FNP rules question

[Sarapham]

But the armor being negated is exactly the point because it comes back to "any other wound against which no armour save can ever be taken"... AP ignores armor, just like a power weapon would.

 

But AP3 and higher is only "power weapons" in relation to armor save 3+ and higher, while AP1/2 and of course power weapons ALWAYS ignores armor and therefore FNP... nothing can save against AP1/2 while a lot of things can save a bolter shot.

[BrotherCaptainJames]

Power weapons always ignore armor... so do AP weapons in regards to their value! It doesn't matter that it has to meet specifications, the armor is being ignored at some point.

[dswanick]

But the armor being negated is exactly the point because it comes back to "any other wound against which no armour save can ever be taken"... AP ignores armor, just like a power weapon would.

Can you ever take an armor save against an AP 5 weapon? Yes, you can - so you can also FNP against an AP 5 weapon. Period. Anything else is wishful thinking on your part.

[BrotherCaptainJames]

I don't think so:

 

Can a space marine ever save against a zoanthrope blast (ap3)? No

Can a basic ork boy ever save against a bolter round (ap5)? No

Can a fire warrior ever save against a heavy bolter round (ap4)? No

 

I understand what you're getting at, yes, a wound made by a bolter CAN be saved depending on who takes it. However in the case of FNP shooting attacks CAN act as power weapons per se and ignore armor.

[Spazmonkey]

Seriously.......... Man talk about flogging a dead horse.

[the jeske]

. However in the case of FNP shooting attacks CAN act as power weapons per se and ignore armor.

not they cant [well with the exeption of realy special stuff like vortex] because they dont say negate all armor save. your going here with the fluff and RAI and not how the rules are actualy worded . If it is possible to save against an ap 3 weapon , then it is possible to take FnP against plasma , if not then every chaos player for the last two years+ has been playing his PM in an illegal way.

[dswanick]

I don't think so:

 

Can a space marine ever save against a zoanthrope blast (ap3)? No

Can a basic ork boy ever save against a bolter round (ap5)? No

Can a fire warrior ever save against a heavy bolter round (ap4)? No

 

I understand what you're getting at, yes, a wound made by a bolter CAN be saved depending on who takes it. However in the case of FNP shooting attacks CAN act as power weapons per se and ignore armor.

But the rule doesn't specify anything about specific models and their armor save, it says if an armor save can ever be made. The opposite of ever is never. Unless Zoanthrope blasts, bolters, and heavy bolters NEVER allow armor saves/are ID/or AP1or2 then they allow FNP regardless of the specific targets armor save value or lack thereof.

[Grey Mage]

I don't think so:

 

Can a space marine ever save against a zoanthrope blast (ap3)? No

Can a basic ork boy ever save against a bolter round (ap5)? No

Can a fire warrior ever save against a heavy bolter round (ap4)? No

 

I understand what you're getting at, yes, a wound made by a bolter CAN be saved depending on who takes it. However in the case of FNP shooting attacks CAN act as power weapons per se and ignore armor.

If you read pg. 20 youll note that the wording for how AP works is entirely different.

[Orphus]

If a squad that has FNP is wounded by attacks that ignore their saves (including invunerable ones?), they don't get FNP. Simple.

[Spazmonkey]

If a squad that has FNP is wounded by attacks that ignore their saves (including invunerable ones?), they don't get FNP. Simple.

 

Again it is not about the save of the model.... it has noting to do with that.

It is about the weapon and if it allows an armor save.

[Grey Mage]

If a squad that has FNP is wounded by attacks that ignore their saves (including invunerable ones?), they don't get FNP. Simple.

Except thats not what the rules actually say. Armor Saves is a specific term- adding in invulnerable saves changes that.

 

And the plain and simple fact that there are units without any armor save at all that have FNP should show you how wrong this idea is, and wording of the rules should put the nail in the coffin- read them again.

[the jeske]

yeah if FnP would work some people say here Plague bearers wouldnt be able to roll on it , because they dont have a save just and inv.

[Grey Mage]

yeah if FnP would work some people say here Plague bearers wouldnt be able to roll on it , because they dont have a save just and inv.

Exactly- so any weapon would cause a wound with no armor save possible :).

[dswanick]

yeah if FnP would work some people say here Plague bearers wouldnt be able to roll on it , because they dont have a save just and inv.

Exactly- so any weapon would cause a wound with no armor save possible :P.

And here comes the inevitable "Well he may have the FNP rule, he can't benefit from the FNP rule." :tu:

[Brother Nathan]

how is this debate still raging? ther is no mention of wepons that say are ap3 ignoring power armoured models save disallowing their fnp save. Its clear that i is ignored in cc by anything that ignores armour, like power weapons, fists, rending, etc and instant death causing blows such as seths chain axe. And at range its anything double toughness or higher, so for a marines thats 8 and above (its the strength of the missile not the ap of 3) or is ap 1 or 2. or perrils of the warp, failed dangerous terrain (well you fly into a tree then you deserve it... though that dosent ignore your armour ...) and im guesing wraith cannons and jaws are the thingsthat against which no save can ever be taken is supposed to mean. not that ap3 prevents armour 3 and above from geting their fnp saves... If my opponent tried it otherwise he shouldnt be suprised if i pack up. and i play it the same for my opponents using fnp...

[BrotherCaptainJames]

And here comes the inevitable "Well he may have the FNP rule, he can't benefit from the FNP rule."

 

In regards to that I can offer a clear cut example: Canis Wolfborn's entry stating he has rending despite his wolf claws, it was FAQ'd that even though it's in his entry, he does NOT benefit from it. Why can't the same be said for FNP?

[Grey Mage]

And here comes the inevitable "Well he may have the FNP rule, he can't benefit from the FNP rule."

 

In regards to that I can offer a clear cut example: Canis Wolfborn's entry stating he has rending despite his wolf claws, it was FAQ'd that even though it's in his entry, he does NOT benefit from it. Why can't the same be said for FNP?

Because it was not FAQ'd, despite several cases of the same thing.

 

But most importantly, because a shot from a bolter does allow some armor saves, but not others. Thus, sometimes, armor saves may be taken and it therefore does not meet the criteria.

[Skalver]

What's next, someone claiming that if a model fails an armor save he can't benefit from FNP because at that point no armor save can ever be taken against that wound ...

 

Again and again and again and again we have to say that your explanation requires adding "by the target" to the text of the rules in order to work.

[BrotherCaptainJames]

Yeah, because you know, sarcasm is needed when someone feels they have a valid point. If this argument ever came up in a game that my opponent and I couldn't agree on, we'd roll on it, which is the quickest, simplest and most fair way of going about it anyways. RAI is exactly that, just because I read it a different way doesn't necessarily make it wrong, and I'm not trying to exploit rules or something.

[Grimtooth]

Yeah, because you know, sarcasm is needed when someone feels they have a valid point. If this argument ever came up in a game that my opponent and I couldn't agree on, we'd roll on it, which is the quickest, simplest and most fair way of going about it anyways. RAI is exactly that, just because I read it a different way doesn't necessarily make it wrong, and I'm not trying to exploit rules or something.

 

So if I want all my SW to hit on 2+ with ranged shots and assault attacks at str 12 you would be cool to roll off on letting me do it? Roll offs are there to make the game playable in a quandry, not break the rules as written.

[DV8]

Yeah, because you know, sarcasm is needed when someone feels they have a valid point. If this argument ever came up in a game that my opponent and I couldn't agree on, we'd roll on it, which is the quickest, simplest and most fair way of going about it anyways. RAI is exactly that, just because I read it a different way doesn't necessarily make it wrong, and I'm not trying to exploit rules or something.

 

Whether you call it exploitation or not, you're clearly trying to argue a clear cut rule when you have no basis for your argument.

 

FEEL NO PAIN - "This ability cannot be used against wounds from weapons that inflict instant death (by having a high enough Strength or a special rule to that effect; even if the model is an eternal warrior). Neither can it be used against wounds from AP1 and AP2 weapons, power weapons and any other wound against which no armour save can ever be taken (like wounds from power fists, Dreadnought close combat weapons, rending weapons that roll a 6, Perils of the Warp, failed dangerous terrain tests, etc)."

 

Ever

–adverb

1. at all times; always: an ever-present danger; He is ever ready to find fault.

2. continuously: ever since then.

3. at any time: Have you ever seen anything like it?

4. in any possible case; by any chance; at all (often used to intensify or emphasize a phrase or an emotional reaction as surprise or impatience): How did you ever manage to do it? If the band ever plays again, we will dance.

 

-synonyms

eternally, perpetually, constantly

 

BrotherCaptainJames, I have bolded the word "ever" and defined it (even added synonyms), because basic English disproves your argument.

 

The rules for Feel No Pain outline specific examples where the benefit or use of the rule is negated:

 

1. Weapons that inflict Instant Death, either by having a high enough Strength value, or a special rule (with a caveat that though Eternal Warrior negates Instant Death, Instant Death negates Feel No Pain)

2. Weapons with AP 1 or 2

3. Power Weapons

4. Any other wound against which no armor save is ever allowed

 

Now criteria 1 and 3 we have no issue with. However, you cannot use criteria 2 to reinforce criteria 4. That is to say, you cannot use the definition of the rule itself to define the definition (akin to using a word to define the word - it is excellent because it is excellent). The fact that Feel No Pain is negated by AP1 or 2 weapons (despite the fact that no armor in the game can save against it) does not allow for AP3, 4, 5 or 6 weapons to negate Feel No Pain should a target (any target) be unable to save against it (because the weapon's AP ignores their armor save).

 

To reinforce that point, replace "ever" in critera 4 with any of the definitions for "ever", and see if you can still try and argue your ridiculous point:

 

Any other wound against which no armor save is at all times allowed

Any other wound against which no armor save is continuously allowed

Any other wound against which no armor save is at any time allowed

Any other wound against which no armor save is in any possible case allowed

 

 

DV8

[CainTheHunter]

I can't believe we are still talking about this.

[breng77]

Actually you kind of are trying to exploit the rules. If you played against Daemons you would really argue that your opponents Plague bearers could not use FNP because they don't have an armor save, and then Dice it off if you don't agree!!! This is basically telling someone that their army does not work, but hey I'll give you a 50-50 shot since you disagree. Sorry if I played you in a friendly game and this came up I'd pack up my stuff, as I know no one else who reads a clearly written rule. If we played in a tourney, then I would apeal to the judge, who most likely reads the rule like everyone else. The Thunderwolf Example is a bad one as it is a piece of Wargear that provides rending to non-special close combat attacks (which he has as he is on a thunderwolf). This is not the same as a unit having a rule that it can never use, Canis has a piece of wargear that he does not recieve full benefit from. The way to look at the rule is this why would they specifically list AP 1 and 2 if all they needed to say was if the model cannot take an armor save it cannot take Feel no pain.

[BrotherCaptainJames]

Yeah, because you know, sarcasm is needed when someone feels they have a valid point. If this argument ever came up in a game that my opponent and I couldn't agree on, we'd roll on it, which is the quickest, simplest and most fair way of going about it anyways. RAI is exactly that, just because I read it a different way doesn't necessarily make it wrong, and I'm not trying to exploit rules or something.

 

So if I want all my SW to hit on 2+ with ranged shots and assault attacks at str 12 you would be cool to roll off on letting me do it? Roll offs are there to make the game playable in a quandry, not break the rules as written.

 

Again with the sarcasm. Obviously I didn't mean you can roll off just to make ridiculous things happen, I'm not in the middle of a game going to suddenly decide that I want the Emperor's Champion to become the Emperor's Avatar and just auto win a game on the roll of a 4+. Come on, I put my thoughts out there for some decent input, not just to be written off because that's the way something has always been played. And secondly I don't need the freakin webster's definition of an adverb put out there for me to "get a point". I understand what "ever" means, but yet again, it comes down RAI. If anything I would've thought it'd be accepted by now that NOTHING's absolute in this game.

[CainTheHunter]

If anything I would've thought it'd be accepted by now that NOTHING's absolute in this game.

 

So true...