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.

If a unit of wyches has 3 pain tokens (making it fearless) and it loses a round of combat does it get the 4+ invulnerable save for wounds caused by close combat attacks?

I am thinking no, but I just wanted to double check.

I would say yes due to it being a wound caused in combat, though either way they get the fnp save for having three tokens.

I was going to go with yes, but I think you're right. While No Retreat! allows "all types of saves, except cover saves", the Dodge rule for witches specifically says it's a 4+ invulnerable against wounds caused by close combat attacks. These wounds were caused by being fearless/No Retreat, not specifically close combat attacks. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was FAQ'd to say they got the save, but as written I'd say they don't.

RAW they are definitely stuck with their 6+ armor and 4+ FNP.

Rules as written, I'd say that you do not get your 4+ invul save, but you get your 4+ FNP save anyway so it's pointless. But I don't have the DE codex so I can't be sure...it depends on the semantics. If it says that you get the save for wounds suffered in close combat, I'd say yes because you were in close combat, and you suffered a wound! Wound in close combat = save. However, if it says that you only take the save against wounds caused by close combat attacks, they no, you don't get the save.

The exact wording: wyches have a 4+ invulnerable saving throw against wounds caused by close combat attacks.

This is interesting. Someone could actually argue that Fearless wounds are caused by losing combat which is caused by close combat attacks.

It's not exactly pointless, Chris. Since they'd get the 4++ and then the FNP.

RAW they won't get it. Until someone at GW FAQs it I'd think.

The wounds are not caused by close combat attacks. They are caused by No Retreat! assault resolution. 6 armor then 4+ FNP is the way the cookie crumbles.

Close combat attacks is a very specific thing. They are the attacks that a model has and then gets to resolve using the rules for close combat.

Wound inflicted by no retreat are NOT close combat attacks. They are wounds caused in close combat, but not by close combat attacks.

The dodge save cannot be used against these wounds.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:It's not exactly pointless, Chris. Since they'd get the 4++ and then the FNP.

RAW they won't get it. Until someone at GW FAQs it I'd think.

Ai, this is the problem with playing IG. You forget how rules like FNP work, because you never have to use them yourself! BUt yeah, my mistake....I forgot FNP is the one save that stacks.

yakface wrote:
Close combat attacks is a very specific thing. They are the attacks that a model has and then gets to resolve using the rules for close combat.

Wound inflicted by no retreat are NOT close combat attacks. They are wounds caused in close combat, but not by close combat attacks.

The dodge save cannot be used against these wounds.

I agree with this RAW interpretation, but I have to say that it wouldn't surprise me if GW FAQ'd the issue to allow the Dodge save. I mean, they declared in their FAQ that units wiped out by vehicle explosions caused by a DE unit counts for pain tokens, so who knows how far out they're willing to go. I know the situation isn't directly analogous; my only point is that GW has recently shown a propensity to go beyond the exact RAW in answering FAQs.

ChrisWWII wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:It's not exactly pointless, Chris. Since they'd get the 4++ and then the FNP.

RAW they won't get it. Until someone at GW FAQs it I'd think.

Ai, this is the problem with playing IG. You forget how rules like FNP work, because you never have to use them yourself! BUt yeah, my mistake....I forgot FNP is the one save that stacks.

Unless you have many opponents that do use it and you want to make sure they're doing it right..................

Well, given that we've got a fairly clsoe knit group of players here, I trust them enough to not cheat, and I'm usually better with the rules than this. I always re-review thre rulebook just before going to a tourney to make sure I haevn't screwed up that badly.

ChrisWWII wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:It's not exactly pointless, Chris. Since they'd get the 4++ and then the FNP.

BUt yeah, my mistake....I forgot FNP is the one save that stacks.

Ofc, if the wyches claim their dodge against No Retreat wounds by stating they were caused by the CC... What if it was an enemy with attacks that deny FNP? I'd surely want to deny the FNP if the wyches claim dodges.

edit: and that would require No Retreat to actually make some provisions for seeing which winning enemy is counted to have done the wounds, which it doesn't.