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.

Lotus wrote: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.

So you have to apply the wound to see if it's inflicted.
So you've already modified the wound characteristic.
So where's your permission to have FNP do anything?

Those of you insisting that "inflict" must mean "actually cause the wound" are also insisting that FNP never does anything.

Oh, wow. This debate is hinging on definitions now. I prefer a much simpler way.

Cracks open 5th edition rulebook. Sees no restriction on assaulting when arriving from reserves, except for Deep Strikers. Cracks open 6th edition rulebook, notices they have changed the rule now and models can't assault on the turn they arrive from reserve. Obviously a rules change.

Cracks open 5th edition rulebook again. Looks at rule for FNP and sees a restriction regarding EW. Cracks open the 6th edition rulebook, looks at FNP, and sees the previous restriction about EW has been removed. Obviously a rules change.

Goes through the rest of the rulebook and notes the changes from 5th. Logs in to Dakka and sees 9 pages of arguments about meanings of words, laughs, and then goes and plays an enjoyable game of 40K.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Cracks open 5th edition rulebook again. Looks at rule for FNP and sees a restriction regarding EW. Cracks open the 6th edition rulebook, looks at FNP, and sees the previous restriction about EW has been removed. Obviously a rules change.

Yes, rules change. I'm not sure what your point is.
This specific rules change isn't relevant.

DeathReaper wrote:

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.

I see we simply have a difference of interpretation that will not be remedied. I am not ignoring anything, you will see if you read my posts that I address both forms of ID independently and together.

I agree there is a difference between being immune to ID and being immune to the effects of ID, however the infliction of ID is the effect of the ID rule as I read it.

DeathReaper wrote:

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)

Agreed. Those are two separate instances which both need to be dealt with the effect of P.38 is to inflict instant death, this is clearly stated. I argue the effect of P.16 is the same. You clearly disagree. When following your argument I end up at the dissonant conclusion of two separate ways of dealing with the ID EW interaction, which I think strongly argues that your position is untenable.

DeathReaper wrote: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.

EW does not say it makes you immune to the effects of infliction of ID it says it makes you immune to the effects of ID, the effect of ID is infliction of ID. That is how I read it. You disagree.

The str being double the toughness does not cause instant death to be suffered by the Eternal Warrior. You can't both suffer something and not have it affect you with its effects, those are mutually exclusive.

Your next point is odd, by that same logic all wounds are inflicted even when saved as you would not need to save from the wound if it wasn't inflicted. This is clearly not the case.

I see your argument, I simply am not convinced by it as you are not by mine. It is probably best we agree to disagree here, unless you have something new to add or wish me to clarify something. I assure you I am understanding your argument and I think you are understanding mine for the most part. I just don't find yours convincing and I assume vice versa.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Lotus wrote: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.

So you have to apply the wound to see if it's inflicted.

FNP states

BRB P.35 wrote:When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound etc.

so yes a wound has to have been suffered before FnP kicks in, it then undoes that if you pass by treating the wound as being saved (again p 35)

rigeld2 wrote:
So you've already modified the wound characteristic.
So where's your permission to have FNP do anything?

Those of you insisting that "inflict" must mean "actually cause the wound" are also insisting that FNP never does anything.

BRB P.35 wrote:When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound etc.

BRB P.16 wrote:If a model suffers an unsaved Wound etc.

The two triggers are in fact simultaneous, and both are when an unsaved wound is suffered. At this point you check if ID is inflicted if yes no FnP if no make a FnP save. For infliction to occur something has to happen, there is no contradiction here as indeed an unsaved wound has already been suffered when both of these effects kick in (but before we remove casualties for having no wounds left).

Drager wrote: For infliction to occur something has to happen

If something has happened then the wound has been applied?
What part of FNP allows you to go and re-change the wound characteristic?

FNP happens before a wound is applied, but after it is suffered. You're trying to put it after its applied.

rigeld2 wrote:

Lotus wrote: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.

So you have to apply the wound to see if it's inflicted.
So you've already modified the wound characteristic.
So where's your permission to have FNP do anything?

Those of you insisting that "inflict" must mean "actually cause the wound" are also insisting that FNP never does anything.

The logic is not inflict = cause a wound. The logic is inflict = an unsaved wound that causes instant death. Since an EW is immune to the effects of ID, ID cannot be inflicted and the conditions that would restrict a FNP save are never met.

Ok but what about weapons that do not have the ID special rule, but inflict instant death on an unsaved wound?

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Lotus wrote: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.

So you have to apply the wound to see if it's inflicted.
So you've already modified the wound characteristic.
So where's your permission to have FNP do anything?

Those of you insisting that "inflict" must mean "actually cause the wound" are also insisting that FNP never does anything.

The logic is not inflict = cause a wound. The logic is inflict = an unsaved wound that causes instant death. Since an EW is immune to the effects of ID, ID cannot be inflicted and the conditions that would restrict a FNP save are never met.

Is it an unsaved wound that causes Instant Death?
You're immune to the effects of Instant Death, but the wound is still one that inflicts Instant Death.
Instant Death is inflicted, it just doesn't do anything special because you're immune.

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Lotus wrote: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.

So you have to apply the wound to see if it's inflicted.
So you've already modified the wound characteristic.
So where's your permission to have FNP do anything?

Those of you insisting that "inflict" must mean "actually cause the wound" are also insisting that FNP never does anything.

The logic is not inflict = cause a wound. The logic is inflict = an unsaved wound that causes instant death. Since an EW is immune to the effects of ID, ID cannot be inflicted and the conditions that would restrict a FNP save are never met.

Now we are back to inflict doesn't mean inflict. Show me one rule that allows you to remove my ability to inflict ID. My weapon still has the ID rule, or is still 2x your toughness. ID is not an effect of itself, the effects are listed on page 16. The USR adds another circumstance where ID is inflicted. I inflict ID like it or not. Show me where EW amends FNP.

rigeld2 wrote:
Instant Death is inflicted, it just doesn't do anything special because you're immune.

That makes absolutely zero sense.

It makes perfect sense. Being immune to something doesn't mean that it never happened.

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Instant Death is inflicted, it just doesn't do anything special because you're immune.

That makes absolutely zero sense.

It's exactly what the rules actually say. Trying to imply that it's never inflicted because you're immune to the effects of it is like saying...
If you jump off a building, you'll die when you hit the ground.
If you have a parachute you do not die when jumping off a building.

According to you, if you have a parachute you never actually jump off a building - you just appear on the ground.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Instant Death is inflicted, it just doesn't do anything special because you're immune.

That makes absolutely zero sense.

It's exactly what the rules actually say. Trying to imply that it's never inflicted because you're immune to the effects of it is like saying...
If you jump off a building, you'll die when you hit the ground.
If you have a parachute you do not die when jumping off a building.

According to you, if you have a parachute you never actually jump off a building - you just appear on the ground.

Except it can also be worded as "If you jump off a building, you'll die when you hit the ground unless you have a parachute." That analogy then leads to the interpretation "FNP cannot be taken against wounds that would inflict instant death unless the model has the EW USR." The crux of this whole debate comes down to how the three rules (ID, FNP, EW) interact when all three rules apply to a model at once. Applying how ID works only in relation to FNP and EW without considering how FNP and EW should interact leads to a less than complete interpretation.

Changing the wording to suit your view doesn't prove your point.

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Instant Death is inflicted, it just doesn't do anything special because you're immune.

That makes absolutely zero sense.

Being immune to the effects of instant death means you're immune.

A chaos landraider with possession upgrade gets a stunned result. The stunned result happens, but has no effect due to possession, as the tank is immune to it.

A unit of harliquins is hit by a subterranean round from a thunderfire cannon, since harliquins are immune to the effects of terrain, they ignore the cannons terrain effects.

Kharn is immune to psychic powers. They still happen, but they do nothing, as he is immune.

WHY are we continually having to say this 5000 ways?

PanzerLeader wrote: That analogy then leads to the interpretation "FNP cannot be taken against wounds that would inflict instant death unless the model has the EW USR."

That would be great if that's what the rules said.
They don't.
FNP and EW don't interact at all - there's no rule saying they do.

juraigamer wrote:Being immune to the effects of instant death means you're immune

Your immune to the effects. You are not immune to the cause and its the cause that disallows the Feel No Pain roll.

After seeing this continue...I'm glad I'm never going to play against or even meet a lot of you. I'll hang my head in admittance and shame if GW rules that EW does not allow FNP. Until they rule against it, I stand by my previous comment that my group will play that EW allows FNP, even against ID. I guess I'll just roll off against anyone who refuses this, and if they refuse the roll-off, we won't play a game. I'm going to avoid tournaments though until GW comes to a decision in the matter. You play it your way, I'll play it mine, both of us in our separate groups. GW is famous for this kind of thing, so just do your thing and I'll do it my way-away from all of you.

timetowaste85 wrote:After seeing this continue...I'm glad I'm never going to play against or even meet a lot of you. I'll hang my head in admittance and shame if GW rules that EW does not allow FNP. Until they rule against it, I stand by my previous comment that my group will play that EW allows FNP, even against ID. I guess I'll just roll off against anyone who refuses this, and if they refuse the roll-off, we won't play a game. I'm going to avoid tournaments though until GW comes to a decision in the matter. You play it your way, I'll play it mine, both of us in our separate groups. GW is famous for this kind of thing, so just do your thing and I'll do it my way-away from all of you.

You are safe at NOVA open. They ruled it the correct way.

http://www.novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NOVA-FAQ-v6th.1-DRAFT.pdf
Eternal Warrior – Renders models immune to ALL effects (plural and inclusive) of Instant Death, including the removal of all a model’s multiple wounds, and prevention of FNP.

Consider this a general comment. If you feel it is directed at you personally, then you should probably reflect on that too.

Kevlar wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:After seeing this continue...I'm glad I'm never going to play against or even meet a lot of you. I'll hang my head in admittance and shame if GW rules that EW does not allow FNP. Until they rule against it, I stand by my previous comment that my group will play that EW allows FNP, even against ID. I guess I'll just roll off against anyone who refuses this, and if they refuse the roll-off, we won't play a game. I'm going to avoid tournaments though until GW comes to a decision in the matter. You play it your way, I'll play it mine, both of us in our separate groups. GW is famous for this kind of thing, so just do your thing and I'll do it my way-away from all of you.

You are safe at NOVA open. They ruled it the correct way.

http://www.novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NOVA-FAQ-v6th.1-DRAFT.pdf
Eternal Warrior – Renders models immune to ALL effects (plural and inclusive) of Instant Death, including the removal of all a model’s multiple wounds, and prevention of FNP.

Of course what you really mean is they made a House rule concerning EW and FNP.

It is not an official rules source for anything except their own tournament, and they can house rule it any way they please.

They could even house rule that all infantry models move D6+6 inches on a charge move if they wanted to, and they would be correct as far as their own tournament is concerned.

Right I think I now grasp where the core disagreement lies and it isn't going to be resolved. The question is I think whether a wound with the instant death rule inflicts instant death when instant death doesn't happen. I think it doesn't and have provided plenty of linguistic and rules support for that position. Others think it does and, whilst I can see their argument, and they have provided well thought out support, I simply don't think it logically follows either from the meaning of inflict or the way the rules are stated in the rulebook.

I am no longer going to address the above argument as I already have and think this is a case of starting with different premises, which cannot be resolved. I'll agree to disagree with everyone using the above argument. Still happy to engage with other arguments though, as they may have enough power to persuade me.

DeathReaper wrote:It is not an official rules source for anything except their own tournament, and they can house rule it any way they please.

They could even house rule that all infantry models move D6+6 inches on a charge move if they wanted to, and they would be correct as far as their own tournament is concerned.

I think a consensus of mature, unbiased, professional players from a highly regarded independant tournament carries a little more weight than some random member of an internet message boards peanut gallery. Many of whom probably don't even play the game.

Reported.

1) Assumption
2) Provably false. Every player is biased, by definition, which is why you have a group consensus to hopefully eliminate it
3) Are they paid to play? Is that their main income? If not they are not professional (going by Sports pro, nbot the original definition of profession)

Their opinion holds weight only in that tourhament, and as much weight as you want to apply to it at other times.

Given the lack of ANY rules support for ignoring the FNP restrictions, their opinion holds Zero weight as far as I am concerned

In summary the debate revolves around whether an instant death wound is still a "wound that inflicts Instant death" even if the effect of it having the instant death property is nothing for the model concerned.

it is possible to read it so that the wound still has the property of instant death but that does nothing, and therefore FNP is not allowed. This restricts the removal of the effects of ID to only those listed in the ID rule. The wound retains the characteristic of having come from a ID source.

It is also is possible to read the removal of the effects of ID to be all effects, however caused and whatever thier interaction would be with other rules. Under this interpretation the FNP would be allowed as the wound no longer inflicts Instant death as it is not allowed to have any effect relating to instant death.

Hopefully that is a fair summary of the differences in the debate, and should let people see the other side of the arguement (wether they agree with it or not)

RFHolloway wrote:It is also is possible to read the removal of the effects of ID to be all effects, however caused and whatever thier interaction would be with other rules. Under this interpretation the FNP would be allowed as the wound no longer inflicts Instant death as it is not allowed to have any effect relating to instant death.

Hopefully that is a fair summary of the differences in the debate, and should let people see the other side of the arguement (wether they agree with it or not)

I understand what the other side of the argument is trying to say.
I don't see how it has any basis in the rules.

It's a permissive rules set. Where is the permission to ignore one section of FNP that is distinctly not an effect of ID?

Ghaz wrote:

juraigamer wrote:Being immune to the effects of instant death means you're immune

Your immune to the effects. You are not immune to the cause and its the cause that disallows the Feel No Pain roll.

Having taken a hit from an ID weapon, one of the effects is that you cannot take FNP, correct?

juraigamer wrote:Having taken a hit from an ID weapon, one of the effects is that you cannot take FNP, correct?

Incorrect.

It's a restriction on FNP, not an effect of ID.

juraigamer wrote:

Ghaz wrote:

juraigamer wrote:Being immune to the effects of instant death means you're immune

Your immune to the effects. You are not immune to the cause and its the cause that disallows the Feel No Pain roll.

Having taken a hit from an ID weapon, one of the effects is that you cannot take FNP, correct?

No, and you KEEP ON positng this incorrect, lack of rules statement

A restriction on taking FNP is that an ID wound disallows it

Not a single listed effect of ID has anythign to do with FNP

If you disagree, provide a rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

juraigamer wrote:

Ghaz wrote:

juraigamer wrote:Being immune to the effects of instant death means you're immune

Your immune to the effects. You are not immune to the cause and its the cause that disallows the Feel No Pain roll.

Having taken a hit from an ID weapon, one of the effects is that you cannot take FNP, correct?

No, and you KEEP ON positng this incorrect, lack of rules statement

A restriction on taking FNP is that an ID wound disallows it

Not a single listed effect of ID has anythign to do with FNP

If you disagree, provide a rule.

Sure there is no explicitly listed effect, but there is an implied impact - that of the wound being ID.
What the other side is claiming is that ID has essentially the effects explicitly listed under ID and the implied effect of moving the wound into a category called "wounds which inflict ID". You maintain that this not an effect of ID, but a property of the source or a characteristic of the wound.