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.

From p.75 of the AoBR rulebook, "any other wound against which no save may ever be taken." The "no save part" is regarding any other wound, not a specific wound on a specific model. Do you see the "any"? Can saves ever be taken against Ap3 weapons? The anser is yes.

Some further holes in your interpretation. I shoot at Plaguebearers with a Devourer (Ap -). This is a wound against which they cannot take an armor save, thus, no FnP. I hit a Plaguebearer with a IG Conscript in CC. This is a wound against which the Plaguebearer may not take an armor save, thus, no FnP. So, why do Plaguebearers have FnP? Does GW just like writing random rules in unit entries?

There is a distinction to be made between weapons that deny armor saves like power weapons, wind of chaos etc and weapons that penetrate a model's armor. That is what appears to me to be where the disagreement lies. AP3 shots penetrate power armor, but they don't deny armor saves as a general principle the way power weapons and other special weapons do.

Fething irrelevant. the context of the "against which no armour saves may EVER be taken" does nto in any way refer to an individual model

Seriously, don't you get this yet?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Fething irrelevant. the context of the "against which no armour saves may EVER be taken" does nto in any way refer to an individual model

Seriously, don't you get this yet?

He said he was done with the thread because we're closed-minded.

We have repeated the same thing to him over and over. If he doesn't get it he doesn't get it. It's like teaching a caterpillar to fly, you can't but one day it will learn when it becomes a butterfly by it's self. One day he'll figure it out... I hope. Anyone who doesn't get this must being playing chaos. Stupid heresy =P



-Orkishly

Seriously guys if he doesn't get it then his mind can't hold the information so just leave it to him to have a hellload of angry opponents when he says his AP 5 wep won't allow a nob a FNP roll......

toxic_wisdom wrote:

willydstyle wrote:So you're saying that plague bearers never receive their FNP... riiiight

close combat weapons do not ignore armor saves.

But they don't have an armour save so they can't take one... no FNP by your own "model" specific interpretation.

Spetulhu wrote:

toxic_wisdom wrote:

willydstyle wrote:So you're saying that plague bearers never receive their FNP... riiiight

close combat weapons do not ignore armor saves.

But they don't have an armour save so they can't take one... no FNP by your own "model" specific interpretation.

Exactly, they only have an Invulnerable save. A plague bearer has no armor.

Nurgling Chieftain;3547256 wrote:"...Perhaps "state no model is permitted an Armour Save" - the whole point is to not be specific to the model being fired at in terms of armour saves..."

What ? Now you'd be changing the rule. Per RAW - the entry for FNP IS specific to the FNP model being fired at ( or hit with, or failed to, or etc ), and as described below is denied Feel No Pain for the most part when no armour save is allowed.

Culven;3546880 wrote:"...I don't follow. Are you claiming that a model with FNP and a 3+ Armour Save that is Wounded by an AP3 will be denied its FNP?.."

Yep, that's exactly what I am claiming.

What difference does it make that some models in the game have a 2+ save when they aren't the actual models being wounded ? Claiming such an advantage is IMHO ( and rule supported below ) one of the biggest attempts at searching for Easter Eggs that I've ever witnessed on these forums.

My position on the issue is this: yes, Feel No Pain is a universal rule but it is not a blanket rule that covers all units with FNP. As the rule is written it must be handled on a model-to-model basis. If it were meant to cover all units with the FNP ability then the application would have to be handled equally - obviously this isn't the case however since a S8 source would be a FNP denial for T4 but the same cannot be said against T5 ( consider Daemonhunters: Hammerhand ).

Feel No Pain ( page 75 ) the subject matter is A ( singular ) MODEL with FNP

If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice. On a 1, 2, or 3, take the wound as normal ( removing the model if it loses its final Wound ). On a 4, 5, or 6, the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting. This ability cannot be used against wounds from weapons that inflict instant death ( by having a high enough Strength or a special rule to that effect; even if the model is an eternal warrior ). Neither can it be used against wounds from AP1 and AP2 weapons, power weapons and any other wound against which no armour save can ever be taken.

So here is the beak down of the rule as it is written, and again why it pertains only to the model being wounded ( thus other models -- cough 2+ save -- have no bearing on the issue... other than if they were the ones being wounded )...

If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice...

-- Okay, which model ? Important because not all models with the FNP ability are equal. As mentioned above something like DH Hammerhand when used against a Plague Marine would not be resolved the same way it would against a member of the Death Company. Likewise a ranged weapon with an AP4 would have to be resolved differently when it scores an unsaved wound against an FNP model with a SV5+ as compared to when it scores an unsaved wound against an FNP model with a SV3+

On a 1, 2, or 3, take the wound as normal ( removing the model if it loses its final Wound )...

-- The rule continues to address a model with the ability. Which model ? For the sake of discussion lets say it is a Death Company model. So on a 1, 2, or 3 the DC model is removed. Which leaves some other option if a 4, 5 , or 6 is rolled...

On a 4, 5, or 6, the injury is ignored and the ( Death Company ) model continues fighting...

-- So now we now what happens when we roll a 4, 5, or 6 for the wounded Death Company model. Seems like a really good ability - so what is the catch ? There has to be some limitations, right ?

This ability cannot be used against wounds from weapons that inflict instant death ( by having a high enough Strength...

-- Okay, so this part of the rule almost sounds like a generic blanket statement but we must keep in mind that models with FNP could have different Toughness values. Nonetheless, should we now approach the rule from the standpoint that it is generic to all FNP models or a specific case that is handled on a model-to-model basis ?

...or a special rule to that effect; even if the model is an eternal warrior )...

-- Well, by GW's own writing the rule once more is specific to the wounded model with the FNP ability. And as further example of why the rule has to be resolved individually: not all FNP models are Eternal Warriors. Now, is Instant Death ( and the like ) the only thing that will deny a model the opportunity to use its Feel No Pain rule ?

Neither can it be used against wounds from AP1 and AP2 weapons...

-- This is a continuation of what can deny the wounded model a Feel No Pain roll. So when our Death Company model gets wounded by a Meltagun or a Lascannon ( ignoring the ID factor for the moment ) it is denied FNP. Anything else ?

power weapons...

-- Side note: models wounded by PWs are not allowed armour saves. Anything else ?

and any other wound against which no armour save can ever be taken...

-- can the DC model ever take an armour save against Power Fists ? No.
-- can the DC model ever take an armour save against DCCWs ? No.
-- can the DC model ever take an armour save against Rending 6s ? No.
-- can the DC model ever take an armour save against PotW ? No.
-- can the DC model ever take an armour save against failed Dangerous Terrain tests ? No.

There seems to be some kind of pattern here when the MODEL is wounded by something that does not allow an armor save. And GW was kind enough to include ETC at the end of the rule. So, what other examples can we include when no armour save can ever be taken by the wounded model ?

01. Eldar Mind War
02. Dark Eldar Agoniser
03. Wind of Chaos
04. Monstrous Creatures
05. AP equal to or less than SV

Going back to the original quote at the top: Are you claiming that a model with FNP and a 3+ Armour Save that is Wounded by an AP3 will be denied its FNP? ...once more my answer, as I have demonstrated here - note Number 05 above, is YES.

I made an earlier reference in this post regarding AP versus SV, and would like to expand on it slightly. Despite some claims...

I disagree that Toxic_Wisdom's interpretation is acceptable RaW. It hinges entirely on claiming that context OVERRIDES a specific wording. That's nonsense; it's a misapplication of the rules of context. If it were correct, it would mean it was ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE for GW to have written that particular phrase in such a way as to work the way it is written to work.

...perhaps there are some who just want it to work differently than the way it IS actually written. It works quite well and certainly not ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE to handle the situation.

SV2+ FNP Model wounded by AP4 = Feel No Pain allowed
SV3+ FNP Model wounded by AP4 = Feel No Pain allowed
SV4+ FNP Model wounded by AP4 = Feel No Pain denied

SV2+ FNP Model wounded by AP3 = Feel No Pain allowed
SV3+ FNP Model wounded by AP3 = Feel No Pain denied
SV4+ FNP Model wounded by AP3 = Feel No Pain denied

SV2+ FNP Model wounded by AP2 = Feel No Pain denied
SV3+ FNP Model wounded by AP2 = Feel No Pain denied
SV4+ FNP Model wounded by AP2 = Feel No Pain denied

All I can say is you honestly think that Plaguebearers do not get FNP ever, as they do not have an armour save.

That alone invalidates your argument.

Gwar! wrote:All I can say is you honestly think that Plaguebearers do not get FNP ever, as they do not have an armour save. That alone invalidates your argument.

I never said that.

As the rule for Feel No Pain reads IMHO - yes Plaguebearers would be more vulnerable now to ranged attacks, however close combat weapons for example do not deny armor saves so FNP would be allowed ( by the wording - not having an armor save is not the same as being denied an armor save ).

If that seems unjust then perhaps find a way to have Games Workshop update their FAQs ( one way or the other on the issue ). There are other elements in the game that took a hit with the release of 5E. Perhaps not everything was taken into consideration - and how rules might not work now with other models exactly the way they planned - there's a lot of gaming information in the 40K realm and one simple word or phrase ( if used or not used ) can alter players opinions and/or interpretations... as demonstrated quite well here.

The fact is - by GWs own writing they have left this issue in a grey area. I can view the subject from either side of the fence - though some of you can't or refuse to. Quite frankly some of you need to back off - not only are these my opinions and interpretations, but they also supported by the rules as I have taken the time to show.

Actually, the rules do not support your argument, as we have shown over the course of this thread, and the one on warseer, many, MANY times. You just dress up a flawed argument to make it seem valid.

Or is my Argument not as valid as yours because I don't have pretty colours?

toxic_wisdom wrote:Wrote a lot of stuff, underlining the word "model" a lot

But you still haven't addressed the fact that the sentence that you're hinging everything on "against which an armor save may never be taken" does not have the word "model" in it and grammatically does not specify the model making the FNP roll. It is an absolute statement. An AP3 weapon is not in the rules a weapon against which no armor save may ever be taken.

Wow, just wow, it gives you a list of the sorts of things that are included in the statement "and any other wound against which no armour save can ever be taken" and not a single example is dependent on the model recieving the wound, all of them are things that would deny any model in the game (excepting special rules on the target model) of an armour save.

While it's a logical fallacy to assume a list of examples is exhaustive, I find it hard to believe anyone genuinely believes that the intention of that phrase was what toxic_wisdom is suggesting.

Personally I look at the definitions and think that resolves it, What is a wound? A wound is an effect that is created by an attacking unit, wounds are applied or assigned to models.

While a wound can certainly be owned by a model, the wound itself is not model specific, a wound cannot be "an ap4 weapon against a guardsmen" because a wound is "an ap4 weapon" which is assigned to a guardsmen.

While it may not be perfect that's my take on why the argument is flawed.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

As the rule for Feel No Pain reads IMHO - yes Plaguebearers would be more vulnerable now to ranged attacks, however close combat weapons for example do not deny armor saves so FNP would be allowed ( by the wording - not having an armor save is not the same as being denied an armor save ).

If that seems unjust then perhaps find a way to have Games Workshop update their FAQs ( one way or the other on the issue ). There are other elements in the game that took a hit with the release of 5E. Perhaps not everything was taken into consideration - and how rules might not work now with other models exactly the way they planned - there's a lot of gaming information in the 40K realm and one simple word or phrase ( if used or not used ) can alter players opinions and/or interpretations... as demonstrated quite well here.

The fact is - by GWs own writing they have left this issue in a grey area. I can view the subject from either side of the fence - though some of you can't or refuse to. Quite frankly some of you need to back off - not only are these my opinions and interpretations, but they also supported by the rules as I have taken the time to show.

1. Daemons is a 5th ed codex, as demonstrated due to the "offensive / defensive" grenades. Therefore at the time they wrote the codex they knew of 5th ed FNP, yet you honestly, truly believe they meant for Plaguebearers to have essentially useless FNP? That in the very, very streamined rule set they wanted you to have different strengths of FNP depending on whether you were PA, Carapace or no armour? wow.

2. as has been explained to you many times, while you had pretty underlining of the word model (which was needed, as gasp! ID IS model dependent) you quickly glossed over that there was no subject in the crucial sentence under debate. You keep on doing this - the subject of "against which no armour saves may ever be taken" cannot be the model, as it is now weapon dependent.

Unlike you I can see both sides of the argument, just it is quite clear that one side, "yours", is wrong. totally and unutterably so.

* makes some popcorn and sits back to watch *

Green Blow Fly wrote:* makes some popcorn and sits back to watch *

Honestly, we're on the third sequel, and the story has been rehashed a few times because they wanted to save money by firing the original writers.

willydstyle wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:* makes some popcorn and sits back to watch *

Honestly, we're on the third sequel, and the story has been rehashed a few times because they wanted to save money by firing the original writers.

I thought this was the Directors Cut which was released on DVD and Blueray 3 times each with slightly different Extras... or was that LotR I forget :(

-Steals GBF's Popcorn-

toxic_wisdom wrote:

Gwar! wrote:All I can say is you honestly think that Plaguebearers do not get FNP ever, as they do not have an armour save. That alone invalidates your argument.

I never said that.

As the rule for Feel No Pain reads IMHO - yes Plaguebearers would be more vulnerable now to ranged attacks, however close combat weapons for example do not deny armor saves so FNP would be allowed ( by the wording - not having an armor save is not the same as being denied an armor save ).

But by the logic you've given several times over, the Plaguebearers don't get armor saves, so they wouldn't get FNP. You haven't said it specifically, but your logic did.

Gwar! wrote:I thought this was the Directors Cut which was released on DVD and Blueray 3 times each with slightly different Extras... or was that LotR I forget :(

-Steals GBF's Popcorn-

It's Blu-ray silly, e is for squares, not hipsters like me.

Drunkspleen wrote:"...While a wound can certainly be owned by a model, the wound itself is not model specific, a wound cannot be "an ap4 weapon against a guardsmen" because a wound is "an ap4 weapon" which is assigned to a guardsmen.
..."

Just for the record: check the rule regarding complex units.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:"...While a wound can certainly be owned by a model, the wound itself is not model specific, a wound cannot be "an ap4 weapon against a guardsmen" because a wound is "an ap4 weapon" which is assigned to a guardsmen...."

Just for the record: check the rule regarding complex units.

There are a lot of rules regarding Complex Units. What rule are you talking about?

toxic_wisdom wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:"...While a wound can certainly be owned by a model, the wound itself is not model specific, a wound cannot be "an ap4 weapon against a guardsmen" because a wound is "an ap4 weapon" which is assigned to a guardsmen.
..."

Just for the record: check the rule regarding complex units.

Way to address the fact that the word "model" is not actually in any way applied to the phrase "against which an armor save may never be taken."

No No, he addressed that on Warseer:

Irrelevant, really ? The rule in its entirety begins with a wounded model. And since when do models that ARE NOT wounded ever take an armour save ?

And just curious, would you have a problem with a Necron player saying his Warriors get WBB against Lascannons, Railguns, and the like - without the aid of a Resurrection Orb - because their Strength is not twice the Warriors Toughness ?

Still Utter tripe however, just like the rest of his argument, but hey, lets not let THAT stop anything eh?

Also, newsflash Toxic, Lascannons are S9, Railguns are Strenght 10. Unless you live in a weird Base 32 Land, 9 is more than double 4 and 10 is also more than double 4. At least try to make sense!

I find it hilarious that someone is accusing others of being close-minded while sticking fingers in his ears and going, "CAN'T HEAR YOU, LA LA LA LA...".

Toxic_wisdom (name choice FTW?), you are wrong. Continuing to argue points that have been proven wrong by four different posters just makes you look foolish. And seriously, the first time you try this "logic" in a gaming group you are going to get laughed at.

willydstyle wrote:

toxic_wisdom wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:"...While a wound can certainly be owned by a model, the wound itself is not model specific, a wound cannot be "an ap4 weapon against a guardsmen" because a wound is "an ap4 weapon" which is assigned to a guardsmen.
..."

Just for the record: check the rule regarding complex units.

Way to address the fact that the word "model" is not actually in any way applied to the phrase "against which an armor save may never be taken."

Way to address an issue that wasn't even quoted

Gwar! wrote:

toxic_wisdom wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:"...While a wound can certainly be owned by a model, the wound itself is not model specific, a wound cannot be "an ap4 weapon against a guardsmen" because a wound is "an ap4 weapon" which is assigned to a guardsmen...."

Just for the record: check the rule regarding complex units.

There are a lot of rules regarding Complex Units. What rule are you talking about?

When a complex unit takes wounds from shooting that has different AP values it is possible to assign a specific wound to a specific model.

Gwar! wrote:"...Also, newsflash Toxic, Lascannons are S9, Railguns are Strenght 10. Unless you live in a weird Base 32 Land, 9 is more than double 4 and 10 is also more than double 4. At least try to make sense!.."

Ah, newsflash Gwar !.. it was a demonstration of RAW - and since we're all playing RAW here ( let's not even consider intent ) then it should be played FULLY... and then you should read the entry for We'll Be Back more clearly.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

toxic_wisdom wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:"...While a wound can certainly be owned by a model, the wound itself is not model specific, a wound cannot be "an ap4 weapon against a guardsmen" because a wound is "an ap4 weapon" which is assigned to a guardsmen.
..."

Just for the record: check the rule regarding complex units.

Way to address the fact that the word "model" is not actually in any way applied to the phrase "against which an armor save may never be taken."

Way to address an issue that wasn't even quoted

Isn't that your whole (flawed) argument? Or are you just posting for the hell of it now? Do you not consider, even just a little bit, that not one, but at LEAST two huge threads that have utterly broken apart your flawed argument means that you are 100% wrong?

toxic_wisdom wrote:

Gwar! wrote:"...Also, newsflash Toxic, Lascannons are S9, Railguns are Strenght 10. Unless you live in a weird Base 32 Land, 9 is more than double 4 and 10 is also more than double 4. At least try to make sense!.."

Ah, newsflash Gwar !.. it was a demonstration of RAW - and since we're all playing RAW here ( let's not even consider intent ) then it should be played FULLY... and then you should read the entry for We'll Be Back more clearly.

Oh you want to play RaW? Fine, we'll play mathematical RaW then. 9 is equal to (2x4)+1. That is still double 4, but it is Double 4 plus 1. Still Double 4 though.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

Gwar! wrote:"...Also, newsflash Toxic, Lascannons are S9, Railguns are Strenght 10. Unless you live in a weird Base 32 Land, 9 is more than double 4 and 10 is also more than double 4. At least try to make sense!.."

Ah, newsflash Gwar !.. it was a demonstration of RAW - and since we're all playing RAW here ( let's not even consider intent ) then it should be played FULLY... and then you should read the entry for We'll Be Back more clearly.

here is something to look for ( and take note it is written differently than something like ID )

S8 = 2x T4 ... S9 =/= 2x T4 ... S10 =/= 2x T4

Ok toxic, seriuously now, If I had not posted just then, that would be a Quadruple post. There is a Multiquote, use it

-Reported for Multiple Posting-