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.

RFHolloway wrote: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.

That might possibly be the biggest easter egg hunt I've seen so far this edition.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

If you disagree, provide a rule.

Eternal warrior: This model is immune to the effects of instant death.

Instant death: an unsaved wound reduces the model to 0 wounds.

Feel no pain: cannot be taken against unsaved wounds that inflict instant death.


Losing the ability to take feel no pain is something that is caused by instant death. We all agree on this.

If you ignore the effects of instant death, then you ignore all effects, including other stipulations. You can't be immune to a rule, yet affected by it.

You can't have Kharn be immune to psychic powers yet affected by them.

You can't have harlequins/wraiths be immune to terrain, yet hit by a thunderfire cannon with subterranean rounds and need to roll.

You can't have a devilfish with sensor spines being immune to terrain get affected by mysterious terrain effects.

I can't think of any more examples. I can't think of another way to say it.

If you're immune to instant death, you can't be inflicted by instant death. The infliction part is why FNP normally cannot be taken.

juraigamer wrote:Losing the ability to take feel no pain is something that is caused by instant death. We all agree on this.

No, that's not correct.

FNP does not allow a roll if the wound inflicts Instant Death.
Instant Death is not denying the FNP roll, FNP denies the FNP roll.

Isnt the argument of the no FNP crowd that the 2 rules do not interact?

Because if they do, then FNP is clearly allowed as it states "EffectS" (I.E more than 1 effect) of ID.

If they do not interact, then no FNP is allowed.

Is this pretty much what people are saying?

Tossing in my 2 cents.

- S8 hits a model with T4
- Model attempts to makes saves and fails
- Is wound capable of inflicting instant death? Yes? FNP states you get no FNP
- Instant death is unable to outright kill the model because of eternal warrior

From a fluff standpoint, which means nothing here I know, why would not feeling pain matter if you just got vaporized or blown into 10000 bits?

Formosa wrote:Isnt the argument of the no FNP crowd that the 2 rules do not interact? Because if they do, then FNP is clearly allowed as it states "EffectS" (I.E more than 1 effect) of ID.

The rules do interact, but just because they do does not make everything an effect of Instant Death. Not being allowed to take a Feel No Pain roll is a restriction on Feel No Pain.

Ghaz wrote:

Formosa wrote:Isnt the argument of the no FNP crowd that the 2 rules do not interact? Because if they do, then FNP is clearly allowed as it states "EffectS" (I.E more than 1 effect) of ID.

The rules do interact, but just because they do does not make everything an effect of Instant Death. Not being allowed to take a Feel No Pain roll is a restriction on Feel No Pain.

And of instant death too, as you just said, as they interact I.E one is an extention of the other.

Basically what I'm saying is, either the 2 rules interact... or they dont.

If they dont: then FNP is a completely self contained rule and has no interaction with ID at all, other than mentioning ID.

If they do: then the subtext about ID can be ignored as it is one of the "effectS" of ID, its just in another part of the rulebook.

And again, just because they interact does not make it an effect. By your logic it would be immune to everything in the game since everything interacts.

Formosa wrote:

Ghaz wrote:

Formosa wrote:Isnt the argument of the no FNP crowd that the 2 rules do not interact? Because if they do, then FNP is clearly allowed as it states "EffectS" (I.E more than 1 effect) of ID.

The rules do interact, but just because they do does not make everything an effect of Instant Death. Not being allowed to take a Feel No Pain roll is a restriction on Feel No Pain.

And of instant death too, as you just said, as they interact I.E one is an extention of the other.

Basically what I'm saying is, either the 2 rules interact... or they dont.

If they dont: then FNP is a completely self contained rule and has no interaction with ID at all, other than mentioning ID.

If they do: then the subtext about ID can be ignored as it is one of the "effectS" of ID, its just in another part of the rulebook.

To say that one rule is an extention of another is a poor description of FNP. ID usr is an extension of ID(pg 16) while FNP mentions ID it is not an extension of it.

EW is like tax credits(look it up if they don't exist within your state), the tax is still accrued but you don't have to pay some of it. The tax exists and it's effects go on but you aren't down that money.
FNP is a deductable, tax must be accrued but tax credits aren't part of that equation.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Except I believe it is, as I pointed out in my previous post back on page 7 . In 4th edition, demons were getting FNP saves against ID because they had EW.

In 5th edition, we could have had the exact same argument that has been going on here for 10 pages because in both 5th edition and 6th edition, the EW rule is worded pretty much the same and so is the blurb under FNP about ID wounds. There wasn't that argument in 5th for one reason: FNP specifically said models with EW could not use FNP against ID.

In 6th edition, they have removed the EW restriction from FNP, meaning EW can be used against ID. Just like they have now added a restriction to infiltrators assaulting first turn. They have added and removed restrictions from certain rules.

So, to sum up, 4th edition, FNP saves allowed against ID if you had EW as there was no restriction against it.

5th edition, no FNP saves against ID because there was a restriction against EW.

6th edition, FNP can once again be used against ID just like it was in 4th as long as you have EW, as there is no longer a restriction against it.

Seems plainly obvious to me.

Actually back in 4th they werent. Because they still got hit by a weapon that caused Instant Death, they just didnt care for the effects.

The removal of a reminder does not change the rule

RFHolloway wrote: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.

Implied impact = making up rules. If the rules don't say it the rules don't allow it. Its called a permissive ruleset not a whatever-you-feel-like-doing ruleset.

Since there are other analogies Id like to put this out there.

you stab someone with a poison knife.
Poison causes death. (ID)
that person ignores the effects of poison (EW)
goes to the doctor... (FNP)
the doctor cant treat the poison caus your already dead (normal w/o EW... you get no FNP)
the doctor stitches up the wound because they show no effects of the poison but still have a hole in the gut. (with EW you did not die so get FNP)

Yes i have read the whole discussion. im not throwing rules at you because the way i read them works out as above. the way you read the exact same words brings you to a different conclusion. at this point in time with no FAQ we are both right and both wrong.
and with a poll that is 47% to 48% you cannot say it is one sided at all

keltikhoa, that is a bad analogy.

The fact remains that FNP can not be used against a wound that inflicts ID.

The effects of the instant death are ignored, but FNP has a specific restriction that it can not be taken against ID wounds.

DeathReaper wrote:keltikhoa, that is a bad analogy.

The fact remains that FNP can not be used against a wound that inflicts ID.

The effects of the instant death are ignored, but FNP has a specific restriction that it can not be taken against ID wounds.

It is not a bad analogy, it very clearly shows the side that i am on in that the rules do not say your weapon causes wounds with a characteristic of ID it says your weapon causes ID... if i ignore ID then i can take fnp. Yes the restriction is in the FNP rule, i agree with you on that. but that restriction has a cause. that cause clearly states ID. if the cause is ID then the effect is cannot take FNP. if i am ignoring the effects of ID then i also ignore the effect it has on FNP

Just because my analogy does not fit into your view of the rules does not make it a bad analogy.

There is a difference between being inflicted with ID, and actually suffering the effects of it. You are inflicted with it always, you just ignore the effects. Its like the difference between reciving an effect and being immune to it in malifaux.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:There is a difference between being inflicted with ID, and actually suffering the effects of it. You are inflicted with it always, you just ignore the effects. Its like the difference between reciving an effect and being immune to it in malifaux.

OK you inflicted ID.

Now the model you inflicted has FNP and EW

EW says ignore the effects

its not a matter of the difference between inflicting and suffering the effects,
its a matter of CAUSE and EFFECT

cause - effect
ID reduce wounds to 0
remove as casualty
no FNP
It does not matter that the restriction is in the FNP rule because the restriction has a cause and an effect. if the cause is ID and EW says ignore effects then FNP on a model that is ignoring effects of ID is taken.

Look at it like this, the model has FNP and EW... EW says to ignore the effects. if you hit with ID and you say that it negates FNP. did you have an effect on the model with EW yes or no?

The only effects of ID are being reduced to 0 wounds and being removed as a casualty.

Not getting FNP is not an effect of ID, because EW does not say that ignoring FNP is one of its effects.

Instead FNP not being able to be taken in a restriction of the FNP rule, and has nothing to do with EW.

DR - your second sentence should read ID instead of EW.

rigeld2 wrote:DR - your second sentence should read ID instead of EW.

Thanks, Fixed.

DeathReaper wrote:
because EW does not say that ignoring FNP is one of its effects.

you should change this EW to ID as well.

but yes ID does not list not getting FNP as an effect of ID
HOWEVER
FNP does say that not getting FNP is an effect of ID

but i will ask again... If you inflict ID on a model that is ignoring the effects of ID and say that it negates FNP did you effect the model yes or no?

Sp a poisoned weapon that inflicts ID is no longer poisoned? You cant ignore one circumstance of an ID attack and not another.

keltikhoa wrote:FNP does say that not getting FNP is an effect of ID

No, it doesn't.

but i will ask again... If you inflict ID on a model that is ignoring the effects of ID and say that it negates FNP did you effect the model yes or no?

Yes, the model is effected. It takes a wound as normal.
Or are you saying an ID wound has no effect whatsoever?

rigeld2 wrote:

keltikhoa wrote:FNP does say that not getting FNP is an effect of ID

No, it doesn't.

but i will ask again... If you inflict ID on a model that is ignoring the effects of ID and say that it negates FNP did you effect the model yes or no?

Yes, the model is effected. It takes a wound as normal.
Or are you saying an ID wound has no effect whatsoever?

Thank you rigeld2 your right it does take a wound as normal. thus it gets a FNP

keltikhoa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

keltikhoa wrote:FNP does say that not getting FNP is an effect of ID

No, it doesn't.

but i will ask again... If you inflict ID on a model that is ignoring the effects of ID and say that it negates FNP did you effect the model yes or no?

Yes, the model is effected. It takes a wound as normal.
Or are you saying an ID wound has no effect whatsoever?

Thank you rigeld2 your right it does take a wound as normal. thus it gets a FNP

Unless the "weapon" that caused the wound has a strength double the targets toughness or has the ID special rule. In which case, as per FNP, the model does not get it.

keltikhoa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

keltikhoa wrote:FNP does say that not getting FNP is an effect of ID

No, it doesn't.

but i will ask again... If you inflict ID on a model that is ignoring the effects of ID and say that it negates FNP did you effect the model yes or no?

Yes, the model is effected. It takes a wound as normal.
Or are you saying an ID wound has no effect whatsoever?

Thank you rigeld2 your right it does take a wound as normal. thus it gets a FNP

No, not true. Please don't take my statements out of context.

If you inflict an ID wound on an EW model, FNP says "nope, don't roll me" and the wound is applied. EW ignores the ID effects, so the model is left suffering a single wound.

Happyjew wrote:

Unless the "weapon" that caused the wound has a strength double the targets toughness or has the ID special rule. In which case, as per FNP, the model does not get it.

except EW says ignore the effects of ID.

what CAUSES FNP to be ignored?

ID does.

which means it is an effect of ID

No, it is a restriction on FNP.

I'm still confused how people are getting effect of ID from restriction on FNP...

keltikhoa wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

Unless the "weapon" that caused the wound has a strength double the targets toughness or has the ID special rule. In which case, as per FNP, the model does not get it.

except EW says ignore the effects of ID.

what CAUSES FNP to be ignored?

ID does.

which means it is an effect of ID

Wrong. FNP causes itself to be ignored - we know this because it's a clause listed under FNP and not under ID.

YES it is in the FNP rule... but it still lists a cause and an effect.

CAUSE ID wound EFFECT no FNP

the fact that it is in the FNP rule and not in the ID rule has no meaning whatsoever... you cannot cause something to happen and not have an effect. EW says ignore effects. it does not say ignore the effects only listed under the rule for ID. ID has an effect that is listed in the FNP rule