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.

timetowaste85 wrote:ID is ignored by EW.

Please stop saying this, it is not true.

ID is not ignored by EW.

EW only ignores the EFFECTS of ID, it does not ignore ID

Crimson wrote:Death Reaper, you are arbitrarily declaring certain things not to be effects, and then arguing that immunity does not apply to them.

Actually the ID rule has declared its effects, I have not.

ID specifically says what its effects are. re-read Page 16. it says:

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.

But you're still ignoring ID USR, Death Reaper.

Crimson wrote:But you're still ignoring ID USR, Death Reaper.

How so?

ID says:

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).

it says unsaved wounds ... inflict ID. and refers you to P.16 to see what the effects of Instant Death are.

Nothing ignored, because you have to see what the effects of the ID rule are

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.

As I have said many times your opinion is not important or relevant here. I could not possibly care any less about how you feel it should be played or what you think the rule says. Cite a rule to support your claim or keep it to yourself. This is a rules debate about what is there not a philosophical debate about how you feel the rules should be. Now, all these rules that prove you right, show me them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:But you're still ignoring ID USR, Death Reaper.

You are ignoring my point made. You are doing the classic move of ignoring the parts that prove you wrong and clinging for dear life to the ambiguous parts that let you sleep at night thinking there is the chance that you are right. Address what I said and stop distracting. Why would the USR reference the earlier rule if it is self contained? Why would they reference another rule twice if the two are separate? Why would the USR mention toughness if the rule just killed a model and wasn't referring to the earlier rule?

Captain Antivas wrote:

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.

As I have said many times your opinion is not important or relevant here. I could not possibly care any less about how you feel it should be played or what you think the rule says. Cite a rule to support your claim or keep it to yourself. This is a rules debate about what is there not a philosophical debate about how you feel the rules should be. Now, all these rules that prove you right, show me them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:But you're still ignoring ID USR, Death Reaper.

You are ignoring my point made. You are doing the classic move of ignoring the parts that prove you wrong and clinging for dear life to the ambiguous parts that let you sleep at night thinking there is the chance that you are right. Address what I said and stop distracting. Why would the USR reference the earlier rule if it is self contained? Why would they reference another rule twice if the two are separate? Why would the USR mention toughness if the rule just killed a model and wasn't referring to the earlier rule?

What people think the rules say is actually the whole point of a YMDC forum-it's not "Captain Antivas's awesome rules that everyone has to STFU and accept" forum. Congrats on the pathetic arrogance though-you've made it to a select group that only one other person had the pleasure of being part of.

DeathReaper wrote:
ID says:

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).

it says unsaved wounds ... inflict ID. and refers you to P.16 to see what the effects of Instant Death are.

Nothing ignored, because you have to see what the effects of the ID rule are

Effect of USR is to inflict ID (Yes, details of which can be found elsewhere, but that doesn't matter.) If you are immune to that USR's effects, then the infliction never happens. And if they didn't mean that, then they shouln't have called that USR Instant Death. It should've been 'Deathblow' or something.

I'm going to ask this for the third time as its a central issue and maybe I was being unclear as no one seems to want to answer it.

Those saying EWs are denied FnP by ID, what definition of inflict are you using? I do not disagree with most of what your saying, but we come to opposite conclusions, largely based on this I think.

juraigamer wrote:A model takes a wound.
The model takes it's saves
Is the wound instant death? If no go to the end, if yes continue
The wound causes instant death, is the model immune to instant death? if yes go to the end, if not continue
The model loses all wounds and dies
-----------------------------------
The model only loses one wound, and may take a feel no pain save if it has the USR.

Why? Because the EW rule states you ignore the effects of instant death. An effect of the instant death rule is it ignores FNP.

This is cut and dry. In the above example, khan swings and hits, and rolls a 6 to wound. You go through the table I made above, because while the attack is still instant death, and never stops being instant death, the ID rule doesn't affect a model with EW, or the EW models rules.

It's like saying you hit kharn with that one SW power that causes damage and the target counts as being in terrain for it's next movement phase. Kharn ignores both since he ignores the psychic power, even though one of the effects of the power is the terrain rule.

Remember, an attack never loses it's rules, the effect of it's rules on the model change.

No it's a condition of feel no pain. Not an effect of instant death.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:I'm going to ask this for the third time as its a central issue and maybe I was being unclear as no one seems to want to answer it.

Those saying EWs are denied FnP by ID, what definition of inflict are you using? I do not disagree with most of what your saying, but we come to opposite conclusions, largely based on this I think.

In my mind FNP refers to page 16, because that is how and unsaved wound inflict ID.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
ID says:

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).

it says unsaved wounds ... inflict ID. and refers you to P.16 to see what the effects of Instant Death are.

Nothing ignored, because you have to see what the effects of the ID rule are

Effect of USR is to inflict ID (Yes, details of which can be found elsewhere, but that doesn't matter.) If you are immune to that USR's effects, then the infliction never happens. And if they didn't mean that, then they shouln't have called that USR Instant Death. It should've been 'Deathblow' or something.

If you are saying that EW ignores the effect of the USR then you are back to the issue that I brought up and a false dichotomy of FNP works against some attacks that reference page 16 but not others when you have EW.
You have chosen to ignore the issue of double strength wounds inflict ID because it is awkward in your case.

timetowaste85 wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:As I have said many times your opinion is not important or relevant here. I could not possibly care any less about how you feel it should be played or what you think the rule says. Cite a rule to support your claim or keep it to yourself. This is a rules debate about what is there not a philosophical debate about how you feel the rules should be. Now, all these rules that prove you right, show me.

What people think the rules say is actually the whole point of a YMDC forum-it's not "Captain Antivas's awesome rules that everyone has to STFU and accept" forum. Congrats on the pathetic arrogance though-you've made it to a select group that only one other person had the pleasure of being part of.

This made me giggle and literally made my day, thank you for that. I think we should rename it to Captain Antivas' Awesome Rules That Everyone Has To STFU And Accept. I like it! And what select group am I in? I didn't even get a letter so if I win the internets I would like to know about it!

BTW, and since we are on the topic, I highly recommend you read over the rules of this forum. It might clear up a few apparent misunderstandings about how the forums work and what the purpose is. You know, to help you not look silly or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:I'm going to ask this for the third time as its a central issue and maybe I was being unclear as no one seems to want to answer it.

Those saying EWs are denied FnP by ID, what definition of inflict are you using? I do not disagree with most of what your saying, but we come to opposite conclusions, largely based on this I think.

I am using inflict as it is used in the basic rulebook. A weapon with this special rule automatically inflicts ID regardless of toughness. That then gives us an understanding about how ID is inflicted normally, which is when the condition exists that the weapon is 2x str. Until you show me a rule that states it removes my ability to inflict ID, or a rule that proves ID is the effect of ID, then you must concede. RAW is clear. It inflicts when the conditions exist to let it inflict.

Lets see how this plays out if you replace ID wounds with Red Bullets

EW - ignore the effects of red bullets
Red - Red bullets kill the model
FNP - 5+ save on bullets that arent Red

This means that there is no FNP for Red bullets but it doesn't kill the model, because the red bullets are still red.

If EW stated bullets are treated as normal bullets, then you would get FNP.

So my call is that you don't get a FNP save against red bullets. (and probably not ID wounds either)

Captain Antivas wrote:
I am using inflict as it is used in the basic rulebook.

This is a context, not a definition, if there is a definition in the BRB then please point me to it, else please tell me what definition of inflict you are using. Mine is quoted earlier from the OED.

Captain Antivas wrote:
A weapon with this special rule automatically inflicts ID regardless of toughness.

That is from the USR. I agree that this tells us when to inflict ID. I also contend that that infliction cannot occur due to it being an effect of ID.

Captain Antivas wrote:
That then gives us an understanding about how ID is inflicted normally, which is when the condition exists that the weapon is 2x str.

Absolutely agree here as well. Therefore in context and using the OED definition of inflict infliction of ID is an effect of the ID rule, which is modified by the USR mentioned above. Eternal Warrior makes you immune to the effects of both.

Captain Antivas wrote:
Until you show me a rule that states it removes my ability to inflict ID,

I agree that it does not remove that ability. It also does not need to, if you disagree with this please show me rules support for that position. FnP does not say that it may not be taken against wounds with the instant death special rule, it says wounds that inflict Instant Death.

Captain Antivas wrote:
or a rule that proves ID is the effect of ID, then you must concede.

Please note I have since I started posting been in agreement that infliction of ID and ID are different things. ID is not the effect of ID, infliction of ID is.

Infliction of ID is the effect of ID, absolutley 100% true of the USR as it is stated and by basic English understanding of the word infllict this is true of the general pg 16 rule as well.

Negation of FnP is not decided based on whether it is a wound that has the ID rule, it is decided based on whther the wound inflicts ID.

Captain Antivas wrote:RAW is clear.

I think so too. I also think that EW allows FnP.

As I am assuming you and the others who disagree are all intelligent people, then logically I must conclude that we are both wrong as although you and I both see things with clarity we disagree and thus that clarity must be false for us both. It is therefore an unclear rule, even though it does not seem so to you or I.

Captain Antivas wrote:It inflicts when the conditions exist to let it inflict.

Yep, but until I know what your definition of Inflict is that sentence is ambiguous. I agree with it. The rpesence of EW is inimical to the infliction of ID and therefore such conditions never exist against an ID model.

RFHolloway wrote:Lets see how this plays out if you replace ID wounds with Red Bullets

OK I'll play along.

EW - ignore the effects of red bullets
Red - Red bullets kill the model
FNP - 5+ save on bullets, except those that would inflict death due to being read.

This means that there is FNP for Red bullets as it doesn't kill the model, although the red bullets are still red.

If FnP stated 5+ save on bullets that arent Red, then you would not get FNP.

So my call is that you get a FNP save against red bullets. (and probably ID wounds as well)

I'll respond a little less flippantly below.

RFHolloway wrote:
EW - ignore the effects of red bullets

Agreed

RFHolloway wrote:
Red - Red bullets kill the model

Yup.

RFHolloway wrote:
FNP - 5+ save on bullets that arent Red

This is not what FnP says, it says that you don't get a save when Instant Death is inflicted, this is not the same as not getting a save against something with the instant death rule.

This means that there is no FNP for Red bullets but it doesn't kill the model, because the red bullets are still red.

RFHolloway wrote:
If EW stated bullets are treated as normal bullets, then you would get FNP.

You would, just as you do now. This would be a change, but not a significant one for this debate, as it is the wording of FnP that matters more than EW.

RFHolloway wrote:
So my call is that you don't get a FNP save against red bullets. (and probably not ID wounds either)

I disagree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liturgies of blood wrote:
If you are saying that EW ignores the effect of the USR then you are back to the issue that I brought up and a false dichotomy of FNP works against some attacks that reference page 16 but not others when you have EW.
You have chosen to ignore the issue of double strength wounds inflict ID because it is awkward in your case.

That is the inevitable path which thinking that EW does not allow FnP leads you to though. The only consistent interpretation is that FnP is allowed for EW models, otherwise you get inconsistent effects depending on whether it is double strength or USR.

I don't need a definition. FNP cannot be taken against a wound that inflicts ID. The USR says I inflict ID regardless of toughness. I inflict ID. You are creating a false dichotomy to prove your point and that is a fallacy.

In a situation with two possible interpretations the best method is to assume the simplest interpretation. Your interpretation results in mass confusion as half of the times ID is inflicted it is ignored. My interpretation results in a clear flow of the game. Which do you REALLY think makes more sense?This is not an intent argument, BTW. I don't argue intent anymore. This is simply a matter of interpreting the RAW. It is unclear.

Drager wrote:FNP - 5+ save on bullets, except those that would inflict death due to being read.
.

If you can read the bullet, it is obviously moving slow enough, that I'll allow you an Initiative test to dodge the bullet first.


Out of idle curiosity, when EW says you ignore the effects of Instant Death, do you consider that to be the USR Instant Death, or the generic Instant Death rule?

What about weapons that when they wound inflict instant death (i.e Bonesabres)?

Drager wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:
If you are saying that EW ignores the effect of the USR then you are back to the issue that I brought up and a false dichotomy of FNP works against some attacks that reference page 16 but not others when you have EW.
You have chosen to ignore the issue of double strength wounds inflict ID because it is awkward in your case.

That is the inevitable path which thinking that EW does not allow FnP leads you to though. The only consistent interpretation is that FnP is allowed for EW models, otherwise you get inconsistent effects depending on whether it is double strength or USR.

False. If there are two ID Special Rules then we have to consider both of them when determining when FNP can be taken. One, the entry on page 16, has undeniable effects; being reduced to 0 wounds and being removed as a casualty. These are ignored and the ID is still inflicted as my weapon is still 2X your toughness, so no FNP. The other, the USR, has (as you say and I disagree) the effect that ID is inflicted, which gets ignored by EW. So now ID is not inflicted (even though it says it is, but whatever makes you feel better) and FNP can be taken. Two situations with different results. Yes, that clearly makes sense.

And I am sorry but "To avoid confusion just let me win" is not a valid argument.

Drager wrote:

RFHolloway wrote:
FNP - 5+ save on bullets that arent Red

This is not what FnP says, it says that you don't get a save when Instant Death is inflicted, this is not the same as not getting a save against something with the instant death rule.

This means that there is no FNP for Red bullets but it doesn't kill the model, because the red bullets are still red.

RFHolloway wrote:
If EW stated bullets are treated as normal bullets, then you would get FNP.

You would, just as you do now. This would be a change, but not a significant one for this debate, as it is the wording of FnP that matters more than EW.

RFHolloway wrote:
So my call is that you don't get a FNP save against red bullets. (and probably not ID wounds either)

I disagree.

OK - I thought the FNP rule stated you dont get a save if an instant Death WOUND is inflicted. (which was the point of my analogy) If it is you don't get FNP from Instant Death, then I will gladly change my opinion to agree with yours.

Crimson wrote:Effect of USR is to inflict ID (Yes, details of which can be found elsewhere, but that doesn't matter.) If you are immune to that USR's effects, then the infliction never happens. And if they didn't mean that, then they shouln't have called that USR Instant Death. It should've been 'Deathblow' or something.

The underlined is false.

ID was inflicted, if it was not what effects are you ignoring?

Gods blood.

Is the stipulation that FNP cannot be taking from instant death wounds a cause of instant death?

Yes, instant death is causing this rule to come into effect. A wound being instant death causes the effect of not being able to take FNP.

Also (not in relation to my posts) read people, read, some of you are simply copy pasting responses at this rate.

juraigamer wrote:Also (not in relation to my posts) read people, read, some of you are simply copy pasting responses at this rate.

Since we are just copying and pasting responses now, I figured I would steal this from the EL/SA thread:

happyjew wrote:Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed forum, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a wargamer defending a wording from a rulebook, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that game store deliberatin' and conjugatin' the rules as written, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed forum, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must concede! The defense rests.

Captain Antivas wrote:I don't need a definition.

Yes you do, if I do not know what definition you use for a word I cannot understand your argument and cannot be persuaded by it. This is a core principle of debate.

Captain Antivas wrote: FNP cannot be taken against a wound that inflicts ID.

Agreed, pending your definition of inflict.

Captain Antivas wrote: The USR says I inflict ID regardless of toughness. I inflict ID.

Agreed. This is an effect of the USR which is explicitly ignored by EW. If you contend EW does not ignore the ID USR please provide rules support.

Captain Antivas wrote: You are creating a false dichotomy to prove your point and that is a fallacy.

I am not. I am stating my argument and awaiting reasoned response, I have at no point posited two conclusions and claimed that you must pick one, ergo no Flase Dichotomy (Which is indeed a fallacy).

Captain Antivas wrote:In a situation with two possible interpretations the best method is to assume the simplest interpretation. Your interpretation results in mass confusion as half of the times ID is inflicted it is ignored. My interpretation results in a clear flow of the game.

Ahh I think you are misunderstanding my argument. I will clarify. There are three possible conclusions that I can see (though there may be others I am missing).

1) FnP can never be taken by an EW against a wound that is either Str 2xT or has the ID USR

2) FnP can only be taken against wounds caused by weapons with the ID USR and not by those that are Str 2xT.

3) FnP can always be taken by an EW against a wound that is either Str 2xT or has the ID USR

I do not think (1) has sufficient rules support because the effects of the ID USR are clearly the infliction of ID (as stated in the USR) and EW clearly ignores the effects of ID (by which I conclude both kinds).

I think (2) is closer to having a RAW argument, but is not quite there. The reason I think that EW ignores pg 16. as well as the ID USR is that infliction cannot occur unless ID occurs, based on the definition of inflict. I therefore think that (2) also falls down on RAW, but is a more solid argument than (1).

This brings me to (3) which I think satisfies all constraints of RAW.

Captain Antivas wrote:Which do you REALLY think makes more sense?This is not an intent argument, BTW. I don't argue intent anymore. This is simply a matter of interpreting the RAW. It is unclear.

I never have Captain. I really think (3) makes more sense. I agree that it is unclear and we should therefore use the simplest legal interpretation, which is (3). Both (1) and (3) are equally simple, but (1) is invalid under RAW leaving a choice between (2) which is clearly more complicated than (3).

Happyjew wrote:

Drager wrote:FNP - 5+ save on bullets, except those that would inflict death due to being read.
.

If you can read the bullet, it is obviously moving slow enough, that I'll allow you an Initiative test to dodge the bullet first.


Out of idle curiosity, when EW says you ignore the effects of Instant Death, do you consider that to be the USR Instant Death, or the generic Instant Death rule?

What about weapons that when they wound inflict instant death (i.e Bonesabres)?

I argue that it applies to both and all instantces of Instant Death. Also nice catch that made me smile.

Captain Antivas wrote:
False. If there are two ID Special Rules then we have to consider both of them when determining when FNP can be taken.

Agreed, this is what I was trying to do, apologies if that was unclear.

Captain Antivas wrote:One, the entry on page 16, has undeniable effects; being reduced to 0 wounds and being removed as a casualty.

True it has the undeniable effect of inflicting Instnat Death, which is carried out by reducing to 0 wounds and removing as a casualty.

Captain Antivas wrote:These are ignored and the ID is still inflicted as my weapon is still 2X your toughness, so no FNP.

I disagree, based on the definition of inflict. I have furnished mine, but cannot understand how you could possibly argue this unless yours is different and therefore need the definition before I see this as more than simply an assertion.

Captain Antivas wrote:The other, the USR, has (as you say and I disagree) the effect that ID is inflicted, which gets ignored by EW. So now ID is not inflicted (even though it says it is, but whatever makes you feel better) and FNP can be taken. Two situations with different results. Yes, that clearly makes sense.

Please give rules support for the infliction of ID not being the effect of the USR if you disagree.

Clearly the two differing situations do not make sense and RAW collapses neatly into (3) above.

Captain Antivas wrote:And I am sorry but "To avoid confusion just let me win" is not a valid argument.

You are correct. That is not my argument.

RFHolloway wrote:
OK - I thought the FNP rule stated you dont get a save if an instant Death WOUND is inflicted. (which was the point of my analogy) If it is you don't get FNP from Instant Death, then I will gladly change my opinion to agree with yours.

I will supply you with the relevant bit of the rule so you can decide for yourself

BRB p35 wrote:

Feel No Pain
...Note that Feel no Pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved wounds that inflict Instant Death

DeathReaper wrote:

Crimson wrote:Effect of USR is to inflict ID (Yes, details of which can be found elsewhere, but that doesn't matter.) If you are immune to that USR's effects, then the infliction never happens. And if they didn't mean that, then they shouln't have called that USR Instant Death. It should've been 'Deathblow' or something.

The underlined is false.

ID was inflicted, if it was not what effects are you ignoring?

Please define inflict. It is possible for something to exist without being inflicted, you are ignoring the effects of ID and thus it is not inflicted (this does not mean it ceases to exist).

Also please supply rules support for the infliction happening even though you ignore the effect of the USR.

EDIT: Edited out me getting snippy.

The wound Inflicts ID if its Str is double the targets toughness. P.16

If the wound inflicts ID, as per the criteria on P.16 then you can not take FNP, but due to EW the model is not reduced to 0 wounds and is not removed as a casualty.

You are just talking about the USR again.

Double strength causes page 16 to happen, the effect of page 16 is what it is. It's effect may be ignored but not the fact that it is there.

The red bullets example was clear and concise.

DeathReaper wrote:The wound Inflicts ID if its Str is double the targets toughness. P.16

Page 16 does not say that, it does not use the word inflict.

BRB pg 16. wrote:If a model suffers an unsaved Wound from an Attack that has a Strength value fo double its Toughness value or greater (after modifiers), it is reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty.

The wound does indeed inflict instant death, the above is the description of instant death being inflicted. Eternal Warriors are immune to said infliction.

DeathReaper wrote:If the wound inflicts ID, as per the criteria on P.16 then you can not take FNP, but due to EW the model is not reduced to 0 wounds and is not removed as a casualty.

The wound does not inflict ID on an EW, unless you are using a different definition of inflict to that which I am. I will repost it so you don't have to dig back several pages.

Oxford English Dictionary wrote:

Inflict

verb
[with object]

cause (something unpleasant or painful) to be suffered by someone or something:
they inflicted serious injuries on three other men

(inflict something on) impose something unwelcome on:
she is wrong to inflict her beliefs on everyone else

I'm going to plug the values for what we are talking about into the above.

A wound with Instant Death causes Instant Death to be suffered by a model with Eternal Warrior

A wound with Instant Death imposes Instant Death on a model with Eternal Warrior

Chewbacca did not live on Endor. He only visited once. Do I win now?

Drager wrote:The wound does indeed inflict instant death, the above is the description of instant death being inflicted. Eternal Warriors are immune to said infliction.

again you miss that EW does not make them immune to said infliction.

It makes the immune to the effects said infliction.

there is a difference, and you are missing/ignoring that to try to make your case.

Drager wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The wound Inflicts ID if its Str is double the targets toughness. P.16

Page 16 does not say that, it does not use the word inflict.

BRB pg 16. wrote:If a model suffers an unsaved Wound from an Attack that has a Strength value fo double its Toughness value or greater (after modifiers), it is reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty.

Right I should have said P.38 that says that and also says to (See page 16)


As for Inflict:

Cause (something unpleasant or painful) to be suffered by someone.

The str being double toughness does "cause (something unpleasant or painful) to be suffered by someone"

The "someone" now has a rule that kicks in and ignores the effects of that which was inflicted. If it did not Inflict ID, then the model would not have had to been saved from the effects of the ID wound by the EW rule.

I really don't understand why people need to repeat themselves so often.

The rule is unclear. Cast your vote. No need to spam your opinion a hundred times. It won't change the fact that the rule is not clear. There is no RAW because two rules directly contradict each other.

In my opinion if you ignore the effects of the instant death rule you ignore both of its effects. Your wounds do not automatically reduce to zero and if you have a feel no pain save you may take it.

I don't see how you can argue eternal warrior only ignores one half of the instant death rule.

Kevlar wrote:I really don't understand why people need to repeat themselves so often.

The rule is unclear. Cast your vote. No need to spam your opinion a hundred times. It won't change the fact that the rule is not clear. There is no RAW because two rules directly contradict each other.

In my opinion if you ignore the effects of the instant death rule you ignore both of its effects. Your wounds do not automatically reduce to zero and if you have a feel no pain save you may take it.

I don't see how you can argue eternal warrior only ignores one half of the instant death rule.

We are not ignoring one half of the instant death rule. The ID rule doe not mention FNP at all.

Ignoring FNP is not an effect of the ID rule.

Just some humor

Kevlar wrote:In my opinion if you ignore the effects of the instant death rule you ignore both of its effects. Your wounds do not automatically reduce to zero and if you have a feel no pain save you may take it.

I don't see how you can argue eternal warrior only ignores one half of the instant death rule.

Cite the instant death rule that denies FNP.

You can't. It's part of the FNP rule.
Why are you using EW to ignore part of the FNP rule when there isn't a single sentence linking EW and FNP?

PanzerLeader wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:False. FNP cannot be taken against weapons that inflict ID. The only effect of ID is the model is reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty. The weapon inflicts ID, the model ignores it, but it is still there. ID gets put in the corner but it is still present.

Need to edit my earlier post but here are the relevent quotes:

Eternal Warrior (page 35) "A model with this special rule is immune to the effects of instant death."

Feel No Pain (page 35) "Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved wounds that inflict Instant Death."

Models with Eternal Warrior are immune to instant death. Since the model is immune, it cannot suffer unsaved wounds that would cause inflict instant death. Since the unsaved wound never inflicts instant death, the model may still take FNP saves.

Wow, when you read it word for word in from the rule book it makes all the difference in the world. Also there should be the quoted rules of Instant Death. "Immune to the effects" it is not "Ignore the effects" and wounds that "inflict Instant Death" would have never "Inflicted" at all because of the immunity... which makes me believe this outcome entirely.

If I could change my vote I would.... FNP roles should apply if a model has EW regardless of the ID attack he failed his saving through against..... Good Forum though, almost 50/50

This is my logic on it:

FNP is negated if instant death is inflicted on the target.

Is instant death inflicted on a model with Eternal Warrior?

What happens when instant death is inflicted?

Does that happen to a model with EW? No

Is instant death inflicted? No

You get your FNP roll.

The key word here is inflicted. That's not a passive word. Things have to actually happen to be inflicted. It's not what would happen, it's what does happen.