ISSUE: Does a model which suffers an unsaved wound from a Dark Eldar Hexrifle, but passes its Feel No Pain test, still suffer the additional effects of the Hexrifle shot?
HOLDING: Yes, a model which suffers an unsaved wound from a hexrifle shot must pass a wounds characteristic test or be removed from play, regardless of whether it passes its FNP test or not.
ANALYSIS:
Justicar GiantKiller delivers the opinion of the court.
The issue arises from an apparent conflict between the Dark Eldar Hexrifle’s special effect, which triggers when the weapon causes an unsaved wound, and the Feel No Pain rule, which allows a model a chance to ignore the effects of an unsaved wound.
As always, we begin our analysis with a thorough reading of the applicable rules themselves.
The Hexrifle rule tells us:
“A model that suffers an unsaved wound from a hexrifle must take a characteristic test based on their Wounds value (i.e. the one on their profile, not their current Wounds). If they fail the test, they are removed from play, with no saves of any kind. Vehicles cannot be affected by hexrifles.” Codex: Dark Eldar p. 61″
We note that a hexrifle does not cause instant death. Instead, its effect has a chance to remove a model from play. So we know eternal warrior would not prevent this type of effect per our discussion of Direswords and Eternal Warrior. Most significantly to this discussion, we note that the effect is triggered when a model “suffers an unsaved wound” from this weapon.
So we move on to Feel No Pain. The Feel No Pain rule tells us:
“If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice. On a 1, 2 or 3, take the wound as normal (removing the model if it loses its final Wound). On a 4, 5 or 6 the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting. This ability cannot be used against wounds from weapons that inflict instant death (by having a high enough Strength or a special rule to that effect; even if the model is an eternal warrior). Neither can it be used against wounds from AP1 and AP2 weapons, power weapons and any other wound against which no armour save can ever be taken (like wounds from power fists, Dreadnought close combat weapons, rending weapons that roll a 6, Perils of the Warp, failed dangerous terrain tests, etc).” BGB p. 75
We note first that per the language of the rule, Feel No Pain (hereinafter “FNP”) is an ability, not a saving throw. See BGB pp.20, 75. We also note that FNP does not work against rending wounds. The hexrifle is a “sniper” type weapon (Codex: Dark Eldar p.61) so it is also a rending weapon (BGB p.31) and therefore nullifies FNP on a to-wound roll of 6 (See BGB p.31). Thus this entire discussion is moot if the firing player rolls a 6 to wound, because a Feel No Pain test could not be taken anyway. But assuming a non-rending wound is caused, we continue our discussion.
Next we note that FNP is also triggered when a model “suffers an unsaved wound”. So the same event triggers both the hexrifle’s ability and FNP’s ability. Now it has been argued, un-persuasively, that the hexrifle should “go first” because it is the shooting player’s turn and therefore his choice as to the order of operations. It has also been argued, equally un-persuasively that the FNP rule should “go first” because it is part of the wound resolution process. Each of these arguments is unpersuasive because neither has a basis in the language of the rules. There is simply no rule that we are aware of which establishes an order of operations in a situation like this one. We must assume that both effects happen at the same time because both are triggered by the same event.
The next essential question, then, is does the order of execution even matter? Does either rule specifically override the other? In other words, do these rules actually conflict?
To resolve that question, we turn back to the Hexrifle rule. How does it interact with FNP? There is no language in the Hexrifle’s rule which would suggest that it ignores Feel No Pain unless it rends by rolling a 6 to wound. As we mentioned above, the Hexrifle’s special effect does not cause instant death, merely a removal from play. And even if the hexrifle rule contained the words “instant death” instead of removed from play, causing a characteristic test which has the possibility of leading to instant death is not the same as being “a weapon which causes instant death” sufficient to ignore FNP. And nothing in the Hexrifle rule mentions that it takes priority over other effects which are triggered by an unsaved wound, or in any way prevents them from taking place. So nothing about the Hexrifle’s language, aside from its chance to rend, would seem to indicate that it cancels or nullifies FNP.
What about Feel No Pain? The Feel No Pain rule contains no language which suggests it prevents effects which cause removal from play. Nor does FNP take an unsaved wound and make it a saved wound. It’s not a save. Per the language of the rule, a successful FNP test means “the injury is ignored”. Astute rules readers are thinking to themselves: what the hell is an injury? As best we can tell, “injury” is not defined anywhere in the rules. In fact it has been argued that according to RAW, because FNP ignores “injuries”, not “wounds”, it has no effect whatsoever. We find that argument to be entirely without merit, as it flagrantly violates several canons of interpretation, including but not limited to the Absurdity and Injustice Canon, the Drafter’s Intent Canon, the Superfluous Language Canon and of course the Use Context Canon. As we must use context to interpret the language of the rules, we look to the language of the FNP rule itself for context, and thus we are readily able to interpret “the injury is ignored” to mean the wound is ignored for purposes of wound resolution. This means we won’t be removing casualties or subtracting a wound from a multiple-wound model if FNP is passed.
It is important to note, though, that there is no language in the FNP rule which suggests that ignoring the injury prevents other “special” effects triggered by the unsaved wound from happening. And, contrary to many arguments we’ve read on the issue, ignoring a wound certainly doesn’t mean we go back in time and pretend the wound never existed. Such an interpretation would create a paradox – if the unsaved wound never happened, Feel No Pain couldn’t have triggered, and so we couldn’t have ignored the unsaved wound, which means the unsaved wound did happen, so Feel No Pain would trigger, so the unsaved wound would be ignored, so the unsaved wound never happened, so Feel No Pain couldn’t have triggered, and so on, and then the universe implodes. We don’t really need a canon of interpretation to tell us it’s best to avoid the creation of irreconcilable time paradoxes, do we? (though, if you’re wondering, I’d say that falls under the purview of either the Absurdity and Injustice Canon or the avoidance of conflicts canon.)
So we have our answer, then. Ultimately, we find that there is no conflict between these rules. Neither rule takes priority, neither rule cancels out the other, and effectively, neither rule has any bearing on the other whatsoever. If an unsaved (nonrending) wound is suffered, both the FNP and Hexrifle effects are triggered. Thus the model must take both a FNP test and a Wounds characteristic test. Neither result has any bearing on the other test. If the FNP test is passed, the wound is not subtracted, regardless of the result of the characteristic test. If the Hexrifle characteristic test is failed, the model is removed from play, regardless of remaining wounds. So holds the court.