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.

Jidmah wrote: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.

Show me in the rules where it states that Feel no Pain either is rolled before, or takes precedence over the characteristic test of Hexrifle, at which point in time, I will lay down my debate hat and agree with your conclusions. Until you can show me where Feel No Pain trumps things triggering off of an unsaved wound (which is the specific thing that triggers Feel No Pain also, so make sure that it doesn't negate itself there) then you cannot in all realism tell someone with a Hexrifle that you dont have to roll a test to see if they turn to glass. And seeing as the turning to glass is not a wound, FnP can still give you back the wound, it just wont matter as they are dead anyway.

Does it need to be rolled before? Isn't all shooting of a single unit happening at one point in time? There are no rules for timing. There is only a binary question whether you ignored an injury or not. If you didn't, you broke a rule. If did ignore it, you didn't break a rule. As pointed out before, Feel No Pain ignoring it's own trigger would work perfectly fine.

FnP can still give you back the wound

This is the exact misuse of terms I was talking about. Feel no pain can never do such a thing, as models without profile Wounds are immediately removed as casualty. Refer to Yarrik, Thawn or Necrons for rules that do work that way.
Note that while the German BRB does state that it does work that way, the original one doesn't.

So you want to break the Hexrifle's rule so you can avoid breaking FNP's rule? That's the only way your interpretation would work.

How is the hexrifle rule broken? Something that didn't suffer an injury from it doesn't suffer its effect. That's exactly what its rules say.

The Hexrifle tells you to do something when a model suffers an unsaved wound. You didn't do it. You broke the rule.

If you pass your FNP wound, you are told to ignore that exact event. So once you pull the model due to glassification, you did it for no reason, which is just the same as removing an enemy model for no reason while he isn't looking.

By your interpretation, you can take FNP against wounds caused by instant death weapons, because instant death triggers off of unsaved wounds as well. So no weapons can cause instant death because FNP ignores the unsaved wound...

Uh, no? All weapons causing Instant Death after wounding ignore armor and thus FNP. All unsaved wounds causing Instant Death by themselves(for example double strength) also ignore FNP.

An imaginary non-power but force weapon could indeed be prevented by FNP.

So according to you, a terminator with FNP getting hit by a Krak missile can take his FNP test?

Jidmah wrote:If you pass your FNP wound, you are told to ignore that exact event. So once you pull the model due to glassification, you did it for no reason, which is just the same as removing an enemy model for no reason while he isn't looking.

However, you must suffer an unsaved wound in order for FnP to get its trigger. It has the same trigger as the Hexrifle's characteristic test, so why should you get to use the trigger for FnP but not for the test??? Especially iff all shooting is done at the same time, you should have to do both because you suffered an unsaved wound, which then triggers both events simultaneously, hence both events would happen. If you pass FnP, and fail the char test for the Hexrifle, you still die, just not from the wound you ignored, from the char test that you failed.

Either way, you only ignore the injury, it says nowhere that it didnt happen. FnP gives you the ability to ignore the fact that all wounds take one away from your profile wounds, not that you can be wounded but not lose a wound, because that is exactly what FnP does, is that it allows you to be wounded without losing a wound, which is also called ignoring the wound. See my previous definition for better clarification.

bushido wrote:So according to you, a terminator with FNP getting hit by a Krak missile can take his FNP test?

Are you misreading my post on purpose? The answer to that question is right there. A krak missle never triggers instant death. Feel no pain can never be attempted against a wound causing instant death by itself.

Galador wrote:

Jidmah wrote:If you pass your FNP wound, you are told to ignore that exact event. So once you pull the model due to glassification, you did it for no reason, which is just the same as removing an enemy model for no reason while he isn't looking.

However, you must suffer an unsaved wound in order for FnP to get its trigger. It has the same trigger as the Hexrifle's characteristic test, so why should you get to use the trigger for FnP but not for the test??? Especially iff all shooting is done at the same time, you should have to do both because you suffered an unsaved wound, which then triggers both events simultaneously, hence both events would happen. If you pass FnP, and fail the char test for the Hexrifle, you still die, just not from the wound you ignored, from the char test that you failed.

You may not take that char test. You didn't suffer a wound to take it.

Either way, you only ignore the injury, it says nowhere that it didnt happen. FnP gives you the ability to ignore the fact that all wounds take one away from your profile wounds, not that you can be wounded but not lose a wound, because that is exactly what FnP does, is that it allows you to be wounded without losing a wound, which is also called ignoring the wound. See my previous definition for better clarification.

So you are sitting at a table with three people, and one says roll a dice, on a 4+ you buy me a drink. You pick up the dice and roll a 6. The other person then tells you to ignore the first guy. You get up and buy the first one a drink. Did you ignore him?
Your definition of "ignoring the wound" is made up. Ignoring something, is paying no attention to it all, by the very dictionary definition you insist on. If you pay any attention to it, you are not ignoring it. If you resolve something that was caused by something that you are told to ignore, you break the rules.

Also your definition of what Feel No Pain does is wrong, as your definition of unsaved wounds and profile Wound are wrong.
Suffering an unsaved wound is still not the same as losing a Wound from your profile. Check the rules for multi-wound models if you don't believe me.
You can't ignore a profile Wound. You can only ever ignore hits, wounds or unsaved wounds.

So you are sitting at a table with three people, and one says roll a dice, on a 4+ you buy me a drink. You pick up the dice and roll a 6. The other person then tells you to ignore the first guy. You get up and buy the first one a drink. Did you ignore him?

No of course you didn't, but if you ignore hime, does time rewinde to before he told you to go? If you ignore him and don't buy his drink, did he not say it? And if you are allowed to punch someone's face, if he trys to pull that off, and you ignore his request and don't buy him a drink, are you forced to not punch him, since you ignored him?

Feel no pain says: "the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting." It doesn't tell you to move back in time, nor that you were not being wounded in the first place. It tells you to ignore the injury and that the model continues fighting, not more, but not less!

If you argue that injury doesn't mean injury but something else, then as I said before no one can help you. I don't deny that it is your good right to interpret it that way, I just say, we can't know what it's supposed to mean, I can't know, you can't know, we all can't know beyond doubt, unless someone here claims to be either the writer of the rules or to have divine insight into the writer's mindset.

If we don't belive it means something else, but just that what is written; it doesn't work out the way you say.
The first way to resolve it is to interpret this sentence as:
'the model continues fighting' is the definition of 'ignoring the injury' and so it doesn't tell us anything about wounds, it just says the model isn't removed as a casualty.
A possible option, but it doesn't include a usefull solution for multi wound models.

The second possibility is to take these two parts as seperate, you 'ignore the injury' and additionally 'the model continues fighting'. If we take these route the only possible way to define injury is by other instances this word is used in the book and while there are not many, there some. I found four, and one of these is actually usefull, as it defines a Wound as the abillity to withstand an injury.

edit:typo

Jidmah wrote:

bushido wrote:So according to you, a terminator with FNP getting hit by a Krak missile can take his FNP test?

Are you misreading my post on purpose? The answer to that question is right there. A krak missle never triggers instant death. Feel no pain can never be attempted against a wound causing instant death by itself.

So when the rulebook says "If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness or greater [...]" for Instant Death it's somehow different than "A model that suffers an unsaved wound from a Hexrifle?" Your stance all along is that the unsaved wound never existed if you pass FNP. So how can it trigger instant death if it never existed?

If all this stuff happens at the same time, and FNP never tells you to ignore the "unsaved wound" why are you still insisting that it does?

Tiri Rana wrote:

So you are sitting at a table with three people, and one says roll a dice, on a 4+ you buy me a drink. You pick up the dice and roll a 6. The other person then tells you to ignore the first guy. You get up and buy the first one a drink. Did you ignore him?

No of course you didn't, but if you ignore hime, does time rewinde to before he told you to go? If you ignore him and don't by his drink, did he not say it? And if you are allowed to punch someone's face, if he trys to pull that off, and you ignore his request and don#t buy him a drink, are you forced to not punch him, since you ignored him?

If you punch him, you didn't ignore him. That's the whole point. If person #2 says "ignore him or I kill you", you're dead if you punch person#1. You don't need to "go back in time" to ignore something. You still heard him talk, rolled the dice and lost the bet, but you may neither punch him, nor get him a drink.

Feel no pain says: "the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting." It doesn't tell you to move back in time, nor that you were not being wounded in the first place. It tells you to ignore the injury and that the model continues fighting, not more, but not less!

Not being wounded and ignoring being wounded is the same in the game. While in fluff the soldier keeps fighting for whatever reason, in rules a model is 100% unharmed and well. As shown by the weird tau rules a few pages back, even if you saved the wound by armor, cover or invulnerable save, you were still wounded.

If you argue that injury doesn't mean injury but something else, then as I said before no one can help you. I don't deny that it is your good right to interpret it that way, I just say, we can't know, what it's supposed to mean, I can't know, you can't know, we all can't know beyond doubt, unless someone here claims to be either the writer of the rules or to have divine insight into the writer's mindset.

Injury is an undefined term, but you can narrow in what it means by context. Fact is, it must mean either "wound"(lowercase w!) or "unsaved wound", as the process of losing Wounds(capital W!) from your profile is always described as "taking/removing casualties" or "a model suffes a wound", but never "injury" as many people claim out of the blue. Also, it says the injury, referring to something mentioned before, which does not include anything but "unsaved wound" and "wound". It's just like "If you shoot a Grey Knight Terminator, roll a dice. On a 1, 2 or 3 the terminator stays the way it is, on a roll of 4, 5, or 6 the model becomes a squig." There is no question whether that "the terminator" or "the model" is aforementioned "Grey Knight Terminator" or not.
As there a quite a few fellow Germans in this discussion now, I'd also like to point out that the German BRB says "ignore the wound", rather than "ignore the injury".

If we don't belive it means something else, but just that what is written it doesn't work out that way.
The first way to resolve it is to interpret this sentence as:
'the model continues fighting' is the definition of 'ignoring the injury' and so it doesn't tell us anything about wounds, it just says the model isn't removed as a casualty.
Is possible, but it doesn't include a usefull solution for multi wound models.

I'd rather discard "and continues fighting" as fluff, otherwise someone would try to argue that hex rifle can't kill the model because FNP tells it to continue fighting. That would really be ridiculous.

The second possibility is to take these two parts as seperate, you 'ignore the injury' and additionally 'the model continues fighting'. If we take these route the only possible way to define injury is by other instances this word is used in the book and while there are not many, there sime. I found 4, and one of these is actually usefull, as it defines a Wound as the abillity to withstand an injury.

Actually it's not an ability, but a measure. It says that models with more wounds can suffer more injuries, which would work perfectly fine if injury is either "wound" or "unsaved wound".

In order for hex rifle to ignore feel no pain, injury must have been defined as the step of an unsaved wound becoming a loss of profile Wounds. Something that is never needed elsewhere in the whole game, and obviously not written with such an intent, as the BRB and Hexrifle are a few year apart in printing. This is really stretching the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bushido wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

bushido wrote:So according to you, a terminator with FNP getting hit by a Krak missile can take his FNP test?

Are you misreading my post on purpose? The answer to that question is right there. A krak missle never triggers instant death. Feel no pain can never be attempted against a wound causing instant death by itself.

So when the rulebook says "If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness or greater [...]" for Instant Death it's somehow different than "A model that suffers an unsaved wound from a Hexrifle?" Your stance all along is that the unsaved wound never existed if you pass FNP. So how can it trigger instant death if it never existed?

Uh, check FNP rules? If an unsaved wound causes instant death, you may not use Feel No Pain in the first place. Because Feel No Pain says so. As you can't ever use FNP against instant death wounds, the wording of instant death itself is completely irrelevant. Instant death could even say "if you make a successful FNP roll against this wound, you have to smash the model with a hammer", but as you can't ever take FNP against those wounds, you won't be needing a hammer during gaming anytime soon. There is no problem.

If all this stuff happens at the same time, and FNP never tells you to ignore the "unsaved wound" why are you still insisting that it does?

So what does it ignore? That sweet never defined perfect moment to make hex rifle work or something every codex uses for every similar rule?

Not being wounded and ignoring being wounded is the same in the game.

It is not the same.
A wound is taken by a model that fails to or is unable to save against it. Feel no pain interrupts this and states - ignore the injury [wound]. If a model is not wounded, it doesn't get to take an FNP test, and in your interpretation, if you ignore the wound, you wouldn't be able to take an FNP test, because you're ignoring the wound, therefore you are not taking the FNP test, and the model takes a wound... You can't interpret FNP that way because it creates a paradox, you are forced (by not being a complete idiot) to interpret FNP as a secondary failsafe against wounding, one that occurs at a fixed moment in time after an unsaved wound is applied to the model. As FNP tests occur AFTER the unsaved wound, the unsaved wound occurs and hexrifle's effect takes place as well as Feel No Pain.

You can't prioritize FNP over hexrifle because by the exact same logic, you could say 'The model can't (pass feel no pain) and ignore the wound, because the model has been removed for failing a toughness test'.


The only reasonable course of action is to take both tests. If the model fails the FNP test, it suffers the effects of a wound, and loses a profile wound. If it fails the hexrifle test, it is removed as per Hexrifle rules. You cannot choose which rule you want to break, so you have to apply both and let the game decide.

1. Calling people idiots isn't really my idea of a civilized discussion.
2. You are not breaking a rule by taking a test which has no effect. In a similar sense, nothing prevents you from using a force weapon against a model immune to instant death if you want to suffer perils really hard. Feel no pain is completely independent from hex rifle.
3. Boldening a statement does not make it more right.
4. You roll FNP and Hex rifle characteristic test at the exact same time. You know whether you ignore the trigger for hexrifle at the same time you would want to remove the model.
5. Feel no Pain does not create a paradox. Once the reason for both triggers is ignored you go on. You don't repeat checking for suffered wounds again, as suffering an unsaved wound happens only once. Otherwise any multi-wound model would instantly be killed when suffering an unsaved wound.

Jidmah wrote:

Tiri Rana wrote:

So you are sitting at a table with three people, and one says roll a dice, on a 4+ you buy me a drink. You pick up the dice and roll a 6. The other person then tells you to ignore the first guy. You get up and buy the first one a drink. Did you ignore him?

No of course you didn't, but if you ignore hime, does time rewinde to before he told you to go? If you ignore him and don't by his drink, did he not say it? And if you are allowed to punch someone's face, if he trys to pull that off, and you ignore his request and don#t buy him a drink, are you forced to not punch him, since you ignored him?

If you punch him, you didn't ignore him. That's the whole point. If person #2 says "ignore him or I kill you", you're dead if you punch person#1. You don't need to "go back in time" to ignore something. You still heard him talk, rolled the dice and lost the bet, but you may neither punch him, nor get him a drink.

I only wanted to say that it is absolutely possible to ignore his request, without ignoring that he said anything at all, which is still true afaik.

Jidmah wrote:

Feel no pain says: "the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting." It doesn't tell you to move back in time, nor that you were not being wounded in the first place. It tells you to ignore the injury and that the model continues fighting, not more, but not less!

Not being wounded and ignoring being wounded is the same in the game. While in fluff the soldier keeps fighting for whatever reason, in rules a model is 100% unharmed and well. As shown by the weird tau rules a few pages back, even if you saved the wound by armor, cover or invulnerable save, you were still wounded.

No, it is not. Being wounde is a state, while the wound is the result of this state, you can ignore the result, without making the state invalid. And yes, of course a model that passed its save was still wounded, the state of being wounded didn't vanish, it was just amended. The same goes for feel no pain, while you may ignore the implications of an unsaved wound the state of having suffered an unsaved wound did not vanish.

Jidmah wrote:

If you argue that injury doesn't mean injury but something else, then as I said before no one can help you. I don't deny that it is your good right to interpret it that way, I just say, we can't know, what it's supposed to mean, I can't know, you can't know, we all can't know beyond doubt, unless someone here claims to be either the writer of the rules or to have divine insight into the writer's mindset.

Injury is an undefined term, but you can narrow in what it means by context. Fact is, it must mean either "wound"(lowercase w!) or "unsaved wound", as the process of losing Wounds(capital W!) from your profile is always described as "taking/removing casualties" or "a model suffes a wound", but never "injury" as many people claim out of the blue.

No fact is it could mean wound, but it could mean anything else, because as much as you say 'injury' is not defined as the act of loosing a Wound, it is also not defined as wound or anything else. The only mentioning of injuries in a defining matter is the Wounds paragraph.

Jidmah wrote:
Also, it says the injury, referring to something mentioned before, which does not include anything but "unsaved wound" and "wound". It's just like "If you shoot a Grey Knight Terminator, roll a dice. On a 1, 2 or 3, the terminator stays the way it is, on a roll of 4, 5, or 6 the model becomes a squig." There is no question whether that "the terminator" or "the model" is aforementioned "Grey Knight Terminator" or not.
As there a quite a few fellow Germans in this discussion now, I'd also like to point out that the German BRB says "ignore the wound", rather than "ignore the injury".

Of course it says the injury. The 'the' is an indicator that not any wound is meant, but a very specific one, the one that the model would suffer, weren't it for FNP.
Additionally your example is false, since the the question is not if the 'model' equals the 'Terminator'. A better example would be: If you shoot a Grey Knight Terminator, roll a dice. On a 1, 2 or 3 resolve the hit as normal (rolling to wound, if it succedes). On a roll of 4, 5 or 6, the strike is ignored and the model continues laughing.
Your point is that strike and hit have to be equal, since it's an either or question, but as I said before this is not completely true, since a strike could be a part of a hit, or it could be something entirely different, that is just part of the act of resolving the hit.

Additionally I know that the German BRB uses the wourd wound, but it also uses Lifepoint for Wound and the german DE Codex even drops the unsaved in the Huskblade's description. So I don't think the german translation should play any part in rule problemes.
As I said before, we can't be sure, what the writer meant, if not that what he wrote, so how could we argue, that we know, what the translator meant, who also didn't know, what the author meant?

Jidmah wrote:

If we don't belive it means something else, but just that what is written it doesn't work out that way.
The first way to resolve it is to interpret this sentence as:
'the model continues fighting' is the definition of 'ignoring the injury' and so it doesn't tell us anything about wounds, it just says the model isn't removed as a casualty.
Is possible, but it doesn't include a usefull solution for multi wound models.

I'd rather discard "and continues fighting" as fluff, otherwise someone would try to argue that hex rifle can't kill the model because FNP tells it to continue fighting. That would really be ridiculous.

So you got to decide which part of the sentence is valid as a rule, and wich should be discarded, because you think it's ridiculous?

Jidmah wrote:

The second possibility is to take these two parts as seperate, you 'ignore the injury' and additionally 'the model continues fighting'. If we take these route the only possible way to define injury is by other instances this word is used in the book and while there are not many, there are some. I found 4, and one of these is actually usefull, as it defines a Wound as the abillity to withstand an injury.

Actually it's not an ability, but a measure. It says that models with more wounds can suffer more injuries, which would work perfectly fine if injury is either "wound" or "unsaved wound".

But there is a great difference between an injury, defined as everyithing that lowers the current Wounds, and a wound, a model could suffer a dozen wounds, without ever loosing a Wound, with regard to FNP this is even true for unsaved wounds. And if injury was wound, why did the author not use the word wound, instead of injury?

Jidmah wrote:
In order for hex rifle to ignore feel no pain, injury must have been defined as the step of an unsaved wound becoming a loss of profile Wounds. Something that is never needed elsewhere in the whole game, and obviously not written with such an intent, as the BRB and Hexrifle are a few year apart in printing. This is really stretching the rules.

It is never explicitly defined, what a wound is, nor what a hit is, these words are just used in context, while we have a pretty good reverse definition of injury.

If the author didn't mean to say injury, why did he?
That's a question we can't solve, we can either think he did it by accidant, then it's impossible to figure out, what he meant, or we can think he used injury intentionally instead of wound, then we can define, what injury is.

Tiri Rana wrote:I only wanted to say that it is absolutely possible to ignore his request, without ignoring that he said anything at all, which is still true afaik.

Yeah, but you're told to ignore him, not his request.

No, it is not. Being wounde is a state, while the wound is the result of this state, you can ignore the result, without making the state invalid. And yes, of course a model that passed its save was still wounded, the state of being wounded didn't vanish, it was just amended. The same goes for feel no pain, while you may ignore the implications of an unsaved wound the state of having suffered an unsaved wound did not vanish.

Every rule asking whether the model was wounded would receive a "false", because you're ignoring the fact that it was wounded. Compare to infantry models counting as jump infantry or bikes. While they are technically still infantry models, it would never, ever matter for the game. It's exactly as if they weren't infantry models. It's the same for the ignored wounds.

No fact is it could mean wound, but it could mean anything else, because as much as you say 'injury' is not defined as the act of loosing a Wound, it is also not defined as wound or anything else. The only mentioning of injuries in a defining matter is the Wounds paragraph.

That's still not a definition. It can't mean "anything" at all, as it is within a context. A context concerning wounds happing to a model within a functional rule in a functional rulesset. Not including injury being a synonym for wound.

Of course it says the injury. The 'the' is an indicator that not any wound is meant, but a very specific one, the one that the model would suffer, weren't it for FNP.
Additionally your example is false, since the the question is not if the 'model' equals the 'Terminator'. A better example would be: If you shoot a Grey Knight Terminator, roll a dice. On a 1, 2 or 3 resolve the hit as normal (rolling to wound, if it succedes). On a roll of 4, 5 or 6, the strike is ignored and the model continues laughing.
Your point is that strike and hit have to be equal, since it's an either or question, but as I said before this is not completely true, since a strike could be a part of a hit, or it could be something entirely different, that is just part of the act of resolving the hit.

You entirely missed the point. A Grey Knight Terminator is a terminator and a model. An unsaved wound is a wound and an injury. A shot, a hit and a strike are three things that might or might not have anything to do with each other. They don't need to be equal, they just have to describe the term they are refering to. That's how you write sentences, you don't use the same word four times, but rather synonyms. Even if you shouldn't do that in rules texts GW does. Just figure how stupid (though clear) the sentence would be if you replace the two additional terms by "unsaved wound". Also note that it's meaning does not change.

Jidmah wrote:

If we don't belive it means something else, but just that what is written it doesn't work out that way.
The first way to resolve it is to interpret this sentence as:
'the model continues fighting' is the definition of 'ignoring the injury' and so it doesn't tell us anything about wounds, it just says the model isn't removed as a casualty.
Is possible, but it doesn't include a usefull solution for multi wound models.

I'd rather discard "and continues fighting" as fluff, otherwise someone would try to argue that hex rifle can't kill the model because FNP tells it to continue fighting. That would really be ridiculous.

So you got to decide which part of the sentence is valid as a rule, and wich should be discarded, because you think it's ridiculous?

Uh, fine? FNP says the model continues fighting, so hex rifle is ignored, because a dead model can't continue fighting. Was that your point?

But there is a great difference between an injury, defined as everyithing that lowers the current Wounds, and a wound, a model could suffer a dozen wounds, without ever loosing a Wound, with regard to FNP this is even true for unsaved wounds. And if injury was wound, why did the author not use the word wound, instead of injury?

Actually it isn't defined at all. At maximum it's described. And it's described as a model with more Wounds can take more injuries and that a model with FNP can ignore them. Why the author did that? Because GW couldn't write solid rules if their life depended on it, just have a look at the GK codex.
This is also incorrect. A model suffering a wound would always lose a Wound from it's profile. The process of removing profile Wounds is describe as a model suffering a wound, as opposed to a unit or wound group suffering a wound.

It is never explicitly defined, what a wound is, nor what a hit is, these words are just used in context, while we have a pretty good reverse definition of injury.

Page 17 and 19 do define hit and wound. Injury has no definition, as stated above. You can replace "injury" with both "wound" and "unsaved" wound without changing the meaning in any of the occurrences.

If the author didn't mean to say injury, why did he?

Readability, ignorance of terms. See above.

That's a question we can't solve, we can either think he did it by accidant, then it's impossible to figure out, what he meant, or we can think he used injury intentionally instead of wound, then we can define, what injury is.

Option C: Get what the unknown word means from context. You know, "Dakkadakka" is never actually explained or translated in any fluff, and most people don't have an ork codex or the real BRB anyway. Everyone has a pretty good idea what it means though.

What we know about injuries:
1) Model with many Wounds can take more of them.
2) If you suffer an unsaved wound and you ignore them, you don't lose a Wound

So when do you lose a Wound? After you suffer an unsaved wound. So if we don't ignore that unsaved wound someone is going to lose a Wound. So injury must at least include unsaved wounds, otherwise FNP has no effect. So does this fit with 1)? Models mith many Wounds can take more unsaved wounds, works fine. Now you have a minimal definition of what injury has to be, which incidental fits perfectly with "the injury" refering to "unsaved wounds".

Sorry man, wasn't calling you an idiot, saying that interpreting the rules in such a way to create a paradox is idiotic behavior, perhaps idiot is stong, read: Intentionally interpreting the rules in such a way as to create a problem.

@Jidmah: But his whole point has been that that's not what was written. You are ascribing authorial intent without being the author. To illustrate my point, here's a funny story.

Nerdy people (like me and the ones I hang out with, and, let's face it, the vast majority of 40k players) tend to be more closeted and ignorant of the outside world. So it was that a friend of mine, upon reading his first Ork codex, asked me what a "Dakka" meant. He thought it was a system of currency. If you read the Ork codex, the "Dakka" war references "dakka" but it can just as easily be understood to be currency, even in the context of some fluff. My point being that yes, even Dakka can be misinterpreted.

Jidmah wrote:2) If you suffer an unsaved wound and you ignore them, you don't lose a Wound

But you were still wounded. The act of being wounded is what triggers both FNP and the Hex Rifle. We're just going in circles here. To say that because you ignore the product of an action, that the action never happened, is a logical fallacy.

puma713 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:2) If you suffer an unsaved wound and you ignore them, you don't lose a Wound

But you were still wounded. The act of being wounded is what triggers both FNP and the Hex Rifle. We're just going in circles here. To say that because you ignore the product of an action, that the action never happened, is a logical fallacy.

It does not matter if you were still wounded because we are told to IGNORE it.

Once we ignore the wound because of a 4-6 on our FNP roll, it does not matter what else was triggered, we can't trigger any effects of that wound because we are told to ignore it.

Since Hex rifle and FNP trigger simultaneously you resolve both effects simultaneously, but if you pass a FNP it does not matter what the outcome of the hex rifles test was, since we ignore the wound (AkA, pretend it never happened)

This whole debate really hinges on what ignore means. Since the BRB does not define Ignore it leaves it up to us to try and figure out.

DeathReaper wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:2) If you suffer an unsaved wound and you ignore them, you don't lose a Wound

But you were still wounded. The act of being wounded is what triggers both FNP and the Hex Rifle. We're just going in circles here. To say that because you ignore the product of an action, that the action never happened, is a logical fallacy.

It does not matter if you were still wounded because we are told to IGNORE it.

Once we ignore the wound because of a 4-6 on our FNP roll, it does not matter what else was triggered, we can't trigger any effects of that wound because we are told to ignore it.

Since Hex rifle and FNP trigger simultaneously you resolve both effects simultaneously, but if you pass a FNP it does not matter what the outcome of the hex rifles test was, since we ignore the wound (AkA, pretend it never happened)

This whole debate really hinges on what ignore means. Since the BRB does not define Ignore it leaves it up to us to try and figure out.

But it does matter that you were wounded, and suffered an unsaved wound, because as the definition from earlier states, its that You (in this case the model) refuse to acknowledge the wound, not that the wound never happened. I can refuse to acknowledge anything I like, but that doesnt make it not have happened. I can ignore the fact that a mortar round comes over the perimeter fence, but that doesnt mean it didnt come over the wire and hit something, it just means I dont acknowledge it. Even when you ignore something, it still happens.

So, going along the lines of that logic, yes, they both trigger simultaneously, however, you dont ignore the hexrifle roll, because it is the result of the unsaved wound that already happened and that you are trying to use Feel no Pain to ignore the pain of the wound and continue fighting. If you pass your char test and the FnP, then all is fine. Iff you pass the char test, but fail FnP, then you suffer the wound. If you pass FnP, but fail the char test, you suffer no negative to your wounds, but are still removed from play as per the failed characteristic test, which happened at the exact same time. IF you fail them both, then you suffer a negative to your wounds, and you are removed from play as per the Hexrifle rules. You can only ignore the wound, you cannot favor one rule over the other just because it suits your playstyle. Going back to the pinning test that time wizard brought up, I have been thinking about it and honestly, I think that even if you pass the FnP for it, you would also have to take the pinning test anyway, because it is a characteristic test, just like the Hexrifle rules. Honestly, I have never thought about it or played it that way, but now that it has been brought up, it does make sense that you were wounded, even if you ignore the wound.

Plain and simple, ignoring something doesnt mean it didnt happen, just that you choose to pretend it didnt. and there in lies the fault in your arguement, because reality and pretend very often do not coincide.

Galador wrote:Plain and simple, ignoring something doesnt mean it didnt happen, just that you choose to pretend it didnt. and there in lies the fault in your arguement, because reality and pretend very often do not coincide.

Exactly!!!

you pretend it didn't happen, so what other effects can trigger from an event we are ignoring/pretending never happened? none.

you can not be removed due to something you are told to ignoring/pretend never happened.

Acknowledging the existence of the wound, by doing any action based off that, is breaking a rule - you are no longer ignoring the wound.

You don't have to acknowledge the injury- the hex rifle has already been triggered. The hex rifle doesn't have a secondary check built into it to make sure that you have still suffered an unsaved wound after it has triggered. Any unsaved wound that triggers FNP from the hex rifle also triggers the hex rifle's ability, after which it doesn't care what happened to the unsaved wound.

No, the conditions are no longer met; you are trying to fulfill a condition that no longer exists.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, the conditions are no longer met; you are trying to fulfill a condition that no longer exists.

Which I am no longer checking as I already did when the unsaved wound occured. I am not going back in time to check again.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Acknowledging the existence of the wound, by doing any action based off that, is breaking a rule - you are no longer ignoring the wound.

Then if you go down this path, as was already said, FnP breaks itself, as you cant use FnP without acknowledging the wound, and if you acknowledge the wound to use FnP, you acknowledge the Hexrifle Char test at the exact same time, FnP doesn't get to go before that, it goes at the same time.

DeathReaper wrote:You can not be removed due to something you are told to ignoring/pretend never happened.

I can pretend to not be shot, but I can still die of blood loss, so that argument makes no logical sense. Plain and simple, you are all still ignoring the proper use of the word ignore! Just because you ignore something does not, in the game world, in the rulebook, or in the real world, mean that it doesnt exist. It simply means that you/your model refuse to acknowledge it exists, which is not the same as nonexistence. Hence, it does exist, you just dont want to pay attention to it, aka you ignore it.

Mandor wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, the conditions are no longer met; you are trying to fulfill a condition that no longer exists.

Which I am no longer checking as I already did when the unsaved wound occured. I am not going back in time to check again.

Which is not part of the rules. As the example in the bar demonstrated, you don't need to go back in time to ignore something.

puma: Being wounded and suffering an unsaved wound is not the same. Besides, exactly as infantry counting as jump infantry would never be infantry for the purpose of game rules, ignoring that a model sufferd an unsaved wound would never be considered having suffered an unsaved wound for the purpose of game rules.

Galdor: FNP does not tell the model to ignore the wound, but the player. If the model ignored the wound, the player would still have to remove it a casualty. You also can't pretend rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You fail to prove that resolving hex rilfe is the same as ignoring the very trigger of hex rifle, thus your argument fails. FNP does not break itself, as the act of ignoring something is not paying attention to it. If it were, you could never ignore anything.