Helfrost, Feel No Pain, and Reanimation Protocols

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.

**Lobokai**

Bojazz wrote:
The rules do not break. Two rules activate, and as per sequencing the player chooses which to resolve first. If the player resolves Helfrost first, and the model is removed then that is fully resolved. You then have no model to resolve reanimation on, and so it is not resolved. When a model is removed, all actions queued for that model are cancelled. For instance, If a unit has to take a morale check due to taking 25% casualties, and then gets shot by another squad and is wiped off the table, you do not take the morale check, even though that test was queued up for the squad. Similarly, if you have reanimation queued up for a model, and then it is removed from the table, you do not roll reanimation. No rules are broken. Both processes work with the RAW.

+1 on this... unless someone shows that there is a rule based argument that sidesteps the sequence rules, I see this as the answer.

(don't start dropping in all the "did you read the thread" stuff, just because I went back a few for the post I agreed with)

**rigeld2**

jay_mo wrote:
I find it surprising that you think this does not confer with rules in 40k. In my experience most rules for games (board games etc) are sequential, kind of like programming. If you want to claim that 40k-rules are different, well, that's up to you, but I don't see it. The only difference I see is that they are more complex and move vaguely written, but the concepts are still the same.

That's how they should be written, but they demonstrably aren't.

For example, know what else triggers on an unsaved wound? The Remove Casualties rules. Using your argument, FNP does nothing because the wound removal is already "on the stack" (using MTG terms) and FNP doesn't change that.

**Bojazz**

We also now have a precedent from the Dark Eldar FAQ.

Q: Is a Shadow Field lost if a model suffers an unsaved Wound that is subsequently discounted due to a feel no pain roll?
A: Yes.

This shows that even if the wound is discounted afterwards, the effects that happened while the wound was NOT discounted still apply. So even if you argue that reanimation should still trigger after helfrost removed the model, the model would still be removed from play regardless of whether or not reanimation discounts the wound.

**jay_mo**

rigeld2 wrote:
jay_mo wrote:
I find it surprising that you think this does not confer with rules in 40k. In my experience most rules for games (board games etc) are sequential, kind of like programming. If you want to claim that 40k-rules are different, well, that's up to you, but I don't see it. The only difference I see is that they are more complex and move vaguely written, but the concepts are still the same.

That's how they should be written, but they demonstrably aren't.

For example, know what else triggers on an unsaved wound? The Remove Casualties rules. Using your argument, FNP does nothing because the wound removal is already "on the stack" (using MTG terms) and FNP doesn't change that.

I see your point, but logically all special rules that trigger on "unsaved wound" are resolved before the Remove Casualty.
(Not sure the MTG stack is the best analogy, because it is a slightly special game mechanic, but if so the remove casualty would be on the bottom of the stack)

Otherwise they would never work, as you say. And as I said before it's about the sequence... If FNP resolves before the Helfrost, then it works, because the wound is treated as saved. But in the other order, it is too late. So the sequential order would look like this:

1. Trigger FNP. Wound treated as saved from here.
2. Trigger Helfrost [Cancelled, there is no wound]
3. Remove model [Cancelled, there is no wound]

or

1. Trigger Helfrost -> failed Str-check -> Remove model from play
2. Trigger FNP. Wound saved. (You could argue that this step is cancelled because there is no longer any model to trigger FNP on)
3. Remove model [Cancelled, there is no wound]

However in the last example, the model is no longer in play since it was removed in step 1.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bojazz wrote:
We also now have a precedent from the Dark Eldar FAQ.

Q: Is a Shadow Field lost if a model suffers an unsaved Wound that is subsequently discounted due to a feel no pain roll?
A: Yes.
This shows that even if the wound is discounted afterwards, the effects that happened while the wound was NOT discounted still apply. So even if you argue that reanimation should still trigger after helfrost removed the model, the model would still be removed from play regardless of whether or not reanimation discounts the wound.

Perfect! =)

**BLADERIKER**

Second thing I will point out is that the Hell frost Shot itself does not have the remove from play rule, only the failed test after an unsaved wound.

So if the model suffers an unsaved wound and only has one wound to lose does the hell frost trigger at all?

Are we required to apply to a model removed as a causality the hell frost rule even if it is no longer on the playing field? The answer is no.

Also I wish to point out that while similar, FNP is different from RP as they save against a few different USR's and are restricted by different USR's while both triggering off of an unsaved wound.

Kind of like.

Model is hit by hellfrost weapon, model fails save (armor, Cover, invul.) if ID or Str Dis present then FNP is restricted and model is removed as causality, Hellfrost has no target and does not come into play.

Model is hit by hellfrost weapon, model fails save (armor, Cover, invul.) if ID is present then RP is not restricted and can be taken, If RP is failed or weapon was a Str D Weapon then Model is removed as a causality, Hellfrost has no target and does not come into play.

**NightHowler**

BLADERIKER wrote:
Second thing I will point out is that the Hell frost Shot itself does not have the remove from play rule, only the failed test after an unsaved wound.

So if the model suffers an unsaved wound and only has one wound to lose does the hell frost trigger at all?

Are we required to apply to a model removed as a causality the hell frost rule even if it is no longer on the playing field? The answer is no.

Also I wish to point out that while similar, FNP is different from RP as they save against a few different USR's and are restricted by different USR's while both triggering off of an unsaved wound.

Kind of like.

Model is hit by hellfrost weapon, model fails save (armor, Cover, invul.) if ID or Str Dis present then FNP is restricted and model is removed as causality, Hellfrost has no target and does not come into play.

Model is hit by hellfrost weapon, model fails save (armor, Cover, invul.) if ID is present then RP is not restricted and can be taken, If RP is failed or weapon was a Str D Weapon then Model is removed as a causality, Hellfrost has no target and does not come into play.

You really should provide a rules quote stating that if the model only has one wound it is not removed from play by helfrost. Otherwise, this would simply be a HIWPI or opinion.

**blaktoof**

the problem with sequencing is part of the sequence for suffering an unsvaved wound is reducing a models wound from whatever by -1 for each wound 'suffered'. For a 1 wound model this means if you use sequencing the player who's turn it is not never gets to roll FnP versus anything because you can opt to reduce their wounds from 1-0 before they roll FnP, if a model is reduced from 1-0 it is immediately removed as a casualty.

Until FnP is rolled and determined it is not determined that a model has suffered an unsaved wound.

**rigeld2**

jay_mo wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
jay_mo wrote:
I find it surprising that you think this does not confer with rules in 40k. In my experience most rules for games (board games etc) are sequential, kind of like programming. If you want to claim that 40k-rules are different, well, that's up to you, but I don't see it. The only difference I see is that they are more complex and move vaguely written, but the concepts are still the same.

That's how they should be written, but they demonstrably aren't.

For example, know what else triggers on an unsaved wound? The Remove Casualties rules. Using your argument, FNP does nothing because the wound removal is already "on the stack" (using MTG terms) and FNP doesn't change that.

I see your point, but logically all special rules that trigger on "unsaved wound" are resolved before the Remove Casualty.

I'm sure you can provide rules for that assumption? That'd be great - thanks.

Otherwise they would never work, as you say. And as I said before it's about the sequence... If FNP resolves before the Helfrost, then it works, because the wound is treated as saved. But in the other order, it is too late. So the sequential order would look like this:

1. Trigger FNP. Wound treated as saved from here.
2. Trigger Helfrost [Cancelled, there is no wound]
3. Remove model [Cancelled, there is no wound]

or

1. Trigger Helfrost -> failed Str-check -> Remove model from play
2. Trigger FNP. Wound saved. (You could argue that this step is cancelled because there is no longer any model to trigger FNP on)
3. Remove model [Cancelled, there is no wound]

However in the last example, the model is no longer in play since it was removed in step 1.

So, since it's my turn and I get to set the sequence the way I want, why can't I do this:

1. Trigger Remove Casualties. Model is removed because it only had one wound left.
2. Trigger FNP. Wound saved (but the model's gone)
3. Trigger Helfrost (model's still gone).

Please use actual rules to prove your assumptions, not "it's only logical" or other appeals.

Bojazz wrote:
We also now have a precedent from the Dark Eldar FAQ.

Q: Is a Shadow Field lost if a model suffers an unsaved Wound that is subsequently discounted due to a feel no pain roll?
A: Yes.
This shows that even if the wound is discounted afterwards, the effects that happened while the wound was NOT discounted still apply. So even if you argue that reanimation should still trigger after helfrost removed the model, the model would still be removed from play regardless of whether or not reanimation discounts the wound.

Perfect! =)

A) GW has demonstrably changed rules in the past using FAQs.
B) This doesn't address FNP in general, it's very specific to the Shadow Field - an item available to a single Codex.

It's not "Perfect" it's actually meaningless unless the discussion was about the Shadow Field.

**CronikCRS**

blaktoof wrote:
the problem with sequencing is part of the sequence for suffering an unsvaved wound is reducing a models wound from whatever by -1 for each wound 'suffered'. For a 1 wound model this means if you use sequencing the player who's turn it is not never gets to roll FnP versus anything because you can opt to reduce their wounds from 1-0 before they roll FnP, if a model is reduced from 1-0 it is immediately removed as a casualty.

Until FnP is rolled and determined it is not determined that a model has suffered an unsaved wound.

Basic vs Advanced (BRB Ipad Edition page 375) “...Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. ...”

The above rule would never allow you to ignore FNP in the situation you have described.

**rigeld2**

CronikCRS wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
the problem with sequencing is part of the sequence for suffering an unsvaved wound is reducing a models wound from whatever by -1 for each wound 'suffered'. For a 1 wound model this means if you use sequencing the player who's turn it is not never gets to roll FnP versus anything because you can opt to reduce their wounds from 1-0 before they roll FnP, if a model is reduced from 1-0 it is immediately removed as a casualty.

Until FnP is rolled and determined it is not determined that a model has suffered an unsaved wound.

Basic vs Advanced (BRB Ipad Edition page 375) “...Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. ...”

The above rule would never allow you to ignore FNP in the situation you have described.

BvA only applies in a conflict.
There's no conflict - sequencing applies. I choose to resolve the Remove Casualties step first. Please cite actual rules to prevent this.

**blaktoof**

CronikCRS wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
the problem with sequencing is part of the sequence for suffering an unsvaved wound is reducing a models wound from whatever by -1 for each wound 'suffered'. For a 1 wound model this means if you use sequencing the player who's turn it is not never gets to roll FnP versus anything because you can opt to reduce their wounds from 1-0 before they roll FnP, if a model is reduced from 1-0 it is immediately removed as a casualty.

Until FnP is rolled and determined it is not determined that a model has suffered an unsaved wound.

Basic vs Advanced (BRB Ipad Edition page 375) “...Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. ...”

The above rule would never allow you to ignore FNP in the situation you have described.

If that were the case this whole thread would not be a discussion as it is about helfrost which is resolved during shooting (shooting is a basic rule...) versus a special rule-Feel No Pain (an advanced rule).

**CronikCRS**

shooting is a basic rule, Helfrost is not. Helfrost is a codex specific special rule just like Reanimation Protocols.

Helfrost v FNP/RP is advanced v advanced

**blaktoof**

helfrost triggers from a basic rule, suffering of an unsaved wound as resolved by a shooting attack. You do not get to apply the effect of helfrost until you have resolved the shooting attack and determined if there is an unsaved wound. Determination of the unsaved wound is basic rule.

To claim that how that wound is determined is changed if a weapon has a special rule that triggers from an unsaved wound would be a result of having two different sets of rules for determining how an unsaved wound is determined.

the first way:

model suffers a shot from a S:4 weapon, is wounded, fails its save but has FnP. Does it get FnP before determining if the wound is saved?

the second way:

Model suffers a shot from a S:4 weapon, the weapon has a special rule that triggers off an unsaved wound, but has FnP. Does it get a FnP before determining if the wound is saved?

The answer has to be the same for both as to how FnP is done, as there is no rules support it would be a different way.

If the answer is both, and it allows helfrost to be picked in sequencing then you would be allowed to reduce a models wounds from 1-0 and remove it as a casualty in sequencing as well before the other player could roll FnP-which makes no sense, and has no rules support.

**CronikCRS**

blaktoof wrote:
helfrost triggers from a basic rule, suffering of an unsaved wound as resolved by a shooting attack. You do not get to apply the effect of helfrost until you have resolved the shooting attack and determined if there is an unsaved wound. Determination of the unsaved wound is basic rule.

To claim that how that wound is determined is changed if a weapon has a special rule that triggers from an unsaved wound would be a result of having two different sets of rules for determining how an unsaved wound is determined.

which makes no sense, and has no rules support.

Reanimation Protocols and FNP trigger from the same basic rule of suffering of an unsaved wound.

example:
My shooting Phase:
1. Model Suffers a S4 Helfrost wound and fails it's chosen save.
2. Model Suffers an unsaved wound.
3. Model triggers Helfrost Rule AND FNP/RP
4. Sequencing happens giving active player ability to chose resolution order.

Removing casualties can't happen until all Special Rules are resolved as detailed by Basic V. Advanced (full rule linked below)

Basic versus Advanced

Spoiler:

**blaktoof**

as does reducing wounds and removing casualties immediately.

so if you allow sequencing, then a player can opt to always ignore that you have FnP and have you do that in the sequence first as that is a result of an unsaved wound as well.

**CronikCRS**

blaktoof wrote:
as does reducing wounds and removing casualties immediately.

so if you allow sequencing, then a player can opt to always ignore that you have FnP and have you do that in the sequence first as that is a result of an unsaved wound as well.

please see edited post above yours.

**rigeld2**

CronikCRS wrote:
Removing casualties can't happen until all Special Rules are resolved as detailed by Basic V. Advanced (full rule linked below)

Basic versus Advanced

Spoiler:

“Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models.
Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm or even a tank). The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry. Army List Entries can be found in a number of Games Workshop publications, such as a Warhammer 40,000 codex.
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.”

Please explain how the quoted rule "details" that all special rules are resolved first?

You've asserted Sequencing applies. Please underline or otherwise emphasize the rule in the BvA rule you've quoted that requires Basic rules be sequenced after Advanced rules.
You said it exists - prove it.

**CronikCRS**

rigeld2 wrote:

Please explain how the quoted rule "details" that all special rules are resolved first?

You've asserted Sequencing applies. Please underline or otherwise emphasize the rule in the BvA rule you've quoted that requires Basic rules be sequenced after Advanced rules.
You said it exists - prove it.

First sentence of the 3rd paragraph "Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules."

Helfrost, FNP and RP are all special rules, Special Rules are considered to be Advanced Rules. The process outlined in The Shooting Phase are the basic rules as to what will happen normally with no Special Rules being applied; As shown on page 405 of the iPad edition, The shooting sequence.. this is gone into further detail on later pages. These rules are your basic rules for the shooting phase. Step 6 in the Shooting Sequence is Allocate wounds and Remove Casualties, All 3 of the special rules being discussed happen in-between the failed saving throw and the removal of the model as a casualty (or decreasing it wounds by 1). This cannot until all of the special rules being discussed here are resolved as show in the basic versus advanced rules, specifically the sentence I listed above and the example that follows after it.

**rigeld2**

CronikCRS wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

Please explain how the quoted rule "details" that all special rules are resolved first?

You've asserted Sequencing applies. Please underline or otherwise emphasize the rule in the BvA rule you've quoted that requires Basic rules be sequenced after Advanced rules.
You said it exists - prove it.

First sentence of the 3rd paragraph "Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules."

Helfrost, FNP and RP are all special rules, Special Rules are considered to be Advanced Rules. The process outlined in The Shooting Phase are the basic rules as to what will happen normally with no Special Rules being applied; As shown on page 405 of the iPad edition, The shooting sequence.. this is gone into further detail on later pages. These rules are your basic rules for the shooting phase. Step 6 in the Shooting Sequence is Allocate wounds and Remove Casualties, All 3 of the special rules being discussed happen in-between the failed saving throw and the removal of the model as a casualty (or decreasing it wounds by 1). This cannot until all of the special rules being discussed here are resolved as show in the basic versus advanced rules, specifically the sentence I listed above and the example that follows after it.

Please explain where the contradiction is between Helfrost and Remove Casualties.

**CronikCRS**

rigeld2 wrote:

Please explain where the contradiction is between Helfrost and Remove Casualties.

I will go ahead and add in FNP/RP contradictions too

Helfrost tries to remove the model from play with a strength test, while Remove Casualties will try to remove the model by decreasing it's wounds by 1 to 0.

FNP/RP try to use a roll of (x) to discount the unsaved wound leaving the model with 1 instead 0, while Remove Casualties will try to remove the model by decreasing it's wounds by 1 to 0.

These of the Basic v Advanced contradictions. That being said there isnt much need to enforce the S test of Helfrost on a 1 wound model that doesn't have FNP/RP
or any other special rule that would allow the model to survive.

**rigeld2**

CronikCRS wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

Please explain where the contradiction is between Helfrost and Remove Casualties.

I will go ahead and add in FNP/RP contradictions too

Helfrost tries to remove the model from play with a strength test, while Remove Casualties will try to remove the model by decreasing it's wounds by 1 to 0.

FNP/RP try to use a roll of (x) to discount the unsaved wound leaving the model with 1 instead 0, while Remove Casualties will try to remove the model by decreasing it's wounds by 1 to 0.

These of the Basic v Advanced contradictions. That being said there isnt much need to enforce the S test of Helfrost on a 1 wound model that doesn't have FNP/RP
or any other special rule that would allow the model to survive.

The Helfrost rule doesn't contradict the Remove Casualties rule.

And you've still not shown how the Sequencing rule you've asserted is relevant forces you to resolve Advanced rules first.

**CronikCRS**

rigeld2 wrote:

The Helfrost rule doesn't contradict the Remove Casualties rule.

And you've still not shown how the Sequencing rule you've asserted is relevant forces you to resolve Advanced rules first.

Helfrost is absolutely a contradiction to remove casualties. Helfrost doesn't try to decrease it wounds at all, upon failing a S test the model is just removed, it would not matter if it had 1 wound or 10 wounds. While remove casualties tries to decrease its wounds by 1 to 0.

But even that isn't case here the situation is a Weapon with Helfrost and a model with FNP/RP. It is clear that there is a Contradiction between FNP/RP and Remove Casualties. That being said Remove Casualties cannot be resolved until FNP/RP is resolved because of Basic v Advanced. Because of this Remove Casualties cannot be Sequenced until after FNP/RP.

**BrotherGecko**

Well RP can be solve pretty easy. Its says in RPs rules that it can not be used against "Removes From Play". So you don't get an RP roll.

**rigeld2**

CronikCRS wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

The Helfrost rule doesn't contradict the Remove Casualties rule.

And you've still not shown how the Sequencing rule you've asserted is relevant forces you to resolve Advanced rules first.

Helfrost is absolutely a contradiction to remove casualties. Helfrost doesn't try to decrease it wounds at all, upon failing a S test the model is just removed, it would not matter if it had 1 wound or 10 wounds. While remove casualties tries to decrease its wounds by 1 to 0.

Even if I concede that (which I don't, but it's tangential at best) you still haven't shown how Sequencing forces Advanced to be resolved first.

**CronikCRS**

rigeld2 wrote:

Even if I concede that (which I don't, but it's tangential at best) you still haven't shown how Sequencing forces Advanced to be resolved first.

CronikCRS wrote:

But even that isn't case here the situation is a Weapon with Helfrost and a model with FNP/RP. It is clear that there is a Contradiction between FNP/RP and Remove Casualties. That being said Remove Casualties cannot be resolved until FNP/RP is resolved because of Basic v Advanced. Because of this Remove Casualties cannot be Sequenced until after FNP/RP.

Sorry was in the middle of an edit when you replied.

**Fragile**

BrotherGecko wrote:
Well RP can be solve pretty easy. Its says in RPs rules that it can not be used against "Removes From Play". So you don't get an RP roll.

This is incorrect. Helfrost is not the trigger. The unsaved wound is.

**rigeld2**

CronikCRS wrote:
That being said Remove Casualties cannot be resolved until FNP/RP is resolved because of Basic v Advanced.

I don't believe you've proven that this matters when Sequencing is applied.

They all trigger at the same time, agreed? If I place them in a specific sequence, they no longer conflict.

**NightHowler**

rigeld2 wrote:

Even if I concede that (which I don't, but it's tangential at best) you still haven't shown how Sequencing forces Advanced to be resolved first.

Sequencing doesn't force advanced to be resolved first.

Sequencing allows the player who's turn it is to choose which is resolved first when more than one event occur simultaneously.

This is in the BRB under sequencing on page 17.

In this case, feel no pain, reanimation protocol, and helfrost are all triggered by an unsaved wound and would appear to occur simultaneously. Therefore, using sequencing, the player who's turn it is chooses. What this amounts to is that in player 1's shooting phase his helfrost weapons will remove casualties from play if they fail a strength test before fnp or rp can take effect, and in player 2's assault phase, he would get to use fnp to ignore helfrost overwatch since in his turn he gets to choose the sequence of simultaneous events and if fnp is handled first the model treats it as though it did not take a wound so helfrost would not be able to trigger.

Now whether or not rp can be used in the assault phase against helfrost is debatable. Clearly RAW, the necron player would choose the sequence and would use the reanimation protocol to ignore the wound and at that point the model wouldn't take a strength test even though RAI, I think they intended them to do so.

**WrentheFaceless**

Fragile wrote:
Happyjew wrote:
Fragile, question.

I decide to have the Necron player resolve Helfrost first (as per "Sequencing"). The Necron model fails the test and is removed from play. Where is there permission for special rules to be triggered on a dead model?

FWIW, I would play resolve FNP/RP first.

Two special rules activate when the wound is suffered. You resolve the HF and remove the model. You now have to resolve the second. The rules break... There is only one way to resolve it without breaking a rule.

The rules dont break, per sequencing Helfrost went first and failed. Helfrost has the 'removed from play' caveat to it. RP is not allowed to be taken from an ability that causes 'removed from play' per the RP rules.

Nothing breaks.

**rigeld2**

NightHowler wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

Even if I concede that (which I don't, but it's tangential at best) you still haven't shown how Sequencing forces Advanced to be resolved first.

Sequencing doesn't force advanced to be resolved first.

Sequencing allows the player who's turn it is to choose which is resolved first when more than one event occur simultaneously.

Right. Now, using the sequencing argument (that sequencing allows Helfrost to be resolved before FNP/RP) on my turn I shoot some FNP dudes with Bolters. You fail your saves. I choose to sequence Remove Casualties before FNP.
Cite a rule preventing that.