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.

So I had a game against T'au today and had this situation come up.

My Opponent had a T'AU SEPT Coldstar Commander, who was his Warlord and had the Strength from Belief trait. The Commander currently had the benefit from an Ethereal who declared Sense of Stone.

The Coldstar had zipped up and QFB blapped my Venerable Dread (Brother Bartholomew-the-Acid-Scarred-from-6000"-Away, you'll be missed) but had left himself exposed, my Librarian thus fired off some MIND BULLETS by casting Smite on the Commander, causing 3 mortal wounds.

My opponent said he could use both rules because Strength of Belief only works against mortal wounds, and thus isn't an ability "that allow[s] them to ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound", it's an ability that happens each time you suffer a mortal wound.

What say you Dakka? I am personally inclined to agree here since the rule very explicitly says it is referring to rules "that allow them to ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound" and Strength of Belief most certainly does not happen "each time it loses a wound" and thus is not restricted by this new rule.

Edit: While Ulthwé says that the Ghosthelm is a "similar" ability, "similar" is not a synonym for "identical". Where the line about Ghosthelms not there in the Ulthwé rule I think it would stack even with the new rule.

And as usual, since there is a hardcore contingent of detractors, I am going to have to once again make it clear I am not trying to make a scene, I am asking a legitimate rules question.

Your opponent is trying to argue that because Strength of Belief limits his ability Ignore Wounds that the rule limiting your ability to Ignore Wounds multiple times doesn't apply. I just can't agree with him. The rule says you can only use one ability to Ignore a Wound. The fact that is trying to roll a second time to Ignore the Mortal Wound clearly violates that rule.

 alextroy wrote:
Your opponent is trying to argue that because Strength of Belief limits his ability Ignore Wounds that the rule limiting your ability to Ignore Wounds multiple times doesn't apply. I just can't agree with him. The rule says you can only use one ability to Ignore a Wound. The fact that is trying to roll a second time to Ignore the Mortal Wound clearly violates that rule.

That isn't what the rule is saying at all. The rule says you can only use one ability that allows you to ignore EACH wound. Strength of Belief doesn't do that.

Your logic is like saying if a rule said "You cannot fire Heavy weapons this turn" it actually means "You cannot fire any weapons this turn."

When his argument depends upon the dictionary definition of each, then his argument is pretty much bunk.

I’d say you’ve met your match.

Wait, sorry, the rules bit... no, they don’t stack. Both rules are clearly about ignoring Wounds and therefore the new Big FAQ rule disallows using both.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I’d say you’ve met your match.

Wait, sorry, the rules bit... no, they don’t stack. Both rules are clearly about ignoring Wounds and therefore the new Big FAQ rule disallows using both.

May I suggest you read the new Ignoring Wounds rule again? The rule explicitly says it only applies to rules that allow you to ignore wounds each time you lose a wound. A rule that only ignores Mortal Wounds does not allow you ignore wounds each time you lose a wound.

Do you have any rules citation that would suggest otherwise? Or are you arguing from a nebulous RaI position? It's hard to tell sometimes with your posts.

Also, "met my match"? I am agreeing with my opponent.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I’d say you’ve met your match.

Wait, sorry, the rules bit... no, they don’t stack. Both rules are clearly about ignoring Wounds and therefore the new Big FAQ rule disallows using both.

May I suggest you read the new Ignoring Wounds rule again? The rule explicitly says it only applies to rules that allow you to ignore wounds each time you lose a wound. A rule that only ignores Mortal Wounds does not allow you ignore wounds each time you lose a wound.

Do you have any rules citation that would suggest otherwise? Or are you arguing from a nebulous RaI position? It's hard to tell sometimes with your posts.

Also, "met my match"? I am agreeing with my opponent.

The new rule is headed ABILITIES WHICH IGNORE WOUNDS in all caps. If that’s not citation enough...

Does the ability let you take one roll to stop all MW suffered or one die for each MW suffered?
If avoided in a block, maybe your grammar-based rule exploit holds water.
If not, then you’re rolling a die to avoid taking each MW so no bueno and the new rule kicks in.

(Also, can I check if he Advanced, as this could be a moot point if he Advanced and tried to fire Assault weapons in a Pure RAW game )

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The new rule is headed ABILITIES WHICH IGNORE WOUNDS in all caps. If that’s not citation enough...

Does the ability let you take one roll to stop all MW suffered or one die for each MW suffered?
If avoided in a block, maybe your grammar-based rule exploit holds water.
If not, then you’re rolling a die to avoid taking each MW so no bueno and the new rule kicks in

What the rule is called is irrelevant. What the rule does is relevant. Strength of Belief uses the same format as Sense of Stone, but only happens when you suffer a Mortal wound, thus by definition it's not a rule "that allow[s] them to ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound".

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The new rule is headed ABILITIES WHICH IGNORE WOUNDS in all caps. If that’s not citation enough...

Does the ability let you take one roll to stop all MW suffered or one die for each MW suffered?
If avoided in a block, maybe your grammar-based rule exploit holds water.
If not, then you’re rolling a die to avoid taking each MW so no bueno and the new rule kicks in

What the rule is called is irrelevant. What the rule does is relevant. Strength of Belief uses the same format as Sense of Stone, but only happens when you suffer a Mortal wound, thus by definition it's not a rule "that allow[s] them to ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound".

Can you answer what I posted? Are you rolling once or rolling a dice for each wound taken?

If the latter we’ve proved it is for each wound.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Can you answer what I posted? Are you rolling once or rolling a dice for each wound taken?

If the latter we’ve proved it is for each wound.

The "Ignoring Wounds" rule doesn't care about that though. It doesn't care how many dice you roll, it cares whether the rule is ignoring each wound you take or not. Strength of Belief does not ignore each wound, it ignores mortal wounds.

I'm not going to quote rules wholesale because I know for a fact you'll report the post for doing so. However the start of the warlord trait says "Roll a D6 for each mortal wound".

Now, answer me this, is the phrase "each mortal wound" the same as "each wound"? Yes or No answer please, no "Yes, but..." tomfoolery.

I don’t report posts for quoting rules, it’s often essential for discussion. Nice attempt to deflect and derail. Gave you the benefit of the doubt but here we are.

The two phrases you wrote are not enough to draw context from. They are *obviously* not the same phrase as one has three words.

The new rule is obviously not intended to be played as allowing something only applying to MW to stack with something else. I don’t believe the wording even allows it RAW, but you do and this this will become a circular, intractable to-and-fro so I’m out.

Both are ignoring wound abilities and apply, so they don't stack.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Your opponent is trying to argue that because Strength of Belief limits his ability Ignore Wounds that the rule limiting your ability to Ignore Wounds multiple times doesn't apply. I just can't agree with him. The rule says you can only use one ability to Ignore a Wound. The fact that is trying to roll a second time to Ignore the Mortal Wound clearly violates that rule.

That isn't what the rule is saying at all. The rule says you can only use one ability that allows you to ignore EACH wound. Strength of Belief doesn't do that.

Your logic is like saying if a rule said "You cannot fire Heavy weapons this turn" it actually means "You cannot fire any weapons this turn."

If you are going to argue logic, argue it correctly. "If you can't roll to ignore a wound twice (general), you cannot roll to ignore a Mortal Wound Twice (specific)" means for your example "if you cannot fire this turn (general), you cannot fire Heavy Weapons this turn (specific)".

From the Community Post:

From now on, a model will only get one “ignore” save per wound (whichever is best).

From the central FAQ document:

Some units have abilities that allow them to ignore damage suffered, and it is possible for some units to gain more than
one such ability. These abilities have stacked in an unintended way, and as a result we have changed their interaction
such that if a model has more than one such ability you will now only be able to use one of them against each lost
wound.

So even if you want to argue that the added rule RAW only affects rules that affect EACH wound, not just specific wounds (eg mortal ones), GWs intention is pretty clear as to what they wanted to achieve.

The community post is not in the FAQ or Errata, and is thus irrelevant..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
Both are ignoring wound abilities and apply, so they don't stack.

And like I have explained multiple times, the rule doesn't cover all ignore wound effects, only those that ignore "each" wound.

Yes it does. You’re wilfully misreading it. Stahhhp.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The community post is not in the FAQ or Errata, and is thus irrelevant..

Which is why I also quoted the FAQ and made a conclusion that does not claim to be RAW, just that GWs intent here is obvious. What you make of that is your choice, but personally I will go with the authors clearly stated intent instead of a (too) literal reading of the rule.

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The community post is not in the FAQ or Errata, and is thus irrelevant..

Which is why I also quoted the FAQ and made a conclusion that does not claim to be RAW, just that GWs intent here is obvious. What you make of that is your choice, but personally I will go with the authors clearly stated intent instead of a (too) literal reading of the rule.

If they want the rule to say "From now on, a model will only get one “ignore” save per wound (whichever is best)." then they need to errata it to say so. Until then I shall be playing by the rules and not wilfully breaking them to deny my opponent an advantage the rules give him.

I'm confused. Why did you ask this question in the first place if you already decided the right way to apply it?

 alextroy wrote:
I'm confused. Why did you ask this question in the first place if you already decided the right way to apply it?

I was asking for rules bases arguments to the contrary to see if I had missed anything. So far no-one has actually bothered to try and give a rules based argument, they have all been RaI and Facebook, which are both meaningless.

In your opinion
GW seems to think otherwise.
I know who I trust

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In your opinion
GW seems to think otherwise.
I know who I trust

The facts are not an opinion. Some random person on Facebook does not override the rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I'm confused. Why did you ask this question in the first place if you already decided the right way to apply it?

I was asking for rules bases arguments to the contrary to see if I had missed anything. So far no-one has actually bothered to try and give a rules based argument, they have all been RaI and Facebook, which are both meaningless.

No, I gave you RAW reasoning. Your attempt to hinge everything on the word ‘each’ is blinkering you. Stop trying to undermine other posters’ credibility, appraise what we’re telling you, and maybe accept consensus? There’s a pattern to your threads lately... the entire world is somehow playing it wrong, apart from you. I’d wager that’s not the case, and being less intractable might be beneficial to your understanding and enjoyment of 40K.

This isn’t even a rule where some leeway is required to make a rule function, it’s an attempt to exploit a random grammar loophole you *think* you’ve found, only you haven’t, and typing RAW adds no credibility to said argument. Both rules you present roll a die to ignore each wound suffered, not one roll for a chunk of wounds, so RAW this new “one FNP only” rules kicks in. That’s RAW, whether you like it or not, sorry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In your opinion
GW seems to think otherwise.
I know who I trust

The facts are not an opinion. Some random person on Facebook does not override the rules.

That you seem to be unable to distinguish “some random person on Facebook” from “employees of GW acting in an official capacity and with the full backing of the game’s authors” in this instance is odd, whatever your take on the validity of the method of delivery. Whether you think it applies with the weight of the rules or not, it’s still a valuable source of info.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The community post is not in the FAQ or Errata, and is thus irrelevant..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
Both are ignoring wound abilities and apply, so they don't stack.

And like I have explained multiple times, the rule doesn't cover all ignore wound effects, only those that ignore "each" wound.

Welcome back Col_Impact. Argue as you might, the RAW is clear. Only 1 ignore wound ability is allowed per wound. I would recommend the 5+ from Strength of Belief over the 6+ Sense of Stone.

Fragile wrote:
Welcome back Col_Impact. Argue as you might, the RAW is clear. Only 1 ignore wound ability is allowed per wound. I would recommend the 5+ from Strength of Belief over the 6+ Sense of Stone.

Did you not read the rest of the post? The rule does not say "Only 1 ignore wound ability is allowed per wound." If it did we wouldn't be having this discussion. Honestly, is it too much to ask for people to read the thread before commenting?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Welcome back Col_Impact. Argue as you might, the RAW is clear. Only 1 ignore wound ability is allowed per wound. I would recommend the 5+ from Strength of Belief over the 6+ Sense of Stone.

Did you not read the rest of the post? The rule does not say "Only 1 ignore wound ability is allowed per wound." If it did we wouldn't be having this discussion. Honestly, is it too much to ask for people to read the thread before commenting?

We’ve all read and understood. Maybe it’s time to bow to consensus if you genuinely asked this for others’ views?

Sense of Stone: allows ignoring any wound (regular or mortal) on a 6
Strength of Belief: allows ignoring only mortal wounds on a 5

from the FAQ: If a model has more than one such ability, you can only use
one of those abilities each time the model loses a wound.

They both allow for ignoring mortal wounds, therefore you can only choose one to use each time you take a mortal wound. period

 quickfuze wrote:
Sense of Stone: allows ignoring any wound (regular or mortal) on a 6
Strength of Belief: allows ignoring only mortal wounds on a 5

from the FAQ: If a model has more than one such ability, you can only use
one of those abilities each time the model loses a wound.

They both allow for ignoring mortal wounds, therefore you can only choose one to use each time you take a mortal wound. period

You didn't quote the first part of the rule, the one that explains this only applies to rules that allow you to ignore each wound.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
Sense of Stone: allows ignoring any wound (regular or mortal) on a 6
Strength of Belief: allows ignoring only mortal wounds on a 5

from the FAQ: If a model has more than one such ability, you can only use
one of those abilities each time the model loses a wound.

They both allow for ignoring mortal wounds, therefore you can only choose one to use each time you take a mortal wound. period

You didn't quote the first part of the rule, the one that explains this only applies to rules that allow you to ignore each wound.

nowhere in the first part does it state "only". You're wrong, get over it and move on....

 quickfuze wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
Sense of Stone: allows ignoring any wound (regular or mortal) on a 6
Strength of Belief: allows ignoring only mortal wounds on a 5

from the FAQ: If a model has more than one such ability, you can only use
one of those abilities each time the model loses a wound.

They both allow for ignoring mortal wounds, therefore you can only choose one to use each time you take a mortal wound. period

You didn't quote the first part of the rule, the one that explains this only applies to rules that allow you to ignore each wound.

nowhere in the first part does it state "only". You're wrong, get over it and move on....

I'm actually more convinced I am in the right because no-ones even bothered to try a rules based argument.

‘Ignoring Wounds
Some units have abilities that allow them to ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound (e.g. Disgustingly Resilient, The Flesh is Weak and Tenacious Survivor). If a model has more than one such ability, you can only use one of those abilities each time the model loses a wound.’

The term "such ability" refers to an ability "that allow them to ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound."

Strength of Belief is not a rule "that allow them to ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound".