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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except "injury" is not a key 40k term, so you have to assume, via context, that it means "wound"

Except you are injecting your own opinion in the rules here and declaring it raw. In fact, this assumption is not forced or implied by the text.

Dracos- erm, yes it is. It is a binary choice, like ALL "saves" in 40k; it saves or it does not saver.

We know what happens when you fail it. The opposite has to occur if you pass.

Otherwise you are claiming functional uselessness for FNP, which is absurd.

SWo, which is it? Do you claim FNP doesnt work?

biccat wrote:

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?

As dash's type #2 is actually unsaved wound AND profile wound, neither, as such a wound doesn't exist. There are three kinds of wounds, not two, and FNP can never refer to profile wounds, as you can't take a profile wound. All this has been discussed above, please read it.

Jidmah wrote:Built-in: So, what does injury mean

if your insinuating that injury = unsaved wound, then it would be safe to assume that removed from play = instant death. So if the HR roll and the FnP roll ar made simultaniously, then a fail would negate fnp's roll

I am going to analyze this as how I would do for some of my computer programs that I write:

Rules:

Hex Rifle: If at least one unsaved wound happened, pass a Toughness test or remove the model.
Feel No Pain: If an unsaved wound happened, on a roll of 4+, ignore the unsaved wound.
Unsaved Wound: Any wounds in which was never saved.
All other rules in the Universal Rulebook.

Situation:

A Hex Rifle shoots a Plague Marine and wounds it. The Plague Bearer rolls a 2 on it's Armor save, therefore causing an unsaved wound. This triggers both the Toughness test and Feel No Pain. Seeing how both of these effects trigger off the same event, and no timing is given within the Universal Rulebook, both must be rolled for at the same time. In this example, the Plague Marine rolls the Feel No Pain roll of 4, ignoring the unsaved wound. Also, the Plague Marine rolls the Toughness test and fails on a 6, thus is removed from the table. Seeing how both of these are tested for at the same time, both must apply because while Feel No Pain does ignore the unsaved wound, the trigger for it is not ignored because Feel No Pain ignores the unsaved wound after it is considered an unsaved wound, not before it. Therefore, the Plague Marine ignores the unsaved wound but is removed from the table.

Conclusion:

I really see this no other way because for Feel No Pain to trigger, you must have received an unsaved wound, but the Hex Rifle is also triggered. And sense both are triggered, Feel No Pain does not tell you to ignore the unsaved wound as though it was never wounded at all, it says to ignore the unsaved wound, which is the removal of a single wound to the model. So the effects of the Hex Rifle still happens.

Jidmah wrote:

biccat wrote:

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?

As dash's type #2 is actually unsaved wound AND profile wound, neither, as such a wound doesn't exist. There are three kinds of wounds, not two, and FNP can never refer to profile wounds, as you can't take a profile wound. All this has been discussed above, please read it.

I have read it, thanks.

FNP basically takes all of the normal rules and throws them out the window. The first trigger, "when a model suffers an unsaved wound" never occurs in a unit of models. Models don't take unsaved wounds, units do. Then it says the "unsaved wound" only translates to a "wound" when you roll a 1-3 on a dice. But unsaved wounds are never translated to "wounds" under the normal rules. Instead, unsaved wounds either cause casualties or are saved up for units of multi-wound models. Only on independent characters do unsaved wounds actually reduce the number of Wounds a model has.

To answer Nos's question above: "Do you claim FNP doesnt work?" No, because we know that it does work. But it shouldn't, according to the rules.

A Hex Rifle shoots a Plague Marine and wounds it. The Plague Bearer rolls a 2 on it's Armor save, therefore causing an unsaved wound. This triggers both the Toughness test and Feel No Pain. Seeing how both of these effects trigger off the same event, and no timing is given within the Universal Rulebook, both must be rolled for at the same time. In this example, the Plague Marine rolls the Feel No Pain roll of 4, ignoring the unsaved wound. Also, the Plague Marine rolls the Toughness test and fails on a 6, thus is removed from the table. Seeing how both of these are tested for at the same time, both must apply because while Feel No Pain does ignore the unsaved wound, the trigger for it is not ignored because Feel No Pain ignores the unsaved wound after it is considered an unsaved wound, not before it. Therefore, the Plague Marine ignores the unsaved wound but is removed from the table.

QFT - I see no reason for the debate; both FNP and Hexrifle are triggered by the same circumstance; therefor both tests are taken, if FNP is failed, the wound sticks, if toughness test fails, the model is removed. Unsaved wound does not meen 'un-felt, painless, wound' it means 'unsaved wound'. FNP is not a save. The wound is painted on the model, and FNP scrapes it off before the model is removed as a casualty.

biccat wrote:FNP basically takes all of the normal rules and throws them out the window. The first trigger, "when a model suffers an unsaved wound" never occurs in a unit of models. Models don't take unsaved wounds, units do.

???? how do you figure? seeing as how you need to allocate wounds to models before you make armor save rolls. This has nothing to do with the topic, just struck me as off

Zyllos wrote:Rules:

Hex Rifle: If at least one unsaved wound happened, pass a Toughness test or remove the model.
Feel No Pain: If an unsaved wound happened, on a roll of 4+, ignore the unsaved wound.

Not t nitpick, but there is an error here that is key to the argument.
The FNP rule states, "On a 4,5 or 6, the injury is ignored..."
It does not say the "unsaved wound" is ignored.

Considerable difference.

Many on the FNP > Hexrifle side are arguing that that's what it says.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to throw this out there.

To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents.[...]

Oh, sh**! But wait:

Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count.

*whew* That was close.

I wish they would have made it crystal clear that an "unsaved wound" can be distinct from a "wound." But I think that's a pretty significant example that it can be.

time wizard wrote:

Zyllos wrote:Rules:

Hex Rifle: If at least one unsaved wound happened, pass a Toughness test or remove the model.
Feel No Pain: If an unsaved wound happened, on a roll of 4+, ignore the unsaved wound.

Not t nitpick, but there is an error here that is key to the argument.
The FNP rule states, "On a 4,5 or 6, the injury is ignored..."
It does not say the "unsaved wound" is ignored.

Considerable difference.

If that is indeed true, it still does not change the outcome. The injury is ignored does not make the unsaved wound trigger from before disappear, therefore the Hex Rifle will still trigger. It still basically boils down to that if Feel No Pain triggers, the Hex Rifle will also trigger at the same time. Both rules do not care what happens to the wound, injury, ect after that has happened because their initial conditions were met for them to trigger.

Although I've read, followed and posted in this thread, I've not noticed the following before now.

Another reference to injury!

It's in the remove casualties step third paragraph....
But of course that then leaves us with the situation of allocating an unsaved wound, but not removing the model and all that that entails, but does seem to give an indication that FnP refers to the process after armour saves rather than doing a time warp and negating the wounding hit in the first place.

Cheers

Andrew

I think Zyllos has hit the nail on the head here. Both the hexrifle's effect and and Feel No Pain trigger off of an unsaved wound. To try and institute an "order" for the abilities to occur (FNP before hexrifle or vice versa) is wrong; both trigger at the same time. Therefore, if FNP is passed and the toughness test is passed, the model is fine and fights on as normal. If FNP is failed and the toughness test is passed, the model takes a wound but remains in play (if it has multiple wounds). If FNP is failed and the toughness test is failed, the model is removed from play. Finally, if FNP is passed but the toughness test is failed, the model is removed from play as per the hexrifle's rules.

Just my two cents. All in all, an interesting discussion.

That would be the case Roz if you were not told to ignore the wound with a passed FnP roll.

Even though they both trigger off the same event, if you make the FnP roll you can not roll for anything else because you have to now ignore the wound.

Even if you roll FnP last after any other effects, once you pass a FnP roll you Ignore the wound that was caused, AkA you pretend it does not exist, this has the same effect as if the opponent rolled a one on the to wound roll.

If you do not ignore any effects that have triggered off the wound, you are breaking the FnP rule, because we are told to ignore the wound in the first place.

@andrew it mentions "Too injured to carry on" that whole paragraph has no rules attached to it.

In the context of FnP, where you take the wound as normal, or ignore it(The injury), from the context The injury=wound, seeing as you either take the wound or you do not take the wound. injury is clearly referring to wound as noted when you roll a 1-3.

DeathReaper wrote:That would be the case Roz if you were not told to ignore the wound with a passed FnP roll.

Cool, because the text DOES NOT TELL YOU TO IGNORE THE WOUND.

Please either post proof somewhere where injury = unsaved wound, or stop espousing it as gospel.

Bah, wish I'd re-read this sooner. More fuel for the fire:

pg.26

When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one Wound from its profile. Once the model has lost all of its Wounds, it is removed as a casualty[...]

So...you have a model suffering an unsaved wound, and then losing a wound.

Now, how do you decide what the "injury" is? Since the language in FNP includes "take the wound" and "if it loses its final Wound" doesn't it make more sense to equate that to "loses one wound" (to avoid time-traveling shenanigans)?

If you knock over a vase and it shatters on the ground and your wife tells you to ignore it, does that mean the vase isn't broken?

Just because something/someone tells you to ignore something, doesn't mean the "something" never happened or never existed. One trigger begins two reactions. While one reaction tells you to ignore the trigger, it is too late because the secondary reaction is already active as well, telling you to remove the model.

People are putting a timing in place that is neither implied nor expressly permitted.

Basically, in a nutshell: Just because you ignore an "injury" doesn't mean the "injury" never occurred in the first place. As I pointed out in the Acid Blood vs. FNP thread:

puma713 wrote:This [argument] is an example of a logical fallacy called Denying the Antecedent. It is a fallacy of Propositional Logic:

If I took a wound, then I was wounded.
I didn't take a wound.
Therefore I wasn't wounded.

This is false. You could have been wounded and saved. You could've been wounded and rolled FNP. You could've been wounded and used a bodyguard to take the wound for you.

You can ignore the wound all you want. You're never given permission to ignore the wounding, which also sets off the Hex Rifle.







Edit: Here is the Acid Blood vs. FNP thread, where a similar argument is outlined.

DeathReaper wrote:
Even if you roll FnP last after any other effects, once you pass a FnP roll you Ignore the wound that was caused, AkA you pretend it does not exist, this has the same effect as if the opponent rolled a one on the to wound roll.

Not exactly. If you're taking Fnp to begin with, then you've been wounded, so it is nothing at all like rolling a one on a to-wound roll. Also, ignoring does not mean that something "doesn't exist"; it means you don't take notice of it. Puma's analogy is a very good one for this.

DeathReaper wrote:
If you do not ignore any effects that have triggered off the wound, you are breaking the FnP rule, because we are told to ignore the wound in the first place.

By the same line of reasoning, if you don't remove your model from play after failing the toughness test, you're breaking the hexrifle's rule. That line of arguing will not solve this debate.

puma713 wrote:
People are putting a timing in place that is neither implied nor expressly permitted.

Exactly this. This is what I was saying earlier about trying to institute an order to the abilities when there isn't one.

Built-in wrote:

biccat wrote:FNP basically takes all of the normal rules and throws them out the window. The first trigger, "when a model suffers an unsaved wound" never occurs in a unit of models. Models don't take unsaved wounds, units do.

???? how do you figure? seeing as how you need to allocate wounds to models before you make armor save rolls. This has nothing to do with the topic, just struck me as off

Page 24.

"For each model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."

Dracos wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:That would be the case Roz if you were not told to ignore the wound with a passed FnP roll.

Cool, because the text DOES NOT TELL YOU TO IGNORE THE WOUND.

Please either post proof somewhere where injury = unsaved wound, or stop espousing it as gospel.

See here.

biccat wrote:

Dracos wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:That would be the case Roz if you were not told to ignore the wound with a passed FnP roll.

Cool, because the text DOES NOT TELL YOU TO IGNORE THE WOUND.

Please either post proof somewhere where injury = unsaved wound, or stop espousing it as gospel.

See here.

Injury versus unsaved wound doesn't even matter. See my above post and Dash's post in the thread you referenced.

biccat wrote:In the case of FNP, I think it's pretty clear that "injury" refers to "unsaved wound" and not "wound."

Under the normal order of things, a hit may cause a wound, a wound may cause an unsaved wound, and an unsaved wound can cause a "wound" (that is, the model is removed from play or has it's wound characteristic reduced).

Under normal circumstances, an "unsaved wound" always directly corresponds to a "wound." FNP changes this, it makes the transition from "unsaved wound" to "wound" conditional on the FNP test. So, if you roll a 1-3 on a FNP test, the model suffers a "wound" as normal (is removed from play or reduces the model's wound characteristic). However, if you roll a 4-6, the rule tells us to "ignore the injury." This can't be a "wound" because the model hasn't suffered a "wound" yet, it still has an "unsaved wound" that the FNP test has not converted to a "wound."

Therefore, the only injury that can be ignored is the "unsaved wound."

There is nothing in the text of FNP that suggests the "unsaved wound" is what is ignored instead of a "wound" (the removing the wound from the profile). In fact, the text is ambiguous as to what it means by injury. It could be referring to the previous sentence where it says "On a 1,2 or 3, take a wound as normal...". It could be referring to the sentence before that, where it says "If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound..."

You have chosen to infer that "injury" it is talking about the unsaved wound, which is a valid interpretation of the text. However, the ambiguous wording makes it anything but clear. It is equally valid to think that "injury" is talking about the wound instead.

puma713 wrote:Injury versus unsaved wound doesn't even matter. See my above post and Dash's post in the thread you referenced.

It matters very much.

FNP says "on a 4, 6, or 6, the injury is ignored"

If the "unsaved wound" is ignored, then for all purposes, that model is treated as having not suffered an unsaved wound. It still has suffered the unsaved wound, but every rule that triggers from "unsaved wound" is ignored.

If it were otherwise, FNP would have no effect. "OK, you suffered an unsaved wound, we'll ignore it for purposes of FNP. Oh look, rule 24 says he dies anyway. GG."

biccat wrote:
*snip*

So you're trying to figure out if injury = wound, versus injury = unsaved wound? It still doesn't matter. The act of being wounded is what matters. It doesn't matter if you're allowed to ignore the wound, the unsaved wound or anything in between. The simple fact is as soon as you pick up the die to roll for FNP, you also need to pick up the die to roll for the Hex Rifle. The trigger has already been satisfied.

Once again, to say otherwise is to commit the fallacy Denying the Antecedent, to somehow say that because you ignore the product of an action, the action never happened.

puma713 wrote:Once again, to say otherwise is to commit the fallacy Denying the Antecedent, to somehow say that because you ignore the product of an action, the action never happened.

Or, you realize that FNP and Hex Rifle are inconsistent, and therefore default to the specific > general rule, and apply Hex Rifle.

It works.

biccat wrote:

puma713 wrote:Once again, to say otherwise is to commit the fallacy Denying the Antecedent, to somehow say that because you ignore the product of an action, the action never happened.

Or, you realize that FNP and Hex Rifle are inconsistent, and therefore default to the specific > general rule, and apply Hex Rifle.

It works.

I disagree. I think you apply both, and FNP does nothing. We have the same outcome in the end, but I think you technically still have to include FNP, even if you fail the Hex Rifle and FNP does nothing.

Injury is not 'unsaved wound'. A model with feel no pain has been wounded. It just doesn't care about the wound. If you look at it from the model's perspective; as you do when you're determining true los, you're essentially getting a better understanding of what's happening.


More importantly, FNP is not expressly a 'save' such as an invulnerable SAVE, an armor SAVE, or a cover SAVE. It's just not a save, the SAVE has either been failed or never occurred, the wound is UNSAVED. The rules on hexrifle don't say 'an unfelt wound'.

The wound is not saved, therefor the hexrifle effect occurs. I don't see ambiguity in the RAW.

junk wrote:Injury is not 'unsaved wound'. A model with feel no pain has been wounded. It just doesn't care about the wound. If you look at it from the model's perspective; as you do when you're determining true los, you're essentially getting a better understanding of what's happening.

More importantly, FNP is not expressly a 'save' such as an invulnerable SAVE, an armor SAVE, or a cover SAVE. It's just not a save, the SAVE has either been failed or never occurred, the wound is UNSAVED. The rules on hexrifle don't say 'an unfelt wound'.

The wound is not saved, therefor the hexrifle effect occurs. I don't see ambiguity in the RAW.

and FnP says to ignore the wound, if you have the hexrifle effect occuring, then you have not ignored the wound that was cause at step 2.

Step 1 Roll to hit
Step 2 Roll to wound, roll = or > on the to wound chart score a wound. (You get to ignore this wound with a successful FnP roll).
Step 3 Take save
Step 4 Take FnP, pass = Ignore the Injury/wound.

Dracos wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:That would be the case Roz if you were not told to ignore the wound with a passed FnP roll.

Cool, because the text DOES NOT TELL YOU TO IGNORE THE WOUND.

Please either post proof somewhere where injury = unsaved wound, or stop espousing it as gospel.

injury does not = unsaved wound, injury = wound as noted in the FnP entry.

Look at FNP it tells you to take the WOUND as normal or IGNORE the injury. In the context of FNP wound = Injury, and Injury = wound.

FNP is a binary choice, either take the wound, or ignore it. by saying injury they are referencing the wound.

When do you take FNP tests?

The answer - when you suffer an UNSAVED WOUND.

When is hexrifles effect triggered?

When you suffer an unsaved wound.

Nowhere does FNP say - this effect will also prevent the model being removed as a casualty from other effects.

It explicitly prevents the model from losing a wound (as in wound characteristic).

There's no debate that the INJURY being caused by the hexrifle isn't prevented by FNP. The model can ignore the 'injury' or the 'loss of a wound', however since the UNSAVED WOUND was still assigned to the model, the effect of hexrifle occured.

You can still ignore the wound (as in, the loss of a wound level [characteristic]) but you can't ignore the Model being lost as a casualty to the toughness test.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to be totally clear, YOU ARE IGNORING THE WOUND. The model will not die because it has 'lost a wound'. The model is ignoring the Injury - the wound is not being removed from the model. The model is being removed as a casualty because it failed a characteristic test, with its # of wounds still intact due to FNP.

Outside of the game, that model is hanging out, dead, but otherwise totally healthy. He didn't even feel it. He totally ignored the injury. He felt no pain at all. He just died.

I know I'm new, but I think I can add to this discussion.

In my opinion there are only two ways to deal with this situation:

1. We asume that the word 'injury' is a screw up and the rules writer actually ment wound, unsaved wound, Wound, hit or in my behalf he could have meant smurf, since we can't know. And probably we'll never know.
So only way to deal with it is make up a house rule and get over it, no one has even the slightest abillity to claim what is truly meant by this paragraph.

2. The, in my opinion, much more interesting option is to asume that the writer used 'injury' intentionally. So if he wanted to use 'injury', what could this mean? There are, few, but nontheless some instances where the word 'injury' is used in the BRB. Two are in the 'Feel no pain' paragraph itself, and pretty useless for definition purpose, the third, as mentioned before, on page 24 and not helping, too. But there is a forth: page 6, Wounds paragraph. This paragraph tells us what a Wound is supposed to be, which is the aballity to withstand several injuries; so each Wound after the first grants a model the ability to withstand an additional injury.
So what is an injury?
Everything that lowers your 'current Wound counter' by one.

So if the rule prompts us (intentionaly) to ignore the injury it asks us to ignore the actual lowering of the model's 'current Wound counter' and not the wound, neither normal, telling nor unsaved, because if it would, it would say so explicitly.

I'm not sure, if the four instances I found are all, but if somone finds another one mentioning 'injury' that either backs up my point or defeats it i'd like to read it, so feel free to reply.
Same goes for arguments, why my reasoning is either true or false.
But if you want to post that of course injury means unsaved wound (or anything else, not written out), please read point 1 and refrain from posting.
No offense, but i think 7 pages of the same presumptions should suffice.

P.S.: Considering the point:

Look at FNP it tells you to take the WOUND as normal or IGNORE the injury. In the context of FNP wound = Injury, and Injury = wound.

I'd like to add:
If ignoring the injury would mean to ignore the wound, it would say so, unless the rule was broken, wouldn't it?
Though it is true, that the rule tells us to take the wound as normal or ignoring the injury, that doesn't mean that 'injury == wound' or 'ignoring the injury == ignoring the wound' it just tells us that 'taking the wound as normal != ingnoring the injury' so, of course, if you ignore the injury, you can't take the wound as normal, since takeing the wound as normal doesn't include ignoring the injury.
If, for example, I asked you to either take breakfast as normal or ignore the scrambled egg, you wouldn't argue that breakfast and scrambled egg are the same, or even, that ignoring the scrambled egg would mean you can't take breakfast at all, would you?

edit: typo

With every second person in this thread misusing "unsaved wound" and "profile wounds", there isn't really a point anymore in arguing anything of this at all. Seriously, read the rulebook or one of the posts explaining it before posting 100% wrong statements like "suffering unsaved wounds is losing a wound from your profile".

I have yet to see any argument that does not result in any dodgy "you ignore the injury just for some things, but not for others" or "timing works like I say!" without rules back-up. The only real lead on how this was supposed to be resolved (Shadowfield) was never quoted, so I assume any mention of that was made up.

If the injury caused by hex rifle makes the model a glass statue, you didn't ignore the injury, simple as that. You broke a rule.