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.

Kommissar Kel wrote:The Hex rifle triggers on an unsaved wound suffered you have passed your FNP test, and the unsaved wound is ignored(thus no longer "suffered" by the model in question); why wound the secondary effect still occur?

FNP specifically retro-acts to ignore it's own trigger(Suffer the unsaved wound, test for FNP, go back and discount the unsaved wound sufferage, technically at this point you would no longer have had to take the FNP test, but the net result is that the unsaved wound is no longer suffered).

Then please explain the bolded portion of the Hexrifle rule below:

"A model that suffers an unsaved wound from a hexrifle must take a characteristic test based on their Wounds value (i.e. the one on their profile, not the current Wounds). If they fail the test, they are removed from play, with no saves of any kind."

The armor/cover save has already occurred before the Characteristic test is called for. What other save would the rule be referring to, if not to Feel no Pain?

Saldiven wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:The Hex rifle triggers on an unsaved wound suffered you have passed your FNP test, and the unsaved wound is ignored(thus no longer "suffered" by the model in question); why wound the secondary effect still occur?

FNP specifically retro-acts to ignore it's own trigger(Suffer the unsaved wound, test for FNP, go back and discount the unsaved wound sufferage, technically at this point you would no longer have had to take the FNP test, but the net result is that the unsaved wound is no longer suffered).

Then please explain the bolded portion of the Hexrifle rule below:

"A model that suffers an unsaved wound from a hexrifle must take a characteristic test based on their Wounds value (i.e. the one on their profile, not the current Wounds). If they fail the test, they are removed from play, with no saves of any kind."

The armor/cover save has already occurred before the Characteristic test is called for. What other save would the rule be referring to, if not to Feel no Pain?

It is referring to the lose of any additional wounds the model had. Not to the wound it already lost.

It is an additional effect after the Hex rifle wound has been Suffered.

This means that if the hexrifle hits a model(we will assume the target has no FNP, just for ease of example), and wounds, and the Save is failed, you take a T Test; fail the test and you are removed. If the model in question has 3W and eternal warrior, but still failed the test, it is still removed with no saves of any kind.

Also FNP is in no way ever defined as a "Save", it is an ability. Saves are defined as Armor, Cover, or invulnerable saves. That bolded portion of the rule is to inform you that none of those 3 can prevent the removal from play(a clarification, that is not entirely needed since the Hex rifle ability does not cause any extra wounds, and saves can only be taken against wounds. then again were that not plainly stated people would still be on here asking if they can take an Armour or invulnerable save from the failed T Test).

jbunny wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:The Hex rifle triggers on an unsaved wound suffered you have passed your FNP test, and the unsaved wound is ignored(thus no longer "suffered" by the model in question); why wound the secondary effect still occur?

FNP specifically retro-acts to ignore it's own trigger(Suffer the unsaved wound, test for FNP, go back and discount the unsaved wound sufferage, technically at this point you would no longer have had to take the FNP test, but the net result is that the unsaved wound is no longer suffered).

Then please explain the bolded portion of the Hexrifle rule below:

"A model that suffers an unsaved wound from a hexrifle must take a characteristic test based on their Wounds value (i.e. the one on their profile, not the current Wounds). If they fail the test, they are removed from play, with no saves of any kind."

The armor/cover save has already occurred before the Characteristic test is called for. What other save would the rule be referring to, if not to Feel no Pain?

It is referring to the lose of any additional wounds the model had. Not to the wound it already lost.

I disagree. I see where you're going, but never in the existence of "Removed from play" has the presence of any additional wounds made any difference. I see no reason why GW would suddenly have those remaining wounds obtain some significance.

To me, that last line has the following significance.

1. Suffer wound from HR.
2. Fail armor save.
3a. Make characteristic test. If failed, remove from play with no save of any kind, or
3b. Pass characteristic test. Proceed to FnP to avoid the initial wound.

To me, this breaks no rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Also FNP is in no way ever defined as a "Save", it is an ability. Saves are defined as Armor, Cover, or invulnerable saves. That bolded portion of the rule is to inform you that none of those 3 can prevent the removal from play(a clarification, that is not entirely needed since the Hex rifle ability does not cause any extra wounds, and saves can only be taken against wounds. then again were that not plainly stated people would still be on here asking if they can take an Armour or invulnerable save from the failed T Test).

And then we return to the argument that has not been answered: Why does FnP trump the Hexrifle? You've just admitted that the FnP isn't a save, so passing that roll doesn't remove the "unsaved wound." Sure, you get to ignore the "injury." Unfortunately, the Hexrifle doesn't care if you've suffered an injury, merely an "unsaved wound." Regardless of whether or not you've ignored the injury and discounted the wound, you still suffered an "unsaved wound."

The two rolls would happen at the same time, so you roll two dice at once with different colors. There is no indication of any order. If the FNP dice rolls a success the injury is ignored, erasing the reason for hex rifle having any additional effect.

And "the injury" is of course referring to "unsaved wound" the word "wound" even appears on the exact same sentence. Injury is not defined in Warhammer 40k, the rules of FNP are using "wound" and "injury" as synonyms to not use "unsaved wound" three times in one sentence.

Just to show the error in your train of thought: If "injury" isn't "unsaved wound", then "wound" isn't either.
-> On a 1, 2 or 3 I suffer the wound as normal.
-> It's not an unsaved wound.
-> I get to roll armor/cover/invul again
-> If I fail it would become an unsaved wound, triggering FNP
-> Back to step one.
-> If I pass, the wound is saved, hexrifle doesn't trigger.
So the only way to actually suffer any additional wounds by hex rifle would be passing a feel no pain roll, while FNP models would be otherwise invincible.

Ignoring the injury is not defined. Therefore, its not possible to say with certainty whether you are ignoring the unsaved wound al together, or just ignoring the 1 wound you would remove from the profile.

After reading the thread I'm inclined to say that FNP does not stop the hexrifle's RFP ability, but may stop the model from removing a wound from its profile.

"ignoring _the_ injury", not ignore any injury. Obviously referring to something.

But you have still ignored the wound, as you did not remove the wound from the model, or remove the model as a casualty as a result of the wound.

The wound still happened, whether you ignore it or not. FnP states you ignore it, not that it doesnt happen. This is where the confusion lies. I can ignore the fact that I broke my finger and continue to fight, but that doesnt mean at the end of the fight my finger will be miraculously healed and unbroken, it just means I am shrugging off the pain and discomfort and continuing to fight on. The wound is still there, as it is still there in the game, your model just pushes through the pain and doesnt pay attention to it.

Correct, obviously its refering to something....

What that something is, however, is not obvious.

In case I wasn't clear on my position in relation to other models in other circumstances....

When a model suffers an unsaved wound, FnP offers the model to negate the effect of the unsaved wound. It does not redact the unsaved wound, nor make the unsaved wound not have occurred - it simply negates the wound profile modifier.

If a model with FnP fails an armour save, it has experienced an unsaved wound.
If a model with FnP passed a FnP check, it ignores the result of experiencing an unsaved wound.

The model still took an unsaved wound, however a special rule let it bypass losing a wound. That special rule (FnP) doesn't negate the fact that you were shot at, nor that you failed an armour save - those actions still took place.

Again; much like possessed vehicles - shoot a possessed vehicle and glance it for a stunned result. Possessed vehicles ignore shaken and stunned results. They don't ignore glances, nor does the fact that they ignore shaken and stunned results mean that the vehicle wasn't glanced - simply that the effect of the glance was negated.

Lets say a ranged weapon that causes a glance or penetrate on a vehicle gets to move the vehicle D6 inches on a scatter dice. You shake a possessed vehicle, which ignores the result. The vehicle STILL moves D6 because it was STILL glanced.

The same applies here. FnP bypasses the consequence of an unsaved wound (losing 1W), it doesn't negate the fact that the model suffered an unsaved wound.

There are only two options - "wound" or "unsaved wound". No other injuries mentioned in that paragraph. As "unsaved wound" is just a subtype of "wound" it does not really matter. In either case, the wound is completely ignored without any restrictions.

Galador: Real life examples have no bearing on rules whatsoever. Rhino self-repair, grot riggers and big meks also ignore "immobilized" results, this does not mean that the vehicle magically starts moving without tracks/wheels, but that it was fixed.
Ignoring an unsaved wound means nothing but that it never happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dash, possessed vehicles ignore results, while combat resolution, for example, counts rolls and your ranger weapon counts glances and penetrating hits(which would even occur before cover saves). For example, a striking scorpions biting blade would figure out it's strength(+1 for each hit) before making a single penetration roll.

Sadly, any occurrences of "ignore any penetrating or glancing hits" are cover or invulnerable saves, otherwise it would be a great place to look at.

Jidmah wrote:
Sadly, any occurrences of "ignore any penetrating or glancing hits" are cover or invulnerable saves, otherwise it would be a great place to look at.

Hrm....

Except that FnP doesn't say to ignore the unsaved wound does it? Doesn't it say to ignore the injury caused by the unsaved wound?

The model still suffered an unsaved wound; whether it suffers the injury caused by the unsaved wound is irrelevant to the Hex Rifle. That's why I keep going back to the possessed vehicle analogy. FnP doesn't negate the status, it negates the consequence.

Passing a FnP check puts a model here:

Did the model suffer an unsaved wound: Yes.
Did the model suffer the injury from the unsaved wound: No.

Hex Rifles (and other things that require a model to have suffered an unsaved wound) don't care what injury was caused, how many wounds a model has, what its leadership is...it is itself a check. Did the model fail to pass an armour save? If it did, it has triggered the effect caused by being dealt an unsaved wound.

The same would apply to what's his face that gets to ignore the first failed wound he rolls. Despite having not been reduced in wounds, and not having a wound applied to his profile, he suffered an unsaved wound - and a special rule came in and negated the result of the unsaved wound. That doesn't mean he didn't suffer an unsaved wound....otherwise he would be at full health, claiming that he can continue to ignore unsaved wounds because he hasn't suffered one yet.

Baron Sathonyx is another good analogy. The Shadowfield (2++ save) works until he suffers an unsaved wound. If the Baron has FnP, and fails his shadowfield save, but then makes a FnP...he has taken no wounds. And yet, the Shadowfield is gone because he suffered an unsaved wound.

I feel like Dash has hit the nail right on the head. I know other people will still not agree, but his interpretation of the rule is about as logical as you can get from GW rules.

I agree with the Hexrifle working for the rules reasons stated above (FNP canceling the removal of a wound, not it completely ignores all effects).

I also see the hexrifle as working from a fluff perspective. It doesn't care that you don't care that you just got shot... it just turns you to glass anyway.

Shrike325 wrote:I agree with the Hexrifle working for the rules reasons stated above (FNP canceling the removal of a wound, not it completely ignores all effects).

I also see the hexrifle as working from a fluff perspective. It doesn't care that you don't care that you just got shot... it just turns you to glass anyway.

Except that if you have the HR affect the model then you have not ignored the wound that was just caused.

DeathReaper wrote:

Shrike325 wrote:I agree with the Hexrifle working for the rules reasons stated above (FNP canceling the removal of a wound, not it completely ignores all effects).

I also see the hexrifle as working from a fluff perspective. It doesn't care that you don't care that you just got shot... it just turns you to glass anyway.

Except that if you have the HR affect the model then you have not ignored the wound that was just caused.

Which is just fine...because you're not instructed to ignore the fact that the model received an unsaved wound. Instead, you're told to ignore the injury caused by it. Again...see the ample correlations to similar situations in 40k that I've outlined.

Dashofpepper wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Shrike325 wrote:I agree with the Hexrifle working for the rules reasons stated above (FNP canceling the removal of a wound, not it completely ignores all effects).

I also see the hexrifle as working from a fluff perspective. It doesn't care that you don't care that you just got shot... it just turns you to glass anyway.

Except that if you have the HR affect the model then you have not ignored the wound that was just caused.

Which is just fine...because you're not instructed to ignore the fact that the model received an unsaved wound. Instead, you're told to ignore the injury caused by it. Again...see the ample correlations to similar situations in 40k that I've outlined.

If you're going to be that pedantic then you better also be able to define what an 'injury' is in the context of the 40k rules. If it's the wound, then we're back to ignoring the unsaved wound. If it's not, then FNP never works because an 'injury' isn't anything.

The problem we have here is the fact that we're trying to apply a uniform ruling to all situations when in reality the different writers of the game don't seem to follow that same kind of uniformity.

In the olden days, GW used to write rules that simply said: 'when a model suffers a wound X happens' or 'when a model is wounded X happens'. Of course people then naturally got confused as to whether those things still technically occurred when the wound was saved, since technically the model had still been wounded.

So more recently, GW has switched over to using the term 'unsaved wound' to show very clearly that, yes, when a model saves the wound, the effect does not occur.

But of course the problem with Feel No Pain is the ever nebulous wording that it simply ignores the 'injury' and the fact that Feel No Pain is triggered by an 'unsaved wound' which is the exact same thing that triggers other effects.

The issue with all of this is you have to figure out exactly what the rules writers should or should not be writing and compare it with what you think they are or are not writing.

Say you're a 40K rules writer and you want to create a rule that works when a model actually SUFFERS a wound. Not one that's saved by a save and not one that's stopped by Feel No Pain either...so what do you have to write?

If you're aware that Feel No Pain is worded so nebulously and you want to be super clear (and have no limitations on how much you can write) then you'd probably go with something like you find in the close combat resolution section of the rulebook (pg 39):

'Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count.'


So your brand new rule would probably read something like:

'anytime a model suffers an unsaved wound, not including wounds negated by Feel No Pain or other similar special rules, X happens...'


In fact, you might even think that GW's inclusion of such a rule in the rulebook presents clear evidence that any other rule which isn't so explicit would not be prevented by a successful Feel No Pain roll, but again that's a logical fallacy based upon the assumption that the multitude of different rules writers they have are even cognisant that there is such a distinction.

A very similar correlation (IMHO) can be drawn to the different authors' uses of when cover saves are allowed or not allowed. Depending on the particular author and the context of the particular rule at times it seems that cover saves are always allowed unless specified otherwise and in other cases it seems obvious that covers saves are not allowed unless specified otherwise. It really comes down to what author was writing the rule at the time and what their preconceived notions about cover saves were in that particular situation.


IMHO, the codex writers tend to use the term 'unsaved wound' to represent a situation when a model is actually taking a wound...I don't think they consider the effects of Feel No Pain at all when they write except for when they actually reference it. But even more importantly, I see these rules as being a reward/penalty for something good/bad happening to the model.

So, for example, with Acid Blood they allow a model getting wounded (penalty) to inflict damage on the enemy (bonus)...or with a Shadow Field you get a 2+ cover save (bonus) but in return you lose the save when you fail the first saving throw (penalty). Therefore, it is highly likely that with such nebulously written rules that the authors intended to be the case regardless of what other special rules (Feel No Pain) are involved, because if they wanted players to have special little easter eggs based on the ambiguous wording of feel no pain, then they probably would have taken the time to specify exactly that.

In other words, its far more likely that the authors intended for the basic principle of an unsaved wound penalty=bonus to apply by not specifically referencing Feel No Pain then it is to assume that they intended for players to get to ignore the penalty=bonus principle via Feel No Pain without it being clearly specified in the rule.

So I would imagine that if you were to ask the writers about the specific situations, rather than getting any kind of uniform ruling, you'd get different answers depending on the situation being asked. Since Acid Blood gives out its bonus (damaging enemy models) when the Tyranid is wounded (penalty), I would be highly surprised to find that the author intended for the model to dish out its Acid Blood attacks even when the injury was ignored by Feel No Pain.

And conversely with the Shadow Field, since the bonus (a 2+ invulnerable save) is tempered by the penalty of the first save being failed, I again would be surprised if the author intended a successful Feel No Pain save would ignore the penalty of the first failed saving throw.


Could the authors have intended the opposite of what I said? Of course, I just think its unlikely for the reasons I've laid out above.

At the end of the day I think you have to accept that this is a nebulous situation with rules that are not clear. There is clearly enough fuzzy material to divide plenty of people on the subject so I'd personally always go back to the mantra of sticking with the least advantageous interpretation whenever the rules aren't clear, which unsurprisingly goes back to the same interpretations that I posited above.

Yeah, they even threw a wrench in the DE codex with the Clawed Fiend. Their ability triggers when the model "loses a wound."

So even in the same codex there is "unsaved wound" and "loses a wound" Could have been a fluke, could have been intentional. There's no real way to tell.

Kommissar Kel wrote:The Hex rifle triggers on an unsaved wound suffered you have passed your FNP test, and the unsaved wound is ignored(thus no longer "suffered" by the model in question); why wound the secondary effect still occur?

FNP specifically retro-acts to ignore it's own trigger(Suffer the unsaved wound, test for FNP, go back and discount the unsaved wound sufferage, technically at this point you would no longer have had to take the FNP test, but the net result is that the unsaved wound is no longer suffered).

FNP does not ignore the wound, it ignores injury. No where in the section about what happens when you role above a 3 mentions the word wound at all.

Yak already posted up rebuttal.......hahahahahaha!

Canadian 5th - yet in context injury == wound. It has to be, otherwise you still take the wound (as nothing tells you not to) and the model is removed.

You cannot state injury is not the same as wound without making FNP functionally useless.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Canadian 5th - yet in context injury == wound. It has to be, otherwise you still take the wound (as nothing tells you not to) and the model is removed.

You cannot state injury is not the same as wound without making FNP functionally useless.

You can actually because the rules say the model remains in spite of the wound. It doesn't say anything about secondary effects however.

Canadian 5th wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Canadian 5th - yet in context injury == wound. It has to be, otherwise you still take the wound (as nothing tells you not to) and the model is removed.

You cannot state injury is not the same as wound without making FNP functionally useless.

You can actually because the rules say the model remains in spite of the wound. It doesn't say anything about secondary effects however.

It doesn't, because 'secondary effects' is a category you've just made up out of nowhere.

Canadian - that position makes no sense, ruleswise. By your reading you would stilll have a wound floating around, useless.

Conflating injury to wound, which is certain suggested by the text AND is logically consistent (it is a binary choice - wound or not wound, so no missing middle fallacy here) means that the wound itself IS ignored, and you end up with no "secondary" effects being able to take place as the trigger event no longer exists.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Canadian - that position makes no sense, ruleswise. By your reading you would stilll have a wound floating around, useless.

Conflating injury to wound, which is certain suggested by the text AND is logically consistent (it is a binary choice - wound or not wound, so no missing middle fallacy here) means that the wound itself IS ignored, and you end up with no "secondary" effects being able to take place as the trigger event no longer exists.

Show me the rules text that states the wound itself is ignored? What's that, you can't actually do that because the text doesn't say that you ignore the wounds, or any effects related to the wound. Oh wonder of wonders.

Sigh.

The text tells you the wound occurs as normal on a 1 - 3, and on a 4 -6 the "injury" is ignored.

Given context, which Im sure you understand, injury HAS to mean wound; if it didnt, a roll of 4 - 6 would do nothing.

So your position is an absurd one, as it results in FNP not working.

Oh wonder of wonders.

yakface wrote:At the end of the day I think you have to accept that this is a nebulous situation with rules that are not clear. There is clearly enough fuzzy material to divide plenty of people on the subject so I'd personally always go back to the mantra of sticking with the least advantageous interpretation whenever the rules aren't clear, which unsurprisingly goes back to the same interpretations that I posited above.

But to who?

FnP Player. "Okay I've been wounded by a hex rifle, so thats a FnP test and a wounds test then"
DE Player. "Okay I've wounded you with a hex rifle, so thats a FnP and if you pass you ignore the wounds test"

Both interpretations are the least advantageous to that relevant player but hugely advantageous to the other.

Both rules have the same trigger, an unsaved wound, as many have pointed out, why prioritise one SR over the other?

Cheers

Andrew

Because hexrifle is dependent on feel no pain. Feel no pain is not dependent on hexrifle. That's why you have to check whether any attention is given to the wound at all, before applying hexrifle.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh.

The text tells you the wound occurs as normal on a 1 - 3, and on a 4 -6 the "injury" is ignored.

Given context, which Im sure you understand, injury HAS to mean wound; if it didnt, a roll of 4 - 6 would do nothing.

So your position is an absurd one, as it results in FNP not working.

Oh wonder of wonders.

However, your position has the hex rifle not working. Can the system work the other way round? Yes I think it can and it doesn't result in FnP not working as you assert. It does reduce it's effectiveness massively I admit.

Unsaved wound

Take 1 wound and wounds test, if failed remove model.

Passed test, apply unsaved wound.

Use FnP ignore applied wound.

If the rumoured tiered system comes into 6th then this may not be an issue.

Both rules work, it's a question of which way round they go.

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote:Because hexrifle is dependent on feel no pain. Feel no pain is not dependent on hexrifle. That's why you have to check whether any attention is given to the wound at all, before applying hexrifle.

I disagree with this, the hex rifle is not dependent on FnP, the hexrifle is dependent on an unsaved wound.

Put it another way, I stick a knife in you, FnP allows you to ignore the injury, but it doesn't reset time to a point where the knife hasn't penetrated. The knife has still cut you, you just don't feel it.

So the hexrifle has still hit you, whether you ignore the physical injury or not doesn't matter, but do the secondary effects still occur?

Cheers

Andrew