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.

Can Typhus use his feel no pain on a demon weapon should he roll a 1?

It came up at a tournament, the safe thing that happened was that Typhus took a wound but since I slept through my logic class in school I would like some of the members of YMDC to assist me.

Immediate thought response is no, but there may not be anything in RAW to support that statement.

Interesting question. The key issue is, would using FNP against a rebelling daemon weapon constitute "against close combat weapons that allow no armour save?"

The rebelling daemon wound is obviously not received from the weapon in the conventional sense, but does "against the weapon" - by RAW - encompass a special rule that may apply to the bearer of the weapon?

I'm not sure there's a clear RAW answer here.

The Daemon Weapon is a Power Weapon, models are not allowed Feel No Pain rolls against wounds caused by Power Weapons, therefore Typhus cannot use the Feel No Pain rule to ignore a wound that he suffers from his Daemon Weapon.

The rules don't state that the wielder of a Daemon Weapon takes a Power Weapon hit if it rolls a 1. It merely states that it "suffers one wound with no armor saves allowed." This is much more like "Gets Hot!" than anything else.

It is left a bit in the air with regards to FNP. I personally don't give Typhus the FNP roll - but I've seen it ruled both ways in tournaments. Hopefully this will be clarified in the near future.

A wound from a Power Weapon is one wound with no Armour Saves allowed. The Feel No Pain rule specifically states that it may be used when a model loses a wound, and that it cannot be used against close combat weapons that do not allow Armour Save. Daemon Weapons are Power Weapons, they allow no save.

So yes, the rules do state that the wielder of a Daemon Weapon takes a wound with no Armour Saves allowed, and the rules do state that Feel No Pain cannot be used against close combat weapons that do not allow Armour Saves. The Daemon Weapon does not allow Armour Saves whether the wound is inflicted on the wielder or some other model.

The feel no pain rule works against every attack with two exeptions:

#1 It can not be used against weapons that inflict instant death.

#2 It can not be used against a CC weapon that ignores armour saves.

The wound caused by the daemon rebelling does not cause instant death and thus #1 is not fulfilled.
This leaves #2. The daemon weapon is a weapon that ignores armour saves as it counts as a power weapon and thus it does fulfill #2... oddly enough.

I say oddly enough as its the wording that makes the case, if the wording had been from a CC attack that ignores armour saves then he would have got his feel no pain roll but not as its written.

This does however cause a separate problem.... as per the wording of the rule monstrous creatures with mundane weapons (as they all have) thus do not deny feel no pain rolls as its not the weapon that ignores saves but the power of the creature wielding it...

Yes I know, its silly but that is what the rules say.

feel no pain specifies CC weapons, monstrous creatures state that all wounds inflicted ignore armour saves.

Lets see... what rules lawyers do I know that use armies with feel no pain... this could get painfull...

This does however cause a separate problem.... as per the wording of the rule monstrous creatures with mundane weapons (as they all have) thus do not deny feel no pain rolls as its not the weapon that ignores saves but the power of the creature wielding it...

The monstrous creature IS the weapon in the case of, say, a Carnifex. FNP = No.

I don't recall the wording of the CSM codex for DP's, but I think they are considered to be armed with claws (I acknowledge that I could be wrong about that part).

...also, the logic in that statement seems skewed to me.

One could also argue that a sword wielded by a DP cannot have FNP used against it as it was the sword that caused the wound. In this case, the CCW ignored the armor saves because of the immense power it was wielded with. It was not actually the DP causing the wound.

Eric

Yea, I don't see anything that points specifically towards the weapon being what causes the damage. Yea, it sounds silly to say that out loud, but consider that one gets an armor save from Gets Hot! on a plasma weapon. That is another case where the bearer just takes a wound from their weapon, but the weapon's stats have no bearing on the nature of the wound. Worded the same way, only the DW states you don't get an armor save. I don't think that is synonymous with "caused by a weapon that does not allow armor saves."

For another example, say I shoot Typhus or any plague marine with Saint Celestine's sword of also a flamer. He takes a wound, but he was wounded by a close combat weapon (a blessed sword in this case) that does not allow armor saves (it is a power weapon). Does he get FNP? I should say so, because he was not wounded by the weapon in CC.

It is a silly, sort of grey rule depending on how you look at it, but it is not spelled out clearly in a way that makes a lot of sense. Generally CC weapons only harm things in CC. When they start doing otherwise, rules that were written assuming they can't start to break down.

I agree with you Wehrkind, you should look to the nature of the cause of the wound, sadly however this is not how GW have worded the rule.

I love the additional examples of wierd situations you came upp with and I fully agree with you (I think).

The fact still remains, the rules are written like the rules are written.

I expect most people like me will fast come to a fair agreement.

As for MagickalMemories, did you not just in another thread state that "WH40K rules are restrictive (i;e; permission required). You can only do what you are told you CAN do."

well the rules clearly state that it has to be the weapon, a monstrous creatures CC weapons do not have any special powers, they are commonly simply larger version of mundane weapons, the MC does however have a special rule that states that any wound caused by a MC in CC ignore armour saves, special rule or not it is not the weapon or the claw, ie the weapon that has the rule, it is the creature.

By your own words, the rules are restrictive, source is defined as weapon to deny FnP, it is not the weapon of an MC that has the special rule so FnP should be allowed...

Personally I would rule that any attack that has insta death capability or wound taken in CC that ignores armour saves will deny FnP.

Amusingly enough that meens a feel no pain model taking a wound from a daemon weapon may roll his FnP, likewise will a model that suffers perils of the warp, gets shot by a tzeench daemon weapon...

A plasma gun is AP2 but when it overheats the Marine still gets his armor save. To me it looks like FNP works.

- G

Yes but a plasma gun is not a CC weapon.

Besides when hit by a get hot weaqpon you get your save nomatter what the SP of the weapon.

The only question would be if the plasma gun has a high enough S value to cause instakill...

if a sword is powered by energy to slice you half the second it touches your skin, or if the sword is the size of an f-350, they both kill you dead. its not always the str of the MC that causes the "no save against MC att" rule. i mean a DP is str 6 right? thats not so high that i can justify it preventing me from a save. BUT the fact that he is carrying a sword that is 12 ft tall and 4 ft wide makes sense to me why your plasteel would'nt save you from 3 tons of metal coming down on your face...

yeah...
I think that FNP is allowed... I agree with other posts above... this is similar to 'gets hot'...

The deamon causes the wound, not the weapon.
whether this is from a psyhic link type attack from the deamon... or the hilt of the sword gets all 'BLADE' on the bearer.
It doesn't say in print that the owned smacks himself on the head with his own sword...

In 'Gets Hot' I image that the holder just gets hit by some steam venting... Not that he some how managed to stand in front of the gun while aiming it at the enemy... this is why the strength and AP doesn't apply.

yeah...

the daemon is rebelling in the weapon though. the way it rebels is not by hurting the guy physically but mentally shredding his mind. wounds in 40k are a mix of physical exertion and mental breakdown (the willingness to continue to fight). the daemon in the weapon is destroying his mind. it is a power weapon. the weapon itself does cause the wound. FNP doesn't work against CCW's that are power weapons, the wond is caused by a power weapon. Your arguing specific details that aren't meant to be vague like this. The idea is any CCW that ignores armor denies the FNP. this is a power weapon doing a wound, it denies FNP

fester wrote:Yes but a plasma gun is not a CC weapon.

So are you saying that Typhus sticks himself in the eyeball with his sword when you roll a one? I don't think you can classify taking a wound from your own daemon weapon as a close combat attack.

- G

Yeah...
It says the deamon rebels and causes one wound... theres no mention of the deamon counting as a power weapon...

as a side point, if we assume that typhus is attacked in close combat by a unquantified deamon... All lesser deamons in the codex are vanilla with no power weapon type attcks...

Yeah..

Bear in mind, if someone desires to play that the Ardent Blade does not allow FnP saves on it's template of burnination, I would be happy to oblige them

Still, if one ever needed to point out how loose wording can confuse what should be a trifling subject, this would be it. Merely stating that FnP "does not work against wounds in close combat that do not allow armor saves" would do the trick, allowing power weapons and monstrous creatures to ignore it, but psychic abilities and daemon weapons (and the Ardent Blade perhaps) to not. Alternately "any wound that does not allow an armor save can ignores FnP" would include everything including shooting and psychic tests etc.

My guess is that they just didn't consider what happens in the rare case that a model with FnP takes damage from a daemon weapon. Is there only one case?

fester wrote:As for MagickalMemories, did you not just in another thread state that "WH40K rules are restrictive (i;e; permission required). You can only do what you are told you CAN do."

well the rules clearly state that it has to be the weapon, a monstrous creatures CC weapons do not have any special powers, they are commonly simply larger version of mundane weapons, the MC does however have a special rule that states that any wound caused by a MC in CC ignore armour saves, special rule or not it is not the weapon or the claw, ie the weapon that has the rule, it is the creature.

By your own words, the rules are restrictive, source is defined as weapon to deny FnP, it is not the weapon of an MC that has the special rule so FnP should be allowed...

Personally I would rule that any attack that has insta death capability or wound taken in CC that ignores armour saves will deny FnP.

You are incorrect, sir. You attempted to INTERPRET what I meant. Read on for clarification.

First off, don't ignore RAW in one thread, then try to stuff it in my face in another. You need to decide if you're going to follow it or not. No flip-flopping.
Second, you ignored my example of a Carnifex. Too convenient.

MY comment was in regards to this:

This does however cause a separate problem.... as per the wording of the rule monstrous creatures with mundane weapons (as they all have) thus do not deny feel no pain rolls as its not the weapon that ignores saves but the power of the creature wielding it...

Yes I know, its silly but that is what the rules say.

feel no pain specifies CC weapons, monstrous creatures state that all wounds inflicted ignore armour saves.

In the case of a Carnifex, I am correct. There's no denying that, reasonably.
Now, where DP's are concerned... I don't have my codex handy. What does it say they are armed with? Does it specify that DP's actually wield a weapon? Note that I questioned that in my message.

me wrote:I don't recall the wording of the CSM codex for DP's, but I think they are considered to be armed with claws (I acknowledge that I could be wrong about that part).

Furthermore, my speculation DID follow RAW. Granted, it is not how the rule is specifically worded, but it still lies fully within the spectrum of allowable instances.

"One could also argue that a sword wielded by a DP cannot have FNP used against it as it was the sword that caused the wound. In this case, the CCW ignored the armor saves because of the immense power it was wielded with. It was not actually the DP causing the wound"

IF a DP wields a weapon, it is still the weapon that caused the wound, not the MC. Because of the DP's special rule, the DP's target doesn't get a save against the wound, which was made by the WEAPON wielded by the DP. The rule could reasonably be argued to still apply, per RAW.

Lastly, notice that I said, "One could argue..." in that quote.
I did NOT say that was how I felt. At no time did I say that was how it was "supposed" to be.
Playing "Devil's Advocate," I simply made a statement that someone could justify "No save vs DP attacks" using that specific statement, should someone believe that they should be allowed FNP vs a DP's attacks.

Please, in the future, before accusing somebody of something, be certain you have your facts straight.

Eric

Rulebook, p74 wrote:Some warriors are so blood-frenzied that they can ignore injuries that would incapacitate even a battle-hardened Space Marine. If a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice. On a 1, 2 or 3, take the wound as normal, removing the model if it loses its final wound. On a 4, 5 or 6, the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting. This ability cannot be used against weapons that inflict Instant Death (those with a Strength double or more the model's Toughness) or against close combat weapons that allow no Armour Save (such as power fists, power swords, Dreadnought close combat weapons, rending attacks that roll a 6 to hit, etc)

Codex: Chaos Space Marines, p93 wrote:A Daemon Weapons:
-Adds an extra D6 Attacks in close combat. Roll the dice every time the model is about to attack. If the result is a 1, the bound Daemon within the weapon rebels - the model may not may any attacks in this round and suffers one wound with no armour saves allowed.

So let's see: Is a Daemon Weapon a close combat weapon? Yes. Does it allow Armour Saves when it affects the wielder? No. Is it the case that a model benefits from Feel No Pain when it loses a wound due to a close combat weapon that does not allow armour saves? No, it does not.

Therefore Typhus does not benefit from Feel No Pain when he rolls a 1 before attacking with his Daemon Weapon.

Q.E.Dur.

Green Blow Fly wrote:

fester wrote:Yes but a plasma gun is not a CC weapon.

So are you saying that Typhus sticks himself in the eyeball with his sword when you roll a one? I don't think you can classify taking a wound from your own daemon weapon as a close combat attack.

- G

Well... actually very possibly this is exactly what happens.

The daemon is rebelling, the exact nature of this rebellion is not defined, it is very possible that the rebelling is purelly mental but it is eaqually belivable that the weapon actually managed to get Typhus to wound himself with his weapon, be that poking at his eye or simply slashing hos leg.

So yes, he is poking himself in the eye with the daemon weapon.

MagickalMemories:
I am arguing RAW not reason, I am actually capable of arguing a position that I do not actually follow.

Like I have pointed out in other posts on this subject my position is that if an attack (nomatter the source) is an instakill attack or a CC attack that (for whatever reason) does not allow armour saves then I consider FnP to be void.

This however does not alter the fact that the rule specifies that the weapon has to fulfill the criteria, this is RAW.

The MC rule states that all wound caused by the MC in close combat, nomatter what the source, ignore armour saves, not that their weapons gain this capability.

As for being correct about nids being the weapon... well according to the rules you are wrong.

A hive tyrant is defined to be armed with weapon-symbiotes, you may want to look upp what a symbiote is and not take my word for it but a symbiote is actually a different entity that coexists for mutual benefit with a host.
Yes this does include all weapons that the tyrant and/or the carnifex can/must/may take.

Daemon princes and a greater daemons are both defined as wielding a single close combat weapon, they may not be normal size but they are normal mundane weapons with no special rules.
I even checked the avatar, his shooty CC weapon thingy (cant be bothered to look upp the name again) didnt have any ignore armour rules ither... why should it? MC's ignore armour for all wounds caused in close combat.

I know this does not meen anything to you but you, meladdy are very close to graduating to my ignore list.

That is not a threat btw, its a reward... to me

Nurglitch
By the RAW you are right.

No, I don't think Nurglitch is correct.

Codex: Chaos Space Marines, p93 wrote:
A Daemon Weapons:
-Adds an extra D6 Attacks in close combat. Roll the dice every time the model is about to attack. If the result is a 1, the bound Daemon within the weapon rebels - the model may not may any attacks in this round and suffers one wound with no armour saves allowed.

Where does it say "The Daemon Weapon causes one wound as if in close combat"?
The wording in the codex is quite the same as Perils of the Warp or Gets Hot!, only it specifies no armor saves. Seeing as how Typhus gets a FnP save if he is hit with an AP1 bolter round, I don't see how one can be so fast to say that any random wound that does not allow an armor save means he can't take FnP.

Then again, I don't mind ignoring FnP by way of the Ardent Blade anyway. The girls need SOMETHING to help kill bloody plague marines.

It dosnt, however the FnP rule states that a CC weapon that denies saves denies FnP.

The actual wound does not have to be caused in CC, just caused by a CC weapon that does deny save.

A daemon weapon counts among other things as a power weapon. QED.

Sorry, I was not as careful as I should be.
Let me ask this a different way: What in the Daemon Weapon's rules differentiates it from Perils of the Warp and Get's Hot! type attacks?

In other words, when you get a wound from Gets Hot!, it is not treated as though you shot yourself with the plasma pistol. You get an armor save, and are not insta-killed by virtue of it being a S7 hit. Instead the wound is completely seperate from the weapon's profile. It is just a wound with no frills.
Take Perils of the Warp. It specifies it is a Str6 hit, enough to cause ID. It also specifies it does not allow saves. It is a wound that is precisely described.

Now we have this Daemon weapon. It does not say "The Daemon Weapon inflicts one wound on the bearer." It says the bearer takes one wound, and armor saves can not be taken. That sounds to me like how the Get's Hot! and PotW rules work. You take a wound. No specification of strength or what not. You may not take armor saves. Ok. AP1 Bolter shots don't allow saves when they cause a wound, but hey, you still get FnP because they were not caused by a melee weapon. Since it is not specifically the Daemon Weapon causing the wound as a CCW, I don't see why it is reasonable to jump to the conclusion that the wound uses the profile of the daemon weapon.

So even if EVERY wound caused by a CCW that allows no save in close combat ignores FnP no matter whether it is from shooting or melee attacks, even if we assume that, I do not see how it follows that the wound from a the irritated daemon inside the weapon is to be treated as being caused by the daemon weapon itself, as opposed to an unrelated "wound with no armour saves allowed" in the same fashion as Get's Hot!.

Feel No Pain has two sets of necessary and sufficient conditions that deny its use.

Either:

1. The weapon that causes the model to lose a wound has a Strength double or more the model's Toughness.

Or

2. The weapon is a i. close combat weapon and ii. does not allow armour saves.

The Daemon Weapon roll of 1 has the necessary condition of being a close combat weapon. It also has the necessary condition of not allowing armour saves. It has these together, and together these necessary conditions are sufficient to deny the use of Feel No Pain.

Gets Hot! does not apply to close combat weapons (there are no close combat weapons that have Gets Hot!), and not only allows armour saves but requires an armour saving throw to be taken. It fails to meet any of the necessary conditions for denying a model the use of Feel No Pain, and in failing to meet any of those conditions fails to meet any sufficient conditions for denying a model the use of Feel No Pain.

Perils of the Warp is not a close combat weapon, although it does not allow saving throws of any kind (presumably armour, invulnerable, and cover). While it meets the necessary condition for not allowing armour saving throws, Perils of the Warp does not meet the necessary condition of also being a close combat weapon. However, the Perils of the Warp does meet the sufficient condition of inflicting Instant Death against models of T3 or less (T3-). So a model of T4+ is permitted to use its Feel No Pain rule because Perils of the Warp is not a close combat weapon, and a model of T3- is not permitted to use its Feel No Pain rule because Perils of the Warp can cause Instant Death.

The point I am trying to make over several threads is that while I do agree it is silly the RAW is actually defined in a way that causes problems.

So lets look at the three wounds you mentioned.

All my points are strictly RAW

PotW.
This is a wound not caused by a weapon, as the FnP is only denied by weapons it is not denied.

This actually opens upp even more abuse as you could argue that psykic attacks such as the ork Zzap (only one I could be bothered looking upp the name of atm) while being a S10 attack is actually not caused by a weapon.

Plasma gun getting hot.
The fact that the get hot wound is not caused by the model shooting himslef is again besides the point, the rule states the ability can not be used against a weapon that inflicts instant death, thus a T3 model getting hit by get hot by a plasma gun would deny FnP.

Daemon weapon.
Again like with the plasma gun, the rule does not actually specify the would must be caused by the weapon in CC, the rule simply states the power is denied by a weapon that does deny saves in CC.
This would meen the daemon weapon rebelling or even the Tzeench daemon weapon shooting denies FnP as it is caused by a CC weapon that denies saves in CC.

Those three cases as well as the MC interpretation issue are perfect examples how RAW can really mess upp the rules.

I am actually torn if you should get FnP vs a daemon weapon rebelling, the wound does ignore saves however is it really a CC attack?

An excellently put down analysis. However, it does not address the point of my argument.

Just as Gets Hot! does not take the nature of the weapon causing it into account, so does the wound from rolling a 1 on a daemon weapon not take the nature of the weapon causing it into account.

In other words, the "caused by a CCW that does not allow armor saves" does not apply, because the wound is not caused by the daemon weapon. This is just as the wound from Gets Hot! is not caused by a Str7 AP2 weapon, a wound from which would normally not allow an armor save, but rather it is just a wound, for which armor saves are ok.

I am not saying that FnP doesn't work against Gets Hot!, in fact that is completely irrelevant. My point is that the model is NOT wounded by a weapon. Since FnP only is ignored by WEAPONS, it does not apply.

Similarly, PotW does not negate FnP because it is not a wound from a weapon with Str equal to twice toughness. It can have Str equal to two times or more the toughness, but it is not in fact a weapon.

I think it is silly too, but FnP is quite specific that it requires weapons to be doing the ignoring. Not spectral pokes in the eyes from the Warp. Not landing on a sharp stick after misuse of a jump pack in difficult terrain. Not even a random wound that resulted after rolling a 1 on the number of attacks.

Why? Because the Daemon Weapon is not causing the wound. At best the " the bound Daemon within the weapon" rebelling is the cause of the wound, which is no different from the plasma inside a pistol overheating.

Wehrkind: A weapon with the Gets Hot! rule causes a wound just like a Daemon Weapon causes a wound. The former allows (requires) an armour save on wounds caused to its wielder and so the model gets Feel No Pain, the latter is a close combat weapon and does not allow an armour save on the wounds it causes to its wielder.

The Gets Hot! rule is entirely relevant because it contrasts with the Perils of the Warp and Daemon Weapon cases of whether Feel No Pain is applicable. In each case the rule causes a wound on a model. In the case of the Daemon Weapon, the wound is caused by a model armed with a Daemon Weapon rolling a 1 for its number of bonus attacks. The rule "Daemon Weapon" causes the wound.

Feel No Pain is quite clear that it when a model with Feel No Pain loses a wound, there are two sets of sufficient conditions under which it may not use that rule. The first set of conditions is where weapons causing Instant Death are involved, and the second set of conditions is where Close Combat Weapons that do not allow Armour Saves are involved.

The Daemon Weapon rules are likewise quite clear that it is part of the set of Close Combat Weapons and does not allow Armour Saves when it inflicts that 1 wound on its wielder. The Daemon Weapon causes the player to roll 1D6 for extra attacks or a wound. The Daemon Weapon may therefore cause a wound and if it causes that wound it denies its wielder an armour save. Because it is a close combat weapon and denies its wielder an armour save, it also denies its wielder any Feel No Pain roll it may otherwise get (otherwise being otherwise than losing a wound where either a weapon causes Instant Death or a close combat weapon that does not allow armour saves).

None of this airy-fairy "Well, maybe it's attacking his soul". The rules are the rules. In this case they are clear and unambiguous in their application. Typhus cannot use his Feel No Pain rule to avoid taking a wound from his Daemon Weapon when he rolls a 1 for extra attacks. It is different from suffering a wound on account of the Gets Hot! rule in two ways: 1. because there is a close combat weapon involved and 2. armour saves are denied.

yeah...

Nurglitch wrote:

FNP Rulebook, p74 wrote: ... or against close combat weapons that allow no Armour Save...

Codex: Chaos Space Marines, p93 wrote:... If the result is a 1, the bound Daemon within the weapon rebels - the model may not may any attacks in this round and suffers one wound with no armour saves allowed.

By your own acknowledgement the deamon with in the weapon attacks... not the weapon...
So to sum up he gets no armour save, but since the deamon lashed out not the weapon, he gets FNP...

Am I right ?

But here you seem to change your mind and decide that it's the weapon tha's lashing out... not the deamon inside...

Nurglitch wrote:... The Daemon Weapon roll of 1 has the necessary condition of being a close combat weapon. It also has the necessary condition of not allowing armour saves. It has these together, and together these necessary conditions are sufficient to deny the use of Feel No Pain...

Yeah...

Just before Im am off to sleep...

Ignoring RAW!

So does anyone play the rule demanding a weapon?

I would play it so that any attack causing insta death or any attack in CC denying saves negates FnP, does this differ from how you would rule it in a friendly or tournament game?