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.

I got to personally see the text in-book for Feel no pain in the 7th ed. book, and something struck me as odd, so I went to check it against the 6th ed. book.

Feel no pain in 6th says "cannot be taken against unsaved wounds that WOULD INFLICT instant death."

7th says "unsaved wounds that have the instant death SPECIAL RULE."

(Exact quotes)

Does this mean what I think it means? Can I finally have a defense for my BA against s8 ap2 ignore cover large blasts?

Wait until the rule book drops

No, because any Wounds caused from a Strength that is double your Toughness has the Instant Death rule. Same as 6th edition. The new rulebook even has a little black box reminding you of the Instant Death special rule in the 'resolving wounds' section.

Doesn't read that way to me.
Double toughness grants the instant death rule.
So as I read it, you still don't get FnP.

Hmm, so we know for certainty that the book says it in the phrasing that double str over t hits "gain the ID rule" and not just some other meek phrasing like "cause ID?"

If so, I guess that answers the question. BA player thinks he gets thrown a bone, turns out to be fake, news at 10.

So my Plague Marines got better again?


Nurgle be Praised!

niv-mizzet wrote:
Hmm, so we know for certainty that the book says it in the phrasing that double str over t hits "gain the ID rule" and not just some other meek phrasing like "cause ID?".

Meek? It's the same thing. Even if it just said "Causes Instant Death".

Unless you think a weapon that has Rending, doesn't have Rending unless it says "This has the Rending Special Rule".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
So my Plague Marines got better again?

How so? There's no change.

I thought the new FNP was a 4+?

Please don't take this away from me, it is all I have left now.....

No, its 5+ still. The rule entry just had the FAQ rulings added to it, specifically stating that you can still take FNP on a wound that has no saves allowed (such as Perils of the Warp).

At least I still have you......


Heldrake.....

 grendel083 wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
Hmm, so we know for certainty that the book says it in the phrasing that double str over t hits "gain the ID rule" and not just some other meek phrasing like "cause ID?".

Meek? It's the same thing. Even if it just said "Causes Instant Death".

I disagree. From a RAW standpoint, I believe there's a difference between something "having the instant death special rule" and "causes instant death."

Unless you think a weapon that has Rending, doesn't have Rending unless it says "This has the Rending Special Rule".

But they generally do say the words "special rule" at the end. Flamer templates in the 6 ed rulebook specifically say they have the ignores cover special rule for example, not just "ignores cover."

I know offhand that the mysterious forest result that rends specifically says "with the rending special rule" as well.

I believe it's enough of a pattern that if it weren't followed, it would indicate a designed difference.

If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck...

Regardless, the 7th book clearly says wounds with double the Strength of the target's Toughness have the Instant Death special rule.

niv-mizzet wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
Hmm, so we know for certainty that the book says it in the phrasing that double str over t hits "gain the ID rule" and not just some other meek phrasing like "cause ID?".

Meek? It's the same thing. Even if it just said "Causes Instant Death".

I disagree. From a RAW standpoint, I believe there's a difference between something "having the instant death special rule" and "causes instant death."

Unless you think a weapon that has Rending, doesn't have Rending unless it says "This has the Rending Special Rule".

But they generally do say the words "special rule" at the end. Flamer templates in the 6 ed rulebook specifically say they have the ignores cover special rule for example, not just "ignores cover."

I know offhand that the mysterious forest result that rends specifically says "with the rending special rule" as well.

I believe it's enough of a pattern that if it weren't followed, it would indicate a designed difference.

The Assault Cannon has "Rending" listed in its type. Not "Rending Special Rule".
So this doesn't cause Rending? Because the only Rending in the book is a Special Rule, and this doesn't say Special Rule?

 grendel083 wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
Hmm, so we know for certainty that the book says it in the phrasing that double str over t hits "gain the ID rule" and not just some other meek phrasing like "cause ID?".

Meek? It's the same thing. Even if it just said "Causes Instant Death".

I disagree. From a RAW standpoint, I believe there's a difference between something "having the instant death special rule" and "causes instant death."

Unless you think a weapon that has Rending, doesn't have Rending unless it says "This has the Rending Special Rule".

But they generally do say the words "special rule" at the end. Flamer templates in the 6 ed rulebook specifically say they have the ignores cover special rule for example, not just "ignores cover."

I know offhand that the mysterious forest result that rends specifically says "with the rending special rule" as well.

I believe it's enough of a pattern that if it weren't followed, it would indicate a designed difference.

The Assault Cannon has "Rending" listed in its type. Not "Rending Special Rule".
So this doesn't cause Rending? Because the only Rending in the book is a Special Rule, and this doesn't say Special Rule?

Fallacy.
Under type in the brb it states that this is where you will find any special rules that the weapon has; assault cannon absolutely have the rending special rule.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Fallacy.
Under type in the brb it states that this is where you will find any special rules that the weapon has; assault cannon absolutely have the rending special rule.

And yet something that "Causes Instant Death" doesn't refer to the "Instant Death Special Rule"?

What happens if you have eternal warrior special rule and ignore ID, - would you be able to use FNP even if hit by double your toughness?

(I'm thinking in particular about the biomancy power endurance that grants 4+ FNP and EW.)

GoonBandito wrote:
If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck...

Regardless, the 7th book clearly says wounds with double the Strength of the target's Toughness have the Instant Death special rule.

Looks like GW's writers have started to learn a thing or two (finally)....

 welshhoppo wrote:
At least I still have you......


Heldrake.....

He got nerfed too due to the new Ignores Cover. I feel your pain, my llama friend.

 ZultanQ wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
At least I still have you......


Heldrake.....

He got nerfed too due to the new Ignores Cover. I feel your pain, my llama friend.

What? Ignores Cover is the same. In fact very few rules actually changed at all.

 ZultanQ wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
At least I still have you......


Heldrake.....

He got nerfed too due to the new Ignores Cover. I feel your pain, my llama friend.

Best cover in the game is now 4+, thats a massive hit still. A buff for a gunline behind an aegis but beyond that most models will still not have a save.

 Kapitan Montag wrote:
What happens if you have eternal warrior special rule and ignore ID, - would you be able to use FNP even if hit by double your toughness?

(I'm thinking in particular about the biomancy power endurance that grants 4+ FNP and EW.)

Probably not. FNP negated by wound that has the ID rule. EW, while it prevents ID from occurring, does not remove the rule from the wound.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Fallacy.
Under type in the brb it states that this is where you will find any special rules that the weapon has; assault cannon absolutely have the rending special rule.

And yet something that "Causes Instant Death" doesn't refer to the "Instant Death Special Rule"?

A) I never said that, I just pointed out that your example was null do to the assault cannon absolutely having the Rending special rule.

B) There are 2 different rules called "Instant death", one is the effect, the other is the special rule(which causes the effect). So no, Strength double toughness does not refer to the Instant death special rule.(6th edition rules, I have not seen the 7th ones yet)

Well it's a null-and-void debate all round then.

Moving on

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Fallacy.
Under type in the brb it states that this is where you will find any special rules that the weapon has; assault cannon absolutely have the rending special rule.

And yet something that "Causes Instant Death" doesn't refer to the "Instant Death Special Rule"?

A) I never said that, I just pointed out that your example was null do to the assault cannon absolutely having the Rending special rule.

Grendel was using the Assault Can example to show niv-mizzet that his (niv's) position was ultimately untenable and silly. Grendel was not himself claiming that Assault Cans don't have Rending.

edited for clarity.

First off, beyond googling the fact that niv-mizzet is a magic card, I have no idea what you mean by that.

Second of all the example of an assault cannon was used to show the opposition that a weapon that "causes rending" is the same thing as the weapon having rending. that argument fails in light of the weapon's type special rules are the weapon actually having those special rules.

Third, no grendel was not trying to say his own position is silly; he has(had) a valid point he was trying to make, it was just that the specific example given was not a valid example.

fourth, as you can read in the post above yours, we are moving on until we all have the rules in hand.

Kommissar Kel wrote:First off, beyond googling the fact that niv-mizzet is a magic card, I have no idea what you mean by that.

Read the thread.

niv-mizzet wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
Hmm, so we know for certainty that the book says it in the phrasing that double str over t hits "gain the ID rule" and not just some other meek phrasing like "cause ID?".

Meek? It's the same thing. Even if it just said "Causes Instant Death".

I disagree. From a RAW standpoint, I believe there's a difference between something "having the instant death special rule" and "causes instant death."

Unless you think a weapon that has Rending, doesn't have Rending unless it says "This has the Rending Special Rule".

But they generally do say the words "special rule" at the end. Flamer templates in the 6 ed rulebook specifically say they have the ignores cover special rule for example, not just "ignores cover."

I know offhand that the mysterious forest result that rends specifically says "with the rending special rule" as well.

I believe it's enough of a pattern that if it weren't followed, it would indicate a designed difference.

The poster's name is niv-mizzet.

I had read the thread, but I don't re-read the whole thread every time I respond to a statement. Also MTG players often attribute Tactics, Arguments, and actions to specific cards, or even slang terms for cards.

Although with this context it completely changes my understanding of Elric's post to which only the 3rd(after the semicolon) and 4th points remain valid.

With the book not out yet, we can only speculate. However, what I have been seeing is 7e is GW's attempt to close many of the loopholes from 6e and balancing the various armies.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I had read the thread, but I don't re-read the whole thread every time I respond to a statement. Also MTG players often attribute Tactics, Arguments, and actions to specific cards, or even slang terms for cards.

Although with this context it completely changes my understanding of Elric's post to which only the 3rd(after the semicolon) and 4th points remain valid.

I could be wrong, but it seems that you stated that you respond to a post without knowing what it's referencing.

I also recall something that you posted about "we" are moving on, but continue to post.

I'm confused.

 Idolator wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I had read the thread, but I don't re-read the whole thread every time I respond to a statement. Also MTG players often attribute Tactics, Arguments, and actions to specific cards, or even slang terms for cards.

Although with this context it completely changes my understanding of Elric's post to which only the 3rd(after the semicolon) and 4th points remain valid.

I could be wrong, but it seems that you stated that you respond to a post without knowing what it's referencing.

I also recall something that you posted about "we" are moving on, but continue to post.

I'm confused.

I was directly questioned about the content of my post, I responded to it.

That is the polite thing to do, like how I am responding to you.

We have not even been discussing the actual rules situation, just my response to Elric; Grendel and I have moved on from the rules question as we do not have the rules in hand to actually discuss them.