Eternal Warrior and Feel No Pain

[alextroy]

It might sound like a cop-out, but I think the best thing to do for now is to roll off if there is no concensus and wait for an FAQ in the mean time. Besides, how often do you get FNP eternal warrior? Lysander in an allied Blood Angel sternguard pod with Sang. priest?

Any FNP Space Marine Character with a Space Marine Command Squad, Drago with Paladins and a Apothecary, Space Wolf Lone Wolves.....

[Infidel]

Also, most of the Nurgle daemons.

Papa Nurgle forgive me. For I have been ignorant (dunno how I forgot about it, seeing as how my secondary army is Daemon).

I guess I've misspoke, FNP + EW is more common than I thought.

[DoctorTom]

I would also argue that "Inflicts Instant Death" is an end state.

Wouldn't "death" be the end state, caused by the infliction of Instant Death?

[sayles78]

In the description of Feel No Pain in 5th edition Rulebook, it tells us that feel no pain cannot be used against CC attacks that ignore armour saves, nor against AP1 or AP2 attacks, nor against wounds that inflict instant death, even with eternal warrior.

Everyone accepts that feel no pain in 6th now works against CC attacks that ignore armour saves and AP1 / AP2 attacks. This is clear because of the removal of those stipulations that denied it in the previous edition. Those stipulations are no longer written in to the Feel No Pain description. Well, even with eternal warrior has also been removed from the 6th edition description - that stipulation is also no longer present.

So just to summarise:

In 5th edition it stated clearly that Feel no Pain saves cannot be made against wounds that inflict instant death, even with eternal warrior.

In 6th edition the rule is described the same except the 'even with eternal warrior' is no longer present.

Was its omission an accident? Possibly, even probably, but we don't know for sure without an FAQ, but the removal of the stipulation, and it no longer being present in 6th edition description, CANNOT be ignored. That been said, no idea what the writers intended, but to avoid arguements we just play as in 5th.

[The_Klobb_Maniac]

@Sayles
I'll bring you back to a time when I argued about WBB and sweeping advance on a forum. It was my argument that in 5th, since WBB didn't save the squad that you could take WBB against those wounds and the warriors simply attached to new squads, as per WBB. Sweeping advance only stated you couldn't save the squad with any saves at all, but WBB didn't save the squad. (see what I'm saying? not important..)

The best argument against this was that *reminders* in 4th *told us* that you couldn't even take WBB against sweeping advance. this was because it was a *new rule* that needed immediate clarification until a player base understood the interaction. Here, IMO, we've easily proven you can't take FnP just because you have EW and the 5th ed book hints at that. the player base should be used to this by now and the idea of taking it out is because the rules already line up in that way.

EDIT: I didn't realize we were on the same side. Still, I stand in the same boat as you from previous arguments lol..

Remember old MTG cards that had big batches of reminders and redundant information on them to be sure they were clear? now they can just say "Remove it from the game." Long ago it'd say "Remove it from the game and put it back in your deck after the game is over" or some such. The reason is because while it *should* be obvious, they wanted it to be quite clear. Once people were used to the effect and it was properly documented so one could derive it from the rules, as we have here, then it no longer needed to be explicitly documented; it was obvious!

Such it is here, where 5th ed supports what we're saying, and the derivision of rules from 6th ed support what we're saying. I'm quite surprised Lord Inquisitor, with likely lots of experience, is on the other side of the fence.

At his argument, I'd say looking at Eternal Warrior, and deriving from absolutly no information that you can always take FnP because you don't lose all your wounds in one go, is absolutely absurd. Again, look at ID, look at EW, what does EW ignore? ID; or everything under the entry of ID.


Imagine we have a rules:
A) "Ignore the effects of drinking."
B) "Drinking: The effect of drinking is that you become inebriated"
C) "If you've drank this turn, you receive a DUI"

then if you drank you would receive a DUI even if you ignored the effects of drinking. This is by the very definition of the rule!
Thusly, rule C would apply even if you had rule A despite you ignoring rule B.

now replace rule C with FnP, rule B with ID, and rule A with EW

Oh jeas... look at that... the logically identical system shows that you would be stuck with our interpretation of the rules; the correct one.

[Grentain]

My biggest problem with using 5E as a base point for anything in 6E is that, well, we're talking about two entirely different revisions of the game. Brand new rules set. You can try and use the M:TG analogy, but the fact of the matter is that the change between those cards were simply clarifying rules, saving space, etc., rather than 6e 40k, which by contrast changes many of the fundamental rules of the game, so trying to use a previous rules system as a reference is flawed logic.

[MajorWesJanson]

Imagine we have a rules:
A) "Ignore the effects of drinking."
B) "Drinking: The effect of drinking is that you become inebriated"
C) "If you've drank this turn, you receive a DUI"

then if you drank you would receive a DUI even if you ignored the effects of drinking. This is by the very definition of the rule!
Thusly, rule C would apply even if you had rule A despite you ignoring rule B.

now replace rule C with FnP, rule B with ID, and rule A with EW

Oh jeas... look at that... the logically identical system shows that you would be stuck with our interpretation of the rules; the correct one.

Your example is bad. By your own rules, you argue the opposite point that you claim is your correct one.
A) "Ignore the effects of drinking."
OK.
B) "Drinking: The effect of drinking is that you become inebriated"
OK. A + B rules mean that you ignore the effects of drinking, which is being inebriated. Therefore, you are not inebriated.
C) "If you've drank this turn, you receive a DUI"
This one, as written, does not care if you are inebriated (the effects of drinking) but whether or not you drank at all. Thus, if you drank, you will get a DUI, even if you are not inebriated. (Happens, as some people have a high tolerance for alcohol)

The effects of Instant Death are not Instant Death. The effects of Instant Death are to reduce the total number of wounds to zero.

Trying to argue that Eternal Warrior ignoring the effects of instant Death means ID never happened turns it into a loop.
If Eternal Warrior means you were never hit by Instant Death at all, therefore Eternal Warrior which ignores the effects of Instant Death could not have triggered, as retroactively, ID never happened. Fun with paradoxes!

[Rated_lexxx]

Your example is bad. By your own rules, you argue the opposite point that you claim is your correct one.
A) "Ignore the effects of drinking."
OK.
B) "Drinking: The effect of drinking is that you become inebriated"
OK. A + B rules mean that you ignore the effects of drinking, which is being inebriated. Therefore, you are not inebriated.
C) "If you've drank this turn, you receive a DUI"
This one, as written, does not care if you are inebriated (the effects of drinking) but whether or not you drank at all. Thus, if you drank, you will get a DUI, even if you are not inebriated. (Happens, as some people have a high tolerance for alcohol)

The effects of Instant Death are not Instant Death. The effects of Instant Death are to reduce the total number of wounds to zero.

Trying to argue that Eternal Warrior ignoring the effects of instant Death means ID never happened turns it into a loop.
If Eternal Warrior means you were never hit by Instant Death at all, therefore Eternal Warrior which ignores the effects of Instant Death could not have triggered, as retroactively, ID never happened. Fun with paradoxes!

Where is the doctor when you need him

[Glen_Savet]

Doctor who? (nyuk nyuk)

[Infidel]

Doctor who? (nyuk nyuk)

I....I think you just won.

[Grentain]

I....I think you just won.

The debate is over? Well, I figured it was... about time.

YEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

[sayles78]

My biggest problem with using 5E as a base point for anything in 6E is that, well, we're talking about two entirely different revisions of the game. Brand new rules set. You can try and use the M:TG analogy, but the fact of the matter is that the change between those cards were simply clarifying rules, saving space, etc., rather than 6e 40k, which by contrast changes many of the fundamental rules of the game, so trying to use a previous rules system as a reference is flawed logic.

Oh, I agree. This may seem a contradiction, but let me explain.

In the previous thread, many people who were pro ID denying FnP even with the presence of EW were using 5th as a reference point and saying:

"well how did we play it in 5th?"
"how did we know how to play it in 5th?"
"nobody ever tried this in 5th"
And so on....

My above comment is a copy and paste from page 12 of the last thread, and is the 1st time I personally used 5th as an arguement, because it seemed at that time that a lot of people were so stonewall in their belief because that was how it was done in 5th and 6th doesn't specifically tell us other wise.

I guess my real point is that we know to no longer to apply -1 ld for break tests because that particular section that tells us is gone from 6th where it was present in 5th. A lot of rules are like that - to change rules from one edition to the next, they just omit certain aspects of rules that generally stay the same. Using 5th as a reference is a flawed logic, but a lot of other people were doing so and I believe there opinions were swayed because of it.

I will no longer argue for FnP to be taken against ID even with EW for various reasons, but I do believe RAW would allow it. I understand also how the RAW can be interpreted differently by different people, and this is in need of an FAQ to clear things up.

[the_picto]

Imagine we have a rules:
A) "Ignore the effects of drinking."
B) "Drinking: The effect of drinking is that you become inebriated"
C) "If you've drank this turn, you receive a DUI"

then if you drank you would receive a DUI even if you ignored the effects of drinking. This is by the very definition of the rule!
Thusly, rule C would apply even if you had rule A despite you ignoring rule B.

now replace rule C with FnP, rule B with ID, and rule A with EW

Oh jeas... look at that... the logically identical system shows that you would be stuck with our interpretation of the rules; the correct one.

The problem is that you are ignoring some of the effects of instant death. The effects of instant death are any and all times the rules tell us instant death has an effect on the game. In the FnP rules we are told that instant death has the effect of negating the save, therefore if we ignore the effects of instant death then we get to take the save. You haven't easily proven anything. You need to prove that negating FnP is not an effect of instant death, preferably without using synonyms.

[Erik_Morkai]

It's a matter of perspective.

You say:

I would argue this is the sequence with which the attack is resolved:

Wound causes ID > Failed save = model suffers ID > FNP cannot be taken against ID wound > Eternal Warrior allow you to take a single wound rather than have it reduced to zero.

I could say:
Wound causes ID > Failed save = model suffers ID > ID cannot be inflicted on EW > an unsaved wound is left > FNP can be taken.

At this point the mature thing would be to agree to disagree until a FAQ clears up this situation.

If you are going to a tournament, call the TO in advance to get the ruling.

As for what happens if you are facing someone with the opposite interpretation? The fair thing to do is to roll it off since we all know this a very murky rule issue at the moment.

[Infidel]

I could say:
Wound causes ID > Failed save = model suffers ID > ID cannot be inflicted on EW > an unsaved wound is left > FNP can be taken.

While I agree it is a matter of perspective, that statement only pertains to the interpretation of what constitutes "the effects of instant death", and not the order of resolution. FNP is taken immediately after you suffer an unsaved wound.

When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded...

So regardless of the interpretation, the order of resolution must be:

Roll for save > Wound Becomes Unsaved > FNP is or is not ignored by the EW rule > Model suffers a wound > Wound either: inflicts ID but is ignored or fails to inflict ID entirely

[Drasanil]

I viewed it as:

Model is wounded -> Armour/Invul is failed -> Wound is Inflicted -> (Wound causes ID -> model is removed, no FNP may be taken) or (Wound fails to cause ID [EW or S/T difference] -> Roll FNP).

--- --- ---

At he end of the day, I'm willing to bet that when the FAQ team takes a look at it they'll probably just flip a coin to make the official ruling.

[RanaldLoec]

I wish I could inflict instant death on this thread unfortunately its got the eternal warrior USR. Lucky it doesn't have the feel no pain rule.

[MajorWesJanson]

I wish I could inflict instant death on this thread unfortunately its got the eternal warrior USR. Lucky it doesn't have the feel no pain rule.

This thread has the It Will Not Die USR.

[Perth]

I've created a monster...

[Kevlar]

Needs an FAQ. There is no clear way to resolve the three rules together in the current rules. Flip a coin or arm wrestle your opponent to decide which way to play it.

Thankfully there are very few models that have both eternal warrior and feel no pain so this is a rather minor problem.