Feel no pain ?

[whitewolfmxc]

Ok , played against orks today and found the wording for feel no pain universal special rule a bit confused

 

its says it doesnt work against AP1 /2 weapons , and any wounds that would never let you do an armor save (power weapon / dangerous terrain test etc)

 

thing is , a unit being hit and wounded by a AP X weapon where X is exactly or smaller than its armor value , in that case , an armor save can also NEVER be able to be given , so will feel no pain work in this case ???

 

i think designer intend it to only say AP1/2 weapons will kill it , but the wording is..............what you guys think ?

[Muras]

I believe the way AP is worded in the current edition is you automatically fail the test, not that the armor is ignored. I am certain that's the intent, but I don't have a rulebook handy to reference a page number.

[Melissia]

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...093&hl=pain

 

You can use it if you get hit by AP3, but not AP2 or 1 or a CC attack that ignores Armour saves, or ANY attack that causes Instant Death.

 

 

It lists w "wounds from power fists, Dreadnought close combat weapons, rending weapons that roll a 6, Perils of the Warp, failed dangerous terrain tests" as examples. Not AP3 weapons. All of these are either power weapon attacks or have a special rule that ignores all armor saves or simply do not roll for armor saves.

[Captain Malachi]

I think this has been done to death about 5 times in the OR forum, it's pretty clear that it's just AP1/2.

[Arschbombe]

The distinction is between weapons the never allow armor saves and those that penetrate a targets armor. Power weapons, Ap1/Ap2 never allow armor saves. AP3 allows some armor saves so you can get FNP against an AP3 wound regardless of the armor save of the model. Plaguebearers have no armor save. They have an invulnerable save and FNP. If FNP depended on comparing the AP to the target's armor save, the plaguebearers would never get to use their FNP.

[whitewolfmxc]

humm...ok...just a ask

[Brother Gothard]

i think designer intend it to only say AP1/2 weapons will kill it , but the wording is..............what you guys think ?

What is intended is meaningless. What is the case, however, is that "AP:X where save = X" weapons or attacks do not count as "never" allowing an armour save; you CAN use FNP against these.

 

But look over that link posted above and get your own understanding.

[whitewolfmxc]

The outcome of the link is two sided as always , thats why i asked lol'

 

but yeah im just saying the wording isnt clear , where GW stupidity comes in lol

[Melissia]

The wording IS clear, you just aren't reading it right.

 

 

The exact wording is this: "against which no armour save can ever be taken"

 

You CAN take an armor save against an AP3 weapon. If you have 2+ armor. Just because a model does not have 2+ armor does not mean that a save can never be made, it merely means that the particular model cannot make the save. It is never possible to take an armor save against a weapon that is AP2, AP1, Rending on a 6, power weapon, power fist, DCCW, perils of the warp, etc.

[whitewolfmxc]

No it isnt , an unit with X armor CAN NEVER take an armor save against AP X weapon , this is fact and = no armor save can ever be taken in this case

 

and please dont argue on the statement as ive seen enough on the link given above , and really both side has its points

 

what im trying to say is , if they have included the above case as exclusion then its MUCH CLEAR

 

this is more of a rant thread than rules arguing , can close it now.

 

PS: Melissa , dont know is it me or not , but every time i post something you are always there to pick and pluck it . Dont know have i offended you in the past or something, and if i did im sorry . Just that i feel you always tend to ignore what im "trying" to say and just pin pointing the wording / "mistakes" on where you can find.

[Seahawk]

You're still reading it wrong. It depends whether the weapon never allows armor saves, EVER. Otherwise, you're claiming that a terminator (2+ save) with FNP cannot get that FNP against a frag missile (AP 6) because somewhere out there, something never gets an armor save against it (orks and gaunts). They might as well have said any weapon with an AP value instead of only 1/2, according to that side's argument. Even so, shotguns (AP -) wouldn't allow plaguebearers to get FNP because they'd never get an armor save they don't have, even against that.

 

Makes your claim sound mighty silly, no?

[whitewolfmxc]

Frankly , No . Perhaps for you , since your not reading me right

 

im not arguing How FNP should work , im just saying how the "no armour save can ever be taken" can be read , and if you forget the line i used " no armor save can ever be taken in this case

 

People , which part where i say "im not arguing about how the rule works but more of the wording of how it can be written to avoid such situation" is not clear ?

 

and to AP1/AP2 line in the rules , thats exactly what im trying to say , its because its can be said its case sensitive.........the wording should be more clear that its not the AP that makes the rule work , its who bears it make it work (T value etc)

 

PS: Mods please close this , its not getting where its suppose to go

[I AM THE AWESOME]

The fact remains, that it doesn't matter at which unit you're firing. If the weapon ignores EVERY SINGLE TYPE of armor save out there, no FNP. If it allows any type of armor save, even if the unit does not have the sufficient save, then the unit still gets FNP.

[Kurasuke]

Frankly , No . Perhaps for you , since your not reading me right

 

im not arguing How FNP should work , im just saying how the "no armour save can ever be taken" can be read , and if you forget the line i used " no armor save can ever be taken in this case

 

People , which part where i say "im not arguing about how the rule works but more of the wording of how it can be written to avoid such situation" is not clear ?

 

and to AP1/AP2 line in the rules , thats exactly what im trying to say , its because its can be said its case sensitive.........the wording should be more clear that its not the AP that makes the rule work , its who bears it make it work (T value etc)

 

PS: Mods please close this , its not getting where its suppose to go

You're adding words to the rule. The rule never says "this case" it says "no save can ever be taken." The rule is clear enough as it is- it shows some clear examples and uses the unambiguous word "ever." Can a unit in the game save against AP 2? No because no save can ever be taken against AP 2. How about AP 3? Yes because a save can ever be taken. I know that looks awkward but I think it demonstrates what I am trying to say.

[Praeger]

Who should I kill who should I kill lum de de who should I kill....

 

 

Melissa - I dont care who you are or what your oppinion is in general, here in the OR I have a very simple rule - speak nice or enjoy having your posts deleted.

 

Comments like this:

The wording IS clear, you just aren't reading it right.

are not nessisary or apreciated. This warning goes to all of you.

 

whitewolfmxc - I dont know who you are and frankly care even less. YOU NEVER REPLY TO SOMEONE RANTS OR PERSONAL INSULTS WITH SOME OF YOUR OWN (bold so you all hopefully get the point)

 

This is the stuff im talking about:

PS: Melissa , dont know is it me or not , but every time i post something you are always there to pick and pluck it . Dont know have i offended you in the past or something, and if i did im sorry . Just that i feel you always tend to ignore what im "trying" to say and just pin pointing the wording / "mistakes" on where you can find.

I dont care about your past history, play nice or tell a mod or PM - but NEVER MAKE PERSONAL COMMENTS HERE OR ANYWHERE.

 

Also -

PS: Mods please close this , its not getting where its suppose to go

Send me a PM - ask (or really demand) out in the open like this and start watching us take a particular notice to your posts, and then notice how they start to vanish.

 

However I am closing this thread, becouse as wierd as it is this was only talked about very recently, and I think that with the linky above all your questions should be answered until GW decides to FAQ the issue.

 

So adios Mr Topic. Bye bye.