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.

"A model with Eternal warrior is immune to the effects of instant death"

"Note that feel no pain rolls cannont be taken against unsaved wounds that INFLICT instant death"

Emphasis mine.

So roll dice, fail AS and see if ID is caused, if yes no FNP.
Roll dice , fail AS and see if ID is Caused, if no take FNP

Since ID cannot be "inflicted" to a model with EW it can take the FNP save

To people saying you cant look at one rule and apply it to another..really????

A wound with its Strength Double the targets Toughness INFLICTS instant death.

The model may be immune to the effects of the ID rule, but the wound still INFLICTS instant death because it has a Strength that Doubles the targets Toughness.

Emphasis mine.

Formosa wrote:"A model with Eternal warrior is immune to the effects of instant death"

"Note that feel no pain rolls cannont be taken against unsaved wounds that INFLICT instant death"

Emphasis mine.

So roll dice, fail AS and see if ID is caused, if yes no FNP.
Roll dice , fail AS and see if ID is Caused, if no take FNP

Since ID cannot be "inflicted" to a model with EW it can take the FNP save

The ID is inflicted to the model. He just doesn't suffer the effects.

EW does not make an ID wound a normal wound. There is no rule you can quote saying that it does.
EW just allows you to ignore the effect (the reduction to 0W) of an ID wound.

ID wounds still ignore FnP.

What is a special rule if not an effect? You appear to be imbueing the abstract concepts of special rules with what can only be called "souls".
In short, you need to create a form of life in order to prove your argument.
I think we can call Occam's razor here.

Testify wrote:What is a special rule if not an effect? You appear to be imbueing the abstract concepts of special rules with what can only be called "souls".
In short, you need to create a form of life in order to prove your argument.
I think we can call Occam's razor here.

...

What?

Instant Death has a requirement: S of double the model's T.
Instant Death has an effect: The model is reduced to 0W.

Eternal Warrior has an effect: The effect of an Instant Death wound is ignored.

You still have a wound that's S is double the model's T, therefore it is still an Instant Death wound.

Then you get to Feel no Pain - you cannot make a Feel No Pain roll if the wound inflicts Instant Death. It still does - you're just free to ignore that part.

This is a big problem, glad to see I'm not the only one who was mistaking the name of the rule with the effect it causes.

rigeld2 wrote:
...

What?

Instant Death has a requirement: S of double the model's T.
Instant Death has an effect: The model is reduced to 0W.

Eternal Warrior has an effect: The effect of an Instant Death wound is ignored.

You still have a wound that's S is double the model's T, therefore it is still an Instant Death wound.

Instant death is an effect that's triggered by a requirement. In programming terms:

if (Strength>(toughness*2) ) { instant_death(); } function instant_death(); { if isset(model['eternalWarrior'])){takewound(1, true)} else {takewound(9, false) } function takewound($wounds, $EW_Flag) { while($wounds>0) if (!$EW_Flag) { $model['wounds']--; $wounds--; } else { if(!FNPSave(5)) { $model['wounds']--; $wounds--;}

That's actually rubbish but I cba making it better. It's late and I'm not being paid

The way i see it, the rules of immunity to instant death and feel no pain are entirely independent of each other; so therefore are affected individually instead of both together.

Say you take a wound that causes instant death, it negates FNP as per FNP's rules, but doesn't instant kill the model as per EW rules.

DeathReaper wrote:A wound with its Strength Double the targets Toughness INFLICTS instant death.

The model may be immune to the effects of the ID rule, but the wound still INFLICTS instant death because it has a Strength that Doubles the targets Toughness.

Emphasis mine.

So what your saying, is that even though ID did not occur... it still has?
Because if the model hasnt died from ID it hasnt been inflicted, it has just suffered a normal wound, since to be able to inflict an ID wound you have to apply its effect, which EW tells us its immune to.

Thank you GW, for having an effect and a universal special rule with the same name. That really helps.



Man, I hate to say it, but it looks like to me that you do not get a FNP roll even if you have Eternal Warrior. My reasoning?

EW makes you immune to Instant Death's effects. What effects do the Instant Death rules have? If you get hit by a weapon and fail the save and its Strength is double your Toughness OR a weapon with the special rule, you are reduced to 0 Wounds.

Attacks can inflict Instant Death without you being susceptible to the effects.

In game example: Sniper Rifles are Pinning attacks that, when you take a casualty, inflict a pinning test. If your unit is Fearless you still take the pinning test, you just pass automatically (see page 40). So it makes sense to me that the rules for FNP are such that you don't get your FNP save against those wounds.

On the plus side, your immune to the effects of Instant Death so its not like its going to kill you outright, just take away your last wound (the important one!).

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
...

What?

Instant Death has a requirement: S of double the model's T.
Instant Death has an effect: The model is reduced to 0W.

Eternal Warrior has an effect: The effect of an Instant Death wound is ignored.

You still have a wound that's S is double the model's T, therefore it is still an Instant Death wound.

Instant death is an effect that's triggered by a requirement. In programming terms:

if (Strength>(toughness*2) ) { instant_death(); } function instant_death(); { if isset(model['eternalWarrior'])){takewound(1, true)} else {takewound(9, false) } function takewound($wounds, $EW_Flag) { while($wounds>0) if (!$EW_Flag) { $model['wounds']--; $wounds--; } else { if(!FNPSave(5)) { $model['wounds']--; $wounds--;}

That's actually rubbish but I cba making it better. It's late and I'm not being paid

Don't take this too harshly, but that's a terrible attempt at making things clear and simple.

Let me try.

A model doesn't need to suffer the effect of the "Instant Death" rule (which is losing all of its wounds and becoming a casualty) to be ineligible for Feel No Pain.

To be ineligible for Feel No Pain, it simply must have been wounded by an attack meets the criteria for the "Instant Death" rule.

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
...

What?

Instant Death has a requirement: S of double the model's T.
Instant Death has an effect: The model is reduced to 0W.

Eternal Warrior has an effect: The effect of an Instant Death wound is ignored.

You still have a wound that's S is double the model's T, therefore it is still an Instant Death wound.

Instant death is an effect that's triggered by a requirement. In programming terms:

if (Strength>(toughness*2) ) { instant_death(); } function instant_death(); { if isset(model['eternalWarrior'])){takewound(1, true)} else {takewound(9, false) } function takewound($wounds, $EW_Flag) { while($wounds>0) if (!$EW_Flag) { $model['wounds']--; $wounds--; } else { if(!FNPSave(5)) { $model['wounds']--; $wounds--;}

That's actually rubbish but I cba making it better. It's late and I'm not being paid

There's your problem. You're using EW to ignore all of ID. It doesnt. It ignores the effect.
It absolutely does not ignore the entire rule. There is still an Instant Death wound, it just doesn't kill you.

right, and one of the effects of instant death is that you don't get FNP.

Testify wrote:right, and one of the effects of instant death is that you don't get FNP.

Absolutely false.

One of the requirements of FnP is that the wound not be an ID wound.
There's a difference.

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:right, and one of the effects of instant death is that you don't get FNP.

Absolutely false.

One of the requirements of FnP is that the wound not be an ID wound.
There's a difference.

Its not false lol, it tells us in the FNP section, do not try and tell us that others rules have no effect on each other.

"note that FNP cant be used against unsaved wounds that inflict ID"

By your reasoning we totally ignore that bit as its not in the ID section of the book.. and vice versa

Formosa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:right, and one of the effects of instant death is that you don't get FNP.

Absolutely false.

One of the requirements of FnP is that the wound not be an ID wound.
There's a difference.

Its not false lol, it tells us in the FNP section, do not try and tell us that others rules have no effect on each other.

"note that FNP cant be used against unsaved wounds that inflict ID"

By your reasoning we totally ignore that bit as its not in the ID section of the book.. and vice versa

No, that's not my reasoning at all.
It's just not an effect of ID.
It's a requirement of FnP.

rigeld2 wrote:

Formosa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:right, and one of the effects of instant death is that you don't get FNP.

Absolutely false.

One of the requirements of FnP is that the wound not be an ID wound.
There's a difference.

Its not false lol, it tells us in the FNP section, do not try and tell us that others rules have no effect on each other.

"note that FNP cant be used against unsaved wounds that inflict ID"

By your reasoning we totally ignore that bit as its not in the ID section of the book.. and vice versa

No, that's not my reasoning at all.
It's just not an effect of ID.
It's a requirement of FnP.

ok you cleared that up fair enough.

I argue it is part of the ID rules since it refers to them, otherwise we would not know what it meant or how ID works

Formosa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Formosa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:right, and one of the effects of instant death is that you don't get FNP.

Absolutely false.

One of the requirements of FnP is that the wound not be an ID wound.
There's a difference.

Its not false lol, it tells us in the FNP section, do not try and tell us that others rules have no effect on each other.

"note that FNP cant be used against unsaved wounds that inflict ID"

By your reasoning we totally ignore that bit as its not in the ID section of the book.. and vice versa

No, that's not my reasoning at all.
It's just not an effect of ID.
It's a requirement of FnP.

ok you cleared that up fair enough.

I argue it is part of the ID rules since it refers to them, otherwise we would not know what it meant or how ID works

So all wounds are part of shooting then?
So is Overwatch - that's cool.

Do you have rule basis for your argument? Or just "well, erm, it makes sense for 2 rules on different pages with completely different sections are actually part of one rule."

Ah, the eternal argument.

This has actually been going for editions now without GW FAQing it. Back when SM Nartheciums used to ignore the first armor save a unit failed, but they had the proviso that this wouldn't work against wounds that inflicted instant death...and then you had SM characters who were immune to instant death wanting to know if they got to use the Narthecium to save against a wound that would otherwise inflict instant death.

The problem has always been that 'instant death' is *both* a weapon effect AND it is a result that a model can suffer.

Therefore when the FNP rule says that it does not work on wounds that 'inflict instant death', we cannot possibly know if they are referring the weapon effect (that the weapon inflicts instant death) or whether they're referring to the outcome on the model (the model suffered instant death).

No amount of arguing can solve the problem because both sides are potentially right and wrong depending on how you look at it.

yakface wrote:
Ah, the eternal argument.

This has actually been going for editions now without GW FAQing it. Back when SM Nartheciums used to ignore the first armor save a unit failed, but they had the proviso that this wouldn't work against wounds that inflicted instant death...and then you had SM characters who were immune to instant death wanting to know if they got to use the Narthecium to save against a wound that would otherwise inflict instant death.

The problem has always been that 'instant death' is *both* a weapon effect AND it is a result that a model can suffer.

Therefore when the FNP rule says that it does not work on wounds that 'inflict instant death', we cannot possibly know if they are referring the weapon effect (that the weapon inflicts instant death) or whether they're referring to the outcome on the model (the model suffered instant death).

No amount of arguing can solve the problem because both sides are potentially right and wrong depending on how you look at it.

Agreed with everything stated here...

If GW won't FAQ it... could we have an INAT ruling?

whembly wrote:
Agreed with everything stated here...

If GW won't FAQ it... could we have an INAT ruling?

It'll go on the list of stuff to add in case GW doesn't feel like FAQ'ing it.

I did go back and check the old INAT ruling for those situations previously and if we were following suit with those then it would be negative against allowing FNP to work against a wound that would otherwise cause instant death if the model did not have Eternal Warrior.

But those rulings were made on an old edition of the rules with different voting members than we have now, so I really couldn't guess how the INAT would end up ruling on this issue until the voting actually goes down.

yakface wrote:

whembly wrote:
Agreed with everything stated here...

If GW won't FAQ it... could we have an INAT ruling?

It'll go on the list of stuff to add in case GW doesn't feel like FAQ'ing it.

I did go back and check the old INAT ruling for those situations previously and it looked like those old rulings and if we were following suit with those then it would be negative against allowing FNP to work against a wound that would otherwise cause instant death if the model did not have Eternal Warrior.

But those rulings were made on an old edition of the rules with different voting members than we have now, so I really couldn't guess how the INAT would end up ruling on this issue until the voting actually goes down.

Fair enough... I do know that my local Tourny uses the INAT for any disputed rules.

Sometimes I just want a ruling so that we all know what to expect. Hopefully, GW will FAQ it soon.
(btw, I'm sure I can speak for the community... THANKS for all that you do for Dakka. )

rigeld2 wrote:

Formosa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Formosa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Testify wrote:right, and one of the effects of instant death is that you don't get FNP.

Absolutely false.

One of the requirements of FnP is that the wound not be an ID wound.
There's a difference.

Its not false lol, it tells us in the FNP section, do not try and tell us that others rules have no effect on each other.

"note that FNP cant be used against unsaved wounds that inflict ID"

By your reasoning we totally ignore that bit as its not in the ID section of the book.. and vice versa

No, that's not my reasoning at all.
It's just not an effect of ID.
It's a requirement of FnP.

ok you cleared that up fair enough.

I argue it is part of the ID rules since it refers to them, otherwise we would not know what it meant or how ID works

So all wounds are part of shooting then?
So is Overwatch - that's cool.

Do you have rule basis for your argument? Or just "well, erm, it makes sense for 2 rules on different pages with completely different sections are actually part of one rule."

are all wounds part of shooting... yes of course they are, one follows the other and work together, same with over watch.

what your claiming is rules dont interact..which is clearly wrong

So close combat wounds are part of shooting?

And I'm not claiming that. At all. Rules absolutely interact.

What you're claiming is that part of the FnP rule is an effect of Instant Death. Except the effects of Instant Death are listed under the Instant Death rule.

For ease of use, especially for Yakface, I would consider it BOTH the cause and the effect. Both are ID, does the wound cause ID? Yes (Cause) and Yes (Effect). Does EW ignore ID? No (Cause) and Yes (Effect). Thus no FnP from ID wounds.

rigeld2 wrote:So close combat wounds are part of shooting?

And I'm not claiming that. At all. Rules absolutely interact.

What you're claiming is that part of the FnP rule is an effect of Instant Death. Except the effects of Instant Death are listed under the Instant Death rule.

Yep thats what im claiming, it clearly says you cannot take a save from wounds inflicting ID, for ID to be inflicted you have to be reduced to 0 wounds from it (after modifiers, which EW is).

"so close combat wounds are part of shooting" Really??? do i really have to spell out "and all wounds are part of close combat too" after my first statment?? kinda thought you would have got it.. i mean your clearly not stupid.

Nope, if you Inflict ID you have triggered the ID rule

An effect of ID is to reduce wounds to zero

A S8 weapon against a T4 model triggers the ID rule. IF the model ignores the EFFECT of the ID rule it doesnt matter - you have still trigggered, ie inflicted, ID

Formosa wrote:Yep thats what im claiming, it clearly says you cannot take a save from wounds inflicting ID, for ID to be inflicted you have to be reduced to 0 wounds from it (after modifiers, which EW is).

False. You're trying to change the state of an ID wound into a non-ID wound. You don't have permission to do that. You have permission to be immune to the effects of Instant Death.
I'd been using the word "ignore" the whole thread without re-referencing the BRB. Using the word immune is even more support for the no-FnP side.

Immune means that you ignore things that effect your model. Not being able to take FnP isn't an effect on your model, it's a side effect of having taken an Instant Death wound.

cowmonaut wrote:Thank you GW, for having an effect and a universal special rule with the same name. That really helps.

Spoiler:

Instant Death Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book, page 16
If a model suffers an unsaved Wound from an Attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater (after modifiers), it is reduced to 0 Wounds and removed as a casualty.

Eternal Warrior Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book, page 35
A mode with this special rule is immune to the effects of Instant Death.

Feel No Pain Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book, page 35
Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved Wounds that inflict Instant Death.

Instant Death Warhammer 40,000 Rule Book, page 38
Unsaved Wounds inflicted by an Attack with this special rule automatically inflict Instant Death, regardless of the victim's Toughness.

Man, I hate to say it, but it looks like to me that you do not get a FNP roll even if you have Eternal Warrior. My reasoning?

EW makes you immune to Instant Death's effects. What effects do the Instant Death rules have? If you get hit by a weapon and fail the save and its Strength is double your Toughness OR a weapon with the special rule, you are reduced to 0 Wounds.

Attacks can inflict Instant Death without you being susceptible to the effects.

In game example: Sniper Rifles are Pinning attacks that, when you take a casualty, inflict a pinning test. If your unit is Fearless you still take the pinning test, you just pass automatically (see page 40). So it makes sense to me that the rules for FNP are such that you don't get your FNP save against those wounds.

On the plus side, your immune to the effects of Instant Death so its not like its going to kill you outright, just take away your last wound (the important one!).

Sorry if this has been responded to already, but the fearless/pinning example is invalid because it does not say they ignore or are immune to pinning, it says they auto pass the test which implies they take the test (the same wording used on wraiths and dangerous terrain Vs. C'Tan and their terrain ignoring rule). It's not really a valid example for this discussion.

Now, in light of what Yakface said I'm not going to continue discussing my personal opinion on how it should be played, as he said both sides could be potentially right and until it's official then it will just have to be a roll off. Also, in my meta, this situation has never come up anyway. Not yet, I should say.

I don't see why people are arguing this. It's obvious that both rules counter-dict each other.

So what is the fair way to play this?

ID wounds cause 1 wound to EW's and FNP can't be used for these wounds.

Seems pretty fair.