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

Reminder, clarification or perhaps addition? I see it as an additional restriction that has now been removed. In any case, why would they remove if if they didn't intend EW to allow FNP? This thread makes it evident that the rules are not clear without it if they intended EW not to apply.

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

It is an result of an effect, which is to inflict instant death. Wording there is pretty clear.

Well if the instant death rule causes a model that ignores instant death to not be able to take feel not pain, it needs to say this, as you can't ignore half a rule unless it states so.

Still cut and dry. It's just not everyones got both pieces of bread in their hands.

If you ignore the effects of instant death, then you ignore the effect of it removing the ability to take FNP.

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The wording hasnt been changed. A reminder has been removed.

Reminder, clarification or perhaps addition? I see it as an additional restriction that has now been removed. In any case, why would they remove if if they didn't intend EW to allow FNP? This thread makes it evident that the rules are not clear without it if they intended EW not to apply.

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

It is an result of an effect, which is to inflict instant death. Wording there is pretty clear.

So you're arguing intent now?

juraigamer wrote:Well if the instant death rule causes a model that ignores instant death to not be able to take feel not pain, it needs to say this, as you can't ignore half a rule unless it states so.

Still cut and dry. It's just not everyones got both pieces of bread in their hands.

If you ignore the effects of instant death, then you ignore the effect of it removing the ability to take FNP.

The rule does state so. It's in FnP, not in any ID rule (USR or page 16).

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're arguing intent now?

Yes, as always when the rules are unclear or RAW nonsensical.

I disagree that it's unclear or nonsensical - but FYI it's a good idea to clarify you're arguing intent - I might've missed it though.

I think intent matches RAW - that EW does not allow FNP when theres a double toughness wound.

Crimson - it was a reminder. Clear as day.

rigeld2 wrote:I disagree that it's unclear or nonsensical - but FYI it's a good idea to clarify you're arguing intent - I might've missed it though.

I think this thread and the poll demonstrate quite well that it is unclear. And I talked about the intent when we we started to speculate what the different wordings between editions might mean.

I think intent matches RAW - that EW does not allow FNP when theres a double toughness wound.

Wait! So you really believe that they intended EW to allow FNP against weapons with ID USR but not against double strength weapons? Because I for a moment cannot believe that this could be the intent. It is either FNP with EW or no FNP even with EW. I think it is the former, but latter is not ludicrous. Different rules depending on the source of ID however is.

I do not believe that GW intentionally builds complex hidden rules, only to be deduced by the enlightened. Usually the common sense interpretation is what they intended, and here I believe it to be that EW allows FNP. I think that is what most average people without knowledge of the prior editions of the game would conclude upon reading what is in the 6E rulebook. It is however also conceivable that they intended it to work like in prior editions, but the sentence that was present in 5E got somehow accidentally lost. They would not intentionally remove it unless they meant to change the rule.

No, either I misspoke or you misunderstood.
EW in no way shapes how FNP is resolved.
EW does not in any way reference FNP.
FNP does not in any way reference EW.

Trying to make a link is Easter egging.
Trying to say that EW allows FNP when an ID wound comes in has zero rules support - which should be obvious since you've moved to intent.

rigeld2 wrote:No, either I misspoke or you misunderstood.

You specificly mentioned double toughness strength, wound, and concept of p16 and ID USR being different has been mentioned, so that was what confused me.

EW in no way shapes how FNP is resolved.

EW does not in any way reference FNP.

FNP does not in any way reference EW.

ID affects how FNP is resolved and EW affects how ID is resolved.

Trying to make a link is Easter egging.
Trying to say that EW allows FNP when an ID wound comes in has zero rules support - which should be obvious since you've moved to intent.

I mentioned intent because the rules are unclear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And let's make one thing clear. Page 16 does not any point use words 'inflict instant death.' It is not 'if this thing happens, then instant death is inflicted and these are effects of it.'

Instead it says: 'If a model suffers an unsaved Wound from an attack that has Strength value of double of its Toughness value or greater (after modifiers), it is reduced to 0 Wounds and removed as casualty.'

Words Instant Death are not mentioned in the whole paragraph, merely in the heading. There is no separate 'Instant Death effect' to which one could be immune to. There are only two cases of Instant Death one can be Immune to. The Instant Death rule on p. 16 and Instant Death USR. Being immune to effects of either means that Instant Death cannot be inflicted upon you via them.

Crimson wrote:
ID affects how FNP is resolved and EW affects how ID is resolved.

And here's the key.
Where does IDs resolution effect FNP? Still hinging on inflict even though it's been proven to not work that way?

I mentioned intent because the rules are unclear.

Only if you are Easter egging.

rigeld2 wrote:
And here's the key.
Where does IDs resolution effect FNP? Still hinging on inflict even though it's been proven to not work that way?

Your definition of 'proof' seems to be rather forgiving in this case.
EDIT: and read my previous post that the forum decided to add to the post you quoted.

Only if you are Easter egging.

I think the poll results and many opinions in this thread reflect genuine confusion on this subject. Personally I am genuinely trying to decipher how the game makers intended this game to work. I have no models that would be affected to this either way, I am definitely not arguing this to gain some sort of an advantage in the game.

You are building bridges to nowhere and making links that don't exist to try to understand? It's clear. Let's pretend the ID USR is replaced with the Killey Death USR with the exact same wording, now what is your opinion?

The problem is that you can't seem to get over there being 2 IDs. One is a USR that is applied to a weapon, one is a pre-defined game term. ID USR amends the game term it is nit a separate rule in and of itself.

Yes, there is two: Instant Death rule on p. 16 and Instant Death USR. What there is not, is a separate instant death effect one could be immune to.
You are immune to effects of these two rules, and this means instant death cannot be inflicted upon you.

Crimson wrote:
Yes, there is two: Instant Death rule on p. 16 and Instant Death USR. What there is not, is a separate instant death effect one could be immune to.
You are immune to effects of these two rules, and this means instant death cannot be inflicted upon you.

So FNP does nothing ever?

You're trying to resolve the wound before FNP is rolled, and if it's already resolved FNP doesn't allow you to undo it.

It is 'Wound that inflicts Instant Death', not 'Wound that have inflicted Instant Death. There is no issue. It means wounds that inflict Instant Death once resolved, which happens right now because you won't get FNP. (Unless you're an Eternal Warrior, and ID cannot be inflicted.)

ID and FNP kick in at the same time, the moment you are about to apply the wounds.

rigeld2 wrote:[

juraigamer wrote:Well if the instant death rule causes a model that ignores instant death to not be able to take feel not pain, it needs to say this, as you can't ignore half a rule unless it states so.

Still cut and dry. It's just not everyones got both pieces of bread in their hands.

If you ignore the effects of instant death, then you ignore the effect of it removing the ability to take FNP.

The rule does state so. It's in FnP, not in any ID rule (USR or page 16).

Then you have a rules conflict, since EW ignores the instant death rule, but instant death disallows FNP to be taken.

You can't ignore a rule on a model and currently the rules conflict. I'm not quite sure why there is so much anger regarding this, it's pretty simple.

Then again, it ISN'T a rules conflict. Instant death states it just does what it does. The EW rule states it ignores the effects of instant death. FNP states that it cannot be taken against wounds that cause instant death. If you ignore the effects of instant death, you ignore the effect of it. This means you ignore any effect instant death causes, including but not limited to ignoring FNP.

juraigamer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:[

juraigamer wrote:Well if the instant death rule causes a model that ignores instant death to not be able to take feel not pain, it needs to say this, as you can't ignore half a rule unless it states so.

Still cut and dry. It's just not everyones got both pieces of bread in their hands.

If you ignore the effects of instant death, then you ignore the effect of it removing the ability to take FNP.

The rule does state so. It's in FnP, not in any ID rule (USR or page 16).

Then you have a rules conflict, since EW ignores the instant death rule, but instant death disallows FNP to be taken.

You can't ignore a rule on a model and currently the rules conflict. I'm not quite sure why there is so much anger regarding this, it's pretty simple.

Then again, it ISN'T a rules conflict. Instant death states it just does what it does. The EW rule states it ignores the effects of instant death. FNP states that it cannot be taken against wounds that cause instant death. If you ignore the effects of instant death, you ignore the effect of it. This means you ignore any effect instant death causes, including but not limited to ignoring FNP.

What conflict?
FNP not working on ID wounds is not an effect of Instant Death. It's a restriction on FNP.
Models that aren't slowed by difficult terrain still suffer the init drop because they moved through it.

rigeld2 wrote:
FNP not working on ID wounds is not an effect of Instant Death. It's a restriction on FNP.
Models that aren't slowed by difficult terrain still suffer the init drop because they moved through it.

But I bet that rule won't say that those models are immune to the effects of difficult terrain. 'Cause then I would damn well argue that their ini is unaffected.

I was hoping to not have to break it down so simply for you, but apparently this is not sinking in. So, here we go:

Basic Rule Book, Instant Death USR wrote:Unsaved Wounds inflicted by an Attack with this special rule automatically inflict Instant Death, regardless of the victim's toughness (see page 16).

Wounds caused with an attack that has this special rule inflict ID. It then mentions Toughness. What does Toughness have to do with it? Oh wait, because the Instant Death Rule (pre-defined game term) requires the weapon be 2X the toughness. If this is not an amendment to the earlier rule why include 2, count them 2, references to the earlier rule? If this was a stand alone rule why reference another rule? Because it modifies ID, it is not its own stand alone rule it is a rule that modifies an existing rule. Which is why it tells us to read page 16. We are not told to read page 16 for our health but for information on what Instant Death is, and what the effects of ID are.

Basic Rule Book, Feel No Pain USR wrote:Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be taken against unsaved Wounds the inflict Instant Death.

Notice the word inflict. Now go back up a quote and look at the wording there. An attack with this rule automatically inflicts ID. Inflicts. So the rule gives me permission to inflict ID. Show me a rule where I am not allowed to Inflict ID on an EW? I know what you are going to say, so I am going to say it for you. He is immune to the effects so it is not inflicted. But, it is. You see EW does not remove my ability to inflict ID, I still inflict it. How do I know this? The rule says I can. As long as the attack has this special rule I inflict ID. Show me a rule that says I cannot. And I don't want opinions or intent, I want RAW. Show me a rule that places a limit on my ability to inflict ID simply because your model refuses to die.

Basic Rule Book, Instant Death Page 16 wrote: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.

Notice the simplicity of the AND. If a weapon has 2X strength or more you a) are reduced to 0 wounds, and b) are removed as a casualty. Last time I checked two things counted as plural. Effects, there are two of them. The rule is clear. This is under the Instant Death section, and there are two things here: conditions and effects. As soon as the conditions are met the effects take place. Ignoring the effects does not mean the condition is not still met, it simply means you ignore the rest of it after the condition is met. You still suffer an unsaved Wound that would kill you outright if you were not an EW.

By your logic we would ignore the whole thing and you would not take a wound at all since the backup to not being removed as a casualty is to only suffer 1 wound. You would have us ignore the whole thing, including the unsaved wound.

Basic Rule Book, Eternal Warrior Special Rule wrote:
A model with this special rule is immune to the effects of Instant Death.

Cut and dry. Effects of ID. You do not ignore ID, but the effects.

The USR referencing other rules doesn't matter one bit. EW, is immune to effects of that USR, and effect of that USR is to make an attack to Inflict Instant Death. Stop referencing the rule effects of which EW is immune to. These effects do not happen.

I am not sure if this is the intent, I can only guess, but that certainly is RAW.

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

For the past 2 editions, power weapons didn't have AP values. Now they do. Furious Charge always added +1 S and +1 I. Now it doesn't. Rules change with different editions, sometimes invalidating any previous "precedents."

4th edition rule for FNP had no mention of EW, as EW was introduced as a Universal Special Rule later on. But it also did not state models wearing Adamantine Mantles or Demonic Runes could not take a FNP save. And up until 5th edition came about, I do believe Demons were using FNP against ID wounds.

5th editon rule for EW was worded as "The model is immune to the effects of the instant death rule."

6th edition rule for EW states ""A model with this special rule is immune to the effects of instant death."

5th edition rule for FNP specifically stated that it could not be used against ID even if the model had EW.

6th edition rule for FNP has removed the previous 5th edition restriction regarding EW.

New edition. New rules changes. Thus FNP can be used against ID as long as a model has EW.

Simple enough for me.

My friends and I will play it that FNP is allowed against wounds that cause ID if the model has EW. The rules aren't really ambiguous here, but some people are grasping at straws against it anyway. I don't typically play tournaments anymore (got bored) so I don't have to worry about TOs ruling against it. If I play a pickup game against someone new, and they want to discuss it, we can, but they best have a damn good argument as to why it shouldn't be allowed, since the rulebook is pretty obvious. FNP is negated by instant death, which is negated by Eternal Warrior. A negation of a negation is a positive, therefore FNP is allowed. Math is at work people-try to keep up.
(I'm not being snide unless you disagree with me )

timetowaste85 wrote:My friends and I will play it that FNP is allowed against wounds that cause ID if the model has EW. The rules aren't really ambiguous here, but some people are grasping at straws against it anyway. I don't typically play tournaments anymore (got bored) so I don't have to worry about TOs ruling against it. If I play a pickup game against someone new, and they want to discuss it, we can, but they best have a damn good argument as to why it shouldn't be allowed, since the rulebook is pretty obvious. FNP is negated by instant death, which is negated by Eternal Warrior. A negation of a negation is a positive, therefore FNP is allowed. Math is at work people-try to keep up.
(I'm not being snide against any of the people who agree with me )

It's like you didn't even read the thread. Thanks for your opinion, however non-rules based it is.

You're right-I didn't read it-I looked at the poll and the original question and went from there. I didn't need to read the full thread, but good attempt at being condescending anyway. I addressed the rules and how I think it should be played, which is what the OP asked for. You're absolutely welcome to my opinion Rigeld, as well as how the book writes it-sorry the rules don't agree with you. Better luck next time. And, if you feel like my answer makes me too much of a smart-ass, feel free to look at your obnoxious response to my first post.

timetowaste85 wrote:You're right-I didn't read it-I looked at the poll and the original question and went from there. I didn't need to read the full thread, but good attempt at being condescending anyway. I addressed the rules and how I think it should be played, which is what the OP asked for. You're absolutely welcome to my opinion Rigeld, as well as how the book writes it-sorry the rules don't agree with you. Better luck next time. And, if you feel like my answer makes me too much of a smart-ass, feel free to look at your obnoxious response to my first post.

See, if you'd read the thread I've posted how the rules agree with me.
I'm not sure how my post was obnoxious. I said you didn't read the thread and thanked you. You admitted you didn't read the thread and treat me like I'm a jerk.

Have a good night.

Basic Rule Book, Instant Death USR wrote:
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.

Here are the effects of Instant Death.

Clearly this rule holds ID's effects. This is RAW.

This is what models with EW are immune to.

Basic Rule Book, Instant Death USR wrote:Unsaved Wounds inflicted by an Attack with this special rule automatically inflict Instant Death, regardless of the victim's toughness (see page 16).

The answer is right here.

Did you fail a save?

If yes then "this special rule automatically inflict[s] Instant Death"

So we look at ID's effects above, and we can not roll FNP.

rigeld2 wrote:
See, if you'd read the thread I've posted how the rules agree with me.

I think that part is just a bit debatable at the moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Death Reaper, you are arbitrarily declaring certain things not to be effects, and then arguing that immunity does not apply to them.

Your "thanks" came across as sarcastic because I didn't read the thread past the initial post, which is what I was answering. If you can't see the hostility in your post...I don't know what to tell you. If that wasn't your goal, I apologize (this is text based after all, emotion doesn't come through very well), but your post did come across as "well, thanks for making an uninformed opinion that doesn't agree with mine, or the rulebook." Whether or not that's how you intended it, that's how it reads. And my "view" is stated as clearly by the book as any: FNP is ignored by ID, but ID is ignored by EW. Therefore, if EW ignores ID, then anything ID ignores is no longer affected. A negative in this case cancels out a negative. That is using actual mathematical logic that is taught in algebra classes, plus information from the rulebook. So yes, my opinion is well-informed, mathematically sound, and is perfectly rule-based.

Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
See, if you'd read the thread I've posted how the rules agree with me.

I think that part is just a bit debatable at the moment.

Back to arguing rules and not intent? Found something you can cite finally?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

timetowaste85 wrote:Your "thanks" came across as sarcastic because I didn't read the thread past the initial post, which is what I was answering. If you can't see the hostility in your post...I don't know what to tell you. If that wasn't your goal, I apologize (this is text based after all, emotion doesn't come through very well), but your post did come across as "well, thanks for making an uninformed opinion that doesn't agree with mine, or the rulebook." Whether or not that's how you intended it, that's how it reads. And my "view" is stated as clearly by the book as any: FNP is ignored by ID, but ID is ignored by EW. Therefore, if EW ignores ID, then anything ID ignores is no longer affected. A negative in this case cancels out a negative. That is using actual mathematical logic that is taught in algebra classes, plus information from the rulebook. So yes, my opinion is well-informed, mathematically sound, and is perfectly rule-based.

You really should read the thread.

EW ignores the effects of ID - ID is still inflicted, it just doesn't have it's effect.
EW does not affect how FNP is processed. How can it when neither rule mentions the other?

Crimson wrote:Death Reaper, you are arbitrarily declaring certain things not to be effects

And you're arbitrarily arguing that the cause is a part of the effect.