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 with the latest errata/faq, electropriests cannot use their feel no pain at all it seems?

Q: Can a Graia model that has the Refusal to Yield ability
also make use of rules that allow them to ignore lost wounds,
such as Fanatical Devotion?
A: No.

as written, as soon as the model has the rule, it can't use FnP's.

However , he intent seems pretty clear that it works like normal FnP (pick which one to apply but no stacking allowed).


How would you rule it in-game?

The FAQ is very clear. A Graia model that has the Refusal to Yield ability cant make use of rules that allow them to ignore lost wounds. Solution is simple, dont play Graia electropriests. Use a different forgeworld for them.

Another FAQ says :

Page 181 – Ignoring Wounds
Add the following as a boxout on this page:
‘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 Graia forgeworld rule is not an ability. Its their "chapter tactic", or whatever its called, i dont know Admech. Abilities are listen on your units datasheet. So you cannot choose between their "chapter tactic" and the electropriests fanatical devotion rule.

This is if you take Abilities to only refer to the Abilities section of a datasheet.

Personally I don't believe that is how GW use the term a lot of the time, and instead often use a more liberal definition of the word.

If you can show me a rule or FAQ that says what exactly abilities are, then i agree with you. Until then, abilities are what is listed on a units datasheet. No more, no less.

If the FAQ literally says you cannot make use of other Ignore wounds abilities, then you can't. Sadly, FAQ overriding RaW is just how GW does things.

Q: Can a Graia model that has the Refusal to Yield ability
also make use of rules that allow them to ignore lost wounds,
such as Fanatical Devotion?
A: No.

Due to the "also" in the sentence I understand it to mean "a Graia model can't make use of both Refusal to Yield as well as Fanatical Devotion (or equivalent)" and not "a Graia model can't make use of either Refusal to Yield or Fanatical Devotion (or equivalent)". I hope I'm being clear with what I mean. As I read it you can't use both but you can use either one or the other.

 p5freak wrote:
The FAQ is very clear. A Graia model that has the Refusal to Yield ability cant make use of rules that allow them to ignore lost wounds. Solution is simple, dont play Graia electropriests. Use a different forgeworld for them.

Another FAQ says :

Page 181 – Ignoring Wounds
Add the following as a boxout on this page:
‘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 Graia forgeworld rule is not an ability. Its their "chapter tactic", or whatever its called, i dont know Admech. Abilities are listen on your units datasheet. So you cannot choose between their "chapter tactic" and the electropriests fanatical devotion rule.

The rule you quoted from page 181 refers to Tenacious Survivor as an ability, which is a Warlord Trait and the quote from OP refers to Refusal to Yield as an ability as well when it is a Forge World Dogma. GW should probably be more rigid with their definitions to help with clarity but it seems that 'abilities' isn't restricted to Abilities shown on data sheets.

xlDuke wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
The FAQ is very clear. A Graia model that has the Refusal to Yield ability cant make use of rules that allow them to ignore lost wounds. Solution is simple, dont play Graia electropriests. Use a different forgeworld for them.

Another FAQ says :

Page 181 – Ignoring Wounds
Add the following as a boxout on this page:
‘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 Graia forgeworld rule is not an ability. Its their "chapter tactic", or whatever its called, i dont know Admech. Abilities are listen on your units datasheet. So you cannot choose between their "chapter tactic" and the electropriests fanatical devotion rule.

The rule you quoted from page 181 refers to Tenacious Survivor as an ability, which is a Warlord Trait and the quote from OP refers to Refusal to Yield as an ability as well when it is a Forge World Dogma. GW should probably be more rigid with their definitions to help with clarity but it seems that 'abilities' isn't restricted to Abilities shown on data sheets.

Nice catch. This would mean that dogmas and warlord traits are considered to be "abilities". But are chapter tactics, legion traits, etc. "abilities" as well ? What about psychic powers ? We dont know. They really shouldnt use the word "abilities", instead they should have written "rules" as a description for everything in the game that let units ignore wounds, if thats what they mean.

I completely agree, it's needlessly confusing to see the same words pop up in the ruleset and having different, but unspecified, meanings from one use to the next. "Wound/wounds/wounded" is another example of this that stands out in my mind.

I'd love a proper glossary of game terms, like has existed in some previous editions.

It’s almost like the rules don’t hold up to laser-beam lawyer-level scrutiny, a thing that everyone who posts here regularly is very aware of but seems to forget in favour of a hot take.

Sometimes a reasonable approach to the game is more important than trying to argue over the definition of a word. Oh, and it will make the game function better too, so can actually help by avoiding areas of contention.

Its really not that hard to write better rules. I am not a native english speaker, and i think i can do better than GW. Which is hilarious. I dont feel like arguing multiple times during a game with my opponent how a rule can be interpreted. This can be avoided with a better choice of words. The game is supposed to be fun, but its not if both players rule interpretation is different, due to bad choice of words and/or ambiguous meanings.

Indeed, so feed it back to GW at the FAQ hotline.

Agreed !
This edition is very well designed. The rules are TERRIBLY written.
If they had come up with a nice glossary ahead of time, and stuck to their own terminology ,,, that would have been a big step. They really need to hire someone with a strong game design/rules writing background, full time. They have done co-labs with Fantasy Flight in the past, who make excellent rules documentation. Why do they not reach out there I wonder.

Anyways, just a small rant, don't mind me.

 Type40 wrote:
Agreed !
This edition is very well designed. The rules are TERRIBLY written.
If they had come up with a nice glossary ahead of time, and stuck to their own terminology ,,, that would have been a big step. They really need to hire someone with a strong game design/rules writing background, full time. They have done co-labs with Fantasy Flight in the past, who make excellent rules documentation. Why do they not reach out there I wonder.

Anyways, just a small rant, don't mind me.

Honestly I think it's it's an issue of philosophy rather than ability most of the time. They have full time veteran game designers, they just don't seem to think that rules need to be as tight as a lot of us would like. Their tone in interviews and even at times in FAQs is that people should use more common sense and just have fun.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed, so feed it back to GW at the FAQ hotline.

BCB probably does that every day But you know as well as i do that nothing will change.

 Stux wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Agreed !
This edition is very well designed. The rules are TERRIBLY written.
If they had come up with a nice glossary ahead of time, and stuck to their own terminology ,,, that would have been a big step. They really need to hire someone with a strong game design/rules writing background, full time. They have done co-labs with Fantasy Flight in the past, who make excellent rules documentation. Why do they not reach out there I wonder.

Anyways, just a small rant, don't mind me.

Honestly I think it's it's an issue of philosophy rather than ability most of the time. They have full time veteran game designers, they just don't seem to think that rules need to be as tight as a lot of us would like. Their tone in interviews and even at times in FAQs is that people should use more common sense and just have fun.

I think the problem is, really, that the game design world has moved on from the late 80s early 90s and developed quite a bit (rule books and rules documentation in particular), I think the vetran designers have just not kept up with the times (and the increasingly tight rule sets in other games by newer designers) and as players we have expected them to follow suit (justifiably).
I have a friend who is a PHD student in pedagogy who could talk all our ears off for hours about how board game/table top documentation has developed over the past 40 years XD.


But we are really tangenting off the OPs topic, so I propose this is a topic for a different place.

When admech codex was written multiple fnp style saves were allowed.

That has changed since then.

It's not a bad writing issue.