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.

What forkbanger said.

They have the same trigger condition.

Once you fail those saves, both FnP and AB happen. If there were 5 Unsaved Wounds, then it will trigger both, there is nothing to indicated order, so they should happen simultaneously.

Further, it is being assumed that an 'injury' is the same as an Unsaved Wound; which is also not stated as such. The way the rule is worded, Unsaved Wound is for all the failed saves, and Injury is for actual 'damage' to the model. If Acid Blood said "For every Unsaved Wound that injures a model" that would be a different situation.

forkbanger wrote:Both Acid Blood and Feel no Pain trigger have the same trigger- 'upon suffering an unsaved wound'.

Each wound inflicted and not saved by an armour/invulnerable save would cause both effects- an Initiative test from the Acid Blood and a Feel No Pain roll from Catalyst.

If you want to apply them sequentially (i.e. FNP and then Acid Blood from remaining wounds), there's no reason they can't be applied in the reverse order (Acid Blood and then FNP).

Arctik_Firangi wrote:I'm not decided one way or the other, but the USR for Feel No Pain states, "If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound... ... on a 4, 5 or 6, the injury is ignored."

It would appear that the wound must be strictly unsaved for FNP to be applicable. The description for FNP suggests that the model has absolutely suffered some injury but is frenzied enough to ignore any debilitation for the time being. Suffered wounds are not described as being necessarily fatal, but are at the very least incapacitating. It makes sense that models with FNP sustain very real injuries that do not affect them. Splatters of blood, gore and whatever else seem appropriate in any case.

Again, how is the wound being 'ignored' if it is having applications in the game? You can't have it trigger some other effect and then say it is 'ignored'...that just doesn't fly. These type of 'unsaved' events apply in all sorts of situations, for example Dark Eldar have several weapons that inflict instant death if the model suffers an 'unsaved wound'.

Are you now going to claim that the model suffers instant death from a wound that has been ignored by Feel No Pain?

Once again, you guys are selectively applying the term 'ignored' here. The FNP rules do NOT say that the wound is ignored ONLY for the purposes of reducing the model's overall wound total. The wound is completely and utterly ignored if Feel No Pain is successful.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

coredump wrote:What forkbanger said.

They have the same trigger condition.

Once you fail those saves, both FnP and AB happen. If there were 5 Unsaved Wounds, then it will trigger both, there is nothing to indicated order, so they should happen simultaneously.

Further, it is being assumed that an 'injury' is the same as an Unsaved Wound; which is also not stated as such. The way the rule is worded, Unsaved Wound is for all the failed saves, and Injury is for actual 'damage' to the model. If Acid Blood said "For every Unsaved Wound that injures a model" that would be a different situation.

No. The model has not 'suffered' an unsaved wound until it is actually inflicted upon him. If Feel No Pain causes the wound to be ignored then the model has not had a wound (unsaved or otherwise) inflicted upon him...the wound has been ignored.

yakface wrote:

No. The model has not 'suffered' an unsaved wound until it is actually inflicted upon him. If Feel No Pain causes the wound to be ignored then the model has not had a wound (unsaved or otherwise) inflicted upon him...the wound has been ignored.

That would mean that you never get your FNP roll because you never suffer an unsaved wound until you are already dead and removed.

The thing is that Acid blood is a special case because it happens during the same trigger as FNP. Until we get a timing system, both would be applied at the same time and FNP wouldn't ignore wounds until after Acid blood has already resolved (simultaneously).

And yes, the same thing could be implied from the dark eldar weapons, except the weapon causes instant death and the injury is ignored. Its not like instant death causes extra wounds or does something special. Model is killed, injury is ignored. Same as if a wound was caused to a 1 wound model. Wound happens, injury is ignored.

Yak, you are being just as selective in your interpretation as anyone else in this thread. The Dark Eldar example is a very good reason for this question to be raised, and something for TOs and competitive players to bear in mind.

Your interpretation consistently avoids problems across multiple books but the USR itself is not clear enough. As written the 'injury' is ignored, not the wound. This could - and should - be much clearer.

Actually looking back at the FNP rules, I noticed that it can't be used against wounds from weapons that cause instant death, so it looks like FNP wouldn't apply agains those DE weapons.

After reading everything a bit more closely you guys do have a good point, I must admit.

Skarboy wrote:Saved/Unsaved only refers to the armor/invulnerable/cover save you take. As always, when the model takes damage, it suffers "wounds" and then you are able to take your saves. Read the wording of Feel No Pain. It specifically says you take it on an UNSAVED WOUND, implying that you have already taken the wound and rolled your applicable save. The "wound" from damage is now an "unsaved wound." The ability does not confer an additional SAVE, it allows you to IGNORE the unsaved wound. It is STILL unsaved, you just get to ignore it. It says NOTHING about the wound being "saved."

I would say that your acid blood goes off on every unsaved wound, whether or not FNP kicks in or doesn't, because once you fail the save, it is an unsaved wound (you just have a chance to ignore). If they had wanted it to refer to every wound lost by the model, they would have worded it as such.

I thought this at first too, but then I read pg 20 of the BRB on Taking Saving Throws and it says that Abilities are Saving throws as well as armor/invulnerable/cover (in the first paragraph). It doesn't say you can only have one saving throw. The rules tell you that out of Armor, invulnerable, or a cover save you take the best save (pg 24), but that doesn't exclude FNP from being a saving throw or you from taking it. FNP is a saving throw used against wounds that haven't been saved previously and in my eyes wouldn't trigger acid blood.

The rest of the posts after this one all seem to assume that FNP is not a saving throw, which IMO are arguments based on a false premise.

P.S. I realize that pg 20 is in the shooting section, but the assault section on taking saves tells you to take saves as described in the shooting section.

If you define FnP as a save then that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to suffer an unsaved wound to test for FnP in the first place.

If you don't remove a model or wound from a multi-wound model I'd say the wounds ignored for all intents and purposes however they may have been negated.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:If you define FnP as a save then that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to suffer an unsaved wound to test for FnP in the first place.

If this were the case than at one point all wounds are unsaved, after you roll to wound but before you roll for armor/cover/invulnerable. The step for taking saves is one block in the combat resolution, after you take your saves, you apply the wounds (remove casualties) and at this point you would apply the acid blood for the wounds applied to the model with the acid blood ability.

Monster Rain wrote:If you don't remove a model or wound from a multi-wound model I'd say the wounds ignored for all intents and purposes however they may have been negated.

But

Arctik_Firangi wrote:you have to suffer an unsaved wound to test for FnP in the first place.

Why wouldn't Acid Blood and FnP resolve simultaneously regardless of whether the model is ultimately slain, loses a wound or 'ignores the injury' (which barely implies that the model doesn't lose a wound)?

Tychron wrote:
If this were the case than at one point all wounds are unsaved, after you roll to wound but before you roll for armor/cover/invulnerable. The step for taking saves is one block in the combat resolution, after you take your saves, you apply the wounds (remove casualties) and at this point you would apply the acid blood for the wounds applied to the model with the acid blood ability.

They are not 'unsaved' before you have even attempted to make a save. They have had no interaction with saves whatsoever until you roll those particular dice. "You roll all the saves for the unit in one go" p.20. FnP is not simultaneous (or a reroll) so it's obviously not a save. A wound can't be unsaved until it has failed to be saved.

With page 20 showing FnP is a saving throw, i fail to see how a wound that failed armor/invul but is then "Saved" by a fnp roll is unsaved.

Not to mention, if gw does ever get around to faqing this, you know it will side against the nids, since gw loves bending em over the barrel.

Page 20 does not show that FnP is a saving throw. It's a USR that can be defined as an 'ability', yes. It's not a saving throw that can be defined as an 'ability or device' such as the 'dodge' abilities of various models in the games or forceshields that provide invulnerable saves. These are clearly defined as saves - the text that Tychron referred to is descriptive and does not establish anything.

However, p.20 shows that saves are all taken at the same time. FnP is taken after saves because it has a triggering condition. FnP is triggered on the exact same condition as the Tyranid ability in question.

kill dem stunties wrote:With page 20 showing FnP is a saving throw, i fail to see how a wound that failed armor/invul but is then "Saved" by a fnp roll is unsaved.

This.

The wound being "ignored" is pretty strong language. You have to resolve the FNP to decide if the wound is being ignored or not.

Where does it say the wound is ignored? It doesn't.

It says the injury is ignored. The injury that certainly happened.



The model is Wounded.
The models attempts its saving throw if applicable.
The wound is not saved.
FnP (a USR) and Acid Blood resolve.
The 'injury' is or is not sufficient to cause a wound, and the attacker is sprayed with acidic blood.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:It says the injury is ignored. The injury that certainly happened.

Meh. Injury, wound. It's semantics at this point.

I've made my point. Enjoy your interpretation.

You still clearly think that FnP is a saving throw. I just don't see how you can justify that.

Here's an interesting thing.

Suppose side A has Acid Blood and FNP, and side B has FNP, and side B does 4 hits to side A, then A saves 2 of them, and also rolls twice for FNP.

Side B makes initiative rolls to avoid two wounds from Acid Blood, can side B then make FNP rolls to ignore wounds resulting from the failure of their I rolls?

Kilkrazy wrote:Here's an interesting thing.

Suppose side A has Acid Blood and FNP, and side B has FNP, and side B does 4 hits to side A, then A saves 2 of them, and also rolls twice for FNP.

Side B makes initiative rolls to avoid two wounds from Acid Blood, can side B then make FNP rolls to ignore wounds resulting from the failure of their I rolls?

I don't see why not... do you?

No.

It could end up with side B taking 2 acid wounds from side A while side A doesn't take any wounds.

Pages 20-24 in the BRB describe the different kinds of "Saves", which include Armor, Invulnerable and Cover. FNP is not a "saving throw" since it is not listed anywhere under the heading "Taking Saving Throws", nor is it an ability or device that confers a save.

Besides that, page 24 mentions that a model may never take more than one "saving throw". If FNP were a save, a model would not be able to take an Armor Save, then take a FNP "save".

For FNP to trigger there is a necessity for the model to suffer an UNSAVED WOUND, which means it has already taken whatever "saving throw" it is allowed. FNP is then rolled to negate the wound, but the wound was suffered by the model. It just does not suffer the effects of that wound (IE being removed as a casualty). This means any other abilities that trigger from an unsaved wound would also trigger simultaneously with FNP, allowing the controlling player to choose which to resolve first. Note that this makes it possible for Lemartes to suffer an unsaved wound, enrage, and negate the wound via FNP.

As a side effect, wounds negated by FNP would still count toward combat resolution, because the only thing combat resolution cares about is how many "unsaved wounds" were caused by each side. See the heading "Determine Assault Results" on page 39.

All of this seems relatively clear, and I don't understand why there is an argument. The wording is clear cut and it has no room for interpretation.

Kilkrazy wrote:No.

It could end up with side B taking 2 acid wounds from side A while side A doesn't take any wounds.

That makes sense. FnP allows creatures to ignore the effects of sustained injuries whilst still affecting their opponents with splattered goo!

Wait... Acid Blood doesn't allow armour saves. Of course they can't take FnP.

Acid blood, pg 84: "For every unsaved wound a model with acid blood SUFFERS ..."

Did the wound get removed from your total number of remaining wounds? If not then you did not suffer a wound.

kill dem stunties wrote:Acid blood, pg 84: "For every unsaved wound a model with acid blood SUFFERS ..."

Did the wound get removed from your total number of remaining wounds? If not then you did not suffer a wound.

Then you can't test for FnP either, because it has the same trigger. That's either a paradox or you're wrong. Reality insists that paradoxes be corrected.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Here's an interesting thing.

Suppose side A has Acid Blood and FNP, and side B has FNP, and side B does 4 hits to side A, then A saves 2 of them, and also rolls twice for FNP.

Side B makes initiative rolls to avoid two wounds from Acid Blood, can side B then make FNP rolls to ignore wounds resulting from the failure of their I rolls?

I don't see why not... do you?

Actually having just revised the rules for Acid Blood, I know realise that the wounds resulting from it do not allow armour saves so FNP can't be used against them.

kill dem stunties wrote:Acid blood, pg 84: "For every unsaved wound a model with acid blood SUFFERS ..."

Did the wound get removed from your total number of remaining wounds? If not then you did not suffer a wound.

Yes, you did suffer the wound, but FNP means you ignore the wound. You are confusing two different wordings. A model can suffer an unsaved wound and not remove the wound from its total number of wounds. That is exactly what FNP does.

If it worked the way you seem to think it does, we would have a rules paradox. The model would be wounded, roll a save and fail thus "suffering an unsaved wound" which triggers FNP. It would then roll FNP and if it rolled a 4+ it would negate the trigger that allowed the FNP roll in the first place.

Just because an injury is ignored does not mean the model did not suffer an unsaved wound. Clearly it had to for FNP to trigger, and once that happens it cannot be reversed.

Aldarionn wrote:Pages 20-24 in the BRB describe the different kinds of "Saves", which include Armor, Invulnerable and Cover. FNP is not a "saving throw" since it is not listed anywhere under the heading "Taking Saving Throws", nor is it an ability or device that confers a save.

Besides that, page 24 mentions that a model may never take more than one "saving throw". If FNP were a save, a model would not be able to take an Armor Save, then take a FNP "save".

For FNP to trigger there is a necessity for the model to suffer an UNSAVED WOUND, which means it has already taken whatever "saving throw" it is allowed. FNP is then rolled to negate the wound, but the wound was suffered by the model. It just does not suffer the effects of that wound (IE being removed as a casualty). This means any other abilities that trigger from an unsaved wound would also trigger simultaneously with FNP, allowing the controlling player to choose which to resolve first. Note that this makes it possible for Lemartes to suffer an unsaved wound, enrage, and negate the wound via FNP.

As a side effect, wounds negated by FNP would still count toward combat resolution, because the only thing combat resolution cares about is how many "unsaved wounds" were caused by each side. See the heading "Determine Assault Results" on page 39.

All of this seems relatively clear, and I don't understand why there is an argument. The wording is clear cut and it has no room for interpretation.

From the previous page here -

pratell wrote:Page 39, under Determine Assault Results.

Additionally, "Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules ... do not count, nor do wounds in excess of a model's Wound characteristic..." So FNP does not have a downside/backlash in determining close combat results.

So no, it does not work towards combat resolution and it should not work towards this acid attack either.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
However, p.20 shows that saves are all taken at the same time. FnP is taken after saves because it has a triggering condition. FnP is triggered on the exact same condition as the Tyranid ability in question.

This.

People are placing a timing value on the triggers when there is none. Two different conditions are being met at the same time, not sequentially.

How and why does FNP get triggered before Acid Blood when they have the exact same conditions?

I don't even think it matters what FNP says about saves or ignoring wounds. The fact is that you step to the condition that triggers both before it even comes into question.

As forkbanger pointed out, if you insist that there is timing, how do you know it is not Acid Blood first, then FNP?

Kevin949 wrote:

pratell wrote:Page 39, under Determine Assault Results.

Additionally, "Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules ... do not count, nor do wounds in excess of a model's Wound characteristic..." So FNP does not have a downside/backlash in determining close combat results.

So no, it does not work towards combat resolution and it should not work towards this acid attack either.

Actually I will concede my point about Assault Results. The section on page 39 clearly states that "wounds that have been negated by saving throws OR OTHER SPECIAL RULES THAT HAVE SIMILAR EFFECTS do not count"

This is a clear exception because FNP is "a special rule that has a similar effect".

As for the other, the model still suffered an unsaved wound and thus all effects trigger including AB.

puma713 wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
However, p.20 shows that saves are all taken at the same time. FnP is taken after saves because it has a triggering condition. FnP is triggered on the exact same condition as the Tyranid ability in question.

This.

People are placing a timing value on the triggers when there is none. Two different conditions are being met at the same time, not sequentially.

How and why does FNP get triggered before Acid Blood when they have the exact same conditions?

I don't even think it matters what FNP says about saves or ignoring wounds. The fact is that you step to the condition that triggers both before it even comes into question.

As forkbanger pointed out, if you insist that there is timing, how do you know it is not Acid Blood first, then FNP?

To me it is because FNP is a saving throw, which after you take it would negate the condition for acid blood. You fail your armor, are allowed to thow a die to save the model by ignoring the wound, thus once you ignore the wound you have just made a saving throw and have negated acid blood. There is no opportunity to negate FNP by rolling acid blood first, so the only way to play without having to backtrack through the sequence of rules is to roll for FNP then trigger acid blood where appropriate.

The only shaky point I see is FNP is never explicitly worded in the rule book as a Saving Throw, but I think it would be a little silly to say otherwise since the literal actions you take would be a saving throw (of the die).

Tychron wrote:

puma713 wrote:
How and why does FNP get triggered before Acid Blood when they have the exact same conditions?

As forkbanger pointed out, if you insist that there is timing, how do you know it is not Acid Blood first, then FNP?

To me it is because FNP is a saving throw, which after you take it would negate the condition for acid blood. You fail your armor, are allowed to thow a die to save the model by ignoring the wound, thus once you ignore the wound you have just made a saving throw and have negated acid blood. There is no opportunity to negate FNP by rolling acid blood first, so the only way to play without having to backtrack through the sequence of rules is to roll for FNP then trigger acid blood where appropriate.

Again, you're putting timing on the issue. There is no timing. If there is, you should reference it in the rulebook to strengthen your point. But there is none. The same thing that triggers FNP triggers Acid Blood, no matter how much they react with each other. You say the only way to play without having to backtrack through the sequence is the way you mentioned - but there is no sequence and you need no backtracking. FNP and Acid Blood happen simultaneously, like firing a bolter and a lascannon from the same unit. The bolter doesn't go first and the lascannon go second, just because you may choose to roll them sequentially. They happen simultaneously, just like AB and FNP.