[HH1.0] Thousand Sons tactica

[Nusquam]

Was the debate ever resolved as to if a wound counts as 'saved' from FnP? I remember it wasn't an actual save.
 
 

2) Crimson King
Lets be honest, the only reason you would ever take this ROW is if you are running magnus

I strongly disagree. The warp charge rule and deepstriking ICs and termis while making Sekhmet troops is amazing. Not to mention rerolling saves of 1 on a 3+. It's Pride of the Legion on steroids without the downsides. Sure Vets don't become troops, but they have scoring anyway. The important part is that Sekhmet become scoring. The only minor drawback is the cost in points to start it. Even then you get what you pay for; A ML3 Praetor rolling on Biomancy is an absolute monster.

[Excessus]

Hmm, sehkmet in Tarts or Catas?

 

A +1 invulnerable save vs. being able to run and sweep?

 

 

What are peoples opinions on this matter? Personally I'd say tartaros is pretty sweet because it's not a very shooty unit so it needs to get stuck into combat and with 2w and 2+/4++ it's tanky enough imho. I wanna get some alternate opinions before I start the converting process...

[jgascoine011]

Was the debate ever resolved as to if a wound counts as 'saved' from FnP? I remember it wasn't an actual save.

 

 

2) Crimson King

Lets be honest, the only reason you would ever take this ROW is if you are running magnus

I strongly disagree. The warp charge rule and deepstriking ICs and termis while making Sekhmet troops is amazing. Not to mention rerolling saves of 1 on a 3+. It's Pride of the Legion on steroids without the downsides. Sure Vets don't become troops, but they have scoring anyway. The important part is that Sekhmet become scoring. The only minor drawback is the cost in points to start it. Even then you get what you pay for; A ML3 Praetor rolling on Biomancy is an absolute monster.

 

Sorry I meant Magnus + another LOW

[Nusquam]

Tartaros Sekhmet in Zone Mortalis so they can reaction fire overwatch at full BS, run, and sweep.

 

Cataphractii if Deepstriking int he Crimson RoW for the 3++ rerolling 1's.

 

Either if they're in an assault transport depending on kit and purpose. It's personal taste/meta at that point. Use cataphractii if facing S8+, Tartaros if you want to sweep blobs/scour backfields etc.

 

I absolutely love the 40k Sekhmet(Scarab Occult) because they are in Tartaros and that's influencing me personally. But the FW upgrade kits are great too...

[jgascoine011]

Hmm, sehkmet in Tarts or Catas?

 

A +1 invulnerable save vs. being able to run and sweep?

 

 

What are peoples opinions on this matter? Personally I'd say tartaros is pretty sweet because it's not a very shooty unit so it needs to get stuck into combat and with 2w and 2+/4++ it's tanky enough imho. I wanna get some alternate opinions before I start the converting process...

 

Catas

Just because if you charge anything you are probably going to kill it our right.

And with the amount of AP2 shooting, you want to keep your suitability up.

 

Also, even if you do break a unit, you only have a 50/50 on if you will run it down or not.

 

A 2+/3++ and possibility for a 4++ with eternal warrior on a 2W model is just broken

 

The TS terminators are hand down the best terminators in the game.

Once you have paid the initial price for them, they are only 5pts/model more than ordinary terminators, and you get +1W and +1Invun, in addition to being able to PICK 2 Powers

And they get 5pt combi-weapons

[Athrawes]

Was the debate ever resolved as to if a wound counts as 'saved' from FnP? I remember it wasn't an actual save.

 

 

 

In the description of the rule in the book (First Paragraph) it explicitly stats that Feel no Pain "is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state that 'no saves of any kind are allowed', for example those inflicted by Perils of the Warp".

 

It explicitly mentions it is usable with Perils of the Warp.

 

The only thing in the rulebook that negates FnP is instant death/destroyer.

[Excessus]

I thought they FAQed FnP to count as a "saved wound" to dodge the unsaved wound shenanigans like volkites and such.

[Nusquam]

I thought they FAQed FnP to count as a "saved wound" to dodge the unsaved wound shenanigans like volkites and such.

 

This is what I meant. Not being negated/prevented, but does a wound prevented by FnP count as 'saved'. I remember a debate about how you could use it against "no saves of any kind" wound because it wasn't an actual 'save'; as in you suffered a wound but it was warded rather than from a saving throw.

 

But if there's an FAQ floating around that clarifies it does count as 'saved' with perils then it's definitely a great idea.

[Athrawes]

 

I thought they FAQed FnP to count as a "saved wound" to dodge the unsaved wound shenanigans like volkites and such.

 

This is what I meant. Not being negated/prevented, but does a wound prevented by FnP count as 'saved'. I remember a debate about how you could use it against "no saves of any kind" wound because it wasn't an actual 'save'; as in you suffered a wound but it was warded rather than from a saving throw.

 

But if there's an FAQ floating around that clarifies it does count as 'saved' with perils then it's definitely a great idea.

 

 

Well, the rulebook is clear that it can by design be used to negate wounds from Perils.

 

Why would the distinction of Saved vs 'not saved but negated' mean anything for Thousand Sons in regards to Perils?

Edited February 9, 2017 by Athrawes

[Memento Of Prospero]

There is a difference inbetween a wound caused, a wound saved (armour or invulnerable) and a wound suffered. A wound that is stopped by feel no pain is still not a wound suffered. But abilities that allow you to reroll failed saves does not allow you to reroll feel no pain.

 

[Nusquam]

 

 

I thought they FAQed FnP to count as a "saved wound" to dodge the unsaved wound shenanigans like volkites and such.

 

This is what I meant. Not being negated/prevented, but does a wound prevented by FnP count as 'saved'. I remember a debate about how you could use it against "no saves of any kind" wound because it wasn't an actual 'save'; as in you suffered a wound but it was warded rather than from a saving throw.

 

But if there's an FAQ floating around that clarifies it does count as 'saved' with perils then it's definitely a great idea.

 

 

Well, the rulebook is clear that it can by design be used to negate wounds from Perils.

 

Why would the distinction of Saved vs 'not saved but negated' mean anything for Thousand Sons in regards to Perils?

 

 

Right, it had to do with the wording. FnP is the model actually taking the injury, but shrugging it off as opposed to the armor/invul preventing it outright; SO the rules of FnP reflected this which spawned the debate of 'saved' vs 'suffered' because FnP is not a saving throw. If you can't use a 'save' to prevent a wound with a saving throw then it wouldn't count as prevented by a save and therefore 'saved'. Which would matter to TS if it counted as unsaved, even though you didn't take a wound from perils due to FnP, it would still trigger the army-wide pinning test. The wording of the FnP rule itself says "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..."(e:mine). This means you did not save it, it is unsaved, and therefore would trigger the pinning. All that happened was the wound was prevented, rather than saved. But I remember there was some sort of rule layering that made it convoluted iirc. I'll check the FAQ and read more on it.

[Excessus]

Aha, found it!

 

So here's how FnP work with volkites and such, from the rulebook FAQ:

 

 

Q: Does a wound negated by Feel No Pain count as saved or
unsaved for the purposes of wargear that has an effect if a unit
suffers an unsaved wound?
A: It counts as saved, unless specifically stated otherwise.

 

And it's not counted as a save:

 

 

Q: Can Feel No Pain be taken when a rule says no saves may
be taken?
A: Yes.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Excessus

[Nusquam]

Hmn ok, so from wargear it counts as "saved" to prevent triggered "unsaved" effects. We can also take it against perils, but it still counts as unsaved at that point. So it would trigger the army-wide pinning test.

 

Time to load up on Chaplains and Vexillias.

[Athrawes]

No it doesn't, the specific wording under "signs and Portents" doesn't say "if a unit suffers an unsaved wound from perils" it says "if a unit suffers a wound from perils"

 

Saved/unsaved never plays into it, so if you can FNP the wound, the unit never suffers a wound from perils, and therefore trigger the pinning test.

 

The most importan point is that Signs and Pirtents never mentions that it has to be an unsaved wound, merely "suffered a wound"

Edited February 9, 2017 by Athrawes

[Nusquam]

The wording on FnP is important: In order to take a FnP throw you have to have already suffered an unsaved wound. It may not matter that it is classified as 'unsaved' according to the wording at this point, you still have to suffer a wound to qualify to use FnP. This tells us that you suffer a wound before you roll for FnP, because if you do not suffer a wound you can not make a FnP throw. Thus it triggers the pinning still.

 

Edit: The wording on perils also supports this.: They all say "suffers a wound" in their rules. So FnP doesn't even matter, you flat suffer a wound from perils anyway. You just might be able to avoid the actual damage done to the psyker.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Nusquam

[Angmarred]

That seems unnecessarily complex. I think if you actually suffer a wound (you lose a wound from your profile or a 1 wound model is removed) that's when the perils is triggered. GW runs into problems having one word mean multiple things.

[Athrawes]

I don't know that I agree with that interpretation, as the wording on SIgns & Portents is vague. We're getting into rules as written Vs. rules as intended, and I'm pretty sure the intent is that the pinning check only occurs if  model loses a wound.

 

What constitutes "suffering a wound"? Losing a wound on the model? or merely taking a wound? The rulebook isn't clear on that distinction, or if there even is one at all. And so we Are left going back to the Feel no pain rule which allows a model to avoid being wounded.

 

If you can find any place in the rulebook that makes the distinction between wound suffered and wound taken that would be helpful, but as I can't, it's my opinion that the intent of the Signs and Portents rules is that Feel No pain can negate it.

 

And I think this FAQ quote from Exessus back that up:

 

 

 

Q: Does a wound negated by Feel No Pain count as saved or
unsaved for the purposes of wargear that has an effect if a unit
suffers an unsaved wound?
A: It counts as saved, unless specifically stated otherwise.

 

Replace the word "wargear" with "special rules" and that should show a pretty clear sign of intent.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Athrawes

[Nusquam]

Think of it this way: you can suffer from a wound, but shrug it off(read the Feel No Pain explanation), you can suffer a wound and survive(reduced wound score > zero), or you can suffer a wound and die from it(Wounds to zero).

 

 

I don't know that I agree with that interpretation, as the wording on SIgns & Portents is vague. We're getting into rules as written Vs. rules as intended, and I'm pretty sure the intent is that the pinning check only occurs if  model loses a wound.

 

What constitutes "suffering a wound"? Losing a wound on the model? or merely taking a wound? The rulebook isn't clear on that distinction, or if there even is one at all. And so we Are left going back to the Feel no pain rule which allows a model to avoid being wounded.

 

If you can find any place in the rulebook that makes the distinction between wound suffered and wound taken that would be helpful, but as I can't, it's my opinion that the intent of the Signs and Portents rules is that Feel No pain can negate it.

 

 

It's not an interpretation, I'm reading what perils tells us to do. No matter what the Perils chart tells us that you can suffer a wound, full stop. It may not end up reducing your wounds score but you still very clearly and without ambiguity "suffer a wound" according to what we must do. Which is exactly what is needed to trigger the pinning.

1. Attempt to manifest power
2. roll perils
3. roll on perils table
4. get result that says "psyker suffers a wound"
5. Did the psyker suffer a wound? Yes
6. Trigger army pinning

The trouble I believe you're having is from the existence of Feel No Pain. This ruleset isn't an intuitive ruleset; it's an exclusive if/than ruleset. It's the same reason Eternal Warrior doesn't allow FnP rolls against Instant Death Effects for example; it just doesn't match the if/than required to allow FnP. It only prevents losing all wounds to instant death, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Even the wording on FnP supports this. It explicitly tells us that suffering a wound triggers it. You can not make a FnP roll without suffering a wound somehow first. It's the first sentence in the rule.

 

Now think about it from the lore perspective. The pysker perils and triggers the pinning, btu he himself doesnt take lasting damage because he used drugs to shake it off. The perils still happened it's just the TS psyker shook off the personal damage.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Nusquam

[Athrawes]

It is an interpretation since the rules here are unclear, and one which GW has clarified in the FAQ.

 

 GW has clearly answered in the FAQ, that effects which require suffering a wound and are negated by Feel no Pain, count as the model having saved the wound.

 

That translates to our scenario pretty clearly I would think. The Feel no paint negates them having suffered a wound in the first place and so SIgns and Portents never triggers.  I'm referring to the quoted box in my text, provided by Excesses.

 

From a lore perspective, what you are saying makes a lot of sense, but from a rules perspective, Games Workshop has already addressed this issue, and that FNP counts as having saved the wound in the first place (e.g. if you saved the wound you don't suffer a wound)

Edited February 9, 2017 by Athrawes

[Angmarred]

FNP says "the wound is discounted. Treat it as having been saved." To me that's pretty clear that the wound is no longer "suffered"

[Unknown Legionnaire]

Really digging the idea of a Delegatus running Chosen Duty and 3x Tac Vets with Marksmen, Asphyx and Lvl. 1 psyker upgrade. Tasty.

[Athrawes]

FNP says "the wound is discounted. Treat it as having been saved." To me that's pretty clear that the wound is no longer "suffered"

 

Correct, suffering the wound only occurs if the wound goes through (Suffering  the wound occurs if a save is failed, or if a save is not possible in the first place), But as per the FAQ and the wording within the FNP rule, if the FNP roll is passed, the wound instead counts as saved.

 

In the FAQ, GW states that this counts for wargear (read effects) which require taking a wound to go into effect, and negates them by  counting the wound as saved in first place. 

 

Edit++++++

 

Basically this sequence plays out:

 

1. Take wound from attack or Perils.
2. Save wound if possible 
3. Suffer wound if Failed step 2
4. Feel no Pain roll
5. If Step 4 successful, count step 2 as saved)

Edited February 10, 2017 by Athrawes

[Nusquam]

That FAQ entry is explicitly for wargear related scenarios like deflagrate when resolving Feel No Pain. It doesn't cover perils because perils isn't a an effect from a piece of wargear. And it doesn't matter.

 

Remove FnP from the equation entirely because it doesn't matter in this case. You have to suffer a wound before you can take a FnP roll, it doesn't matter if it counts as saved after a sucessful FnP roll. The wound exists first. If the psyker did not suffer a wound he can not take a Feel No Pain roll. The only requirement is that a wound is suffered. If it had said "unsaved" in this case then Feel No Pain would matter because it counts as 'saved'. The 'suffered wound' event happened and you must immediately(as in before you can even roll for FnP) do an army wide pinning test.

 

I really don't understand what isn't clear. In order to resolve perils, the psyker must suffer a wound. There is no way to prevent this from happening and is unavoidable; It is part of resolving perils of the warp. There is no ambiguity here. It doesn't matter if it's saved or not, the wound was explicitly suffered during perils resolution; the exact requirement for Signs.

 

Let me put it another way: In order to prevent your premium rising(Triggering signs and portents) for a certain car insurance plan you must never have had an accident(suffered a wound), full stop. It doesn't matter if you repaired the vehicle(Feel No Pain), the accident still happened.

[Athrawes]

I know the FAQ covers wargear, but FAQ don't change the rules as much as they clarify the rules interpretation.

 

What is true for that FAQ about Wargear has to be true about suffering wounds, and feel no pain in general, or the rules become inconsistent.

 

To suffer a wound you have to fail a save (or have a save not allowed in the first place)

 

Feel no pain, if successful, counts a wound as saved, which means you don't "suffer" it.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

 

I agree with you, that you need to suffer a wound in order to use feel no pain, but in order to suffer a wound in the first place, A wound has to be unsaved. 

 

Feel no pain, then, if successful, goes back and undoes the suffered wound, by counting it as saved in the first place. Which mean no wound was suffered at all.

 

That is the point the GW FAQ is making, and it doesn't matter if it's referring to wargear or a special rule. In either case, FnP treats a wound as saved, and so it never counts as "suffered"

Edited February 10, 2017 by Athrawes

[Angmarred]

Your analogy is wrong. FNP doesn't repair the damage (IWND does). FNP goes back and prevents the wound from happening in the first place.