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.

yeah...
honestly I Dunno how I would argue in a tourney or friendly game as i don't play with this dude...

the idea is clearly if your a roll a 1 using a deamon weapon somthing bad should happen?

But at the same time i think idea is the points paid for FNP should be enough to justify a chance this bad stuff is avoided.

SO two chaos lords both with deamon weapons, one has paid for FNP.
they both roll a 1...
Should they both get treated the same?
Why shouldn't the FNP dude not get his FNP save when the wound is clearly from a unquantified source... he's paid up for extra protection.

I think your opponent should be happy enough with no attacks... why push for the wound?

yeah...

I play "any wound that causes ID, or any wound by an opponant in melee that doesn't allow an armor save." In other words, I have to do it to you, but it doesn't matter how so much. So MC attacks don't allow for it, power weapons don't, strength 8 wounds on T4(5) models don't, etc.
Granted, I also play that the Neural Shredder can ID things. So maybe I am wierd.

fester wrote:A hive tyrant is defined to be armed with weapon-symbiotes, you may want to look upp what a symbiote is and not take my word for it but a symbiote is actually a different entity that coexists for mutual benefit with a host.
Yes this does include all weapons that the tyrant and/or the carnifex can/must/may take.

There you go again.
I didn't say "Hive Tyrant."
*I* said Carnifex.
YOU said "Hive Tyrant."

While I was quite aware that their guns and boneswords are symbiotes (the meaning of which I am QUITE aware), I had no idea that Scything Talons were. My bad entirely, there.
We were discussing FNP in the course of HtH. What HtH weapon symbiotes can the Carnifex wield?

fester wrote:Daemon princes and a greater daemons are both defined as wielding a single close combat weapon, they may not be normal size but they are normal mundane weapons with no special rules.
I even checked the avatar, his shooty CC weapon thingy (cant be bothered to look upp the name again) didnt have any ignore armour rules ither... why should it? MC's ignore armour for all wounds caused in close combat.

That being the case, then you and I agree. The technicalities of RAW would allow a FNP roll.
Some of your other comments:

MagickalMemories:
I am arguing RAW not reason, I am actually capable of arguing a position that I do not actually follow.
Like I have pointed out in other posts on this subject my position is that if an attack (nomatter the source) is an instakill attack or a CC attack that (for whatever reason) does not allow armour saves then I consider FnP to be void.

...indicate that we agree on the functionality of it, as well.

fester wrote:I know this does not meen anything to you but you, meladdy are very close to graduating to my ignore list.

Would I get a cap & gown? A diploma? Even a little tassle?

First off, you should try not to get so bent out of shape over someone disagreeing with your point and/or questioning it.
Second... It does mean something to me. It means you are capable of taking disagreements personally.
Lastly... I really couldn't give a rip.

fester wrote:That is not a threat btw, its a reward... to me

Aye, "meladdy." A reward t'would be to us both, as ye seem ta be takin me disagreements personally. T'would reduce annoyance on both our parts ta not have ye gettin yer knickers in a twist over me not fawnin' over yer opinions.

Eric

Panic: No, your assessment of the text is wrong. The Daemon Weapon is a close combat weapon, it causes the wound. Whatever silly fluff reason is given, the fact is that the Daemon Weapon is a close combat weapon and causes the wound, fits the conditions to ignore Feel No Pain, and does so.

[Edit: Is it just me, or does Panic come across like Lumbergh? No offense or anything...]

Office Space was a classic cult film for cubicles.

- G

So, to derail the topic a bit....

Are we in agreement that chaos lords get their invulnerable saves against their own daemon weapons? I was under the impression that it was "no saves of any kind" but sure enough it says no armour saves.

MagickalMemories wrote:
There you go again.
I didn't say "Hive Tyrant."
*I* said Carnifex.
YOU said "Hive Tyrant."

While I was quite aware that their guns and boneswords are symbiotes (the meaning of which I am QUITE aware), I had no idea that Scything Talons were. My bad entirely, there.
We were discussing FNP in the course of HtH. What HtH weapon symbiotes can the Carnifex wield?

Well looking at the codex, a carnifex must choose 2 weapon-symbiotes.

CC symbiotes that are listed are:
Crushing claws, lash whip, rending claws and scything talons... am I missing any?

To be honest I cant really see your point, carnifexes work just like tyrants, all attacks are made with symbiotes, even if the carnifex got no CC weapon symbiotes at all then it would use its symbiotes in combat using its barbed strangler as a club or whatnot and still not transfer the ignore saves effect to the weapon (not that it would matter for FnP as the weapon is not a CC weapon...).
The really funny thing is that a carnifex (or tyrant for that matter) with the correct ranged weapon mix and no CC weapons could be under RAW be argued to cause a wound with a weapon with instakill capabilities and thus FnP would be denied, again note the poorly written rule does not state the wound caused has instakill capabilities, just tbnhat the weapon has it.

RAW is fun isnt it

No matter how you look at it the model, be it tyrant or carnifex will be armed with a weapon and this weapon will not have a rule that ignores saves in CC (rending claws 6's being an exeption).

the MC special rule does not transfer as per magic to the weapon under RAW.
That would be asuming that the rules work in a way that is not specifically described in the rules.
Under RAW the weapon is a weapon that does not deny saves, the wound however is caused by a MC in the CC phase and thus no save is allowed.

fester wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:
There you go again.
I didn't say "Hive Tyrant."
*I* said Carnifex.
YOU said "Hive Tyrant."

While I was quite aware that their guns and boneswords are symbiotes (the meaning of which I am QUITE aware), I had no idea that Scything Talons were. My bad entirely, there.
We were discussing FNP in the course of HtH. What HtH weapon symbiotes can the Carnifex wield?

Well looking at the codex, a carnifex must choose 2 weapon-symbiotes.

CC symbiotes that are listed are:
Crushing claws, lash whip, rending claws and scything talons... am I missing any?

To be honest I cant really see your point, carnifexes work just like tyrants, all attacks are made with symbiotes, even if the carnifex got no CC weapon symbiotes at all then it would use its symbiotes in combat using its barbed strangler as a club or whatnot and still not transfer the ignore saves effect to the weapon (not that it would matter for FnP as the weapon is not a CC weapon...).
The really funny thing is that a carnifex (or tyrant for that matter) with the correct ranged weapon mix and no CC weapons could be under RAW be argued to cause a wound with a weapon with instakill capabilities and thus FnP would be denied, again note the poorly written rule does not state the wound caused has instakill capabilities, just tbnhat the weapon has it.

RAW is fun isnt it

No matter how you look at it the model, be it tyrant or carnifex will be armed with a weapon and this weapon will not have a rule that ignores saves in CC (rending claws 6's being an exeption).

the MC special rule does not transfer as per magic to the weapon under RAW.
That would be asuming that the rules work in a way that is not specifically described in the rules.
Under RAW the weapon is a weapon that does not deny saves, the wound however is caused by a MC in the CC phase and thus no save is allowed.

You seem to have overlooked something that you quoted:

While I was quite aware that their guns and boneswords are symbiotes (the meaning of which I am QUITE aware), I had no idea that Scything Talons were. My bad entirely, there.

Eric

I am confused now... but not enough to make it interesting

It says that when the daemon rebels, the model takes a wound with no armour saves allowed. That does mean that he gets an invulnerable save, right?
Is it just me, or has Typhus caused alot of problems and debate around here?

I have a premonition Typhus will be very popular at Adepticon this year.

- G

Wehrkind wrote:I play "any wound that causes ID, or any wound by an opponant in melee that doesn't allow an armor save." In other words, I have to do it to you, but it doesn't matter how so much. So MC attacks don't allow for it, power weapons don't, strength 8 wounds on T4(5) models don't, etc.
Granted, I also play that the Neural Shredder can ID things. So maybe I am wierd.

Well, since we're delving in the Chaos Codex, Kharn the betrayer's special "oops" should also deny FNP to his allies

Anyway, Wehrkind, you won me over... the entry for the daemon weapon does not say the weapon causes the wound, just that the wielder takes a wound allowing no armor saves (interesting catch there Rbb, with the invulnerable saves...)


Nurglitch, you keep asserting that it is the Daemon Weapon proper that causes the wound. The text of the entry fails to support that, however. The wound taken is a consequence of rolling a to see how many attacks you'd get, just as taking a wound from Gets Hot or PotW is a consequence for messing up their respective tests. Just because the wound is taken in the close combat phase doesn't mean it was caused by a Close Combat Weapon, nor just because you take a wound from something going wrong with your weapon does it mean that the weapon (and all it's relevant stats) caused that wound (ala gets hot). The Daemon Weapon mess up entry specifically tells us what happens: "the model may not make any attacks this round and suffers one wound with no armor saves allowed."

Now, it does say that the weapon rebells... but how helpful is that for our discussion? Does it rebel by having Typhus cut himself like an emo in the bathtub? Does the daemon have a battle of wills and cause Typhus to have a nosebleed (and maybe a hemorrhage or two in his parietal lobe)? Does the weapon simply stay in its scabbard and refuse to come out, allowing someone to hurt Typhus? We don't know. I think that's why there's "airy fairy" speculation about what happens... because if it's interpreted one way, the daemon weapon does indeed cause the wound, but if it's interpreted another, it's like a perils of the warp wound.

Nowhere in there does it say it's actually from a close combat attack, let alone the weapon. That's an inference on your part. We're left speculating where the actual wound comes from, but it doesn't say it's specifically from the daemon weapon stabbing the wielder. If the entry said the weapon caused the wound, you would be absolutely 100% right, but the entry doesn't say that... If I got the wrong edition of the chaos codex, let me know; show me where it says the daemon weapon causes the wound. As we're all fond of nothing, rules must clearly state what happens and under what conditions, as a permissive ruleset. FNP says I can save anything except under two specific circumstances. The daemon entry then must CLEARLY fall under one of those two circumstances to deny FNP's ruleset from working.

Geddonight: I don't just assert that the Daemon Weapon causes the wound, I point out the Daemon Weapon is why the player rolls a D6 for extra attacks and the Daemon Weapon's wielder suffers a wound with no armour saves on a result of 1 on that die. No Daemon Weapon, no rolling for extra attacks, no chance of receiving a wound. Ergo, the Daemon Weapon causes the wound.

As I pointed out, the comparison to Gets Hot fails on two points, the fact that Gets Hot never occurs on close combat weapons, and the fact that Gets Hot specifically requires an Armour Save. The Daemon Weapon is a close combat weapon, that's a fact since all Power Weapons are close combat weapons, and it allows no Armour save whether the wielder or some other model takes a wound from a model wielding it. The wound caused by Gets Hot does not preclude Feel No Pain because it allows an Armour Save, and if it was ever on a close combat weapon, it would still fail to meet the necessary conditions for ignoring Feel No Pain. Whether a model fails its Armour Save for Gets Hot!, that wound is caused by the weapon with Gets Hot!

If you want to argue the text, here you go:

Nurglitch wrote:

Rulebook, p74 wrote:Some warriors are so blood-frenzied that they can ignore injuries that would incapacitate even a battle-hardened Space Marine. If a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice. On a 1, 2 or 3, take the wound as normal, removing the model if it loses its final wound. On a 4, 5 or 6, the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting. This ability cannot be used against weapons that inflict Instant Death (those with a Strength double or more the model's Toughness) or against close combat weapons that allow no Armour Save (such as power fists, power swords, Dreadnought close combat weapons, rending attacks that roll a 6 to hit, etc)

Codex: Chaos Space Marines, p93 wrote:A Daemon Weapons:
-Adds an extra D6 Attacks in close combat. Roll the dice every time the model is about to attack. If the result is a 1, the bound Daemon within the weapon rebels - the model may not may any attacks in this round and suffers one wound with no armour saves allowed.

So let's see: Is a Daemon Weapon a close combat weapon? Yes. Does it allow Armour Saves when it affects the wielder? No. Is it the case that a model benefits from Feel No Pain when it loses a wound due to a close combat weapon that does not allow armour saves? No, it does not.

Therefore Typhus does not benefit from Feel No Pain when he rolls a 1 before attacking with his Daemon Weapon.

Q.E.Dur.

Based on the arguments on both sides, I see there is no real clear cut answer on this issue and with issues such as these: "when in doubt, don't play it out".

By that reasoning, you would have to say that if he used manreaper as a force weapon and rolled a perils of the warp result then he couldn't use FNP because his weapon caused the wound. Or because an unsaveable wound was caused in the assault phase. I ain't buying it.

Except that Perils of the Warp isn't caused by the weapon, it's cause by using a psychic power and the Perils of the Warp are pretty specific about how it works. Different rules, different reasoning.

Nurglitch wrote:I don't just assert that the Daemon Weapon causes the wound, I point out the Daemon Weapon is why the player rolls a D6 for extra attacks and the Daemon Weapon's wielder suffers a wound with no armour saves on a result of 1 on that die. No Daemon Weapon, no rolling for extra attacks, no chance of receiving a wound. Ergo, the Daemon Weapon causes the wound.

I see where you're coming from, Nurglitch, but I still disagree. Here, let me show you how easily one can use your argument to prove their point:

I don't just assert that the Plasma Gun causes the wound, I point out the Plasma Gun is why the player rolls a D6 to hit and the Plasma Gun's wielder suffers a wound ... on a result of 1 on that die. No Plasma Gun, no rolling to hit, no chance of receiving a wound from the Gets Hot! rule. Ergo, the Plasma Gun causes the wound.



I know it's not the perfect substitution, but it fits well enough to show how the logic bends. We all know that taking a wound from the Gets Hot! rule is separate from the characteristics of the weapon. The Daemon Weapon entry is the same as the Gets Hot! rule in that it tells you to take a wound (without making an armor save). The Daemon Weapon entry doesn't say that the weapon causes the wound, nor that the wound is caused as a close combat attack, so I don't see how it fulfills the exception to FNP. Therefore, it is more reasonable to conclude that the rule is closer to the type of wound suffered via Gets Hot! (i.e. it's a wound that just happens, no extra strings attached). The wound is caused because of the weapon, not by it.

Point in question:
Would you demand that I remove my Slaaneshi Lord wielding the Blissgiver if he rolled a "1" for number of attacks? As per your reasoning, he's taking a wound from the daemon weapon, and therefore should die outright... seems overly harsh for something that should statistically happen once per game.

Uh, yeah, the Plasma Gun does cause the wound. I pointed that out too. And when a Plasma Gun causes a wound via Gets Hot! the model is required to take an Armour save.

When a Daemon Weapon causes a wound via rolling a 1 for the number of bonus attacks, then it is a Close Combat Weapon (because all Power Weapons are Close Combat Weapons) and it does not permit an Armour Save by the wielder. It meets two necessary and sufficient conditions for ignoring Feel No Pain.

The Daemon Weapon entry says that the Daemon Weapon causes the wound because part of its rules is causing a wound when rolling for bonus attacks. As you will notice in the Feel No Pain rules, the wound does not have to be caused by a close combat attack, just by a close combat weapon, which the Daemon Weapon is.

It is only reasonable, supposing a deductive logic where soundness and validity operate, that wounds suffered as the result of wielding a Daemon Weapon ignore Feel No Pain.

You do raise an interesting question about whether a Blissgiver would instantly kill its wielder upon a roll of 1, but only interesting insofar as checking the rules for the Blissgiver can be. The rules for the Blissgiver state:

Codex Chaos Space Marines, Blissgiver, p93 wrote:A slender blade or writhing whip, those wounded by a Blissgiver are pitched into an ecstatic coma from which there is no recovery. Any wounds caused on the enemy by a Blissgiver inflict Instant Death, regardless of the target's Toughness.

So obviously no, I would not demand that you remove your Slaaneshi Lord wielding the Blissgiver if you rolled a "1" for his bonus attacks. As per my reasoning, he's taking a wound from the Blissgiver, and he is not an enemy, and therefore should not suffer Instant Death.

Nurglitch, you are content to write off the part about the weapon rebelling / daemon lashing out as fluff, and thus insignificant to the rule. What's your basis for doing so? It's just as reasonable to say that by writing that part, GW is making clear that it's not the weapon causing the wound, but the daemon inside the weapon or something like that. It seems to me that because GW went through the effort of explaining more about what happens than "the weapon bonks its wielder on the head," the meaning is that the wound is different from a normal wound. What I'm failing to see in your argument is how you justify calling some text meaningless and some text the essence of the rule. Now, to say that any text describing "what happens" is fluff isn't a satisfactory response, because it's this very text that distinguishes the instance at hand from a "normal" situation, and so is entirely relevant to the rule.

deadlygopher: I'm not writing off any part of the rule. If you're going to claim something is reasonable, you need to state a metric for that valuation (unless, of course, that metric has already been established). As part of my stated metric of 'reasonable-ness' I'm including textual justification - if the information is there, it's textually justified, if the information is not there, then it's not textually justified. Textual justification and reasonableness are not interchangeable, that would be a fallacy of composition.

So what does the text justify? Well, if you look at the text there's the phrase "A Daemon Weapon:" followed by a list of bullet-points. It can be re-written as the following sentences:

A Daemon Weapon requires two hands to use.

A Daemon Weapon is a power weapon.

A Daemon Weapon adds an extra D6 Attacks in close combat. Roll the dice every time a model is about to attack. If the result is a 1, the bound Daemon within the weapon rebels - the model may not make any attacks in this round and suffers one wound with no armour saves.

A Daemon Weapon has an additional ability that varies depending on the Mark given to the bearer, as described below.

So, we're concerned with the 3rd bullet point. Let us ask ourselves some questions:

What causes the 1 result that in turn causes the model to suffer one wound with no armour saves allowed?

Rolling the D6 for extra Attacks.

What adds an extra D6 Attacks in close combat?

The Daemon Weapon.

What does the bound Daemon within the weapon do?

The bound Daemon rebels.

So, given that the Daemon Weapon is what causes the player to roll the D6 for extra attacks, and what causes the model to suffer one wound with no armour saves allowed on a result of 1, and since all the bound Daemon does is rebel - a term with no game function, a non sequitor, it is only reasonable to say that the Daemon Weapon causes the wound with no armour save allowed. It is only reasonable to say that the Daemon Weapon causes the wound because without the Daemon Weapon, no extra D6 Attacks are rolled for and no 1 result of that roll can result in wound on the bearer.

To say that any text describing whatever happens is simply fluff, and as such should be ignored, should be a thoroughly satisfactory response whenever the text in question is indeed fluff and expresses no rule in the game. Of course that is a tautology, as that is the nature of fluff - if it expressed a rule by naming a term with a game function then it would be a rule and must not be ignored in a discussion of rules.

yeah...
Nurglich you seem to miss the point most people can also reason that the wound is caused by a replacement effect...

the rules wrote:
A Daemon Weapon adds an extra D6 Attacks in close combat. Roll the dice every time a model is about to attack. If the result is a 1, the bound Daemon within the weapon rebels - the model may not make any attacks in this round and suffers one wound with no armour saves.

No attacks happen... if the attack doesn't happen then why do you JUMP to the conclusion that the weapon is still the source. a wound occurs as a replacement effect... via a fluffy deamon attack on the roll of a

Nurglitch wrote:

Codex Chaos Space Marines, Blissgiver, p93 wrote:A slender blade or writhing whip, those wounded by a Blissgiver are pitched into an ecstatic coma from which there is no recovery. Any wounds caused on the enemy by a Blissgiver inflict Instant Death, regardless of the target's Toughness.

So obviously no, I would not demand that you remove your Slaaneshi Lord wielding the Blissgiver if you rolled a "1" for his bonus attacks. As per my reasoning, he's taking a wound from the Blissgiver, and he is not an enemy, and therefore should not suffer Instant Death.

If i was following your logic I could argue that a blissgiver attacks it's owner, it's not friendly fire, it's attcking a enemy... instant death for yousss... i is always right...

yeah...

Panic: Sorry, you fail. Wrong on both counts.

1) Feel No Pain is ignored by weapons, not attacks. Hence the fact that the Chaos Lord makes no attacks that turn is irrelevant to the fact that the wound is caused by the Daemon Weapon.

2) That wouldn't be following my logic because my logic is the game's logic and the game's logic is that models and hence their wargear are always on the same side as themselves.

Hurts my eyes....someone make him stop!

I nominate Nurglitch as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of rules lawyers. He appears to be the only one against it, so just stop argueing with him.

Rbb: Rules-lawyering is bending the rules, I'm simply pointing out what they say. Still, nice contribution to the thread. Very constructive and insightful.

Nurglitch wrote:

Rulebook, p74 wrote:Some warriors are so blood-frenzied that they can ignore injuries that would incapacitate even a battle-hardened Space Marine. If a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice. On a 1, 2 or 3, take the wound as normal, removing the model if it loses its final wound. On a 4, 5 or 6, the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting. This ability cannot be used against weapons that inflict Instant Death (those with a Strength double or more the model's Toughness) or against close combat weapons that allow no Armour Save (such as power fists, power swords, Dreadnought close combat weapons, rending attacks that roll a 6 to hit, etc)

Codex: Chaos Space Marines, p93 wrote:A Daemon Weapons:
-Adds an extra D6 Attacks in close combat. Roll the dice every time the model is about to attack. If the result is a 1, the bound Daemon within the weapon rebels - the model may not may any attacks in this round and suffers one wound with no armour saves allowed.

So let's see: Is a Daemon Weapon a close combat weapon? Yes. Does it allow Armour Saves when it affects the wielder? No. Is it the case that a model benefits from Feel No Pain when it loses a wound due to a close combat weapon that does not allow armour saves? No, it does not.

Therefore Typhus does not benefit from Feel No Pain when he rolls a 1 before attacking with his Daemon Weapon.

Q.E.Dur.

I am 100% in agreement with this description of the conditions, circumstances & results. Not only does it make sense but it follows RAW quite nicely. Good job on bringing those points together so well Nurglitch! We disagree on another point, not related to this topic but I can't imagine the writers of the rules set intending for us to manipulate and put so much thought and theory into a rules decision during the game.

You should not have to stop the game and consider the fluff and non-mechanical description of a rules circumstance to come to a decision. In the play of the game a DP hits you with his weapon, causing a wound... if he is wounded himself by said weapon while in CC & denied a save from that wound then his FNP does not work. In reading the flavor text and trying to distinguish between the enslaved demon causing the wound and not the sword itself or saying it is silly if he stabs himself in the eye... that's the rules lawyering going on here in my assessment.

Until or more likely unless an Official GW FAQ proves one point right, the best situation is to go with the flow and play the common sense card instead of reading more into the situation to come to a favorable result for one player over another.

But whose version of common sense? Their's or your's? Jervis wrote a standard bearer on this once. He said to roll for it. Or just let the other person have their way and enjoy the game without wasting all your time argueing. Of course, this won't work at a tourney. But someone in charge should be able to give you an answer there. I don't suppose the adepticon faq has an answer?

Sod common sense, it's merely a collection of prejudices. Do what the rules state.

But the argument is over what do the rules state. If we were playing and this came up I'd say roll for it. If you were certain you were right and didn't want to roll for it I'd let you have your way so we could get back to the game. I only get to play a couple of times a month and I wouldn't want to waste time bickering over rules. So long as you agree that he gets an inv. save.

We're going nowhere with this.