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.

So if you run Lucius with a unit that also has the Icon of Excess, every Slaneesh marked model in the unit gets Feel No Pain, including Lucius. So setting up the scenario;

Now Lucius' special rule for his armor is that for every 3+ save or 5+ inv save that is saved, the model or unit that caused the wound is hit with a str 4 AP 2 hit.

FnP tells you that if you make the FnP roll, that the wound is discounted and to treat it as saved.

So would the wounds discounted and treated as saved trigger the special rule for Lucius' armor?

So if he fails a 3+ save from a chainaxe, rolls and passes the FnP roll, the wound is discounted and the 3+ save is treated as having been saved thus triggering a str4 AP2 hit on the model/unit with the chainsword.

 Brother Ramses wrote:
So if you run Lucius with a unit that also has the Icon of Excess, every Slaneesh marked model in the unit gets Feel No Pain, including Lucius. So setting up the scenario;

Now Lucius' special rule for his armor is that for every 3+ save or 5+ inv save that is saved, the model or unit that caused the wound is hit with a str 4 AP 2 hit.

FnP tells you that if you make the FnP roll, that the wound is discounted and to treat it as saved.

So would the wounds discounted and treated as saved trigger the special rule for Lucius' armor?

So if he fails a 3+ save from a chainaxe, rolls and passes the FnP roll, the wound is discounted and the 3+ save is treated as having been saved thus triggering a str4 AP2 hit on the model/unit with the chainsword.

The underlined is where your line of thought breaks down.

The Unsaved wound is treated as being saved, not the 3+ save.

So No str4 AP2 hit on the model/unit with the chainsword.

So if a roll is discounted, that means technically, it never happened. So no, Feel No Pain kinda trumps out the Armour of Souls.

Agreeing with DR here, the wound was not saved. It was Discounted.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
So if a roll is discounted, that means technically, it never happened. So no, Feel No Pain kinda trumps out the Armour of Souls.

Actually if it just said it was discounted you would be right. However it tells you, "the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved."

Deathreaper, if you treat the wound that was the result of failing a 3+ save as being saved, would that not mean that you treat that wound as if you passed your 3+ save? I mean if you are told to treat the wound as saved, that, eans whatever save that would be applicable to it was passed.

If it was a wound from an ap2 weapon, you would treat it as if you passed the 5+ inv. If it was from a chainswords, you would treat it as if you passed the 3+ power armor.

No, it is simply treated as being saved, not Treated as being saved by the model's armor.

Since it does not specifically say that it is treated as if it were saved by armor, then it is not. It is simply treated as a saved wound.

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, it is simply treated as being saved, not Treated as being saved by the model's armor.

Since it does not specifically say that it is treated as if it were saved by armor, then it is not. It is simply treated as a saved wound.

That is my point.

If a wound is said to be saved, what exactly does that entail? That a save was passed. So if you are told to treat a wound as saved, you treat the save as having been passed. Since this rule only kicks in during close combat, there is no other possible save that it could be treated as, other then an armor save, IIRC.

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, it is simply treated as being saved, not Treated as being saved by the model's armor.

Since it does not specifically say that it is treated as if it were saved by armor, then it is not. It is simply treated as a saved wound.

This.

@OP: Trying to convince an opponent that your armor saved it (when it didn't) is just going to win you TFG points, not friends or games. No TO is going to see it your way either. Any time you have to camp on words like "technically" or get creative with grammar, it's taking you from playing plastic soldiers to desperate rule-lawyer. You argument isn't RAW, it's creative interpretation. Just be thankful for making your FNP and let it go.

 Lobukia wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, it is simply treated as being saved, not Treated as being saved by the model's armor.

Since it does not specifically say that it is treated as if it were saved by armor, then it is not. It is simply treated as a saved wound.

This.

@OP: Trying to convince an opponent that your armor saved it (when it didn't) is just going to win you TFG points, not friends or games. No TO is going to see it your way either. Any time you have to camp on words like "technically" or get creative with grammar, it's taking you from playing plastic soldiers to desperate rule-lawyer. You argument isn't RAW, it's creative interpretation. Just be thankful for making your FNP and let it go.

It seems that you and Deathreaper are in agreement that somehow when you treat a wound as saved, the wound wasn't really saved or something. If that is your stance, do wounds that are treated as saved from FnP still count towards determining assault results?

I am questioning why both of you think that a wound that is supposed to be treated as saves works in the above example, but for some reason not for Lucius' armor.

 Brother Ramses wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, it is simply treated as being saved, not Treated as being saved by the model's armor.

Since it does not specifically say that it is treated as if it were saved by armor, then it is not. It is simply treated as a saved wound.

This.

@OP: Trying to convince an opponent that your armor saved it (when it didn't) is just going to win you TFG points, not friends or games. No TO is going to see it your way either. Any time you have to camp on words like "technically" or get creative with grammar, it's taking you from playing plastic soldiers to desperate rule-lawyer. You argument isn't RAW, it's creative interpretation. Just be thankful for making your FNP and let it go.

It seems that you and Deathreaper are in agreement that somehow when you treat a wound as saved, the wound wasn't really saved or something. If that is your stance, do wounds that are treated as saved from FnP still count towards determining assault results?

I am questioning why both of you think that a wound that is supposed to be treated as saves works in the above example, but for some reason not for Lucius' armor.

The armor didn't save the wound, isn't that all that matters?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Brother Ramses wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, it is simply treated as being saved, not Treated as being saved by the model's armor.

Since it does not specifically say that it is treated as if it were saved by armor, then it is not. It is simply treated as a saved wound.

This.

@OP: Trying to convince an opponent that your armor saved it (when it didn't) is just going to win you TFG points, not friends or games. No TO is going to see it your way either. Any time you have to camp on words like "technically" or get creative with grammar, it's taking you from playing plastic soldiers to desperate rule-lawyer. You argument isn't RAW, it's creative interpretation. Just be thankful for making your FNP and let it go.

It seems that you and Deathreaper are in agreement that somehow when you treat a wound as saved, the wound wasn't really saved or something. If that is your stance, do wounds that are treated as saved from FnP still count towards determining assault results?

I am questioning why both of you think that a wound that is supposed to be treated as saves works in the above example, but for some reason not for Lucius' armor.

The armor didn't save the wound, isn't that all that matters?

That is what I am not sure about. The rule for FnP tells you to treat the wound as saved. As written, FnP is NOT a save, so we cannot contribute the wound being saved by FnP. That leaves the armor save as the only thing you can say that you are supposed to treat as saved.

 Brother Ramses wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Brother Ramses wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, it is simply treated as being saved, not Treated as being saved by the model's armor.

Since it does not specifically say that it is treated as if it were saved by armor, then it is not. It is simply treated as a saved wound.

This.

@OP: Trying to convince an opponent that your armor saved it (when it didn't) is just going to win you TFG points, not friends or games. No TO is going to see it your way either. Any time you have to camp on words like "technically" or get creative with grammar, it's taking you from playing plastic soldiers to desperate rule-lawyer. You argument isn't RAW, it's creative interpretation. Just be thankful for making your FNP and let it go.

It seems that you and Deathreaper are in agreement that somehow when you treat a wound as saved, the wound wasn't really saved or something. If that is your stance, do wounds that are treated as saved from FnP still count towards determining assault results?

I am questioning why both of you think that a wound that is supposed to be treated as saves works in the above example, but for some reason not for Lucius' armor.

The armor didn't save the wound, isn't that all that matters?

That is what I am not sure about. The rule for FnP tells you to treat the wound as saved. As written, FnP is NOT a save, so we cannot contribute the wound being saved by FnP. That leaves the armor save as the only thing you can say that you are supposed to treat as saved.

FnP discounts the wound, treating it as if saved. I see where you're going with this but I feel in both RaW/RaI it doesn't work.

it says :
for each armour save or invulnerable save lucius passes during the fight sub-phase....

is FNP either of those?

Im just gonna point out that his invul save is a 5up and feel no pain is a 5 up. So instead of arguing about it why dont you just use the invul save and get the special rule ability to go off. Just make sure you specify what the save is before you roll.

 Punisher Gatling Cannon wrote:
Im just gonna point out that his invul save is a 5up and feel no pain is a 5 up. So instead of arguing about it why dont you just use the invul save and get the special rule ability to go off. Just make sure you specify what the save is before you roll.

Because you only ever get to use one save. If you fail the 3+, you can't roll the invul.

 Punisher Gatling Cannon wrote:
Im just gonna point out that his invul save is a 5up and feel no pain is a 5 up. So instead of arguing about it why dont you just use the invul save and get the special rule ability to go off. Just make sure you specify what the save is before you roll.

Because FNP is taken after failing the save, so it would be 3+/5++ and if that fails, then you take FNP.

Thanks for explaining that, i am going to go with the FNP does not activate the special ability.

 Brother Ramses wrote:
It seems that you and Deathreaper are in agreement that somehow when you treat a wound as saved, the wound wasn't really saved or something. If that is your stance, do wounds that are treated as saved from FnP still count towards determining assault results?

That is not what I am saying at all. The wound is treated as saved, because the FNP rules say to treat the wound as having been saved.

 Brother Ramses wrote:
I am questioning why both of you think that a wound that is supposed to be treated as saves works in the above example, but for some reason not for Lucius' armor.

FNP is not an armor or invulnerable save lucius passes so the ability has no effect on wounds "Saved" with FNP.

We have permission to treat the unsaved wound as saved. We do not have permission to treat the unsaved wound as being saved by the armor or invulnerable save of the model taking the FNP. The Permissive ruleset tells us this is true.

The wound was saved, but not by either armour or invulnerable. It was just "treated as" saved