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.

What happens? Does FnP stop the Entropic Strike(ES) effect?

Entropic Strike (C:N p29) states "...suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses.."

FnP (BRB p75) states "If a model suffers an unsaved wound, roll dice...."

RAW is debated heatedly, but INAT has ruled in a similar situation (Acid Blood) that FnP negates the specialness of the wound.

That's the best guidance you're going to get

Even though the wound is "unsaved" the model didn't "suffer it" if the FNP roll was successful as far as RAW.

As for fluff, the model did suffer a wound and the FNP roll is the model shrugging off the wound and carrying on in the battle even though possibly mortally wounded.

Edit:

Actually its pretty straight forward RAW that the model loses the armor. I'm not exactly sure about the other side of this argument. Someone else will have to state that.

Which is not necessarily RAW. However, I don't think this is something that needs to be debated. Again.

Since FNP tells you to ignore the injury (And from the context we see Injury = wound) if you pass your FNP roll, then if you let ES trigger you are not ignoring the wound and breaking the FNP rule.

it is pretty straight forward RAW that the model does not lose the armor save, since you are told to ignore the wound.

I would agree that if you pass FNP you ignore the "wound" and therefore the ES effect.....and i'm a Necron player.

Again, we do not need a 30+ page arguing this, again. RAW it really can go either way, however, this is one of those situations, that I say, leave it to INAT.

I don't see an INAT ruling on this.

From my reading of the rule, the armor is gone. (like, immediately.)

I'll find the previous thread and read the similar rules, but from my experience on other "settled" issues, not sure I'm going to agree with you guys' logic.

Actually there is a middle ground. It depends on how your gaming community treats the case of a unit that gets a wound from a pining weapons and it successfully ignores the injury via FNP.
If you play it like it roll Ld for pinning then it loses the armor save. If you play it like it doesn't roll for pinning then the armor save is kept.

So fair is fair and we don't have to go through another 30 pages arguing.

Happyjew wrote:Again, we do not need a 30+ page arguing this, again. RAW it really can go either way, however, this is one of those situations, that I say, leave it to INAT.

I agree whole heartedly! The way the thread is unfolding both arguments are circular and neither side willing to budge. Leave this to Inat or the TO.

Randall Turner wrote:I don't see an INAT ruling on this.

Not directly. But look at the Acid Blood entry - Acid Blood triggers when you suffer an unsaved wound (just like ES). INAT ruled that if you FnP a wound, it does not count for Acid Blood.

From my reading of the rule, the armor is gone. (like, immediately.)

I'll find the previous thread and read the similar rules, but from my experience on other "settled" issues, not sure I'm going to agree with you guys' logic.

Hence why I said there was a heated debate about RAW. IMO, if you remove the armor you have not ignored the injury as FnP requires.

INAT wrote:RB.75B.01 – Q: If ‘Feel No Pain’ successfully negates a wound, does it still count as an ‘unsaved wound’
(for special rules that are triggered by unsaved wounds)?
A: It does not as the wound is ignored (although remember that ‘Feel No Pain’ cannot be used against wounds that inflict ‘Instant Death’) [clarification].

Happyjew wrote:

INAT wrote:RB.75B.01 – Q: If ‘Feel No Pain’ successfully negates a wound, does it still count as an ‘unsaved wound’
(for special rules that are triggered by unsaved wounds)?
A: It does not as the wound is ignored (although remember that ‘Feel No Pain’ cannot be used against wounds that inflict ‘Instant Death’) [clarification].

Oh, cool - I didn't notice that it had been added since the last FnP debate. Thanks.

Yep, it's under the 'Special Rules' section.

Well, that's actually reasonable. And consistent. (Though INAT seems to be pretty consistent, it's our cousins across the water that sometimes puzzle me.)

You skittin the British?

Yes, FnP can negate ES unless it rended. If not my entire FLGS are cheaters lol

IHateNids wrote:You skittin the British?

Yes, FnP can negate ES unless it rended. If not my entire FLGS are cheaters lol

Or the Entropic Strike of a C'tan. I think the only Entropic Strike with Rending is from Praetorians isn't it?

copper.talos wrote:Actually there is a middle ground. It depends on how your gaming community treats the case of a unit that gets a wound from a pining weapons and it successfully ignores the injury via FNP.
If you play it like it roll Ld for pinning then it loses the armor save. If you play it like it doesn't roll for pinning then the armor save is kept.

So fair is fair and we don't have to go through another 30 pages arguing.

This is a pretty fair assessment.

Since we've moved to HWYPI, I like the feel of FNP working like described in the fluff and the RAW seem clear to support taking off the armor. Its a cool reminder that the model is getting blasted and still fighting on with terrible injuries.

However I'd be concerned about how strong this makes scarabs in the game. Against something like plague marines it might make a huge difference. With armor saves and FNP those scarabs won't do much to plague marines. But if the scarabs take off armor even with successful FNP, then they can really mess up a unit of PMs. So I think it might balance the game one way or the other quite a bit.

I don't run a scarab list or anything so it doesn't make much difference to me, but I could see how it might drastically change a game.

This is one of those things that it's best to clear it with your opponent and the TO... 'cuz this is literally the same issue as my Hexrifle vs FNP debate:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/401182.page

In my local gaming group, we take the more "cause - effect mindset", as suffering an "Unsaved Wound" immediately triggers that the second powers (effects)... regardless if the FNP roll is successful. It works well logically with our group.

NecronLord3 wrote:

IHateNids wrote:You skittin the British?

Yes, FnP can negate ES unless it rended. If not my entire FLGS are cheaters lol

Or the Entropic Strike of a C'tan. I think the only Entropic Strike with Rending is from Praetorians isn't it?

No, entropic strike vs infantry is an unsaved wound (ie not a succesful FnP) removes armour (Sv-) 6's Rend. C'Tan yes, it is a Monstrous creature after all
Entropic strike vs Vehicles is each attack hit roll a d6 on a 4+ all facings go down by 1 before rolling to penetrate.* Any facings hit 0 the vehicle wrecks auto

*I underlined cos half of the people who play crons think that the attack is lowering armour, which it isn't

What do you mean with this?

IHateNids wrote:
*I underlined cos half of the people who play crons think that the attack is lowering armour, which it isn't

The proper procedure is you roll ES, for each 4+ you lower the AV of all facings by 1 permanently and then you roll to penetrate.

He means a lot of people think that ES lowers AV and that is the end of the attack, they think there is no roll to Pen, which is incorrect.

Praxiss wrote:I would agree that if you pass FNP you ignore the "wound" and therefore the ES effect.....and i'm a Necron player.

I agree with Praxiss, its only fair.

Yet with how its written, I guess you can be mean and say otherwise

DeathReaper wrote:He means a lot of people think that ES lowers AV and that is the end of the attack, they think there is no roll to Pen, which is incorrect.

That's what I meant, maybe I should be more clear

IHateNids wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

IHateNids wrote:You skittin the British?

Yes, FnP can negate ES unless it rended. If not my entire FLGS are cheaters lol

Or the Entropic Strike of a C'tan. I think the only Entropic Strike with Rending is from Praetorians isn't it?

No, entropic strike vs infantry is an unsaved wound (ie not a succesful FnP) removes armour (Sv-) 6's Rend. C'Tan yes, it is a Monstrous creature after all
Entropic strike vs Vehicles is each attack hit roll a d6 on a 4+ all facings go down by 1 before rolling to penetrate.* Any facings hit 0 the vehicle wrecks auto

*I underlined cos half of the people who play crons think that the attack is lowering armour, which it isn't

Where are you getting that rending part from?

copper.talos wrote:So fair is fair and we don't have to go through another 30 pages arguing.

Oh yes we do!

For my own part it seems pretty cut and dry - were any unsaved wounds caused? No? Because FNP negated them? Well what do you know.

DeathReaper wrote:He means a lot of people think that ES lowers AV and that is the end of the attack, they think there is no roll to Pen, which is incorrect.

There is no roll to pen if you reduce any one facing to 0.

Dont you still roll to see if you get an explode result?

No it is immediately wrecked. Can you explode a wreck?

NecronLord3 wrote:No it is immediately wrecked. Can you explode a wreck?

If you wreck at the beginning of an initiative step, you keep rolling to see if you explode it (for the rest of that step).
Which is why I asked.