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.

IMO FNP has no effect on ES

1. Fluff wise it sould go off
2. There is precedent set with the Force Weapon ruling
3. Codex beats BRB

Great, then when I use Gabriel Seth and he gets attacked by anything that gets to re-roll ones still gets hit by Seth because his rule states any ones that are rolled not any ones that are rolled as a final result after all re-rolls.

x13rads wrote:
IMO FNP has no effect on ES

1. Fluff wise it sould go off
2. There is precedent set with the Force Weapon ruling
3. Codex beats BRB

1) Nids. Their armour is their body. Fluff conrtadicting your point, muddying it as ever
2) Which isnt precedent, as FW deny FNP if they activate. ES and FNP coexist happily
3) Only when there is a conflict. There isnt a conflict here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

x13rads wrote:
IMO FNP has no effect on ES

1. Fluff wise it sould go off
2. There is precedent set with the Force Weapon ruling
3. Codex beats BRB

1) Nids. Their armour is their body. Fluff conrtadicting your point, muddying it as ever
2) Which isnt precedent, as FW deny FNP if they activate. ES and FNP coexist happily
3) Only when there is a conflict. There isnt a conflict here.

Well, there is a conflict, but an indirect one. Its the same with any FNP vs special rule that triggers on a "unsaved wound"

FNP conflicts with the rulebook as well, as when you take an unsaved wound and have just 1 wound left, you should be removed as a casualty.

FNP by definition must cause some issues, as its trigger is after a normal process

nosferatu1001 wrote:

x13rads wrote:
IMO FNP has no effect on ES

1. Fluff wise it sould go off
2. There is precedent set with the Force Weapon ruling
3. Codex beats BRB

1) Nids. Their armour is their body. Fluff conrtadicting your point, muddying it as ever
2) Which isnt precedent, as FW deny FNP if they activate. ES and FNP coexist happily
3) Only when there is a conflict. There isnt a conflict here.

1. The scarabs could eat away the boney carapce that provides nids their armor save without killing them outright.

Come on now, be honest. If GW FAQed it tomorrow how do you think they would rule it?

ES is supposed to represents a weapon or attack eating a big hole away in some dudes armor enough that it becomes combat ineffective. FNP is suposed to represent a particulary tough dude of being able to shrug off a wound that a regular dude wouldn't.

Personally I prefer flavor over rules lawyering. I can count on 2 fingers the times I have seen this situation before and both times the FNP guy agreed that FNP wouldn't stop the Scarabs from eating away his armor.

How about this for fluff:

Scarabs attack some of my guys and they start taking damage (read as they successfully hit them and wounded them and fail their armour saves) thinking quickly the Sarge and several guys start flinging scarabs off of themselves to prevent serious damage (read as succeeding with the FNP rule).

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
How about this for fluff:

Scarabs attack some of my guys and they start taking damage (read as they successfully hit them and wounded them and fail their armour saves) thinking quickly the Sarge and several guys start flinging scarabs off of themselves to prevent serious damage (read as succeeding with the FNP rule).

That's not a fluffy FNP, that is a Fluffy Armour Save.

Also Scarabs are not the only think with ES. ES is more like the acid saliva of the Scarabs themselves.

And I see you dodged the bigger question.

*please note my attitude while typing is intended playfully and not trying to be a d!*k

x13rads wrote:
IMO FNP has no effect on ES

1. Fluff wise it sould go off
2. There is precedent set with the Force Weapon ruling
3. Codex beats BRB

1. Fluff is not rules
2. no there is not, as Force weapons are completely different
3. Only when there is a conflict, which there is not in this case.

I honestly do not know how GW are going to FAQ this, but then again ... I thought that DC Tyco not being in the DC but rather on his own was some sort of a misprint because at the bottom of Pg. 41 in the fluff explanation of the DC Tyco it says he was 'inducted' into the Death Company. WTF?!?

Why does everyone miss the bit in the rulebook that allows the effects of multiple special rules to affect a model?

The effect of FnP is treating the wound as saved.
The effect of ES is no more armor.

Both are triggered by the initial unsaved wound, and take effect.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Why does everyone miss the bit in the rulebook that allows the effects of multiple special rules to affect a model?

The effect of FnP is treating the wound as saved.
The effect of ES is no more armor.

Both are triggered by the initial unsaved wound, and take effect.

And if ES takes effect you have broken the rule in FNP that says to treat the wound as saved.

Why are there effects from a saved wound?

You have said

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

*regarding force weapons
and

DeathReaper wrote:2. no there is not, as Force weapons are completely different

So in one post you claim that ES and Force Weapons work similarly and yet in another post (which is after the "inconvenient" faq) you claim that they are completely different. Nice...

It's almost like the FAQ changed things...

rigeld2 wrote:
It's almost like the FAQ changed things...

Exactly this, The FaQ changed the rules.

The force weapon can negate FNP, something ES can not do, therefore they are vastly different.

I don't see the issue here, wound is taken, Entropic Strike is "immediately" activated and resolved, Feel No Pain roll is made. This isn't a card game, we don't have a "chain" system, we resolve things in 40k in chronological order.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I don't see the issue here, wound is taken, Entropic Strike is "immediately" activated and resolved, Feel No Pain roll is made. This isn't a card game, we don't have a "chain" system, we resolve things in 40k in chronological order.

FNP is rolled when you suffer an unsaved wound. Not "at some indeterminate point later" but right when it's suffered. It's the same as "immediately" but without using the word.

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I don't see the issue here, wound is taken, Entropic Strike is "immediately" activated and resolved, Feel No Pain roll is made. This isn't a card game, we don't have a "chain" system, we resolve things in 40k in chronological order.

FNP is rolled when you suffer an unsaved wound. Not "at some indeterminate point later" but right when it's suffered. It's the same as "immediately" but without using the word.

Quote and page number please.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I don't see the issue here, wound is taken, Entropic Strike is "immediately" activated and resolved, Feel No Pain roll is made. This isn't a card game, we don't have a "chain" system, we resolve things in 40k in chronological order.

FNP is rolled when you suffer an unsaved wound. Not "at some indeterminate point later" but right when it's suffered. It's the same as "immediately" but without using the word.

Quote and page number please.

p35 wrote:When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll ...

p15 wrote:Reduce that model's Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.

We know FNP must happen before removing the model as a casualty (otherwise the ability is literally useless).
Therefore, we know that FNP must happen before the model's wounds are reduced.

We also know that Entropic Strike occurs between suffering a wound and removing it as a casualty. Additionally, we also know that Entropic Strike has the "immediately" qualifier, while Feel No Pain does not. It is similar to how we know that both the shooting phase and assault phase occur between the movement phase and the end of the turn, and we know that the shooting phase occurs immediately after the movement phase.

If you are doing something between suffering a wound and FNP, you are not making a special FNP roll when you suffer a wound.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you are doing something between suffering a wound and FNP, you are not making a special FNP roll when you suffer a wound.

Exactly this

When do you make a FNP roll? (A: "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound" (35))

not sometime in the future, you do not wait to take your FNP roll.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you are doing something between suffering a wound and FNP, you are not making a special FNP roll when you suffer a wound.

Exactly this

When do you make a FNP roll? (A: "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound" (35))

not sometime in the future, you do not wait to take your FNP roll.

When does ES go, "When you suffer an unsaved wound"

When does Hexrifle go "When you suffer an unsaved wound"

I can go on.

These rules all activate upon the moment the model has suffered an unsaved wound. As all the rules use the same trigger, and the effects of multiple rules may stack, then you can have a model not take a wound, but still lose it's armor. The end effect of the rule does not negate the original trigger.

Further as many keep saying, this is a permissive rule set, as the FnP rule does not say ignore other special rules effects, than all special effects that occur from the same unsaved wound would still occur.

Then youre not treating the wound as saved, breaking the FNP rule.

Where is your explicit permission to break the FNP rule?

You treat the wound as saved upon a successful fnp roll, it is treated as saved for all further rule purposes. There is absolutely nothing in the fnp rules or otherwise to suggest you need to check if the effect of fnp takes place before other effects, and absolutely nothing to support the effects of FNP should be applied to negate other rules which may have taken effect before, infact we have a faq clarifying that is not the case.

Citation required to claim fnp must be checked first, which does not include 'treat as saved'.

When 2 abilities trigger at the same time doesn't the controlling player determine the order?

So my scarabs would trigger ES first and then my opponent's Painboy get's FNP and saves the wound. His turn, he chooses to do FNP first and then do ES. Still leaves the question of "would FNP first negate ES" though since it's two triggers happening at the same time regardless.

After reading through everything in the thread - I would say Megatron describes HIWPI. Since both trigger at the same time, both effects would happen even if FNP negates the wound that cause ES to trigger. Ironically though FNP would also negate the wound that triggers FNP so we might as well divide by 0 and call it a day.

 Nem wrote:
You treat the wound as saved upon a successful fnp roll, it is treated as saved for all further rule purposes. There is absolutely nothing in the fnp rules or otherwise to suggest you need to check if the effect of fnp takes place before other effects, and absolutely nothing to support the effects of FNP should be applied to negate other rules which may have taken effect before, infact we have a faq clarifying that is not the case.

For Force weapons that cause ID and thus Ignore the FNP roll altogether. That FAQ does not apply to this situation.

Citation required to claim fnp must be checked first, which does not include 'treat as saved'.

How do you know if you have an unsaved wound unless you roll FNP first and see if it is treated as saved or actually an Unsaved wound?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unholyllama wrote:
When 2 abilities trigger at the same time doesn't the controlling player determine the order?

you may be thinking of:

When two players have something to do then the players turn it is determines the order.

But that is not the case here as both players do not have something to do as there is no die roll with ES, it just happens on a unsaved wound, it does not happen on a saved wound or one we are treating as saved.

Wouldnt really be an unsaved wound though as FNP kicks in straight away.
If passed, its counted as saved.
So no ill effects should take place from ES.

Why are people trying to apply ES before FNP?
FNP kicks in if you fail your save.
If FNP is passed, it discounts the wound and is treated as saved.

Edit: How can a model have suffered an unsaved wound if it still has a save that is available to roll for?
Surely you should make all types of saves (+, ++ and special) etc all at the same time before you can say a wound is unsaved.

Because ES happens "immediately" after a model suffers an unsaved wound. FNP happens after a model suffers an unsaved wound. The wording of the rule itself gives priority to ES. And furthermore one other rule that has the same timing as ES, force weapon, got a faq that sets its timing before FNP.

FW and ES are nothing alike though.

Lascannons and mind war can both cause wounds, does not make them the same by any means.
Just means they have 1 thing in common (timing in the case of this thread)
Everything else about them is different though.

So, how is a wound unsaved if you have yet to take an available save?
Should all saves not be taken at the same time since its part of the same trigger?

 Jackal wrote:
FW and ES are nothing alike though.

Lascannons and mind war can both cause wounds, does not make them the same by any means.
Just means they have 1 thing in common (timing in the case of this thread)
Everything else about them is different though.

So, how is a wound unsaved if you have yet to take an available save?
Should all saves not be taken at the same time since its part of the same trigger?

Except FNP is specifically not a save. It even makes sure to say that in the rules for FNP.

It has the ability to count the save as passed though.
It is also triggered when an initial save is failed.

So people are now expecting GW to break rules down into sections that will end up 200 steps long to take every possible rule into account, and at what time they take place?

The wound is never a saved wound. Upon completion of a successful roll it is then treated as saved (for rules purposes). If something happened upon the condition of suffering an unsaved wound, there's no reason to believe it should be reversed, or considered illegal, when a different special rule comes into effect.
Really if they meant for FNP to have to come first, and nagate all other special rules which are triggered in the same condition, it would have some wording to suggest so.

The only rules that matter are the time they are triggered. Effects of the special rules have no consequence on the priority, not by any rules I've read anyway.

Except for one thing. FNP states to treat the wound as having been saved.

If you get hit and wounded by ES and make your armour save do you still lose your armour save?

Nem, in this case the effects of the rule do have a very important part to play, not just the timing of them.

Also, if a wound is treated as saved, im pretty sure its saved.
Not just says it is for rules purposes.

Even if you take the stand point that everything but removing the wound happens when a model suffers an unsaved wound and even say that fnp happens just before this it doesn't change the rules for fnp treating the wound as saved.

this would negate any effects of an unsaved wound as the wound is saved and not an unsaved wound thus any effects that require an unsaved wound could not be applied as the wound is saved.

Ok put it this way

- unsaved wound is suffered

#. FNP Special rule activates
#. ES Special rule activates

Show me the rule which allows FNP to be prioritized (something like the effect of a special rule determines order)

Without one there is no argument.

Rules allow you to resolve the special rule when the condition is met. To not would be breaking the rules also.

@bausk By the time the wound is treated as saved, the armour has already been stripped. In order for FNP to restore armour saves, it would need an appropriate wording.

Ok, so lets say ES goes 1st.

Model takes a wound and fails its save.
ES takes effect and remove its armour.
FNP then kicks in and if passed, it counts the save as passed.


For ES to take effect the model MUST have failed its save.
FNP says in its wording that if passed, the wound is treated as saved.

You dont need wording to work out the way it works, because there is only 1 way it can work without the rules breaking.
By putting ES 1st, that then creates an issue as your having to break 1 rule or the other.
By putting FNP 1st it creates a smooth run for the rules to take effect.

ES strips the armour of the model in 1 point in time, immediately after it suffers an unsaved wound. From then on the model is effectively S-. What happens to that unsaved wound afterwards has nothing to do with ES. It got triggered applied its effect and then it's gone. FNP doesn't retroactively cancel ES or restores armour saves. It has no such wording. It just prevents models taking damage by treating the wound as saved.

Maybe you should read the book?
It says treat the save as passed.
Now treating the save as passed seems like you passed the save to me, which is pretty clear cut.

So how can ES trigger when the save has been passed?
If your stripping the armour when the model has passed its save your ignoring the wording of both saves and FNP.
And its ending up as all too common with GW, a huge bloody hole in the rules.

The save is not passed. Your arguing on logic that has no basis in the rules. Losing an armor save does not hinder the fact the wound is treated as saved. Even the wording for FNP tells you for which purposes the wound is treated as saved.

You treat the save as passed after the model lost its save. The only thing that links unsaved wounds and armour saves is ES, and by the time FNP kicks in, ES is gone. So in order for a model to regain its armour save it needs a rule to retroactively cancel ES or restore armour saves.

copper.talos wrote:
You treat the save as passed after the model lost its save. The only thing that links unsaved wounds and armour saves is ES, and by the time FNP kicks in, ES is gone. So in order for a model to regain its armour save it needs a rule to retroactively cancel ES or restore armour saves.

Exactly, why are you illegally prioritizing one special rule, then illegally trying to retroactively apply it


Treating a wound as saved on a successful FNP does not change the fact before FNP, the wound was unsaved. This is all ES needs.

So how would a model with no armour save, pass its save?

I do agree with the start of the topic that this needs a FAQ.
GW have FAQ'ed far more clear things in the past.


Nem, how is it illegally prioritizing?
Im doing the same as you have and put one of the rules 1st.
Your doing the same as i have

 Jackal wrote:
So how would a model with no armour save, pass its save?

I do agree with the start of the topic that this needs a FAQ.
GW have FAQ'ed far more clear things in the past.


Nem, how is it illegally prioritizing?
Im doing the same as you have and put one of the rules 1st.
Your doing the same as i have

My problem with this part of the argument is that the interpretation means all special abilities will be negated by FNP, which I am very against

On which one goes first, I do believe the wording 'immediately' makes a difference, or was intended to, however it is unclear and in a game I would be happy to utilise owning player or roll off on that basis

 Jackal wrote:
So how would a model with no armour save, pass its save?

The model doesn't use its armour save to save the wound at that time (even if it did have an armour save). It's FNP that treats the save as passed. Also by that logic, models with no armour save should not be able to use FNP. Which of course is wrong ie Sister Repentia

Fnp denys es its trigger, an unsaved wound, by treating the wound as saved. Without an unsaved wound being applied its effects woulf not be applied as they are bound to the wound being applied.

This is the issue really and it needs clearing badly.

Just a quick thought, but multiple wounds.

Model fails a save against something that causes multiple wounds.
Multiple wounds take effect (causing X amount of wounds)
FNP kicks in, now, you only failed 1 save, so do you save against 1 wound, all of them (one at a time or as a whole?)

Or would it work the other way?

Model fails save.
FNP kicks in and saves it.
No further action is taken as its been saved.

The issue with wording is that its not specific enough to give us the steps to take.
Saying immediately is nice, but what about when 2 rules both saying that come into contention?
Also, FNP is an instant trigger upon failing a save.
To do anything before applying that is also breaching the rules.

Needs something set in place to clear it up to be honest, because there are far too many arguments for both sides on this one.

Depends on the wording of what causes the multiple wounds. if it was "A model that suffers an unsaved wound from this attack takes X wounds instead" then only one fnp roll is needed as the inital wound is required for the additional wounds to apply.

But by the way people have classed ES as working, you have caused an unsaved wound already.
Edit: So the criteria for multiple wounds has been met by this logic.

Wound saved? Yes
ES applied? Either yes, but then taken away because we are told to treat it as saved, or No, and armor save is kept.

Either way, pass FNP, keep save.

copper.talos wrote:
You treat the save as passed after the model lost its save.

If this is true then you are not treating the wound as saved, you are treating it as unsaved as the model no longer has an armor save because of an unsaved wound...

For those quoting the force weapon FAQ, you have to consider why it was FAQ'd the way it was.

The force weapon special rule was in direct conflict with FNP because it had the possibility of causing ID which FNP rolls can't be taken for. So the only logical way to resolve it was to establish whether ID kicked in before deciding if a FNP roll was even possible. Timing was obviously a critical component.

With ES, it works solely on "unsaved wounds". Regardless of what anyone might think the word "immediately" means the only way to determine whether a wound is considered saved or not is to allow all of the rules which may modify the wound status to run first.

Now, why would "immediately" appear in the rule? Simple, they wanted people to understand how to resolve when a multi wound model is hit with multiple attacks when one or more is from ES. Essentially you lose the armor save before trying to resolve the next hit. If they didn't have the word "immediately" in there people would be arguing that the effects of ES didn't apply until after all the saves were taken.

So "immediately" in this case means "before you resolve the next wound". It's hard to phrase that when you have the option of fast rolling saves and all wounds from a unit are supposed to happen simultaneously.

clively wrote:
For those quoting the force weapon FAQ, you have to consider why it was FAQ'd the way it was.

The force weapon special rule was in direct conflict with FNP because it had the possibility of causing ID which FNP rolls can't be taken for. So the only logical way to resolve it was to establish whether ID kicked in before deciding if a FNP roll was even possible. Timing was obviously a critical component.

This is true but FWs are NOT ID until you spend a warp charge on them which is triggered by an unsaved wound. I don't think people are referring to FWs because of the ID but because of the fact that it's a triggered ability which is allowed to be used (or not) prior to FNP. Now, the confusion comes in because FW's ability causes ID which FNP is unable to address. To me, FNP still triggers in this manner; however, it checks to see if the wound was ID or not before applying the nullification effect.

Failed armour save>>>>>>>>>>>Passed Feel No Pain

For that duration of time between failing your armour save and passing your Feel No Pain the wound is considered unsaved, and therefore triggers Entropic Strike, it does not need to remain unsaved for Entropic Strike to remain in effect. This is not Magic: The Gathering, we work things out in chronological order.

And in this case the chronological order of both effects is essentially simultaneous. All effects are considered before the final result is applied with the wound. If one effect negates another the negated effect is not applied. As per if force applies id then fnp is not applied. If fnp is successful any effect that required an unsaved wound is not applied. It's really that simple.

 Bausk wrote:
And in this case the chronological order of both effects is essentially simultaneous. All effects are considered before the final result is applied with the wound. If one effect negates another the negated effect is not applied. As per if force applies id then fnp is not applied. If fnp is successful any effect that required an unsaved wound is not applied. It's really that simple.

Where does it say they are simultaneous? One is applied 'first' rules wise, they may trigger at the same time but the effects are sequential

Both occur in that time between failing a save and applying the wound, all effects in this time are considered and checked before application of the wound. I'd say that's as simultaneous as you're likely to get in 40k. Regardless as has been said numerous times as fnp removes both the trigger for the effect and the application with the unsaved wound it is discarded.

 Bausk wrote:
Both occur in that time between failing a save and applying the wound, all effects in this time are considered and checked before application of the wound. I'd say that's as simultaneous as you're likely to get in 40k. Regardless as has been said numerous times as fnp removes both the trigger for the effect and the application with the unsaved wound it is discarded.

It only removes both the trigger and the application if your either


1. FNP goes first and is successful.

2. FNP goes second and your applying the effect out of sequence

Now there is a problem with the second one.

You check against the effects as and when they apply, if ES has gone first and is sucessful, you do not check a wound which is treated as saved against it, as ES has already happended and is resolved, we do not apply effects to previous sequence events.

The wound is treated as saved, and checked against events as they occur, for instance is a wound taken? (No, treated as saved). Does the wound count to resolution count? (No treated as saved)
ES would never trigger a check against FNP, unless FNP is applied retroactivly


<.....Wound.....> <...............Unsaved Wound.............> <............Treated as saved...........>


If FNP is sucessful, the status is changed to treated as saved. It does not go bavck and change the green section, in that sequence, the unsaved wound is always an unsaved wound.

 Nem wrote:

It only removes both the trigger and the application if your either


1. FNP goes first and is successful.

2. FNP goes second and your applying the effect out of sequence

Now there is a problem with the second one.

You check against the effects as and when they apply, if ES has gone first and is sucessful, you do not check a wound which is treated as saved against it, as ES has already happended and is resolved, we do not apply effects to previous sequence events.

The wound is treated as saved, and checked against events as they occur, for instance is a wound taken? (No, treated as saved). Does the wound count to resolution count? (No treated as saved)
ES would never trigger a check against FNP, unless FNP is applied retroactivly


<.....Wound.....> <...............Unsaved Wound.............> <............Treated as saved...........>


If FNP is sucessful, the status is changed to treated as saved. It does not go bavck and change the green section, in that sequence, the unsaved wound is always an unsaved wound.

FNP Creates a saved wound, and eliminates the green section from even existing in the first place, just like making the armor save of the model the green part does not exist after an armor save or FNP is successful...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

It only removes both the trigger and the application if your either


1. FNP goes first and is successful.

2. FNP goes second and your applying the effect out of sequence

Now there is a problem with the second one.

You check against the effects as and when they apply, if ES has gone first and is sucessful, you do not check a wound which is treated as saved against it, as ES has already happended and is resolved, we do not apply effects to previous sequence events.

The wound is treated as saved, and checked against events as they occur, for instance is a wound taken? (No, treated as saved). Does the wound count to resolution count? (No treated as saved)
ES would never trigger a check against FNP, unless FNP is applied retroactivly


<.....Wound.....> <...............Unsaved Wound.............> <............Treated as saved...........>


If FNP is sucessful, the status is changed to treated as saved. It does not go bavck and change the green section, in that sequence, the unsaved wound is always an unsaved wound.

FNP Creates a saved wound, and eliminates the green section from even existing in the first place, just like making the armor save of the model the green part does not exist after an armor save or FNP is successful...

And what part of FNP tells you to retroactivly apply the effect (effect being, 'unsaved wound is discounted - treat as having been saved')? Which part says the unsaved wound never existed? What make FNP different to all other special rules?

While 'Having been saved' is the cause of confusion, as it is being read as past tense, and only past tense. That is not correct however.

I can treat this thread as having been one page long, from this point forward.
That doesnt change the fact it is currently 4 pages.

Nem - please show permission, in the ES rules, to ignore the FNP rule stating the wound IS saved (treated as must equal IS, otherwise things break)

After all, currently you are breaking the FNP rule, by saying there is no armour left as the wound was unsaved, so you MUST have some permission to do so

Or, you dont have permission, and the only way to break no rule is to only roll ES after you know if there is an unsaved wound or not. Otherwise you absolutely can break the FNP rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nem - please show permission, in the ES rules, to ignore the FNP rule stating the wound IS saved (treated as must equal IS, otherwise things break)

After all, currently you are breaking the FNP rule, by saying there is no armour left as the wound was unsaved, so you MUST have some permission to do so

Or, you dont have permission, and the only way to break no rule is to only roll ES after you know if there is an unsaved wound or not. Otherwise you absolutely can break the FNP rule.

The wound is saved, sure; from the moment you roll a successful FNP. Even if your saying the wound IS SAVED, you need permission to apply it to the past to claim applying ES is 'breaking' the rules.

We don't go back and say 'Well this is illegal becuase my special rule changes the status of item 'X' ' The effect of special rules are applied, and checked for once they are successful, not before, and not in retrospect.

Without applying the effect of FNP to prior game sequeces, show me what breaks.

Too much focus on 'treat as having been saved', not enough focus on the rules which govern the special rule.

 Nem wrote:



The wound is saved, sure;

So theres no ES effect. Since it triggers on an unsaved wound.

Your interpretation breaks either feel no pain or ES.

Not applying the ES effect doesnt break any rules.

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:



The wound is saved, sure;

So theres no ES effect. Since it triggers on an unsaved wound. Otherwise you break both ... feel no pain and ES.

Only if your applying FNP retropectivly. Why would you?

 Nem wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:



The wound is saved, sure;

So theres no ES effect. Since it triggers on an unsaved wound. Otherwise you break both ... feel no pain and ES.

Only if your applying FNP retropectivly. Why would you?

Because the rule gives permission to.

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:



The wound is saved, sure;

So theres no ES effect. Since it triggers on an unsaved wound. Otherwise you break both ... feel no pain and ES.

Only if your applying FNP retropectivly. Why would you?

Because the rule gives permission to.

Where? A few posts back shows use of the English language in 'having been' which fits all the rules which govern special rules, the rules of FNP, and does not apply the effect in reverse.

 Nem wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:



The wound is saved, sure;

So theres no ES effect. Since it triggers on an unsaved wound. Otherwise you break both ... feel no pain and ES.

Only if your applying FNP retropectivly. Why would you?

Because the rule gives permission to.

Where? A few posts back shows use of the English language in 'having been' which fits all the rules which govern special rules, the rules of FNP, and does not apply the effect in reverse.

You make 1 wound with entropic strike. Your opponent fails his save but makes his feel no pain. The wound is now treated as saved. Treated must mean IS as established several times. So theres no unsaved wound. You applying ES is breaking the ES rule.

Show permission in the ES rule to apply to a saved wound or show permission to apply ES before FNP was rolled for so basically to ignore fnp.

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:



The wound is saved, sure;

So theres no ES effect. Since it triggers on an unsaved wound. Otherwise you break both ... feel no pain and ES.

Only if your applying FNP retropectivly. Why would you?

Because the rule gives permission to.

Where? A few posts back shows use of the English language in 'having been' which fits all the rules which govern special rules, the rules of FNP, and does not apply the effect in reverse.

You make 1 wound with entropic strike. Your opponent fails his save but makes his feel no pain. The wound is now treated as saved for further rule purposes. Treated must mean IS as established several times. So theres no unsaved wound. You applying ES is breaking the ES rule.

Show permission in the ES rule to apply to a saved wound or show permission to apply ES before FNP was rolled for so basically to ignore fnp.

I added the bolded. Again, nothing suggests FNP should un-do actions which happened before it. Applying effects of special rules do not work like that.

ES never applied to a saved wound. It is applied to a unsaved wound and FNP does not have permission to change the past.

If a fnp roll is made and you treat the wound as unsaved. Did you follow the FNP rule to treat the wound as saved?

 Mywik wrote:
If a fnp roll is made and you treat the wound as unsaved. Did you follow the FNP rule to treat the wound as saved?

Permission required to change past events.

The effects of special rules are applied from the time they are successful, onwards. These are basic order of event rules.

Without permission to go back and change that, you can't say the wound should be treated as saved at the time ES may have been rolled.

I absolutly treat the wound as saved, for all rule purposes, after the FNP has been successful, and for any checks thereafter

 Nem wrote:
If a fnp roll is made and you treat the wound as unsaved. Did you follow the FNP rule to treat the wound as saved?

Permission required to change past events.

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:
If a fnp roll is made and you treat the wound as unsaved. Did you follow the FNP rule to treat the wound as saved?

Permission required to change past events.
/quote]

On a 5+, the unsaved wound is discounted - freat it as having been saved

If you accounted for the unsaved wound did you discount it?

Does it say treat as been saved in the past?

You can discount the wound (for further rules purposes)
and you can treat as having been saved (for further rule purposes)
Without retro-applying

 Nem wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:
If a fnp roll is made and you treat the wound as unsaved. Did you follow the FNP rule to treat the wound as saved?

Permission required to change past events.
/quote]

On a 5+, the unsaved wound is discounted - freat it as having been saved

If you accounted for the unsaved wound did you discount it?

Does it say treat as been saved in the past?

If you apply effects that trigger from an unsaved wound did you treat said unsaved wound as saved?

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:
If a fnp roll is made and you treat the wound as unsaved. Did you follow the FNP rule to treat the wound as saved?

Permission required to change past events.
/quote]

On a 5+, the unsaved wound is discounted - freat it as having been saved

If you accounted for the unsaved wound did you discount it?

Does it say treat as been saved in the past?

If you apply effects that trigger from an unsaved wound did you treat said unsaved wound as saved?

Unsaved, treated as having been saved only applies from the time FNP is successful, there thereafter. Not before the effect was successful. To treat as being saved for past events, FNP needs permission.

 Nem wrote:


Unsaved, treated as having been saved only applies from the time FNP is successful, there thereafter. Not before the effect was successful. To treat as being saved for past events, FNP needs permission.

Show permission to apply ES before FNP rolls are made.

There doesnt need to be a permission for past events since theres no past event - the wound is saved. Feel no pain itself gives permission to make a roll to discount unsaved wounds that were suffered. This is permission to discount the wound. If you account for the wound you didnt follow the FNP rule to discount it. So applying ES breaks either FNP or ES. Not applying ES doesnt break anything.

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:


Unsaved, treated as having been saved only applies from the time FNP is successful, there thereafter. Not before the effect was successful. To treat as being saved for past events, FNP needs permission.

Show permission to apply ES before FNP rolls are made.

Ok.
(the following assumes 'Immediatly' is not relevant)

--Unsaved wound is caused
#FNP and Entropic strike are both triggered at the same time

BRB: Page 9, under EXCEPTIONS

... At other times, you'll find both players have to do something at the same time. When these things happen, the player whoes turn it is decides the order in which events occur

So say current player is necronny and he decides ES goes first (Still sticking with the rules)

#ES is successful and is resolved
#FNP is successful and is resolved. ES is done, over. It was legal at the time it was applied, It was ordered before FNP, and FNP can not go back and change the time that wound was unsaved to saved.


My interpretation;
#Is fair.
#Does not break the rules which govern special rules, or order of effect.
#With my interpretation of the FNP effect, does not break any rules.
#In line with current FAQ's


[edit] I'll point out at this point, I and debated soley based on what I see as RAW, and not what would give me an advantage. I am not a Necron player, and do not use any simular abilities. I play Nids and D.Eldar. In both armies I heavily use and rely on FNP.

 Nem wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:


Unsaved, treated as having been saved only applies from the time FNP is successful, there thereafter. Not before the effect was successful. To treat as being saved for past events, FNP needs permission.

Show permission to apply ES before FNP rolls are made.

Ok.
(the following assumes 'Immediatly' is not relevant)

--Unsaved wound is caused
#FNP and Entropic strike are both triggered at the same time

BRB: Page 9, under EXCEPTIONS

... At other times, you'll find both players have to do something at the same time. When these things happen, the player whoes turn it is decides the order in which events occur

So say current player is necronny and he decides ES goes first (Still sticking with the rules)

#ES is successful and is resolved
#FNP is successful and is resolved. ES is done, over. It was legal at the time it was applied, It was ordered before FNP, and FNP can not go back and change the time that wound was unsaved to saved.


My interpretation;
#Is fair.
#Does not break the rules which govern special rules, or order of effect.
#With my interpretation of the FNP effect, does not break any rules.
#In line with current FAQ's


[edit] I'll point out at this point, I and debated soley based on what I see as RAW, and not what would give me an advantage. I am not a Necron player, and do not use any simular abilities. I play Nids and D.Eldar. In both armies I heavily use and rely on FNP.

Okay ... i cant back that up either so its a HIWPI interpretation:
Feel no pain is a roll you make for each wound that your save didnt discount to see if you can discount it anyway. Until feel no pain is rolled there simply are no unsaved wounds because they still need to be checked if FNP discounts them. So i wouldnt apply ES before FNP rolls were made.
I play SW mainly so neither FNP nor ES .

The same thing applies to that DE wargear thingy with a 2++ until you fail a save ... so its kinda relevant for you too

Except Nem, you ADDED " for further rule purposes"

That rule does not state that. It says treat as (so IS) saved.

ES works from an unsaved wound. Attempting to use ES means you will break the FNP rule, with no permission to.
Not using ES once you pass FNP means you break neither rule.

I'll go with the option that breaks no rules.

Waiting to activate Entropic Strike after the Feel No Pain roll means you haven't activated it "immediately", breaking the Entropic Strike rule.
Since Entropic Strike has already been resolved before the FNP roll is made, and feel no pain has no permission to go back and retroactively unresolve it, no rule is broken.

I'll go with the option that breaks no rules.

I added 'for further rules purposes' because that is how everything works. No special rule, ability, wargear or powers stipulate this, the best you can hope for with a 'Counts as' or 'treat as' is a defining period the rule if effective for, but its pretty basic that you don't start undoing previous actions becuase now the rule will change something back there. All rules work > From this point forward
I don't feel every special rule or ability should have to point this out in the entry.

Resolving events in order is absolute in my mind.

No it doesn't change it. It treats the wound as saved before the wound is applied with any effects attached to the unsaved wound.

The area/time you are refering to is a simultaneous 'work out what's going to happen when this wound is applied" where you do just that. Fnp treats the wound as saved if successful making the application or even working that part out redundant as the wound is a saved wound rather than an unsaved wound.

The process more goes like thus:

wound::failed save::is the attack id?does the model have fnp?is the model an ew? Other effects as needed.:: apply unsaved wound

Lets say that fnp is all the way at the very end of that process of checking effects for argumenta sake, it again doesn't matter as the wound is reverted back to being saved rather than being unsaved and is not applied.

 Bausk wrote:
No it doesn't change it. It treats the wound as saved before the wound is applied with any effects attached to the unsaved wound.

The area/time you are refering to is a simultaneous 'work out what's going to happen when this wound is applied" where you do just that. Fnp treats the wound as saved if successful making the application or even working that part out redundant as the wound is a saved wound rather than an unsaved wound.

The process more goes like thus:

wound::failed save::is the attack id?does the model have fnp?is the model an ew? Other effects as needed.:: apply unsaved wound

Lets say that fnp is all the way at the very end of that process of checking effects for argumenta sake, it again doesn't matter as the wound is reverted back to being saved rather than being unsaved and is not applied.

the player whoes turn it is decides the order in which events occur

Even if they are triggered at the same time, the effects are worked out in order, one effect is applied definativly before another, one event now occurs before the other.

ES only needs a unsaved wound. At the time it is resolved, the wound is unsaved. Were not told to go back and check the legality of previos events becuase a newer event has changed the status of the wound. The rules just don't work when applied backwards.

That applies to abilities/wargear occuring at the same step (like at the start of the fight subphase, end of turn etc). It doesn't apply to referencing what an attack does or can potentially do. And even then it still doesn't matter as the wound is saved if fnp is successful no matter when you roll for it while working out the potential of a wound.

 Bausk wrote:
That applies to abilities/wargear occuring at the same step (like at the start of the fight subphase, end of turn etc). It doesn't apply to referencing what an attack does or can potentially do. And even then it still doesn't matter as the wound is saved if fnp is successful no matter when you roll for it while working out the potential of a wound.

I disagree,
based on;
there are no rules basis for working out the order of events based on the effects of the special rules (The rules are; the player whoes turn it is decides the order of events)
there are no rules basis for suggesting FNP is part of the process of determining if a wound is a saved wound, the process for this is found on page 15 (Note, FNP is NOT a part of this process).

FNP is a special rule, the effects just happens to affect parts of the process.

And fnp makes the process irrelevant as there is no unsaved wound if it successful. If we applied your interpretation a multitude of effects would still apply without the unsaved wound. Take soulblaze for instance, if we applied your interpretation the unit would have a Soulblaze marker even though the unit suffered no wounds.

Concussive, pinning, strike down and the list goes on into codexes. All of these would opperate without an unsaved wound. Of all these effects only Force has an faq as it needed to be exempted so you can test to make the attack id to nullify fnp.

 Bausk wrote:
And fnp makes the process irrelevant as there is no unsaved wound if it successful. If we applied your interpretation a multitude of effects would still apply without the unsaved wound. Take soulblaze for instance, if we applied your interpretation the unit would have a Soulblaze marker even though the unit suffered no wounds.

Concussive, pinning, strike down and the list goes on into codexes. All of these would opperate without an unsaved wound. Of all these effects only Force has an faq as it needed to be exempted so you can test to make the attack id to nullify fnp.

Why? Force works in the same way as ES. The only difference is the effect. If FNP means there was never a unsaved wound to activate Force against, why did the FAQ say it can? Maybe, FNP doesnt go back in time and make that unsaved wound saved. Maybe, FNP makes the wound saved from the time the effect takes place?

Treating as saved from the time the effect takes place, is far more logical that going back in time and saying the unsaved wound never existed.

hmm so I'm just going by what the OP posted here. to me it seems, that the wound is dealt, and the armour save failed, IMMEDIATLY entropic Strike comes into effect, then you take FNP. Again, I'm just going by what the OP first stated.

 painkiller66678 wrote:
hmm so I'm just going by what the OP posted here. to me it seems, that the wound is dealt, and the armour save failed, IMMEDIATLY entropic Strike comes into effect, then you take FNP. Again, I'm just going by what the OP first stated.

This is my interpretation of events as well. Since both trigger at the same time, one effect does not negate the other's.

Or maybe the faq was needed so force could make the attack id to nullify fnp precluding it from being used to remove the trigger for its specific effect. That's the meat of the issue for the force faq, it required the clarification that it may ne tested for to see if its effect negates fnp. It's less a matter of timing and more a matter of what nullifys what.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
All of the effects have the same trigger, including fnp. But fnp creates the paradox of the trigger never existing in the first place. You could say it even negates its own use, or rather its requirment. So this has to be an absolute conclusion either;

A: All effects take effect regardless of the application of the wound and removal of triggered condition.

or

B: All effects must have the wound applied and the triggered condition to apply their effects.


You cannot cherry pick effects so anything that requires an unsaved wound is included.

Which works.... when you show FNP has permission for its effects to be applied to events which have already happened?

Yes having No armor on a model which did not lose a wound later is a bit odd. Not as odd though as playing the game backwards or saying this special rule will always be allowed to be tested first, even though saying that is a very spercific difference to the clear RAW for resolving order. Seems pretty important, you'd think they would have mentioned it in the FNP rules if they really had intended FNP to be the super power special rule were making it.

The model is wounded. You attempt a save and fail. At this point we have two potential effects: ES's ability and FNP.

Looking closely at the rules, FNP modifies the actual starting condition to begin with; potentially removing whether there is an unsaved wound at all ("treat as being saved"). From that perspective it must take precedence before we know what else may still be applied. The language on FNP itself even indicates this by saying "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special FNP roll to avoid being wounded." In other words, immediately after failing any save you take the FNP roll. Considering that the effects from ES do not negate the ability to take the FNP roll then we know the logical order to proceed with.

FW was a special situation in that the mechanics of the rule could potentially nullify whether FNP could have been taken in the first place; which actually was a paradox; therefore it had to be FAQd. ES does not have this issue.

Going back to ES, the wording around "immediately" seems pretty clear to indicate that the effects impact how you handle further wounds from the same wound pool ("for the remainder of the battle"
). As I stated before, this wording was necessary otherwise people would be arguing that the effects wouldn't kick in until either a later initiative step or a different player turn.

Not like gw to make rules that realistically make no logical sense but have to be that way for the game to work. Again its not an order issue, as its the sum of these effects that is applied.

I'm also gathering by your reply that any and all effects that have the precursor "unsaved wound" take effect regardless of fnp. Correct?

 Nem wrote:
Which works.... when you show FNP has permission for its effects to be applied to events which have already happened?

Yes having No armor on a model which did not lose a wound later is a bit odd. Not as odd though as playing the game backwards or saying this special rule will always be allowed to be tested first, even though saying that is a very spercific difference to the clear RAW for resolving order. Seems pretty important, you'd think they would have mentioned it in the FNP rules if they really had intended FNP to be the super power special rule were making it.

I take the opposite position. If ES was meant to override FNP then you'd think they would have mentioned it in the ES rules. The only thing that overrides FNP is ID and the one special rule which was in conflict that *may* cause ID has been FAQ'd to explicitly go before FNP. That's a good indication of the importance of ID and FNP.

 Bausk wrote:
Not like gw to make rules that realistically make no logical sense but have to be that way for the game to work. Again its not an order issue, as its the sum of these effects that is applied.

I'm also gathering by your reply that any and all effects that have the precursor "unsaved wound" take effect regardless of fnp. Correct?

No, I don't believe that. I believe the rules are applied in an order (Ref: Page 9). All rules are applied in an order, sometimes these effects are applied simultaneously. You’ll note the face rules stipulate when effects are applied simultaneously, and the fact were told even though the trigger is at the same point, the events are then resolved in order (not simultaneous)


What I see:

Sequence A (FNP first):
As Part of Phase Sequence – Action - Roll to Hit: PASS
As part of phase sequence – Action – >Check Roll to hit: PASS > Roll to wound: PASS
As part of sequence- Action – >Check Roll to Wound: PASS > Take save if available: FAILED
Special Rule – Action – >Check if unsaved wound: PASS > FNP : PASS
Special Rule – Action -> Check if Unsaved wound: FAIL
---No Further action required—


Sequence B (ES first):
As Part of Phase Sequence – Action - Roll to Hit: PASS
As part of phase sequence – Action – >Check Roll to hit: PASS > Roll to wound: PASS
As part of sequence- Action – >Check Roll to Wound: PASS > Take save if available: FAILED
Special Rule – Action – >Check if unsaved wound: PASS > ES : PASS
Special Rule – Action -> Check if Unsaved wound: PASS > FNP : PASS
---No Further action required—


****

Sequence with assumption FNP changes the past.


Sequence B (ES first):
As Part of Phase Sequence – Action - Roll to Hit: PASS
As part of phase sequence – Action – >Check Roll to hit: PASS > Roll to wound: PASS
As part of sequence- Action – >Check Roll to Wound: PASS > Take save if available: FAILED
Special Rule – Action – >Check if unsaved wound: PASS > ES : PASS
Special Rule – Action -> Check if Unsaved wound: PASS > FNP : PASS
Special Rule – Action -> Check if the previously successful ES is valid: FAILED

We don’t go back and check things again….. The check for ES is done during the event... FNP does not say go back and check other events... In the same way we don't check any ability which has been resolved by any special rules which later contradict it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

clively wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Which works.... when you show FNP has permission for its effects to be applied to events which have already happened?

Yes having No armor on a model which did not lose a wound later is a bit odd. Not as odd though as playing the game backwards or saying this special rule will always be allowed to be tested first, even though saying that is a very spercific difference to the clear RAW for resolving order. Seems pretty important, you'd think they would have mentioned it in the FNP rules if they really had intended FNP to be the super power special rule were making it.

I take the opposite position. If ES was meant to override FNP then you'd think they would have mentioned it in the ES rules. The only thing that overrides FNP is ID and the one special rule which was in conflict that *may* cause ID has been FAQ'd to explicitly go before FNP. That's a good indication of the importance of ID and FNP.

But, thats the wrong way around in a permissive rule set. We have the rules for dealing with special abilities which are triggered off the same event,-. FNP is being raised as the exception to that rule, so FNP should contain that exception, not other abilties which conform to that rule.

 Nem wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
And fnp makes the process irrelevant as there is no unsaved wound if it successful. If we applied your interpretation a multitude of effects would still apply without the unsaved wound. Take soulblaze for instance, if we applied your interpretation the unit would have a Soulblaze marker even though the unit suffered no wounds.

Concussive, pinning, strike down and the list goes on into codexes. All of these would opperate without an unsaved wound. Of all these effects only Force has an faq as it needed to be exempted so you can test to make the attack id to nullify fnp.

Why? Force works in the same way as ES. The only difference is the effect. If FNP means there was never a unsaved wound to activate Force against, why did the FAQ say it can? Maybe, FNP doesnt go back in time and make that unsaved wound saved. Maybe, FNP makes the wound saved from the time the effect takes place?

Treating as saved from the time the effect takes place, is far more logical that going back in time and saying the unsaved wound never existed.

The Force FAQ can't be used as precedent because Force stops FNP from being used.
And you're also ignoring that you're attempting to do something between suffering the wound and rolling FNP - something the wording of FNP doesn't allow.

I suppose that's why people generally roll fnp before anything else is considered, to see if the trigger condition is met for the rest. So I guess everyone has been doing it wrong for years in your eyes.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
And fnp makes the process irrelevant as there is no unsaved wound if it successful. If we applied your interpretation a multitude of effects would still apply without the unsaved wound. Take soulblaze for instance, if we applied your interpretation the unit would have a Soulblaze marker even though the unit suffered no wounds.

Concussive, pinning, strike down and the list goes on into codexes. All of these would opperate without an unsaved wound. Of all these effects only Force has an faq as it needed to be exempted so you can test to make the attack id to nullify fnp.

Why? Force works in the same way as ES. The only difference is the effect. If FNP means there was never a unsaved wound to activate Force against, why did the FAQ say it can? Maybe, FNP doesnt go back in time and make that unsaved wound saved. Maybe, FNP makes the wound saved from the time the effect takes place?

Treating as saved from the time the effect takes place, is far more logical that going back in time and saying the unsaved wound never existed.

The Force FAQ can't be used as precedent because Force stops FNP from being used.
And you're also ignoring that you're attempting to do something between suffering the wound and rolling FNP - something the wording of FNP doesn't allow.

Which part of FNP says you must order FNP before any other ability which triggers off a unsaved wound?

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
And fnp makes the process irrelevant as there is no unsaved wound if it successful. If we applied your interpretation a multitude of effects would still apply without the unsaved wound. Take soulblaze for instance, if we applied your interpretation the unit would have a Soulblaze marker even though the unit suffered no wounds.

Concussive, pinning, strike down and the list goes on into codexes. All of these would opperate without an unsaved wound. Of all these effects only Force has an faq as it needed to be exempted so you can test to make the attack id to nullify fnp.

Why? Force works in the same way as ES. The only difference is the effect. If FNP means there was never a unsaved wound to activate Force against, why did the FAQ say it can? Maybe, FNP doesnt go back in time and make that unsaved wound saved. Maybe, FNP makes the wound saved from the time the effect takes place?

Treating as saved from the time the effect takes place, is far more logical that going back in time and saying the unsaved wound never existed.

The Force FAQ can't be used as precedent because Force stops FNP from being used.
And you're also ignoring that you're attempting to do something between suffering the wound and rolling FNP - something the wording of FNP doesn't allow.

Which part of FNP says you must order FNP before any other ability which triggers off a unsaved wound?

The part that says when you suffer an unsaved wound, not "at some point after you suffer an unsaved wound".

clively wrote:The model is wounded. You attempt a save and fail. At this point we have two potential effects: ES's ability and FNP.

Looking closely at the rules, FNP modifies the actual starting condition to begin with; potentially removing whether there is an unsaved wound at all ("treat as being saved"). From that perspective it must take precedence before we know what else may still be applied. The language on FNP itself even indicates this by saying "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special FNP roll to avoid being wounded." In other words, immediately after failing any save you take the FNP roll. Considering that the effects from ES do not negate the ability to take the FNP roll then we know the logical order to proceed with.

FW was a special situation in that the mechanics of the rule could potentially nullify whether FNP could have been taken in the first place; which actually was a paradox; therefore it had to be FAQd. ES does not have this issue.

Going back to ES, the wording around "immediately" seems pretty clear to indicate that the effects impact how you handle further wounds from the same wound pool ("for the remainder of the battle"
). As I stated before, this wording was necessary otherwise people would be arguing that the effects wouldn't kick in until either a later initiative step or a different player turn.

To paraphrase Madonna, "You know that we are writing in RAW thread, and you are a RAI ... head, I guess, something that rhymes with thread"

Your argument is basically "they wrote "immediately" in Entropic Stirke and not in Feel No Pain, but I think they meant for Feel No Pain to happen immediately and Entropic Strike to happen the wound is removed, so we should play it like that", that's hardly a convincing argument.

clively wrote:I take the opposite position. If ES was meant to override FNP then you'd think they would have mentioned it in the ES rules. The only thing that overrides FNP is ID and the one special rule which was in conflict that *may* cause ID has been FAQ'd to explicitly go before FNP. That's a good indication of the importance of ID and FNP.

Maybe they didn't mention it because Entropic Strike is completely unrelated to Feel No Pain and doesn't affect your ability to roll for FNP in the slightest? Also they did mention that it happens before Feel No Pain, it goes something along the lines of "immediately loses its armour save".

Guys, this isn't complicated, if I tell you that when someone is about to have a heart attack you should immediately call the emergency number and also tell you that you should give them aspirin, which do you do first?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
And fnp makes the process irrelevant as there is no unsaved wound if it successful. If we applied your interpretation a multitude of effects would still apply without the unsaved wound. Take soulblaze for instance, if we applied your interpretation the unit would have a Soulblaze marker even though the unit suffered no wounds.

Concussive, pinning, strike down and the list goes on into codexes. All of these would opperate without an unsaved wound. Of all these effects only Force has an faq as it needed to be exempted so you can test to make the attack id to nullify fnp.

Why? Force works in the same way as ES. The only difference is the effect. If FNP means there was never a unsaved wound to activate Force against, why did the FAQ say it can? Maybe, FNP doesnt go back in time and make that unsaved wound saved. Maybe, FNP makes the wound saved from the time the effect takes place?

Treating as saved from the time the effect takes place, is far more logical that going back in time and saying the unsaved wound never existed.

The Force FAQ can't be used as precedent because Force stops FNP from being used.
And you're also ignoring that you're attempting to do something between suffering the wound and rolling FNP - something the wording of FNP doesn't allow.

Which part of FNP says you must order FNP before any other ability which triggers off a unsaved wound?

The part that says when you suffer an unsaved wound, not "at some point after you suffer an unsaved wound".

Which ES also says. So FNP needs something to take precidence, or refer to page 9.

~ I don't often get very involved in dakka rule arguments. But when I do, I nerd rage like a pro ~ < is me today.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Guys, this isn't complicated, if I tell you that when someone is about to have a heart attack you should immediately call the emergency number and also tell you that you should give them aspirin, which do you do first?

It's almost like that comparison is worded absolutely nothing like the actual rules at hand. Wow. Such skill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:
Which ES also says. So FNP needs something to take precidence, or refer to page 9.

So you're advocating removing an armor save after a saved wound?

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Guys, this isn't complicated, if I tell you that when someone is about to have a heart attack you should immediately call the emergency number and also tell you that you should give them aspirin, which do you do first?

It's almost like that comparison is worded absolutely nothing like the actual rules at hand. Wow. Such skill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:
Which ES also says. So FNP needs something to take precidence, or refer to page 9.

So you're advocating removing an armor save after a saved wound?

No, im advocating you remove the armor save on a unsaved wound. And that if FNP is then successful, it has no permission to start checks on events which occured before it was resolved.


[Edit] I know the post count has gone up fast, but I have answered such questions before

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Guys, this isn't complicated, if I tell you that when someone is about to have a heart attack you should immediately call the emergency number and also tell you that you should give them aspirin, which do you do first?

It's almost like that comparison is worded absolutely nothing like the actual rules at hand. Wow. Such skill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:
Which ES also says. So FNP needs something to take precidence, or refer to page 9.

So you're advocating removing an armor save after a saved wound?

No, im advocating you remove the armor save on a unsaved wound. And that if FNP is then successful, it has no permission to start checks on events which occured before it was resolved.


[Edit] I know the post count has gone up fast, but I have answered such questions before

Except there was no unsaved wound. I know that because the model was not removed as a casualty if it's got 1 wound.
The permission is inherent in the fact that it is a saved wound, not an unsaved wound that is ignored.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Guys, this isn't complicated, if I tell you that when someone is about to have a heart attack you should immediately call the emergency number and also tell you that you should give them aspirin, which do you do first?

It's almost like that comparison is worded absolutely nothing like the actual rules at hand. Wow. Such skill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:
Which ES also says. So FNP needs something to take precidence, or refer to page 9.

So you're advocating removing an armor save after a saved wound?

No, im advocating you remove the armor save on a unsaved wound. And that if FNP is then successful, it has no permission to start checks on events which occured before it was resolved.


[Edit] I know the post count has gone up fast, but I have answered such questions before

Except there was no unsaved wound. I know that because the model was not removed as a casualty if it's got 1 wound.
The permission is inherent in the fact that it is a saved wound, not an unsaved wound that is ignored.

Except FNP gives you permission to treat the wound as saved at the time it is applied - So you are in the situation where there is a unsaved wound, which by the order of events FNP gives you permission to treat it as saved. So when the next event (Removing as a casualty) the status is checked, it is not removed as a casualty (becuase the wound is treated as saved).

However, this does not = The unsaved wound never existed. There is no reason or need to do that to conform to the rules.

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Except there was no unsaved wound. I know that because the model was not removed as a casualty if it's got 1 wound.
The permission is inherent in the fact that it is a saved wound, not an unsaved wound that is ignored.

Except FNP gives you permission to treat the wound as saved at the time it is applied - So you are in the situation where there is a unsaved wound, which by the order of events FNP gives you permission to treat it as saved. So when the next event (Removing as a casualty) the status is checked, it is not removed as a casualty (becuase the wound is treated as saved).

However, this does not = The unsaved wound never existed. There is no reason or need to do that to conform to the rules.

It must. Treat as must equal is. Therefore the wound is saved. If the wound was ever unsaved you'd remove the model if it was on its last wound.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Except there was no unsaved wound. I know that because the model was not removed as a casualty if it's got 1 wound.
The permission is inherent in the fact that it is a saved wound, not an unsaved wound that is ignored.

Except FNP gives you permission to treat the wound as saved at the time it is applied - So you are in the situation where there is a unsaved wound, which by the order of events FNP gives you permission to treat it as saved. So when the next event (Removing as a casualty) the status is checked, it is not removed as a casualty (becuase the wound is treated as saved).

However, this does not = The unsaved wound never existed. There is no reason or need to do that to conform to the rules.

It must. Treat as must equal is. Therefore the wound is saved. If the wound was ever unsaved you'd remove the model if it was on its last wound.

Treat as must equal is is fine, its not a problem until you say; Treat as must equal, including for events which have happened in the past.

Not if when you come to check for Removing as a casualty the status of the wound is saved. If we HAD to remove as a casualty strait away,(without taking the effects of Special rules into account) there would be no FNP.


[edit]

For instance, extending sequence from earlier (ES first)

Sequence B (ES first):
As Part of Phase Sequence – Action - Roll to Hit: PASS
As part of phase sequence – Action – >Check Roll to hit: PASS > Roll to wound: PASS
As part of sequence- Action – >Check Roll to Wound: PASS > Take save if available: FAILED
Special Rule – Action – >Check if unsaved wound: PASS > ES : PASS
Special Rule – Action -> Check if Unsaved wound: PASS > FNP : PASS
As part of phase sequence - Action -> Check if wound is unsaved: FAIL > Can not remove as a casuallty.

Fits right in.

The sequence comes to checking if wound is unsaved for Removal of casuallty, and it fails due to FNP, this does not however, change the status at the time ES was passed.

 Nem wrote:

For instance, extending sequence from earlier (ES first)

Sequence B (ES first):
As Part of Phase Sequence – Action - Roll to Hit: PASS
As part of phase sequence – Action – >Check Roll to hit: PASS > Roll to wound: PASS
As part of sequence- Action – >Check Roll to Wound: PASS > Take save if available: FAILED
Special Rule – Action – >Check if unsaved wound: PASS > ES : PASS
Special Rule – Action -> Check if Unsaved wound: PASS > FNP : PASS
As part of phase sequence - Action -> Check if wound is unsaved: FAIL > Can not remove as a casuallty.

Fits right in.

The sequence comes to checking if wound is unsaved for Removal of casuallty, and it fails due to FNP, this does not however, change the status at the time ES was passed.

So you are applying ES to a model that did not suffer an unsaved wound. But you just said you weren't. I'm confused.
The wound is demonstrably a saved wound.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

For instance, extending sequence from earlier (ES first)

Sequence B (ES first):
As Part of Phase Sequence – Action - Roll to Hit: PASS
As part of phase sequence – Action – >Check Roll to hit: PASS > Roll to wound: PASS
As part of sequence- Action – >Check Roll to Wound: PASS > Take save if available: FAILED
Special Rule – Action – >Check if unsaved wound: PASS > ES : PASS
Special Rule – Action -> Check if Unsaved wound: PASS > FNP : PASS
As part of phase sequence - Action -> Check if wound is unsaved: FAIL > Can not remove as a casuallty.

Fits right in.

The sequence comes to checking if wound is unsaved for Removal of casuallty, and it fails due to FNP, this does not however, change the status at the time ES was passed.

So you are applying ES to a model that did not suffer an unsaved wound. But you just said you weren't. I'm confused.
The wound is demonstrably a saved wound.

Im only applying ES to a model that suffered a unsaved wound IF your saying FNP 'treat as saved' can be applied to events which happened in the past. Is that what you are saying? Where is the rules justification for changing events that have passed.

The wound is treated as saved - when FNP is successful (not before that). Now, to make ES breaking the rules, you have to accept special rule effects can be applied to events which have already happened, you are litterally undoing rules and events becuase FNP says 'Treat as having been saved'.

 Nem wrote:
The wound is treated as saved. When FNP is successful (not before that). Now, to make ES breaking the rules, you have to accept special rule effects can be applied to events which have already happened.

The wound is a saved wound. Factual. Undebateable.
You've applied an effect that requires an unsaved wound. Factual. Undebateable.

At best this is simultaneous and therefore the ES cannot have been applied "in the past".
In reality you're attempting to do something (resolve ES) before rolling for FNP - something which FNP doesn't allow. FNP must come first because you don't know if you have a saved wound or not before it's done resolving.

I am so confused as to why this is even an issue.

"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw)."

"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"

In both cases, an unsaved wound must happen for the abilities to do anything... So I can't really see this working any other way except you get a FNP roll and lose your armor save.

Sure, you count the wound as being saved after the fact, but that's after you already suffered it. If you're implying FNP pretends the wound never happened that's not what the rule says.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
The wound is treated as saved. When FNP is successful (not before that). Now, to make ES breaking the rules, you have to accept special rule effects can be applied to events which have already happened.

The wound is a saved wound. Factual. Undebateable.
You've applied an effect that requires an unsaved wound. Factual. Undebateable.

At best this is simultaneous and therefore the ES cannot have been applied "in the past".
In reality you're attempting to do something (resolve ES) before rolling for FNP - something which FNP doesn't allow. FNP must come first because you don't know if you have a saved wound or not before it's done resolving.

I've quoted page 9 twice in relevance to that statement on this thread already.

They are not simultaneos, as per the rules (Chooses the order of events.)

I've quoted so many rules proving my possition. All I've had back is obscurement of the event order without any supporting evidence.

FNP must come first because you don't know if you have a saved wound or not before it's done resolving.

FNP strictly states that an unsaved wound must occur before you get a FNP roll, so this is false.

DiabloSpawn33 wrote:

FNP must come first because you don't know if you have a saved wound or not before it's done resolving.

FNP strictly states that an unsaved wound must occur before you get a FNP roll, so this is false.

Apparently thats only the case if it works in FNP's favor... ... ... ... (This is sarcasm, this has been a long day.). I suppose we all agree the unsaved wound never existed, and we go around in circles forever with no resolution.

Nem wrote:I've quoted page 9 twice in relevance to that statement on this thread already.

They are not simultaneos, as per the rules (Chooses the order of events.)

Then the "at best" situation doesn't apply.

I've quoted so many rules proving my possition. All I've had back is obscurement of the event order without any supporting evidence.

Do you know if a wound is saved prior to resolving FNP? No - it's literally impossible to know that. Therefore it cannot be considered an unsaved wound prior to resolving FNP.

Nem wrote:

DiabloSpawn33 wrote:

FNP must come first because you don't know if you have a saved wound or not before it's done resolving.

FNP strictly states that an unsaved wound must occur before you get a FNP roll, so this is false.

Apparently thats only the case if it works in FNP's favor... ... ... ... (This is sarcasm, this has been a long day.)

Yes, FNP can create a paradox where FNP should not have resolved. As we have specific permission in this instance to do so, however, there's no reason for it to be an issue.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nem wrote:I've quoted page 9 twice in relevance to that statement on this thread already.

They are not simultaneos, as per the rules (Chooses the order of events.)

Then the "at best" situation doesn't apply.

I've quoted so many rules proving my possition. All I've had back is obscurement of the event order without any supporting evidence.

Do you know if a wound is saved prior to resolving FNP? No - it's literally impossible to know that. Therefore it cannot be considered an unsaved wound prior to resolving FNP.

Nem wrote:

DiabloSpawn33 wrote:

FNP must come first because you don't know if you have a saved wound or not before it's done resolving.

FNP strictly states that an unsaved wound must occur before you get a FNP roll, so this is false.

Apparently thats only the case if it works in FNP's favor... ... ... ... (This is sarcasm, this has been a long day.)

Yes, FNP can create a paradox where FNP should not have resolved. As we have specific permission in this instance to do so, however, there's no reason for it to be an issue.

Sorry - Not sure about ''Then the "at best" situation doesn't apply.'' And what your referencing there

Point 2, I've addressed this using rules earlier in the thread; FNP is not part of the process of determining if the wound is saved or unsaved (Page 15 shows the process of determining if the wound is saved or unsaved and FNP is not a part of this). A Special rule might change it in the future. Why must we take effects of special rules into account when decided order? (and where is the rules basis to override page 9?). We don't do checks for FNP might be successful!

Point 3, My interpretation works without the paradox situation. We don't have to bend anything to make it work.

Nem wrote:Sorry - Not sure about ''Then the "at best" situation doesn't apply.'' And what your referencing there

rigeld2 wrote:At best this is simultaneous and therefore the ES cannot have been applied "in the past".

Point 2, I've addressed this using rules earlier in the thread; FNP is not part of the process of determining if the wound is saved or unsaved (Page 15 shows the process of determining if the wound is saved or unsaved and FNP is not a part of this)

FNP is not part of the normal process of determining wounds. It inserts itself. It's almost like Special Rules can bend or break normal rules or something.

Point 3, My interpretation works without the paradox situation. We don't have to bend anything to make it work.

Where am I bending a rule? The paradox situation isn't a problem.

 Nem wrote:

Point 2, I've addressed this using rules earlier in the thread; FNP is not part of the process of determining if the wound is saved or unsaved (Page 15 shows the process of determining if the wound is saved or unsaved and FNP is not a part of this). A Special rule might change it in the future. Why must we take effects of special rules into account when decided order? (and where is the rules basis to override page 9?)

Point 3, My interpretation works without the paradox situation. We don't have to bend anything to make it work.

The rules of FNP absolutely alter whether the wound is unsaved or saved. Further, ES doesn't show up on Page 15, so should we ignore the effects of ES? (don't answer: rhetorical) Special Rules are those things "that breaks or bends one of the main game rules" - page 32, second paragraph, first sentence. That is the rule basis which allows FNP (or, indeed any other special rule) to override pg 9, 15, or whatever other page reference you have.

I think 'treat as saved' means exactly that, not 'it is saved'. It is unsaved (therefore ES is valid), but you treat it as saved and therefore don't take a wound. That way there is no paradox where FNP shouldn't have been tested in the first place, and everything is right with the fictional world.

 Hoff Starr wrote:
I think 'treat as saved' means exactly that, not 'it is saved'. It is unsaved (therefore ES is valid), but you treat it as saved and therefore don't take a wound. That way there is no paradox where FNP shouldn't have been tested in the first place, and everything is right with the fictional world.

If you don't use "treat as" as "is" the rules will fail in some interesting ways.

 Hoff Starr wrote:
I think 'treat as saved' means exactly that, not 'it is saved'. It is unsaved (therefore ES is valid), but you treat it as saved and therefore don't take a wound. That way there is no paradox where FNP shouldn't have been tested in the first place, and everything is right with the fictional world.

That takes a bit of gymnastics. If you "treat as saved" then for all intents and purposes "it is saved".. It doesn't say "treat as saved unless it conflicts with your world view" or "treat as saved unless you find it inconvenient to do so".

If you treat something as "Saved" then it is de facto saved. However, that's not all that line says: the first part, "the unsaved wound is discounted", is equally important. It's saying to throw the unsaved wound completely out and goes on to tell you exactly what this means "treat is as having been saved".

Which essentially says "this wound should be treated as if it was saved all along". Which, for Nem, gives you explicit permission to go back and reprocess the ES rule and therefore ES no longer applies. Which, going further, is yet another reason why we process FNP before anything else that works off of unsaved wounds.

So... In order to fit this interpretation of the rules, we have to rearrange the order things happen(Instead of applying two "when an unsaved wound occurs" events at the same time as written in the rules, we do them in a specific order to support our interpretation) then pretend earlier events didn't happen to support what happened in the future... Eh... what?

When you are creating paradoxical situations to support an interpretation of the rules, when valid interpretations that fit perfectly within the rules are presented that don't produce paradoxical situations, then I think it's time to move on, lol.

 Hoff Starr wrote:
I think 'treat as saved' means exactly that, not 'it is saved'. It is unsaved (therefore ES is valid), but you treat it as saved and therefore don't take a wound. That way there is no paradox where FNP shouldn't have been tested in the first place, and everything is right with the fictional world.

Treats as must mean is or the rules break down in spectacular ways.

DiabloSpawn33 wrote:
So... In order to fit this interpretation of the rules, we have to rearrange the order things happen(Instead of applying two "when an unsaved wound occurs" events at the same time as written in the rules, we do them in a specific order to support our interpretation) then pretend earlier events didn't happen to support what happened in the future... Eh... what?

Or... maybe... You shouldn't misrepresent the opposing argument? That'd be great.

When you are creating paradoxical situations to support an interpretation of the rules, when valid interpretations that fit perfectly within the rules are presented that don't produce paradoxical situations, then I think it's time to move on, lol.

Your "valid" interpretation doesn't actually fit perfectly within the rules.

DiabloSpawn33 wrote:
So... In order to fit this interpretation of the rules, we have to rearrange the order things happen(Instead of applying two "when an unsaved wound occurs" events at the same time as written in the rules, we do them in a specific order to support our interpretation) then pretend earlier events didn't happen to support what happened in the future... Eh... what?

When you are creating paradoxical situations to support an interpretation of the rules, when valid interpretations that fit perfectly within the rules are presented that don't produce paradoxical situations, then I think it's time to move on, lol.

No, in order to fit this interpretation we have to read the actual rules. What part of "treat it as having been saved" is a problem? There is no paradox, never has been. If you are treating it as having been saved then ES should never come into play.

Even if you applied effects like ES first, the wording on FnP states that the prior wound counts as saved so it removes the effects of it being unsaved even if they were rolled for, or applied first.

Would you let Lemartes increase his Str and Attacks to 5 even if he did not reduce his wounds by 1 cause he failed his armor save but made his FNP roll?

clively wrote:

DiabloSpawn33 wrote:
So... In order to fit this interpretation of the rules, we have to rearrange the order things happen(Instead of applying two "when an unsaved wound occurs" events at the same time as written in the rules, we do them in a specific order to support our interpretation) then pretend earlier events didn't happen to support what happened in the future... Eh... what?

When you are creating paradoxical situations to support an interpretation of the rules, when valid interpretations that fit perfectly within the rules are presented that don't produce paradoxical situations, then I think it's time to move on, lol.

No, in order to fit this interpretation we have to read the actual rules. What part of "treat it as having been saved" is a problem? There is no paradox, never has been. If you are treating it as having been saved then ES should never come into play.

If you're treating it as saved, then by that line of thinking, FNP should never have happened either, no? That's the paradox. In my opinion, if you suffered an unsaved wound, ES happens and FNP happens, as per their written rules, then you treat it as saved as per FNP, but wouldn't rewind time to make ES not happen. But I do see merit in your line of thinking, so I guess we follow the most important rule if it comes up (if it ever does?) and get on with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Even if you applied effects like ES first, the wording on FnP states that the prior wound counts as saved so it removes the effects of it being unsaved even if they were rolled for, or applied first.

Would you let Lemartes increase his Str and Attacks to 5 even if he did not reduce his wounds by 1 cause he failed his armor save but made his FNP roll?

That is also a fair point... Maybe for the first time in YMDC history I'm actually starting to doubt my position. Although I think that ability is more relevant to his wounds being dropped to 1 rather than suffering an unsaved wound which are separate incidents, but who knows.

DiabloSpawn33 wrote:
[
If you're treating it as saved, then by that line of thinking, FNP should never have happened either, no? That's the paradox. In my opinion, if you suffered an unsaved wound, ES happens and FNP happens, as per their written rules, then you treat it as saved as per FNP, but wouldn't rewind time to make ES not happen. But I do see merit in your line of thinking, so I guess we follow the most important rule if it comes up (if it ever does?) and get on with it.

If it helps:
1. roll to hit
2. roll to wound
3. roll save (if any): assume fail
4. roll ES
5. roll FNP (and pass)

A space-time paradox occurs which causes the universe to implode and be replaced with one in which the following occurred.

1. roll to hit
2. roll to wound
3. roll save: assume pass.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nem wrote:Sorry - Not sure about ''Then the "at best" situation doesn't apply.'' And what your referencing there

rigeld2 wrote:At best this is simultaneous and therefore the ES cannot have been applied "in the past".

Ok. So as per page 9, 2 events are triggered at the same time. Being the controlling player I decide the order that these events now occur. I decided ES happens first.
-Action -> Special Rule> ES > Check if wound is saved > Unsaved wound > Effect is applied
-Action -> Special Rule> FNP > Check if wound is saved > Unsaved wound > Effect is applied

I assert - 2 events. I applied ES first and FNP second. One event was resolved before the other. (Rules: Page 9)
You assert these are applied simultaneously.
Please provide a rule to support your assertion, or a rule which directly debunks my rule quote, or agree this is a interpretation within boundaries of RAW.

Point 2, I've addressed this using rules earlier in the thread; FNP is not part of the process of determining if the wound is saved or unsaved (Page 15 shows the process of determining if the wound is saved or unsaved and FNP is not a part of this)

FNP is not part of the normal process of determining wounds. It inserts itself. It's almost like Special Rules can bend or break normal rules or something.

Again: treating the woudn as unsaved is the ONLY WAY you can continue to apply ES. This breaks the FNP rule.

So you find out if the wound is definitely, ultimately unsaved FIRST, then apply ES. If not ES will try to break the FNP rule.


Page 9 is irrelevant here.

 Hoff Starr wrote:
I think 'treat as saved' means exactly that, not 'it is saved'. It is unsaved (therefore ES is valid), but you treat it as saved and therefore don't take a wound. That way there is no paradox where FNP shouldn't have been tested in the first place, and everything is right with the fictional world.

"Treated as" must mean "IS". Otherwise a lot of rules break.



edit ... nevermind

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again: treating the woudn as unsaved is the ONLY WAY you can continue to apply ES. This breaks the FNP rule.

So you find out if the wound is definitely, ultimately unsaved FIRST, then apply ES. If not ES will try to break the FNP rule.


Page 9 is irrelevant here.

What part of page 9 is irrelevant. Do these special rules NOT occur at the same time? Or does FNP have special permission to go first?

Citation required

Because resolving ES first breaks FNP, as you are not treating the wound as saved, S it is irrelevant, because no matter what happens, you need to know if FNP succeeds or not. This is indisputeable in the rules

What part of "the wound IS SAVED" means you think that ES can still apply?

You only get to your conclusion by placing a condition - "for future purposes" - that absolutely does not eixst in the actual rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because resolving ES first breaks FNP, as you are not treating the wound as saved, S it is irrelevant, because no matter what happens, you need to know if FNP succeeds or not. This is indisputeable in the rules

What part of "the wound IS SAVED" means you think that ES can still apply?

You only get to your conclusion by placing a condition - "for future purposes" - that absolutely does not eixst in the actual rules.

What part of the Allocation rules require FNP to be resolved first?
Citation required
Edit[I assert this is not the case, and we do not resolve special rules based on a order of events that might happen, I asset they follow the rules on page 9, as they happen at the same time, FNP needs permission to not follow those rules]

You only get to your conclusion by placing a condition - ''undoes events and wound status rules that happened before it'' which absolutely does not exist in the actual rules.

I'm quoting, but changing the order of your statements for clarity.

 Nem wrote:
I assert: The rules say when you fail, the wound is Unsaved. (Rules: Page15) I know at this point the wound is unsaved.

Yes, but not the whole story.

 Nem wrote:
FNP is not part of the rules which tell you when a unsaved wound occurs, it simply changes to status of the unsaved wound, upon resolution

Wrong.

"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound" (pg 35). Tells us that the FNP rule is interjected into the flow of wound processing. It tells us exactly where to place it: at the point the model has suffered the wound (ie: "when"). This directly modifies the section under "take saving throws" on page 15 as that is the point where an unsaved wound has been suffered.

 Nem wrote:
FNP can be activated, but can not change what happened in the past,

Wrong.

"treat is as having been saved." (pg 35). If you are treating it as "having been" saved then you are changing the previous outcome.

Prior quote:

Nem wrote:While 'Having been saved' is the cause of confusion, as it is being read as past tense, and only past tense. That is not correct however.

having been is past tense:
"Having" - To Be.
"Been" - past participle of be.
"be" - to take place or occur.

or to simplify it: "to occur in the past".

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nem wrote:Sorry - Not sure about ''Then the "at best" situation doesn't apply.'' And what your referencing there

rigeld2 wrote:At best this is simultaneous and therefore the ES cannot have been applied "in the past".

Ok. So as per page 9, 2 events are triggered at the same time. Being the controlling player I decide the order that these events now occur. I decided ES happens first.

You do realize that is not what page 9 says, like at all, right?

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

Both players do not have something to do at the same time, as ES requires nothing from a player, it is just a simple effect that is applied. Therefore it does not have any baring on the situation at hand.

 Nem wrote:
What part of the Allocation rules require FNP to be resolved first?
Citation required

Because resolving ES first breaks FNP and we should strive to break no rule.

As a part of any ruleset we must strive to break no rule, it is how ruleset's work.

clively wrote:
I'm quoting, but changing the order of your statements for clarity.

 Nem wrote:
I assert: The rules say when you fail, the wound is Unsaved. (Rules: Page15) I know at this point the wound is unsaved.

Yes, but not the whole story.

I agree. But that is a unsaved wound at that time, and at that time you need permission to ignore rules, not based on something that might happen in the future. I can not provide a rule to counter, as a rule was not brought forth.

 Nem wrote:
FNP is not part of the rules which tell you when a unsaved wound occurs, it simply changes to status of the unsaved wound, upon resolution

Wrong.

"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound" (pg 35). Tells us that the FNP rule is interjected into the flow of wound processing. It tells us exactly where to place it: at the point the model has suffered the wound (ie: "when"). This directly modifies the section under "take saving throws" on page 15 as that is the point where an unsaved wound has been suffered.

ES tells you when it activates also. It activates at the same time. (ES rules, sorry I don't actually know the page). So when two things are activated at the same time, we refer to rules on page 9 which tells us how to deal with this situation. Citation required from yourself at this point to point out FNP's permission to ignore this.

 Nem wrote:
FNP can be activated, but can not change what happened in the past,

Wrong.

"treat is as having been saved." (pg 35). If you are treating it as "having been" saved then you are changing the previous outcome.

I have posted previously how this sentence is not past tense only.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nem wrote:Sorry - Not sure about ''Then the "at best" situation doesn't apply.'' And what your referencing there

rigeld2 wrote:At best this is simultaneous and therefore the ES cannot have been applied "in the past".

Ok. So as per page 9, 2 events are triggered at the same time. Being the controlling player I decide the order that these events now occur. I decided ES happens first.

You do realize that is not what page 9 says, like at all, right?

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

Both players do not have something to do at the same time, as ES requires nothing from a player, it is just a simple effect that is applied. Therefore it does not have any baring on the situation at hand.

 Nem wrote:
What part of the Allocation rules require FNP to be resolved first?
Citation required

Because resolving ES first breaks FNP and we should strive to break no rule.

As a part of any ruleset we must strive to break no rule, it is how ruleset's work.

That's not a citation. My interpretation had rules quotes and did not break anything. If were saying that ES falls outside the remit of the player having to do something, then with a small re jig, my interpretation remains the same, with the exception that I can not argue the order with page 9(For ES specifically, there are other effects which require a test to be passed)

excuse the poor quick diagram,


however the way FNP works doesn't create a paradox if applied like a process flow. Its like drawing a go back 3 spaces card in Monopoly.

The fact is that regardless of where you put the FNP on the process flow it will always have the feedback loop into treating it as saved, and then you follow the process from there. so regardless of what has come before you follow it to the end of the process and apply that result. Anything else in-between is irrelevant.

The FAQ re-writes the process flow for FNP and includes the instant death part before, where if the answer is yes that is the end outcome.

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Because resolving ES first breaks FNP and we should strive to break no rule.

As a part of any ruleset we must strive to break no rule, it is how ruleset's work.

That's not a citation. My interpretation had rules quotes and did not break anything. If were saying that ES falls outside the remit of the player having to do something, then with a small re jig, my interpretation remains the same, with the exception that I can not argue the order with page 9(For ES specifically, there are other effects which require a test to be passed)

It is not a citation, it is a matter of understanding how rules systems function. We must know this or the words in the book are useless.

Your interpretation breaks the FNP rule, because we have to treat the wound as saved if FNP is successful. Something which we have not done if the model has lost its armor save.

 Nem wrote:

Yes, but not the whole story.

I agree. But that is a unsaved wound at that time, and at that time you need permission to ignore rules, not based on something that might happen in the future. I can not provide a rule to counter, as a rule was not brought forth.

FNP changes that to a saved wound, including in the past. That was cited, you're ignoring it with a handwave.

ES tells you when it activates also. It activates at the same time. (ES rules, sorry I don't actually know the page). So when two things are activated at the same time, we refer to rules on page 9 which tells us how to deal with this situation. Citation required from yourself at this point to point out FNP's permission to ignore this.

You're misquoting page 9. Please don't do so.

"treat is as having been saved." (pg 35). If you are treating it as "having been" saved then you are changing the previous outcome.

I have posted previously how this sentence is not past tense only.

You've asserted that repeatedly. You've never shown why you think so.

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nem wrote:Sorry - Not sure about ''Then the "at best" situation doesn't apply.'' And what your referencing there

rigeld2 wrote:At best this is simultaneous and therefore the ES cannot have been applied "in the past".

Ok. So as per page 9, 2 events are triggered at the same time. Being the controlling player I decide the order that these events now occur. I decided ES happens first.

You do realize that is not what page 9 says, like at all, right?

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

Both players do not have something to do at the same time, as ES requires nothing from a player, it is just a simple effect that is applied. Therefore it does not have any baring on the situation at hand.

 Nem wrote:
What part of the Allocation rules require FNP to be resolved first?
Citation required

Because resolving ES first breaks FNP and we should strive to break no rule.

As a part of any ruleset we must strive to break no rule, it is how ruleset's work.

That's not a citation. My interpretation had rules quotes and did not break anything. If were saying that ES falls outside the remit of the player having to do something, then with a small re jig, my interpretation remains the same, with the exception that I can not argue the order with page 9(For ES specifically, there are other effects which require a test to be passed)

He did cite, and quoted, page 9. Perhaps you missed it - I've bolded it for you.
And you are breaking a rule - you're applying ES to a wound that has been saved. You keep saying you're not, but you are absolutely doing so.

There is still no permission to ignore other special rules.

Treat as does not equal is. Not any more than bearing equals with. Or assumed equals is. All arguments used for other issues.

The old seeker missile/markerlight was ruled against the BS 5 assumption, for targeting flyers.

A model with a weapon gets the benefit of a bonus rule, but the model bearing a weapon does not.

Precedent in GW FAQs show that unless it says "is" it is not. Being "treated as saved" is not a saved wound.

Further multiple special rules may effect a single model, and as such both not taking the wound and losing the save are possible by the rules. There is no "breaking of rules" by applying ES in sequence with FnP.

Rig; on phone now so quotes take allot of time to sort out. A few things on last points,

The response to DR - Apologies I did not make it clear which parts I was was referencing with which sentence, the citation comment was referencing 'ES first breaks FNP' section of the reply.

I'm working on English possibilities of 'treat it as having been' I did use it within it's context earlier as a quick example, but something more might take some time.

Megatron - I think you may need to read what you wrote.
If a save has been treated as saved, it has been saved.

Its not still an unsaved wound otherwise the model would be dead anyway.

You take a wound and fail a save. (we all agree here)

Next logical step without creating a vortex would be to use the next ability to save the wound. (you know, since FNP states that when a model takes an unsaved wound, it rolls for FNP)

I dont get how people are jumping in with ES going 1st, since you have still not finished the process of saving the wound. (its not an armour save, but it is still a save)

Even if ES goes 1st, FNP states that you treat the unsaved wound as saved, thus going back a step (or 2, depending on order) to the point when taking the initial save.

I fail to see how a model can take a negative effect after passing the save.

The trigger for both FNP and Es is an unsaved wound. It's exactly the same. There is no excuse why one is triggered and the other is not. So both abilities trigger at the same instant. Now they must resolve. One ability resolves immediately after the trigger the other does not. So the first ability, ES, resolves before the other, FNP. By the time FNP resolves the model has already been stripped from his armour save and the only thing that links armour saves and unsaved wounds is gone. So from now on FNP can make the save to be treated as passed but it doesn't have the permission to restore armour saves or cancel retroactively ES. So the model remains S-.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
There is still no permission to ignore other special rules.

Treat as does not equal is. Not any more than bearing equals with. Or assumed equals is. All arguments used for other issues.

This is not true, or the rules break down in spectacular ways...

Precedent in GW FAQs show that unless it says "is" it is not. Being "treated as saved" is not a saved wound.

FNP disagrees with this, if we treat something as saved then the wound is saved, otherwise you would still reduce the model's wounds by 1...

copper.talos wrote:
The trigger for both FNP and Es is an unsaved wound. It's exactly the same. There is no excuse why one is triggered and the other is not. So both abilities trigger at the same instant. Now they must resolve. One ability resolves immediately after the trigger the other does not. So the first ability, ES, resolves before the other, FNP. By the time FNP resolves the model has already been stripped from his armour save and the only thing that links armour saves and unsaved wounds is gone. So from now on FNP can make the save to be treated as passed but it doesn't have the permission to restore armour saves or cancel retroactively ES. So the model remains S-.

It's like you're ignoring anyone who disagrees or something.
Oh - wait. That's exactly what you're doing because you refuse to believe your stance is incorrect.

Lemates and his little ability, thankd that's one of those fun little examples of a special from a codex that would utterly become broken by the oppositions interpretation. I'm sure there's many more, DE has a lot of fnp available to it perhaps there's another fun example in there..

Im not too up to date with the new eldar dex, but feugan has an ability in which he gains attacks (and str?) from any unsaved wounds he suffers.

So, by your example, every time FNP stops a wound going through, he gains an attack and str even though he still has the wound, correct?
I may have to play eldar because a model that has the potential of 10, S10 attacks at low AP and rolls 2D6 for armour pen sounds fun!



The best way to come out with an answer is simply to throw other rules with the same triggers into this and see how it works.
Because from what i can see, allowing ES to go through means you have just broke a ton of special rules for most armies.
However, doing it the other way (armour stays intact) leaves these rules working.

And before anyone says this is RaI, this is more of a thinking method of puting a logical way of it working forward.

Is there a faq that says Fuegan's ability won't work that way? I don't think so. If you are going to use it as an argument, there should be one. I am sure Eldar players play Fuegan the way you think is wrong but they think they are absolutely right.

There is no need for an FAQ that says the little pointy eared guy does not get points added to his STR and Att profile if you realize that a wound 'treated as being saved' means that you do not have an unsaved wound anymore. It is written in the past tense because it is affecting something that has happened that CAN be undone.

Think i may aswell click the ignore function for you since you seem to miss any points made to you.
"Because something does not say it wont work" is not a valid argument.
So you also think thats how feugans rules should work?
What a waste of time, good day

I just read Fuegan's rule and you "forgot" to mention that his rule activates at the end of the phase. Which of course means it is completely different from ES and therefore you cannot make any comparisons at all. And yes, you arguing without using the rule you want to give as an argument correctly is a waste of time for sure...

Hey guys, I haven't read through the 7 page thread but I say if the feel no pain roll is successful then the model never suffered an "unsaved wound" but did actually "save" the wound.

yukondal wrote:
Hey guys, I haven't read through the 7 page thread but I say if the feel no pain roll is successful then the model never suffered an "unsaved wound" but did actually "save" the wound.

Yeah, no simple following of straightforward rules today

Nem - again, the wound is now, and always was, saved. "having been" saved is literally referring to the fact it was never unsaved - if it werent, then the model would now be dead.

By treating it as saved, you cannot have ES apply - if you do, you break the FNP rule as you are ABSOLUTELY 100% treating the wound as nont saved for that purpose. Categorically so.

Copper - still ignoring the other arguments proving you wrong.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
There is no need for an FAQ that says the little pointy eared guy does not get points added to his STR and Att profile if you realize that a wound 'treated as being saved' means that you do not have an unsaved wound anymore. It is written in the past tense because it is affecting something that has happened that CAN be undone.

So what you're saying is this happens:
1. Model has Wound allocated to it
2. Model fails save
3. Entropic Strike removes armour save
4. Feel No Pain is passed
5. There is no longer an unsaved wound, retroactively denying permission and negating Entropic Strike
In that case I would argue that following that logic you then have:
5(b). There is no longer an unsaved wound, retroactively denying permission and negating Feel No Pain
6. Wound no longer counts as saved, model takes an unsaved wound.
Therefore Feel No Pain is a completely useless special rule, as it's supposed ability to go back in time and retroactively treat a wound as being saved the whole time negates its own activation requirements.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
There is no need for an FAQ that says the little pointy eared guy does not get points added to his STR and Att profile if you realize that a wound 'treated as being saved' means that you do not have an unsaved wound anymore. It is written in the past tense because it is affecting something that has happened that CAN be undone.

So what you're saying is this happens:
1. Model has Wound allocated to it
2. Model fails save
3. Entropic Strike removes armour save
4. Feel No Pain is passed
5. There is no longer an unsaved wound, retroactively denying permission and negating Entropic Strike
In that case I would argue that following that logic you then have:
5(b). There is no longer an unsaved wound, retroactively denying permission and negating Feel No Pain
6. Wound no longer counts as saved, model takes an unsaved wound.
Therefore Feel No Pain is a completely useless special rule, as it's supposed ability to go back in time and retroactively treat a wound as being saved the whole time negates its own activation requirements.

Wait ... you try to argue that fnp takes away fnp when passed and therefor the wound still counts? Sorry but thats what you'd call being desperate and it absolutely has no basis in the rules.

That makes no sense, the wound would be saved abd nothing that required an unsaved wound would trigger. Admittedly even fnp but that's the point, it would still be a saved wound. Essentially it negates its own need for use if successful, which would still result in a saved wound. This is fnps acceptable paradox, if done any other way the rules around it break down horribly as has been shown.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
There is no need for an FAQ that says the little pointy eared guy does not get points added to his STR and Att profile if you realize that a wound 'treated as being saved' means that you do not have an unsaved wound anymore. It is written in the past tense because it is affecting something that has happened that CAN be undone.

So what you're saying is this happens:
1. Model has Wound allocated to it
2. Model fails save
3. Entropic Strike removes armour save
4. Feel No Pain is passed
5. There is no longer an unsaved wound, retroactively denying permission and negating Entropic Strike
In that case I would argue that following that logic you then have:
5(b). There is no longer an unsaved wound, retroactively denying permission and negating Feel No Pain
6. Wound no longer counts as saved, model takes an unsaved wound.
Therefore Feel No Pain is a completely useless special rule, as it's supposed ability to go back in time and retroactively treat a wound as being saved the whole time negates its own activation requirements.

This is a funny argument I think you're applying a logical extension of what others are trying to say. if FNP goes back in time and negates an effect from triggering to a wound, then that does make sense that FNP would also negate its own trigger mechanism (the wound counts a saved, so FNP does not trigger), creating a paradox

 Mywik wrote:
Wait ... you try to argue that fnp takes away fnp when passed and therefor the wound still counts? Sorry but thats what you'd call being desperate and it absolutely has no basis in the rules.

Exactly my point, thank you.

Prince - FNP has permission to activate, resolving its own paradox. Already covered earlier in this thread. Nothing added that isnt already debunked as an argument.

ES still operating means you are NOT treating the wound as having been saved; no unsaved wound existed, yet you are still using effects that require an unsaved wound.

I find breaking no rules the better option.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
Wait ... you try to argue that fnp takes away fnp when passed and therefor the wound still counts? Sorry but thats what you'd call being desperate and it absolutely has no basis in the rules.

Exactly my point, thank you.

I dont think you've accomplished what you think you've accomplished. Its not even remotely the same as entropic strike being negated because the wound was never unsaved and fnp being negated because the wound was never unsaved. For FNP theres now no wound to be used on and entropic strike is never applied. Thanks for strengthening the arguments of your opposition!

I don't follow, if Entropic Strike is activated before Feel No Pian (which it seems both sides have accepted to be the case) either (a) Feel No Pain retroactively negates the unsaved wound and all effects relying on an unsaved wound or (b) Feel No Pain treats the wound as being saved from that point onwards. In the case of (a) Feel No Pain would negate the activation of Entropic Strike... and itself... in the case of (b) Entropic Strike has already activated and resolved and Feel No Pain won't affect it. So which is it? Time travelling self negation or letting it through?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I don't follow, if Entropic Strike is activated before Feel No Pian (which it seems both sides have accepted to be the case) either (a) Feel No Pain retroactively negates the unsaved wound and all effects relying on an unsaved wound or (b) Feel No Pain treats the wound as being saved from that point onwards. In the case of (a) Feel No Pain would negate the activation of Entropic Strike... and itself... in the case of (b) Entropic Strike has already activated and resolved and Feel No Pain won't affect it. So which is it? Time travelling self negation or letting it through?

If you dont count the wound as being saved after fnp was succesfully rolled you still have an unsaved wound (and broken the FNP rule btw) and fnp activates (to be broken again) and again and again. Welcome to eternity. I'll come back when eternity is over ... but be warned eternity is long - especially at the end.

Since i dont think anyone would be able to present you enough proof to alter your interpretation of the rule i think its unneeded to argument further. Everyone is able to read the thread and follow the interpretation he finds that fits. Both sides have repeated their arguments for a while and no one is convinving anyone anymore.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I don't follow, if Entropic Strike is activated before Feel No Pian (which it seems both sides have accepted to be the case) either (a) Feel No Pain retroactively negates the unsaved wound and all effects relying on an unsaved wound or (b) Feel No Pain treats the wound as being saved from that point onwards. In the case of (a) Feel No Pain would negate the activation of Entropic Strike... and itself... in the case of (b) Entropic Strike has already activated and resolved and Feel No Pain won't affect it. So which is it? Time travelling self negation or letting it through?

b) results in you breaking a rule - you are not treating it as "having been" saved, you are treating it as "saved from now on" - totally altering the rule

Passing FNP means there IS no unsaved wound, and there never WAS an unsaved wound. It is a closed loop.

Retaining the effects of ES mean you are *explicity* stating there WAS an unsaved wound, breaking the rules for FNP. Please find page and para where ES specifically overrides ES. If you cannot, you must concede the point.

But if there never was an unsaved wound to fulfil the activation requirements for Entropic Strike there never was an unsaved wound to fulfil the activation requirements for Feel No Pain. What allows you to arbitrarily decide that you can have activate one rule but not the other when they have the same activation requirements?

There was an unsaved wound, so FNP activated. It then removed that unsaved wound from existence, which is fine, because the rule tells you to do so - "having been saved" is fairly unambiguous. Closed loop, as I said.

ES has no allowance to break this rule, so it cannot do so . Page and paragrapgh allowing you to breaking the FNP rule, or concede the point

Also: I am saying you CAN activate ES; however it cannot have any effect unless FNP fails, otherwise you break the FNP rule. As you have no permission with ES to break the FNP rule, you cannto do so.

Why are you treating Entropic Strike's activation requirement as a maintenance requirement?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Why are you treating Entropic Strike's activation requirement as a maintenance requirement?

Because it can only have an effect in game if there is an unsaved wound. We know, with certainty, that there is no such unsaved wound if we pass FNP.

Why are you ignoring the FNP rule stating there is no unsaved wound? Do you have any rules, or just more questions that fail to answer the questions you have already been asked?

It's almost the bone sword argument again. I think in this case the wound is treated as saved and NOS is correct.

I will say I can see a fluffy TO and for sure a store owner going the other way however. FNP is akin to being Bruce Willis and shrugging off the wound, however the damage is still done ect ect ect.

Its also used for bionics where the wound would have been debilitating if it hit flesh abd blood but instead it a tougher bionic replacment doing minor danage. Its also used for immediate medical treatment in the case of medics.

its used for a multitude of things but the end result is the wound is saved.

 Bausk wrote:
Its also used for bionics where the wound would have been debilitating if it hit flesh abd blood but instead it a tougher bionic replacment doing minor danage. Its also used for immediate medical treatment in the case of medics.

its used for a multitude of things but the end result is the wound is saved.

Yes, from a fluff standpoint I could see the effect still happening and the model fighting onward. However RAW not as much

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nem - again, the wound is now, and always was, saved. "having been" saved is literally referring to the fact it was never unsaved - if it werent, then the model would now be dead.

By treating it as saved, you cannot have ES apply - if you do, you break the FNP rule as you are ABSOLUTELY 100% treating the wound as nont saved for that purpose. Categorically so.

Copper - still ignoring the other arguments proving you wrong.

Having - Present participle of
Been - Past participle of Be
Is - Present
Treat - Present


I dissagree, I think 'having been' (+ Past participle (saved)) is passive present participle, when coupled with 'treat it as' (use the whole sentance rather than just two verbs of it).

The object (Wound) has 2 states it is possible to be in; (Saved), (Unsaved) (Both past participle of Save).

We can throw around lots of sentances with different meaning and try and disect the hundreds of meanins for 'has/had/have/having', 'been, to be, being'

The object status, at the time of FNP is Unsaved.
The object status, at the time of completion of FNP is Saved.
The object status, at the time of completion is it has always been Saved.
But this isn't really the issue. The issue it to apply the effect in the past, 'Treat the wound as having been saved' must be synomonous with 'The wound was saved'




'Having been' without anything else itself is Past participle meaning. Its gramatically obscure to use 'having been' if it is also currently.

Past participle (was but is not)
<<<Past>>> <<<Present>>><<<Future>>>

Present Perfect Continuous (was and is).
<<<Past>>> <<<Present>>><<<Future>>>

And then theres Future Continuous (is and will be) and all storts of fun English awefulness.

So, the point of that was to show a flaw in the logic that 'Having been' must refer to when we apply the effect. If we apply using 'Having been' to stay gramatically correct the wound status changes to Saved from the first instance of 'unsaved' ('been' refering to the point in time the status came into effect) up until the point the condition is met to apply the rule (Condition of the rule being ''On a 5 +...'). This means you could go back and change the resolution, but when the condition is met the wound is no longer saved.

To treat the wound as saved in the past, and currently the application must be Present Perfect Continous statement.




You reading the rule;

Treat the wound as having been saved

To be synomnynous with 'The wound was saved'' 'the wound was never unsaved' To apply the effect retrospectivly.

And I don't read it like that,

If my object (Teapot) could be in 1 of 2 states (Full)(Empty)
Treat the teapot as having been full
Is that synomonous with The teapot was full? The teapot never was empty? -Simply no. The statement does not change what it was, only what it then is.


I don't believe those meaning to be a condition of the sentance. The action or when part of the sentance is 'Treat it as' which is Present progressive: From this point on.

It took some work to figure out. I am not saying this is the only way the sentance can be read, but it is cirtainly a common english use. I never read 'Treat as having been saved' synomounously with Was not saved/ was never saved.

Every listed instance I mentioned uses fnp. fnp treats the wound as saved... sorry I'm not understanding your disagreement RAW wise as they all use the same rule.

First, and this isn't English but the way the rules must be read, stop treating "treat as" any differently than "is".

Second, you've moved from an absolute to an opinion. I've never (that I can think of) seen it read in the way you're asserting. In your example, the teapot was not empty and, unless there's something to change its state, it still isn't. That's the issue - your reading requires a state change after the phrase.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Why are you treating Entropic Strike's activation requirement as a maintenance requirement?

Because it can only have an effect in game if there is an unsaved wound. We know, with certainty, that there is no such unsaved wound if we pass FNP.

Why are you ignoring the FNP rule stating there is no unsaved wound?

I'm not, I agree that there is no unsaved wound and from that point onwards no special rules should activate that require an unsaved wound to be suffered. However, when Entropic Strike activated there was an unsaved wound at that moment, and the only time you need an unsaved wound for Entropic Strike is to activate it, the presence of an unsaved wound past that point is irrelevant as far as Entropic Strike is concerned.

rigeld2 wrote:
First, and this isn't English but the way the rules must be read, stop treating "treat as" any differently than "is".

Second, you've moved from an absolute to an opinion. I've never (that I can think of) seen it read in the way you're asserting. In your example, the teapot was not empty and, unless there's something to change its state, it still isn't. That's the issue - your reading requires a state change after the phrase.

Im not treating 'treat' as any differently from the word 'treat' you must take the sentance in full context, without changing the words (because changing the words changes the rules, litterally changes the Rules as Written).


I used the practicle 'is' deffinition of treat - 1. behave towards or deal with in a certain way.
Using that deffinition of 'treat' does not break down other rules.

You have seen people reading the sentance as such - people who believe RAW stipulates you do not undo previous actions are reading it as such. While I am not in the majority, other people are coming to the same conclusion based on the words.

'''You treat the wound as having been saved', not '''the wound is treated as having been saved''. Both parts of that sentance produce very different effects when applied to the rules.

To go back and change things, the wound must be Treated as (Past progressing participle), not Treat as (Present continuous participle). So 'for further rule purposes' is there, its just contained within the meaning of 'Treat'.

As far as I know, 'Treat' can not be applied as a Past participle.

And yes it is an opinion of how I think the rule reads as, as opposed to your opinion of how you think the rule reads as.