Etearnal Warrior, FNP, and Instant death

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.

**Lemartes12**

Since the Etearnal warrior say's they cannont be instant deathed, would a character with FNP get to make that save if it would cause instant death to a normal guy?

**General Annoyance**

This should really be in YMDC....

but, just to be helpful, in would say no, because Feel No Pain states that it is negated by Ap2 weaponry or instant death attacks, regardless whether the model is Eternal Warrior or not.

**Lemartes12**

its not negated by AP2, it just says it can't be made by attacks that cause instant death. and since ethernal negates the instant death rule RAW should mean that you get the FNP.

**FinkleLord**

Are you asking if a EW Character has FNP does it get to make the FNP against instant death attack?

If so no.

Also should belong in YMDC

FAQ
Q: If a model has the Eternal Warrior and Feel No Pain
special rules, can it still make Feel No Pain rolls against Wounds
that inflict Instant Death (Eternal Warrior states that the model
is immune to the effects of Instant Death, after all)? (p35)
A: No.

**Lemartes12**

Thank you for the FAQ. Answers my question.

**General Annoyance**

oh yeah, I was stuck in 5th when I said that

still, that FAQ says it all.

**DeathReaper**

General Annoyance wrote:
oh yeah, I was stuck in 5th when I said that

still, that FAQ says it all.

The rules do too, but for some reason people read them incorrectly.

**General Annoyance**

DeathReaper wrote:
General Annoyance wrote:
oh yeah, I was stuck in 5th when I said that

still, that FAQ says it all.

The rules do too, but for some reason people read them incorrectly.

Yeah, one of those people is me. Don't expect me to remember 6th ed rules when I've played less than 10 6ed games ever.

**Kangodo**

DeathReaper wrote:
The rules do too, but for some reason people read them incorrectly.

It had nothing to do with incorrect reading, it was about logic.
"FNP cannot be used against wounds that inflict ID > Eternal Warrior makes you immune to ID > That means the wounds don't cause ID > so you can use FNP"

Even though that logic is not RAW, it's perfectly understandable.
Most people don't read the rules that closely when things seem so 'obvious'.

**DeathReaper**

Kangodo wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
The rules do too, but for some reason people read them incorrectly.
It had nothing to do with incorrect reading, it was about [Flawed] logic.
"FNP cannot be used against wounds that inflict ID > Eternal Warrior makes you immune to ID > That means the wounds don't cause ID > so you can use FNP"

Even though that [Flawed] logic is not RAW, it's [not] perfectly understandable.
Most people don't read the rules that closely when things seem so 'obvious'.

FTFY

I have no idea how someone could read it like that. It boggles my mind how some do not understand this rule.

**Kangodo**

What's so hard to understand about it?
1. Preventing FNP is an ID-thing.
2. EW makes you immune against ID.

It's illogical that an attack can still be classified as "Instant Death" when it doesn't 'Instant Death' the guy it hits.

**ClockworkZion**

Kangodo wrote:
What's so hard to understand about it?
1. Preventing FNP is an ID-thing.
2. EW makes you immune against ID.

It's illogical that an attack can still be classified as "Instant Death" when it doesn't 'Instant Death' the guy it hits.

You're immune to the effects of Instant Death, but the fact that the attack still has the Instant Death rule (such as activated Force Weapons) negates the Feel No Pain rule.

**Shandara**

It's because no FNP with ID is not part of the Instant Death rules, but part of the FNP rule instead.

If it were an effect of ID, EW would ignore it.

**ClockworkZion**

Shandara wrote:
It's because no FNP with ID is not part of the Instant Death rules, but part of the FNP rule instead.

If it were an effect of ID, EW would ignore it.

I think you explained it better than me.

**General Annoyance**

DeathReaper wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
The rules do too, but for some reason people read them incorrectly.
It had nothing to do with incorrect reading, it was about [Flawed] logic.
"FNP cannot be used against wounds that inflict ID > Eternal Warrior makes you immune to ID > That means the wounds don't cause ID > so you can use FNP"

Even though that [Flawed] logic is not RAW, it's [not] perfectly understandable.
Most people don't read the rules that closely when things seem so 'obvious'.

FTFY

I have no idea how someone could read it like that. It boggles my mind how some do not understand this rule.

Your attitude really confuses me on this forum. Words can be interpreted in so many different ways by so many different minds.

**DeathReaper**

Because of the many unclear rules, this is not one of them.

Negating FNP is not a benefit of EW it is a restriction on FNP itself. If it were a benefit of EW it would be listed in the EW rule.

**erick99**

There was a discussion on this before the FAQ, perhaps some will find it enlightening.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/460734.page

_e

**Abandon**

DeathReaper wrote:

I have no idea how someone could read it like that. It boggles my mind how some do not understand this rule.

If you are incapable of understanding others lines of thought then you cannot know if they are incorrect.

**DeathReaper**

Abandon wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:

I have no idea how someone could read it like that. It boggles my mind how some do not understand this rule.

If you are incapable of understanding others lines of thought then you cannot know if they are incorrect.

This is completely false.

I read the rule, and know what it says.

How someone does not understand the rule boggles my mind.

**Abandon**

DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:

I have no idea how someone could read it like that. It boggles my mind how some do not understand this rule.

If you are incapable of understanding others lines of thought then you cannot know if they are incorrect.

This is completely false.

I read the rule, and know what it says.

How someone does not understand the rule boggles my mind.

So you are saying you don't understand what would cause someone to not understand this rule as you do but it's obviously wrong.?

**Fragile**

His interpretation of the rules has been wrong as many times as right. There is nothing to see here other than a self pat on the back.

The OP's question was answered.

**Lungpickle**

NO.

Its simple as that. there is a faq for this and the new codex's reflect this addition.

**DeathReaper**

Fragile wrote:
His interpretation of the rules has been wrong as many times as right.

That is not true, at all.

There is nothing to see here other than a self pat on the back.

This is not true either.

Please follow the rules of the forums. Thanks.

Abandon wrote:
So you are saying you don't understand what would cause someone to not understand this rule as you do but it's obviously wrong.?

I am saying the rules are clear, and how someone can misunderstand them is beyond me.

If they misread them that is one thing, but to misunderstand them is something different.