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.

rigeld2 wrote:

jy2 wrote:

grendel083 wrote:So the EW model is immune to the effects of Instant Death..
...but their FNP roll isn't.

Let's examine the rules for FNP. p. 35 - "Note that FNP rolls cannot be made against unsaved Wounds that inflict Instant Death."

However, what is Instant Death? Do the rules for FNP tell you what ID is? No. For that you actually have to refer to the rules for ID itself on p.16.

So then the rules for ID says that if the attack is 2x your Toughness (or if the attack has the ID special rule), then you remove your model as a casualty after an unsaved wound.

So Epidemius has T5 and gets hit by a Vindicator blast. He suffers a wound that, according to the rules, is an ID wound.
EW allows him to not suffer the effects of the ID wound. It's still an ID wound as EW doesn't change the type of wound.
We look at FnP. FnP is not allowed to be taken for ID wounds. We still have an ID wound, we just will not suffer the effects of it.

However, if your model is still standing after getting hit by an Instant Death attack, haven't you have just contradicted the rules for Instant Death? Thus, it isn't Instant Death to you?

EW ignores the effects of an ID wound. If being sent to 0W and removed is a requirement for ID, you don't ignore it.

This 100%

EW ignores Instant Death. It is not Inflicted.

If it is not Inflicted, then how can FnP be ignored?

DeathReaper wrote:

Testify wrote:I'm sure this has come up before.
This is one thing that definitely needs FAQd.

Only if you do not read/Ignore what the RAW say.

The rules no not specifically state one way or the other, and logically there are two over-lapping statements.

You can pick either of those and validly claim it to be RAW.

Denying FNP is not an effect of ID. It's a clause in the FNP rule.

Yes, but it requires ID to have been inflicted.

Eternal Warriors, by the very definition of their rule, cannot have ID inflicted upon them. Therefore, there is no ID to negate their FnP.

Formosa wrote:Doesnt EW say "ignore the EFFECTS of ID" and denying FNP is one of the effects of ID, so isnt this one cut and dry?

Denying FNP is NOT one of the effects of ID, Read ID again, FNP is not mentioned.

A model with EW never suffers instant death that has been inflicted by a wound, so I don't see how FNP's stipulation that it doesn't work against wounds that inflict instant is at all relevent to them, unless you were taking the unsupported stance that said stipulation applies to any attack that CAN (as opposed to DOES) inflict instant death (to a model without EW.)

This is an error of unintended consequences. I liken it to the Ironfist on an Ogre Wizard situation. My gut feeling is that GW will ultimately decide that EW always gets FNP, even though it has never worked that way before and likely was not their intention. I think strictly reading the RAW, it is difficult to make any other conclusion.

The wound still inflicts ID, The Model with EW ignores the EFFECTS of the ID rule, it DOES NOT ignote that the Wound inflicted ID in the first place.

But it never did inflict instant death, not to this model.

Did it inflict instant death to any other model? yeah probably, but why would that shut down FNP for this guy?

Grey Templar wrote:EW ignores Instant Death. It is not Inflicted.

Absolutely 100% false.
EW ignores the effects of Instant Death. What is the effect of Instant Death?

If it is not Inflicted, then how can FnP be ignored?

The wound is still an ID wound. It absolutely meets the rule requirements to be one.
EW just stops the effect (going to 0W and being removed). It does not change it to be not an ID wound.

If thats the line of reasoning you are going to use, then the best possible outcome you could have under RAW right now is that you apply the order of operations based on who's turn it is, since the timing on the ID check and FNP trigger is identical. In other words, on your turn, you check FNP first, then ID, denying FNP and on the other guys turn the order is reversed and his immunity to ID effects from EW kicks in prior to FNP.

I agree it is complete garbage, but it is how it is written and butthurt bloodangel players will do anything they can to rules lawyer GK further into the ground. GW FAQ could honestly go either way, if they even address it.

The timing does not matter.

The wound still inflicts ID.

The model with EW ignores the EFFECTS of ID, it does not ignore that the wound was ID in the first place.

Falconlance wrote:But it never did inflict instant death, not to this model.

Doesn't matter. If FnP said "Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved wounds that would normally reduce a model's wounds to zero." I'd agree with you.
It doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phazael wrote:If thats the line of reasoning you are going to use, then the best possible outcome you could have under RAW right now is that you apply the order of operations based on who's turn it is, since the timing on the ID check and FNP trigger is identical. In other words, on your turn, you check FNP first, then ID, denying FNP and on the other guys turn the order is reversed and his immunity to ID effects from EW kicks in prior to FNP.

I agree it is complete garbage, but it is how it is written and butthurt bloodangel players will do anything they can to rules lawyer GK further into the ground. GW FAQ could honestly go either way, if they even address it.

This isn't even about GK vs BA or whatever other bias you're implying.

Also, there is no order of operations to determine if the wound is ID or not. The wound either inflicts Instant Death or it doesn't - it's not a situation of "Well, it doesn't inflict ID yet, so..."

Okay, help me out here, I'm on the verge of a break through but theres still something I'm confused about.

How does a wound meet the prerequisite of inflicting instant death, if it incapable of inflicting instant death?

Because it is not incapable of inflicting instant death. EW does not make the wound incapable of inflicting instant death. The model simply ignores the EFFECTS of the ID wound.

The effects are that the model loses all of its remaining wounds.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the wound causes ID.

Falconlance wrote:Okay, help me out here, I'm on the verge of a break through but theres still something I'm confused about.

How does a wound meet the prerequisite of inflicting instant death, if it incapable of inflicting instant death?

Instant death has a requirement and an effect.
EW ignores the effect.
Nothing is changing the requirement.

DeathReaper wrote:Because it is not incapable of inflicting instant death. EW does not make the wound incapable of inflicting instant death. The model simply ignores the EFFECTS of the ID wound.

The effects are that the model loses all of its remaining wounds.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the wound causes ID.

Alright, I see what you're saying. So basically, the model has still had instant death inflicted upon it, it just suffers none of the repercussions listed under the instant death rule.

Do I have it right?

Falconlance wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Because it is not incapable of inflicting instant death. EW does not make the wound incapable of inflicting instant death. The model simply ignores the EFFECTS of the ID wound.

The effects are that the model loses all of its remaining wounds.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the wound causes ID.

Alright, I see what you're saying. So basically, the model has still had instant death inflicted upon it, it just suffers none of the repercussions listed under the instant death rule.

Do I have it right?

Exactly.
And the rule that denies a FnP roll isn't under ID - it's under FnP.

rigeld2 wrote:

Falconlance wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Because it is not incapable of inflicting instant death. EW does not make the wound incapable of inflicting instant death. The model simply ignores the EFFECTS of the ID wound.

The effects are that the model loses all of its remaining wounds.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the wound causes ID.

Alright, I see what you're saying. So basically, the model has still had instant death inflicted upon it, it just suffers none of the repercussions listed under the instant death rule.

Do I have it right?

Exactly.
And the rule that denies a FnP roll isn't under ID - it's under FnP.

Alright, gotcha. Makes sense to me now.

rigeld2 wrote:

Falconlance wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Because it is not incapable of inflicting instant death. EW does not make the wound incapable of inflicting instant death. The model simply ignores the EFFECTS of the ID wound.

The effects are that the model loses all of its remaining wounds.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the wound causes ID.

Alright, I see what you're saying. So basically, the model has still had instant death inflicted upon it, it just suffers none of the repercussions listed under the instant death rule.

Do I have it right?

Exactly.
And the rule that denies a FnP roll isn't under ID - it's under FnP.

But FnP only says that you can't take it against wounds that inflict instant death.

You cannot inflict Instant Death on someone with Eternal Warrior, ergo you cannot ignore FnP. Because to ignore it you MUST have inflicted Instant Death. Which you cannot do.

If a model is immune to the effects of something and one of those effects affects another rule then you're breaking that first rule. You're looking at this as two separate things (or three), and while the model does get hit by an instant death attack (no matter the source) it is immune to all effects of it and even though FNP has that caveat of being ignored by instant death attacks the particular model in question is immune to *ALL* instant death effects, which includes it's ability to take FNP rolls against them.

Being able to inflict Instant Death on someone with Eternal Warrior does not matter.

As the model does not ignore that an ID wound was caused, he just ignores the effects of the ID rule.

FNP is not an effect of the ID rule.

Grey Templar wrote:But FnP only says that you can't take it against wounds that inflict instant death.

You cannot inflict Instant Death on someone with Eternal Warrior, ergo you cannot ignore FnP. Because to ignore it you MUST have inflicted Instant Death. Which you cannot do.

And there's the crux of our matter. what counts when referencing "inflicting"?

Edit: ninja'd but anyway, I would say it definitely matters whether or not you can "inflict" instant death on a model; that is what this whole argument is hinging on. If inflict meant to actually go through, then EW would protect the FnP, but if Inflict simply means hinges upon a wound being instant death, then EW is irrelevant.

We use Websters, thats what.

Grey Templar wrote:But FnP only says that you can't take it against wounds that inflict instant death.

You cannot inflict Instant Death on someone with Eternal Warrior, ergo you cannot ignore FnP. Because to ignore it you MUST have inflicted Instant Death. Which you cannot do.

Is it a wound that inflicted Instant Death? It is. Models with EW ignore the effect of Instant Death but the wound still inflicted it.

Again, you're trying to say that the 2nd half of the sentence is a requirement for it to be an ID wound.
If that's the case EW doesn't save the model as it only ignores the effect, not the requirement.

You cannot inflict Instant Death on someone with Eternal Warrior,

That was my original understanding of it as well, but after it was pointed out to me that EW makes a model "immune to the effects of Instant Death," rather making than them immune to the Instant Death rule itself, that lead me to believe that Instant Death (the rule) CAN be and IS inflicted on a unit with EW, but the effects listed under the Instant Death rule are ignored.

No,

Feel No Pain is ignored by WOUNDS THAT INFLICT INSTANT DEATH.

Not instant death itself.

A S8 Wound on a S4 Model inflicts instant death, whether or not the model is EW.

EW kicks in when ID is taken into account, not when you determine whether or not a wound inflicts it.

A wound inflicting ID is not an Effect of ID, it is a property of the wound unrelated to ID or EW, and it is this property that results in FnP being Ignored

^ The last two posters get it.

The old wording for FnP used to be "would have cause ID" which is the wording they should have kept. I don't have a dog in this fight, personally. In fact, if anything, I should have more of a bias against FnP, but the way the rules are presently worded, if I had no prior experience with 40k the conclusion I would draw is that a model with EW can always benefit from FnP. It is a poorly worded rule that needs a FAQ and they clearly intended it to work in the old way, though. I totally agree on that.