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.

rigeld2 wrote:Also - you started the "partner" thing. Please stop. It's become annoying. Also, I haven't been talking down to you - or have been trying not to. Please stop doing so to me.

That's how I speak naturally, though. Deep breath - if I use that term, rigeld, it's not intended as a derogative. Unless I put it in "quotes", which I'll only do as a response to what i do see as derogative usage. So, yeah, no prob - I really don't want to argue, I want to discuss. If I use the term without quotes in the future, though (which will happen) it's not meant in a bad way.

That site you quoted is a pretty good language analysis site, by the way. But I think they go too far. I'm okay with most of the INAT rulings (which I do care about, at the end of the day that's how I'm going to play it.)

Edit: the INAT thing is the only real reason I'm discussing this - I think their "FNP negates 'unsaved wounds' " ruling isn't well founded, ie, it's too broad, just as I feel your Rules Lawyer site's "all immediate effects trigger even if they cause (W)ounds" interpretation is too broad. Both seem to go against RAI in different ways, and we should instead have case by case FAQ's.

Randall Turner wrote:If I use the term without quotes in the future, though (which will happen) it's not meant in a bad way.

Fair enough.

That site you quoted is a pretty good language analysis site, by the way. But I think they go too far. I'm okay with most of the INAT rulings (which I do care about, at the end of the day that's how I'm going to play it.)

I didn't mean to say that INAT was irrelevant - it agrees with me after all
No, I hadn't read the INAT ruling on a hexrifle - and now that I have (opened the document, ctrl+f for hexrifle and found two instances of it) I still don't see what you're saying. I'll post the only near-relevant one I can find.

INAT page 41 wrote:DE.61C.02 – Q: Can ‘Feel No Pain’ be used against
unsaved wounds caused by a Hexrifle?
A: Yes, as the initial wounds caused by the Hexrilfe do not
ignore all armor saves or inflict ‘Instant Death’ [RAW].

I don't think this says what you think it says. FnP can be used against the initial hit-wound-save sequence, not the "remove from table" that the Hexrifle does.

I'm not sure where you're getting that the Hexrifle causes extra wounds.

Edit: the INAT thing is the only real reason I'm discussing this - I think their "FNP negates 'unsaved wounds' " ruling isn't well founded, ie, it's too broad, just as I feel your Rules Lawyer site's "all immediate effects trigger even if they cause (W)ounds" interpretation is too broad. Both seem to go against RAI in different ways, and we should instead have case by case FAQ's.

I disagree - FnP should deny any specials based on unsaved wounds, as if you allow the ability you're not ignoring the wound as FnP requires.

regardless of hexrifle rationale, this is the crux of our disagreement:

rigeld2 wrote:FnP should deny any specials based on unsaved wounds, as if you allow the ability you're not ignoring the wound as FnP requires.

You're mis-quoting the FNP rule, it ignores "injuries". hmm.. I can't say it better than the Rules Lawyers did.

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.

Randall Turner wrote:regardless of hexrifle rationale, this is the crux of our disagreement:

rigeld2 wrote:FnP should deny any specials based on unsaved wounds, as if you allow the ability you're not ignoring the wound as FnP requires.

You're mis-quoting the FNP rule, it ignores "injuries". hmm.. I can't say it better than the Rules Lawyers did.

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.

The Rules Lawyers added "for purposes of wound resolution" with no basis for that assumption, in my opinion. If you can show a basis for adding those words, great.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Randall Turner wrote:regardless of hexrifle rationale

Also, I'd like to know if you just mis-remembered INAT or the hexrifle rule, or if I'm not understanding you.

Randall Turner wrote:regardless of hexrifle rationale, this is the crux of our disagreement:

rigeld2 wrote:FnP should deny any specials based on unsaved wounds, as if you allow the ability you're not ignoring the wound as FnP requires.

You're mis-quoting the FNP rule, it ignores "injuries". hmm.. I can't say it better than the Rules Lawyers did.

rigeld2 wrote:The Rules Lawyers added "for purposes of wound resolution" with no basis for that assumption, in my opinion. If you can show a basis for adding those words, great.

Read the whole article, they deal with it for two paragraphs.

Also, I'd like to know if you just mis-remembered INAT or the hexrifle rule, or if I'm not understanding you.

You're not understanding me. I threw out INAT's rationale for hexrifles four-five posts ago. Though this seems like an innocent disconnect, and likely b/c I wasn't being clear about what I'm maintaining. But I changed my mind - on hexrifles - for what amounts to a technicality, ie, I forgot the FNP wording about ID. For clairty:

I'm disgreeing with the INAT global ruling on "FNP negates unsaved wounds", and again, see the Rules Lawyer article for a treatment of why.

However I was *agreeing* with the INAT ruling on hexrifles, but not for their reasons. My rationale was hexrifles cause an effect that does conflict with FNP's, ie, my rationale is that ID == (n) wounds == something FNP should stop.

However-however, after reading the whole RL article, I'm just wrong - about hexrifles - I forgot that FNP specifically excluded ID effects.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:Right and Injury is referring to wound, which is referring to unsaved wound. Injury=wound=unsaved wound.

Do yourself a favor and read the Rules Lawyer article.

Randall Turner wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:The Rules Lawyers added "for purposes of wound resolution" with no basis for that assumption, in my opinion. If you can show a basis for adding those words, great.

Read the whole article, they deal with it for two paragraphs.

Actually, the entirety of them "dealing with" the word injury is:

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.

I disagree they have any basis for adding the statement at the end. They also say "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?"
There's no reason for a paradox to exist - to assume one is created means that you are constantly going back and re-evaluating the cause and effect - with no basis for doing so.

I'm just wrong - about hexrifles - I forgot that FNP specifically excluded ID effects.

But... the hexrifle doesn't ID. And ID doesn't have anything to do with wounds anyway.

Randall Turner wrote:Hexrifle causes a number of (W)ounds equal to the remaining (W)ounds on the model, partner.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/437941.page#4062066
That's the statement I'm wondering about - and when I said that was incorrect, you said

Randall Turner wrote:The reason the Hexrifle has a sequential dependency FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INAT RULING is that its effect involves loss of wounds - ID, which is equivalent to losing the number of (W)ounds remaining on the model.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/437941.page#4062243

That's what I don't understand... did you mis-remember the INAT ruling (which has nothing to do with the effect of the Hexrifle, just if you can FnP off the first hit), the Hexrifle rule (which also doesn't mention wounds at all) or if I wasn't understanding what you were saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Randall Turner wrote:Do yourself a favor and read the Rules Lawyer article.

FYI - there was a Thread O' Doom going on before the RL article was written, and Giantkiller (the author of that RL post) participated in that thread and I (and DR, and others) disagreed with him then also.
His opinion holds no more weight than any of ours. He's just better at putting his opinion into big words.

That's what I don't understand... did you mis-remember the INAT ruling (which has nothing to do with the effect of the Hexrifle, just if you can FnP off the first hit), the Hexrifle rule (which also doesn't mention wounds at all) or if I wasn't understanding what you were saying.

Are you saying that if you roll FNP for the hexrifle, it *doesn't* negate the wound check, ie, the hexrifle's effect? Because that's not how I read the INAT ruling's intent. Everything else I'm saying ("remove from play" is arguably a flavor of "ID" which is arguably an equivalent of "apply (n) wounds") is downstream of the effect.

His opinion holds no more weight than any of ours. He's just better at putting his opinion into big words.

No, his logic is sound. The whole issue revolves around interpreting the meaning of disregarding injuries. For instance, he starts with the reasonable observation that there is no formal definition of that "injury" phrase anywhere else in the rules - so you have to derive it from context. You and DR are simply jumping to the conclusion that it means the same thing as "unsaved wounds", which surely does put you into a circular loop.

Randall Turner wrote:

That's what I don't understand... did you mis-remember the INAT ruling (which has nothing to do with the effect of the Hexrifle, just if you can FnP off the first hit), the Hexrifle rule (which also doesn't mention wounds at all) or if I wasn't understanding what you were saying.

Are you saying that if you roll FNP for the hexrifle, it *doesn't* negate the wound check, ie, the hexrifle's effect? Because that's not how I read the INAT ruling's intent. Everything else I'm saying ("remove from play" is arguably a flavor of "ID" which is arguably an equivalent of "apply (n) wounds") is downstream of the effect.

No, FnP negates the wound test.
RFP != ID != apply n wounds. They have nothing to do with each other. This is the source of our misunderstanding - the dependency issue you're seeing is because you're applying the rules incorrectly.

His opinion holds no more weight than any of ours. He's just better at putting his opinion into big words.

No, his logic is sound. The whole issue revolves around interpreting the meaning of disregarding injuries. For instance, he starts with the reasonable observation that there is no formal definition of that "injury" phrase anywhere else in the rules - so you have to derive it from context. You and DR are simply jumping to the conclusion that it means the same thing as "unsaved wounds", which surely does put you into a circular loop.

Deriving it from context means unsaved wound - there's no contextual reason to add the extra words.
And there is no circular loop. Why are you trying to go back and re-evaluate if the wound was still caused?

rigeld2 wrote:

No, his logic is sound. The whole issue revolves around interpreting the meaning of disregarding injuries. For instance, he starts with the reasonable observation that there is no formal definition of that "injury" phrase anywhere else in the rules - so you have to derive it from context. You and DR are simply jumping to the conclusion that it means the same thing as "unsaved wounds", which surely does put you into a circular loop.

Deriving it from context means unsaved wound - there's no contextual reason to add the extra words.

The rules certainly don't say that. Goes back to your statement:

rigeld2 wrote:Actually, the entirety of them "dealing with" the word injury is:

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.

...is patently false, that's the conclusion - you just conveniently snipped the support, ie.... (yours in yellow, i'll just turn all the other places he discusses "injury" orange to help out)

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.

See how it seems sort of arbitrary (kinda like your interpretation) until you see the reasoning behind it? Which is the same reasoning Whembly used, and the same one I came to initially.

Next thing I'm going to do is excerpt from the FNP rule and show the context.

“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."

You're saying the "injury is ignored" means the "unsaved wound is ignored". Unfortunately that's not what it actually does say. It would make it a lot simpler if they'd thrown some verbiage in there about that, or about side effects, or any other precedence - but the RL guy is right, they don't.

I'll concede only one thing - it's not as clear cut as he makes out either.

Randall Turner wrote:See how it seems sort of arbitrary (kinda like your interpretation) until you see the reasoning behind it? Which is the same reasoning Whembly used, and the same one I came to initially.

None of that - not one of the words I didn't post in that paragraph - says anything other than "injury isn't defined in the rules, so we need to use context." Well... duh. And the he looks to the FNP rule for context. And somehow gets "for the purpose of wound resolution" out of the air. He doesn't explain how, at all. I didn't post the whole thing because he takes a paragraph to say "It's not defined. Lets look at context. Since we know injury means something, let's define it as blah."

You're saying the "injury is ignored" means the "unsaved wound is ignored". Unfortunately that's not what it actually does say. It would make it a lot simpler if they'd thrown some verbiage in there about that, or about side effects, or any other precedence - but the RL guy is right, they don't.

Correct. They don't say it outright.

For "injury" to mean anything it has to mean "the unsaved wound". There's no basis to add a clause around it.

If you disagree with that statement, please give a rules based explanation as to why. Citing RL over and over isn't going to do anything as I disagreed with his opinion then, I disagree now, and you're not adding anything to his argument. IMO his argument, and hence conclusion, fails miserably.

Assuming that, if you re-evaluate FnP after applying it, and it creates a paradox, violates the rules somehow, is unfounded.
Adding the words "for purposes of wound resolution" has no rules basis.

Since those are cornerstones of his argument, it holds no merit.

Randall Turner wrote:Next thing I'm going to do is excerpt from the FNP rule and show the context.

“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."

You're saying the "injury is ignored" means the "unsaved wound is ignored". Unfortunately that's not what it actually does say. It would make it a lot simpler if they'd thrown some verbiage in there about that, or about side effects, or any other precedence - but the RL guy is right, they don't.

I'll concede only one thing - it's not as clear cut as he makes out either.

Actually that is exactly what the FNP USR says, as I have shown.

Unsaved wound: This is defined in the BRB we know what this means.

on a 1-3 take the wound as normal: What wound? Well if we 'suffer an unsaved wound, roll a dice' So wound has to be referring to the aforementioned Unsaved wound

On a 4-6 Ignore the injury: What injury? The injury we would have suffered if we rolled a 1-3, which is referring to the Unsaved wound.

This is the context of FNP.

I have just shown how Injury = wound = Unsaved wound. It is all in the context of the FNP USR.

As above - GK entirely pulls "for the purposes of wound resolution" from thin air; NOTHING in the context of the FNP rule tells you this

DR has it exactly right, and you have it wrong Randal

rigeld2 wrote:For "injury" to mean anything it has to mean "the unsaved wound".

It really doesn't.

If you disagree with that statement, please give a rules based explanation as to why.

Sure. The rule doesn't SAY "unsaved wound", it says "injuries". That's about as rule-based as it gets. And it sure does talk about allocating (W)ounds in the same context, while saying not one thing about time-bubbles or the like.

Reading the "fluff", why are you so sure the writer intended secondary effects to be excluded by a FNP roll? So the guy can ignore having a hole in his chest - doesn't mean his armor isn't falling to shreds. How is it you're just *so* fanatically certain? lol

We are certain, because we have shown rules from the BRB that back our position.

So how are you defining "injury" except via context? There is only one "injury" mentioned in the entire rule - an Unsaved Wound.

why are you adding a clause on the end from absolutely nowhere? It doesnt create a loop, as nowhere are you required to re-evaluate the truth statement. So adding the clause ignores context entirely, thus having absolutely no rules support whatsoever.

Randall Turner wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:For "injury" to mean anything it has to mean "the unsaved wound".

It really doesn't.

If you disagree with that statement, please give a rules based explanation as to why.

Sure. The rule doesn't SAY "unsaved wound", it says "injuries". That's about as rule-based as it gets. And it sure does talk about allocating (W)ounds in the same context, while saying not one thing about time-bubbles or the like.

You're right - it doesn't say "unsaved wound". It also doesn't say "wound is ignored for purposes of wound resolution".

You're right - it does say "removing the model if it loses its final Wound". Guess what else happens at this step? hint: everything else that happens on an immediately saved roll.

Reading the "fluff"

Lemme stop you right there. This is a RAW discussion. If you have to resort to fluff to make your point, you've lost.

Please cite the rules basis for adding the clause "for purposes of wound resolution".
Please cite the rule that prevents a paradox.

Without both of those, the RL argument is useless.

rigeld2 wrote:Please cite the rule that prevents a paradox.

I just put that in my sig.

And God you guys have an interesting debate format. VOLUME, VOLUME, VOLUME! Repetition does not confer validity.

Is this how it always goes? What if we insist on strict forum rule adherence up front, will that cut down the noise? I'm going to start another thread. If y'all try to "winnar!" it by deluging it with post volume, I'll see if I can infract you for spamming. Same if you make a fallacious argument after correction.

Thanks for the straight line though, Rig!

Randall Turner wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Please cite the rule that prevents a paradox.

I just put that in my sig.

Regardless of how amusing it is, theres no reason to assume that because it creates a paradox if you go back and re-examine to see if you're still allowed (why? What's giving you permission?) it breaks a rule.

Sorry, I'm sticking with the original. "If it creates a paradox, there's no reason to assume it breaks a rule" is getting there, but not nearly as concise.

We better stop. Signal to noise level is very, very low now.

Randal, Nos, rigeld and DL... ya gotta admit... it's an interesting debate!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Is this how it always goes? What if we insist on strict forum rule adherence up front, will that cut down the noise? I'm going to start another thread. If y'all try to "winnar!" it by deluging it with post volume, I'll see if I can infract you for spamming. Same if you make a fallacious argument after correction.

It's all good... they're trying to explain their their reasoning just a little differently each time... 'tis how its done here.

I just think it's funny because the way I'm arguing, I think it's RAW... but, do play it the same way as rigeld/nos/DL advocates.

Randall Turner wrote:Sorry, I'm sticking with the original. "If it creates a paradox, there's no reason to assume it breaks a rule" is getting there, but not nearly as concise.

Fair enough :-)

We better stop. Signal to noise level is very, very low now.

if you say so.

whembly wrote:I just think it's funny because the way I'm arguing, I think it's RAW

Oh, hey, Whembly. Ate dinner. You know, I've got this in my head now. I don't think there *is* a RAW on this, actually pretty sure of it. Want to hear the rationale? It's pretty long, but it's complete - handles simultaneity, wound and non-wound causing effects, all of it.

... but, do play it the same way as rigeld/nos/DL advocates.

I think INAT's the way to go, but the peanut gallery here doesn't advocate a proper logical basis at all. They're doing this: (from the "YMDC Tenets" thread)

What I have been increasingly seeing in YMDC is a preponderance of situations where the RAW is unclear or meaningless. This almost always leads to both sides claiming that they have a RAW arguement, when both sides are rather inducing from intent or interpretation (in otherwards, a RAI arguement). I believe this is largely because the current YMDC elites have made a misinformed decision that RAI has no place in discussing legal arguements, something that would be laughable in any other area of law. Therefore, to make thier stance sound more official, they incorrectly label it as a RAW stance...which again, can often be impossible because the strict RAW has no clear meaning or no-meaning at all.

Only it's not "both sides", I'm clear that imo the RAW is ambiguous. Edit: well, to be fair, I came to that conclusion partway through the thread from reading rigeld2's article, about the time I wrote "it's not as clear as he makes it out either."

Agreed on all points...

Why can't we say that GW feth'ed this up??

whembly wrote: Why can't we say that GW feth'ed this up??

Pretty sure that's the only thing we do agree on.

Yep, the SNR has dropped significantly recently. Entire lack of actual rules support.


Please provide rules support for adding "for the purposes of wound resolution" - you cant. There is contextual support ONLY for "unsaved wound", nothing more, nothing less

YOu have gotten very combatative - see if you can infract us for spamming? LOL. Is that you "can of rules whoopass" youre going to unleash at...some...point?

The timing of this does not even have to matter.

1) A 1W model takes a wound.
2) it fails its save so it "took an unsaved wound"
3) model rolls FNP because it took an "unsaved wound" - the injury is ignored so the model does not lose its last wound and is not removed
4) ES - the model still took an unsaved wound - the armor is gone


The timing issue came up because someone stated wrongly that the "wound is ignored". Actually the real RAW is that the "injury is ignored". So even after rolling FNP the unsaved wound is not ignored. The injury - the subtraction of the models last wound is ignored, but not any other effects.

The timing argument is based on a misquote of RAW.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So how are you defining "injury" except via context? There is only one "injury" mentioned in the entire rule - an Unsaved Wound.

why are you adding a clause on the end from absolutely nowhere? It doesnt create a loop, as nowhere are you required to re-evaluate the truth statement. So adding the clause ignores context entirely, thus having absolutely no rules support whatsoever.

There are two things that you're treating as one. The model has armor and the model has 1W.

The injury refers to the 1W.

The models armor being removed is not actually an injury. I would say a person that has their armor removed is still uninjured. The injury (1W) is ignored. Everything else is not ignored.

3 pages of debate on a moot point that inat already rules on. I say moot because a wyches invo>armor save, and es has no effect on invos or fnp. Double moot because necron small arms are ap5.

Randall Turner wrote:

... but, do play it the same way as rigeld/nos/DL advocates.

I think INAT's the way to go, but the peanut gallery here doesn't advocate a proper logical basis at all. They're doing this: (from the "YMDC Tenets" thread)

What I have been increasingly seeing in YMDC is a preponderance of situations where the RAW is unclear or meaningless. This almost always leads to both sides claiming that they have a RAW arguement, when both sides are rather inducing from intent or interpretation (in otherwards, a RAI arguement). I believe this is largely because the current YMDC elites have made a misinformed decision that RAI has no place in discussing legal arguements, something that would be laughable in any other area of law. Therefore, to make thier stance sound more official, they incorrectly label it as a RAW stance...which again, can often be impossible because the strict RAW has no clear meaning or no-meaning at all.

Only it's not "both sides", I'm clear that imo the RAW is ambiguous. Edit: well, to be fair, I came to that conclusion partway through the thread from reading rigeld2's article, about the time I wrote "it's not as clear as he makes it out either."

I agree that not defining injury is a mistake and should be errata'ed/FAQed.

I don't think defining it as a wound for wound resolution purposes has any basis in context.
I also object to the idea that I'm "breaking" the tenets of the forum. Just because you think it's not clear doesn't mean it's not clear.

And it wasn't, and isn't, my article. Giantkiller on these forums runs that blog. I just remembered it from a discussion last year - the discussion, in fact, that prompted that article to be written.
I disagreed with him then, and I disagree with him now. He makes assumptions about the rules that are completely invalid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

schadenfreude wrote:3 pages of debate on a moot point that inat already rules on. I say moot because a wyches invo>armor save, and es has no effect on invos or fnp. Double moot because necron small arms are ap5.

Yes, because the only time this will come up, ever, is between Wyches and Necrons. Good call.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:The timing issue came up because someone stated wrongly that the "wound is ignored". Actually the real RAW is that the "injury is ignored". So even after rolling FNP the unsaved wound is not ignored. The injury - the subtraction of the models last wound is ignored, but not any other effects.

And of course you have a rule to back up your definition of the word "injury" and limiting it to things other than just "unsaved wound".

Nemesor Dave wrote:Actually the real RAW is that the "injury is ignored". So even after rolling FNP the unsaved wound is not ignored. The injury - the subtraction of the models last wound is ignored, but not any other effects.

The timing argument is based on a misquote of RAW.

I was reading Stelek's site last night, it's full of tournament players, and they treat it this way. (FNP negates (W)ound, not unsaved wound.) I'm wondering now if the INAT interpretation isn't broadly used.

(Stelek has a fairly technical albeit sorta caustic site, a little leary of just popping in and asking what they might feel is a noob question.)

Edit: they were specifically discussing cost effectiveness of Necron ES units.