Does T'au Strength of Belief stack with Sense of Stone?

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.

**mokoshkana**

BaconCatBug wrote:
The "Ignoring Wounds" rule Special Snowflakes in Tenacious Survivor even if the rule itself doesn't use the term "ignore".

Yes, but as you have shown numerous times, what GW intended and what they actually wrote are two different things. Since we can only play the rules as written, we have can't lend any credence to intentions from the designers that aren't explicitly stated. They wrote the "Ignoring Wounds" rule in such a fashion that they used a non-viable example (Tenacious Survivor).

**Nighttail**

mokoshkana wrote:
Nighttail wrote:
To me, your claim that ignoring a mortal wound is equivalent to ignoring damage is, like I previously mentioned, essentially like saying ignoring a lascannon wound is equivalent to ignoring damage. Hence one would not be able to use both Disgustingly Resilient and Cataphractii Armour to prevent the Deathshroud Terminator from dying due to them both being abilities that ignore damage.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this view, but currently to me the rule seems pretty clear from a RAW standpoint at least.
Except you are using the wrong wording. Saving throws prevent damage, they don't ignore it. Check the battle primer:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Warhammer-40k-Battle-Primer-English.pdf

But here's an example for you to stick in your RAW bag:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/20/chapter-focus-iron-hands-july20gw-homepage-post-3/
The Flesh is Weak specifically says that the damage is ignored, where as the Warlord trait Tenacious Survivor only states the wound is "shrugged off." We cannot infer that "shrugged off" is equivalent to "ignores" because there is nothing in the rule book stating that the two are equivalent. So, even though both abilities are given as examples of rules which should not stack in the FAQ, we must allow them to stack because of RAW.

It doesn't really matter what wording GW uses to confer that a rule is preventing damage from being dealt to the model. What matters is whether it's damage or wounds that are prevented. A saving throw prevents a wound, like that of a lasgun or a lascannon. Special rules that prevent damage prevents the damage, for a lasgun this would be 1 and for a lascannon this would be D6. In your example of Tenacious Survivor and The Flesh Is Weak both cases mention "damage". The confusing part here is that they also mention that "the model does not lose the wound". There's two kinds of wounds. A wound is either a model's "health", where one damage equals one lost wound on the model. A model starts with X as their Wound characteristic, and each damage inflicted reduces the models remaining wounds by 1 until the model has 0 wounds remaining in which it is removed from play as a casualty. The other wound is wounds from weapons. When a weapon hits a target you need to roll to see if it wounds the target, this is the "wound" roll. If the weapon successfully wounds the target, the target gets a saving throw equal to its save characteristic (minus any AP). If the save is failed the "wound" will inflict an amount of damage equal to its damage characteristic. The wounded model then loses this many of its remaining wounds.

Therefore, a mortal wound is not one damage. A mortal wound is a wound, and if the model fails its save (which it gets none), the model suffers one damage. Stating that one mortal wound equals one damage is like stating a lasgun equals one damage. Yes, both of these wounds will inflict one damage on the model if it fails it save, but the wounds themselves are not damage.

**BaconCatBug**

mokoshkana wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
The "Ignoring Wounds" rule Special Snowflakes in Tenacious Survivor even if the rule itself doesn't use the term "ignore".
Yes, but as you have shown numerous times, what GW intended and what they actually wrote are two different things. Since we can only play the rules as written, we have can't lend any credence to intentions from the designers that aren't explicitly stated. They wrote the "Ignoring Wounds" rule in such a fashion that they used a non-viable example (Tenacious Survivor).

No, the RaW makes a special exception that ignores the rest of the rules, much like GW's Special Snowflake FAQs or other rules that ignore previous rules (e.g. Genestealers can charge even if they advanced).

**mokoshkana**

Nighttail wrote:
It doesn't really matter what wording GW uses to confer that a rule is preventing damage from being dealt to the model. What matters is whether it's damage or wounds that are prevented. A saving throw prevents a wound, like that of a lasgun or a lascannon.

The wording used does matter. Saying otherwise is just silly. Also, read the primer I linked. The rules specifically state that saving throws prevent damage, not wounds.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaconCatBug wrote:
mokoshkana wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
The "Ignoring Wounds" rule Special Snowflakes in Tenacious Survivor even if the rule itself doesn't use the term "ignore".
Yes, but as you have shown numerous times, what GW intended and what they actually wrote are two different things. Since we can only play the rules as written, we have can't lend any credence to intentions from the designers that aren't explicitly stated. They wrote the "Ignoring Wounds" rule in such a fashion that they used a non-viable example (Tenacious Survivor).
No, the RaW makes a special exception that ignores the rest of the rules, much like GW's Special Snowflake FAQs or other rules that ignore previous rules (e.g. Genestealers can charge even if they advanced).

So then, you are saying that only those three abilities are effected by the rule?

**nekooni**

Nighttail wrote:

As you can see, a mortal wound does inflict damage. Ignoring a mortal wound is ignoring damage.

I can see where you're coming from, but from my point of view it's like this. A mortal wound is a wound that inflicts 1 damage with no saves of any kind allowed. Think of a mortal wound like a lasgun wound, but one that ignores invulnerable and armour saves. As per the Mortal Wound section from the BRB:
"Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above".
Described above is the allocate wound, saving throw and inflict damage step, in order. Therefore a mortal wound has to first be allocated to a model (as per the "allocate wound" step), then the model may take a saving throw (though no invulnerable or armour saves), then after this the model will suffer the damage from the mortal wound, in this case one damage. This damage can now be prevented through Sense of Stone.

Strength of Belief says "Roll a D6 for each mortal wound inflicted on your Warlord; on a 5+, that mortal wound is ignored and has no effect". A mortal wound is inflicted on your warlord when you choose to allocated the mortal wound to your warlord, which happens before the saving throw step. Therefore, Strength of Belief would be used two steps before the inflict damage step where one rolls for Sense of Stone. Again, as per the FAQ: "Some units have abilities that allow them to ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound [...]".

To summorize; Strength of Belief prevents the wound, Sense of Stone prevents the damage. Only abilities that prevent damage have been FAQ'd to not stack.

To me, your claim that ignoring a mortal wound is equivalent to ignoring damage is, like I previously mentioned, essentially like saying ignoring a lascannon wound is equivalent to ignoring damage. Hence one would not be able to use both Disgustingly Resilient and Cataphractii Armour to prevent the Deathshroud Terminator from dying due to them both being abilities that ignore damage.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this view, but currently to me the rule seems pretty clear from a RAW standpoint at least.

Mortal wounds do not allow any kind of saving throw. Basically, that step is skipped. Strength of Belief and Sense of Stone allow you to ignore wounds.

Whenever a model in an affected unit loses a wound, roll a D6; on a 6, that model does not lose that wound.

Roll a D6 for each mortal wound inflicted on your Warlord; on a 5+, that mortal wound is ignored and has no effect.

The FAQ says this:

Some units have abilities that allow them to ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound (...). If a model has more than one such ability, you can only use
one of those abilities each time the model loses a wound.

Technically speaking this sentence doesn't make much sense if you try to use "damage" as a technical rule term since according to Step 5 "Inflict Damage" damage turns into wounds lost, not the other way around. Therefore "damage" is (most likely) just a descriptive term here, and "loses a wound" is the key instead.

A mortal wound "inflicts one point of damage on the target unit" which you allocate "as you would any other wound", but skipping both the wound roll and saving throw. Then the model loses one wound for each point of damage. Both abilities allow you to ignore the wound loss, therefore you can only use one of them.

But lets be honest:

If you want to stack these rules, the RAW - if read very strictly - allows you to do that due to the "each wound" wording. If you don't want them to stack, you can argue that it's quite obviously intended to not stack anymore.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mokoshkana wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
The "Ignoring Wounds" rule Special Snowflakes in Tenacious Survivor even if the rule itself doesn't use the term "ignore".
Yes, but as you have shown numerous times, what GW intended and what they actually wrote are two different things. Since we can only play the rules as written, we have can't lend any credence to intentions from the designers that aren't explicitly stated. They wrote the "Ignoring Wounds" rule in such a fashion that they used a non-viable example (Tenacious Survivor).

I'm pretty sure I'm able to play RAI. Example: Assault Weapons.

**mokoshkana**

nekooni wrote:
mokoshkana wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
The "Ignoring Wounds" rule Special Snowflakes in Tenacious Survivor even if the rule itself doesn't use the term "ignore".
Yes, but as you have shown numerous times, what GW intended and what they actually wrote are two different things. Since we can only play the rules as written, we have can't lend any credence to intentions from the designers that aren't explicitly stated. They wrote the "Ignoring Wounds" rule in such a fashion that they used a non-viable example (Tenacious Survivor).

I'm pretty sure I'm able to play RAI. Example: Assault Weapons.

I'm with you. I play by the intent where necessary, but BCB only plays by RAW. He chastises those who play RAI.

**BaconCatBug**

mokoshkana wrote:
So then, you are saying that only those three abilities are effected by the rule?

If it said i.e., then yeah, it would. However it says e.g., so it affects all rules that ignore wounds in addition to the ones listed as examples, even if the examples aren't strictly ignore wounds. I'll leave it to the reader to get the definitions of i.e. and e.g. and why they differ. I also commend you on become a literal meme.

Also I just noticed they didn't fix it for T'au Early Warning Override. Fan-Tucking-Fastic.

And yes, GW does care about i.e. vs e.g., otherwise they would not have changed Wych Drugs between Index and Codex.

mokoshkana wrote:
nekooni wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'm able to play RAI. Example: Assault Weapons.
I'm with you. I play by the intent where necessary, but BCB only plays by RAW. He chastises those who play RAI.

I don't chastise people who play RaI, I chastise people who claim RaI is playing by the rules. You're free to House Rule, Break Rules or Make Up Rules all you want, but don't for even one septillionth of a femtosecond pretend you're then also playing by the rules.

**mokoshkana**

BaconCatBug wrote:
mokoshkana wrote:
So then, you are saying that only those three abilities are effected by the rule?
If it said i.e., then yeah, it would. However it says e.g., so it affects all rules that ignore wounds in addition to the ones listed as examples, even if the examples aren't strictly ignore wounds.

But that's not how the rule is written. It only states abilities which allow them to ignore damage, not wounds. Only the Flesh is Weak actually has the wording to match what is written in the "Ignoring Wounds" rule.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaconCatBug wrote:
mokoshkana wrote:
nekooni wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'm able to play RAI. Example: Assault Weapons.
I'm with you. I play by the intent where necessary, but BCB only plays by RAW. He chastises those who play RAI.
I don't chastise people who play RaI, I chastise people who claim RaI is playing by the rules. You're free to House Rule, Break Rules or Make Up Rules all you want, but don't for even one septillionth of a femtosecond pretend you're then also playing by the rules.

You got me, I don't play by the rules, and neither do you. Nor does anyone except the guys who make them up at GW. At the end of the day, we all interpret the words as written based off of precedents of the English language. Only the dudes who wrote said words know the correct interpretation. We all lose, including you.

**BaconCatBug**

mokoshkana wrote:
You got me, I don't play by the rules, and neither do you. Nor does anyone except the guys who make them up at GW. At the end of the day, we all interpret the words as written based off of precedents of the English language. Only the dudes who wrote said words know the correct interpretation. We all lose, including you.

We use the English Language to parse the rules. It's the only way the rules can work. That, along with "Specific overrides General" are the two unspoken tenets that allow the game, or any game, to work. What you're saying here isn't "playing by RaW", it's just being childish because you lost an internet fight.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mokoshkana wrote:
But that's not how the rule is written. It only states abilities which allow them to ignore damage, not wounds. Only the Flesh is Weak actually has the wording to match what is written in the "Ignoring Wounds" rule.

Like I said, it doesn't matter that Tenacious Survivor doesn't use the phrase "Ignore Wound" because the rule treats it like the Special Snowflake it is and includes it in the rules that are affected by the Ignoring Wounds rule. If it had said "Strength of Belief" instead, we'd not have this issue!

**mokoshkana**

BaconCatBug wrote:
We use the English Language to parse the rules. It's the only way the rules can work.

Citation?

BaconCatBug wrote:
That, along with "Specific overrides General" are the two unspoken tenets that allow the game, or any game, to work.

Citation?

BaconCatBug wrote:
What you're saying here isn't "playing by RaW", it's just being childish because you lost an internet fight.

I'm pretty sure I didn't lose anything. My points are clear and concise, and you have yet to show me how your "interpretation" of the rules is the correct version.

**BaconCatBug**

mokoshkana wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
We use the English Language to parse the rules. It's the only way the rules can work.
Citation?

BaconCatBug wrote:
That, along with "Specific overrides General" are the two unspoken tenets that allow the game, or any game, to work.
Citation?

BaconCatBug wrote:
What you're saying here isn't "playing by RaW", it's just being childish because you lost an internet fight.
I'm pretty sure I didn't lose anything. My points are clear and concise, and you have yet to show me how your "interpretation" of the rules is the correct version.

I see you didn't read the rest of my post. I can't cite them because for the game to work at all you need those to be true. You're free to go around screaming about how the game doesn't function. And people get annoyed at me? And the great thing about being a RaW purist is that I don't need to rely on "interpretations", because what I say is factually true. The only need for "interpretations" is when a rule or FAQ is literally written ambiguously (my favourite example being the Auxiliary Detachment and less than 0 CP question), which the new rule in question is not.

**mokoshkana**

BaconCatBug wrote:
mokoshkana wrote:
But that's not how the rule is written. It only states abilities which allow them to ignore damage, not wounds. Only the Flesh is Weak actually has the wording to match what is written in the "Ignoring Wounds" rule.
Like I said, it doesn't matter that Tenacious Survivor doesn't use the phrase "Ignore Wound" because the rule treats it like the Special Snowflake it is and includes it in the rules that are affected by the Ignoring Wounds rule. If it had said "Strength of Belief" instead, we'd not have this issue!

So you state that those thee abilities are examples of the "Ignoring Wounds" rule even though the verbiage isn't a match to what the rule requires, but then you have the audacity to state "Strength of Belief" doesn't fit into the same category because it isn't specifically listed? Your version of rules is something else.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaconCatBug wrote:
mokoshkana wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
We use the English Language to parse the rules. It's the only way the rules can work.
Citation?

BaconCatBug wrote:
That, along with "Specific overrides General" are the two unspoken tenets that allow the game, or any game, to work.
Citation?

BaconCatBug wrote:
What you're saying here isn't "playing by RaW", it's just being childish because you lost an internet fight.
I'm pretty sure I didn't lose anything. My points are clear and concise, and you have yet to show me how your "interpretation" of the rules is the correct version.
I see you didn't read the rest of my post. I can't cite them because for the game to work at all you need those to be true. You're free to go around screaming about how the game doesn't function. And people get annoyed at me? And the great thing about being a RaW purist is that I don't need to rely on "interpretations", because what I say is factually true. The only need for "interpretations" is when a rule or FAQ is literally written ambiguously (my favourite example being the Auxiliary Detachment and less than 0 CP question), which the new rule in question is not.

But you are relying on your interpretations. You know better than GW because you have a book and some files that clearly supersede actual products released by GW.

**doctortom**

BaconCatBug wrote:
mokoshkana wrote:
nekooni wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'm able to play RAI. Example: Assault Weapons.
I'm with you. I play by the intent where necessary, but BCB only plays by RAW. He chastises those who play RAI.
I don't chastise people who play RaI, I chastise people who claim RaI is playing by the rules. You're free to House Rule, Break Rules or Make Up Rules all you want, but don't for even one septillionth of a femtosecond pretend you're then also playing by the rules.

Neatly ignoring the fact that the R in RAI stands for Rules. But we wouldn't want to let that fact get in the way of your

**nekooni**

BaconCatBug wrote:

mokoshkana wrote:
nekooni wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'm able to play RAI. Example: Assault Weapons.
I'm with you. I play by the intent where necessary, but BCB only plays by RAW. He chastises those who play RAI.
I don't chastise people who play RaI, I chastise people who claim RaI is playing by the rules. You're free to House Rule, Break Rules or Make Up Rules all you want, but don't for even one septillionth of a femtosecond pretend you're then also playing by the rules.

We both follow the rules, it's just that you go out of your way to use the rules exactly as they are written - even if that obviously violates the intent - and I try to play the game as it was envisioned to be played by it's creators. Again - example: Assault Weapons.
I'd rather adhere to the spirit of the rules than the wording of the rules.

**BaconCatBug**

And who gets to define the "spirit" of the rules? Why you? Why not me?

**Octopoid**

BaconCatBug wrote:
And who gets to define the "spirit" of the rules? Why you? Why not me?

The problem is no one can actually KNOW the spirit of the rules (also called the Rules As Intended, or RAI). We can make guesses based on the information we have available to us, but we can't actually KNOW. This is why we are, on this forum, encouraged to debate the facts we DO have, i.e. the Rules as Written, or RAW. With the RAW, the only ambiguity is the meaning of words in the language, which introduces more than enough ambiguity without us throwing "intentions" and "spirit of the rules" in there to further muddy the waters.

Play what you like at your own table, but don't expect anyone else to treat your "spirit" as gospel. This is, I think, what BCB is trying to say.

**BaconCatBug**

Octopoid wrote:
Play what you like at your own table, but don't expect anyone else to treat your "spirit" as gospel. This is, I think, what BCB is trying to say.

You're one of the first to realise that. Using terms like "spirit" or "intended" is inherently an untenable position to take. I can argue that my Ultramarines all automatically hit and wound, rules as "intended" and it's no more or less valid than any other "intended" argument.

**doctortom**

BaconCatBug wrote:
And who gets to define the "spirit" of the rules? Why you? Why not me?

The game designers, who have occasionally stated what their intention with the rules are, and at other times have indicated with some rules what they intend even if there's another rule preventing it by strict RAW (firing assault weapons after advancind, firing pistols when within 1" of a unit, 4th edition terminators wearing terminator armor, etc.) Someone playing by what the rules designers have said is their intention is playing by the rules - the rules as the game designers intended, even if it's not the rules as written..

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaconCatBug wrote:
Octopoid wrote:
Play what you like at your own table, but don't expect anyone else to treat your "spirit" as gospel. This is, I think, what BCB is trying to say.

You're one of the first to realise that. Using terms like "spirit" or "intended" is inherently an untenable position to take. I can argue that my Ultramarines all automatically hit and wound, rules as "intended" and it's no more or less valid than any other "intended" argument.

If we get the game designers saying that they intended for your Ultramarines to all automatically hit and wound, sure, we'll let you play it that way. Statements about intention from the game designer should not be treated with as little validity as your claims that guardsmen should have 30 wounds, or Ultramarines should automatically hit and wound, however, and you do a disservice when you dismiss them like that

**BaconCatBug**

"I talked to the designers, they said anyone who's name begins with B automatically wins. Prove me wrong."

That is what you sound like. The designers already have an avenue for letting us know how the rules are meant to work, it's called Errata and FAQs.

**hollow one**

I imagine BCB starts a thread like this in a bunker. He's shined all his bullets, oiled the hurricane bolter, thrown on his top hat and shouts his rules interpretation at the top of his voice... waiting for the horde of "reasonable" interpretations to approach.

**An Actual Englishman**

I don't understand the point of these threads. Bcb do you just want to argue because you're clearly not interested in anyone's opinion unless it's the same as your own.

The rules regarding 'no stacking saves on wounds' are crystal clear. You can't do it. Whether the ability only affects mortal wounds only or not is irrelevant as the rules state 'wounds' which mortal wounds also happen to be.

As to the argument of 'you don't know the intent of the rules writers, you're making it up and house ruling' gibberish it's obviously wrong. The rules designers have written their intent before the rule itself. It couldn't be clearer. If you give your Tau opponent 2 saves in this instance you are breaking RAW and RAI, which is your prerogative.

E - the RAW answer was given on the first page and can be found here:
From the central FAQ document:

Some units have abilities that allow them to ignore damage suffered, and it is possible for some units to gain more than one such ability. These abilities have stacked in an unintended way, and as a result we have changed their interaction such that if a model has more than one such ability you will now only be able to use one of them against each lost
wound.

Note the bold. Ignore damage suffered. This does not distinguish between mortal and 'normal' wounds. It doesn't need to as damage is applied to a model consistently. Your opponent was trying to use two of these abilities against each damage (and therefore wound) suffered which RAW is wrong.

**BaconCatBug**

Except that sentence is not an official FAQ or errata. Which "FAQ document" are you talking about? I don't see it in the Rulebook FAQ or the "The Big FAQ" document. Can you tell me which PDF found here I can find that?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don't understand the point of these threads. Bcb do you just want to argue because you're clearly not interested in anyone's opinion unless it's the same as your own.

I am very much interested in other opinions, but you need to convince me with rules citations to do so. For example my good friend and (seemingly newly converted) fellow RaW-is-king buddy JohnnyHell was able to convince me that a Tyrant Guard with Lashwhip can absorb an infinite amount of damage via Shieldwall between the time they die and the time they fight. He provided a reasonable, rules based argument to which I accepted as correct, while my initial view was faulty.

I know for a fact I've had at least two other discussions where my initial premise was indeed faulty and another's argument corrected my misconception, but I cannot remember off hand (I am old and senile) what they were so I can search for them to link. If any of my e-stalkers happens to have those links please share!

**nekooni**

Octopoid wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
And who gets to define the "spirit" of the rules? Why you? Why not me?

The problem is no one can actually KNOW the spirit of the rules (also called the Rules As Intended, or RAI). We can make guesses based on the information we have available to us, but we can't actually KNOW. This is why we are, on this forum, encouraged to debate the facts we DO have, i.e. the Rules as Written, or RAW. With the RAW, the only ambiguity is the meaning of words in the language, which introduces more than enough ambiguity without us throwing "intentions" and "spirit of the rules" in there to further muddy the waters.

Play what you like at your own table, but don't expect anyone else to treat your "spirit" as gospel. This is, I think, what BCB is trying to say.

Sure, then maybe he should try harder at communicating properly.

Sadly the stance that "we should just play based on the written word in the books + FAQ" leads to the game basically being broken since stuff like Assault weapons or Pistols no longer do what they're supposed to do. Or is your stance that the RAW on those is the only way to play the game properly? Because BCB - from what I can tell - thinks so, and apparently actually plays 40k like that. You advanced with your Assault weapon-equipped squad? Tough luck, can't shoot at all.

I feel like we actually are able to discuss more than just the written word in the rulebooks. Especially if there are additional statements by the game designers. Those are also facts we have. They're just being ignored by certain people due to the delivery method of those facts. It's not random statements from random people.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaconCatBug wrote:
Except that sentence is not an official FAQ or errata. Which "FAQ document" are you talking about? I don't see it in the Rulebook FAQ or the "The Big FAQ" document. Can you tell me which PDF found here I can find that?

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_The_Big_FAQ_1_2018_en.pdf
Page 4, last paragraph. It's what we've been talking about for how many pages?

**BaconCatBug**

nekooni wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
Except that sentence is not an official FAQ or errata. Which "FAQ document" are you talking about? I don't see it in the Rulebook FAQ or the "The Big FAQ" document. Can you tell me which PDF found here I can find that?

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_The_Big_FAQ_1_2018_en.pdf
Page 4, last paragraph. It's what we've been talking about for how many pages?

Like I said, I am getting old. I apologise. Fair enough, it's in the FAQ document but it's not an actual Question then Answer FAQ. It's just telling you to go read the errata. If the FAQ preamble said "We intend Ultramarines to always hit" but the rule then said "Ultramarines hit on a 2+", would you not play it the way the rule actually says? It's not an actual Special Snowflake FAQ ala No Moving After Reinforcements For Any Reason.

Tell me, if they wanted the rule to not stack "abilities that allow them to ignore damage suffered", why did they not write the errata that way? I willingly admit it's GW failing to write the rule properly, but that doesn't change what the rule does.

The simple fact is they wrote the rule to only apply to abilities that work "each time it loses a wound." Strength of Belief is not such an ability.

**alextroy**

The rule itself gives three examples of rules it covers. If the given examples do should not apply by your reading of the RAW then it is your interpretation of the rule that is incorrect. They are not “special snowflake” unclusions to the rule, they are the rules writers explicit direction on what sort of abilites the rule applies to.

**An Actual Englishman**

Bcb can I suggest in future you post the rule(s) in full that you want to discuss so we can save all this time?

Nekooni gets it and he's the one who bothered to dig out the answer for you.

**nekooni**

BaconCatBug wrote:
nekooni wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
Except that sentence is not an official FAQ or errata. Which "FAQ document" are you talking about? I don't see it in the Rulebook FAQ or the "The Big FAQ" document. Can you tell me which PDF found here I can find that?

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_The_Big_FAQ_1_2018_en.pdf
Page 4, last paragraph. It's what we've been talking about for how many pages?

Like I said, I am getting old. I apologise. Fair enough, it's in the FAQ document but it's not an actual Question then Answer FAQ. It's just telling you to go read the errata.

What's your point? The whole paragraph is on a page titled "Interim Balance Review". It a) references the specific errata document ("Warhammer 40.000 rulebook errata") and b) even prints said errata for our convenience. Which is what was quoted.
And if you're still unhappy with it being in the "Big FAQ" document despite it not being an "actual Question then Answer FAQ": It's - oddly enough - even in the Warhammer 40.000 rulebook "Official Update Version 1.2" on page 1:

Warhammer 40.000 Rulebook Official Update Version 1.2 wrote:Page 181 – Ignoring Wounds
Add the following as a boxout on this page:
‘Ignoring Wounds
Some units have abilities that allow them to ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound (e.g. Disgustingly Resilient, The Flesh is Weak and Tenacious Survivor). If a model has more than one such ability, you can only use one of those abilities each time the model loses a wound.’

"That sentence" is the errata.

If the FAQ preamble said "We intend Ultramarines to always hit" but the rule then said "Ultramarines hit on a 2+", would you not play it the way the rule actually says?

That's not what the FAQ, any preamble or the errata talk about. They talk about abilities that allow you to ignore wounds no longer stacking, and it gives a few examples. If you take the "each" as an intended part of the rule, the list of examples does not work - which, to me, is a clear indication that the intent is to have a coherent ruling on all "ignore wounds"-type abilities, and not a "snowflake ruling" on "ignore all wounds"-type abilities. RAW you're correct (I'm pretty sure I've said so earlier), but I'm pretty confident that GW didn't want it to work like that.

**mokoshkana**

Lol what a joke. Bcb, you literally just can't be wrong can you? First it's not in the FAQ, then when you're proven wrong, you act like it's only flavor text and as such does not count.