NEW (First Draft FAQs!

megatrons2nd wrote:

They also rule differently for Resurrection Protocols vs FnP:

Q: How do you resolve the effects of Helfrost weapons against Necrons for the purposes of their Reanimation Protocol special rule, as they technically happen simultaneously?
A: The Sequencing section from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules cover cases where two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first – the player whose turn it is chooses the order.

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.

Even though both FnP and RP are written the same way.  Which means......the Shadow field will be lost when we take a wound and than FnP it away.

I don't think so, since the effect of the shadowfield doesn't occur until the end of the turn. Meaning, in my view, that it has until the end of the turn for effects to cause it to count as saved.

End of the phase, but yeah

Yeah, memory isn't what it used to be.

But functionally the same idea.

"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."

This is the previous ruling for FnP. FnP is apparently BETTER than every other rule as it is allowed to ignore the sequencing rule, even though they are written the same. Yes, I know any added power benefits us, but I am looking for balanced/fair rulings for every rule. FnP/RP are nearly identical with only slight variation, but both are started by an unsaved wound. The sequencing rule is why I think our Shadowfield is doomed.

FAQ Wednesday, and its Dark Angels.

The one big thing I saw: on page three, it again says that Feel No Pain counts as a saved wound. here its in the context of Mindworm, but I have hope for our little Shadowfield.

I agree. It seems likely the DE FAQ will reverse previous rulings.

Unpopular opinion perhaps, but I don't think a FnP save should prevent a Shadowfield shutdown. As I understand the fluff, the shadowfield fails when it soaks up too much damage and then essentially "breaks" for the rest of the game. If the Shadowfield failed already it shouldn't matter that the Archon shrugged off the wound he was dealt - the fact that he doesn't feel pain should not affect his equipment performance.

On the other hand why should I try to make sense of rules that prevent multiple people from throwing grenades.

Tounguekutter wrote:

Unpopular opinion perhaps, but I don't think a FnP save should prevent a Shadowfield shutdown.  As I understand the fluff, the shadowfield fails when it soaks up too much damage and then essentially "breaks" for the rest of the game.  If the Shadowfield failed already it shouldn't matter that the Archon shrugged off the wound he was dealt - the fact that he doesn't feel pain should not affect his equipment performance.

On the other hand why should I try to make sense of rules that prevent multiple people from throwing grenades.

I agree, but stuff like Mind Worm not working if the target shrugged it off doesn't make much sense either. Honestly, I think it could go either way, as the fluff says one thing, while the other FNP stuff says it should go the other way.

Tounguekutter wrote:

Unpopular opinion perhaps, but I don't think a FnP save should prevent a Shadowfield shutdown.  As I understand the fluff, the shadowfield fails when it soaks up too much damage and then essentially "breaks" for the rest of the game.  If the Shadowfield failed already it shouldn't matter that the Archon shrugged off the wound he was dealt - the fact that he doesn't feel pain should not affect his equipment performance.

Same way I read it too.

The attack goes through the SF, causing the Archon to have to use his FnP save. Since the SF doesn't provide the FnP, the SF didn't stop the wound & the SF is lost.

Using fluff to come up with the reason it is lost should not be used for the rule. If you use fluff to give a reason for the rule to work a certain way, than the Void mine should be Strength D with a +1 to the to wound roll. There used to be a poison that in the fluff turned people to glass, and even said that it left the shocked expression on their faces when it took effect, this is gone now, but it was also ignored by FnP, when the fluff contradicted it.

megatrons2nd wrote:

Using fluff to come up with the reason it is lost should not be used for the rule.

Isn't this the whole point of RAI?

Although I do agree that you shouldn't go against the actual wording of the rule, so, I went back to the dex & reread it.

RAW purchasing a SF gives the bearer a 2+ Invul. save & you lose the SF at the end of the current phase, if "...you suffer an unsaved Wounds" DE pg107

RAW Feel No Pain "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..." BRB

The wording is identical in both rules, so the very fact that you can take a FnP save means you've 'suffered an unsaved Wound" if you hadn't you couldn't take the FnP in the 1st place.

You can use the 2+ for the rest of the phase, but at the end it's gone.

RAI & RAW, but only in my opinion.

Rewind wrote:

Isn't this the whole point of RAI?

Although I do agree that you shouldn't go against the actual wording of the rule, so, I went back to the dex & reread it.

RAW purchasing a SF gives the bearer a 2+ Invul. save & you lose the SF at the end of the current phase, if "...you suffer an unsaved Wounds" DE pg107

RAW Feel No Pain "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..." BRB

The wording is identical in both rules, so the very fact that you can take a FnP save means you've 'suffered an unsaved Wound" if you hadn't you couldn't take the FnP in the 1st place.

You can use the 2+ for the rest of the phase, but at the end it's gone.

RAI & RAW, but only in my opinion.

So once again the FAQ directly contradicts the rules written in The Rules.
Go figure...

Marrath wrote:

So once again the FAQ directly contradicts the rules written in The Rules.
Go figure...

Hehe, well to be quite frank, the problem is the rules are badly worded & I could have written the argument for the other side probably just as convincingly.
SF - You only lose the affect if, "at the end of any phase... model suffers... unsaved Wounds" Codex DE 107

RAW Feal No Pain - "the Wound is discounted - treat it as have being saved" BRB

Therefore, at the end of the phase you've taken no unsaved Wounds, so you keep the SF.

The lesson here is that just because I wrote it, doesn't mean I actualy mean it lol.

RAW FnP lets you discount unsaved Wounds, as long as you can discount more than you've taken over the entire phase, you should get to keep SF.

That is the point, every other instance where FnP and another rule that activate by an unsaved wound, FnP is getting precedence, well except for Frost Weapons. So for consistency of this rule FnP should go first, or all rules should use the precedent set by Frost Weapons the different rulings should be consistent. Either all "suffers an unsaved wound" rules should use the rule that lets the active payer decide the order or FnP should always go first, not some this way and some that.

The actual funny thing about this, is that under an old FAQ they specifically clarified it as working the other way - so this is a ruling that GW themselves find contentious.

I could see them having a difference between offensive and defensive gear that needs an unsaved wound.

Offensive item - gain super power when causing an unsaved wound - needs to get past FNP too
Defensive item - shorts out on first unsaved wound - is gone even if negated by FNP

It is interesting this is contentious at a GW level.

Kantalla wrote:

It is interesting this is contentious at a GW level.

Not necessarily contentious. It might just be a different FAQ team than who did the FAQ 2 years ago.

Rewind wrote:

RAW purchasing a SF gives the bearer a 2+ Invul. save & you lose the SF at the end of the current phase, if "...you suffer an unsaved Wounds" DE pg107

RAW Feel No Pain "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..." BRB

The wording is identical in both rules, so the very fact that you can take a FnP save means you've 'suffered an unsaved Wound" if you hadn't you couldn't take the FnP in the 1st place.

You can use the 2+ for the rest of the phase, but at the end it's gone.

Just wanted to point out that the arguement I made above is wrong & was only written like that to defend my RAI arguement. (Sorry, but I took the attack on my RAI badly, lols)

You can't stop on the 1st paragraph of the rule!

Using the whole rule, not 'cherry picking' the bits I wanted to try & win an arguement, produces the 2nd result, the FnP clearly states that if you make the FnP save, you discount the un-saved Wound. ie. treat it as if it never happened - it no longer counts, it didn't happen.

Therefore, at the end of the phase when you check to see if you suffered any unsaved Wounds to lose the SF, you didn't, therefore you keep the SF save.

Personally I don't think GW meant it to work this way. I still think of it almost more like a shield 'bubble', which bursts the 1st time something strong enough hits it, but RAW you keep it.

I think this also explains why is was previously FAQ'd to be lost, as for the points it cost, it would be OP to be able to keep it.

Just re-read the FAQ & it does actually back us up that we should keep the SF:

"Q: Does a wound negated by FnP 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." FAQ 1st Draft 5th FnP question

Seems pretty damn clear, question could have been specifically been asked about our SF!

At least that's 1 FAQ ruling I approve of

Sure, except the question was asked specifically about our shadowfield for the January 2015 Rules FAQ and errata (on the GW website) which was answered the other way. Until we have a codex specific FAQ that supercedes the 2015 FAQ's we lose the shadowfield.

amorrowlyday wrote:

Sure, except the question was asked specifically about our shadowfield for the January 2015 Rules FAQ and errata (on the GW website) which was answered the other way. Until we have a codex specific FAQ that supercedes the 2015 FAQ's we lose the shadowfield.

Really! But that's just stupid, sigh.

I'm slowly seeing why the community is feeling so disenfranchinsed!

Rewind wrote:

Just re-read the FAQ & it does actually back us up that we should keep the SF:

"Q: Does a wound negated by FnP 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." FAQ 1st Draft 5th FnP question

Seems pretty damn clear, question could have been specifically been asked about our SF!

At least that's 1 FAQ ruling I approve of

Now go read the Frost Weapons FAQ entry, which alters this ruling to use the rule that has the active player choose the order that they resolve.

Fact of the matter is, GW can't figure out how to operate their own rule, and have different responses based on who is writing the FAQ entry. They need to figure it out, collectively, and remain consistent across the board.

megatrons2nd wrote:

Fact of the matter is, GW can't figure out how to operate their own rule, and have different responses based on who is writing the FAQ entry.  They need to figure it out, collectively, and remain consistent across the board.

Thank you for "getting it". I can't seem to get this idea across to enough people. So many people assume that GW has perfect internal communication, so that if a FAQ says something, they think it's a perfectly unanimous decision from GW, and it SHOULD be, but almost never is because they don't have a consistent rules team. They need to have the SAME PEOPLE write the FAQs every time so that their rulings are consistent, but instead they practice project shuffling where they put interns here or there from one week to the next.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

[They need to have the SAME PEOPLE write the FAQs every time so that their rulings are consistent

Better still, write the rules properly in the first place!

Count Adhemar wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

[They need to have the SAME PEOPLE write the FAQs every time so that their rulings are consistent

Better still, write the rules properly in the first place!

Whoa! Whoa! Dude, be reasonable.

/endsarcasm