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.

Yes it inflicts ID either way. The conditions exist for it to inflict ID so it does. EW does not remove those conditions. In my Khan example I still rolled a 6 to wound, I inflict ID. Your ability to ignore that does not negate the fact that I still inflicted it.

Happy's example is our logical flow made simple. I tried to kill Bob with poison. This poison would kill a normal person immediately. It doesn't kill Bob because he ignores the effects of poison. I am still guilty of attempted murder and still go to jail even though Bob didn't die. There was still poison in his body despite the fact that he didn't die. It's the same concept. I inflicted a wound that would kill someone else outright but you ignore it. It would still kill another person outright, but you don't die.

GT - why would you fall back on Websters, when the game isnt US English?

ID is a restriciton on FNP, not EW. Prove otherwise.
Plus, im sure you know the forum rules by now...

Is the british definition different?

Irrelevant, when you havent answered the central issue. ID is a restriction on FNP, it is not a part of EW.

I did.

My argument is that since ID cannot be inflicted on an Eternal Warrior, as I read it, then the restriction never comes into play.

Captain Antivas wrote:
Happy's example is our logical flow made simple. I tried to kill Bob with poison. This poison would kill a normal person immediately. It doesn't kill Bob because he ignores the effects of poison. I am still guilty of attempted murder and still go to jail even though Bob didn't die. There was still poison in his body despite the fact that he didn't die. It's the same concept. I inflicted a wound that would kill someone else outright but you ignore it. It would still kill another person outright, but you don't die.

Yes, attempted murder*, but not murder, and that's what we are talking about here.It is absurd to say that someone was inflicted death, when they remain alive.

* (if you knew that Bob was immune to the poison, then it probably wouldn't even be an attempted murder.)

ID is still inflicted on the model, the model just ignores the effects. ID is a rule with effects - EW ignores the effects of ID, NOT ID itself

Yeah, for all we know Bob chugs Anti-freeze because it tastes good.

Grey Templar wrote:I did.

My argument is that since ID cannot be inflicted on an Eternal Warrior, as I read it, then the restriction never comes into play.

How does that definition agree with you?
In*flict
1. To give, cause, or produce by striking, or as if by striking; (A weapon that causes ID causes ID by the nature of their rules. EW causes them to ignore, but by this definition of the word the weapon still "gives/causes/or produces by striking" ID. Khan rolls a 6 to wound against a Nurgle Daemon, EW does not make his 6 not a 6, he still inflicts ID he simply ignores it)
2. to apply forcibly; (I hit you and wound you, you fail your save. I have applied forcibly a wound with a weapon that causes ID. Still the same. You ignore ID, but you do not ignore the entire wound caused by a weapon that inflicts ID.)
3. to lay or impose; (Same as above, I impose a wound upon you from a weapon that causes ID, therefore it is inflicted.)
4. to send; (Same as above, I send you ID from my weapon to your model. Your model ignores the ID but I still sent you a wound from a weapon that causes ID.)
5. to cause to bear, feel, or suffer; as, to inflict blows; to inflict a wound with a dagger; to inflict severe pain by ingratitude; to inflict punishment on an offender; to inflict the penalty of death on a criminal. (I inflict the penalty of death on a criminal i a court of law, he appeals the death penalty and wins his case getting life in prison instead. Was the penalty of death not inflicted on him? It was, he just gets to ignore it. He still was convicted of the crime that is punishable by death, but the court decided that (for whatever reason) he is not to be killed. The death penalty was still inflicted.)

You are ignoring the major point and it is frankly getting bothersome. My weapon causes ID even if you do not suffer ID. I still inflicted it. I will post my Khan example for the 4th time. I roll a 6 to wound and the Daemon does not die, but he does not get FNP either because I still inflicted ID.

I still don't buy it.

Agree to disagree till the FAQ comes out.

Captain Antivas wrote:
How does that definition agree with you?
In*flict
1. To give, cause, or produce by striking, or as if by striking; (A weapon that causes ID causes ID by the nature of their rules. EW causes them to ignore, but by this definition of the word the weapon still "gives/causes/or produces by striking" ID. Khan rolls a 6 to wound against a Nurgle Daemon, EW does not make his 6 not a 6, he still inflicts ID he simply ignores it)
2. to apply forcibly; (I hit you and wound you, you fail your save. I have applied forcibly a wound with a weapon that causes ID. Still the same. You ignore ID, but you do not ignore the entire wound caused by a weapon that inflicts ID.)
3. to lay or impose; (Same as above, I impose a wound upon you from a weapon that causes ID, therefore it is inflicted.)
4. to send; (Same as above, I send you ID from my weapon to your model. Your model ignores the ID but I still sent you a wound from a weapon that causes ID.)
5. to cause to bear, feel, or suffer; as, to inflict blows; to inflict a wound with a dagger; to inflict severe pain by ingratitude; to inflict punishment on an offender; to inflict the penalty of death on a criminal. (I inflict the penalty of death on a criminal i a court of law, he appeals the death penalty and wins his case getting life in prison instead. Was the penalty of death not inflicted on him? It was, he just gets to ignore it. He still was convicted of the crime that is punishable by death, but the court decided that (for whatever reason) he is not to be killed. The death penalty was still inflicted.)

You are ignoring the major point and it is frankly getting bothersome. My weapon causes ID even if you do not suffer ID. I still inflicted it. I will post my Khan example for the 4th time. I roll a 6 to wound and the Daemon does not die, but he does not get FNP either because I still inflicted ID.

No. There is no weapon that can cause instant death on Eternal Warrior. Therefore he is not wounded by a weapon that causes instant death.

Entirely incorrect. EW ignores the EFFECTS of ID. It does not turn an ID wound into a non-ID wound.

No difference to 5th edition, of Eldar 4th edition.

Antivas is right.

EW does not modify the source of the attack, it tells you to ignore its effect (reduce model to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty).

An unsaved wound caused by an ID attack is ineligible for FNP saves because it is still an ID attack.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Entirely incorrect. EW ignores the EFFECTS of ID. It does not turn an ID wound into a non-ID wound.

Effect of instant death is instant death, and that is ignored. No intstant death happening. No instant death inflicted.

Crimson wrote:

No. There is no weapon that can cause instant death on Eternal Warrior. Therefore he is not wounded by a weapon that causes instant death.

Show me the rule that says that ignores = negates. By your logic since the weapon didn't cause a wound that inflicts ID it didn't inflict a wound at all since EW negates the condition that applies to my weapon causing ID, which is an unsaved wound I rolled a 6 to get.

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Entirely incorrect. EW ignores the EFFECTS of ID. It does not turn an ID wound into a non-ID wound.

Effect of instant death is instant death, and that is ignored. No intstant death happening. No instant death inflicted.

The effect of ID is to have your wounds reduced to 0 and be removed as a casualty. The effect isnt "Instant Death", the cause is ID. EW ignores effects, as it tells you.

Drunkspleen wrote:To clarify before I vote, do you want strict RAW, or how people would play the situation?

I would suggest both... maybe. However you want to vote is fine. The debate was on RAW, and I personally play RAW unless something really ridiculous comes along. Currently 4+ this issue until it's clarified by GW, I just want to know what everyone else thinks as well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Entirely incorrect. EW ignores the EFFECTS of ID. It does not turn an ID wound into a non-ID wound.

Effect of instant death is instant death, and that is ignored. No intstant death happening. No instant death inflicted.

The effect of ID is to have your wounds reduced to 0 and be removed as a casualty. The effect isnt "Instant Death", the cause is ID. EW ignores effects, as it tells you.

This. Read the rule on ID. Both in the USR section and on page 16.

Here is another scenario I want you to consider:

Lets say a BA Librarian casts Ironarm on himself making him an EW. He is joined by a Sanguinary Priest. He now has both EW and FNP. On my turn I charge with Khan. Khan gets really lucky and hits all 4 times and rolls 4 6s. 4 ID wounds are rolled. The Librarian rolls poorly and fails his saves. He takes 2 wounds and is removed as a casualty. There are 2 wounds left. They get applied to the SP. Do these wounds cause ID on the SP?

Captain Antivas wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Entirely incorrect. EW ignores the EFFECTS of ID. It does not turn an ID wound into a non-ID wound.

Effect of instant death is instant death, and that is ignored. No intstant death happening. No instant death inflicted.

The effect of ID is to have your wounds reduced to 0 and be removed as a casualty. The effect isnt "Instant Death", the cause is ID. EW ignores effects, as it tells you.

This. Read the rule on ID. Both in the USR section and on page 16.

Here is another scenario I want you to consider:

Lets say a BA Librarian casts Ironarm on himself making him an EW. He is joined by a Sanguinary Priest. He now has both EW and FNP. On my turn I charge with Khan. Khan gets really lucky and hits all 4 times and rolls 4 6s. 4 ID wounds are rolled. The Librarian rolls poorly and fails his saves. He takes 2 wounds and is removed as a casualty. There are 2 wounds left. They get applied to the SP. Do these wounds cause ID on the SP?

Does the SP have EW? If not then this is not a relevant example.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

The effect of ID is to have your wounds reduced to 0 and be removed as a casualty.

And making this to happen is 'inflicting instant death'. And this doesn't happen.

I think the EW kicks in the point where you check whether the weapon can cause instant death to the target, ie. the same time you'd check whether the stregth of the attack is high enough to inflict instant death.

Can this weapon inflict instant death on this model? If yes, then no FNP; if no, then FNP.
The reason why instant death cannot happen really shouldn't matter.

No. You ignore the EFFECTS of ID. You still Inflict the Instant Death RULE on the person, they just ignore the effects

Thasts it

No change from 4th or 5th. None at all.

I'm wondering when this would actually happen in game. Besides Nurgle daemons, who else has FNP and ET?

liturgies of blood wrote:Does the SP have EW? If not then this is not a relevant example.

According to the logic displayed earlier once a wound is applied to an EW it cannot inflict ID anymore so it magically re-gains the ability to inflict ID after the fact? It either always inflicts ID, even on an EW, or once it is applied to an EW it loses the ability to inflict ID and it doesn't get it back after the fact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brothererekose wrote:I'm wondering when this would actually happen in game. Besides Nurgle daemons, who else has FNP and ET?

Psychic power Ironarm. Any BA psyker who rolls a 1 to pick their power who is within range of a Sanguinary Priest, Darnath Lysander with a Command Squad or blessed with Endurance, Marneus Calgar who is blessed with Endurance, basically any EW blessed with Endurance or any one with FNP blessed with Ironarm.

Captain Antivas wrote:

According to the logic displayed earlier once a wound is applied to an EW it cannot inflict ID anymore so it magically re-gains the ability to inflict ID after the fact? It either always inflicts ID, even on an EW, or once it is applied to an EW it loses the ability to inflict ID and it doesn't get it back after the fact.

A bit like how space marine powerfist 'magically' loses its ability to ID against toughness five opponents. Yes, your ID weapons can in fact ID non-EW opponents just fine.

Instant death is relative; some weapons can inflict instant death on some models, while not on others. This should not be that remarkable.

And your argument still bears no relation to the actual rules.

ID has a number of effects. EW ignores the effects. FNP has a restriction - if the wound is ID you dont get it. NOthing about EW alters whether a wound is ID or not.

Crimson wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

According to the logic displayed earlier once a wound is applied to an EW it cannot inflict ID anymore so it magically re-gains the ability to inflict ID after the fact? It either always inflicts ID, even on an EW, or once it is applied to an EW it loses the ability to inflict ID and it doesn't get it back after the fact.

A bit like how space marine powerfist 'magically' loses its ability to ID against toughness five opponents. Yes, your ID weapons can in fact ID non-EW opponents just fine.

Instant death is relative; some weapons can inflict instant death on some models, while not on others. This should not be that remarkable.

It's not the weapon, it's the wound.
You're saying that the ID portion of a wound is transient. Do you have a rules quote or example to back that up?

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not the weapon, it's the wound.
You're saying that the ID portion of a wound is transient. Do you have a rules quote or example to back that up?

I cause a number of wounds with a strength 8 weapon on a squad with bunch of toughness 4 models and one multi-wound toughness 5 character. One wound is allocated to the character. Is the character insta-killed?

Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not the weapon, it's the wound.
You're saying that the ID portion of a wound is transient. Do you have a rules quote or example to back that up?

I cause a number of wounds with a strength 8 weapon on a squad with bunch of toughness 4 models and one multi-wound toughness 5 character. One wound is allocated to the character. Is the character insta-killed?

No, because the wound does not meet the requirements for ID.

A Str8 wound is allocated to a T4 EW model. You're asserting that it is not an ID wound?

rigeld2 wrote:
A Str8 wound is allocated to a T4 EW model. You're asserting that it is not an ID wound?

You were claiming that ID was property of the wound, not the weapon. This cannot be, as with my example you roll to wound against majority toughness of 4, and the wounds from strength 8 weapon would thus be insta-kill wounds. If the ID was part of the wound, they'd ID the character regardless of his toughness when allocated to him.

So ID has to be a property that some weapons have against some models. Krak missile doesn't have it against a Warboss because he has toughness 5 , nor against Lysander because he is EW.

Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
A Str8 wound is allocated to a T4 EW model. You're asserting that it is not an ID wound?

You were claiming that ID was property of the wound, not the weapon. This cannot be, as with my example you roll to wound against majority toughness of 4, and the wounds from strength 8 weapon would thus be insta-kill wounds. If the ID was part of the wound, they'd ID the character regardless of his toughness when allocated to him.

So ID has to be a property that some weapons have against some models. Krak missile doesn't have it against a Warboss because he has toughness 5 , nor against Lysander because he is EW.

Lysander is still T4 so the weapon is still ID against him, he simply ignores the effects of ID which are, as has been repeated ad nauseum, being reduced to 0 wounds and being removed as a casualty. Nowhere in the EW rule does it say that Khan's 6 no longer causes ID.