Demons FNP, Mk Nurlge & instant Death

[Tepogue]

Alright since Nurgle seems to be experiencing a brief upswing in popularity I thought I'd throw a few questions out there.

Eternal Warror VS Instant Death.

Eternal Warrior makes you immune to instant death, /check

All models in the Demon's Codex are Eternal Warriors /check

Feel No pain is negated by instant death /check

So do Demons (in particular Nurgle demons who are all T 5) get FNP against all attacks?

[TJ_DeOliveira]

i would say yes, since the rule states that the model is "Immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule", and ignoring fnp is one of its effects.

[Kyban]

I would say that the wound still causes instant death they just don't die from it, so would still lose FnP.

[Cursed13]

Kyban is correct. The only effect of Instant Death is that it causes instant death, which only means a model suffering an unsaved wound loses all its wounds instead of just one. It's the effect of Feel No Pain that prevents it from being taken against hits that cause Instant Death. Check the Special Rules for confirmation. So if the model has Eternal Warrior, it simply is not effected by the effects of Instant Death, it does not ignore Instant Death, just the effects. That only means it does not lose all its wounds. Feel No Pain does not work because the rules for it say that it cannot be taken against wounds that cause Instant Death. A little confusing, but that's how the rules are written. Simply put, it's not the effect of Instant Death that removes Feel No Pain, but the rules of Feel No Pain that is effected by Instant Death.

[Bean]

I've been wondering this myself, and I think that I'm in agreement with Cursed at this point. That logic seems the most sound.

Here's what I'm really wondering, though (and I haven't gone to the rulebook, it might be clear)--if a unit of Grey Knights is in combat with Plaguebearers, will they get a chance to activate their force weapons before the Plaguebearers get their FNP saves (thus gaining the Instant Death rule and voiding the FNP?)

the Force Weapons activate after saves, but FNP isn't actually a save--so I'm not sure how the sequencing goes. I suspect that they might actually happen at the same time, so it might come down to whose turn it is, but if anyone has a more solid answer, I'd be interested to see it.

[Wildeybeast]

I'm in the camp that you would get the FNP save. Note the wording:

"Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved wounds that Inflict Instant Death".

This wording sets up the process clearly. Normally it would be: 1) Wound is inflicted 2) Armour/Invulnerable save is failed. 3) Unsaved wound is 'suffered'. 4) Model makes FNP roll (note that FNP is not a save as the rules do not use the word 'save' at all, it is explicitly and repeatedly referred to as a roll, not a save. As such it comes after the infliction of the unsaved wound and FNP explicitly states that the rule is not activated until after the unsaved wound has been "suffered"). In the case of ID the correct process is: 1) ID wound is caused 2) Armour/Invulnerable save is failed 3) An unsaved ID wound is 'suffered' and so ID is 'inflicted' 4) Model is denied FNP save due to ID being inflicted . The wound is considered to have the ID rule as soon as it is determined that the weapon S is more than double the target's T and as such the ID rule is already in place before the effects of FNP get chance to kick in.

A model with Eternal warrior Instant Death is not 'inflicted' since the model is immune to it's effects. As Cursed states, there are no other effects of ID, so they only way it can consider to have been 'inflicted' is if the model has suffered the effects of ID (e.g all their remaining wounds removed). How can a model be immune to the effets of a rule and the rule still be inflicted on the model? As they have not suffered the effects of ID step 3 simply becomes an ordinary unsaved wound being 'suffered' and they are then entitled to the FNP roll.

As to your question about force weapons Bean, the rulebook says "If a psyker inflicts one or more unsaved wounds with a force weapon, he can immediately choose to activate it". The use of the word immediately would suggest to me it happens at the same step as the unsaved wound being caused and is thus before FNP gets a chance to kick in.

[Bean]

A model with Eternal warrior Instant Death is not 'inflicted' since the model is immune to it's effects. As Cursed states, there are no other effects of ID, so they only way it can consider to have been 'inflicted' is if the model has suffered the effects of ID (e.g all their remaining wounds removed). How can a model be immune to the effets of a rule and the rule still be inflicted on the model? As they have not suffered the effects of ID step 3 simply becomes an ordinary unsaved wound being 'suffered' and they are then entitled to the FNP roll.

A fair point, though I think it's worth noting that we do occasionally use the word "inflicted," in English, even to describe things that happen to things that are immune to them. Immunity is a bit of an odd word--it's really only common in the law, medicine, and gaming. Unfortunately, the word "inflicted" isn't very common in either medicine or the law. In medicine, though, there's the similar term "afflicted," which, I believe, can be used to refer to the state of being a disease carrier--that is, being infected by a disease to which you are immune. You don't develop symptoms, but you're still infected. You could potentially be immune, but still have the disease "inflicted" on you.

Anyway, I'm not totally sold either way at this point. I still think Cursed's point about the location of the relevant rules is significant, and I'm not entirely convinced that the word "inflicted" carries enough meaning to be significant in the way that you take it to be.

As to your question about force weapons Bean, the rulebook says "If a psyker inflicts one or more unsaved wounds with a force weapon, he can immediately choose to activate it". The use of the word immediately would suggest to me it happens at the same step as the unsaved wound being caused and is thus before FNP gets a chance to kick in.

Hm. I think you're probably right. The "Immediately" seems pretty conclusive.

Thanks.

[Cursed13]

@Wildeybeast

Your interpretation does have merit, but until there's an FAQ, I believe you are wrong. Instant Death still needs to be applied in order for the effects to be ignored. Just because Instant Death fails to remove all wounds because of Eternal Warrior does not mean the Instant Death never existed.
I see it as such: normally the hit would be so horrific that it would normally rip the warrior to pieces. As such, he cannot feel no pain from such a gory end. However, such stout warriors that are eternally fighting can suffer such a hit and keep on going, but it is still such a devastating blow that they simply cannot ignore the pain of it.

[Wildeybeast]

@Wildeybeast

Your interpretation does have merit, but until there's an FAQ, I believe you are wrong. Instant Death still needs to be applied in order for the effects to be ignored. Just because Instant Death fails to remove all wounds because of Eternal Warrior does not mean the Instant Death never existed.
I see it as such: normally the hit would be so horrific that it would normally rip the warrior to pieces. As such, he cannot feel no pain from such a gory end. However, such stout warriors that are eternally fighting can suffer such a hit and keep on going, but it is still such a devastating blow that they simply cannot ignore the pain of it.

And I believe you are wrong, though I can see where you are coming from! It is grey area you can argue for either way (and we'd just be going over the same ground if we did). I think we shall have to agree to disagree and say to the OP that the best thing to do is to house rule it amongst your gaming group until such time as it gets FAQed.

Hm. I think you're probably right. The "Immediately" seems pretty conclusive.

Thanks.

No worries

[Lerra]

In medicine, though, there's the similar term "afflicted," which, I believe, can be used to refer to the state of being a disease carrier--that is, being infected by a disease to which you are immune. You don't develop symptoms, but you're still infected.

Somewhat tangential, but in medicine being "afflicted" means that you're suffering ill effects. For example, a disease carrier without symptoms would be considered infected but not afflicted. More commonly it's discussed in terms of being symptomatic or asymptomatic, though.