Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

take the following scenario: A model with multiple wounds and the FNP rule (such as Typhus) is hit and suffers a wound by a Necron Canoptek scarab that has the entropic strike rule, but then ignores the wound due to successful FNP role.

Relevant Entropic Strike Rule Section: Any non-vehicle model that suffers an unsaved wound immediately looses its armour save for the rest of the game.

What happens to Typhus' armour save? Is it lost or does it remain?

technically the wound is not saved because FNP is not a save. He just ignores the wound, so my gut is the wound is ignored but the terminator armour save is lost.

Based on the following:

Q: In assault, what comes first – Feel No Pain rolls or the roll to
activate a Force weapon? (p37)
A: The roll to activate a Force Weapon is made before
determining whether or not the victim is permitted a Feel
No Pain roll.

It would appear that if something happens immediately upon suffering an unsaved wound, it is triggered before FNP.

The alternative is two things occurring simultaneously, current player chooses order (so on your turn it would be FNP then ES, on his turn ES then FNP).

Others may disagree and argue that if you take away the save then you are not treating the wound as having been saved.

I would argue that because FNP is not a save, that he does infact lose the armor save, but does not lose the wound

 KonTheory wrote:
I would argue that because FNP is not a save, that he does infact lose the armor save, but does not lose the wound

FNP says: "[If successful] the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved." (35)

If you are treating the wound as saved why are you removing the armor save?

I happen to agree with DR on this one. To put this into terms as I view it saying that you lose your armour even though you made your FNP is equal to giving fury unbound to Lemartes if you fail his armour save yet make your FNP.

Lemartes rule (Fury Unbound) reads as thus: If Lemartes suffers an unsaved wound, but is not slain, his strength and attacks both immediately increase to 5.

There is no way I could ever play it this way but, by the way people are on about ES and FNP then this would be the way it should go.

Ok.. youve converted me...
I dont have a book with me.. but that quote looks legit to me

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
I happen to agree with DR on this one. To put this into terms as I view it saying that you lose your armour even though you made your FNP is equal to giving fury unbound to Lemartes if you fail his armour save yet make your FNP.

Lemartes rule (Fury Unbound) reads as thus: If Lemartes suffers an unsaved wound, but is not slain, his strength and attacks both immediately increase to 5.

There is no way I could ever play it this way but, by the way people are on about ES and FNP then this would be the way it should go.

Maybe think about it this way. The ES rule is specifically designed to slice up armour. FNP is specifically designed to save the body. In fluff it's akin to taking a bullet to the chest but being so badass you shrug it off and keep going forward. If/when you finally go down you're riddled with wounds that would've killed anyone else, but you're so heroic you just kept going. The bullet still penetrated, you were just to so tough you kept going. You're own toughness has nothing to do with your armour. The bullet still penetrates and did damage to the armour, so in fluff word the ES still shreds the armour, you were just so tough, you shrugged it off.

Still I've seen other posts about FNP and ES and most people seem to agree that FNP would keep the ES rule from happening.

This could also get you a S:10 A:10 Fuegan while still at full health. Sounds fishy to me

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:
This could also get you a S:10 A:10 Fuegan while still at full health. Sounds fishy to me

Fuegan doesn't need FNP for that. Just a few warlocks with Renew.

Aye it can be, but not with good ol' fuegan on his own and based on several Ld8 tests. Still silly though

disdamn wrote:

Maybe think about it this way. The ES rule is specifically designed to slice up armour. FNP is specifically designed to save the body. In fluff it's akin to taking a bullet to the chest but being so badass you shrug it off and keep going forward. If/when you finally go down you're riddled with wounds that would've killed anyone else, but you're so heroic you just kept going. The bullet still penetrated, you were just to so tough you kept going. You're own toughness has nothing to do with your armour. The bullet still penetrates and did damage to the armour, so in fluff word the ES still shreds the armour, you were just so tough, you shrugged it off.

Still I've seen other posts about FNP and ES and most people seem to agree that FNP would keep the ES rule from happening.

By all rights yes it should work that way, but for the sake of the game and simplifying it to keep a good pace it doesn't work that way in 40k. By all rights any weapon that bypasses a models armour save but doesn't kill them (model still has more wounds, failed to wound, whatever reason) should technically lower the targets armour save because they just had some form of high power shot effortlessly punch a hole through the armour, but it doesn't work that way because it would slow the game down far too much.

I agree that FNP does cancel out ES

He would loose his 2 up save. The wound would be saved from his fnp.

GNP does not count as a save, one does it ignore what happens to the armor of the model.

ES happens "immediately" when a model suffers an unsaved wound, FNP does not. So ES happens before FNP. This is compatible with the FAQ about foce weapons which also happen "immediately" aften an unsaved wound.

DR used the same arguments in favour of FNP working against force weapons and there is no reason why these arguments should be any more valid for ES than force weapons.

Personally I believe ES takes effect before you the wound is treated as saved.

copper.talos wrote:
DR used the same arguments in favour of FNP working against force weapons and there is no reason why these arguments should be any more valid for ES than force weapons.

The force weapon ruling is not comparable, because if the force weapon succeeds there IS no feel-no-pain roll. It tells us nothing about what happens once a FNP roll succeeds. And what happens is that the unsaved wound retro-actively becomes saved, thereby canceling any effects caused by the unsaved wound.

This is the faq:
Q: In assault, what comes first – Feel No Pain rolls or the roll to
activate a Force weapon? (p37)
A: The roll to activate a Force Weapon is made before
determining whether or not the victim is permitted a Feel
No Pain roll.

So the faq actually mentions nothing of what you say. The "reasoning" you propose is of your own imagination only. In the end there are two rules that both happen immediately after an unsaved wound. One of them got a faq that sets the time it activates before FNP and there is absolutely no reason why the other rule should happen any later.

Lungpickle wrote:
He would loose his 2 up save. The wound would be saved from his fnp.

GNP does not count as a save, one does it ignore what happens to the armor of the model.

FNP, if successful, tells us that "the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved." (35)

Treats the wound as having been saved, so why would the model lose its save off of a saved wound?

This is your own post in the thread about force weapons and FNP.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/499195.page#5153693

Except you do not know if you actually have an unsaved wound until you figure out if FNP treats the wound as saved.

That and you have to roll FNP first or you break things like the Hexrifle and Entropic Strike.

Also, when do they get to roll for FNP? "when a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound" so this will happen the instant a model with the FNP special rule suffers an unsaved wound.

So you have used the same arguments in favour of FNP working against force weapons AND you also have linked the cases of force weapon and entropic strike. So not only you should stop using those arguments but you should even agree that the force weapon faq creates a precedent that ES works against FNP.

I'd like to know exactly how divided the community is on this one. To that end, I've started a poll, here.

While it is really hard to say for certain, thanks to that Frequently Asked Question, I can see what they where trying to resolve. I think there is enough question about the Frequently Asked Question's answer in order to state it was specific to only the Force Weapon situation and can not be applied to things like Entropic Strike. That is because the Force Weapons special rule was clearly designed to grant instant death, something that specifically denies you a Feel no Pain roll. It would make very little sense for a Feel No Pain test to effectively save you from the Instant Death rule, so the writer of the answer clearly sided that way. I do not think he was wrong to do so, but I do not feel the answer is obvious enough to apply to more then the Force Weapon situation.

Personally, this should of been corrected by errata to the Force Weapon section of the book, adding the line that Force weapons activation is done prior to Feel No Pain.

copper.talos wrote:

This is your own post in the thread about force weapons and FNP.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/499195.page#5153693

Except you do not know if you actually have an unsaved wound until you figure out if FNP treats the wound as saved.

That and you have to roll FNP first or you break things like the Hexrifle and Entropic Strike.

Also, when do they get to roll for FNP? "when a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound" so this will happen the instant a model with the FNP special rule suffers an unsaved wound.

So you have used the same arguments in favour of FNP working against force weapons AND you also have linked the cases of force weapon and entropic strike. So not only you should stop using those arguments but you should even agree that the force weapon faq creates a precedent that ES works against FNP.

The FAQ would create a precedent if ES had a similar effect as a force weapon, alas it does not so it can not be compared.

They also changed the rules in that FaQ so no surprise there.

Edit: IMO on RAW:

"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll..."
"Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses its armor save for the remainder of the battle."

No matter how you look at it the model did suffer the unsaved wound or there would be no FNP roll and that unsaved would causes the loss of the armor save.

"On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved."

That the suffered unsaved wound later is retroactively discounted and treated as having been saved does not mean it was not suffered and does nothing to fix further effects that come along with that, only the wound itself.

This might be the ex-MTG player in me talking though.

 Abandon wrote:
Edit: IMO on RAW:

"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll..."
"Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses its armor save for the remainder of the battle."

No matter how you look at it the model did suffer the unsaved wound or there would be no FNP roll and that unsaved would causes the loss of the armor save.

"On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved."

That the suffered unsaved wound later is retroactively discounted and treated as having been saved does not mean it was not suffered and does nothing to fix further effects that come along with that, only the wound itself.

This might be the ex-MTG player in me talking though.

Off Topic: Trust me, I know how you feel. However, remember, Games Workshop isn't Wizards of the Coast. Dear god I wish they were, but they have so many wonky interactions, incomplete rules, and unanswered FAQs, that you would flip your table in frustration if this was a Magic/D&D game. After I saw they said if there is a dispute, roll a dice (meaning both sides could be right), I knew that they were not going to be writing detailed FAQs/Errata for a while.

On Topic: The problem with allowing that to happen in that order, it some units gain massive buffs when they suffer an unsaved wound. However, if FNP saves the wound without counting as being saved, they get far more powerful.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I'd like to know exactly how divided the community is on this one. To that end, I've started a poll, here.

Think its too specific a ability (relating to only one codex) to get a good idea on a poll here.


We had the argument over FNP and force weapons a long while ago. Much of it was based on the words immediately being used to force the effect through before other rules come in to play. ES is worded the same.

At the worse they happen at the same time, at which the controlling player decides.

I still believe 'Treat as saved' doesn't make the blindest bit of difference. You treat the wound as saved from the point you pass the FNP roll, you don't go back and start treating the wound as saved for things that happened in the past.

 Nem wrote:
At the worse they happen at the same time, at which the controlling player decides.

This is only true when both players have something to do at the same time.

Is ES a roll by the controlling player or something similar, or does it just happen?

Because if it just happens then both players do not have to do something at the same time, as ES is just a passive ability.

"At other times, you'll find that both players will have to do something at the same time" (9)

 Nem wrote:
I still believe 'Treat as saved' doesn't make the blindest bit of difference. You treat the wound as saved from the point you pass the FNP roll, you don't go back and start treating the wound as saved for things that happened in the past.

Why not? If you remove the armor save then you are not treating the unsaved wound as a saved wound, and that breaks rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
At the worse they happen at the same time, at which the controlling player decides.

This is only true when both players have something to do at the same time.

Is ES a roll by the controlling player or something similar, or does it just happen?

Because if it just happens then both players do not have to do something at the same time, as ES is just a passive ability.

"At other times, you'll find that both players will have to do something at the same time" (9)

 Nem wrote:
I still believe 'Treat as saved' doesn't make the blindest bit of difference. You treat the wound as saved from the point you pass the FNP roll, you don't go back and start treating the wound as saved for things that happened in the past.

Why not? If you remove the armor save then you are not treating the unsaved wound as a saved wound, and that breaks rules.

Any by the same logic you have broken the rules by rolling FNP on a wound which is treated as saved and not unsaved, if you rolled a Armour/Unvun/cover save, you broke the rules by rolling on a saved wound... how far back should we apply the effect of FNP?


At the time ES is rolled for, the wound is unsaved. To say it broke the rules means we have to start applying all rules to things that happened in the past. The wound is only treated as saved from the point you pass the FNP roll, and we do not have permission to apply rules in reverse.

FNP Creates a Paradox, show me in the rules where a paradox is not allowed.

 DeathReaper wrote:
FNP Creates a Paradox, show me in the rules where a paradox is not allowed.

Quite,

Think I've said what I can, to claim ES breaks rules when applied before FNP (which is later successful) is to acknowledge effects from abilities should be applied to resolved mechanics which happened earlier in the phase or games sequence, rendering the first action a breaking of the rules.

Kinda like how you have, say .... a Land Raider that your enemy shoots say six times getting 4 glances and 2 pens. You have popped smoke with said land raider and get a cover save. You have to roll the glances and pens separate for a reason .... say you roll quite well and only one glance and one pen go through. It has already had 4 glances and 2 pens ... but you have wiped them out via cover saves and only have one of each to deal with now.

Your enemy has gotten 4 glances and 2 pens but using your time warp cover save you have reduced them as such. FNP is doing the same exact thing and some people have a problem with that?!?

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
Kinda like how you have, say .... a Land Raider that your enemy shoots say six times getting 4 glances and 2 pens. You have popped smoke with said land raider and get a cover save. You have to roll the glances and pens separate for a reason .... say you roll quite well and only one glance and one pen go through. It has already had 4 glances and 2 pens ... but you have wiped them out via cover saves and only have one of each to deal with now.

Your enemy has gotten 4 glances and 2 pens but using your time warp cover save you have reduced them as such. FNP is doing the same exact thing and some people have a problem with that?!?

FNP is a special rule, not a save. FNP and ES are activated on the same condition (Unsaved wound). Taking a cover save is activated when allocated a wound. So no its a very different thing.