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.

Hi guys, I played a tournament recently, going up against two different tzeenchian flying circuses.

Anyway, as I'm sure anyone knows, Tzeench spells cause the model to take a toughness test that, if passed, gives a 6+ FNP or +1 to FNP.

In comes Corbulo: If Corbulo takes one wound and passes his Toughness test he has a 1+ Feel No Pain.

While the Rule of 'a roll of a one always fails' comes to mind, that rule is applied to Armour, Cover or Invulnerable saves. Since FNP is not in fact a save (which allows it to be used in a number of wacky situations), does hat mean corbulo can potentially be immune to wounds unless he takes a S8 or higher wound?

Hmmm. I can't find anything to discount a 1+ FNP roll, however, BA and Chaos of either kind cannot ally and usually in doubles games one player's army cannot affect the partner. So with that tzeentch power there is no issue.

I think you've misread that rule, is it not corbulo would get +1 to his FNP roll? Even then if that power is a blessing it cannot be used on Corbulo.

The rule of 'a one always fails' is not intended for any specific situation/s; it is universal. No save or check (no matter the type) can 'automatically pass' because of modifiers, unless specifically stated in the rules. A roll of 1 (or in some cases 6) will always fail.

is the OP sure that Corbulo get an FNP roll of 1+ or a +1 to his FNP roll? biiiiig difference between the two.

 Subtle Discord wrote:
The rule of 'a one always fails' is not intended for any specific situation/s; it is universal. No save or check (no matter the type) can 'automatically pass' because of modifiers, unless specifically stated in the rules. A roll of 1 (or in some cases 6) will always fail.

Citation needed. This is false.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
is the OP sure that Corbulo get an FNP roll of 1+ or a +1 to his FNP roll? biiiiig difference between the two.

It's the same thing, because Corbulo already has a 2+ fnp

I think you guys misunderstood the OP. he isn't talking about a blessing but rather a malediction that when casts makes the target take a toughness test, if failed they take a would (I think or they might outright die) and if they pass they get a 6+ FnP or if they already have FnP they get +1 to it.

I am inclined however to agree that the 1's always fail rule refers to everything and not just saves. I don't have my rulebook on me so I can't back that up but I'm like 90% sure it's 1's always fail on everything.

Str tests, Toughness tests, Int tests, Ld tests. Pass on a 1 or double 1 regardless of modifiers.

 Sanguinis wrote:
I think you guys misunderstood the OP. he isn't talking about a blessing but rather a malediction that when casts makes the target take a toughness test, if failed they take a would (I think or they might outright die) and if they pass they get a 6+ FnP or if they already have FnP they get +1 to it.

I am inclined however to agree that the 1's always fail rule refers to everything and not just saves. I don't have my rulebook on me so I can't back that up but I'm like 90% sure it's 1's always fail on everything.

exactly what he said, i would think that the best it could get would be a 2+

 Sanguinis wrote:
I don't have my rulebook on me so I can't back that up

Aaaaaand stop right there...
No way to back an assertion? Don't make one!

Also, to expand upon the "1 always fails" arguement.

There is no rule I can find that states a roll of 1 always fails. The individual hits, wounds and saves sections specifically state that each roll is a fail on a 1.

Bolded sections as the rulebook does

Pg13 Rolling to hit

"Note that the minimum roll needed to hit is always at least 2. When rolling to hit, there is no such thing as an automatic hit and a roll a 1 always misses (or at very most will need rerolling)."

Pg14 Rolling to wound

"Note that the mimimum roll to wound is always at least 2. When rolling to wound there is no such thing as an automatic wound and a rollof 1 always fails."

Pg19 Maximum save

"Some models gain addittional benefits from rules that increase any of their saves by +1, +2 or even more. However no save can be improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save, a roll of 1 always fails."

Note that FnP is NOT a save. And as such is not bound by the "a 1 always fails for saves" rule.

I would say that, as there is nothing that blanket says 1s always fail, Corbulo would indeed autopass his FnP. You would have to inflict instant death to cause any wounds at all.

 Subtle Discord wrote:
A roll of 1 (or in some cases 6) will always fail.

The rule is in fact not universal.

A roll of 1 from a S10 weapon against AV10 automatically pens. Are you saying that this doesn't happen?

 Subtle Discord wrote:
The rule of 'a one always fails' is not intended for any specific situation/s; it is universal. No save or check (no matter the type) can 'automatically pass' because of modifiers, unless specifically stated in the rules. A roll of 1 (or in some cases 6) will always fail.

No such rule exists. Please retract your asssertion, as per the tenets of this forum

Fair enough, 'universal' is an overstatement on my part, I guess I read it enough times in the examples cited by Deadshot that it subconsciously felt universal. I would argue that these rules do set a precedent that can be used when coming to grey zones like this. The good sportsman in me see that in these other cases it not possible, so it seems reasonable it's not possible here. In my opinion FnP is a form of 'save', and would be covered by the Maximum Save rules from Pg 19.

In the case of armour penetration the mechanics (and the rules) are clear that an 'always fails' is possible, which is exactly what I wrote, "unless specifically stated in the rules." There's no grey zone here.

Right, because everyone else is so cocksure in their memory / at work / lazy / downright stubborn, here are the actual rules that make the groundwork for this.

Page 68 of the Daemons Codex, Warpflame rule that comes on the psychic powers (note that *ALL* Tzeentch powers have it):
"If the (Toughness) test is passed (...) Any models in the unit that already have the Feel No Pain special rule instead gain +1 to all Feel No Pain rolls for the rest of the game".
Note that this affects enemies, so Allies doesn't come into it at all.

Page 35 of the Rulebook, Feel No Pain itself:
"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw). (...) On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted".
So, FNP is not a save - there's also no mention of it being possible to automatically fail.

Page 49 of the Blood Angels Codex, The Red Grail special rule:
"Any Feel No Pain roll taken for Corbulo himself is passed on a 2+".
Nice and simple.

Page 7 of the Rulebook, Automatic Pass and Fail:
"When taking a characteristic test, a dice roll of 6 is always a failure, and a dice roll of 1 is always a success".
Well, that doesn't even make sense. 6 is over 5+, and 1 is below the usual 5+ needed, so how could this apply? Regardless, it doesn't - FNP isn't a characteristic test anyway.

Page 2 of the Rulebook, Armour Save characteristic:
"A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+".
All fine and dandy, but FNP isn't a save as we've already established - and the value isn't changed anyway, the actual dice roll is.


So there we are - fully analysed, what happens is you still make the roll (it's not an automatic pass, after all) but if you do roll a 1, you can then add 1 to that roll and it becomes a 2+, therefore passing. HOWEVER - as already mentioned - as it's not an automatic pass, you can still kill Corbulo by way of Instant Death, which will not allow him to make the roll at all.

In practice this really isn't all that difficult. Warpflame only applies if the unit suffers any unsaved Wounds (and this excludes ones Corbulo has FNP'ed away as they're then treated as saved) so if it's applied then Corbulo has likely already taken a wound. We're also assuming he's passed his Toughness test. As a Daemons player you can Smash him with just about any MC, and a number of Gifts have Instant Death as well. Lastly, he's on foot - Daemons have enough speedy units that you should be able to just skirt around his unit so that he won't be the nearest to take any Wounds you cause.

 Subtle Discord wrote:
The rule of 'a one always fails' is not intended for any specific situation/s; it is universal. No save or check (no matter the type) can 'automatically pass' because of modifiers, unless specifically stated in the rules. A roll of 1 (or in some cases 6) will always fail.

False. There is no universal rule that states that a one always fails. Please give a page number to back up your claims to the contrary.

Bravo gw. Anyways it doesn't work on allies. Against enemies, as it isn't a save, it is possible RaW to get a 1+ fnp. Keep in mind if you do commit such an action the enemy will probably quit playing against you or call a organizer since it is rather unsportsmanlike to claim a 1+ fnp which pretty much diminishes all but S8 and S10 shots and even then just feels dirty. A 3+/2+ sounds fine enough

 Subtle Discord wrote:
Fair enough, 'universal' is an overstatement on my part, I guess I read it enough times in the examples cited by Deadshot that it subconsciously felt universal. I would argue that these rules do set a precedent that can be used when coming to grey zones like this. The good sportsman in me see that in these other cases it not possible, so it seems reasonable it's not possible here. In my opinion FnP is a form of 'save', and would be covered by the Maximum Save rules from Pg 19.

In the case of armour penetration the mechanics (and the rules) are clear that an 'always fails' is possible, which is exactly what I wrote, "unless specifically stated in the rules." There's no grey zone here.

So despite FNP EXPLICITLY stating it is not a save, you think it is?

Relax everyone, read the entire exchange before nailing me up. Anyone who knows me (I know I'm new to Dakka) knows that I'm a collector and builder first, and a player second. My instant recall of rules (I was trying to flip back-and-forth in the BRB, as this is one of those, "I swore I read it somewhere" moments) is, by far, much less honed then my building skills.

After reading, it is indeed correct that FnP is specifically said to not be a 'saving throw'. Weird to me, as it is a roll to 'save' you from wounds/death, but it is clarified. It is easy to see how this could be mistaken.

Personally, I try to lean on the side of the good sportsman when grey issues like these might come up; look at other rules that can set a president, add a dose of logic, and try to remember that the rules are meant to create a reasonably even playing field. If it feels like I'm trying to bend things in a cheesy way with a vague loophole, odds are good I am, even if there are no rules that explicitly state otherwise.

HIWPI 1 always fails.

This doesn't completely answer your question, but a thought:
Corbulo does not have 2+ FNP. He has FNP which passes on a 2+. The distinction being, it still functions as normal FNP but adds a special rule. So, he doesn't get 1+ FNP for passing a single toughness test.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Bravo gw. Anyways it doesn't work on allies. Against enemies, as it isn't a save, it is possible RaW to get a 1+ fnp. Keep in mind if you do commit such an action the enemy will probably quit playing against you or call a organizer since it is rather unsportsmanlike to claim a 1+ fnp which pretty much diminishes all but S8 and S10 shots and even then just feels dirty. A 3+/2+ sounds fine enough

1. You need a BA-army that includes Corbulus.
2. You need to be playing against a Tzeentch-player.
3. That player needs to target Corby's unit with a psychic attack and they need to pass it.
4. You'll have Corbulus, who does almost nothing, being nearly unkillable.

My tip: Don't use psychic abilities against his unit!
Nothing makes you look worse than running to a TO because your little trick backfired.
That's like an Ork-player complaining his SAG had a double 1.

 Nem wrote:
HIWPI 1 always fails.

Why would you do that? Do you play Corbulo yourself?

It doesnt say, as per the BRB states it should, FNP (2+), it says Corbulo is passed on a 2 plus, rather then a 4+. Therefore Corbulos FNP cannot be 1+ as codex trumps rule book and you must use his 2+.

RAW, I see nothing to deny your auto-pass FNP. However, I think, like someone else said, you'd properly peeve off your opponent if you claimed it.

This reminds me of the 2++ archon shadowfield argument, where FNP negates the faliure, so the 2++ is still around -or not.

HWIPI - 3+, 2 + FNP

RAW - probably 1+ FNP, but don't expect anyone to play you again

Why shouldn't you expect anyone to play against you?
Is everyone playing Chaos Daemons?
Is everyone playing Tzeentch?
Is everyone 'dumb' enough to target his unit with a psychic power?
Are Blood Angels so strong that this "trick" (because it's not a BA-trick) will make them ridiculously overpowered?
Are you ignoring the part where powers D3-6 all have a 50% chance to ignore FNP because they cause Instant Death?

"Ooh, this sucky army has an awesome trick that can only be activated by me making bad decisions. I won't play against him.."

*removed* I apologize for my more bombastic response but it is only a matter of two things. One I so happen to be a tzeentch player. Two, somebody claiming a 1+ fnp simply isn't entertaining to me and wouldn't bring about the most positive opinion from me. It is simply something I don't care for and I'd try to avoid.

Also why call it dumb? I'll be very frank. I have no clue what the Blood Angel codex has in it. Only a few months ago I played against an Eldar player that revealed the special rule ignoring melta and flamers after I had shot them. In a casual environment where we are supposed to just be playing and having fun should I know every single model and their special rules? To be frank I cannot nor can I for every niche. Chaos Daemons aren't that big of an army and currently I have rarely seen a BA player. I know about Dante and Mephiston and Furioso blenders as well as storm ravens and death company but I don't know every niche of a book. Does that constitute me as dumb for not knowing an army I've never played against?

Waaaghpower wrote:Corbulo does not have 2+ FNP. He has FNP which passes on a 2+. The distinction being, it still functions as normal FNP but adds a special rule. So, he doesn't get 1+ FNP for passing a single toughness test.

MarkyMark wrote:It doesnt say, as per the BRB states it should, FNP (2+), it says Corbulo is passed on a 2 plus, rather then a 4+. Therefore Corbulos FNP cannot be 1+ as codex trumps rule book and you must use his 2+.

You've both missed something. Again:
Page 68 of the Daemons Codex, Warpflame rule that comes on the psychic powers (note that *ALL* Tzeentch powers have it):
"If the (Toughness) test is passed (...) Any models in the unit that already have the Feel No Pain special rule instead gain +1 to all Feel No Pain rolls for the rest of the game".

The FNP ability isn't altered, regardless of source. The ROLL is. So you roll a 1, and get to add 1 to it.

So instead you refuse to play against an army that is already an easy match-up for <insert any codex>?

If you don't want them to have a 1+ FNP, don't give him the 1+ FNP.