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.

PanzerLeader wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:False. FNP cannot be taken against weapons that inflict ID. The only effect of ID is the model is reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty. The weapon inflicts ID, the model ignores it, but it is still there. ID gets put in the corner but it is still present.

Need to edit my earlier post but here are the relevent quotes:

Eternal Warrior (page 35) "A model with this special rule is immune to the effects of instant death."

Feel No Pain (page 35) "Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved wounds that inflict Instant Death."

Models with Eternal Warrior are immune to instant death. Since the model is immune, it cannot suffer unsaved wounds that would cause inflict instant death. Since the unsaved wound never inflicts instant death, the model may still take FNP saves.

This. A model with EW gets a FNP roll if they somehow have FNP. It's a no brainer.

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.

+1

Im also in the fnp works camp. However as with all these discrepancies so far it seems the only solution is to await FAQ info.

Those of you saying that inflict must mean that the wound is applied:

You do realize you're saying that the wound must be inflicted before FNP is resolved right?

Meaning the wound has already been removed from your profile and you're trying to go back and re-add it when FNP doesn't allow that.

I believe you are mistaken.

Lt.Soundwave wrote:I believe you are mistaken.

Do you want to explain your belief? Perhaps with rules quotes or examples?
That'd be great.

How I see this working.

1) An attack successfully wounds a model, roll saves if applicable. If save fails -->

2) Check whether instant death can be inflicted. (Strength high enough, target has no EW, etc.) If conditions for ID are not met -->

3) Roll Feel No Pain.



Also, I think getting hung up on the word 'effects' on EW is unnecessary. What else can rules have but effects? Flavour? No. it means EW is immune to ID.
Can you cause Instant Death on an Eternal Warrior? No, he is immune to it.

This has probably already been said but here is my take on this:

1. A model with EW and FNP is allocated a wound.
2. Armor, Cover or Invul save is failed.
3. Check to see if the wound is capable of causing ID. If yes, skip to step 5.
4. FNP save is taken. If successful, we're done here, continue with the game.
5. Apply the wound to the model. If it is capable of causing ID, ignore the effect.

Crimson wrote:How I see this working.

1) An attack successfully wounds a model, roll saves if applicable. If save fails -->

2) Check whether instant death can be inflicted. (Strength high enough, target has no EW, etc.) If conditions for ID are not met -->

3) Roll Feel No Pain.

Also, I think getting hung up on the word 'effects' on EW is unnecessary. What else can rules have but effects? Flavour? No. it means EW is immune to ID.
Can you cause Instant Death on an Eternal Warrior? No, he is immune to it.

And you're ignoring (or glossing over) the fact that FNP not working on ID wounds is not an effect of ID.
It's a restriction on FNP.

"Not being able to assault" is not an effect of Running - it's a restriction on Assault.

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're ignoring (or glossing over) the fact that FNP not working on ID wounds is not an effect of ID.
It's a restriction on FNP.

No I'm not. I'm merely claiming that it is impossible to inflict Instant Death on Eternal Warrior, and thus conditions for negating FNP are not met.

But I think we are just repeating the same things over ans over. I understand why many people have said that this is agree to disagree territory.

Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're ignoring (or glossing over) the fact that FNP not working on ID wounds is not an effect of ID.
It's a restriction on FNP.

No I'm not. I'm merely claiming that it is impossible to inflict Instant Death on Eternal Warrior, and thus conditions for negating FNP are notmet.

But I think we are just repeating the same things over ans over. I understand why many people have said that this is agree to disagree territory.

rigeld2 wrote:Those of you saying that inflict must mean that the wound is applied:

You do realize you're saying that the wound must be inflicted before FNP is resolved right?

Meaning the wound has already been removed from your profile and you're trying to go back and re-add it when FNP doesn't allow that.

rigeld2 wrote:Those of you saying that inflict must mean that the wound is applied:

You do realize you're saying that the wound must be inflicted before FNP is resolved right?

Meaning the wound has already been removed from your profile and you're trying to go back and re-add it when FNP doesn't allow that.

FNP kicks in the moment the model suffers a wound, so yes, in a way the wound is inflicted at this point. And I think this is the same point when you check whether the weapon is capable of insta-killing the model.

But this is actually quite vague. It is not a logical syntax. Words like 'inflict', 'suffer', 'negate', 'immune' and 'effect' are not strictly defined, nor is the fine minutiae of the order of operations clear. This is a similar mess than FNP and Force Weapons. FNP could definitely use a FAQ.

Now what about force weapons? They aren't instant death wounds until the weapon is activated after the wound has been taken, are we ignoring FNP here or not?

Not that it matters much now, but i could've sworn that somewhere in 5th it said that EW did not effect FNP in reference to ID. If it did, it's safest to follow that ruling even if it is not longer "Legitimate"

@juraigmer: IMHO this is a case where FNP could theoretically be taken, however there are some caveats:
1. Every model has the same save and FNP or
2. The unit consists of mixed armour saves.

In either case, as soon as a FNP is failed, any Wound in the Force Weapon Wound pool afterwards would be ID and FNP would no longer work. (May not be RAW, but definitely HIWPI)

@ Vindicare-Obsession: EW did not affect FNP in 5th ed, because one of the restrictions was could not be used if strength was double toughness. FNP also could not be used if the attack ignores armour saves (which just about every weapon with the Instant Death "rule" already did.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Not that it matters much now, but i could've sworn that somewhere in 5th it said that EW did not effect FNP in reference to ID. If it did, it's safest to follow that ruling even if it is not longer "Legitimate"

Yes, it would at least give insight to the designer intent. However no-one has managed to produce such a quote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Force Weapons and FNP is a mess. At least with certain reading of the rules applicability of FNP would depend on whose turn it is, and that is just silly. There should be a clear 'Check for Instant Death' step before applying the wounds, and Eternal Warrior and Force Weapon checks should be applied then. It would be much clearer.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Not that it matters much now, but i could've sworn that somewhere in 5th it said that EW did not effect FNP in reference to ID. If it did, it's safest to follow that ruling even if it is not longer "Legitimate"

Considering the fundamental rule of FNP changed drastically from 5th to 6th I'd say that's a poor approach to take.

People keep trying to compare 6th to 5th, 4th, and earlier editions. Take a moment to read the rules as if it were a completely new game, because if you keep getting caught up on "well it used to be this way" you'll never be able to move forward with the current edition. It is what it is...you get FNP if you have EW. You get FNP if you are hit by rending weapons that actually rend. You get it for everything except something that inflicts instant death.

not in regards to ID it hasnt.

And I have moved forward quite effectively. All I am suggesting is that when we dont have a clear answer, an earlier one could suffice until we are given one.

And I would be more inclined to say you dont get FNP. Again, not that it matters, but in Malifaux, even if you are immune to an effect, you still recive an effect. Thus anything that triggers off of you reciving an effect, still triggers even if you are immune.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:not in regards to ID it hasnt.

And I have moved forward quite effectively. All I am suggesting is that when we dont have a clear answer, an earlier one could suffice until we are given one.

The point is, we keep going back to "it used to be this way in 5th, 4th, etc." That's just a poor method to do things IMHO. I did the same things when I first picked up 6th. I kept trying to find things like "where does it say fearless units must make armor saves when they lose close combat?" Oh...it isn't in there. That is just one example. And yes FNP did change drastically enough to warrant this conversation did it not? Before, this wouldn't even come to question as most weapons whose str were high enough to actually inflict instant death on most models was ap 1 or 2 which you didn't get a FNP roll for anyway. Now, you do, so yes, in regards to instant death, the FNP rule has changed dramatically from 5th to 6th.

No. If a model suffers ID, it cannot take FNP. It has been this way since 5th and before. So no, in regards to ID, FNP has not changed. And there were plenty of weapons that could cause ID without being ap2 or 1.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:No. If a model suffers ID, it cannot take FNP. It has been this way since 5th and before. So no, in regards to ID, FNP has not changed. And there were plenty of weapons that could cause ID without being ap2 or 1.

Yes, there were but the large majority of weapons I'd say that could cause ID (via str being double toughness) were ap 1 or 2 usually.

I understand what people are saying in regards to EW not granting FNP, however if a model is immune to the effects of instant death, then they get a FNP roll if capable of doing so.

robzidious wrote:Yes, there were but the large majority of weapons I'd say that could cause ID (via str being double toughness) were ap 1 or 2 usually.

Heavy Venom Cannons, Impaler Cannons, Rupture Cannons...

Must be nice to have a SM viewpoint

I understand what people are saying in regards to EW not granting FNP, however if a model is immune to the effects of instant death, then they get a FNP roll if capable of doing so.

Show me where denying FNP is an effect of ID.

Not just that,
Lottas, Partical Whip, Fabius bile

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Not just that,
Lottas, Partical Whip, Fabius bile

Oh, I'm not trying to say that I gave an exhaustive list. Just that there were/are MANY Str8+ nonAP1-2 weapons. Heck, Krak missiles.

There are many yes. There are still many of course.

Regardless this is moving off topic. My point was, before this subject came up less because a lot of weapons that were double toughness were ap 1 or 2. Not that there weren't plenty of weapons that were double toughness that were ap 3 or higher...there were and still are most certainly.

I can see where the debate could arise, but in my opinion, based on my reading of the rules, if a character is immune to the effects of instant death, than no weapon can cause instant death to him, thus he gets a FNP roll. This situation has never come up in one of my games, though. It would be interesting to get some perspective on it from my buddies who play with me regularly.

For those interested 5th ed specifically stated in the FnP rule that EW did not protect you from losing FnP to ID. That sentence was removed in 6th. Now both camps can claim that proves their point and others can say it's irrelevant as from an earlier ruleset. Does this even count as helping?

FNP doesn't allow that.

FNP is allowed vs unsaved wounds. A wound you've taken is unsaved. It might not be how its meant to be interpreted but it is a valid way of reading it. its clear that the situation is vague enough so that statements such as yours are no more valid then the other side of the argument. Until such time as it is FAQ'd the discussion is moot.

Hence i believe you are mistaken when you interpret FNP working in the manner you describe as it can also be interpreted to work in the manner I have outlined.

Lt.Soundwave wrote:

FNP doesn't allow that.

FNP is allowed vs unsaved wounds. A wound you've taken is unsaved. It might not be how its meant to be interpreted but it is a valid way of reading it. its clear that the situation is vague enough so that statements such as yours are no more valid then the other side of the argument. Until such time as it is FAQ'd the discussion is moot.

Hence i believe you are mistaken when you interpret FNP working in the manner you describe as it can also be interpreted to work in the manner I have outlined.

There's a difference. I've supplied rules support for timing. You've provided, well, nothing.
Your side has provided a definition for inflict (that I've shown cannot be used), assertions that EW allows it despite the fact that the restriction on FNP is not an effect of ID, and little else.

You can believe and house rule whatever you want. That doesn't mean the actual rules agree with you.

Drager wrote:For those interested 5th ed specifically stated in the FnP rule that EW did not protect you from losing FnP to ID. That sentence was removed in 6th. Now both camps can claim that proves their point and others can say it's irrelevant as from an earlier ruleset. Does this even count as helping?

You are right! And yes, now I will claim it supports my interpretation. To me leaving that part out seems like an intentional chance. They would not have done that if they didn't mean EW to apply.

Yet never changed any of the language to acutally allow EW to interact with FNP at all.

robzidious wrote:I can see where the debate could arise, but in my opinion, based on my reading of the rules, if a character is immune to the effects of instant death, than no weapon can cause instant death to him, thus he gets a FNP roll. This situation has never come up in one of my games, though. It would be interesting to get some perspective on it from my buddies who play with me regularly.

Show me where it is written that denying FNP is an effect of ID. Show me where EW removes my weapon's ability to inflict ID. Show me where your EW gives permission to take a FNP roll against a weapon that inflicts ID even if you are immune to the effects. Show me these things. Your opinion is irrelevant. This is a rules discussion about what is written. Show me rules, not opinions or your take on it but rules.