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.

Hey all, this has come up recently so I would like to see Calls on it:
FNP, p35: When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special FNP roll to avoid(...)
Leaping Down, p95: Armour saves cannot be taken against Impact tests.

A model leaping down cannot make a FNP roll.

More support in the FAQ:
Page 35 – Special Rules, Feel No Pain.
Add the following paragraph “If one or more models in a unit
have the Feel No Pain special rule then the Mixed Saves
method of Wound allocation should always be used for
allocating Wounds and removing casualties from that unit; Feel
No Pain rolls should be individually made after each failed
save.”

And one exception to the permission only granted to FNP after a save:

Q: Can the Feel No Pain special rule be used to resist a Wound
suffered from the Perils of the Warp? (p35)
A: Yes.


If you decide FNP does apply to impact tests, pleas quote rules and page numbers.

Yes, FNP does apply because....

'Unsaved wounds' are allocated to models to cause -1 W (my wording).
- If you can take a save and fail, its a 'Unsaved wound'.
- If you can't take a save, its a 'Unsaved wound'.

Doesn't say it directly but best page is 15, under 'Allocate Unsaved wounds and remove casualties'

Or you never actually lose wounds if you don't have a save avaliable

but that paragraph only applies because of the one before it: "Take saving throws"

If you have no saves, both paragraphs are ignored.

Even "Take saves & remove casualties" on the same page no longer refers to "unsaved Wounds" as it specifies "if it has one". If it does not, then the paragraph uses the word *Wound* on it's own.

'Unsaved wounds' are allocated to models to cause -1 W (my wording).
- If you can take a save and fail, its a 'Unsaved wound'.
- If you can't take a save, its a 'Unsaved Wound'.

So lets say you have a Space Marine with A. and FNP. You shoot it with AP3. No cover, no invul. Do you deny him the FNP on that basis?

 BlackTalos wrote:
but that paragraph only applies because of the one before it: "Take saving throws"

If you have no saves, both paragraphs are ignored.

Even "Take saves & remove casualties" on the same page no longer refers to "unsaved Wounds" as it specifies "if it has one". If it does not, then the paragraph uses the word *Wound* on it's own.

'Unsaved wounds' are allocated to models to cause -1 W (my wording).
- If you can take a save and fail, its a 'Unsaved wound'.
- If you can't take a save, its a 'Unsaved Wound'.

Yeah, saves is a part of it, but if you ignore both paragraphs then what do you do with the Wounds? While it isn't explicitly stated, to differentiate against wounds and unsaved wounds in these circumstances means if a model does not have a save, it is unable to be allocated a unsaved wound, and doesn’t suffer the effects (removal of a wound characteristic). As in, unit A shooting at unit B, will never remove any as a casualty, if unit B has no saves avaliable.

 Thairne wrote:
So lets say you have a Space Marine with A. and FNP. You shoot it with AP3. No cover, no invul. Do you deny him the FNP on that basis?

Upon RaW, yes. What actually allows it in the Rules? (i want to say No, but unless we can find a rule...)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
but that paragraph only applies because of the one before it: "Take saving throws"

If you have no saves, both paragraphs are ignored.

Even "Take saves & remove casualties" on the same page no longer refers to "unsaved Wounds" as it specifies "if it has one". If it does not, then the paragraph uses the word *Wound* on it's own.

'Unsaved wounds' are allocated to models to cause -1 W (my wording).
- If you can take a save and fail, its a 'Unsaved wound'.
- If you can't take a save, its a 'Unsaved Wound'.

Yeah, saves is a part of it, but if you ignore both paragraphs then what do you do with the Wounds? While it isn't explicitly stated, to differentiate against wounds and unsaved wounds in these circumstances means if a model does not have a save, it is unable to be allocated a unsaved wound, and doesn’t suffer the effects (removal of a wound characteristic). As in, unit A shooting at unit B, will never remove any as a casualty, if unit B has no saves avaliable.

So it is typically an "assumption" that we run through the process, but no saves = automatic "unsaved wound". It still seems like an assumption rather than actual RaW, even if i agree on such basis.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
But indeed, following those steps while somehow saying that no save at all = unsaved (even though you haven't rolled) would grant FNP against lower AP weapons.

But does that assumption apply for Impact tests? It would be similar to saying "i have a reroll to hit on Vector strike".

Being unable to take a save still generates an unsaved wound. FNP allowed on impact tests.

A wound is still unsaved if no save was ever attempted. Just using English.

If you walk across a room uninterrupted, you are still uninterrupted even if no attempt was made to interrupt you. For a similar use.

Drager wrote:


If you walk across a room uninterrupted, you are still uninterrupted even if no attempt was made to interrupt you. For a similar use.

Depends what i'm walking across the room for-

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Being unable to take a save still generates an unsaved wound. FNP allowed on impact tests.

generates a Wound, yes, but "unsaved"? where are you taking that from?

Demonic Instability generates wounds. You would state them "unsaved" too?

Yes, because you cannot take a save against them, your interpretation has no rules support.

What about a Model With no save and FNP? Does it not get to roll FNP if it is wounded? I think it does

Well no, the Original Post is discussed here. Please refer for rules support.

So daemons with FNP can FNP their instability? Good to know

Yes. As they are suffering wounds that bypass saves. By definition these are wounds you haven't been able to save, I.e unsaved.

Ok, OP solved then. ALL wounds ever suffered are unsaved. It seems broken but heyho, most RaW tend to be.

How is it broken? Should a PA ba priest losing one wound to a scarabs entropic strike lose his FNP as well?

Because a jump down and demonic instability are 2 things that a T1 model can FNP against. T6 or other, yeah, why not?

And the many weapons that are S1', such as the toxin spike, or s:x like DE poisoned weaponry...

Guess you just fixed to much on "unsaved". An unsaved wound is a wound that was not prevented by a saving throw. Therefore FNP applies to any wound that wasn't saved (except ID ofc which specifically disallows FNP).

The faq doesn't change the fact taht you can FNP after suffering an unsaved wound. The shooting rules tell you what an unsaved wound is so we're done here.