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.

Does it work?

- G

What does PotW stand for, I don't have my "little book of terminolgy" with me

"Feel No Pain" saving you against a Perils of the Warp inflicted wound/kill

I suppose its ok... once you get the wound from PotW there is no difference to any other normal wound...

That's an odd scenario... how did that come up?

Zogwort + Mad Dok or Weirdboy + Painboy?

I saw it mentioned on another forum. I use Mephiston so I am curious and came here for enlightenment.

Like I pointed out in the daemon weapon thread, feel no pain works against any wound taken that does not come from ither a weapon with insta kill power or a CC weapon that ignores armour saves.

A perils of the warp wound is nither and thus can be rolled.

Lets here too ask the question...

Does feel no pain work against a monstrous creatures CC attacks if the S of the creature is not enough to cause insta kill?

Remember again that the wording of the feel no pain rule specifies weapon.

I agree, the PotW uses a standard strength so models with feel no pain would be allowed to roll. If however the model in question had a toughness half or less of the Perils of the Warp's strength then it would count as an instant kill and he/she would not be able to make the Feel no Pain roll.

fester wrote:Like I pointed out in the daemon weapon thread, feel no pain works against any wound taken that does not come from ither a weapon with insta kill power or a CC weapon that ignores armour saves.

Does feel no pain work against a monstrous creatures CC attacks if the S of the creature is not enough to cause insta kill?

Remember again that the wording of the feel no pain rule specifies weapon.

You answered this yourself. A monstrous creature's CC attacks ignore armor saves.

Go and read the FnP rules, they specify that if a weapon ignores saves in CC then FnP is not allowed, a MC's weapon commonly has no such rule as there is a special rule attributed to the MC that does this.

In short, the weapon does not ignore armour saves.

My personal opinion and how I will play it is that any attack causing instant death and any CC attack that ignores armour save will deny FnP but this is not how the rule is written, the wrule RAW states its the weapon specifically that has to fulfill the requirements.

fester wrote:
In short, the weapon does not ignore armour saves.

Yes it does.
Any weapon weilded in CC by a MC ignores the save simply because the MC is wielding it.

Or do I need to start declaring which dice are for rending claws and which are for my scything talons for the other 'nids?


rarrr

I don't think it is possible to classify PotW as a close combat attack.

- G

PotW cannot be "saved". FNP is not a "save" of any kind.

So long as it doesn't instakill, you can FNP it.

Anyone suggesting you can FNP a MC's close combat attacks, well we'll all enjoy a good laugh at your stupidity.

Here you go.

Ok, lets look at a few MC weapons:

Daemon prince/greater daemon:
A single close combat weapon, does not ignore armour

Hive tyrant/carnifex:
A choise of weapon-symbiotes.
Bonesword, does not ignore armour
Crushing claws, does not ignore armour
Lash Whip, does not ignore armour
Rending claws, makes all CC attacks rending and thus will ignore armour on a 6 to hit.
Scything talons, does not ignore armour

Avatar:
The wailing doom, does not ignore armour

I can go on if you want.
In each case there is no mention of the weapons ignoring armour saves with the rending exception of the nids.

The rule actually specifically states that the weapon must ignore the armour save but in each case the weapon does not.

The MC special rule additionally states that any wound caused by the MC ignores armour saves, not any attack, not any weapon used by...
Any wound caused, this meens the weapon makes no difference, its the fact that its the MC that causes the effect.

And then again I point out that the poorly written FnP rules specifically demands that the weapon must ignore armour saves in CC.

As for your rending/scything claws thingie... have you even read the rules?
Rending claws make ALL the models CC attacks rending, thus if you have a model with scything talons x2, rending claws, whatever other CC weapons symbiotes you choose and on the charge and whatever other attack boosting thingamajicks you choose to use... ALL CC attacks done by the model will count as rending.

Edit:

Stelek wrote:Here you go.

Thanx I always like some laughing

Actually if you read my above post you will see I do not think it should, all I claim is that RAW the rules actually do not deny FNP if a MC attacks in CC based on the MC attacks ignoring saves.

Stelek wrote:Anyone suggesting you can FNP a MC's close combat attacks, well we'll all enjoy a good laugh at your stupidity.

Here you go.

As requested!

Dude, you cannot FNP MC CC attacks. I don't care how you "read" the rules. I even don't care if you are correct and GW says you can. lol

Its always a female dog to jump in late in a discussion isnt it Stelek

seeing how i always answer questions while im at work and never around my book, ill try my best at this..

IIRC the BGB states the reason why MC attacks deny armor saves is that the weapons they use, be it fist or sword are so big and horrendous that they rend\tear\maim everything to smitherines due to size\strength etc..

a claw\fist\hand is a weapon to MC's i.e. a CC weapon that denies saves.

this used to be eaiser, i think before the the MC rule came out, stuff either had powerfists or not. now, i just look at it in the sense that all MC's have weapons, be it a fist or a tree or the last marine my wraithlord killed that he is now using as a nun-chuck. all those would kill you dead if you were hit by it and deny you the FNP.

huge_eldar, this is the problem of arguing RAW over your own conviction.

RAW FnP states there are two situations when it is denied.

#1 being a weapon that is capable of instakilling.

#2 being a CC weapon that ignores armour saves.

The reason we can even have this discussion at all is the fact that it specifies weapon.

The PotW wound is not caused by a weapon and thus FnP is allowed as per RAW.

A CC hit by an MC may ignore armour saves however the rules state all wounds caused by an MC in CC ignore saves, not that the weapons of said MC ignores saves.
This meens nomatter where the wound caused by the MC in CC comes from it will ignore saves (unless specifically stated otherwise).

In a separate thread the case of a daemon weapon rolling a 1 on its D6 extra attacks allows FnP is talked about, as a daemon weapon is a weapon that ignores armour saves it qualifies as per RAW to deny FnP as would in theory a plasma gun getting hot on a T3 model.

All of thise may not be RAI but they are RAW.

Personally I barelly ever play RAW if I can avoid it but its good to brush upp on RAW debate angles for when I next time get into a RAW is the only way to go discussion with my local munshkins, nothing iluminates a RAW question as good as ventilating it on a forum.

So Fester, does that mean that in CC a guy with FnP always gets it, even if it is a T2 Grot with FnP (work with me here) vs a S6 Daemon Prince? Since it is the DP's strength that is twice the T, and thus causes ID, and not the weapon itself (since CC weapons don't have a strength, but use that of the wielder) does that mean that FNP ALWAYS works in melee unless struck by a weapon that denies armor saves?

Sounds like it should be the case based on RAW. Also sounds sort of silly

Personally, I think of it, and play it, as the bearer of a CCW and the CCW merge into one. If a Cannoness has a blessed weapon, the statline of the CCCW (Cannoness Close Combat Weapon) becomes S5 A4 Ignores armor. A Daemon Prince gives his close combat weapon S6 A(whatever) Ignores Armor. Whether or not that is RAW, well it probably isn't because it makes too much sense for this discussion to exist after all

Damn, someone actually thought one step further, I have been waiting for this one for a while.

Wherkind, good angle but a fail.

A CC weapon has its S defined as the wielders S.

This would meen a MC, say a daemon prince with S6, hits a gretchin who by some odd plot device had managed to gain the FnP rule would still deny the FnP as the weapon's defined strength would instakill the model.

Remember here that FnP is denied if the CC weapon has instakill capabilities as well as if the weapon ignores saves, the instakill part is not limited to shooting.

And again, like I have pointed out several times:
I would replace the word weapon in the FnP rule with wound, attack or other suitable word not limiting it to a specific source.

Thus any attack, nomatter what the source, that is capable of instakilling the model (even if its not S based such as a force weapons instakill rule) and any CC attack that bypasses the models normal armour save would void the FnP USR.

That is my opinion, my opinion is almost always defined by my interpritation of the rule RAI.
Naturally this fairly often contradicts RAW.

fester wrote:

A CC weapon has its S defined as the wielders S.

. . .

Remember here that FnP is denied if the CC weapon has instakill capabilities as well as if the weapon ignores saves, the instakill part is not limited to shooting.

. . .

That is my opinion, my opinion is almost always defined by my interpritation of the rule RAI.
Naturally this fairly often contradicts RAW.

It also has its other characteristics (such as ignoring armor saves in the case of MC) modified according to RAW.
Strength is simply one of those. A Hive Tyrant's scything talon gets all the rules of the Tyrant (MC included), even though the lowly Hormagaunt also has the same exact weapon - scything talons.

If you want to call the silliness here it is the assumption that RAI is RAW.

carry on.



rarrr

I might be inclined to check specifically where it says "A CC weapon has its S defined as the wielders S. " or something to that effect. Considering the hairs this rule argument splits, it might be beneficial to have a rules quote.

I agree with the bit about changing the rule to be any WOUND, but then again that causes other issues (see the bit about Neural Shredders and ID). Still I think it is quite poorly defined, and perhaps makes FnP work quite differently depending on exact verbage used to describe it.

Neat, do you know what that quote method is called?

Its called quote mining.

You have edited my quote, while completelly correct under the rules of quotes, as to make it seem like I claim somthing I do not.

If you want to prove my RAW position wrong then point to its flaw, do not use transparent cheapshots that even Carl Rove would be ashamed to use.

The fact is that the rules state that for CC weapons you use the models strength, thus the strength of a close combat weapon IS the strength of the model (in most cases).

Moreover the rules also state that MC's have a special rule in CC that makes all the wounds they cause in close combat ignore armour.
Weapon is not even mentioned in the rule.

RAW thus its the MC that has the power. Claiming that it by some form of logic becomes a special rule of the weapon is not RAW, that is RAI.

Thus in the first case the rule states weapon S = model S

In the second it states nothing at all about a weapon, just that a MC's caused wounds in CC ignore saves.

Wehrkind wrote:I might be inclined to check specifically where it says "A CC weapon has its S defined as the wielders S. " or something to that effect. Considering the hairs this rule argument splits, it might be beneficial to have a rules quote.

I agree with the bit about changing the rule to be any WOUND, but then again that causes other issues (see the bit about Neural Shredders and ID). Still I think it is quite poorly defined, and perhaps makes FnP work quite differently depending on exact verbage used to describe it.

What strength to use, p41.

"In almost all cases, when rolling to wound in close combat, use the strength on the attacker's profile regardless of what weapon they are using."

It goes on to say that some weapons may give a strength bonus.

So, how does that specify that the weapon's Str characteristic is the same as that of the bearer?

I would point out "A CC weapon has its S defined as the wielders S. " does not equal "In almost all cases, when rolling to wound in close combat, use the strength on the attacker's profile regardless of what weapon they are using."
I am not saying I would play it that way, but there are fairly convincing arguments made that the strength used is not necesarily the same as the weapon's strength. In other words, using the attacker's strength is not the same as the weapon's strength. It would seem that FnP only cares what the weapon's strength is. I say that as the FnP rule is very specific in it's use of weapon, and not "wound".

fester wrote:Neat, do you know what that quote method is called?

Its called quote mining.

You have edited my quote, while completelly correct under the rules of quotes, as to make it seem like I claim somthing I do not.

If you want to prove my RAW position wrong then point to its flaw, do not use transparent cheapshots that even Carl Rove would be ashamed to use.

The fact is that the rules state that for CC weapons you use the models strength, thus the strength of a close combat weapon IS the strength of the model (in most cases).

Moreover the rules also state that MC's have a special rule in CC that makes all the wounds they cause in close combat ignore armour.
Weapon is not even mentioned in the rule.

RAW thus its the MC that has the power. Claiming that it by some form of logic becomes a special rule of the weapon is not RAW, that is RAI.

Thus in the first case the rule states weapon S = model S

In the second it states nothing at all about a weapon, just that a MC's caused wounds in CC ignore saves.

If that had been the case, I would have also asserted your claims bordered on asserting that MC rules should apply to ranged attacks, especially in regard to the Tyranids.

However, the elipsis were to denote I was simply removing the parts that were irrelevant from the response point of view - and to denote I was removing them. So that anyone who had the idea of looking as to what was quoted would see the entirety and the people who had already read that . . . text would not need to spam their screens with it again.

Does quoting paragraphs of spam to condradict the single relevent sentence or two in the thing better than refering a few lines and denoting that such was done, or should that be a different thread?

Attacks are made with what, in close combat, according the the RAW we discuss? quick answer - in every instance - is a weapon. Splitting hairs over what the weapon rules say simply ignores what the rest of the rules about using weapons state.

Find me a rule that says something deals damage in close combat that is not a weapon and how that could possibly apply, and then continue.
I looked. But apparently I missed something again.

kirsanth wrote:Attacks are made with what, in close combat, according the the RAW we discuss? quick answer - in every instance - is a weapon. Splitting hairs over what the weapon rules say simply ignores what the rest of the rules about using weapons state.

Ehhh.... so RAW is applying logic and connecting the dots all of a sudden?

RAW is exactly that, if you have to you split the hairs, RAW is down to basics cemantics, a single ',', 'or' or 'and' changing the complete meening of a scentence at the core.

If you have some other meening ro Rules As Written then I can see why we can not agree what the RAW rules state.

Usung reason, connecting the dots, devining what the intent of the rule was on creation is usually what is refered to as RAI or Rules As Intended and this is a completelly different matter.

Find me a rule that says something deals damage in close combat that is not a weapon and how that could possibly apply, and then continue.
I looked. But apparently I missed something again.

Ok, Im game...
I will naturally asume you agree that the definition of weapon has to be the game definition of weapon and thus to be a weapon the source will have to be defined by the game as a weapon... oh... all I have to do not is to find a rule, piece of wargear or power that deals damage that is not a weapon according to the game.

Bio-plasma: a nid with this biomorph makes a CC attack by vomiting bio-plasma over a target, the attack has a static to hit chance of 4+ nomatter what the correlating WS's of the models, it can in no way form or shape be called a weapon as it is a biomorph and not a symbiote weapon... well naturally you will argue that the nid is a weapon much like you can consider your own hands as wepons.

Lightning field: Necron wargear, again not defined as a weapon by the rules of the game (but can be argued circularly that as it causes damage it is a weapon) each wound inflicted by an opponent will cause a S3 no save feedback lightning hit.

Then we have psykic powers, I dont really have the time atm as I have to get upp early tomorrow to go through all the codexes but I seem to recall several psykic powers that deal damage in the CC phase.
Again you can argue that the power is the weapon or the mind is the weapon but that would just be silly.