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.

Except the secondary effect CANNOT OCCUR - because you have ignored the event which triggers the effect: if you ignore the wound, the wound has not occured and so you cannot take the test that results from taking a wound.

Re: least advantageous - we "know" FNP works, so the only query is whether you reduce FNP to not ignoring wounds (which is technically rendering it useless) OR accepting that the hex rifle needs a real, solid, you have definitely taken an unsaved wound, which one saved by FNP cannot be.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The text tells you the wound occurs as normal on a 1 - 3, and on a 4 -6 the "injury" is ignored.

The text tells you to "take the wound as normal (removing the model if it loses its final wound)."

The unsaved wound has already occurred by the time you start rolling for FNP.

It's convenient to change the wording to suit your argument, but not all that helpful.

Nothing you have stated there alters the argument (that injury == wound, in this context) that ignoring the wound must mean entirely ignoring the wound.

Nothing you have stated alters the argument that ignoring the injury must mean simply not subtracting a wound from a model's profile.

You see how that works? Both of us have different interpretations of a nebulous wording. Neither of us can know for sure which is correct without an official clarification.

Unfortunately, you still have the hurdle of "why does FNP get applied before anything else?" to overcome.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nothing you have stated there alters the argument (that injury == wound, in this context) that ignoring the wound must mean entirely ignoring the wound.

yes but the hex rifle special rule only cares if you "saved" the wound. no where in the FNP rule does it say its a save of any kind, it does aloow you to skip the application of the wound to the profile. this is not a "save".

as has been pointed out there is specifically a different term "takes a wound" , and another one "suffers a wound" these would be ignored because they require a wound be deducted. The hex rifle doesnt care if the wound is applied or not, it only cares that it was not "saved".

if you fail your armor/invul/cover "save" you take the wounds test, because FNP is NOT a save, and does not say it is any kind of a "save" anywhere. and has been pointed out technically raw it does nothing as injury is not a defined term in the BBB.


<sarcasm>but 6th is coming and will make all of these rules arguments pointless because it will be perfect and have no uncertainites</sarcasm>

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nothing you have stated there alters the argument (that injury == wound, in this context) that ignoring the wound must mean entirely ignoring the wound.

In the case of FNP, I think it's pretty clear that "injury" refers to "unsaved wound" and not "wound."

Under the normal order of things, a hit may cause a wound, a wound may cause an unsaved wound, and an unsaved wound can cause a "wound" (that is, the model is removed from play or has it's wound characteristic reduced).

Under normal circumstances, an "unsaved wound" always directly corresponds to a "wound." FNP changes this, it makes the transition from "unsaved wound" to "wound" conditional on the FNP test. So, if you roll a 1-3 on a FNP test, the model suffers a "wound" as normal (is removed from play or reduces the model's wound characteristic). However, if you roll a 4-6, the rule tells us to "ignore the injury." This can't be a "wound" because the model hasn't suffered a "wound" yet, it still has an "unsaved wound" that the FNP test has not converted to a "wound."

Therefore, the only injury that can be ignored is the "unsaved wound."

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the secondary effect CANNOT OCCUR - because you have ignored the event which triggers the effect: if you ignore the wound, the wound has not occured and so you cannot take the test that results from taking a wound.

Re: least advantageous - we "know" FNP works, so the only query is whether you reduce FNP to not ignoring wounds (which is technically rendering it useless) OR accepting that the hex rifle needs a real, solid, you have definitely taken an unsaved wound, which one saved by FNP cannot be.

But the wound has occured, you just get to ignore it, and I think thats the crux. The test is not based on taking a wound, but the model suffering an unsaved wound, which it has to have otherwise FnP can't be initiated. Whether or not that wound is then discounted has confused the entire situation.

FnP has not been rendered useless, it just doesn't take effect on the RMFP wounds test, as highlighted in my earlier post.

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote: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

Dependent as opposite of independent. No matter what the result of Hexrifle is, it would never affect the the Feel No Pain roll. However, if the unsaved wound is ignored, Hexrifle does nothing.

Again, RL issues have no bearing on rules. A big mek allows you to ignore a weapon destroyed result. Does that mean further weapon destroyed results can destroy that weapon again? Of course, there is no "ignored destroyed weapon" floating around, the "damaged"-result simply counts as never happened.
Also, from the (irrelevant) fluff perspective, most sources of Feel No Pain are medics, healers or biotic implants, "ignoring an injury" might just as well being the effect of the shot being gone altogether due to first aid(in whatever form) on the battlefield. I don't know that, you don't know that, and no fluff author as even thought about that. That's why fluff is irelevant to rules.

lixulana wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nothing you have stated there alters the argument (that injury == wound, in this context) that ignoring the wound must mean entirely ignoring the wound.

yes but the hex rifle special rule only cares if you "saved" the wound. no where in the FNP rule does it say its a save of any kind, it does aloow you to skip the application of the wound to the profile. this is not a "save".

But what wound? There isn't one.

as has been pointed out there is specifically a different term "takes a wound" , and another one "suffers a wound" these would be ignored because they require a wound be deducted. The hex rifle doesnt care if the wound is applied or not, it only cares that it was not "saved".

Actually, a unit suffers a wound in the second the shooting unit succeeds its to-wound roll.

if you fail your armor/invul/cover "save" you take the wounds test, because FNP is NOT a save, and does not say it is any kind of a "save" anywhere. and has been pointed out technically raw it does nothing as injury is not a defined term in the BBB.

RAW, injury is referring to either wound or unsaved wound. Whichever it is, the wound never happened. Compare this to ignoring damage results on rhinos, grot riggers and big meks.

<sarcasm>but 6th is coming and will make all of these rules arguments pointless because it will be perfect and have no uncertainites</sarcasm>

Rumor has it, that they fired the guy who oversaw 5th. Even if it isn't a regular FAQ update or a consistent rules hotline/email, would make this forum a short questions and answers thing.

Okay Jidmah, lets out it another way,

What is the precondition for a FnP test?

What is the precondition for the HR test?

Does the result of the FnP say the wound is ignored or it never happened?

Cheers

Andrew

Ignored and never happened is the same.

Except that injury has no definition. I interpret injury as the result of suffering an unsaved wound - the removing a wound from the model's profile.

Some people here arguing that FNP superceeds the HR are stating that ignoring an injury inarguably means you ignore the unsaved wound. Yet, there is no rule delineating this.

Since the term injury is never defined, there is no clear raw answer to this. Both sides have valid interpretations, so it really just comes down to how you and your opponent can agree to play it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

I agree completely that this is not clear, and even though your attempt to infer the mindset of the authors seems solid, it is not solid enough to base an interpretation from. Try going over that with someone at your gaming table as a way of convincing them FNP denies the HR when they don't agree, and I bet you get an annoyed player.

AndrewC wrote: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.

This was exactly my thoughts when I read the "least advantageous" argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the secondary effect CANNOT OCCUR - because you have ignored the event which triggers the effect: if you ignore the wound, the wound has not occured and so you cannot take the test that results from taking a wound.

Re: least advantageous - we "know" FNP works, so the only query is whether you reduce FNP to not ignoring wounds (which is technically rendering it useless) OR accepting that the hex rifle needs a real, solid, you have definitely taken an unsaved wound, which one saved by FNP cannot be.

I feel like you would not be making these arguments if you had read what I posted.

Let me try spelling it out another way. This is one of those A=B=!C things.

A model suffers an unsaved wound. FnP lets it ignore the wound. It still suffered an unsaved wound. Passing a FnP check does not reverse time prior to rolling a save against the wound. FnP lets a model with an unsaved wound make a check to not take the wound. It does NOT...it does NOT NOT NOT negate the fact that the model took an unsaved wound, it merely negates the wound caused by the unsaved wound.

Put another way:

A model with an unsaved wound passed a FnP check.
Fact: It suffered an unsaved wound.
Fact: It ignored the wound.

Both of those statements are true. Passing a FnP check does not let you *not* suffer an unsaved wound, it lets you ignore the effect of the unsaved wound: Taking a wound.

The hexrifle (like many other examples I've given) are reliant upon a status being caused, not upon a result of the status.

Another way to put it: You roll FnP on your model and pass your 4+ check.
I ask: Did your model suffer an unsaved wound?
You say: No, it did not.
I say: Then why did you roll FnP?
You say: ______________

There is no good answer there. FnP negates the wound caused by an unsaved wound, not the fact that an unsaved wound was caused in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the secondary effect CANNOT OCCUR - because you have ignored the event which triggers the effect: if you ignore the wound, the wound has not occured and so you cannot take the test that results from taking a wound.

And put another way yet again...you're misquoting here. You do NOT ignore the event that triggered the effect, you ignore the effect of the event.

Just food for thought, dash:

Battlewagon gets it's lone big shoota blown of, big mek rolls 4+ and ignores the weapon destroyed effect. Now the battlewagon gets hit again and the attacker rolls a three. By your train of thought, the weapon would still be ripped off, but able to shoot, so it can't be destroyed again and the wagon would become immobilized.
I think we both agree that the weapon destroyed result would not lead to an immobilized if there is a gun left able to shoot.

How your "conversation" should go:

Did your model suffer an unsafed wound?
- Yes, but it has no effect on the game anymore.

Dracos: Even though this should be the case, this is not a law or technical text. If a word is not defined, you get it's meaning from context, in this case either "unsaved wound" or "wound".
Also your interpretation is flat-out wrong. Suffering an unsaved wound can not be the same as removing a profile wound, otherwise force weapons would never work, among with feel no pain itself.

Of course suffering an unsaved wound is not the same thing as removing a wound from the model's profile. That's the point. The term "injury" can be interpreted as either, both of which carry different consequences.

I believe Dash is correct in his explanation.
In the Ork Trukk example you provide Jidmah, the weapon destroyed result is akin to a model taking a wound IMO. (or if you prefer a roll on the damage chart that resulted in the weapon destroyed result)

Why can it be interpreted as removing a profile wound? Even the first part does not refer to profile wounds(which are written with a capital W in the BRB, by the way, as any characteristic).

The German translation of the BRB calls the Wounds in the stat lines "Hitpoints", much less confusing to read in many parts of the book... I hope the original adapts this for 6th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deevil: It would? So if I repair my battlewagon(not trukk, they do funky stuff to damage tables) from immobilized, it can never be immobilized again, because it still is immobilized, just ignoring it?

Jidmah wrote:Ignored and never happened is the same.

if anyone said that to me during a RL rules discussion I would A: laugh in their face, and B: never discuss anything with them again

Well, that was productive. For rules, it is. Otherwise explain why my battlewagon from above should ever be immobilized again?

Jidmah, lets expand on your example and add in a secondary effect. Lets use an old rule and use the penetrating hit causes the passengers to disembark.

So if I obtain a penetrating hit and destroy a weapon what happens? Even though the big mek gets to fix the weapon destroyed result, the passengers still had to disembark, because of the penetrating hit. Even though the primary effect was negated the secondary effect still took place because the trigger, the penetrating hit, still occurred.

Same with the HR, primary effect of unsaved wound is ignored, but the secondary effect, which has the trigger of an unsaved wound, ignored or not still activates.

Oh and ignored =/= never happened. So if I fire a one shot weapon which is then negated by FnP I get to fire it again, because the shot never happened?

Cheers

Andrew

@jidmah, regarding battlewagon. A vehicle ignores a penetrating hit, the same way a model ignore a wound with an armor save. A repair function would work just like FNP.

With FNP you ignore the unsaved wound, it does not prevent anything else besides the removal of the wound itself.

With repair you ignore the roll on the damage table, it does not prevent anything else besides the roll on the damage table (which in this case is the immobilized or weapon desrtroyed result), there is no other secondary effect taking place here. If there was, repair would in no way affect that as it is not the roll on the damage table caused from the penetrating hit.

for example if there was a weapon that stated "remove from play any vehicle that suffers an unsaved penetrating hit", how can you repair it? or "if vehicle suffers a penetrating hit that is not saved move it back 6 inches" would you then move it forward 6 inches if you repaired it....no since repair only removes the effects of the roll on the damage table.

You are creating fictional examples and generally missing my point. A penetrating hit has nothing to do with a damage result, it could even be saved before rolling. You comparing hits to unsaved wounds here. Also additional immobilized turning into weapon destroyed/wrecked is a secondary effect.

Also, the shot isn't ignored. Anything from the to-wound roll up is. Feel no pain basically changes your to-wound roll to failed. I am aware that is is not 100% technically correct, but it perfectly describes the situation.

My point is, that ignored effects simply have no effect on any part of the game anymore. The only reason why hexrifle is an issue at all, is timing, something GW never addresses. So I assume they happen at the exact time, as they trigger of the exact same thing.

"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."(As I don't have the codex, I assume this Quote from a previous poster is correct)

So, lets break this down:
Hexrifle:
If (suffered unsaved wound = true)
-> If (characteristic test failed = true)
--> removed from play

Feel no pain:
If (suffered unsaved wound = true)
-> If (rolled 4+)
--> suffered unsaved wound = false

As GW has no mention of any timing, we have to assume all of this happens at once. As soon you want to remove the model which turned to glass, the whole reason for it to turn to glass is gone. So the model must no longer take a test , nor suffer any consequences from it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

deevil wrote:@jidmah, regarding battlewagon. A vehicle ignores a penetrating hit, the same way a model ignore a wound with an armor save. A repair function would work just like FNP.

With FNP you ignore the unsaved wound, it does not prevent anything else besides the removal of the wound itself.

There are no rules to back this up. If you ignore an unsaved wound, you ignore it for anything in the game. Exactly what the bigmek example tries to show. Ignore = not there, never.

With repair you ignore the roll on the damage table, it does not prevent anything else besides the roll on the damage table (which in this case is the immobilized or weapon desrtroyed result), there is no other secondary effect taking place here. If there was, repair would in no way affect that as it is not the roll on the damage table caused from the penetrating hit.

for example if there was a weapon that stated "remove from play any vehicle that suffers an unsaved penetrating hit", how can you repair it? or "if vehicle suffers a penetrating hit that is not saved move it back 6 inches" would you then move it forward 6 inches if you repaired it....no since repair only removes the effects of the roll on the damage table.

Also missing the point. Repairs do not happen when the vehicle is hit, but during any shooting phase later. Also your forced move is triggered off the hit, not off damage result. That's like mindstrike missiles triggering on hits, rather than on wounds. The secondary effect is the wrecked or weapon destroyed result you suffer if the vehicle is already immobilized. By your logic, a vehicle that ignores a "Damaged - immobilized" result would still be immobilized for any other reasons but moving.

Jidmah wrote:My point is, that ignored effects simply have no effect on any part of the game anymore. The only reason why hexrifle is an issue at all, is timing, something GW never addresses. So I assume they happen at the exact time, as they trigger of the exact same thing...

As GW has no mention of any timing, we have to assume all of this happens at once. As soon you want to remove the model which turned to glass, the whole reason for it to turn to glass is gone. So the model must no longer take a test , nor suffer any consequences from it.

It doesn't matter if the original reason for the test is gone, both events trigger from the same thing. Once the process starts it continues.

I'm not missing your point, I understand it, but I disagree that the 'secondary effect' is ignored if the primary effect is negated in some manner.

Cheers

Andrew

@ Jidmah

I think you're the one who is missing the point here

Your logic example

So, lets break this down:
Hexrifle:
If (suffered unsaved wound = true)
-> If (characteristic test failed = true)
--> removed from play

Feel no pain:
If (suffered unsaved wound = true)
-> If (rolled 4+)
--> suffered unsaved wound = false

is actually incorrect

So, lets break this down:
Hexrifle:
If (suffered unsaved wound = true)
-> then roll d6 (characteristic test)
-> If (characteristic test failed = true)
--> removed from play

Feel no pain:
If (suffered unsaved wound = true)
-> then roll d6 (for FnP)
-> if (rolled 4+) = true
-> No wound is subtracted from characteristic (the unsaved wound, i repeat wound, is ignored)

at no point does FNP change the condition to suffered unsaved wound = false. Nor does it ever pre-empt that condition, as ignore means the condition did in fact take place.

So by the BRB what happens when you suffer an unsaved wound? You take 1 wound off your characteristic, in which case provided you make your FNP save you would ignore that wound removal.

btw a pentrating/glancing hit has eveything to do with damage table roll, as it is the result of having taken the hit in the first place (just like a wound is the result of taking a hit on a model with wound characteristic).

The fact that repair happens in another turn, generally, after the effect is irrelevant. Why? Because both FNP and repair require the effect to have taken place before they can be triggered. They are similar in the fact that both result in the condition (apply wound or apply damage roll) to be ignored after being triggered.

Also in the example I provided the movement applied to the vehicle is applied after any saves are taken and failed, just like an armor save would be that allowed you to take the FNP.

Could it be written better? Absolutely.

Jidmah, your vehicle example is false. You would role cover before they rolled for the result on the vehicle damage table. Try again.

deevil wrote:at no point does FNP change the condition to suffered unsaved wound = false. Nor does it ever pre-empt that condition, as ignore means the condition did in fact take place.

Assuming "ignore the injury" means "ignore the unsaved wound", does it matter whether the "unsaved wound" goes away or not? The rule tells us to "ignore the unsaved wound," not for FNP, but to ignore it altogether. For example, it would not count towards 25% casualties or combat resolution. Hex rifle would tell us to roll when there's an unsaved wound, but we're supposed to ignore that unsaved wound.

In short, the unsaved wound is still in existence, but it is ignored, and therefore is ignored for all purposes.

Canadian 5th wrote:Jidmah, your vehicle example is false. You would role cover before they rolled for the result on the vehicle damage table. Try again.

Eactly what I said:

Jidmah wrote:A penetrating hit has nothing to do with a damage result, it could even be saved before rolling. You comparing hits to unsaved wounds here. Also additional immobilized turning into weapon destroyed/wrecked is a secondary effect.

Before being rude, read my post. Mek Tools are not cover, nor a save, nor does it happen timed like FNP. The Bigmek never rolls a KFF roll for a vehicle. It simply proves that ignored effects in the rules are ignored for all purposes. Try again.

RAW, FNP does nothing since no weapon in the entire game deals 'injuries'.

RAI, I am pretty sure FNP was meant to just be an additional save that a model can take against wounds. Much like in WHFB where you can take an armor save AND a ward save. Pretty much the same thing.

ig·nore/igˈnôr/Verb
1. Refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally: "he ignored her question".
2. Fail to consider (something significant): "satellite broadcasting ignores national boundaries".

These are just the first two examples from dictionary.com, but I dont see anywhere that it ignore means it never happened. Ignore says that you refuse to take notice or acknowledge, not that it magically never happened. Hence, the unsaved wound still happened, you just "ignore the injury", as per the rule. It is ignored, but it still happened. So you still take the unsaved wound, you just ignore the fact that you got wounded, you dont magically get healed. So, you still suffer an unsaved wound, you just don't lose a wound to the injury as per the rules for Feel No Pain.

Galador wrote:ig·nore/igˈnôr/Verb
1. Refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally: "he ignored her question".
2. Fail to consider (something significant): "satellite broadcasting ignores national boundaries".

These are just the first two examples from dictionary.com, but I dont see anywhere that it ignore means it never happened. Ignore says that you refuse to take notice or acknowledge, not that it magically never happened. Hence, the unsaved wound still happened, you just "ignore the injury", as per the rule. It is ignored, but it still happened. So you still take the unsaved wound, you just ignore the fact that you got wounded, you dont magically get healed. So, you still suffer an unsaved wound, you just don't lose a wound to the injury as per the rules for Feel No Pain.

Nice.

biccat wrote:

deevil wrote:at no point does FNP change the condition to suffered unsaved wound = false. Nor does it ever pre-empt that condition, as ignore means the condition did in fact take place.

Assuming "ignore the injury" means "ignore the unsaved wound", does it matter whether the "unsaved wound" goes away or not? The rule tells us to "ignore the unsaved wound," not for FNP, but to ignore it altogether. For example, it would not count towards 25% casualties or combat resolution. Hex rifle would tell us to roll when there's an unsaved wound, but we're supposed to ignore that unsaved wound.

In short, the unsaved wound is still in existence, but it is ignored, and therefore is ignored for all purposes.

DUDE! YOU AND TEN PEOPLE BEFORE YOU!!!! Feel No Pain does *NOT* tell you to ignore the unsaved wound. Stop misquoting the rules. It tells you to ignore the injury caused by the unsaved wound. The state still exists, the ramification is negated.

Examples abound. I've given many, so have others.

Since I'm playing Blue Dragon during my free time right now, here's another one.

If I cast poison on you, but your magical resist is so high that you take no damage...you are still poisoned. Taking no damage does not negate the status. Just like FnP. Being dealt an unsaved wound does not flipping care whether you were wounded, how many wounds you have, or what your hair color is, it only cares about whether you failed to make your cover/armour/invulnerable save against a wound-causing hit.

Dashofpepper wrote:

biccat wrote:In short, the unsaved wound is still in existence, but it is ignored, and therefore is ignored for all purposes.

DUDE! YOU AND TEN PEOPLE BEFORE YOU!!!! Feel No Pain does *NOT* tell you to ignore the unsaved wound. Stop misquoting the rules. It tells you to ignore the injury caused by the unsaved wound. The state still exists, the ramification is negated.

See my post here.

FNP is essentially a binary condition:
Receive unsaved wound, fail, take "a wound".
Receive unsaved wound, pass, ignore "the injury".

The injury referred to in the second result can't mean "a wound" because the wond only results if the FNP test is failed. Therefore, "injury" must refer to the unsaved wound.

As to your examples, mostly they revolve around vehicles ignoring results on glancing hits. However, there is a specific rule on point that addresses those circumstances, as has been pointed out before.

Dashofpepper wrote:If I cast poison on you, but your magical resist is so high that you take no damage...you are still poisoned. Taking no damage does not negate the status. Just like FnP. Being dealt an unsaved wound does not flipping care whether you were wounded, how many wounds you have, or what your hair color is, it only cares about whether you failed to make your cover/armour/invulnerable save against a wound-causing hit.

Right, but magical resistance doesn't tell you to "ignore the spell," if it did, then a secondary effect that triggers from poison wouldn't trigger, because the spell would be "ignored."

This whole discussion essentially turns on what "injury" is supposed to be ignored by FNP. I think that I have made a good case that it should be the "unsaved wound." I understand that you may disagree.

It also seems that there are 3 positions: 1) FNP triggers, you can't test for Hex Rifle. 2) Test for FNP then test for Hex Rifle. 3) Only test for Hex Rifle.

I think the 3rd one is correct because it is a more specific rule than FNP and the rules contradict.