsaved wound.

Jidmah, could you please edit your post so that I can figure out what you are saying and what is a quote? Many thanks. Oops you already have, thank you.

I will assume though, that your last part is about the 'successfully wounds' issue that I was talking about.

Firstly as I said earlier, this issue is about Tau Carbines, the changes in BrB editions and is completely OT.

Tau Carbines cause a pinning test on a 'successfully wounds' trigger, there is no mention of unsaved wounds or casualty removal. The only point at which you can obtain 'successfully wounds' is at Step 4 of the new rules. I fully accept that this is an issue of the merging of rules and that it will be addressed either when;

1 A new Tau Codex comes out or
2 6th Edition comes out.

I did not propose it as a solution to the present discussion or even as a similar process to use, just as an interesting observation on GWs rules. Frankly, I regret ever mentioning it now. It's been distracting for everyone.

Cheers

Andrew

Yeah, should be done now... this forum has preview and submit exactly the other way around than most of my other forums, that's why you got the wreck. Sorry.

Wildstorm wrote:I fall on the side that says if I'm ignoring it, then I'm ignoring it all the way and don't have to take the hex test.

Wrong conclusion there buddy

If FNP would negate Hex, then the rules are in contradiction and you apply the more specific rule. Since Hex Rifle is more specific than FNP, then you have to take the Hex test.

The rules are not any more in conflict than feel no pain and power from pain or hex rifle and cover saves. To be in conflict, they would have to be directly contradicting each other.

Jidmah wrote:The rules are not any more in conflict than feel no pain and power from pain or hex rifle and cover saves. To be in conflict, they would have to be directly contradicting each other.

FNP and Hex both trigger on the existence of an "unsaved wound." There is no indicatation as to which triggers first, therefore they must go simultaneously.

If FNP is saved, however, you are told to "ignore the unsaved wound." However, Hex, triggering simultaneously, may destroy the model based on the same "unsaved wound." Therefore, you must either prioritize FNP and conclude that Hex doesn't trigger (essentially "go back in time" or prioritize Hex and conclude that FNP doesn't trigger.

This is a case where specific > general.

The whole point of Jidmah's argument is going back in time to ignore the wound caused by the to-wound test. It is possible to interpret the FnP rule this way, but this would lead to ... undesirable situations. This situation with the Hex Rifle (and basically all abilities that trigger off an unsaved wound) is just one kind. But as previously mentioned, if you use Feel no Pain in this way, you can also keep your Shadowfield by making your FnP save. You would ignore everything that happened after the to-wound roll, including the failed Shadowfield save.

Could you quote the shaowfield rules? I don't have a DE codex, does it deplete on being used or some other effect?

Again, I'm not going back in time. We don't even know if we have to. Hex rifle is a direct result from the injury FNP tells us to ignore. Nothing indicates that you never check the conditions for hex rifle(or any other trigger) again if they were true at any point of the resolution(like M:TG does by default).

Hex rifle removes a model if it suffered an unsaved wound and failed a test on its wound value. If any part of that condition is not true, you don't remove the model. If you passed your feel no pain roll, one part of the condition is no longer true.

Anyway, the whole back-in-time paradox only appeared because it was claimed that "injury" and "wound" are not "unsaved wound". Another indication that FNP is actually referring to the very thing it triggered off, you'd think that would be a logical conclusion.

By the way, hex rifle is the only effect of that kind that does not ignore armor. Blood talons, force weapons, nemesis force weapons and the vindicare's rifle all ignore armor(and thus FNP).

Jidmah wrote:Could you quote the shaowfield rules? I don't have a DE codex, does it deplete on being used or some other effect?

If the model fails its save, the shadowfield is destroyed. The model would then take a wound.

If the model had FNP and passed it, the injury (the wound taken) would be ignored.

The shadowfield however, would still be destroyed.

Jidmah, basically the Shadowfield provides a 2++ until the first unsaved wound is inflicted, at that point it collapses and no longer works for the rest of the game. As such if I wound you 5 times, rather than roll 5 dice, you have to roll 1 dice five times, say you roll a 1 for the first save, then you lose the 2++ for the next 4 saves.

According to you, if I have FnP as well and I completely ignore the wound in its entirety then my SF doesn't collapse because I never took the wound. Make sense?

Cheers

Andrew

"Basically" doesn't help. I know it is a one-use invul save by game practice, but not how it is worded.

The shadowfield provides a 2++ save until the model suffers an unsaved wound at which point the shadowfield collapses and is unusable.

It is not a oneshot item, but continues to work until it fails its' first save. So it could work for seven turns with an entire army shooting at it, or it could fail on the first turn. The problem is, ignoring an unsuccessful save via FnP using the interpretation of 'it never happened', would mean that the SF wouldn't have failed a save and it would be reinstated.

Cheers

Andrew

Wouldnt the FnP rule state that it ignores the unsaved wound rather than "injury" if it ment that? You can go assuming that one thing means another... Otherwise I can assume that fnp is a save (which I know it's not)

Except "injury" is not a key 40k term, so you have to assume, via context, that it means "wound"

Built-in: So, what does injury mean?

AndrewC, is that an exact quote? If it were, that would be an argument for hex rifle.

Jidmah, I would love to say that it is, but I'm at work and can't check, and a direct quote of the rules is against forum rules. {I don't know why I can type something from memory, but I can't copy from a book, grumble}

Cheers

Andrew

An 'injury' would be removing 'x' from the Wound (W) stat. Something which the Hex rifle is not contingent on achieving. This is where the FNP camp is wrong as they want to confuse 'Injury' as being the same as 'unsaved wound' when it is cleary not the case.

Rymafyr wrote:An 'injury' would be removing 'x' from the Wound (W) stat. Something which the Hex rifle is not contingent on achieving. This is where the FNP camp is wrong as they want to confuse 'Injury' as being the same as 'unsaved wound' when it is cleary not the case.

Imaginary rule is imaginary.

And so are yours. So either work to refute the obvious or leave your flames at home.

It has been refuted Ryma, read the last 6 pages....

No Nos..it hasn't and neither has your...self perceived view of said rules. So kindly step aside from making declarations about rules which you think you know inside out when your fail on even basic interpretation of said rules.

You can say all day what you want people to believe but unless you prove it your are as wrong as the people you believe to be wrong.

Actually it has. Wound and wound are two different things. Your attempts at conflating one to the other does count as "rules", sorry.

You claimed something out of the blue, while I proved the exact opposite in the long post above. You don't deserve any more. "tl;dr" has no place in a rules debate.

Rymafyr, this discussion now boils down to the order in which things take place. Setting aside Wound vs wounds or definition of injury, has helped, I think, to boil this down to two questions,

What order does FnP and HR interact?

FnP then HR,
HR then FnP,
Neither, both processes run simultaneously.

And does the term ignore injury refer to the alteration to the wounds profile or to the sucessfull wound at step 4 of the process?

Nos, does that seem a reasonable summary?

Cheers

Andrew

Seems sensible - the lack of capitalisation of "w" in the 1 - 3 result indicates it is not the Wound-stat alteration, as that is consistent in capitalisation.

AndrewC wrote:And does the term ignore injury refer to the alteration to the wounds profile or to the sucessfull wound at step 4 of the process?

The issue is whether "injury" refers to "unsaved wound" or "wound." A second issue is what GW means by "wound" in the FNP rule. To use Dash's terminology, type 1 or type 2?