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.

Order of Operations

Your model inflicts ID.
Opponents model has EW. (x) wounds that have ID attribute do not ID that model. Model gets to make normal saves.
(x) wounds get past. Now we apply FNP.
Enemy model is unable to apply FNP as the wounds still have the ID rules applied to them, ignored by the EW special rule. EW rule does not apply to FNP, otherwise it would be written as such.

The contention is still over the meaning of the word 'inflict'. It is not a precise rules term. I'd still claim that in order to 'inflict' instant death, the actual instant death rules need to come to play. It seems bizarre to say that instant death was inflicted on a character, but he was immune to it. So is he somekind of a zombie now or what? That is not natural use of the word.

This is like inflicting casualties on a squad. If squad manages to save all wounds caused, you wouldn't say that casualties were inflicted but the squad negated them. you'd say no casualties were inflicted. (and no rule that would trigger upon inflicting casualties would activate.)

After a bit of thinking I think that the effect of instant death is look at pg 16 and resolve that.

On a model with EW an ID wound still has a wound with a modifier, admittably a modifier that means nothing to the outcome of the wound but one that prevents FNP from happening.

Crimson wrote:The contention is still over the meaning of the word 'inflict'. It is not a precise rules term. I'd still claim that in order to 'inflict' instant death, the actual instant death rules need to come to play. It seems bizarre to say that instant death was inflicted on a character, but he was immune to it. So is he somekind of a zombie now or what? That is not natural use of the word.

This is like inflicting casualties on a squad. If squad manages to save all wounds caused, you wouldn't say that casualties were inflicted but the squad negated them. you'd say no casualties were inflicted. (and no rule that would trigger upon inflicting casualties would activate.)

1. The rule doesn't say he is immune to ID, he simply ignores the effects. He doesn't ignore ID he ignores the effects. ID is inflicted but the effects if it are ignored. This is where the problems are coming from, people are ignoring the words that are inconvenient.

2. A saving throw negates a wound. Nowhere in the EW rule does it say that ID is negated. As I have asked for many times please show me where in the EW rule does it say it negates ID. It doesn't. It ignores the effects. These two things are not the same.

3. Not being removed as a casualty does not remove the fact that my weapon is 2x your toughness or has the instant death rule on it. Until it does you suffered an unsaved wound that caused ID. You have the ability to live through that, but it still happened. You ignored the effects but jot the wound itself.

Captain Antivas wrote:

Crimson wrote:The contention is still over the meaning of the word 'inflict'. It is not a precise rules term. I'd still claim that in order to 'inflict' instant death, the actual instant death rules need to come to play. It seems bizarre to say that instant death was inflicted on a character, but he was immune to it. So is he somekind of a zombie now or what? That is not natural use of the word.

This is like inflicting casualties on a squad. If squad manages to save all wounds caused, you wouldn't say that casualties were inflicted but the squad negated them. you'd say no casualties were inflicted. (and no rule that would trigger upon inflicting casualties would activate.)

1. The rule doesn't say he is immune to ID, he simply ignores the effects. He doesn't ignore ID he ignores the effects. ID is inflicted but the effects if it are ignored. This is where the problems are coming from, people are ignoring the words that are inconvenient.

2. A saving throw negates a wound. Nowhere in the EW rule does it say that ID is negated. As I have asked for many times please show me where in the EW rule does it say it negates ID. It doesn't. It ignores the effects. These two things are not the same.

3. Not being removed as a casualty does not remove the fact that my weapon is 2x your toughness or has the instant death rule on it. Until it does you suffered an unsaved wound that caused ID. You have the ability to live through that, but it still happened. You ignored the effects but jot the wound itself.

Actually, the word in EW is "immune" not "ignore". Models with EW are immune to the effects of Instant Death (pg 35). Now, I see your point on the sequencing because you are comparing FNP and EW individually to ID. But as has been pointed out, we will be spinning in circles until an FAQ comes out because everything hinges on the word inflict. ID can only be inflicted when its effects have been executed. A 3W, T4 model hit by S8 suffers from ID when it fails all applicable saves (i.e. ID has been inflicted as shown by the effects of reducing the W from 3 to 0 and removing the model as a casualty). When you add EW to the same stat line, ID has not been inflicted because the conditions defining ID no longer exist (i.e. the W stat is reduced from 3 to 2 and the model remains in play). FNP can be taken so long as the wound does not inflict ID and I contend ID is not inflicted without the effects.

Yes, he's immune to the effects of Instant Death while your interpretation means that the Instant Death rule never occurs.

Can someone make a Poll out of this? (i'm not 'Net savvy nor Dakka savvy enough to do it). Shameful, i know.

My BloodCrusher takes a Vindicator smack to the face. It's a STR 10 ID to my T5. ... but my BloodCrusher has ET, like any daemon, so ...

a. I have to roll against it and if I fail take 1 wound (skipping FNP)
b. I have to roll against it, and if my Invuln fails, I *get* to take a FNP to stay totally healthy?

Brothererekose wrote:Can someone make a Poll out of this? (i'm not 'Net savvy nor Dakka savvy enough to do it). Shameful, i know.

My BloodCrusher takes a Vindicator smack to the face. It's a STR 10 ID to my T5. ... but my BloodCrusher has ET, like any daemon, so ...

a. I have to roll against it and if I fail take 1 wound (skipping FNP)
b. I have to roll against it, and if my Invuln fails, I *get* to take a FNP to stay totally healthy?

This thread has a Poll attached to it.

PanzerLeader wrote:Actually, the word in EW is "immune" not "ignore". Models with EW are immune to the effects of Instant Death (pg 35). Now, I see your point on the sequencing because you are comparing FNP and EW individually to ID. But as has been pointed out, we will be spinning in circles until an FAQ comes out because everything hinges on the word inflict. ID can only be inflicted when its effects have been executed. A 3W, T4 model hit by S8 suffers from ID when it fails all applicable saves (i.e. ID has been inflicted as shown by the effects of reducing the W from 3 to 0 and removing the model as a casualty). When you add EW to the same stat line, ID has not been inflicted because the conditions defining ID no longer exist (i.e. the W stat is reduced from 3 to 2 and the model remains in play). FNP can be taken so long as the wound does not inflict ID and I contend ID is not inflicted without the effects.

Yes, he is immune to the effects, meaning the effects are ignored. But if you really insist here is an amended statement that doesn't change the facts:

1. The rule doesn't say he is immune to ID, he simply is immune to the effects. He doesn't ignore ID he ignores the effects. ID is inflicted but the effects if it are ignored. This is where the problems are coming from, people are ignoring the words that are inconvenient.

Like it or not ID happens, you simply fight on. It still happens and until you can show me a rule that tells you that my weapon loses its special rule or the ability to inflict ID then you cannot deny that it still happens. You can try, but you look really ridiculous. The definition of inflict was already posted and was shown to agree with us. If you are gonna deny the definition of the word inflict, and all logical derivatives of that then I fear I have nothing else to say to you.

Captain Antivas wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:Actually, the word in EW is "immune" not "ignore". Models with EW are immune to the effects of Instant Death (pg 35). Now, I see your point on the sequencing because you are comparing FNP and EW individually to ID. But as has been pointed out, we will be spinning in circles until an FAQ comes out because everything hinges on the word inflict. ID can only be inflicted when its effects have been executed. A 3W, T4 model hit by S8 suffers from ID when it fails all applicable saves (i.e. ID has been inflicted as shown by the effects of reducing the W from 3 to 0 and removing the model as a casualty). When you add EW to the same stat line, ID has not been inflicted because the conditions defining ID no longer exist (i.e. the W stat is reduced from 3 to 2 and the model remains in play). FNP can be taken so long as the wound does not inflict ID and I contend ID is not inflicted without the effects.

Yes, he is immune to the effects, meaning the effects are ignored. But if you really insist here is an amended statement that doesn't change the facts:

1. The rule doesn't say he is immune to ID, he simply is immune to the effects. He doesn't ignore ID he ignores the effects. ID is inflicted but the effects if it are ignored. This is where the problems are coming from, people are ignoring the words that are inconvenient.

Like it or not ID happens, you simply fight on. It still happens and until you can show me a rule that tells you that my weapon loses its special rule or the ability to inflict ID then you cannot deny that it still happens. You can try, but you look really ridiculous. The definition of inflict was already posted and was shown to agree with us. If you are gonna deny the definition of the word inflict, and all logical derivatives of that then I fear I have nothing else to say to you.

We will simply agree to disagree. I have already remarked that there was no need to be rude or condescending and you have done so again. It is possible to hold a discussion on rules without referring to someone as looking ridicilious or implying that they are stupid and incapable of logical reasoning. The mere fact of how split the poll results and the responses have been show that there is no simple solution to this (acknowledging that the majority does agree with you). Please try to watch your language when you respond to posts. The internet forums remove all vocal and body language cues and what might sound normal to you might not necessarily convey as such.

Xzerios wrote:Order of Operations

Your model inflicts ID.
Opponents model has EW. (x) wounds that have ID attribute do not ID that model. Model gets to make normal saves.
(x) wounds get past. Now we apply FNP.
Enemy model is unable to apply FNP as the wounds still have the ID rules applied to them, ignored by the EW special rule. EW rule does not apply to FNP, otherwise it would be written as such.

Your example doesn't work as the game developers failed to include something like an order of operations. Works wonderfully for games like MTG, but it might get in the way of the upgraded narrative elements of 6th edition.

I feel that ID is never inflicted on a model with EW, and therefore that model may take a FNP save.

When you ignore arguments made you look ridiculous. You don't look ridiculous because you are wrong but because you ignore points that are made and don't address them. This is not an insult but how I view people who argue without following the rules of debate. I also never said anything about you being stupid or unable to understand, I simply said you are choosing to ignore the logical derivatives. I chose the word ignore on purpose to avoid the implication that your choice of interpretation made you stupid. May I suggest not taking things so personally? This is an online forum afterall, not real life. I already told you I mean no insult and yet you continue to interpret it that way. Nothing else I can do.

It should also be pointed out that although I was quoting you I was not directing my words towards just you. This was directed at all people who refuse to address any point they cannot or simply do.t want to refute.

I said it once and I will say it again to everyone: I mean no disrespect or insult in anything I say. Please don't look too much into things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

helium42 wrote:

Xzerios wrote:Order of Operations

Your model inflicts ID.
Opponents model has EW. (x) wounds that have ID attribute do not ID that model. Model gets to make normal saves.
(x) wounds get past. Now we apply FNP.
Enemy model is unable to apply FNP as the wounds still have the ID rules applied to them, ignored by the EW special rule. EW rule does not apply to FNP, otherwise it would be written as such.

Your example doesn't work as the game developers failed to include something like an order of operations. Works wonderfully for games like MTG, but it might get in the way of the upgraded narrative elements of 6th edition.

I feel that ID is never inflicted on a model with EW, and therefore that model may take a FNP save.

Where is your proof? Where is the information I asked for? We have proven our point with rules and definitions. Where is yours?

helium42 wrote:

Xzerios wrote:Order of Operations

Your model inflicts ID.
Opponents model has EW. (x) wounds that have ID attribute do not ID that model. Model gets to make normal saves.
(x) wounds get past. Now we apply FNP.
Enemy model is unable to apply FNP as the wounds still have the ID rules applied to them, ignored by the EW special rule. EW rule does not apply to FNP, otherwise it would be written as such.

Your example doesn't work as the game developers failed to include something like an order of operations. Works wonderfully for games like MTG, but it might get in the way of the upgraded narrative elements of 6th edition.

I feel that ID is never inflicted on a model with EW, and therefore that model may take a FNP save.

There is an order of operations - it's implicit in how things resolve.
Wound is caused.
Model makes saves.
The ID status of a wound must be determined before FNP is rolled.
FNP is denied because of ID wounds.
Wounds are applied - because of EW the model is not reduced to 0 wounds nor is it removed (unless the wound would do that anyway).

Trying to imply that "inflict" must mean "wound is applied" means that FNP does nothing, ever. Because you're saying that the wound has to be applied before FNP is rolled.

helium42 wrote:I feel that ID is never inflicted on a model with EW, and therefore that model may take a FNP save.

Then why don't the rules say that? Because you can inflict Instant Death on a model with Eternal Warrior, it just doesn't do anything because you're immune to its effects. Its like a gretchin swinging on a Land Raider in close combat. He may not be able to harm it, but he is attacking it. By your logic, he never even took a swing at it.

Ghaz wrote:

helium42 wrote:I feel that ID is never inflicted on a model with EW, and therefore that model may take a FNP save.

Then why don't the rules say that? Because you can inflict Instant Death on a model with Eternal Warrior, it just doesn't do anything because you're immune to its effects. Its like a gretchin swinging on a Land Raider in close combat. He may not be able to harm it, but he is attacking it. By your logic, he never even took a swing at it.

That is actually a really good point.

DeathReaper wrote:

Brothererekose wrote:Can someone make a Poll out of this? (i'm not 'Net savvy nor Dakka savvy enough to do it). Shameful, i know.

My BloodCrusher takes a Vindicator smack to the face. It's a STR 10 ID to my T5. ... but my BloodCrusher has ET, like any daemon, so ...

a. I have to roll against it and if I fail take 1 wound (skipping FNP)
b. I have to roll against it, and if my Invuln fails, I *get* to take a FNP to stay totally healthy?

This thread has a Poll attached to it.

Well, I did say I wasn't too 'Net nor Dakka savvy.
Again, I'll put in a emoticon.

I think this is more like someone suffering a wound and then saving it. We would say that no wound was inflicted.

The difference here is that some of us feel that to 'inflict' instant death, instand death rules actually have to resolve, and there's no chance of this happening. Also, I would not make difference between being immune to effects of something and being immune to something. It's the same thing. In the end this is not clear rule, but I believe that my reading is how it is intended to work. GW rules are often written in a way that makes the intuitive common sense approach to be correct one over the legalistic hairsplitting one. Rules are not a logical syntax. And I would say that to average person it seems silly and counter intuitive to say that inflicting death happens but the character remains alive (unless he is a some sort of headless zombie wandering about thereafter.)

"The difference here is that some of us feel that to 'inflict' instant death, instand death rules actually have to resolve, and there's no chance of this happening"

Then prove, using rules, that this is actually correct, and do so without ignoring the quotes proving the contrary is actually true.

EW has never stopped FNP from being negated, so your "RAI" is also off

nosferatu1001 wrote:"The difference here is that some of us feel that to 'inflict' instant death, instand death rules actually have to resolve, and there's no chance of this happening"

Then prove, using rules, that this is actually correct, and do so without ignoring the quotes proving the contrary is actually true.

'inflict' is a vague term so it cannot be conclusively proven to either direction.

EW has never stopped FNP from being negated, so your "RAI" is also off

So is there an FAQ on the matter for older editions then? This actually could possibly convince me, as the rules concerned seem not to have changed.

It isnt vague - you have Inflicted Instant Death if you have fulfilled the criteria for the rule. Being immune to the effects doesnt stop ID having been inflicted.

Captain Antivas wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:Actually, the word in EW is "immune" not "ignore". Models with EW are immune to the effects of Instant Death (pg 35). Now, I see your point on the sequencing because you are comparing FNP and EW individually to ID. But as has been pointed out, we will be spinning in circles until an FAQ comes out because everything hinges on the word inflict. ID can only be inflicted when its effects have been executed. A 3W, T4 model hit by S8 suffers from ID when it fails all applicable saves (i.e. ID has been inflicted as shown by the effects of reducing the W from 3 to 0 and removing the model as a casualty). When you add EW to the same stat line, ID has not been inflicted because the conditions defining ID no longer exist (i.e. the W stat is reduced from 3 to 2 and the model remains in play). FNP can be taken so long as the wound does not inflict ID and I contend ID is not inflicted without the effects.

Yes, he is immune to the effects, meaning the effects are ignored. But if you really insist here is an amended statement that doesn't change the facts:

1. The rule doesn't say he is immune to ID, he simply is immune to the effects. He doesn't ignore ID he ignores the effects. ID is inflicted but the effects if it are ignored. This is where the problems are coming from, people are ignoring the words that are inconvenient.

Like it or not ID happens, you simply fight on. It still happens and until you can show me a rule that tells you that my weapon loses its special rule or the ability to inflict ID then you cannot deny that it still happens. You can try, but you look really ridiculous. The definition of inflict was already posted and was shown to agree with us. If you are gonna deny the definition of the word inflict, and all logical derivatives of that then I fear I have nothing else to say to you.

1) EW says he is immune to the effects of ID. One of the effects of ID is to negate FNP. Ergo, EW gets FNP.

Why is this so hard to understand??

"1) EW says he is immune to the effects of ID. One of the effects of ID is to negate FNP. Ergo, EW gets FNP.

Why is this so hard to understand??"

Well, when yhou change the rules to suit your viewpoint then its hard to understand why people are still arguing

ID stopping FNP is a RESTRICTION on FNP, it is NOT part of the ID rules nor EW.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"1) EW says he is immune to the effects of ID. One of the effects of ID is to negate FNP. Ergo, EW gets FNP.

Why is this so hard to understand??"

Well, when yhou change the rules to suit your viewpoint then its hard to understand why people are still arguing

ID stopping FNP is a RESTRICTION on FNP, it is NOT part of the ID rules nor EW.

It is still an effect of ID. ID has an effect on the FNP rule, which applies to a model with EW. Ergo, said effect is ignored. Not changing any rules...

So there was no FAQ on this for previous editions either?

Althornin wrote:It is still an effect of ID.

No, it's not. We know it because ID has listed effects.

ID has an effect on the FNP rule, which applies to a model with EW. Ergo, said effect is ignored. Not changing any rules...

ID has no effect on the FNP rule.
FNP has a restriction that references ID.

There's a difference.

Althornin wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:"1) EW says he is immune to the effects of ID. One of the effects of ID is to negate FNP. Ergo, EW gets FNP.

Why is this so hard to understand??"

Well, when yhou change the rules to suit your viewpoint then its hard to understand why people are still arguing

ID stopping FNP is a RESTRICTION on FNP, it is NOT part of the ID rules nor EW.

It is still an effect of ID. ID has an effect on the FNP rule, which applies to a model with EW. Ergo, said effect is ignored. Not changing any rules...

Show me where in the EW rule FNP is changed. In fact, show me in the ID rule itself where it has an effect on FNP. You seem to be forgetting that this is a permissive ruleset. If it doesn't say it you don't get to do it. You cannot claim that something is the effect of something else simply because you think it is. Unless the rule states that it is modifying something it has no effect on that rule. As I have been told before, deduce = making up rules. Ergo = making up rules.

An effect is something that happens as a result of something. A restriction is something that cannot happen as a result of something. Effects happen, restrictions stop things from happening. Effects are written in the rules for something, restrictions are written within their own rules. The FNP rule is restricted by ID by nature of the FNP rule itself, not ID. ID makes no mention of FNP so it has no effect on it. EW restricts ID, it has no effect on FNP. EW is a restriction not an effect. The effects of ID are clear and not being able to take a FNP roll is not one of them.

thisisnotpancho wrote:Eternal Warrior states that it "ignores the effects of Instant Death"

One of the "effects" of instant death is the ability to ignore FNP

ergo Eternal warriors with fnp always get it

The FNP rule doesn't have Eternal Warrior - it can't ignore ID.

Althornin wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:"1) EW says he is immune to the effects of ID. One of the effects of ID is to negate FNP. Ergo, EW gets FNP.

Why is this so hard to understand??"

Well, when yhou change the rules to suit your viewpoint then its hard to understand why people are still arguing

ID stopping FNP is a RESTRICTION on FNP, it is NOT part of the ID rules nor EW.

It is still an effect of ID. ID has an effect on the FNP rule, which applies to a model with EW. Ergo, said effect is ignored. Not changing any rules...

Wrong. FNP has a restriction. EW ignores the effects of ID. The two are not connected, no matter how much you try to change tyhe rule to say exactly what the "FNP works" side have been incorrectly using all the way through.

Find the restriction on FNP in the ID or the EW rule. You cant? Then they dont work as you say.

RAW, Eternal warrior allows you to ignore the effects of Instant death. One of the effects of instant death is denies feel no pain RAW directly states that you do in fact get the Feel No Pain roll.
RAI, could be argued either way, personally I don't think it makes a ton of sense that you would get the feel no pain. If a railgun puts a bullet through your shoulder your going to feel it, you might have the strength of will to keep fighting with a watermelon sized hole in you but your definitely going to feel that.

Tekik wrote:One of the effects of instant death is denies feel no pain RAW directly states that you do in fact get the Feel No Pain roll.

Absolutely false. Denying FNP is not an effect of Instant Death. You cannot cite a rule saying that it is because one doesn't exist.