Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/05 18:16:45
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
DeathReaper wrote:blaktoof, your argument is not correct. FNP says it is explicitly NOT a save...
I even quoted the rules that state it is not a save. This is indisputable.
They call it a Feel no pain save, but it is not a Save.
This can not be disputed because there are rules that explicitly state "(this is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state that ‘no saves of any kind are allowed’,"
If FNP was a save you could not use it after a failed Armor Save...
But we know that we can take it after a failed save or against something that states "that ‘no saves of any kind are allowed’,"
Look at "The Shooting Phase" chapter, "Types of Saving Throws" section. Do you see FNP listed? No? then FNP IS NOT a type of saving throw.
Your argument is incorrect.
your ability to ignore what other people type is utterly amazing.
I agreed this entire thread that feel no pain states it is not a saving throw, I agree it is indisputable- I have not disputed it and have been saying the whole time the rule says this.
I have also stated the rule says the following, because the rules as written absolutely state the following:
Feel no pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death rule.
They could have easily said "feel no pain rolls" or "you may not use feel no pain against destroyer attacks.." or anything else, but in their writing they put in the rules as written "FEEL NO PAIN SAVES" which indisputably in the rules lists feel no pain as a save within its rule. Which of course contradicts itself.
so to correct you, feel no pain is said to not be a SAVING THROW, however feel no pain is also said to be a SAVE within the rules as written for feel no pain.
I look at the shooting phase chapter and see nothing about destroyer weapons, does that mean destroyer weapons do not work? Claiming special rules do not modify basic rules is against the rules as written in the book. Special rules can modify, add, change, whatever basic rules. the arguement that it is not listed in the basic rules has 0 merit as a discussion point because it is not a basic rule.
you are essentially making a RAI argument, which is totally reasonable because FnP is poorly written and states it is not a saving throw, but then goes on to state it is a save. Its like the writers wrote "the book you are holding is on fire and killing you, and you are totally fine because its not on fire". Or "this model may not arrive by deep strike" then in the next paragraph writing "when placing this model it arrives by deep strikes using the following rules", its badly written. The reasonable thing to conclude from FnP is that it is not a save. However because of bad rules writing, the rules plainly include within the text for FnP that it is in fact a save, despite initially saying it is not a saving throw.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/08/05 18:24:54
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/05 19:41:06
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
blacktoof you are wrong - FNP is not a save, you simply ignore a wound as long as it is not ID or 2xS >= T.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/05 19:46:58
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
blaktoof wrote: your ability to ignore what other people type is utterly amazing. I am not ignoring it. The text literally says that FNP IS NOT a save. you understand this right? I agreed this entire thread that feel no pain states it is not a saving throw, I agree it is indisputable- I have not disputed it and have been saying the whole time the rule says this.
It only needs to say it once. It does not matter that it states FNP save, it is not a Save (Even if it can save a model). They use save as in it can save the model from a wound, even though it is not a "Save" I have also stated the rule says the following, because the rules as written absolutely state the following: Feel no pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death rule. They could have easily said "feel no pain rolls" or "you may not use feel no pain against destroyer attacks.." or anything else, but in their writing they put in the rules as written "FEEL NO PAIN SAVES" which indisputably in the rules lists feel no pain as a save within its rule. Which of course contradicts itself. Sure, but they are talking about saving your model. That one line DOES NOT make FNP a save when the text explicitly says FNP is not a save. so to correct you, feel no pain is said to not be a SAVING THROW, however feel no pain is also said to be a SAVE within the rules as written for feel no pain.
Save = Saving throw. It is not a Save or a Saving throw. These words are synonymous in the rules. "Sometimes, a model will have a normal Armour Save and a separate invulnerable save.... As if this wasn’t enough, the model might be in cover as well. In these cases, a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save.." (The Shooting Phase Chapter, Models With More Than One Save section (I removed the text that does not matter, Emphasis mine)). Therefore Save = Saving throw. I look at the shooting phase chapter and see nothing about destroyer weapons, does that mean destroyer weapons do not work?
Straw man. Claiming special rules do not modify basic rules is against the rules as written in the book. Special rules can modify, add, change, whatever basic rules. the arguement that it is not listed in the basic rules has 0 merit as a discussion point because it is not a basic rule. I never claimed that special rules do not modify basic rules. you are essentially making a RAI argument, which is totally reasonable because FnP is poorly written and states it is not a saving throw, but then goes on to state it is a save. I am not making a RAI argument. See above for save = saving throw. Its like the writers wrote "the book you are holding is on fire and killing you, and you are totally fine because its not on fire". Or "this model may not arrive by deep strike" then in the next paragraph writing "when placing this model it arrives by deep strikes using the following rules", its badly written. The reasonable thing to conclude from FnP is that it is not a save. However because of bad rules writing, the rules plainly include within the text for FnP that it is in fact a save, despite initially saying it is not a saving throw.
Bad analogies do not help your argument. FNP is not a save because it is not a Saving throw. However it really doesnt matter because: "...no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save, a roll of 1 always fails." (The Shooting Phase Chapter, Maximum Save section). Notice how FNP is not listed for the "a roll of 1 always fails" rules? So FNP does not always fail on a 1.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/05 19:48:02
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/05 21:26:07
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
DeathReaper wrote:blaktoof wrote:
your ability to ignore what other people type is utterly amazing.
I am not ignoring it. The text literally says that FNP IS NOT a save. you understand this right?
I agreed this entire thread that feel no pain states it is not a saving throw, I agree it is indisputable- I have not disputed it and have been saying the whole time the rule says this.
It only needs to say it once.
It does not matter that it states FNP save, it is not a Save (Even if it can save a model). They use save as in it can save the model from a wound, even though it is not a "Save"
I have also stated the rule says the following, because the rules as written absolutely state the following:
Feel no pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death rule.
They could have easily said "feel no pain rolls" or "you may not use feel no pain against destroyer attacks.." or anything else, but in their writing they put in the rules as written "FEEL NO PAIN SAVES" which indisputably in the rules lists feel no pain as a save within its rule. Which of course contradicts itself.
Sure, but they are talking about saving your model. That one line DOES NOT make FNP a save when the text explicitly says FNP is not a save.
so to correct you, feel no pain is said to not be a SAVING THROW, however feel no pain is also said to be a SAVE within the rules as written for feel no pain.
Save = Saving throw. It is not a Save or a Saving throw. These words are synonymous in the rules.
"Sometimes, a model will have a normal Armour Save and a separate invulnerable save.... As if this wasn’t enough, the model might be in cover as well. In these cases, a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save.." (The Shooting Phase Chapter, Models With More Than One Save section (I removed the text that does not matter, Emphasis mine)).
Therefore Save = Saving throw.
I look at the shooting phase chapter and see nothing about destroyer weapons, does that mean destroyer weapons do not work?
Straw man.
Claiming special rules do not modify basic rules is against the rules as written in the book. Special rules can modify, add, change, whatever basic rules. the arguement that it is not listed in the basic rules has 0 merit as a discussion point because it is not a basic rule.
I never claimed that special rules do not modify basic rules.
you are essentially making a RAI argument, which is totally reasonable because FnP is poorly written and states it is not a saving throw, but then goes on to state it is a save.
I am not making a RAI argument. See above for save = saving throw.
Its like the writers wrote "the book you are holding is on fire and killing you, and you are totally fine because its not on fire". Or "this model may not arrive by deep strike" then in the next paragraph writing "when placing this model it arrives by deep strikes using the following rules", its badly written. The reasonable thing to conclude from FnP is that it is not a save. However because of bad rules writing, the rules plainly include within the text for FnP that it is in fact a save, despite initially saying it is not a saving throw.
Bad analogies do not help your argument.
FNP is not a save because it is not a Saving throw.
However it really doesnt matter because:
"...no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save, a roll of 1 always fails." (The Shooting Phase Chapter, Maximum Save section).
Notice how FNP is not listed for the "a roll of 1 always fails" rules?
So FNP does not always fail on a 1.
everything you typed has 0 merit.
If you say something is not something because the rule say it is not, if the same rules say it is something you cannot then claim it is not the something the rules say it is because they mean something else.
logic fail.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/05 22:41:03
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
All that quote to not address my points that I have rules backing for and you do not? That is a very disingenuous way to try to argue your point. The fact remains that I have rules backing for FNP not being a save. I also have rules backing that says if FNP is or is not a save literally does not matter because a 1 only fails for armour, cover or invulnerable saves.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/05 22:41:41
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/06 08:18:08
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Fully-charged Electropriest
|
Hey blaktoof, which one of these seems more likely to you:
1: The rulebook writers changed their mind in the midst of writing the rule. First they explicitly state that it's not a saving throw, then have a revelation and suddenly decide that it totally has to be a save. They realize that units still can't take several saves so FNP would only ever be useful against weapons that ignore the target's armour but don't care at all, because reasons.
2: This is just another example of GW's lazy writing/editing.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/06 10:31:41
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
Probably #2.
GW does number 2's on everything they write.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/06 14:28:45
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Lammikkovalas wrote:Hey blaktoof, which one of these seems more likely to you:
1: The rulebook writers changed their mind in the midst of writing the rule. First they explicitly state that it's not a saving throw, then have a revelation and suddenly decide that it totally has to be a save. They realize that units still can't take several saves so FNP would only ever be useful against weapons that ignore the target's armour but don't care at all, because reasons.
2: This is just another example of GW's lazy writing/editing.
I've stated my opinion that it is number 2 about 3-4 times in this thread now.
The problem is me saying its #2 is an interpretation of the rules they have written, as they have written them they have stated it is not a saving throw, then go on to say it is a save. This is obviously terrible rules writing, however that they stated it is a save in its own rules leave the point that someone can argue rules as written that it is a save, even though at the same time they would have to concede it is not a saving throw, just as someone could argue it is not a saving throw but would have to concede the same rules for FnP that say it is not a saving throw, also rules as written say "feel no pain saves may not be taken against" this clearly says it is a save, and as such anyone claiming that it is not a saving throw because of its rules as written, would have to concede that according to its rules as written it is a save. This is obviously a stupid arguement. Its like saying the cat is both in the box and not in the box. That's great and all, but at the end of the day it has to be in one of the places when you open the box and check, and most people agree GW have issues writing clean rules a lot of the times and this is a incidence of that, but again that is based on us interpreting what the rule should be, from what they have written as the actual rule.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/07 02:14:43
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus
|
Happyjew wrote:Just because they use the phrase "Feel No Pain save" does not mean that Feel No Pain is a save. Just like Assault Cannons are not Assault weapons, nor are Heavy Flamers Heavy weapons.
This.
|
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle.. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/07 02:31:58
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Ship's Officer
|
OP: if you ever try that on me, I would take the model and toss high up in the air and say "save this!" Take out a fist size D6 and hit you in the face while I'm at it. Then go get buckets of pennies and dump it on you to compensate for the broken model.
Every model on the board should be killable, no matter how hard it may be. If it's not, it belongs in the fluff/background.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/07 03:05:47
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
All that argument with a guy that just whimsically laughed about a rules writing mistake...
...
...
When the real important thing to take away from it is that I still get FnP rolls from ID and Str D because FnP "Saves" are disallowed (which luckily my FnP is not!)
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/07 04:07:37
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
Big Mac wrote:OP: if you ever try that on me, I would take the model and toss high up in the air and say "save this!" Take out a fist size D6 and hit you in the face while I'm at it. Then go get buckets of pennies and dump it on you to compensate for the broken model.
No, you really wouldn't do this.
Every model on the board should be killable, no matter how hard it may be. If it's not, it belongs in the fluff/background.
The model in question IS killable...
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/07 06:09:31
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
Big Mac wrote:OP: if you ever try that on me, I would take the model and toss high up in the air and say "save this!" Take out a fist size D6 and hit you in the face while I'm at it. Then go get buckets of pennies and dump it on you to compensate for the broken model.
Every model on the board should be killable, no matter how hard it may be. If it's not, it belongs in the fluff/background.
-The 1+ is not guaranteed
-The 1+ costs a fethton
-It's only on one model
-It can be killed
-The OP is not trying to use cheese
-That's a very silly thing to do
-You'd better have £30 to spare for replacement parts
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/07 14:31:55
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
The only SM Chapter I play are Mantis Warriors and White Scars for when FW isn't allowed.
I'm not looking to cheese, just looking to see whether it's RAW allowed and whether you would/it should be houseruled to a minimum of 2+. Some armies have access to very limited S10/ID/Destroyer weapons without resorting to SHV/GC.
|
YMDC = nightmare |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/07 21:37:27
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Flashy Flashgitz
|
blaktoof, DR cannot read, nor can he hear what you're saying. I'm sorry so many people can't see your point. Which I believe it's that GW should hire Fantasy Flight to write their rules for them because they cannot seem to do it themselves. Like monkeys trying to paint a fresco.
Good luck brother. Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I didn't mention but a nob pk won't do the trick they are s9. Only a WB PK is str 10 Automatically Appended Next Post: Goobi2 that's awesome
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/07 21:49:35
Warboss Troil
"Less chat, more splat!" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/07 23:38:47
Subject: Re:1+ FnP
|
 |
[DCM]
.
|
ALL:
QUICK REMINDER - RULE #1, ALL THE TIME.
So, in other words, by all means debate the point, argue the argument BUT do NOT insult the poster.
Thanks!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/08 00:24:13
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
FratHammer wrote:blaktoof, DR cannot read, nor can he hear what you're saying. I'm sorry so many people can't see your point. Which I believe it's that GW should hire Fantasy Flight to write their rules for them because they cannot seem to do it themselves. Like monkeys trying to paint a fresco.
Good luck brother.
I can read, and I hear what he is saying, but he has no rules backing and as such his argument is incorrect.
Thanks for the rude response though.....
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/08 01:47:46
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Flashy Flashgitz
|
He does in fact have a ton of backing, it's every incorrect rule in the book, you know, the purpose of this entire forum "ymdc" if the rules made sense, as you imply, this portion of dakkadakka wouldn't exist.
You claim the book says it's not a save, which it doesn't. It in fact says it is a save, and calls it a save. In fact if it wasn't, goobi2's logic would be correct. He obviously showed you a flaw in your thinking that gw wrote a rule that works correctly.
The book says it is a save. It says it not a saving throw.
You say they are synonymous. You give examples that they are, yet cannot refute that the book called them saves then says they are not saving throws.
How fnp should have been worded? Different enough that it can be a Dave that can be taken after another save, unlike any other save. And make it clear. Instead of just being awful at a very important part of their job.
|
Warboss Troil
"Less chat, more splat!" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/08 02:16:00
Subject: Re:1+ FnP
|
 |
Human Auxiliary to the Empire
|
Rules state "All rolls of 6 are a success unless rolling for glance/pen, and all rolls of 1 are fails" so yes 2+ will always be the case great look into it though almost had the ultimate cheese!
|
The First, The Last, The Only. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/08 04:27:08
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
Please quote the Rule that states "All rolls of 6 are a success unless rolling for glance/pen, and all rolls of 1 are fails", I can not find this wording in the book at all.... Like the conclusion or not, DeathReaper has quoted sections of the Rulebook that support his claim and put forth Restrictions that would make Feel No Pain impossible to use if it was a Save.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/08 05:07:28
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/08 06:07:02
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
FratHammer wrote:He does in fact have a ton of backing, it's every incorrect rule in the book, you know, the purpose of this entire forum " ymdc" if the rules made sense, as you imply, this portion of dakkadakka wouldn't exist.
You claim the book says it's not a save, which it doesn't. It in fact says it is a save, and calls it a save.
The above is of course incorrect.
The rules EXPLICITLY state that it IS NOT a save...
"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded ([u] this is not a saving throw[/u] and so can be used against attacks that state that ‘no saves of any kind are allowed’, for example those inflicted by Perils of the Warp)."(Emphasis mine, Special rules Chapter, Feel No Pain Section).
As you can see, FNP is EXPLICITLY "not a saving throw"
and, as per my rules quotes earlier Save = saving throw
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/08 06:41:02
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Flashy Flashgitz
|
And again you keep leaving off the portion of the rule that specifically states it is a Save. I can cut and paste the entire rule book chopping it up to make any point I want also. But denying the rule book also calls it a save or that somehow str10 and D weapons stop it, if you were 100% right, is wrong.
If like you say, fnp is not and cannot be taken as a save, which is never said, as it says saving throw (synonymous or not) not save, then you must agree with Goobi2's joke that states fnp saves cannot be taken against str10 or D weapons. Since fnp is never a save, fnp always applies according to your reading.
The only sane conclusion is that GW should not be writing rules. And you are not 100% correct. Demanding that the rules don't say something that they clearly say because you use the delete button on your keyboard, doesn't mean it isn't in our rule book.
|
Warboss Troil
"Less chat, more splat!" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/08 09:15:11
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
FratHammer wrote:And again you keep leaving off the portion of the rule that specifically states it is a Save. I can cut and paste the entire rule book chopping it up to make any point I want also. But denying the rule book also calls it a save or that somehow str10 and D weapons stop it, if you were 100% right, is wrong.
How does Str 10 and Str D invalidate the part of the book dedicated to saying it is NOT a save? The whole thingmakes a lot more sense if you assume the function of ignoring a wound is "saving", because then FnP can be a non-save, while saving a model
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/08 10:40:28
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Flashy Flashgitz
|
It doesn't saelym. To gain context for what I'm taking about read the entire thread.
The rule itself started it isn't a saving throw them immediately calls it a save.
The rule that states fnp cannot be taken if the weapon is double str/toughness and D state fnp saves cannot be taken. Since DR is arguing it isn't a save and doesn't make saving throws fnp wouldn't be affected by that rule designed to specifically counter when fnp can be taken.
We all understand how to use the rules, GW is just awful at writing them. DR keeps insisting he is 100% correct and it is the only interpretation of the rules possible. BT and I are pointing out that though RAI is easy to assume sometimes its not cut and dry. This is a case where it is not 100% cut and dry. Regardless of DR's insistence and selective rules quoting.
So again, we're only a couple pages in. Take the time to catch up and you should understand, since I assume you're reading only the portion of the rule DR is quoting instead of pulling your book out.
|
Warboss Troil
"Less chat, more splat!" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/08 12:26:37
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
FratHammer wrote:It doesn't saelym. To gain context for what I'm taking about read the entire thread. The rule itself started it isn't a saving throw them immediately calls it a save. The rule that states fnp cannot be taken if the weapon is double str/toughness and D state fnp saves cannot be taken. Since DR is arguing it isn't a save and doesn't make saving throws fnp wouldn't be affected by that rule designed to specifically counter when fnp can be taken. We all understand how to use the rules, GW is just awful at writing them. DR keeps insisting he is 100% correct and it is the only interpretation of the rules possible. BT and I are pointing out that though RAI is easy to assume sometimes its not cut and dry. This is a case where it is not 100% cut and dry. Regardless of DR's insistence and selective rules quoting. So again, we're only a couple pages in. Take the time to catch up and you should understand, since I assume you're reading only the portion of the rule DR is quoting instead of pulling your book out.
You want the book? Here's the book: Page 164 wrote:"...Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state that "no saves of any kind are allowed" "
If FnP was a save, you would not be able to use it after your normal saves, and would be unusable against things that negate saves. Page 36 wrote:"Types of Saving Throws -Armour Saves [description of armour saves] -Invulnerable Saves [description of invulns] -Cover Saves [description of cover saves]"
Here it lists ALL types of saves. FnP is not here. It it pretty clear that the Rulebook does not consider FnP to be a saving throw, on par with Armour or Cover. Automatically Appended Next Post: And I've been reading this thread from the start.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/08 12:27:30
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/08 12:43:20
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot
|
Selym wrote:FratHammer wrote:It doesn't saelym. To gain context for what I'm taking about read the entire thread.
The rule itself started it isn't a saving throw them immediately calls it a save.
The rule that states fnp cannot be taken if the weapon is double str/toughness and D state fnp saves cannot be taken. Since DR is arguing it isn't a save and doesn't make saving throws fnp wouldn't be affected by that rule designed to specifically counter when fnp can be taken.
We all understand how to use the rules, GW is just awful at writing them. DR keeps insisting he is 100% correct and it is the only interpretation of the rules possible. BT and I are pointing out that though RAI is easy to assume sometimes its not cut and dry. This is a case where it is not 100% cut and dry. Regardless of DR's insistence and selective rules quoting.
So again, we're only a couple pages in. Take the time to catch up and you should understand, since I assume you're reading only the portion of the rule DR is quoting instead of pulling your book out.
You want the book? Here's the book:
Page 164 wrote:"...Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state that "no saves of any kind are allowed" "
If FnP was a save, you would not be able to use it after your normal saves, and would be unusable against things that negate saves.
Page 36 wrote:"Types of Saving Throws
-Armour Saves
[description of armour saves]
-Invulnerable Saves
[description of invulns]
-Cover Saves
[description of cover saves]"
Here it lists ALL types of saves. FnP is not here.
It it pretty clear that the Rulebook does not consider FnP to be a saving throw, on par with Armour or Cover.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I've been reading this thread from the start.
He's trying to propose that because the rule book says "Feel No Pain saves" it is in fact a save.
No word yet on if he also believes Heavy Flamers are Heavy or Assault Cannons are Assault as was brought up earlier in the thread.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/08 12:56:23
Subject: Re:1+ FnP
|
 |
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus
|
Sounds like the wish is father of the thought - good work 'selym'. Pretty conclusive there.
|
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle.. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/08 20:55:57
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
FratHammer wrote:And again you keep leaving off the portion of the rule that specifically states it is a Save. I can cut and paste the entire rule book chopping it up to make any point I want also. But denying the rule book also calls it a save or that somehow str10 and D weapons stop it, if you were 100% right, is wrong. If like you say, fnp is not and cannot be taken as a save, which is never said, as it says saving throw (synonymous or not) not save, then you must agree with Goobi2's joke that states fnp saves cannot be taken against str10 or D weapons. Since fnp is never a save, fnp always applies according to your reading. The only sane conclusion is that GW should not be writing rules. And you are not 100% correct. Demanding that the rules don't say something that they clearly say because you use the delete button on your keyboard, doesn't mean it isn't in our rule book. It calls it a save, but it EXPLICITLY states that it IS NOT a save... Therefore it is not a save.\ If it were a save you could not use it after taking an Armor/Cover/Invuln Save... But we know you can...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/08 20:56:47
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/08 21:20:03
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
Flashy Flashgitz
|
Alright Seylm Since you cant pick up a book and not "cherry pick" and Cant read or understand other people's responses to your incorrect analogies I will do you the favor of combining both here for you one last time.
Feel No Pain:
When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain Roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state that 'no saves of any kind are allowed', for example those inflicted by Perils of the Warp).
Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks (pg 163) or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule.
Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered. On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as noemal. On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved.
If a unit has the Feel No Pain special rule with a number in brackets afterwards - Feel No Pain (6+), for example - then the number in brackets is the D6 result needed to discount the Wound.
That is the entire Rule.
Every time you and your ilk keep cherry picking the top paragraph. If you read paragraph 2, the intent is clear, no one is arguing that, but the rule itself is flawed. If you want to keep arguing that it is a clear and concise rule, then you must also admit, Feel No Pain "Saves" cannot ever be taken, because as some of you point out, "Saving Throws" and "Saves" are synonymous. Since a FNP "Save" is called for in Paragraph 2, and they don't exist, you can always take your FNP ROLL as described in Paragraph 1.
Do you understand yet? You cannot tell me it is not a save/saving throw, then say you cant take your save/savingthrow in this ____ circumstance. In the same rules block!
Now to comment on the inappropriate analogy.
Assault Cannon: 24" S6 AP4 Heavy 4, Rending
Heavy Flamer: Template S5 AP4 Assault 1
That is the rules entry for both on pg. 176 in my mini rulebook.
Where in those rules, not their title, does the Ass Cannon say it's Heavy? Where in the rules does a Heavy Flamer say it's Heavy?
Now in the Feel No pain special rule's title does it call it a Save? No. Your trying to make other people think my argument is invalid by claiming a Weak analogy argument which is literally a logical fallacy.
Weak analogy: example: Giraffes and gorillas are to be found in Africa, and they both have names that start with 'G'. Guinea pigs also have a name that starts with 'G', and so they are from Africa as well.
Technically your Analogy is even weaker than that because you claim I believe that since something is written in the title the rules must reflect, when I am saying "When something is written in the rules, then the rules contradict themselves, the rules are poorly written."
So technically you're also Straw Manning my argument which is a second logical Fallacy. So let's go over that one as well.
Staw Man: The Straw Man fallacy is committed when an arguer claims to be refuting an opponent's argument, but really refutes a different, usually weaker argument that superficially resembles the opponent's argument.
In conclusion I am not arguing that FNP is a save. I am arguing that the book claims it is both a save and not a save. Which is clearly written in the rules. And not in different parts of the book or different sections. In the rule for FNP it contradicts itself. If you want to say 100% that the rule is clear that it isn't a save, you must admit 100% that it may be taken against D weapons and weapons that cause instant death, because it is not a save and they are therefore referencing something that doesn't exist.
So it's simple. GW is awful at rules. We all know what they meant. Play the game as intended not written. But stop talking in Absolutes like GW has a clue how to write rules.
|
Warboss Troil
"Less chat, more splat!" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/09 00:26:04
Subject: 1+ FnP
|
 |
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
FratHammer wrote:Alright Seylm Since you cant pick up a book and not "cherry pick" and Cant read or understand other people's responses to your incorrect analogies I will do you the favor of combining both here for you one last time. It's hardly cherrypicking when I refer to a rule that has been stated in full numerous times, and then add another whole section of the book dedicatd to saves. And I have made no analogies in this thread whatsoever.
Feel No Pain:
When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain Roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state that 'no saves of any kind are allowed', for example those inflicted by Perils of the Warp).
Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks ( pg 163) or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule.
Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered. On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as noemal. On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved.
If a unit has the Feel No Pain special rule with a number in brackets afterwards - Feel No Pain (6+), for example - then the number in brackets is the D6 result needed to discount the Wound.
That is the entire Rule.
Every time you and your ilk keep cherry picking the top paragraph. If you read paragraph 2, the intent is clear, no one is arguing that, but the rule itself is flawed. The argument is not whether GW can write or not, the argument, and the whole point of this thread was whether or not the rule of "1's always fail on saves" appplies. If you want to keep arguing that it is a clear and concise rule, then you must also admit, Feel No Pain "Saves" cannot ever be taken, because as some of you point out, "Saving Throws" and "Saves" are synonymous Since they are not grammatically interchangable, and GW seems to use them differently, they are not by necessity synonymous.. Since a FNP "Save" is called for in Paragraph 2, and they don't exist, you can always take your FNP ROLL as described in Paragraph 1.
Do you understand yet? You're the one with a lack of understanding here.You cannot tell me it is not a save/saving throw, then say you cant take your save/savingthrow in this ____ circumstance. I can and I will. -FnP is not a save, and Insta-death prevents it. In the same rules block!
Now to comment on the inappropriate analogy.
Assault Cannon: 24" S6 AP4 Heavy 4, Rending
Heavy Flamer: Template S5 AP4 Assault 1
That is the rules entry for both on pg. 176 in my mini rulebook.
Where in those rules, not their title, does the Ass Cannon say it's Heavy? Where in the rules does a Heavy Flamer say it's Heavy? Its referring you your logic, not their profiles.
Now in the Feel No pain special rule's title does it call it a Save? No. Your trying to make other people think my argument is invalid by claiming a Weak analogy argument which is literally a logical fallacy. Again, I have used no analogies, just quotes from the Book. And the whole point of this entire thread is to prove your point wrong.
Weak analogy: example: Giraffes and gorillas are to be found in Africa, and they both have names that start with 'G'. Guinea pigs also have a name that starts with 'G', and so they are from Africa as well.
Oh dear lord, we know what analogies are. Your posts get more patronizing by the word.
Technically your Analogy is even weaker than that because you claim I believe that since something is written in the title the rules must reflect, when I am saying "When something is written in the rules, then the rules contradict themselves, the rules are poorly written." Not a claim on your beliefs, simply a reference you your lack of logic. And again, not my analogy.
So technically you're also Straw Manning my argument which is a second logical Fallacy. So let's go over that one as well. If quoting the entire section on what is or is not a save is a strawman argument, then this sentence is a curse word.
Staw Man: The Straw Man fallacy is committed when an arguer claims to be refuting an opponent's argument, but really refutes a different, usually weaker argument that superficially resembles the opponent's argument.
Quoted one and a half pages of Rulebook for you to pour over. Read it, then come back. Until then you have nothing to contribute to this debate.
In conclusion I am not arguing that FNP is a save. I am arguing that the book claims it is both a save and not a save. The book has a typo that does not even claim such. It is far closer to referring to a wound-removal procedure. Which is clearly written in the rules. And not in different parts of the book or different sections. In the rule for FNP it contradicts itself. If you want to say 100% that the rule is clear that it isn't a save, you must admit 100% that it may be taken against D weapons and weapons that cause instant death, because it is not a save and they are therefore referencing something that doesn't exist.
So it's simple. GW is awful at rules. We all know what they meant. Play the game as intended not written. But stop talking in Absolutes like GW has a clue how to write rules.
|
|
 |
 |
|