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.

Original post:

So using a weapong like the black mace it states if the target suffers an unsaved wound they must take a toughness test or be removed.

Do feel no pain or reanimation protocols stop this from happening?

I would assume no because FNP and RP are technically not saves, and that the model still suffered an unsaved wound then, regardless of it making or failing the roll to FNP it.

What do you guys think?

 Konrax wrote:
Pg 13 BRB

"Models that are 'removed from play' by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties, as far as the game rules are concerned."

"Basic vs Advanced... On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a (advanced) rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence."

Pg 164 BRB

"Feel No Pain... When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound, it can make special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw and can be used against attacks that state '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 destoryer attacks or against unsaved wounds that have the instant death special rule.

... On a X+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved."

Pg 69 CSM

"Cursed... If a model suffers an unsaved wound from the Black Mace it must immediately take a toughness test. If the test is failed, remove the model as a casualty with no saves of any kind allowed. In addition, at the end of the phase in which the Black Mace causes one or more unsaved Wounds, all non-vehicle enemy models within 3" of the bearer, which haven't suffered an unsaved wound from the Black Mace this phase, must make a Toughness test. Any models that fail the test suffer a Wound with no saves of any kind allowed."

All the pertaining rules I can see need to be referenced so far.

+ Reanimation Protocols.

Wallur wrote:
Second: As for FNP, the wound has been taken wether you discount it or not. So, even if your model stays at his Max numer of wounds, it still suffered it and discarded, but was suffered, since FNP requieres your model to suffer a wound to trigger. SO:
Wound was suffered? Yes -> Black Mace removes model from play


Automatically Appended Next Post:

REANIMATION PROTOCOLS wrote:
When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Reanimation Protocols roll to avoid being wounded. This is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state ‘no saves of any kind are allowed’.
Reanimation Protocols rolls may even be taken against hits with the Instant Death special rule, but cannot be used against hits from Destroyer weapons or any special rule or attack that states that the model is ‘removed from play’. Roll a D6 each time the model suffers an unsaved Wound, subtracting 1 from the result if the hit that inflicted the Wound had the Instant Death special rule. On a 5+, discount the unsaved Wound – treat it as having been saved. Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+.
If a unit has both the Reanimation Protocols and Feel No Pain special rules, you can choose to use one special rule or the other to attempt to avoid the Wound, but not both.
Choose which of the two special rules you will use each time a model suffers an unsaved Wound.

Conclusions

Based on the discussions in this thread at this point I am going to go ahead and lock it as I do not wish to continue to reiterate the same points over and over again.

My personal conclusion is that off a successful wound which has failed a save, being an armour, invulnerable, or cover save as defined by the BRB that model must immediately roll a toughness test and upon failure is removed without a chance to FNP or RP.

Various FAQ's and ITC rulings on similar rules disputes point to an ordered process when determining the order in which an FNP roll can be taken.

Due to the nature of how these two rules work, and their ability to nullify each other, the fundamental reason as to why Curse would take precedence is due to both rules triggering off the same event, however with Curse having a clause that it must be tested immediately after a wound has failed to be saved.

Curse in addition has a rule where enemy models in the area must take a toughness test or suffer a single wound, these results may make a FNP or RP because it is a single wound, and is not a type of damage that negates FNP or RP to trigger normally.

Once again this is not an official ruling, but my interpretation after debating for 5 pages with various people both for and against the results.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to this discussion.

If you feel that this should / should not be played this way, discuss it with your opponent first, and feel free to quote me for my interpretations of how these two rules would interact with each other.

Assuming that nothing else has changed recently, when two rules trigger off the same event, ie unsaved wound, the player who's turn it is gets to decide the order in which they are resolved.

So in your turn, black mace resolves first, in your opponents turn FNP/RP resolves first, in which case black mace may do nothing, as the wound is saved before it gets a look in.

Cheers

Andrew

The wound dealt is technically discounted via FNP or RP and therefore never happened. That is the argument against stuff like this and grounding tests.

That is HIWPI as well, however, I'm interested in seeing what people say.

I want to know because I have a demon prince anda necrons friend that I want to introduce to each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whacked wrote:
The wound dealt is technically discounted via FNP or RP and therefore never happened. That is the argument against stuff like this and grounding tests.

That is HIWPI as well, however, I'm interested in seeing what people say.

FNP says in its rules though that it does not count as a save. So yes you may ignore the wound, but you still technically suffered an unsaved wound if you go by RAW

There is a precedent set by the Dark Eldar FAQ that the Shadow Field is lost even if they passed their FNP (which has the same unsaved wound trigger)

The wound is "discounted" there for you pay no attention to it, as if it never happened. People would be taking grounding tests everywhere on FMCs if they discounted their unsaved wounds with FNP.

There is only one situation that I can think of that gives your argument credibility and it was the recent FAQ for Dark Eldar (I believe?) with the wargear that is removed once you take an unsaved wound even if you FNP.

Edit: CrownAxe beat me to it, but I also believe the precedent only exists because of the implicit wording of Shadow Field in that situation.

 Konrax wrote:
I want to know because I have a demon prince anda necrons friend that I want to introduce to each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whacked wrote:
The wound dealt is technically discounted via FNP or RP and therefore never happened. That is the argument against stuff like this and grounding tests.

That is HIWPI as well, however, I'm interested in seeing what people say.

FNP says in its rules though that it does not count as a save. So yes you may ignore the wound, but you still technically suffered an unsaved wound if you go by RAW

Both FNP and RP consider the Wound as Saved if successful, though. Keep that in Mind. While not being Saves, they can still Save the Wound.

'Treat it as having been saved' needs to be better explained by the Authors, as evident by the huge amount of debate that occurs whenever this terminology is encountered.
As many different interpretations exist... my advise is to talk to your opponent and work it out with them.

 Konrax wrote:
So using a weapong like the black mace it states if the target suffers an unsaved wound they must take a toughness test or be removed.

Do feel no pain or reanimation protocols stop this from happening?

I would assume no because FNP and RP are technically not saves, and that the model still suffered an unsaved wound then, regardless of it making or failing the roll to FNP it.

What do you guys think?

The tough test that is required from the black mace is after an unsaved wound is taken. The tough test would happen after any FNP or RP would resolved and a wound made it thought. If I remember right it effects the whole unit. So since it specifically yes it does not cause a wound, it does not trigger FNP or RP. Just removed from the game. Its one of few weapons in the game that have remove from play effects still. Stomp attacks are the same way. If you get stomped and a 6 is rolled, models are just removed. No FNP. No RP.

 CrownAxe wrote:
There is a precedent set by the Dark Eldar FAQ that the Shadow Field is lost even if they passed their FNP (which has the same unsaved wound trigger)

Bad example. Shadow Fields were lost if you failed a save, not suffered a Wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Glitcha wrote:

 Konrax wrote:
So using a weapong like the black mace it states if the target suffers an unsaved wound they must take a toughness test or be removed.

Do feel no pain or reanimation protocols stop this from happening?

I would assume no because FNP and RP are technically not saves, and that the model still suffered an unsaved wound then, regardless of it making or failing the roll to FNP it.

What do you guys think?

The tough test that is required from the black mace is after an unsaved wound is taken. The tough test would happen after any FNP or RP would resolved and a wound made it thought. If I remember right it effects the whole unit. So since it specifically yes it does not cause a wound, it does not trigger FNP or RP. Just removed from the game. Its one of few weapons in the game that have remove from play effects still. Stomp attacks are the same way. If you get stomped and a 6 is rolled, models are just removed. No FNP. No RP.

Any D-weapon ignores FNP/RP. Not just a 6 on the chart.

I would still argue that the unit suffered an unsaved wound since it's save was failed. However the wounds caused were reduced to 0 by it passing a feel no pain roll.

So it would be -1 then +1 wound and therefore it had still suffered the wound, regardless of how many wounds the model has at the end of the phase.

The words are 'treat it as being saved,' by stating the Unsaved Wound still occurred have you treating it in the same way as a Saved Wound?

Show me where it says that FNP counts as a save.

The rule specifically says it does not count as a save and may be taken when saves are not usually allowed.

My interpretation is that if I get a wound and you fail a save, despite successfully making a FNP roll you still need to take a toughness test, since FNP does not count as a save for rules purposes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
The words are 'treat it as being saved,' by stating the Unsaved Wound still occurred have you treating it in the same way as a Saved Wound?

You can't get the benefit of it being applied when you normally get no saves, and also have it ignore rules that apply when saves are passed. One or the other but not both.

 Konrax wrote:
Show me where it says that FNP counts as a save.

The rule specifically says it does not count as a save and may be taken when saves are not usually allowed.

My interpretation is that if I get a wound and you fail a save, despite successfully making a FNP roll you still need to take a toughness test, since FNP does not count as a save for rules purposes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
The words are 'treat it as being saved,' by stating the Unsaved Wound still occurred have you treating it in the same way as a Saved Wound?

You can't get the benefit of it being applied when you normally get no saves, and also have it ignore rules that apply when saves are passed. One or the other but not both.

FNP doesn't have to count as a save. If you make it, you will then treat the wound as having been saved. (Just as if the first save had been passed.) Thus, no further effects that trigger on an unsaved wound can be fulfilled? (Was an unsaved wound applied? If you are playing FNP correctly than no, for rules purposes it was not.)

Your not really giving me any substance here to work with.

I quoted that the rules specifically say it isn't a save, but you say you treat the wound as if it was saved without it being a save.

Not to be a TFG here but I don't see any reason why you would get to ignore that rule with a passed FNP.

The dark eldar field has similar wording and they said that the save was still technically failed despite a FNP being passed.

 Konrax wrote:
Your not really giving me any substance here to work with.

I quoted that the rules specifically say it isn't a save, but you say you treat the wound as if it was saved without it being a save.

Not to be a TFG here but I don't see any reason why you would get to ignore that rule with a passed FNP.

The dark eldar field has similar wording and they said that the save was still technically failed despite a FNP being passed.

Incorrect. The Dark Eldar field had different wording which had nothing to do with Wounds. It dealt with a save. Whether or not the model was wounded, it still failed it's 2+ invulnerable save, and as such the field was lost.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Konrax wrote:
Your not really giving me any substance here to work with.

I quoted that the rules specifically say it isn't a save, but you say you treat the wound as if it was saved without it being a save.

Not to be a TFG here but I don't see any reason why you would get to ignore that rule with a passed FNP.

The dark eldar field has similar wording and they said that the save was still technically failed despite a FNP being passed.

Incorrect. The Dark Eldar field had different wording which had nothing to do with Wounds. It dealt with a save. Whether or not the model was wounded, it still failed it's 2+ invulnerable save, and as such the field was lost.

What is the wording for the shadow field then?

Maybe it can help draw some insight at least on how to resolve this.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Konrax wrote:
Your not really giving me any substance here to work with.

I quoted that the rules specifically say it isn't a save, but you say you treat the wound as if it was saved without it being a save.

Not to be a TFG here but I don't see any reason why you would get to ignore that rule with a passed FNP.

The dark eldar field has similar wording and they said that the save was still technically failed despite a FNP being passed.

Incorrect. The Dark Eldar field had different wording which had nothing to do with Wounds. It dealt with a save. Whether or not the model was wounded, it still failed it's 2+ invulnerable save, and as such the field was lost.

The effect of FNP isn't prevent the model from suffering a wound, The effect of FNP is to make the failed save count as saved which should have prevented the shadowfield from being lost at all until GW flat out said "no its lost"

The wording changed (and the FAQ that the question applied to was the previous codex).

It used to be if the model failed a save the Shadow Field was immediately lost (FNP did not negate this per hte FAQ).

Now, it's at the end of the phase the field is lost, if the model suffered an unsaved wound.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Konrax wrote:
Your not really giving me any substance here to work with.

I quoted that the rules specifically say it isn't a save, but you say you treat the wound as if it was saved without it being a save.

Not to be a TFG here but I don't see any reason why you would get to ignore that rule with a passed FNP.

The dark eldar field has similar wording and they said that the save was still technically failed despite a FNP being passed.

Incorrect. The Dark Eldar field had different wording which had nothing to do with Wounds. It dealt with a save. Whether or not the model was wounded, it still failed it's 2+ invulnerable save, and as such the field was lost.

The effect of FNP isn't prevent the model from suffering a wound, The effect of FNP is to make the failed save count as saved which should have prevented the shadowfield from being lost at all until GW flat out said "no its lost"

I'm not really buying this " counts as a save" when the FNP rule specifically says it doesn't count as a save.

It just says the wound that would have been suffered is ignored, so the wound itself is ignored, but for all intents and purposes it had still suffered an unsaved wound despite the target wounds profile not being changed.

Demonic possession works the opposite saying that a result of crew shaken or stunned is ignored but a hullpoint is still lost. That rule basically outright said the effect is ignored but not the wound. FNP only states the wound is ignored and nothing about the effects caused by the wound in the first place.

Another circumstance is the use of a force weapon with force activated. If a target is hit by a force weapon, all wounds caused by the weapon have the insant death special rule, which would then ignore FNP. So to me this example shows that the effect of the weapon applies before the FNP roll would come into affect.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Konrax wrote:
Your not really giving me any substance here to work with.

I quoted that the rules specifically say it isn't a save, but you say you treat the wound as if it was saved without it being a save.

Not to be a TFG here but I don't see any reason why you would get to ignore that rule with a passed FNP.

The dark eldar field has similar wording and they said that the save was still technically failed despite a FNP being passed.

Incorrect. The Dark Eldar field had different wording which had nothing to do with Wounds. It dealt with a save. Whether or not the model was wounded, it still failed it's 2+ invulnerable save, and as such the field was lost.

The effect of FNP isn't prevent the model from suffering a wound, The effect of FNP is to make the failed save count as saved which should have prevented the shadowfield from being lost at all until GW flat out said "no its lost"

FNP discounts the Wound, [treated] as if it had been saved. However, the model still failed it's 2+ invulnerable save whether or not FNP was passed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Konrax wrote:
Another circumstance is the use of a force weapon with force activated. If a target is hit by a force weapon, all wounds caused by the weapon have the insant death special rule, which would then ignore FNP. So to me this example shows that the effect of the weapon applies before the FNP roll would come into affect.

Bad example. Weapons with the Force special rule gain the ID special rule after activation which is done during the Psychic phase. As such, when you deal the Wounds they already have the ID special rule.

Has anyone else run into this rules paradox here?

Personally fluffwise it is a cursed daemon weapon so even it touching you would be very dangerous, despite being super tough and shrugging off what would be considered an injury. I know this has no impact at all on rules as written but it may help with context and RAI.

On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved.
- Feel No Pain

Feel No Pain may not be a save in and of itself, but it does tell us to discount the unsaved Wound and to treat it as having been saved.
If you do not discount the unsaved Wound entirely, treating it as a Saved result, then you are breaking this poorly written and paradoxical Rule.

Also see any of my previous rants on Wounds and Wounds, two completely different things that have the same name:
The To Wound process, which includes Allocation and Saving Throws, are refereed to as 'Wounds'
While reducing the Wound Characteristic is also refereed to as Wounds

All because Game Workshop likes ******* with us....

 Konrax wrote:
Has anyone else run into this rules paradox here?

Personally fluffwise it is a cursed daemon weapon so even it touching you would be very dangerous, despite being super tough and shrugging off what would be considered an injury. I know this has no impact at all on rules as written but it may help with context and RAI.

Me and a friend ran into the problem about a month ago. Black Mace vs Necrons. How we played it made more sense back then, than after reading this topic though.

We played it that the toughness test happens first, if the model passes the toughness test you roll for RP to see if the wound goes trough. If you fail the toughness test you just die because RP cant protect from remove effects.

 M0ff3l wrote:

 Konrax wrote:
Has anyone else run into this rules paradox here?

Personally fluffwise it is a cursed daemon weapon so even it touching you would be very dangerous, despite being super tough and shrugging off what would be considered an injury. I know this has no impact at all on rules as written but it may help with context and RAI.

Me and a friend ran into the problem about a month ago. Black Mace vs Necrons. How we played it made more sense back then, than after reading this topic though.

We played it that the toughness test happens first, if the model passes the toughness test you roll for RP to see if the wound goes trough. If you fail the toughness test you just die because RP cant protect from remove effects.

But if he passed the rp he would of stayed.. I understand you house ruled it, but the intention is clear. Fnp and rp will let the character ignore the black mace

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 M0ff3l wrote:

 Konrax wrote:
Has anyone else run into this rules paradox here?

Personally fluffwise it is a cursed daemon weapon so even it touching you would be very dangerous, despite being super tough and shrugging off what would be considered an injury. I know this has no impact at all on rules as written but it may help with context and RAI.

Me and a friend ran into the problem about a month ago. Black Mace vs Necrons. How we played it made more sense back then, than after reading this topic though.

We played it that the toughness test happens first, if the model passes the toughness test you roll for RP to see if the wound goes trough. If you fail the toughness test you just die because RP cant protect from remove effects.

But if he passed the rp he would of stayed.. I understand you house ruled it, but the intention is clear. Fnp and rp will let the character ignore the black mace

We werent sure what happened first though. Because both trigger on unsaved wounds, the only time it happened was in his turn, so maybe that made us choose the way we did, I cant remember exactly.

 M0ff3l wrote:

 Konrax wrote:
Has anyone else run into this rules paradox here?

Personally fluffwise it is a cursed daemon weapon so even it touching you would be very dangerous, despite being super tough and shrugging off what would be considered an injury. I know this has no impact at all on rules as written but it may help with context and RAI.

Me and a friend ran into the problem about a month ago. Black Mace vs Necrons. How we played it made more sense back then, than after reading this topic though.

We played it that the toughness test happens first, if the model passes the toughness test you roll for RP to see if the wound goes trough. If you fail the toughness test you just die because RP cant protect from remove effects.

He does have a point though that the effect would ignore the RP but it says it would be rolled at the end of the phase. FNP doesn't really say at what point during the phase it would be rolled I believe.

 Konrax wrote:

 M0ff3l wrote:

 Konrax wrote:
Has anyone else run into this rules paradox here?

Personally fluffwise it is a cursed daemon weapon so even it touching you would be very dangerous, despite being super tough and shrugging off what would be considered an injury. I know this has no impact at all on rules as written but it may help with context and RAI.

Me and a friend ran into the problem about a month ago. Black Mace vs Necrons. How we played it made more sense back then, than after reading this topic though.

We played it that the toughness test happens first, if the model passes the toughness test you roll for RP to see if the wound goes trough. If you fail the toughness test you just die because RP cant protect from remove effects.

He does have a point though that the effect would ignore the RP but it says it would be rolled at the end of the phase. FNP doesn't really say at what point during the phase it would be rolled I believe.

Both the black mace and RP say that they happen when your model gets an unsaved wound. In our case he was the turn player, so we gave his effect priority I believe.

The relationship between Unsaved Wounds, FNP/RP, and other triggers is a lot like the relationship between Ordnance Weapons and non- Ordnance on Vehicles.

There is nothing requiring you to process Ordnance Weapons first, so if you Fire it last, it is too late for it affect other Weapons. This is a jerk move, though, and can see a player losing future games by it.

By placing the trigger of an UnSaved Wound before it can be Saved in a different way, is just like firing Ordnance Weapons last. You can do it, and it is RAW, but stupid.

Honestly I have a good friend who plays necrons all the time and I just want to have an idea about how people feel it works. I'm heading home from work and I'm going to check the rules if I can find something to support either argument.