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.

liturgies of blood wrote:The usr causes the effect of pg 16 regardless of the model's toughness. Am I wrong?

Its effect is that it causes instant death which is those effects.

liturgies of blood wrote:The usr causes the effect of pg 16 regardless of the model's toughness. Am I wrong?

For practical purposes that don't involve EW? That's what happens.

For RAW or any circumstances that do involve Eternal Warrior, yes, you are wrong.

As this is a RAW debate that involves EW then you are wrong.

If you think that your interpretation fo the USR is correct please give rules support as I can't see any.

Also I'd point out that the USR inflicts ID, which is crucial in this discussion as the word inflict is so central.

I'm going to sleep now. Will respond more in the morning.

T4 model is hit with S8 attack. The effect of this attack is to apply a wound and the paragraph on page 16.
Go to page 16, if it has EW you ignore the effect of ID on page 16 but the effect is not inflicting ID it is removing a model as a casualty (unless it has 0 wounds left anyway).
So the wound would still inflict a wound with ID just not it's effects. RAW.
For EW to prevent the application of ID (pg 16) it would need to prevent the effect of a double strength attack.

A dichotomy is now introduced by your logic. Where FNP cannot work from a double strength attack as it inflicts ID(pg 16) which has an effect we all agree on.

While at the same time FNP can work against an attack that has the USR because the effect of the USR is to inflict ID.

So while I am sure that the RAW reading that means that GW have messed up is probably the right one, I think the spirit of the rules is needed in this situation. No FNP against anything with the USR or double strength. Since the rules try to avoid dichotomies we look at the simplest interpretation, FNP and EW refer to pg 16 not the USR.

The answer is literally in front of your face and yet you refuse to see it...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:The usr causes the effect of pg 16 regardless of the model's toughness. Am I wrong?

Its effect is that it causes instant death which is those effects.

So wait, let me understand...the rule is its own effect? Instant Death is a rule, not an effect. The effect of ID USR is explained in the ID section, as it explains in the rule itself. Why does it tell us to refer to page 16 if it didn't have to? Please explain to me how that works because apparently I am too stupid to understand how that works. How can something be the effect of itself?

Captain Antivas wrote:

So wait, let me understand...the rule is its own effect? Instant Death is a rule, not an effect. The effect of ID USR is explained in the ID section, as it explains in the rule itself. Why does it tell us to refer to page 16 if it didn't have to? Please explain to me how that works because apparently I am too stupid to understand how that works. How can something be the effect of itself?

Because the effect is the thing. If you stop assuming that things can exist without their effects it all makes sense.

A faraday cage dampens electromagnetic signals, their effects (more or less) cannot be felt within the cage, do the signals stop existing?

liturgies of blood wrote:A faraday cage dampens electromagnetic signals, their effects (more or less) cannot be felt within the cage, do the signals stop existing?

They probably do not exist inside the cage, but I'm no expert in physics, I might be wrong.

Your argument is now that you can't feel the effect, hence it doesn't exist.
That is not what the rules say. The rule is still in play the effects are not. So EW is akin to a monsterous creature and your armour. The monster ignores your armour, the armour is still there you just don't get to put it into effect against the wound.

With ID and EW, the ID effect is ignored but ID is still in effect.

Crimson wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

So wait, let me understand...the rule is its own effect? Instant Death is a rule, not an effect. The effect of ID USR is explained in the ID section, as it explains in the rule itself. Why does it tell us to refer to page 16 if it didn't have to? Please explain to me how that works because apparently I am too stupid to understand how that works. How can something be the effect of itself?

Because the effect is the thing. If you stop assuming that things can exist without their effects it all makes sense.

The effect cannot be the thing that is insane. Instant Death is a rule and a defined gave term. The definition is found on page 16. The effects of said game term are clearly defined on page 16. This is not ambiguous, you do not get to decide what is an effect, nor do you get to decide what the effects of a rule are; the rules do that. So either show me a rule that supports you or concede. Your opinion and what you think makes sense is not relevant so keep it out of this discussion. This is a rules discussion not a philosophical discussion about how you feel about things.

Antivas, tell me what is the effect of Instant Death USR.

Think of it like this:
Unit A casts a fireball spell which has an effect of burn and stun.

Unit B is immune to the effects of the fireball spell so hence it would not be burnt nor stunned.

But the Unit B also has a skill that will be nullified when somebody casts a fireball spell on them.

Hence Unit B would still be hit by the fireball spell but just not burnt and stunned.

That is clearly defined on page 16. ID is defined on page 16. The ID USR says that a weapon with that rule inflicts ID, the pre-defined game term found on page 16, even when the strength is not 2x toughness, which is a requirement for ID to take place. Then it tells you to look at page 16 for the ID definition so you know what to do with this pre-defined game term you are now faced with. The effects of which are being reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty. Those are the effects.

And if you are immune to Instant Death USR, then such weapon do not inflict Instant Death. Inflicting Instant Death is the effect of that USR.

EW are not immune to the ID USR they are immune to the effects of the ID pre-defined game term on page 16.

Captain Antivas wrote:EW are not immune to the ID USR they are immune to the effects of the ID pre-defined game term on page 16.

How do you know? It just says immune to effects of Instant Death.

People keep saying that FnP is negated by a wound that has the ID rule. This is not true. FnP is negated by a wound that inflicts instant death. If you are immune to the effects of ID it has not been inflicted. For evidence of this look at the definition of inflict posted earlier.

To use an above posters Faraday cage example if you are in a Faraday cage and I attempt to electrocute you with a Tesla coil have I inflicted electrocution upon you? No I have not. Have I attacked you with a Tesla coil? Sure and sorry about that I wouldn't have done it if I didn't know you were safe in that cage.

If the FnP rule said FnP cannot be used to ignore an attack with the Instant Death rule, then I'd be on the other side of the fence. If it said FnP cannot be used to ignore an attack that would inflict ID, then I'd be on the other side of the fence. It doesn't. It says "Wounds that inflict Instant Death" as an Eternal Warrior wounds do not inflict instant death for any definition of inflict I know of.

So we now have people saying

1) "Immune to Instant Death" does not mean Immune to the Instant Death USR?

2) And that at least one of the following sentences is true?

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

If any of the above contentions are accurate please provide either rules support for 1 or any from of logical support for 2 (please note that the quotes I have used are from the Oxford English Dictionary definition of inflict, simply with ID and EW substituted for the example words).

If I am misrepresenting your position, please clarify.

Because ID is a pre-defined game term. The USR directs you to the pre-defined game term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:People keep saying that FnP is negated by a wound that has the ID rule. This is not true. FnP is negated by a wound that inflicts instant death.

I'm just going to stop you here as this is the problem. The ID USR says the weapon inflicts ID regardless of toughness. It inflicts. If EW said you ignore ID I would be on the other side of the fence but it doesn't. It only ignores the effects. ID is still inflicted by Khan when he rolls a 6, ID being a pre-defined game term has certain effects applied that you are immune to. Show me where it says that Khan loses his ability to inflict ID when you simply ignore its effects.

A model takes a wound.
The model takes it's saves
Is the wound instant death? If no go to the end, if yes continue
The wound causes instant death, is the model immune to instant death? if yes go to the end, if not continue
The model loses all wounds and dies
-----------------------------------
The model only loses one wound, and may take a feel no pain save if it has the USR.

Why? Because the EW rule states you ignore the effects of instant death. An effect of the instant death rule is it ignores FNP.

This is cut and dry. In the above example, khan swings and hits, and rolls a 6 to wound. You go through the table I made above, because while the attack is still instant death, and never stops being instant death, the ID rule doesn't affect a model with EW, or the EW models rules.

It's like saying you hit kharn with that one SW power that causes damage and the target counts as being in terrain for it's next movement phase. Kharn ignores both since he ignores the psychic power, even though one of the effects of the power is the terrain rule.

Remember, an attack never loses it's rules, the effect of it's rules on the model change.

Captain Antivas wrote:
I'm just going to stop you here as this is the problem. The ID USR says the weapon inflicts ID regardless of toughness. It inflicts. If EW said you ignore ID I would be on the other side of the fence but it doesn't. It only ignores the effects.

How so? How is ID being inflicted for any reasonable definition of inflict? Which of the Inflict related sentences is true? What definition of inflict are you using?

Captain Antivas wrote:
ID is still inflicted by Khan when he rolls a 6, ID being a pre-defined game term has certain effects applied that you are immune to. Show me where it says that Khan loses his ability to inflict ID when you simply ignore its effects.

Khan does not lose his ability, just as a bolter does not lose its ability to wound when you make an armour save. The FnP rule never once references the ability of the wounding model to cause instant death, it doesn't say a wound caused by a model that could inflict instant death. Whether Khan loses his rule or not is irrelevant, Instant Death is not inflicted. Khan attempts to inflict it and fails, not because he loses his rule, but because the EW model is immune to said infliction.

Show me where it says that Immune to Instant Death does not mean Immune to the Instant Death USR. Immune to Instant Death is all that is required to say that Khan does not inflict Instant Death when he rolls a 6.

juraigamer wrote:A model takes a wound.
The model takes it's saves
Is the wound instant death? If no go to the end, if yes continue
The wound causes instant death, is the model immune to instant death? if yes go to the end, if not continue
The model loses all wounds and dies
-----------------------------------
The model only loses one wound, and may take a feel no pain save if it has the USR.

Why? Because the EW rule states you ignore the effects of instant death. An effect of the instant death rule is it ignores FNP.

The underlined is not true.

The effects of instant death are being dropped to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty. That is it.

EW does not mention FNP being ignored as an effect of the EW rule.

Not taking FNP against wounds that cause ID is a restriction on the FNP rule.

The RAW tells us this is correct, so your way is false.

As you say:

juraigamer wrote:This is cut and dry.

juraigamer wrote:An effect of the instant death rule is it ignores FNP.

False. As has been stated numerous times before it is a restriction on Feel No Pain and not an effect of the Instant Death rule. If it were, then it would be a part of the Instant Death rule which it most clearly is not.

Drager wrote:Khan does not lose his ability, just as a bolter does not lose its ability to wound when you make an armour save. The FnP rule never once references the ability of the wounding model to cause instant death, it doesn't say a wound caused by a model that could inflict instant death. Whether Khan loses his rule or not is irrelevant, Instant Death is not inflicted. Khan attempts to inflict it and fails, not because he loses his rule, but because the EW model is immune to said infliction.

^The underlined is false, the EW model is immune to the EFFECTS of the ID rule, not immune to the ID rule, slight but important difference.

So do people seriously believe that GW did not intend EW to allow FNP when they removed the mention of EW in FNP for the sixth edition? That they instead chose to hang this entire thing on nebulous word 'effects' on EW.

Yeah, I don't think so. They intended EW to allow FNP, and that's why they changed the wording.

And Death Reaper, in the Instant Death USR, the effect clearly is incliction of Instant Death.

So you seriously believe they made you immune to the ID USR but not S>=2xT ?

RAW you remain incorrect on this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you seriously believe they made you immune to the ID USR but not S>=2xT ?

Well I don't certainly believe they intended to, nor that is how I would play, but it is quite possible that strictly speaking this might be the RAW. And as it makes no bloody sense, we are back at quessing how they actually intended it to work. I've given my reasons why I believe that they intended EW to allow FNP.

So when it makes no sense your way, the idea is you remove 2 editions of precedent? Just because?

nosferatu1001 wrote:So when it makes no sense your way, the idea is you remove 2 editions of precedent? Just because?

I don't, GW did. That's why they changed the rule.

Except, as proven, they HAVENT changed the rule

The effects of the ID USR are the entries listed under the ID rule on p16.

No change. None. You are clinging to the removal of a reminder as evidence that the rule has changed.

They removed AP restriction from FNP, and I believe they intended to restrictiction regarding instant death when EW is involved. That's why the wording has been changed.

And repeating it over and over do not change the fact that effect of Instant Death USR is clearly infliction of Instant Death.

The wording hasnt been changed. A reminder has been removed.

Your repetition that the effect of the ID USR is NOT to remove all wounds still doesnt hold any water.