Feel No Pain vs Signs and Portents

[Nusquam]

FnP vs triggering Signs and Portents from Thousand Sons

Hypothesis: FnP Does not prevent the army-wide pinning

Evidence:
Signs and Portents
"If any unit within the Thousand Sons Detachment suffers a wound as a result of a Perils of the Warp test, the Detachment's controlling layer must immediately take a Pinning test for every unit in their force with the Legiones Astares (Thousand Sons) special rule."

Perils of the Warp
>Results 1-6 "The Psyker suffers 1 wound..."

Feel No Pain
"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound..."

Conclusion: Feel No Pain does not prevent Signs and Portents trigger, and in fact triggers, before FnP can even be taken. Due to the nature of Signs not requiring an unsaved wound to occur, but instead requiring a wound to simply have been suffered regardless as if it were saved.

 

Edit: I realize my format may seen like an "official" conclusion coming from me, a mod, but is in fact my personal conclusion that is open to debate.

[Excessus]

You are cherry picking.

 

Feel no Pain continues beyond what you wrote, further down it explains what happens to the wound if the FnP roll is successful.

 

 

...the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved.

 

So what happens with wounds that are saved? There is no wound taken...

[Athrawes]

I know this sounds silly, but if the wound isn't suffered, then it is not counted as suffered. 

 

+++

 

The wording on Signs and Portents isn't "If a wound was at any time suffered" it is "If a wound was suffered" 

 

I feel that the FAQ still applies here as it clarifies the way FNP works, even though this question specifically notes wargear, their answer and its effects on suffered wounds which are negated (unsuffered) by FNP still applies, and in fact matches the wording of Feel no Pain.

 

 

 

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.

 

For a unit to suffer a wound, it has to either fail a save, or not have a save allowed as is the case with Perils.

 

Feel no pain then comes into play,

 

It doesn't "regenerate a suffered wound" like 'It will not die', it instead goes back and counts the wound as saved instead of unsaved, which means it was never suffered in the first place.

 

You cannot count a wound as suffered if 'Feel no Pain' by it's very nature, counts (by the GW FAQ own wording) as going back and saving the wound before it is suffered.

[Unknown Legionnaire]

Pass your FNP 'save' ?

You take no wound.

Signs & Portents doesn't trigger.

 

I've had this FNP debate countless times during 5th ed. 40k with my Dark Eldar ... essentially FNP prevents the wound, just like any other save does, thus no other effects trigger.

[Nusquam]

You are cherry picking.

 

Feel no Pain continues beyond what you wrote, further down it explains what happens to the wound if the FnP roll is successful.

 

 

...the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved.

 

So what happens with wounds that are saved? There is no wound taken...

 

I disagree and agree with parts of what you wrote.

 

Yes, Feel No Pain counts the wound as 'saved'. However that is not the requirement for Signs and Portents. If it were "unsaved wound" then Feel No Pain would stop it. To expand on that, yes the wound has a chance to become saved, but that does not prevent a model from suffering a wound, it only prevents your wound score from going down. Suffering a wound does not equate to the wound score being reduced.

 

 

I know this sounds silly, but if the wound isn't suffered, then it is not counted as suffered. 

 

+++

 

The wording on Signs and Portents isn't "If a wound was at any time suffered" it is "If a wound was suffered" 

 

 

That wording is unnecessarily verbose for what it is now. This also goes back to the issue that Suffers a Wound=/=Reducing the wound score and that you can still suffer a wound and also count it as saved at the same time. But again, Signs doesn't need an unsaved wound.

 

 

Pass your FNP 'save' ?

You take no wound.

Signs & Portents doesn't trigger.

 

I've had this FNP debate countless times during 5th ed. 40k with my Dark Eldar ... essentially FNP prevents the wound, just like any other save does, thus no other effects trigger.

Feel No Pain isn't a save.

[Athrawes]

Suffering a wound is what happens if you fail a save. That's what FNP says, that is what the "making saves" section of the rulebook says.

If something like FNP goes back and says, oh that wound was actually saved, then the unit doesn't suffer it.

I agree that Signs and Portents has nothing to do with saving wounds, it is about suffering wounds.

FNP, means you don't suffer the wound because it goes back and gives you another chance to save it before it is suffered.

If a wound isn't suffered, then you don't suffer a wound

[Angmarred]

Further, under Sequencing, it states the on turn player decides what order things happen. Both FNP and Signs and Portents trigger when a wound is suffered. Worst case, on turn player decides the order. The Thousand Sons player is the on turn player when his models suffer a Perils. He resolves the FNP first. Then when Signs would resolve the model no longer suffered a wound.

[Unknown Legionnaire]

 

Feel No Pain isn't a save.

 

 

That's why I put it in 'brackets' and wrote 'just like'.

 

It prevents the wound though.

[Charlo]

If you pass your FNP save, the unsaved wound is discounted.

 

Discounted is a very distinct word to use, it means that wound no longer counts, it has no standing. Signs and portents does not activate.

 

Now, obviously opinion but I would think that, with this being the simplest answer, it is probably correct.

[Excessus]

 

You are cherry picking.

 

Feel no Pain continues beyond what you wrote, further down it explains what happens to the wound if the FnP roll is successful.

 

 

...the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved.

 

So what happens with wounds that are saved? There is no wound taken...

 

I disagree and agree with parts of what you wrote.

 

Yes, Feel No Pain counts the wound as 'saved'. However that is not the requirement for Signs and Portents. If it were "unsaved wound" then Feel No Pain would stop it. To expand on that, yes the wound has a chance to become saved, but that does not prevent a model from suffering a wound, it only prevents your wound score from going down. Suffering a wound does not equate to the wound score being reduced.

 

 

I see where you are coming from but I don't agree. FnP negates the wound from happening in the first place, it's not suffered.

 

Everything is not a linear process. The result sometimes can go back and influence the outcome earlier in the system, and this is one of those instances.

[Nusquam]

Suffering a wound is what happens if you fail a save.

 

That would make sense, however there is no ruling to support that.

 

 

That's what FNP says, that is what the "making saves" section of the rulebook says.

No it says you suffered a wound to qualify, the sole requirement for Signs.

 

 

If something like FNP goes back and says, oh that wound was actually saved, then the unit doesn't suffer it.

 

It doesn't though. It doesn't say the wound isn't suffered, just that it counts as saved. same post edit: And discounted* see below**

 

 

FNP, means you don't suffer the wound because it goes back and gives you another chance to save it before it is suffered.

 

A saved wound =/= the wound was not suffered.

 

 

Further, under Sequencing, it states the on turn player decides what order things happen. Both FNP and Signs and Portents trigger when a wound is suffered. Worst case, on turn player decides the order. The Thousand Sons player is the on turn player when his models suffer a Perils. He resolves the FNP first. Then when Signs would resolve the model no longer suffered a wound.

 

Signs requires you to immediately take the pinning test, it has priority.

 

 

 

 

Feel No Pain isn't a save.

 

 

That's why I put it in 'brackets' and wrote 'just like'.

 

It prevents the wound though.

 

 

It doesn't prevent the wound from being suffered, it prevents your wound score from being reduced and counts it as saved.

 

 

If you pass your FNP save, the unsaved wound is discounted.

 

Discounted is a very distinct word to use, it means that wound no longer counts, it has no standing. Signs and portents does not activate.

 

Now, obviously opinion but I would think that, with this being the simplest answer, it is probably correct.

 

Now this here is a very good point to bring up, probably the best counter to my standing. If the wound is discounted, what does that mean? It very well could be retroactive and "undo" the "suffer a wound" and would in fact make it so FnP prevents the pinning.

 

So let's look at the timing, because I still stand by the fact that regardless of FnP and whatever it says, Signs still triggers before you can make a FnP roll. It tells us that we must "immediately" make a pinning test once a psyker suffers a wound. This occurs before you can discount/save/prevent/ward/etc with a FnP roll.

 

This is my logic

1. The Psyker Perils: Triggers roll on perils table
2. Roll on perils, suffer a wound: Triggers Signs and FnP
3. Must "Immediately" take a pinning test from Signs, this means fully resolving the tests at this moment
4. Resolve FnP

So let's assume that discounted does indeed negate the entirety of "suffering a wound" in all shape, manner, and form. It is resolved one step too late. IT can't undo the pinning tests.

[Runefyre]

This is my logic

1. The Psyker Perils: Triggers roll on perils table
2. Roll on perils, suffer a wound: Triggers Signs and FnP
3. Must "Immediately" take a pinning test from Signs
4. Resolve FnP

So let's assume that discounted does indeed negate the entirety of "suffering a wound" in all shape, manner, and form. It is resolved one step too late.

 

After doing some reading, I'm tending to agree with Nusquam. Doesn't stop you from saving the wound, but the pinning test is immediate. If they didn't have that stipulation I would say that FnP (or any actual saving throw) would stop S&P.

[Excessus]

I expected that a Space Wolf player would give an answer that way.

This is my logic

1. The Psyker Perils: Triggers roll on perils table
2. Roll on perils, suffer a wound: Triggers Signs and FnP
3. Must "Immediately" take a pinning test from Signs, this means fully resolving the tests at this moment
4. Resolve FnP

So let's assume that discounted does indeed negate the entirety of "suffering a wound" in all shape, manner, and form. It is resolved one step too late. IT can't undo the pinning tests.

But you're not done with the wound yet there on #3.

1. The psyker perils

2. Roll on perils, psyker suffer a wound and triggers FnP

3. Resolve FnP and perhaps discount the wound.

4. A wound was not taken, S&P doesn't trigger.

1-3 is a single "action" that happens automatically.

[Athrawes]

Nothing you have said convinces me that the pinning check happens before FnP. As near as I can tell, it would happen at the same step as feel no pain, namely immediately following suffering a wound. 

 

This reasoning is so convoluted that it can't possibly be what FW intended with the way they worded Signs and Portents.

[Angmarred]

Technically you shouldn't get FNP rolls from shooting. In the shooting section it says you take a wound. In the FNP section it says when you suffer a wound. This sort of word by word nitpicking of rules leads to insanity.

 

FNP is part of the wound resolution process, just like saves. Any effects from wounds happen after. If there was a model who got FNP after he suffered a wound, would he get the save on the first wound? Of course not.

[Nusquam]

This is why I want warhammer to have core rules similar to the "stack" for resolving triggers and states. Warhammer has rules that trigger immediately/interrupt, and some that only care for the final outcome regardless of the events within the scenario in question, some that happen at the end of a phase, etc. It's all over the place and it's up to each rule to dictate the specifics with only a few. Or in this case, if they at least clarified explicitly what suffering a wound even means. This game uses triggers, but doesn't define what a trigger is. This is what allows us to take saves and resist things, otherwise the roll order would have to be hit-save-wound instead. And allows us to take FnP without reducing wounds first.

If Signs only looked at the outcome with no regard for the specifics within the event in question, the FnP would stop it. Which on a personal note I would love considering I'm going to be playing TS and I don't want my army to get pinned when I'm flinging warp charges.

I expected that a Space Wolf player would give an answer that way.

This is my logic

1. The Psyker Perils: Triggers roll on perils table
2. Roll on perils, suffer a wound: Triggers Signs and FnP
3. Must "Immediately" take a pinning test from Signs, this means fully resolving the tests at this moment
4. Resolve FnP

So let's assume that discounted does indeed negate the entirety of "suffering a wound" in all shape, manner, and form. It is resolved one step too late. IT can't undo the pinning tests.

But you're not done with the wound yet there on #3.

1. The psyker perils

2. Roll on perils, psyker suffer a wound and triggers FnP

3. Resolve FnP and perhaps discount the wound.

4. A wound was not taken, S&P doesn't trigger.

1-3 is a single "action" that happens automatically.

#2 needs to trigger Signs too. Also 1-3 isn't a single "action", its a step by step if/than interrupted by the pinning test(see above). It's the most basic resolution process we can take.

Nothing you have said convinces me that the pinning check happens before FnP. As near as I can tell, it would happen at the same step as feel no pain, namely immediately following suffering a wound.

This reasoning is so convoluted that it can't possibly be what FW intended with the way they worded Signs and Portents.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the first part because I would resolve something that is required "immediately", immediately when it tells me to resolve it.

The second part is subjective. Neither of us can say what FW intended; They may have intended it either way but we cannot not know if we don't ask them directly. We can only attempt to deduce how the words as written function.

I'm going to email FW and ask about it. What I personally want is for FnP to prevent the pinning. But reading the rules and playing out the scenario as if it was a written story see the Pysker periling and triggering the emphatic psychic fear of the flesh change echoing throughout the detachment while resisting crippling pain that comes with it via drugs.

[Carlson793]

"Suffers a wound" is one of those things the GW has used inconsistently. Compare the text for Armour Saves:

 

 

•If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound.

 

(i.e. the wound is suffered after the save), to Invulnerable saves:

 

 

Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles, suffers a penetrating or glancing hit...

 

(i.e. the wound is suffered before the save).

 

Personally, I'd revise Invulnerable Saves to read ..."whenever a Wound is allocated to a model or... Would clear things up a bit more with regards to whena model suffers a Wound.

[Athrawes]

I decided to look through the FAQ I have been quoting in this debate, and I came across a question that I think is relevant.

 

 

Q: How do you resolve the Helfrost rule against Feel No Pain?

 

A: A Feel No Pain roll can be taken as normal to avoid suffering the Wound. If this roll is failed, resolve the Helfrost rules as normal.

 

 

For the sake of information, the wording on the Helfrost special rule is also " When a model suffers one or more wounds..."

 

So here we have an example of FNP interacting with a special rule, in addition the example given previously about wargear, and in both cases, FNP retroactively goes back to avoid suffering a wound which would trigger these rules.

 

 

+++

 

 This is an identical situation with the Signs and Portents special rule. Both FAQ answers show that FNP takes place before special rules are triggered.

 

GW has I feel made it clear when FnP comes into play, after suffering a wound, but before that triggers a special rule, and that in doing so it can Discount that wound from triggering the Special Rule, whether it be a piece of wargear, Hellfrost or Signs & Portents.

[Excessus]

Yeah, the pinning test activates immediately after a wound is suffered, but we're not done deciding if a wound has been suffered yet if you do it before the FnP test. How do we know if the model suffered a wound? Usually it's a roll for hit, wound and maybe save and FnP, and then you know if there is a wound suffered.

 

 

Well, if you're thinking of it like a programmer then your way is like the program executing after 3 out of 4 required events, ie too soon.

[Lord Asvaldir]

To be honest, I think this debate is almost irrelevant. Only an opponent who is nitpicking all the wording of the rules very hard is going to give a TS player a hard time about FNP not preventing all the pinning tests. Logic wise, FNP just safes the wound, so why would someone say it still causes the pinning tests? Any normal, casual game I doubt it would come up. 

 

And yes I know rules don't always follow logic, but with a friendly opponent this would never be problem. 

 

Also I would add that I'm not trying to begrudge the validity of anyone's argument here, just that I think this rule conflict would basically never come up in a game unless you're up against a super rules lawyer. 

[Nusquam]

The Hellfrost is a better example of FnP retroactively eliminating the "suffered wound" happening first to prevent triggers from "suffered wound"-clauses in rules. That's a mouthful. If GW and FW were the same rules department, I would say that qualifies for FnP being likely to prevent the pinning and would just go with that.

 

The word "immediately" still comes to mind. Both FnP and Portents triggers at the same time and we must determine order. We check to see if there is a basic core rule that references FnP timing other suffering a wound(it's the same trigger as Signs so we can't use that) because it's basic in "basic vs advanced", nothing. Then we check the rules themselves, and if neither of the rules gives us timing it's up to the controlling player. But Signs does give us timing and Feel No Pain does not.

 

 

If any unit within the Thousand Sons Detachment suffers a wound as a result of a Perils of the Warp test, the Detachment's controlling player must immediately take a Pinning test

 

(e:mine)

 

We have two rules happening at the same time with one telling us to immediately resolve it. So we resolve it first: every unit takes a pinning test. Then Feel No Pain gets resolved, after all the tests have have already been made, and the wound is discounted. This doesn't allow us to rewind the effects of any potentially failed pinning tests.

 

The basis of one of the counter-arguments is that suffer a wound then possible saves then Feel No Pain is a singular, uninterruptible resolution and/or only the final outcome matters. Neither case is true, each is a separate step that triggers the next that could in turn cause a shift/interrupt by triggering another rule. Perils is one example of this itself. It is a possible if/than that is triggered/interrupts casting and is resolved. It is also an example of a rule that must be resolved "immediately"(BRB Pg 24, "Sequence" box).  Signs just happens to trigger at the same time as the FnP step, but has priority due to its wording just like Perils does. Perils and Signs use the word "immediately" to dictate when they resolve.

[Athrawes]

There is actually a very slight typo in your quote that I think matters here to help clarify things:

 

 

 

If any unit within the Thousand Sons Detachment suffers wounds as a result of a Perils of the Warp test, the Detachment's controlling player must immediately take a Pinning test

 

 

It's suffers wounds, not suffers a wound.

 

I'f the wording was Suffers a wound I would be more inclined to agree with you, as that imply that 1 wound suffered is all it takes, regardless of FNP shenanigans. But multiple wounds to "perils of warp" don't really happen from 1 perils test. Each Perils test would have allowed for FNP discounting that wound, before moving on to the next. In this case, It seems that "Immediately" might in fact mean immediately after all your Perils tests.

 

And if that explanation doesn't float your boat here is another:

 

Suffering a wound is a component of a Perils test, and determining whether you actually suffer that wound is still part of the action of the Perils test, as FNP is intrinsically linked with the wounding aspect of Perils of the Warp. In that case, if as we undoubtedly agree, the Pinning check occurs after the Perils test, then FNP has already been applied, and can therefore happily negating the triggering of the PInning test.

 

 

 

++++

 

As an aside dude, this level of rules lawyering is crazy, and detrimental to the game. While we cannot know the intent of the FW rules designers, The convoluted arguments made here cannot possibly be the intent of sane game designers who want to create intuitive rules, anyone who claims otherwise is trying way too hard.

[Nusquam]

If you need to suffer wounds, as in multiple, then it's impossible to trigger Signs. We know that can't be true.

 

 

++++

 

As an aside dude, this level of rules lawyering is crazy, and detrimental to the game.

 

The entire reason the rules discussion board exists is to discuss the rules. I also disagree on principle. I was being technical, yes, rules are technical. But this topic can now be boiled down into "Does the word 'immediately' take priority over Feel No Pain when determining resolution order?" It's a simple question. My common sense, which is not a requirement for other people to share, tells me that when a rule says resolve immediately, you resolve immediately. That's all.

 

 

While we cannot know the intent of the FW rules designers, The convoluted arguments made here cannot possibly be the intent of sane game designers who want to create intuitive rules, anyone who claims otherwise is trying way too hard.

 

That is a contradictory statement; you claim that we can't know the intentions(I agree) then assume them. Listen, I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just have issue from the logic you're applying. If this were a game it would have been a dice-off and over and done with immediately and we would be talking post game by now. But the purpose of this forum is to be able to discuss the rules outside the duration of the game and get technical with them. At no point does one side of the debate have to concede, we're all free to play the game how we wish while discussing thing with out opponent. This is also not an official warhammer sanctioned rules forum that has a vote/determines the outcome of a ruling. The point of this topic within the rules forum is to get into the technical bits. Then at some point one of a few things happen: agree to disagree or concede to one side.

 

If you choose not to get into gritty details more power to you, if your opponent agrees even better. But I'm going to level with you without a drop of malice: don't get disenchanted when things get technical in the most technical of forums.

[Athrawes]

I understand that their use of the word Immediately is tricky here,(And as you have agreed, their wording in the rule already breaks the rulebook, as you cannot suffer multiple wounds from a single Perils test).

 

Every other example from GW we can find shows that Feel no pain is meant to do exactly this, and you have yet to prove why it should be an exception to other rules interactions with FNP, your looking for complications within this rule to set it apart from all other precedents.

 

But I can't understand how you think that the pinning check comes before the feel no pains roll. The pinning check takes place immediately after the Perils test, and the Feel no Pain roll happens simultaneously with the "suffering a wound" portion of that test, as it is what decides where or not you suffer a wound at all.

 

The reason I argue this is that the Feel no Pain rule doesn't start by saying "after a model sufferers a wound" it says "when a model suffers a wound" 

 

The feel no pain roll doesn't happen after the Perils test, it is part of the perils test, as it happens when/concurrently with the act of suffering a wound, to see if it is actually suffered at all.

 

Does a unit that rolls successfully with Feel no pain, suffer a wound as a result of a Perils of the warp test? If we Go by the FAQ, no. And that is because the Feel no pain roll occurs concurrently with the initial suffering of the wound, as a means to determine whether that wound is, in fact suffered. With that the Perils test is done, the result being no wound was suffered, and so not triggering the pinning check from Signs & Portents.

[Nusquam]

I have exhausted my points and officially agree to disagree. Like I said; had this been a game we'd have diced off and played long before now.