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.

Okay so if a unit with Entropic Strike scores unsaved wounds against an opposing Necron player. If the unit successfully rolls for Resurrection Protocols do those models return without armor? And if Entropic Strike scores unsaved wounds against models with Feel No Pain do those models also loss their Armor for the remainder of the game?

RP: returns sans armor.

FNP: the Wound is disregarded; armor is kept(FNP removes the unsaved wound; otherwise FNP would do nothing, and many many things would effect a model that has made their FNP save).

Kommissar Kel wrote:RP: returns sans armor.

FNP: the Wound is disregarded; armor is kept(FNP removes the unsaved wound; otherwise FNP would do nothing, and many many things would effect a model that has made their FNP save).

To me it would make more sense if they lost the armour, as that is what failed to hold back the blow, but the fortitude of the model is what kept it alive. So it would lose its armour save. Thats just the way I would reason it ( without looking at the brb ).

If the model still suffered the unsaved wound when it made the FNP roll; then FNP would do nothing, because a model that suffers an unsaved wound(the same trigger as Entropic strikes armour loss) immediately loses a wound/is destroyed(depending on # of wounds it has on it's profile/left).

Also such a model would cause it's unit to take a pinning test when FNP-ing a Pinning weapon hit; and the FNP-saved wounds would still count toward assault results(meaning if you make all FNP rolls, you could still have a unit Swept when it suffered no casualties).

No, FNP rolls do not allow for the Armour save to be removed.

Oh wow, Hexrifle/FNP argument again? Maybe they'll actually faq it this time.

junk wrote:Oh wow, Hexrifle/FNP argument again? Maybe they'll actually faq it this time.

Nah, this is entirely different; it's about Entropic strike vs FNP!


More to the point the ES is a guaranteed effect, not the possibility of effect as with hexrifle.

Except that both FNP and ES are triggered by the exact same rule wording, with neither given priority, so both resolve.

Not the same trigger.

ES must come after FNP.

FNP triggers on every unsaved wound; ES triggers on 1 or more unsaved wounds, meaning you do not apply ES until after all wounds are fully resolved.

Lets say we have a multi-wound model with FNP, said model takes 2 wounds from a model with ES; he fails both save, each unsaved wound is immediately disregarded by FNP rolls, when the wounds are resolved has he suffered any unsaved wounds? No, so he does not immediately lose his Armour save as he has suffered 0 wounds from the attacks.

This is the major difference between FNP vs Hexrifle, and FNP vs ES; Hexrifle has the exact same wording as FNP, ES does not.

Kommissar Kel wrote:No, so he does not immediately lose his Armour save as he has suffered 0 wounds from the attacks.

No, he suffered two unsaved wounds, which triggered FNP and ES. You need to pick up the rule book and the necron codex and read both. The wording that triggers both effects is identical.

FNP, BRB, Page 75, second sentence: "If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice."

ES, Necron Codex, page 29, second paragraph, first sentence: "any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses its armour save for the remainder of the battle (effectively altering its armour save to '-').

As you can see those 2 are not Identical; FNP is every unsaved wound; ES is 1 or more, meaning you do not apply the effect until all ES attacks are made.

Another example would be a unit of Triarch Praetorians with voidblades Charging a Hive tyrant(FNP is not needed for this example), out of 15 attacks 8 hit, out of those 8 hits 5 of them wound. By your reckoning if 1 of the wounds is a "6", and thus rending ; then the Hive Tyrant has no save for any of the other wounds and is killed.

This is not how ES is worded; the tyrant has been attacked and wounded by 5 ES models in the same I step; he gets to make all of his saves, then after all saves have been attempted, if he has suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds, he loses his armour save.

They are not exactly identical but they both trigger on the first unsaved wound. Further more FNP says that the injury in ignored. So you don't reduce your model's wounds, but any other effect applies.

Same with RP. It's not one or the other. Both apply. If a model is returned to play, it doesn't come back as "new". It's the same model. Otherwise overlords that used their tachyon arrows and make the RP rolll would get new ones. Fun? Sure! Fair? No...

If ES triggered on the First unsaved wound, it would say that.

Since it triggers on "1 or more" it does not trigger until all simultaneous instances of wounds are fully resolved(all shooting attacks with the quality from a single unit, or all ES attacks in the same I-step).

If all other effects apply then we return to my earlier statements: you can FNP save every wound in close combat and still get sweeping advanced of the table(fat lot of good all those 4+ did you, right?); You can FNP save an attack from a pinning weapon and still have to take the test; vulnerable to Blasts/templates is a hell of a "screw you" to FNP, since it doubles the unsaved wound to 2 wounds.

And finally Copper, since you assert that the Injury is ignored and not the wound; then I guess FNP never does anything because there is no rules for Injuries in the game; models suffer wounds.

So, we must assume that "the injury is ignored and the model keeps on fighting" means that "the wound is ignored and the model keeps on fighting"; since otherwise passing a FNP test does nothing at all(while failing has the model "take the wound as normal")

You are trying to bend the "or" word too much. It almost becomes a boolean "and" using your reasoning. Well it's just "or" and the sentence is self explanatory. It triggers when the 1st wound happens and for every wound afterwards.

Furthermore the ES rule has "immediately" in its wording, FNP does not. So RAW ES resolves before FNP.

And finally as FNP rule says it ignores injuries. By definition a huge hole in your armour is not injury. A huge hole in your chest is. If the BRB doesn't describe exactly what "injury" is, don't try to manipulate it in your advantage, and use common sense.

"1 or more" is different from "first".

First would be, well as soon as the first wound is unsaved(like for activating NFWs).

Entropic Strike is 1 or more, meaning after all the wounds are resolved from any set of attacks.

You can see my Hive tyrant example in posts above for what happens when you read 1 or more as first.

What is a part of Wound resolution? Why that would be FNP since it has the possibility of ignoring the wound(injury).

Manipulating Injury to mean wound; is using common sense. There is no rules for injury, there are rules for wounds, if you are ignoring only an injury(undefined term), then you are still suffering the unsaved wound and must remove the wound or the model(if you have only 1 wound/1 wound left), which makes FNP do nothing at all. If you are ignoring the unsaved wound; then you do not record the damage to the model/remove the model and no other "unsaved wound" triggers will come into effect from that wound.

A model only loses its armor save on an unsaved wound. FNP is a roll to save a wound. If FNP goes off, no unsaved wounds have been caused and therefore entropic strike doesn't apply.

If a model fails his armor save AND his FNP roll, then he loses his armor save...that is if he isn't already dead.

No hunting please.

It is good to remember here, that GW does not write precise, keyword-based systems (such as Magic, the Gathering or Warmachine). They should, but they do not. GW uses synonyms as binding rules effects all the time, and expects some common sense application of their rules.

So every time you start of with something like "well, they didn't technically say "saved", you're setting yourself up to fail.

That said, reanimation is clearly not a save, it's something different at the end of the phase.

However, isn't when a model comes back, isn't not technically the same model? It becomes a counter, which is then replaced with arbitrary similar models. You can't even say for sure which models suffered which wounds.

Not the same model, thus, has it's save.

@gpfunk
can provide the page number of BRB and of any FAQ or errata that says FNP saves the wound? Either you do that or admit you are making things up.

@Kommisar Kel
As I said before manipulating the word "injury" into destroyed armour is too much. If you can't find the proper meaning of the term "injury" I know a few online dictionaries that can help.

And anyway even in the timing issue the ES resolves "immediately", FNP does not. So ES resolves 1st in any case...

copper.talos wrote:@gpfunk
can provide the page number of BRB and of any FAQ or errata that says FNP saves the wound? Either you do that or admit you are making things up.

@Kommisar Kel
As I said before manipulating the word "injury" into destroyed armour is too much. If you can't find the proper meaning of the term "injury" I know a few online dictionaries that can help.

And anyway even in the timing issue the ES resolves "immediately", FNP does not. So ES resolves 1st in any case...

Once again, I think you are being too technical. GW does not write rules like that.

But much more importantly, a "model" does not come back via reanimation protocols. Rather, the Unit gets a certain number of counters, and then roll dice equal to those counters, and the unit gets back a number of models equal to the 5s and 6s rolled. No different than a ghost ark regenerating it, really.

Point is, not the same model. We could have an argument about the ICs, but it definitely doesn't apply to regular necrons coming back.

Kommissar Kel wrote:RP: returns sans armor.

This is correct. The slain model is returned to play but has still suffered an unsaved wound.

Kommissar Kel wrote:FNP: the Wound is disregarded; armor is kept(FNP removes the unsaved wound; otherwise FNP would do nothing, and many many things would effect a model that has made their FNP save).

This is 100% backwards. Feel No Pain cannot possibly remove the unsaved wound because if it does, it removes the original trigger for FNP in the first place creating a paradox. We have been over this a billion times and the two camps are pretty well dug in. Nobody is likely to agree until GW release an FAQ for it, but that is unlikely because I believe they think the answer is obvious (which it is obviously NOT).

The way I see it is this. A model with FNP is allocated a wound. That model rolls an armor save and fails. FNP triggers and the model rolls a die. On a 4+ he ignores the negative effect of taking a wound (IE death), but he has still suffered an unsaved wound. If he has not suffered an unsaved wound, then FNP could not possibly have triggered. At the same time, Entropic Strike triggers, and the models armor save is removed. FNP does not remove the original unsaved wound (it just lets the model ignore the negative effects of the wound itself, IE having a wound removed from it's characteristic) and thus Entropic Strike still works just fine and the armor save is from then on reduced to '-'.

@Sir_Prometheus

(Erm I didn't talk about your answer in my post. Why quote it?)
I am not 100% sure about the RP. I really haven't thought about it until today. With EL you would certainly end up with no-save models though. But regarding the FNP issue, I only see people trying to bend meanings, isolate and manipulate words to their convenience.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

copper.talos wrote:@gpfunk
can provide the page number of BRB and of any FAQ or errata that says FNP saves the wound? Either you do that or admit you are making things up.

@Kommisar Kel
As I said before manipulating the word "injury" into destroyed armour is too much. If you can't find the proper meaning of the term "injury" I know a few online dictionaries that can help.

And anyway even in the timing issue the ES resolves "immediately", FNP does not. So ES resolves 1st in any case...

Once again, I think you are being too technical. GW does not write rules like that.

But much more importantly, a "model" does not come back via reanimation protocols. Rather, the Unit gets a certain number of counters, and then roll dice equal to those counters, and the unit gets back a number of models equal to the 5s and 6s rolled. No different than a ghost ark regenerating it, really.

Point is, not the same model. We could have an argument about the ICs, but it definitely doesn't apply to regular necrons coming back.

No, it is the same model by the wording of Reanimation Protocol. The exact wording is as follows:

At the end of the phase, after any Morale checks have been taken and fall back moves have been made, roll a D6 for each Reanimation Protocols counter next to the unit. On a 1, 2, 3 or 4 the damage is too severe and no self-repair occurs - nothing happens. On a 5 or 6, a Necron reassembles itself and continues to fight - return one of the slain models to play with a single Wound, placed in coherency with a model from its unit that has not itself returned through Reanimation Protocols this phase. Models returning to play in this fashion must be placed at least 1" from enemy models. If the model's unit is engaged in combat, the model immediately piles in. Models that cannot be placed in this way do not return.

The exact model that was slain is returned to play with 1 wound. Presumably any effects on the model prior to it's removal as a casualty will still be in effect when the model returns, which include anything triggered from having suffered an unsaved wound.

copper.talos wrote:@Sir_Prometheus

(Erm I didn't talk about your answer in my post. Why quote it?)
I am not 100% sure about the RP. I really haven't thought about it until today. With EL you would certainly end up with no-save models though. But regarding the FNP issue, I only see people trying to bend meanings, isolate and manipulate words to their convenience.

Because I thought you were incorrect. It can be argued, though I by no means think it's settled, that a Feel No Pain Roll constitutes another form of "save", and that a model that made their FNP would not suffer from the Entropic Strike.

I don't think it's in any way settled, GWs wording is unclear. Point is, GW is unclear all the time, they don't use precise language. So you can't use the lack of precise language against someone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aldarionn wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

copper.talos wrote:@gpfunk
can provide the page number of BRB and of any FAQ or errata that says FNP saves the wound? Either you do that or admit you are making things up.

@Kommisar Kel
As I said before manipulating the word "injury" into destroyed armour is too much. If you can't find the proper meaning of the term "injury" I know a few online dictionaries that can help.

And anyway even in the timing issue the ES resolves "immediately", FNP does not. So ES resolves 1st in any case...

Once again, I think you are being too technical. GW does not write rules like that.

But much more importantly, a "model" does not come back via reanimation protocols. Rather, the Unit gets a certain number of counters, and then roll dice equal to those counters, and the unit gets back a number of models equal to the 5s and 6s rolled. No different than a ghost ark regenerating it, really.

Point is, not the same model. We could have an argument about the ICs, but it definitely doesn't apply to regular necrons coming back.

No, it is the same model by the wording of Reanimation Protocol. The exact wording is as follows:

At the end of the phase, after any Morale checks have been taken and fall back moves have been made, roll a D6 for each Reanimation Protocols counter next to the unit. On a 1, 2, 3 or 4 the damage is too severe and no self-repair occurs - nothing happens. On a 5 or 6, a Necron reassembles itself and continues to fight - return one of the slain models to play with a single Wound, placed in coherency with a model from its unit that has not itself returned through Reanimation Protocols this phase. Models returning to play in this fashion must be placed at least 1" from enemy models. If the model's unit is engaged in combat, the model immediately piles in. Models that cannot be placed in this way do not return.

The exact model that was slain is returned to play with 1 wound. Presumably any effects on the model prior to it's removal as a casualty will still be in effect when the model returns, which include anything triggered from having suffered an unsaved wound.

Hrmmm, you have a point with the quote "return one of the slain models", something that is otherwise largely inconsistent with the order of events.

OK, I'm convinced. I do not know it's clear that a slain model comes back with any previous effects -- I think a FAQ could easily rule that it does not. However, in the absence of that we have to assume it is the same model and it does have all previous effects on it. Reanimation Protocols is clearly not a save in the traditional sense, thus it has no save.

Aldarionn wrote: If he has not suffered an unsaved wound, then FNP could not possibly have triggered.

This is the part that I do not think is correct. I do not see any reason that retcon comes up. Once you roll FNP, there is no reason to go back and figure out AGAIN if that roll was required.

Editing to add:
In fact, that exact line of reasoning is why I disagree with some other similar ideas.

Ghazghull's Whaaagh for a contentious example.

The reason it matters is because if abilities trigger off of certain wording, but remove the original wording in the process, it creates a paradox which cannot happen. If the original trigger is removed, the ability that triggered from it cannot POSSIBLY have triggered in the first place. You cannot ignore this fact because it is convenient to do so. That's juvenile and doesn't solve anything. The only logical answer is that the original trigger still happened, but the effect is ignored, which incidentally is exactly what FNP tells you to do. You suffer an unsaved wound, you then roll a die and on a 4+ the injury is ignored. It's still there, you are still injored, but you have ignored it for all intents and purposes. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and other negative effects of having taken a wound don't trigger, it just means that the wound itself has no effect on you.

For example, you stab me in the arm with a knife that corrodes armor. I ignore the injury because I'm just awesome like that, but the knife still punctured my armor and now it's melting off of me while I beat you into a bloody pulp. Anyone else that attempts to strike me will have an easier time causing injury because my armor is weakened, but since I'm ignoring the wound (again, because I'm a badass) it isn't slowing me down right now. My ability to ignore the wound does NOT turn back time and make it so the wound never happened. That's just silly. I'm a badass, not a Time Lord, so the armor is still punctured and is still corroding.

This is the point that so many people seem to be ignoring. Unless this is correct, then a paradox in the rules exists and the game breaks. Forcing that paradox with incorrect assumptions and then conveniently ignoring it is NOT a solution to a rules problem.

Aldarionn wrote:The reason it matters is because if abilities trigger off of certain wording, but remove the original wording in the process, it creates a paradox which cannot happen. If the original trigger is removed, the ability that triggered from it cannot POSSIBLY have triggered in the first place. You cannot ignore this fact because it is convenient to do so. That's juvenile and doesn't solve anything. The only logical answer is that the original trigger still happened, but the effect is ignored, which incidentally is exactly what FNP tells you to do. You suffer an unsaved wound, you then roll a die and on a 4+ the injury is ignored. It's still there, you are still injored, but you have ignored it for all intents and purposes. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and other negative effects of having taken a wound don't trigger, it just means that the wound itself has no effect on you.

This is the point that so many people seem to be ignoring. Unless this is correct, then a paradox in the rules exists and the game breaks. Forcing that paradox with incorrect assumptions and then conveniently ignoring it is NOT a solution to a rules problem.

There is no "game-breaking unresolvable paradox." You passed the save, you do not "go back in history and say it never happened" but rather you ignore the injury - that is to say, 'pretend' it didn't happen (because, you know, it's a pretend toy model game.)

If someone loses their armor save, that certainly isn't 'pretending it didn't happen.'

Unit1126PLL wrote:There is no "game-breaking unresolvable paradox." You passed the save, you do not "go back in history and say it never happened" but rather you ignore the injury - that is to say, 'pretend' it didn't happen (because, you know, it's a pretend toy model game.)

If someone loses their armor save, that certainly isn't 'pretending it didn't happen.'

What page does it say that FNP is a save?

Aldarionn wrote:If the original trigger is removed, the ability that triggered from it cannot POSSIBLY have triggered in the first place.

Why? Is there something in the rules that says this? Can you point out where that's indicated (even implied)?

@rigeld I believe he is saying the following:
10 Bob suffers an unsaved wound.
20 Bob passes FNP.
30 FNP removes unsaved wound.
40 Since Bob no longer has an unsaved wound, FNP does not activate.
50 Since FNP does not activate, Bob cannot use it to remove the unsaved wound, thus receiving an unsaved wound.
60 Goto 10.

Happyjew wrote:@rigeld I believe he is saying the following:
10 Bob suffers an unsaved wound.
20 Bob passes FNP.
30 FNP removes unsaved wound.
40 Since Bob no longer has an unsaved wound, FNP does not activate.
50 Since FNP does not activate, Bob cannot use it to remove the unsaved wound, thus receiving an unsaved wound.
60 Goto 10.

Yes that's what he's saying. Is there a rules basis behind 40?

edit: Because I don't see anything allowing you/telling you to go back and re-evaluate how you got to where you are.

Copper talos et Aldarionn: I am not ignoring the armor shattering; FNP ignores the wound(does not negate it retroactively, but it is then treated as though it did not happen, as in it is not suffered). If no Unsaved wound is suffered(as in the wound is applied to the model), then ES does not trigger.

And talos: injury is synonymous with wound; has the model that passed it's FNP suffered any wounds?

Sir_Prometheus: You keep making this claim that terms are not used and kept fairly specific in 40k; this is an untrue claim. Many abilities and effects trigger when a model "suffers an unsaved wound" That is exactly a specific Terminology usage. So is a "hit", so is "melta", so is "power weapon"; terms are used in 40k stop saying they are not.