News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: What exactly constitutes an "unsaved wound"?  (Read 2326 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wonderbadger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Country: us
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
What exactly constitutes an "unsaved wound"?
« on: July 4, 2015, 02:11:03 PM »
So our gaming group ran into a somewhat unusual situation stemming from Skitari/Cult Mechanicus weapons and the Feel No Pain rule.

So the wording for FNP is "On a 5+ the unsaved wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved" (Warhammer 40k rulebook, pg 164).

Now, the Dark Eldar piece of war gear Shadowfield says that its benefit is lost if the wielder suffers an unsaved wound, and the Dark Eldar FAQ indicates that this is even if the wound is discounted due to FNP.

So the questions we have are:
1) Phosphor weapons have an ability (Luminagen) if the unit hit suffers one or more unsaved wounds. Does this ability still apply if the wound(s) are discounted due to FNP?

2) If a model suffers an unsaved wound from a Torsion Cannon, it loses d3 wounds instead of 1. If that model has FNP that applies, do you: a) make one FNP roll, and if failed then take d3 wounds? or b) make a FNP roll for each of the d3 wounds that the Torsion Cannon inflicts?

The way we read the rules, particularly what's indicated in the Dark Eldar FAQ, it would seem that for question 1, the Luminagen rule still applies even if the wound is discounted from FNP, and for question 2, situation (b) applies.

We were wondering if there is an "official" ruling on this sort of thing.

Thoughts?

Offline Wyddr

  • Author Eminence: Hereticus Liber Daemonica | Fio'shas Shi
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5254
  • Country: us
    • My blog about SF/F stuff
  • Armies: Daemons, Imperial Fists, Tau, Ksons, Vostroyans
Re: What exactly constitutes an "unsaved wound"?
« Reply #1 on: July 7, 2015, 02:48:39 PM »
I generally agree with your reading. Feel No Pain is not a save, though wounds discounted by it count as being saved.

So, attacks that do not permit a save "of any kind" still allow a Feel No Pain roll, as it is not a save. Furthermore, FNP is made against the wound and not the attack itself, so if you get hit with something like the Torsion Cannon, you should get a FNP roll for each wound involved.

Offline Dangerousdave0042

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Country: gb
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
  • Armies: Imperial Guard, Blood Angels and Tyranids
Re: What exactly constitutes an "unsaved wound"?
« Reply #2 on: July 8, 2015, 01:29:02 AM »
The Dark Eldar rule is specific to that bit of Dark Eldar wargear and can't be inferred upon other wargear or weapons.

Therefore:

1) If FNP discounts a luminagen wound, was a wound taken? - no. The model did not suffer an unsaved wound. Do not infer a rule for a specific Dark Eldar bit of wargear onto this wargear. Follow the rules in the rulebook. Thw wound is treated as saved for all purposes unless the codex rules or faq changes this somehow.

2) I would say you get one FNP roll. Do you suffer an unsaved wound yes or no? You don't know that until you've rolled for fnp. Assuming you fail it, then now you have that now multiplies to D3 wounds. I admit weapons doing multiple wounds is not adequately covered in the rules with regards to fnp, but in order to take the D3 wounds you have to have suffered the unsaved wound in the first place. You haven't suffered that wound until you've taken (and failed) the FNP roll.

This also matches how FNP works against D hits. You FNP the "hit", not each wound caused by the hit. Yes I know I've just inferred how FNP works against D hit onto other multiple wound hits!! But it's slightly different context as the Dark Eldar wargear rules is specific out of the codex and changes the rules for that bit of wargear against the rulebook (the rulebook rules state the wound would be saved and therefore following the rulebook rules as you have not suffered a wound you would keep the benefits, but the codex changes and over rules this), but the D weapon rules is simply as written in the rulebook.
Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.

Offline vonny

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • Country: nl
  • I *LOVE* 40k OFFline!
  • Armies: Tyranids, Lamenters (BA), Eldar (Iyanden), 1k Sons
Re: What exactly constitutes an "unsaved wound"?
« Reply #3 on: July 8, 2015, 02:52:33 PM »
except D-hits specifically state you may not take FnP against them ;)

other than that, I agree with you.
check out my Iyanden painting blog.

Offline Wonderbadger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Country: us
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: What exactly constitutes an "unsaved wound"?
« Reply #4 on: July 8, 2015, 11:51:00 PM »
The only problem is that the wording for the Shadow Field and the Luminagen ability are effectively identical.

Shadow Field: "...at the end of any phase in which the model suffers one or more unsaved wounds." Dark Eldar Codes, pg 107

Luminagen: "A unit that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds..." Cult Mechanicus codex, pg 74.

Not sure I follow the reasoning behind why the Shadow Field goes away if an unsaved wound is negated by FNP, but the Luminagen rule doesn't apply.

Offline Dangerousdave0042

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Country: gb
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
  • Armies: Imperial Guard, Blood Angels and Tyranids
Re: What exactly constitutes an "unsaved wound"?
« Reply #5 on: July 9, 2015, 07:58:36 PM »

Not sure I follow the reasoning behind why the Shadow Field goes away if an unsaved wound is negated by FNP, but the Luminagen rule doesn't apply.

Because the Dark Eldar codex tells you it does - even though the model, as according to the rule book, has not suffered an unsaved wound.

According to the rulebook if you FNP a wound it is treated as saved. Therefore, under the rules for luminagen - did the unit suffer an unsaved wound - no.

You are right, D weapons are treated as S10 for the purposes of ID. It's another place in the rulebook that it then tells you that FNP can't be taken against them. I originally thought it was treated as S10 for ID and FNP which was wrong.
« Last Edit: July 9, 2015, 08:01:28 PM by Dangerousdave0042 »
Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.

 


Powered by EzPortal