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.

 quickfuze wrote:
Yes it is, a mortal wound is still a wound. Again, GW says you're wrong, the community consensus is you are wrong. You claim that no has presented a rules based argument because you don't like the simplicity of the rules based argument you were given. You can try to convolute it all you want, frankly I do not know how you even get any games.... laterz...you are worth no more of my time.

"I can't back up my argument therefore I will quit in a huff."

By your logic Assault weapons are -1 to hit when you move, because Heavy Weapons are -1 to hit when you move.

Dear BaconCatBug, the FAQ adds the rule:

Ignoring Wounds
Some units have abilities that allow them to ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound (e.g. Disgustingly Resilient, The Flesh is Weak and Tenacious Survivor). If a model has more than one such ability, you can only use one of those abilities each time the model loses a wound.’"

I believe we all agree that Sense of Stone clearly qualifies as such an ability.

Therefore the question is does Strength of Belief qualify as such an ability?

Strength of Belief
Roll a d6 for each mortal wound inflicted on your Warlord; on a 5+, that mortal wound is ignored and has no effect.

Does, Strength of Belief allow a unit to ignore damage each time it loses a wound? Yes, if that wound is a mortal wound. Therefore you cannot use both abilities per the Ignoring Wounds rule.

You will now argue it doesn't use the words "ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound". It doesn't need to. There is no quoted text in the rule that requires a specific set of words be used exactly to determine which abilities it applies to. If an ability allows you to ignore damage suffered then it does regardless of the exact wording of the rule

We all know that the GW Game Designers are horrible technical rules writers. It is therefore folly to read their rules in that matter. That leads to the clearly wrong conclusions that litter your signature and that make Warhammer 40K RAW an unplayable game. You can choose to be right by holding to your RAW regardless of logic or playability, but we all know you are wrong if you want to play the game that the rest of the world is playing.

 alextroy wrote:
Does, Strength of Belief allow a unit to ignore damage each time it loses a wound? Yes, if that wound is a mortal wound. Therefore you cannot use both abilities per the Ignoring Wounds rule.

You can't just add random if statements to the answer of a question.

By that logic you can say "Is this animal a cat? Yes, if you pretend that dogs are cats." "Do I suffer -1 to hit if I move and shoot an Assault Weapon? Yes, if that weapon is a Heavy Weapon."

The answer to "Does, Strength of Belief allow a unit to ignore damage each time it loses a wound?" is "No".

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Welcome back Col_Impact. Argue as you might, the RAW is clear. Only 1 ignore wound ability is allowed per wound. I would recommend the 5+ from Strength of Belief over the 6+ Sense of Stone.

Did you not read the rest of the post? The rule does not say "Only 1 ignore wound ability is allowed per wound." If it did we wouldn't be having this discussion. Honestly, is it too much to ask for people to read the thread before commenting?

I did read it, CI. Nothing you have stated is relevant to the RAW. This rule is clearly laid out, you just seem to be stuck in your old argumentative ways.

Fragile wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Welcome back Col_Impact. Argue as you might, the RAW is clear. Only 1 ignore wound ability is allowed per wound. I would recommend the 5+ from Strength of Belief over the 6+ Sense of Stone.

Did you not read the rest of the post? The rule does not say "Only 1 ignore wound ability is allowed per wound." If it did we wouldn't be having this discussion. Honestly, is it too much to ask for people to read the thread before commenting?

I did read it, CI. Nothing you have stated is relevant to the RAW. This rule is clearly laid out, you just seem to be stuck in your old argumentative ways.

Who is CI? Literally everything I have stated is relevant to the RaW. Not liking what a rule says doesn't change it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Welcome back Col_Impact. Argue as you might, the RAW is clear. Only 1 ignore wound ability is allowed per wound. I would recommend the 5+ from Strength of Belief over the 6+ Sense of Stone.

Did you not read the rest of the post? The rule does not say "Only 1 ignore wound ability is allowed per wound." If it did we wouldn't be having this discussion. Honestly, is it too much to ask for people to read the thread before commenting?

I did read it, CI. Nothing you have stated is relevant to the RAW. This rule is clearly laid out, you just seem to be stuck in your old argumentative ways.

Who is CI? Literally everything I have stated is relevant to the RaW. Not liking what a rule says doesn't change it.

So you should accept the fact you're wrong and leave it at that. It doesn't get any more clear.

Except I am not wrong?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Does, Strength of Belief allow a unit to ignore damage each time it loses a wound? Yes, if that wound is a mortal wound. Therefore you cannot use both abilities per the Ignoring Wounds rule.

You can't just add random if statements to the answer of a question.

What's random about it? Strength of Belief allows you to ignore each wound if that would is a mortal wound. Nothing random about that.

By that logic you can say "Is this animal a cat? Yes, if you pretend that dogs are cats."

So your saying that mortal wounds are not wounds? That's the only way this tortured analogy works. By this logic, rules that allow you to ignore wounds don't work on mortal wounds because mortal wounds are not wounds, but some other beast.

Let's check what the rules say:

Mortal Wounds
Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above. Unlike normal attacks, excess damage from attacks that inflict mortal wounds is not lost. Instead keep allocating damage to another model in the target unit until either all the damage has been allocated or the target unit is destroyed.

Looks like mortal wounds are wounds. I guess that means the better analogy is asking if a Golden Retriever is a dog. The answer is yes.

"Do I suffer -1 to hit if I move and shoot an Assault Weapon? Yes, if that weapon is a Heavy Weapon."

Another false analogy. Nowhere do the rules equate an Assault Weapon as a type of Heavy Weapon. They do equate a mortal wound as a type of wound.

So as I said. Since a mortal wound is a wound (see quote above), a rule allowing you to ignore a mortal wound is a rule allowing you to ignore a wound.

The answer to "Does, Strength of Belief allow a unit to ignore damage each time it loses a wound?" is "No".

Incorrect, the answer is "If it is a mortal wound".

 alextroy wrote:

The answer to "Does, Strength of Belief allow a unit to ignore damage each time it loses a wound?" is "No".

Incorrect, the answer is "If it is a mortal wound".

So you agree the answer is No.

Ignoring Mortal wounds does not allow you to ignore each wound.

I do not agree. "If" does not equal "No".

Ignoring Mortal Wounds allows you to ignore each mortal wound.

 alextroy wrote:
I do not agree. "If" does not equal "No".

Ignoring Mortal Wounds allows you to ignore each mortal wound.

And the Ignore Wounds rule says that you can't benefit from two rules that allow you to ignore each wound, not each <ARBITRARY RESTRICTION> wound.

Yes or No answer, are the following two sentences the same?

Ignore each Mortal wound.

Ignore each wound.

Not a binary choice as you present. Since a mortal wound is a wound, ignoring a mortal wound is ignoring a wound.

 alextroy wrote:
Not a binary choice as you present. Since a mortal wound is a wound, ignoring a mortal wound is ignoring a wound.

And like I said, that logic means that -1 to hit when moving and shooting heavy weaponry means it applies to all weaponry.

It is a binary choice because the first sentence of the rule makes it so.

Back on the logical fallacies? How tedious.

Both being wounded (the process) by regular weapons and Mortal Wounds cause damage that makes a model lose Wounds (the stat).

Both the abilities you mention allow you to roll a dice for each Wound suffered to ignore this damage.

RAW, you’re completely 100% wrong to stack two abilities, as the new rule expressly disallows what you’re trying, and the attempted ‘each’ workaround has already been disproven (though you ignored it when replying to me and attempted to deflect).

One guy who’s decided to be contrary holds far less water than the actual rules, sorry BCB. And I thought you liked playing by the rules? Your take on this is simply incorrect, RAW, RAI and any other way you care to look at it.

Seriously. How many times do you have to point out the same logical fallacy before someone can understand the difference between them

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Does, Strength of Belief allow a unit to ignore damage each time it loses a wound? Yes, if that wound is a mortal wound. Therefore you cannot use both abilities per the Ignoring Wounds rule.

You can't just add random if statements to the answer of a question.

By that logic you can say "Is this animal a cat? Yes, if you pretend that dogs are cats." "Do I suffer -1 to hit if I move and shoot an Assault Weapon? Yes, if that weapon is a Heavy Weapon."

The answer to "Does, Strength of Belief allow a unit to ignore damage each time it loses a wound?" is "No".

From Mortal Wounds: "just allocate it as you would any other wound"

Therefore, they have provided RAW evidence that a mortal wound is a type of wound, albeit one with different benefits and restrictions.

Any limitations on stacking abilities that ignore wounds would apply to abilities that ignore mortal wounds, as there is no explicit statement with mortal wounds that this would not still apply as a mortal wound is a subset of wounds overall.

Please for the love of god , will some one point out to me where RAW, RAI are mentioned in the 40k rulebook.

If they are not there then could we stop using them like an I win bludgeon.

Weather or not he has two different rules , IE ONE for mortal only, and one for common / or mortal is irrelevant now.

Both have the ability to ignore DAMAGE taken. Therefore in the spirit of the game you may only use one they do not stack.

The spirit of the rule is in fact the most important thing here and not grammar.

RAW and RAI (or at least HIWPI) are mentioned in the rules for this forum.

RAI is subject to interpretation often (more often that RAW) and is not necessarily defensible from what is written. I'll grant you that they have done better with RAI with the Big FAQ I where they talk about their intentions, and sometimes their intentions are clear on things like being able to fire assault rifles after advancing. Some things presented as RAI, hovwever, have really been a person's HIWPI without anything to indicate that GW ever had the intention of the rule to work that way.

Overall, however, you do need a RAW basis to have the set of rules common between any region playing the game. That said, I'll maintain that BCB is wrong on RAW this time as well as wrong on RAI; even with noting that RAI had been made clear in this case he has ignored RAW arguments here - usually with a disdain that ill behooves a proper discussion here.

Raw is simple.

If your Ethereal is hit by a smite for 1 Mortal Wound, and is using the aura Sense of Stone, can you roll to avoid the damage?

If that Ethereal is your warlord with Strength of belief, but is not using the aura Sense of Stone, and is hit by a smite for 1 Mortal Wound, can he use that to roll to avoid the damage?

If you answer yes to both of those questions, then you cannot stack those abilities according to the FAQ.

To my understanding from a completely RAW standpoint, the "ignore a wound" is ignoring the damage caused for each wound. A wound may do X damage, and abilities such as Disgustingly Resilient or Sense of Stone ignore the damage of the wound (one roll per damage dealt). This is enforced through the FAQ which states "Some units have abilities that allow them to ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound ". Loses a wound here would imply that the model's remaining Wound count goes down by one, or, one damage is inflicted on the model. However, Strength of Belief states "Roll a D6 for each mortal wound inflicted on your Warlord; on a 5+, that mortal wound is ignored and has no effect.". A mortal wound is not a damage, however a mortal wound inflicts one point of damage. Therefore, Strength of Belief essentially acts as a 5+ armour save vs mortal wounds. That's my take on it, all based on wording from the rulebook, FAQ and codex. If one were to start argue that Wounds and Damage are the same thing, you'd in the end have to choose if you want your Deathshroud Terminators to use their 4++ Cataphracii Armour or their 5+ Disgustingly Resilient, since both are by definition abilities that allows the model to ignore "wounds".

Nighttail, thank you for a thoughtful rules based argument that these abilities should stack. That being said, I must disagree with it.

Mortal Wounds
Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above. Unlike normal attacks, excess damage from attacks that inflict mortal wounds is not lost. Instead keep allocating damage to another model in the target unit until either all the damage has been allocated or the target unit is destroyed.

As you can see, a mortal wound does inflict damage. Ignoring a mortal wound is ignoring damage.

Additionally, equating Strength of Belief with a save is as valid as equating Disgustingly Resilient with a save. We know GW says that Disgustingly Resilient isn't save, so Strength of Belief can't be one either.

Strength of Belief is demonstrably not a saving throw.

Erm... Bcb is right on this one.

The wording is pretty clear. Strength of Belief is NOT like the other "fnp" saves. Since its only working against a specific kind of wounds it is clearly different and not affected by the faq rule.

Is Strength of Belief an ability that potentially lets you save each wound suffered? No. Just mortal wounds.

They could've wrote "You can only use one saving throw apart from armor saves" but they didnt.

Because they’re not ‘saving throws’ so that wouldn’t be correct? And because the wording is fine for 99% of people apart from a few looking for an exploit?

How exactly is this an exploit? It's along the worst warlord traits you could take. Also i got rid of my tau some time ago so i'm not "looking for an exploit"

It's not the same as the usual save against every wound ability because it just doesnt do that and thus it's not affected by the rule. Simple as that.

As you can see, a mortal wound does inflict damage. Ignoring a mortal wound is ignoring damage.

I can see where you're coming from, but from my point of view it's like this. A mortal wound is a wound that inflicts 1 damage with no saves of any kind allowed. Think of a mortal wound like a lasgun wound, but one that ignores invulnerable and armour saves. As per the Mortal Wound section from the BRB:
"Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above".
Described above is the allocate wound, saving throw and inflict damage step, in order. Therefore a mortal wound has to first be allocated to a model (as per the "allocate wound" step), then the model may take a saving throw (though no invulnerable or armour saves), then after this the model will suffer the damage from the mortal wound, in this case one damage. This damage can now be prevented through Sense of Stone.

Strength of Belief says "Roll a D6 for each mortal wound inflicted on your Warlord; on a 5+, that mortal wound is ignored and has no effect". A mortal wound is inflicted on your warlord when you choose to allocated the mortal wound to your warlord, which happens before the saving throw step. Therefore, Strength of Belief would be used two steps before the inflict damage step where one rolls for Sense of Stone. Again, as per the FAQ: "Some units have abilities that allow them to ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound [...]".

To summorize; Strength of Belief prevents the wound, Sense of Stone prevents the damage. Only abilities that prevent damage have been FAQ'd to not stack.

To me, your claim that ignoring a mortal wound is equivalent to ignoring damage is, like I previously mentioned, essentially like saying ignoring a lascannon wound is equivalent to ignoring damage. Hence one would not be able to use both Disgustingly Resilient and Cataphractii Armour to prevent the Deathshroud Terminator from dying due to them both being abilities that ignore damage.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this view, but currently to me the rule seems pretty clear from a RAW standpoint at least.

 Nighttail wrote:

As you can see, a mortal wound does inflict damage. Ignoring a mortal wound is ignoring damage.

I can see where you're coming from, but from my point of view it's like this. A mortal wound is a wound that inflicts 1 damage with no saves of any kind allowed. Think of a mortal wound like a lasgun wound, but one that ignores invulnerable and armour saves. As per the Mortal Wound section from the BRB:
"Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above".
Described above is the allocate wound, saving throw and inflict damage step, in order. Therefore a mortal wound has to first be allocated to a model (as per the "allocate wound" step), then the model may take a saving throw (though no invulnerable or armour saves), then after this the model will suffer the damage from the mortal wound, in this case one damage. This damage can now be prevented through Sense of Stone.

Strength of Belief says "Roll a D6 for each mortal wound inflicted on your Warlord; on a 5+, that mortal wound is ignored and has no effect". A mortal wound is inflicted on your warlord when you choose to allocated the mortal wound to your warlord, which happens before the saving throw step. Therefore, Strength of Belief would be used two steps before the inflict damage step where one rolls for Sense of Stone. Again, as per the FAQ: "Some units have abilities that allow them to ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound [...]".

To summorize; Strength of Belief prevents the wound, Sense of Stone prevents the damage. Only abilities that prevent damage have been FAQ'd to not stack.

To me, your claim that ignoring a mortal wound is equivalent to ignoring damage is, like I previously mentioned, essentially like saying ignoring a lascannon wound is equivalent to ignoring damage. Hence one would not be able to use both Disgustingly Resilient and Cataphractii Armour to prevent the Deathshroud Terminator from dying due to them both being abilities that ignore damage.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this view, but currently to me the rule seems pretty clear from a RAW standpoint at least.

That's a great explanation! I hope that helps explain it to some people.

 Nighttail wrote:
To me, your claim that ignoring a mortal wound is equivalent to ignoring damage is, like I previously mentioned, essentially like saying ignoring a lascannon wound is equivalent to ignoring damage. Hence one would not be able to use both Disgustingly Resilient and Cataphractii Armour to prevent the Deathshroud Terminator from dying due to them both being abilities that ignore damage.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this view, but currently to me the rule seems pretty clear from a RAW standpoint at least.

Except you are using the wrong wording. Saving throws prevent damage, they don't ignore it. Check the battle primer:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Warhammer-40k-Battle-Primer-English.pdf

But here's an example for you to stick in your RAW bag:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/20/chapter-focus-iron-hands-july20gw-homepage-post-3/
The Flesh is Weak specifically says that the damage is ignored, where as the Warlord trait Tenacious Survivor only states the wound is "shrugged off." We cannot infer that "shrugged off" is equivalent to "ignores" because there is nothing in the rule book stating that the two are equivalent. So, even though both abilities are given as examples of rules which should not stack in the FAQ, we must allow them to stack because of RAW.

The "Ignoring Wounds" rule Special Snowflakes in Tenacious Survivor even if the rule itself doesn't use the term "ignore".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Nighttail wrote:
To me, your claim that ignoring a mortal wound is equivalent to ignoring damage is, like I previously mentioned, essentially like saying ignoring a lascannon wound is equivalent to ignoring damage. Hence one would not be able to use both Disgustingly Resilient and Cataphractii Armour to prevent the Deathshroud Terminator from dying due to them both being abilities that ignore damage.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this view, but currently to me the rule seems pretty clear from a RAW standpoint at least.

Except you are using the wrong wording. Saving throws prevent damage, they don't ignore it. Check the battle primer:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Warhammer-40k-Battle-Primer-English.pdf

But here's an example for you to stick in your RAW bag:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/20/chapter-focus-iron-hands-july20gw-homepage-post-3/
The Flesh is Weak specifically says that the damage is ignored, where as the Warlord trait Tenacious Survivor only states the wound is "shrugged off." We cannot infer that "shrugged off" is equivalent to "ignores" because there is nothing in the rule book stating that the two are equivalent. So, even though both abilities are given as examples of rules which should not stack in the FAQ, we must allow them to stack because of RAW.