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.

I ran into a debate of rules mentioned it the title I show the rules and then give the situation.

Helfrost

Feel No Pain

Reanimation Protocols

Since all 3 of the above rules (gotten from the glossaries of the ebook/ipad editions) all have a triggering action of a model suffering an unsaved wound. I was wondering on how Helfrost reacts with either FNP or RP. From reading the rules it seems the special rules will be triggered at the same time? so if that is the can both a strength test and a Roll for FNP/FP will both be made, if the Strength test is failed the model in question would be removed from play, if it is not and the FNP/RP roll is passed the wound would not be taken. Is this the case?

Also the Rule Book states in the chapter titled "The Turn" under the section "Sequencing"

If the above rule applies wouldn't it be my choice on which order these rules get applied in?

Unfotunately FNP cheats in this situation.

You do indeed "suffer and unsaved wound" to trigger the FNP, but if you roll the 5+ you go back in time and save the wound, negating any "suffer" effect.

Reanimation protocals is almost the same. Hellfrosts remove from play effect never even gets a chance if your RP saves the wound.

What are you referencing that gives FNP/RP the priority over Helfrost? All 3 rules require an unsaved wound in order to be used.

As per my stance in the other thread I'm assuming you found:

The permission to roll for RP is when the model suffers an unsaved wound. The permission to roll for Helfrost is also when the model suffers an unsaved wound. The wording is identical, therefore the rules are simultaneous. As per page 17 under sequencing, when two rules are simultaneous, the player whose turn it is decides the order in which they are resolved. This leaves us with two scenarios:

Scenario 1 -The player decides to roll reanimation first. If reanimation is passed, you treat the wound as having been saved and helfrost does not proc. If reanimation is failed, helfrost procs.
Scenario 2 - The player decides to roll Helfrost first. If the Helfrost test is failed, the model is removed from play and no reanimation is allowed. If the Helfrost test is passed, reanimation procs.
^That is RAW


The reason I would house rule it so that Helfrost always procs first is because of the line in Reanimation that states that reanimation rolls may not be taken against attacks with the "removed from play" special rule. This rule, according to the current RAW, has no functional use. Any attack that simply removes the model does not cause a wound, and Reanimation needs a wound to proc. So you could take that line out of the rules for reanimation entirely and it would still be the exact same. Because of this, I believe it was GW's intention that Reanimation may not be taken against unsaved wounds with an attached special rule that causes the model to be removed from play. If helfrost procs and fails, you are left with an unsaved wound with no "removes from play" effect on it, and reanimation is free to proc.
^ That is HIWPI.

RP and FNP both cause the wound to be treated as saved. Therefore you would not have to test for Helfrost.

This is no different than Hexrifles, etc. You can search for the old threads on that.

@cronikCRS

FNP automatically has priority over anything that isnt Instant Death. Its in the FNP rules/FAQ. There were many arguments about it already done on this forum. Reanimation protocals is worded basically identically.

Im personally in agreement it should be handled as Bojazz suggests with player turn priority.

Bojazz wrote:
As per my stance in the other thread I'm assuming you found:

The permission to roll for RP is when the model suffers an unsaved wound. The permission to roll for Helfrost is also when the model suffers an unsaved wound. The wording is identical, therefore the rules are simultaneous. As per page 17 under sequencing, when two rules are simultaneous, the player whose turn it is decides the order in which they are resolved. This leaves us with two scenarios:

Scenario 1 -The player decides to roll reanimation first. If reanimation is passed, you treat the wound as having been saved and helfrost does not proc. If reanimation is failed, helfrost procs.
Scenario 2 - The player decides to roll Helfrost first. If the Helfrost test is failed, the model is removed from play and no reanimation is allowed. If the Helfrost test is passed, reanimation procs.
^That is RAW


The reason I would house rule it so that Helfrost always procs first is because of the line in Reanimation that states that reanimation rolls may not be taken against attacks with the "removed from play" special rule. This rule, according to the current RAW, has no functional use. Any attack that simply removes the model does not cause a wound, and Reanimation needs a wound to proc. So you could take that line out of the rules for reanimation entirely and it would still be the exact same. Because of this, I believe it was GW's intention that Reanimation may not be taken against unsaved wounds with an attached special rule that causes the model to be removed from play. If helfrost procs and fails, you are left with an unsaved wound with no "removes from play" effect on it, and reanimation is free to proc.
^ That is HIWPI.

Yes I did find your posts on another thread, it is currently the only thread besides this one, when I searched before it was the only thing I could find. And I agree with you

Fragile wrote:
RP and FNP both cause the wound to be treated as saved. Therefore you would not have to test for Helfrost.

I agree with this, so long as Reanimation is rolled first. Unfortunately, the rules are both called at the same time since they BOTH proc on unsaved wounds, so it is up to the player whose turn it is to decide which order they will be resolved in. If Helfrost goes first and removed the model, Reanimation/FNP have no permission to resolve.

Bojazz wrote:

Fragile wrote:
RP and FNP both cause the wound to be treated as saved. Therefore you would not have to test for Helfrost.

I agree with this, so long as Reanimation is rolled first. Unfortunately, the rules are both called at the same time since they BOTH proc on unsaved wounds, so it is up to the player whose turn it is to decide which order they will be resolved in. If Helfrost goes first and removed the model, Reanimation/FNP have no permission to resolve.

Show the rule forbidding RP.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
FNP automatically has priority over anything that isnt Instant Death. Its in the FNP rules/FAQ. There were many arguments about it already done on this forum. Reanimation protocals is worded basically identically.

http://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer_40000/Warhammer_40000_Rules_EN.pdf

Above is a link to the current FAQ of the rule book where FNP rules are found, in my first post I have linked the verbatim rule as found in the Rule Book.

where is it stated that it comes before Helfrost?

I don't think the Op see's the part that after you suffer an unsaved wound you then take a str Test or be removed from play... if you have a single wound and fail RP/FNP then there is no test as you are already removed from play as a casualty.

 BLADERIKER wrote:
I don't think the Op see's the part that after you suffer an unsaved wound you then take a str Test or be removed from play... if you have a single wound and fail RP/FNP then there is no test as you are already removed from play as a casualty.

I see that part just fine, but if the Helfrost test isn't passed the model must be removed from play. Using the Sequencing rules the way Bojazz has illustrated gets around FNP/RP.

To walk the scenario out further: I shoot a wound with helfost cannon, you fail your armor save and cause an unsaved wound on your Necron. At this point Reanimation protocols and helfrost have their requirements met for being activated. In this case you would take a S test because of Helfrost and roll for RP, if the S test is failed the model is removed from play even if the RP roll succeeds. if the S test is passed and the RP roll is passed the model gets back up.

The effects happen at the same time, it is shown in both rules in the first sentence.

Fragile wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

Fragile wrote:
RP and FNP both cause the wound to be treated as saved. Therefore you would not have to test for Helfrost.

I agree with this, so long as Reanimation is rolled first. Unfortunately, the rules are both called at the same time since they BOTH proc on unsaved wounds, so it is up to the player whose turn it is to decide which order they will be resolved in. If Helfrost goes first and removed the model, Reanimation/FNP have no permission to resolve.

Show the rule forbidding RP.

I assume you mean "show the rule forbidding RP if the player whose turn it is decides to resolve Helfrost First, and the model fails the test causing the model to be removed from play". In that case:

Reanimation Protocols wrote:Reanimation Protocols rolls may even be taken against hits with the Instant Death special rule, but cannot be used against hits from Destroyer weapons or any special rule or attack that states that the model is ‘removed from play’.

Otherwise, as i stated above, RP is totally allowed.

And here is your problem. Both rules triggered. The wound did not remove the model from play. Failing the Helfrost test did. So therefore you must still resolve the RP. Assuming you succeed, you now treat that wound as saved. If that wound is saved then it does not meet the requirements for Helfrost. It creates a paradox in the rules. The only way to resolve it and not break rules, is to resolve FNP/RP first.

Fragile, question.

I decide to have the Necron player resolve Helfrost first (as per "Sequencing"). The Necron model fails the test and is removed from play. Where is there permission for special rules to be triggered on a dead model?

FWIW, I would play resolve FNP/RP first.

 Happyjew wrote:
Fragile, question.

I decide to have the Necron player resolve Helfrost first (as per "Sequencing"). The Necron model fails the test and is removed from play. Where is there permission for special rules to be triggered on a dead model?

FWIW, I would play resolve FNP/RP first.

Two special rules activate when the wound is suffered. You resolve the HF and remove the model. You now have to resolve the second. The rules break... There is only one way to resolve it without breaking a rule.

The rules do not break. Two rules activate, and as per sequencing the player chooses which to resolve first. If the player resolves Helfrost first, and the model is removed then that is fully resolved. You then have no model to resolve reanimation on, and so it is not resolved. When a model is removed, all actions queued for that model are cancelled. For instance, If a unit has to take a morale check due to taking 25% casualties, and then gets shot by another squad and is wiped off the table, you do not take the morale check, even though that test was queued up for the squad. Similarly, if you have reanimation queued up for a model, and then it is removed from the table, you do not roll reanimation. No rules are broken. Both processes work with the RAW.

Another similar example is grounding tests. Since 7th edition dropped I have been taking grounding tests on FMCs every time I suffer an unsaved wound, even if I then make a FNP roll. That was the consensus at the beginning of 7th.

Apparently because of sequence, since grounding tests happen at the end of the phase, and FNP happens immediately apparently, that logic would dictate that I don't have to take a grounding test so long as I make my FNP?

My playgroup had a similar discussion with FNP and Grounding Tests. We decided to use BAO/LVO's precedence with the old Entropic Strike rule. Because Entropic Strike says "immediately" we determined that it happens before a FNP check is made. But in this situation there is no text saying that the toughness test takes place before FNP would occur. You still treat the wound as if it were saved, regardless of FNP or RP not being a "save".

I debated extensively previously on items like entropic strike and others that FNP would not take priority based on the perhaps outcome, and that when two rules are triggered at the same time we would resolve based on that BRB quote for special rules triggering at the same time.

The premises are as follows;

For FNP auto priority (Main point):
FNP causes the unsaved wound to be saved, applying the rule on a saved wound is not permitted, and is breaking the rules.

Against FNP auto priority (Counter main point):
Should [notfnp] be resolved first it's effects do not require the ongoing presence of a unsaved wound to function. The rules don't check for permissions we may or may not had in the past and change resolve rules based on what we now have permission [or restrictions] to do. FNP can and still may negate the wound being taken from the stat line.


This case is even more interesting. If we are prioritizing both rules based on what might be the outcome one is saving the wound one is dead (no permission to roll FNP) one is saved (No permission to roll HF). This rule in particular negates FNP 'auto priority' more so than others.

But my main problem with FNP is considering we already have rules for SR's triggering at the same time, if they wanted FNP to be different (and always come first) they could have made it clear by adding that wording to the rule rather than us digging to find deeper meaning and ruling based off paradoxes and such.

tag8833 wrote:
Another similar example is grounding tests. Since 7th edition dropped I have been taking grounding tests on FMCs every time I suffer an unsaved wound, even if I then make a FNP roll. That was the consensus at the beginning of 7th.

Apparently because of sequence, since grounding tests happen at the end of the phase, and FNP happens immediately apparently, that logic would dictate that I don't have to take a grounding test so long as I make my FNP?

In that case the rules are not triggered at the same time, and the grounding test is completely independent of FNP. If FNP is rolled and successful, there is no unsaved wound for grounding to then test against.

nem is 100% correct on this.

And for the record I agreed with her position when some people tried to use FNP to cheat against entropic strike and I still agree with her now that I could cheat my opponent using RP to counter hellfrost-like effects.

Bottom line is IF the model suffers an unsaved wound in order to activate FNP/RP THEN that same wound also activates all other effects with the same trigger.

My standpoint is that no rules "go back in time", because it does not say that they do. If FNP pass, the wound is treated as saved, from that moment, but it can never go back in time to stop effects that was initiated by the unsaved wound before FNP was rolled.

So in this case, sequencing is important.

If FNP or RP is rolled first and the roll is passed, there will be no Strength test, because both FNP and RP treats the wound as if it was saved. This will likely only happen in assault when it is the defending player´s turn.

However if Helfrost is rolled first (i.e. it is the attacking player's turn), player has to make a Strength test, and if it fails, the model is removed from game without any RP or FNP rolls being allowed.

jay_mo wrote:
My standpoint is that no rules "go back in time", because it does not say that they do. If FNP pass, the wound is treated as saved, from that moment, but it can never go back in time to stop effects that was initiated by the unsaved wound before FNP was rolled.

So in this case, sequencing is important.

If FNP or RP is rolled first and the roll is passed, there will be no Strength test, because both FNP and RP treats the wound as if it was saved. This will likely only happen in assault when it is the defending player´s turn.

However if Helfrost is rolled first (i.e. it is the attacking player's turn), player has to make a Strength test, and if it fails, the model is removed from game without any RP or FNP rolls being allowed.

I agree completely with the above, with an emphasis on this, which is clearly a key point for this thread:

Bojazz wrote:
Unfortunately, the rules are both called at the same time since they BOTH proc on unsaved wounds, so it is up to the player whose turn it is to decide which order they will be resolved in.

jay_mo wrote:
My standpoint is that no rules "go back in time", because it does not say that they do. If FNP pass, the wound is treated as saved, from that moment, but it can never go back in time to stop effects that was initiated by the unsaved wound before FNP was rolled.

So you don't treat the wound as saved?
Because triggering effects that require an unsaved wound when the wound has been saved is ... an interesting stance.

rigeld2 wrote:

jay_mo wrote:
My standpoint is that no rules "go back in time", because it does not say that they do. If FNP pass, the wound is treated as saved, from that moment, but it can never go back in time to stop effects that was initiated by the unsaved wound before FNP was rolled.

So you don't treat the wound as saved?
Because triggering effects that require an unsaved wound when the wound has been saved is ... an interesting stance.

I do... There are plenty of things that you can "treat as" something else from now on, without going back in time. If I borrow something from you and you say "Treat it like your own", I don't call the police and claim that you stole it from me in the past because it has been "my own" all the time, it means I start treating it as my own from the point when you told me to....

So, if at the time I roll FNP, that wound already triggered my model be removed from the game, if I pass the roll, I treat the wound as if it was saved from there. Unfortunately I can't do anything about the model that was already removed from the game.

jay_mo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

jay_mo wrote:
My standpoint is that no rules "go back in time", because it does not say that they do. If FNP pass, the wound is treated as saved, from that moment, but it can never go back in time to stop effects that was initiated by the unsaved wound before FNP was rolled.

So you don't treat the wound as saved?
Because triggering effects that require an unsaved wound when the wound has been saved is ... an interesting stance.

I do... There are plenty of things that you can "treat as" something else from now on, without going back in time. If I borrow something from you and you say "Treat it like your own", I don't call the police and claim that you stole it from me in the past because it has been "my own" all the time, it means I start treating it as my own from the point when you told me to....

Wow... it's almost like real world analogies don't work...

So, if at the time I roll FNP, that wound already triggered my model be removed from the game, if I pass the roll, I treat the wound as if it was saved from there. Unfortunately I can't do anything about the model that was already removed from the game.

If the wound was saved, why was the model removed from the game? Applying Helfrost on a saved wound would be illegal.

 BlackTalos wrote:

jay_mo wrote:
My standpoint is that no rules "go back in time", because it does not say that they do. If FNP pass, the wound is treated as saved, from that moment, but it can never go back in time to stop effects that was initiated by the unsaved wound before FNP was rolled.

So in this case, sequencing is important.

If FNP or RP is rolled first and the roll is passed, there will be no Strength test, because both FNP and RP treats the wound as if it was saved. This will likely only happen in assault when it is the defending player´s turn.

However if Helfrost is rolled first (i.e. it is the attacking player's turn), player has to make a Strength test, and if it fails, the model is removed from game without any RP or FNP rolls being allowed.

I agree completely with the above, with an emphasis on this, which is clearly a key point for this thread:

Bojazz wrote:
Unfortunately, the rules are both called at the same time since they BOTH proc on unsaved wounds, so it is up to the player whose turn it is to decide which order they will be resolved in.

THIS

There are already a number of people in this thread who have laid out the rules which explain how this works. The sequence is decided by which player's turn it is.

If I shoot you with helfrost in my turn I will remove the target from play before you roll your RP or FNP.

If I shoot you with helfrost in your turn you will most likely choose to roll your RP or FNP before allowing me to remove the model from play, but this is up to you when it is your turn.

Wow... it's almost like real world analogies don't work...

That's not my point. My point is that the statement "Treat it as x", does not implicitly mean "treat it as it has been x for all eternity". It is true that it does not say "Treat it as x from now on", but that interpretation is much closer at hand. My real life example was to demonstrate how this works in the language.

And that was my answer to you claiming that I do not treat it as saved. You are right that I do not treat it as if it has always been saved, but I do treat it as if it was saved from now on. Which also is "treating it as saved"

jay_mo wrote:
That's not my point. My point is that the statement "Treat it as x", does not implicitly mean "treat it as it has been x for all eternity". It is true that it does not say "Treat it as x from now on", but that interpretation is much closer at hand. My real life example was to demonstrate how this works in the language.

And if you'd understand the difference between "treat as" in the real world and "treat as" in 40k, you'd understand why it doesn't work like that.

rigeld2 wrote:

jay_mo wrote:
That's not my point. My point is that the statement "Treat it as x", does not implicitly mean "treat it as it has been x for all eternity". It is true that it does not say "Treat it as x from now on", but that interpretation is much closer at hand. My real life example was to demonstrate how this works in the language.

And if you'd understand the difference between "treat as" in the real world and "treat as" in 40k, you'd understand why it doesn't work like that.

As I said my point is not to compare how things work in the real world with how they work in 40k, merely to give an example of what the sentence "treat it as x" means. This was my answer to you claiming that I do not "treat it as saved". You are right that I do not treat it as if it has always been saved in all eternity, but I do treat it as if it was saved from now on. Which also is "treating it as saved".

I find it surprising that you think this does not confer with rules in 40k. In my experience most rules for games (board games etc) are sequential, kind of like programming. If you want to claim that 40k-rules are different, well, that's up to you, but I don't see it. The only difference I see is that they are more complex and move vaguely written, but the concepts are still the same.