Happyjew wrote:
I disagree. If Fury Unbound said immediately, then, you would be correct. Since it doesn't, you have two rules going off at the same time, and (using the old Eldar codex faq as precedent) the current player would choose the order.

It actually does say immediately. So, you would agree then?

Except it does not say immediately upon suffering an unsaved wound.

 Happyjew wrote:
Except it does not say immediately upon suffering an unsaved wound.

Fury Unbound: If Lemartes suffers an unsaved wound, but is not slain, his Strength and Attacks both immediately increase to 5

How can you read that any other way than this:

If he suffers an unsaved wound he immediately gets 5 str and 5 attacks if he is not removed as a casualty.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Going back in time causes it to be dysfunctional by negating its own activation requirement, unless of course going back in time and retroactively discounting the unsaved wound wouldn't negate already resolved special rules that require an unsaved wound to activate, like Feel No Pain and Entropic Strike.

No, going back in time and changing the wound to saved does not cause it to be dysfunctional. The wound is now saved and FNP and ES fail to trigger, but since the wound is saved there's no issue.

You're under the impression that a paradox is a bad thing. There's no reason to assume so.

Arguing that ES can't continue because the trigger is gone but not applying the same logic to FNP is exactly what causes an issue with the no ES interpretation. You are stating that one thing can't happen because the trigger is gone but continuing to apply the affects of another SR even though the trigger is gone. You are applying a double standard. How can you apply one ability but not the other when the trigger is gone for both as you are stating?

Gravmyr wrote:
Arguing that ES can't continue because the trigger is gone but not applying the same logic to FNP is exactly what causes an issue with the no ES interpretation. You are stating that one thing can't happen because the trigger is gone but continuing to apply the affects of another SR even though the trigger is gone. You are applying a double standard. How can you apply one ability but not the other when the trigger is gone for both as you are stating?

I'm not. FNP cannot be applied after the wound is saved.
But the wound is now saved so FNP is irrelevant.

 Happyjew wrote:
I disagree. If Fury Unbound said immediately, then, you would be correct. Since it doesn't, you have two rules going off at the same time, and (using the old Eldar codex faq as precedent) the current player would choose the order.

Except the " two rules going off at the same time" is not how page 9 is worded.

If to players have something to do at the same time the current player determines the order, but there is nothing to do with Fury Unbound, it just happens.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I disagree. If Fury Unbound said immediately, then, you would be correct. Since it doesn't, you have two rules going off at the same time, and (using the old Eldar codex faq as precedent) the current player would choose the order.

Except the " two rules going off at the same time" is not how page 9 is worded.

If to players have something to do at the same time the current player determines the order, but there is nothing to do with Fury Unbound, it just happens.

It was due to mis-remembering this FAQ:

Q: If a model with lash whips is attacking a model with an Initiativeboosting
rule/piece of wargear (e.g. Furious Charge, an Eldar Banshee
Mask etc.), which order are the Initiatives modified? (p83)
A: As a ‘set value modifier’ the lash whip effect is applied after
all other modifiers. If the model is affected by another set value
modifier, roll off to see which is applied first at the start of each
Fight sub-phase.

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm not. FNP cannot be applied after the wound is saved.
But the wound is now saved so FNP is irrelevant.

Which would mean that since you are carrying out the affects of one SR you should be carrying out the affects of the other. There is nothing in the wording of FNP that says go back to before all SR's are triggered or anything similar. You carried out the the rest of the SR, you can and should carry out the other. The point of contention is that you are implying that the trigger is gone for one so therefor cannot be applied which is interesting as the trigger which caused FNP is also gone so how do you have permission to apply it if there is no unsaved wound? As has been pointed out by the no ES side there is nothing that prioritizes either ability, like there is for two actions by different players on pg9. There is nothing in the wording of either ability the is reliant on the other either. Therefor they would be carried out at the same time not FNP then ES.

FNP says to treat the wound as saved (I.E. Pretend we made our save against the wound).

Ergo there is not any unsaved wound to apply other effects from...

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, it can't have ever happened. Unless, of course, you're advocating that FNP does nothing.

Why did you roll FNP? The rule says "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..."

And? FNP is irrelevant now - the wound is saved. I wonder if that's what the rules say or something...

...and you did not answer the question. Unless you are saying you believe rolling FNP is irrelevant.

rigeld2 wrote:

Because FNP says to discount the wound and that it has been saved. Actual rules ahoy!

...not until after the FNP roll is made. Until then it is indeed an unsaved wound. Actual rules. Huzzah!

And what do the FNP rules tell you to do after the roll is passed?

Except that FNP clearly is tested when there is an unsaved wound.

Correct. And?

 Abandon wrote:
...and so there is an unsaved wound so ES is activated. I'd have thought you could put that together.

Except FNP treats the wound as saved.

If you are activating ES, you have broken a rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
...and so there is an unsaved wound so ES is activated. I'd have thought you could put that together.

Except FNP treats the wound as saved.

If you are activating ES, you have broken a rule.

What was the state of the wound before FNP?

You would need to show that FNP would happen before ES. If they are triggered at the same time, as they are, what indicator do you have that FNP should be resolved first instead of simultaneously? If anything we have just as much proof, via the FNP / Force weapon FAQ, that the immediately actually means something and therefor FNP should be activated last.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
...and so there is an unsaved wound so ES is activated. I'd have thought you could put that together.

Except FNP treats the wound as saved.

If you are activating ES, you have broken a rule.

What was the state of the wound before FNP?

It was a hit then a wound. a failed save makes an unsaved wound, but passing FNP Treats the wound as saved and therefore nothing can trigger off of the unsaved wound as it has been saved.

@Gravmyr, the fact that we do not know if the wound id unsaved if we have not rolled for FNP as FNP makes it a saved wound instead of an unsaved wound. FNP, if successful, treats the wound as saved, ergo no unsaved wound so nothing else can proc off of it.

 Abandon wrote:

...and you did not answer the question. Unless you are saying you believe rolling FNP is irrelevant.

FNP was rolled because there was an unsaved wound. There is no longer an unsaved wound so you cannot roll FNP.

...and so there is an unsaved wound so ES is activated. I'd have thought you could put that together.

And after FNP there wasn't an unsaved wound so you're breaking a rule by applying ES. I'd have thought you could put that together.

It's like I'm treating the wound as though the wound had been saved - just like the rule says to do.

No, you're not. You're applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound to exist. In this case no unsaved wound exists. Therefore you are breaking a rule.

Does the rule say to teat anything else as though the wound had been saved? No. Read the rule again and note what it's telling you to treat instead of just how it is to be treated.

What you are attempting would go something like:

'treat everything as if it had been saved'
Of course that is not what you are told to do. You must -
'treat it as having been saved'
The 'it' can only refer to the wound in this context. Treating the wound as having been saved does not denote treating anything else differently.

I am treating just the wound as saved. Can you apply ES to a model that has saved the only wound allocated?

You keep coming back to this self ending time loop as if that is what FNP tells you to do. It is not. It works completely linearly where at a certain point you must treat a certain thing (an unsaved wound) as if it was something else (a saved wound) and that is all. It does not say to treat anything else differently and so the state of everything else remains the same.

RAW is confusing enough without your time walking theories LoL

Everything else cannot stay the same. If it did you would remove a single wound model even after passing FNP. If that's what you're advocating fine - you can win that argument.

rigeld2 wrote:

FNP was rolled because there was an unsaved wound. There is no longer an unsaved wound so you cannot roll FNP.

You already did roll FNP, why would you roll it again? 'Treat it as if it had been saved' does not mean go back in time. It means treat the wound now as if it had been saved previously. Set state of 'unsaved wound' to 'previously saved wound'. That does not set or reset the state of anything else nor is it going back in time.

rigeld2 wrote:

And after FNP there wasn't an unsaved wound so you're breaking a rule by applying ES. I'd have thought you could put that together.

You've already admitted there was an unsaved wound before there wasn't. You've already been told to apply ES because of that unsaved wound. At this point you need denial not to continue resolving it. ES does not care about any change in state of the wound.

rigeld2 wrote:

You're applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound to exist. In this case no unsaved wound exists. Therefore you are breaking a rule.

I'm applying it because there was an unsaved wound. You would be breaking a rule not to do so. After it is triggered ES does not require anything from a wound.

rigeld2 wrote:

Everything else cannot stay the same. If it did you would remove a single wound model even after passing FNP. If that's what you're advocating fine - you can win that argument.

Except that FNP explicitly tells you the model avoids being wounded if it passes the test and only takes it if it fails. IE, successful FNP roll, no wound is removed.

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

FNP was rolled because there was an unsaved wound. There is no longer an unsaved wound so you cannot roll FNP.

You already did roll FNP, why would you roll it again? 'Treat it as if it had been saved' does not mean go back in time. It means treat the wound now as if it had been saved previously. Set state of 'unsaved wound' to 'previously saved wound'. That does not set or reset the state of anything else nor is it going back in time.

So if you have a previously saved wound and no unsaved wound... Why are you applying ES?

rigeld2 wrote:

And after FNP there wasn't an unsaved wound so you're breaking a rule by applying ES. I'd have thought you could put that together.

You've already admitted there was an unsaved wound before there wasn't. You've already been told to apply ES because of that unsaved wound. At this point you need denial not to continue resolving it. ES does not care about any change in state of the wound.

So you are absolutely advocating applying ES to a model that never suffered an unsaved wound.

rigeld2 wrote:

You're applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound to exist. In this case no unsaved wound exists. Therefore you are breaking a rule.

I'm applying it because there was an unsaved wound. You would be breaking a rule not to do so. After it is triggered ES does not require anything from a wound.

No; there was no unsaved wound. There cannot have been or you'd remove a model.

rigeld2 wrote:

Everything else cannot stay the same. If it did you would remove a single wound model even after passing FNP. If that's what you're advocating fine - you can win that argument.

Except that FNP explicitly tells you the model avoids being wounded if it passes the test and only takes it if it fails. IE, successful FNP roll, no wound is removed.

That's not what FNP says. That's your incorrect interpretation, but that's not what the rule actually says.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The difference between Lemartes' Fury Unbound and Entropic Strike is that Fury Unbound can't activate until wound removal, by which point a passed Feel No Pain roll has already made it so that the wound counts as saved, therefore there wasn't an unsaved wound as far as Fury Unbound is concerned.

There is NO wording of wound removal ....

Fury Unbound: If Lemartes suffers an unsaved wound, but is not slain, his Strength and Attacks both immediately increase to 5.

That is the rule as written in the codex on pg. 43. It does not say that he must only have one wound remaining, only that he must not be slain, and that he suffer an unsaved wound.
As a BA player I would never say that it activates after failing a wound and passing FNP, just like I would not let him lose his armour after failing a wound and making his FNP, because you "TREAT THE WOUND AS SAVED" is how FNP is worded.

It is worded the same way as ES. If you are wanting one to go off then you MUST advocate for the other to go off.

Lemartes has taken a wound, when do you find out if he has not been slain by that wound?

rigeld2 wrote:

So if you have a previously saved wound and no unsaved wound... Why are you applying ES?

Before that state was set, the trigger conditions for ES were met and we are told what must happen after that.

rigeld2 wrote:

So you are absolutely advocating applying ES to a model that never suffered an unsaved wound.

By your own admission the model, at different times, has suffered the unsaved wound and has not. Which makes the above statement a misrepresentation as it is correct but incomplete even by your own expressed views.

rigeld2 wrote:

No; there was no unsaved wound. There cannot have been or you'd remove a model.

Again.

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Everything else cannot stay the same. If it did you would remove a single wound model even after passing FNP. If that's what you're advocating fine - you can win that argument.

Except that FNP explicitly tells you the model avoids being wounded if it passes the test and only takes it if it fails. IE, successful FNP roll, no wound is removed.

That's not what FNP says. That's your incorrect interpretation, but that's not what the rule actually says.

"it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded ... On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved."

So it's a roll to avoid being wounded. The wound is taken as normal if you fail and discount if you succeed...
I'm curious. Which part in your opinion is inaccurate?

If FNP is passed, there never was an unsaved wound - there cant have been, otherwise you would have removed a wound from a model.

You are absolutely breaking a rule by applying ES.

Stop bringing up FW. FW != ES, they are only even vaguely similar in they involve an unsavd wound. Given FW can deny FNP you had to have some way of knowing which comes first. Here, no matter what, FNP has to be rolled to let you know if you can apply ES or not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If FNP is passed, there never was an unsaved wound - there cant have been, otherwise you would have removed a wound from a model.

You are absolutely breaking a rule by applying ES.

There was an unsaved wound when ES activated, why do we need one past that point?

No reason we should have to remove the wound becuase it was unsaved. FNP tells you you don't have to remove the wound.

If I have the ability to reroll a Invun save; I roll, and then I reroll it... does

A-The first roll not exist.
B-The first roll exists, and is failed, so we have to take a wound even if the second roll is successful.
C-The first roll exists, and is failed. But we have permission to use result of the second roll.

The suggestion is the interpretation which treats as in the present means 'B' would happen, but a reroll actually works like 'C'.
In FNP, the unsaved wound happened, but we have persmission to not apply the -1 W.

Nem - actually the previous roll never existed. Like reroll to hit and gets hot!. A "1" followed by a "2" would, under your interpretation of a reroll, still cause a gets hot!

The reroll erases the first roll from ever having existed. It has to, in order to function.

Here no unsaved wound ever existed, because it tells you that the unsaved was actually saved - meaning there never was an unsaved. Yes, this means FNP erases its own trigger, but thats OK, because there is no ability to roll FNP on a sved wound anyway.

What isnt OK is insisting that, for the purpose of ES, an unsaved wound ever happened - it cannot have done, otherwise we would have killed that one wound model.

 Nem wrote:
No reason we should have to remove the wound becuase it was unsaved. FNP tells you you don't have to remove the wound.

According to some people here FNP isnt able to retroactively change past events. If that was true ES would work. But if that was true how could feel no pain retroactively prevent the wound? Its either way ... retroactively changing everything including ES or not changing anything retroactively. Since part of suffering an unsaved wound is reducing the models wound count by 1 feel no pain has to either be able to retroactively change events that already occured (and that wound include ES) or it doesnt work at all.

Nem - Feel No Pain is not a reroll, so I fail to see how your argument even approaches relevancy.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nem - actually the previous roll never existed. Like reroll to hit and gets hot!. A "1" followed by a "2" would, under your interpretation of a reroll, still cause a gets hot!

&

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:
No reason we should have to remove the wound becuase it was unsaved. FNP tells you you don't have to remove the wound.

According to some people here FNP isnt able to retroactively change past events. If that was true ES would work. But if that was true how could feel no pain retroactively prevent the wound? Its either way ... retroactively changing everything including ES or not changing anything retroactively. Since part of suffering an unsaved wound is reducing the models wound count by 1 feel no pain has to either be able to retroactively change events that already occured (and that wound include ES) or it doesnt work at all.

I think we have a fair difference in views there, I see having permission to use the result of '2' as 'ignoring' or using it as if it were the first result of '1' rather than removing it, this would include for the purposes of gets hot. Like - I'm not applying the results of the first roll becuase I have permission to roll again, and apply the results of the second roll (rather than the first). If the first roll didn't exist, then the second roll is not a re-roll, it is -the- roll.

I see this for all rule interactions and SR that also interact with each other, as examples;

- Skyfire doesn't stop 'hard to hit' from existing, just lets you ignore its existence (for the relevant rules purposes, the purposes are described in the SR)
- Relentless doesn't mean you didn't move, it just gives you permission to act like you didn't (for the relevant rules purposes, the purposes are described in the SR)
- Skilled rider doesn't mean the terrain doesn't exist, just they have permission not to test for it

At some point I'd get to the point 2 or 3 rules work in conjunction. Rule A imposes 1 and 2 restriction based on a event, while Rules B only gives permission to ignore part 1, but overrides restrictions 1 and 2 because the event which imposed the restrictions did not exist. What actually happens is we only override restriction 1, both rules still function without removing the event or restriction 2. One of these is Relentless and Jink. If to use relentless the movement must not have been, then any use of Jink prior is breaking the rules, becuase jink requires movement.
We can’t say for a rule, or SR to function the item or event it overrides never existed or is removed from existence. We can say we ignore it, or it didn’t exist within the boundaries of that rule only. But removing from the past or future outside what the rule allows is going to cause issues.

So how can FNP stop -1W if a unsaved wound was not removed? - The exact same way Skilled rider works without removing the terrain from the table, or the way Skyfire works without removing 'Hard to hit' from the model. They pretend the situation is different to what it is.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Nem - Feel No Pain is not a reroll, so I fail to see how your argument even approaches relevancy.

We seem to be stuck at a point where we are basically debating how all rules work, so I thought I'd broaden the scope. Admittedly I chose re rolls specifically as a trap, if the first roll didn’t exist then it is not in fact a re-roll, which starts messing with the re rolling re roll rules. I'm sure theres better examples out there, that was just the one I thought of.

@DeathReaper, if FNP would stop a model from suffering an unsaved wound then you would not be able to use FW before rolling for FNP. As FNP would stop the model from suffering an unsaved wound. If FNP stops all other abilities from functioning by changing the wound retroactively to saved then it would stop itself from happening as well as stopping Force Weapons from activating. As has been pointed out the wording of both Force and ES move themselves before you roll for FNP. You still have not shown any backing for a retroactive change of the statues of the wound. There is no rule that the status of a wound must be continuous either. Nem has already put fourth all the reasoning for it to be applied and the only backing anyone has put fourth against it is the belief that it should time travel.


Can you show that the change of status can stops things from activating in the past?
Can you show where FNP goes back in time instead of simply changing the status from that point forward?

I have yet to see proof that either is true.

Gravmyr - prior to the FAQ you could not activate Force before FNP. Even then it's a different situation as Force causes ID.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:
By your own admission the model, at different times, has suffered the unsaved wound and has not. Which makes the above statement a misrepresentation as it is correct but incomplete even by your own expressed views.

Post FNP the model has not suffered an unsaved wound. Therefore you're applying ES to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound. Completely correct statement.

Except that FNP explicitly tells you the model avoids being wounded if it passes the test and only takes it if it fails. IE, successful FNP roll, no wound is removed.

That's not what FNP says. That's your incorrect interpretation, but that's not what the rule actually says.

"it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded ... On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved."

So it's a roll to avoid being wounded. The wound is taken as normal if you fail and discount if you succeed...
I'm curious. Which part in your opinion is inaccurate?

You said that FNP explicitly says that. Your quote does not say that. That's your interpretation of what FNP says.
If you discount the unsaved wound (as you must - FNP explicitly tells you to) why are you applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound?
If the wound has been saved, why are you applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound?
As you said - it's a roll to avoid being wounded. Why are you processing an effect that requires an unsaved wound before you know if the wound is unsaved or not?

rigeld2 wrote:
As you said - it's a roll to avoid being wounded. Why are you processing an effect that requires an unsaved wound before you know if the wound is unsaved or not?

Because the trigger of FNP and ES is exactly the same. If you have permission to activate FNP then you also have permission to activate ES.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you discount the unsaved wound (as you must - FNP explicitly tells you to) why are you applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound?
If the wound has been saved, why are you applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound?

Because the effects of ES have already been applied. When FNP takes effect there is no more ES in activation to deny its trigger. You only have a model with no save that just passed FNP and it avoided being wounded.

Hit quote not edit.

Fixed it.

copper.talos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
As you said - it's a roll to avoid being wounded. Why are you processing an effect that requires an unsaved wound before you know if the wound is unsaved or not?

Because the trigger of FNP and ES is exactly the same. If you have permission to activate FNP the you also have permission to activate ES.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you discount the unsaved wound (as you must - FNP explicitly tells you to) why are you applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound?
If the wound has been saved, why are you applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound?

Because the effects of ES have already been applied. When FNP takes effect there is no more ES in activation to deny its trigger. You only have a model with no save that just passed FNP and it avoided being wounded.

People keep saying that FNP allows you to "avoid being wounded". That's not what the rule actually says.
After FNP has resolved, you don't have permission to activate FNP just like you don't for ES.

rigeld2 wrote:
People keep saying that FNP allows you to "avoid being wounded". That's not what the rule actually says.

"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded."

These are the actual first 3 lines of the FNP rule.

copper.talos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
People keep saying that FNP allows you to "avoid being wounded". That's not what the rule actually says.
After FNP has resolved, you don't have permission to activate FNP just like you don't for ES.

"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded."

These are the actual first 3 lines of the FNP rule.

Correct!
Now, what does the rest of the rule actually say? You know, the part you're ignoring?

I am not ignoring anything. Apparently you were until now...

copper.talos wrote:
I am not ignoring anything. Apparently you were until now...

you are ignoring the part that treats the wound as saved.

Can you activate ES on a saved wound?

It's been answered 1000 gazillion times. You treat the wound as saved when FNP resolves, not before FNP even activates.

copper.talos wrote:
It's been answered 1000 gazillion times. You treat the wound as saved when FNP resolves, not before FNP even activates.

You have to treat the wound as saved, which means there was no unsaved wound in the first place, which means you do not activate FNP, or Hexrifle, and you do not remove a wound from a model.

Plus you need to roll FNP first to see if you have actually saved the wound before you can apply any other effects, because we do not want to break any rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
I am not ignoring anything. Apparently you were until now...

you are ignoring the part that treats the wound as saved.

Can you activate ES on a saved wound?

No you can't, and I promise that I won't let anyone activate Entropic Strike after Feel No Pain treats the wound as saved.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
I am not ignoring anything. Apparently you were until now...

you are ignoring the part that treats the wound as saved.

Can you activate ES on a saved wound?

No you can't, and I promise that I won't let anyone activate Entropic Strike after Feel No Pain treats the wound as saved.

and remember that you have to roll for FNP first to see if the wound is saved or unsaved, then you can activate things that activate off of an unsaved wound.

This EXACT argument you used against force weapons and it got shot down by the faq. You don't have to roll FNP to know if you have an unsaved wound or not. Otherwise you would get priority over force weapons too.

FNP activates on an unsaved wound, so at that point in time it's 100% certain that you do have an unsaved wound. And since ES and FNP have exactly the same trigger, there is no doubt whatsoever that if one activates so must the other.

Only because there was an FaQ about Force Weapons that said otherwise. ES is not a Force Weapon, the effects are not similar, stop trying to compare the two.

Had there not been an FaQ then FNP would have gone first as we need to determine if there actually is an unsaved wound, because we do not want to apply effects, roll FNP and then be breaking rules with the applied effects.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Had there not been an FaQ then FNP would have gone first as we need to determine if there actually is an unsaved wound, because we do not want to apply effects, roll FNP and then be breaking rules with the applied effects.

Yes, but there is a faq so this line of thinking is wrong.

There does not need to be an FAQ.

If, at the end of the phase a model is on his own (Lets say Mephiston) and he has a source of FNP (A Priest within 6 inches of him granting Meph FNP) Say a single scarab base survives Meph's attacks and hit and wound and meph makes all but one save. He rolls FNP and makes it the wound is treated as saved. At the end of the phase, if the model does not have an armor save we have to ask why? If the answer is because ES activated, that is not correct as the model has not suffered an unsaved wound as all the wounds inflicted were either saved or treated as saved.

This way we do not break any rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
There does not need to be an FAQ.

If, at the end of the phase a model is on his own (Lets say Mephiston) and he has a source of FNP (A Priest within 6 inches of him granting Meph FNP) Say a single scarab base survives Meph's attacks and hit and wound and meph makes all but one save. He rolls FNP and makes it the wound is treated as saved. At the end of the phase, if the model does not have an armor save we have to ask why? If the answer is because ES activated, that is not correct as the model has not suffered an unsaved wound as all the wounds inflicted were either saved or treated as saved.

This way we do not break any rules.

What rule dictates that you check why Meph had lost its save at the end of the phase?!!!

I don't know if you play by making random checks of rules at random times. I am sticking to making checks that I have permission from the rules ie does the model suffer an unsaved wound? Yes -> apply ES. If there was such a check at the end of the phase I'd agree with you, but there isn't...

copper.talos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There does not need to be an FAQ.

If, at the end of the phase a model is on his own (Lets say Mephiston) and he has a source of FNP (A Priest within 6 inches of him granting Meph FNP) Say a single scarab base survives Meph's attacks and hit and wound and meph makes all but one save. He rolls FNP and makes it the wound is treated as saved. At the end of the phase, if the model does not have an armor save we have to ask why? If the answer is because ES activated, that is not correct as the model has not suffered an unsaved wound as all the wounds inflicted were either saved or treated as saved.

This way we do not break any rules.

What rule dictates that you check why Meph had lost its save at the end of the phase?!!!

I don't know if you play by making random checks of rules at random times. I am sticking to making checks that I have permission from the rules ie does the model suffer an unsaved wound? Yes -> apply ES. If there was such a check at the end of the phase I'd agree with you, but there isn't...

Im unsure which part of the rules lets you think that you resolve es before FNP. Could you please clarify that?

ES resolves "immediately" after an unsaved wound. FNP lacks the "immediately". So while ES and FNP get triggered by the same event, ES resolves first.

"Because", seems to be the only answer. It is just assumed you CAN do so.

Personally given you can resolve both ways round, and one breaks the FNP rule, go with the way that breaks NO rules...

delete

copper.talos wrote:
ES resolves "immediately" after an unsaved wound. FNP lacks the "immediately". So while ES and FNP get triggered by the same event, ES resolves first.

That assumes things have to resolve sequentially, chronologically, which isnt supported except when two players have to resolve actions at the same time.

Unfair to say the FAQ changed a rule when there were many people who thought it worked that way in the first place IMO.

Yes they can change rules, they can pick something up out of the blue and we can never see where the RAW might have come from, but in the case of FNP VS Force weapon, there was a rather long thread here on dakka before resolution (admittedly with about 4 different interpretations), if the rule is so clear cut there is generally not so much of a divide. If there has been a FAQ, what we can do is find out why we thought something worked one way, which has been FAQ'd another.

I've mostly left out the FAQ on force because I knew it wouldn't be taken seriously, not because I don't give merit to it.

copper.talos wrote:
ES resolves "immediately" after an unsaved wound. FNP lacks the "immediately". So while ES and FNP get triggered by the same event, ES resolves first.

So if ES resolves immediately after an unsaved wound is suffered would you agree that the whole process of suffering an unsaved wound has to be done already? I mean ... if its not fully resolved how could an event trigger that happens after it? At least if your post is what the rule actually says (i dont have the book here right now).

The feel no pain rule on the other hand speaks about "when a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound".

An argument could be made that feel no pain triggers before ES since ES triggers only after an unsaved wound. A moment where the process of suffering an unsaved wound is already completely resolved (which indisputably involves reducing the models remaining wounds by 1)

 Nem wrote:
Unfair to say the FAQ changed a rule when there were many people who thought it worked that way in the first place IMO.

It really did change the rule, as once FNP is successful you have to treat the wound as saved, which means nothing can be in effect that triggered off an unsaved wound since the wound was in fact saved.

I've mostly left out the FAQ on force because I know it wouldn't be taken seriously.

Well that is because it is not relevant at all since Force Weapons can Ignore FNP and ES can not ignore FNP.

@Mywik There is no argument to be made for FNP to trigger before ES. When a model suffers an unsaved wound, every rule that triggers on unsaved wounds MUST activate at this point. That is the only time you have permission to make the check for their activation. Not when convenient, and certainly not at the end of the phase as deathreaper suggests. So ES and FNP activate together.

What is in question is how these 2 rules interract after activation. Pro ES side says "immediately" makes ES resolve first. Pro FNP side says that FNP may resolve later but is applied before it is activated.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It really did change the rule

The first faq never changes a rule. It merely clarifies the rule. A later faq may change a previous faq. Only then you can say that they changed a ruling

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Unfair to say the FAQ changed a rule when there were many people who thought it worked that way in the first place IMO.

It really did change the rule, as once FNP is successful you have to treat the wound as saved, which means nothing can be in effect that triggered off an unsaved wound since the wound was in fact saved.

I've mostly left out the FAQ on force because I know it wouldn't be taken seriously.

Well that is because it is not relevant at all since Force Weapons can Ignore FNP and ES can not ignore FNP.

Well. At least one interpretation on FNP VS Force has very much relevance to this. The one I argued in fact.

I acknowledged and agreed that the Force Wound is not a wound that causes ID before the roll to activate is successful. So Force weapon rule before activation does not automatically stop FNP from being used (because the wound is not ID). I argued that 'Immediately' placed FW first, and that if successful FNP was now in the situation it could not be used because the wound is now ID.

Now with ES its much the same. Replace all FW with ES, and the last part to: can not stop ES from taking effect. That's basically where we (other pro ES) are.

copper.talos wrote:
I am not ignoring anything. Apparently you were until now...

Does FNP allow you to avoid the wound or does it cause the wound to be saved?

copper.talos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It really did change the rule

The first faq never changes a rule. It merely clarifies the rule. A later faq may change a previous faq. Only then you can say that they changed a ruling

Complete rubbish. Out of Range. Your position is debunked.

rigeld2 wrote:
Does FNP allow you to avoid the wound or does it cause the wound to be saved?

It causes the wound to be saved after FNP is resolved.

People are acting like it black and white, it obviously is not based on this thread, and the fact that DR argues his way was right before it was FAQ'd to be wrong about FW and FNP shows that we never know how GW will rule.

From a RAW, I think in this case treating the wound as being saved makes the effect not happen. However I can 100% see GW and many TO's saying otherwise, and if you look at it from a nice fluffy stand point it makes sense.

copper.talos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Does FNP allow you to avoid the wound or does it cause the wound to be saved?

It causes the wound to be saved after FNP is resolved.

Then stop saying FNP merely allows you to avoid the wound. That's misrepresenting the facts.
Now - explain why you're applying ES to a saved wound.

Stormbreed wrote:
People are acting like it black and white, it obviously is not based on this thread, and the fact that DR argues his way was right before it was FAQ'd to be wrong about FW and FNP shows that we never know how GW will rule.

From a RAW, I think in this case treating the wound as being saved makes the effect not happen. However I can 100% see GW and many TO's saying otherwise, and if you look at it from a nice fluffy stand point it makes sense.

Hey - stop being so reasonable and polite! ;-)

I have to say I was very much convinced that it was one way - but after reading most all of the arguments here, I am not certain I am correct anymore. But the polite well laid-out arguments did more to convince me than all of the "cite x or concede..." nonsense that these threads turn into.

After reading both this and the "Can you DS On top of models" thread - I do find it funny that *some* of the same people point to the Mawlock FAQ answer and say it applies to all Deep Striking - but then point to the Force weapon FAQ and say, NO that only applies to Force Weapons... even though ES and FW share the same wording about timing.

It's almost like different words mean different things or something.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's almost like different words mean different things or something.

Interesting. So what does the immediately part of a SR mean when in comparison to any SR that does not have it?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Here no unsaved wound ever existed, because it tells you that the unsaved was actually saved - meaning there never was an unsaved. Yes, this means FNP erases its own trigger, but thats OK, because there is no ability to roll FNP on a sved wound anyway.

What isnt OK is insisting that, for the purpose of ES, an unsaved wound ever happened - it cannot have done, otherwise we would have killed that one wound model.

It existed. If later you pretend the wound did not exist that does not matter to ES.

Also FNP discounts the wound in addition to pretending it was saved

DeathReaper wrote:
Plus you need to roll FNP first to see if you have actually saved the wound before you can apply any other effects, because we do not want to break any rules.

Incorrect, the wound is actually unsaved pre-FNP. That is the only reason why FNP is activated at all. If successful, you at that point treat it as if it was saved but not before then.

The wound in not in an unknown state at any time.

rigeld2 wrote:
Does FNP allow you to avoid the wound or does it cause the wound to be saved?

Both.

rigeld2 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:
By your own admission the model, at different times, has suffered the unsaved wound and has not. Which makes the above statement a misrepresentation as it is correct but incomplete even by your own expressed views.

Post FNP the model has not suffered an unsaved wound. Therefore you're applying ES to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound. Completely correct statement.

That's a little better, TY. Your still not accounting for the per-FNP unsaved wound though that triggered ES at the same time as FNP.

rigeld2 wrote:

Except that FNP explicitly tells you the model avoids being wounded if it passes the test and only takes it if it fails. IE, successful FNP roll, no wound is removed.

That's not what FNP says. That's your incorrect interpretation, but that's not what the rule actually says.

"it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded ... On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved."

So it's a roll to avoid being wounded. The wound is taken as normal if you fail and discount if you succeed...
I'm curious. Which part in your opinion is inaccurate?

You said that FNP explicitly says that. Your quote does not say that. That's your interpretation of what FNP says.
If you discount the unsaved wound (as you must - FNP explicitly tells you to) why are you applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound?
If the wound has been saved, why are you applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound?
As you said - it's a roll to avoid being wounded. Why are you processing an effect that requires an unsaved wound before you know if the wound is unsaved or not?

There is never a time at which you do not know the state of the wound. You may not know what it's going to be or what it will have been but at any point in the present, it is clearly known.

Gravmyr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's almost like different words mean different things or something.

Interesting. So what does the immediately part of a SR mean when in comparison to any SR that does not have it?

Context is important.
If I tell you to jump when I say 3 and I get to 7 before you jump, did you follow my instructions?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:
By your own admission the model, at different times, has suffered the unsaved wound and has not. Which makes the above statement a misrepresentation as it is correct but incomplete even by your own expressed views.

Post FNP the model has not suffered an unsaved wound. Therefore you're applying ES to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound. Completely correct statement.

That's a little better, TY. Your still not accounting for the per-FNP unsaved wound though that triggered ES at the same time as FNP.

I addressed it with the relevancy it deserves. You're breaking a rule by applying ES to a saved wound. Please cite some actual support for doing so.

If you didn't include immediately, yes. If you did then no. There are a number of other things to ask about in that case.

rigeld2 wrote:

I addressed it with the relevancy it deserves. You're breaking a rule by applying ES to a saved wound. Please cite some actual support for doing so.

An unsaved wound triggers both FNP and ES and RAW permits both to resolve. The relevant rules have been quoted many times and you've yet to cite any denial but hey, lets do the time warp again where you ignore logical conclusions of the actual rules and fabricate time travel theory while belittling the intellect of everyone who disagrees with you and disregard all sound reasoning that doesn't support your argument.

I see again you've not addressed the issue I brought forth... again... but hey, if you can't answer it, just ignore it right?

ES is never applied to a wound it is applied to a model. It is triggered by an unsaved wound.

Gravmyr wrote:If you didn't include immediately, yes. If you did then no. There are a number of other things to ask about in that case.

Absolutely false. You did not jump when I said 3, you jumped after I said 3. Therefore you did not follow instructions.

Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I addressed it with the relevancy it deserves. You're breaking a rule by applying ES to a saved wound. Please cite some actual support for doing so.

An unsaved wound triggers both FNP and ES and RAW permits both to resolve. The relevant rules have been quoted many times and you've yet to cite any denial but hey, lets do the time warp again where you ignore logical conclusions of the actual rules and fabricate time travel theory while belittling the intellect of everyone who disagrees with you and disregard all sound reasoning that doesn't support your argument.

I see again you've not addressed the issue I brought forth... again... but hey, if you can't answer it, just ignore it right?

Which irrelevant issue are you talking about?
And where have I belittled anyone? ES has permission to initially resolve, but loses that permission when the wounds becomes saved.
You've agreed you're applying ES to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound. You've failed to cite permission.

Gravmyr wrote:
ES is never applied to a wound it is applied to a model. It is triggered by an unsaved wound.

It's an undeniable fact. Of course you know they'll say something to the effect of 'what unsaved wound?' To which, as we all know, the answer is of course the same unsaved wound that you rolled FNP for...

Unless you include a time I most certainly did. You said 3 and I jumped. There was no specifics given as to when afterwards just that it happen afterwards. You still haven't covered as to why they included immediately with one but not the other and wording means something in some rules when they support you but not in others when it doesn't.

Abandon wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
ES is never applied to a wound it is applied to a model. It is triggered by an unsaved wound.

It's an undeniable fact. Of course you know they'll say something to the effect of 'what unsaved wound?' To which, as we all know, the answer is of course the same unsaved wound that you rolled FNP for...

They who? I most certainly have never said (without being corrected) that ES applies to a wound. I've phrased everything (or have tried) to make it clear it applies to a model but is triggered by an unsaved wound.

Gravmyr wrote:Unless you include a time I most certainly did. You said 3 and I jumped. There was no specifics given as to when afterwards just that it happen afterwards. You still haven't covered as to why they included immediately with one but not the other and wording means something in some rules when they support you but not in others when it doesn't.

No. When X happens do Y does not mean "at some point in the future when you feel like it or after you have a banana." It means when.
They included immediately because some editor saw fit to include it. It means the same thing as "when" in this context - it's a superfluous word at best.

If I tell you when I count to 3 immediately raise your hand and someone else tells you to jump when I say three, and you jump then raise your hand after you land did you follow instructions?

No, they're essentially simultaneous. That's fine.

It doesn't change the fact that you're applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound when there is no unsaved wound on the model.

You may want to reread that, you completed one then performed the other which is not essentially simultaneous. It's linear. Your instructions for ES are the same, there is a trigger and an action there is not a check for status nor a continuing effect. The model suffered an unsaved wound and lost it's armor save. ES does not say as long as a model has suffered a wound it looses it's armor save, which is what you are saying if you look past an unsaved wound having been on the model.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, they're essentially simultaneous. That's fine.

It doesn't change the fact that you're applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound when there is no unsaved wound on the model.

There was an unsaved wound.

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, they're essentially simultaneous. That's fine.

It doesn't change the fact that you're applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound when there is no unsaved wound on the model.

There was an unsaved wound.

That you discount- treat it as having been saved

 OIIIIIIO wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, they're essentially simultaneous. That's fine.

It doesn't change the fact that you're applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound when there is no unsaved wound on the model.

There was an unsaved wound.

That you discount- treat it as having been saved

Not until after ES has been triggered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

...ES has permission to initially resolve, but loses that permission when the wounds becomes saved...

This is a primary part of your argument for which there is no supporting text. Nothing in the BRB causes it to 'lose permission' once it is granted.

Then you are not treating the wound as saved now are you. ES requires an unsaved wound to remove the armour. If you trigger that then FNP and are requiring that said armour is still removed, then you are not discounting it and treating it as having been saved. This is what we are trying to get across to you. If you do it your way the game mechanics really break down with so many other special rules.

I really could not care how you play it where you are but the group I play with have all agreed that removing the armour is not the proper interpretation, and unless it is FAQ'd otherwise, we will play it that you keep your armour.

It comes down to you need to show somewhere, any where, that you loose permission once it is granted. The backers of applying ES only have to show they have permission to apply it. Does it state anywhere in the rules that all affects of the wound are removed? Does it say to treat the wound as it never happened? It says to treat it as saved without a time frame so it has to apply from that moment forward, which does not take away permission for things that have already triggered. It's not treated as saved until after FNP is resolved which means after ES has reasolved as there has been no evidence provided that you go back in time and change the wound nor that FNP is carried out prior to other SR's. The only evidence for one SR to be applied before another, is that a SR that has immediately in it's wording is carried out before FNP. At best that would mean that FNP and ES happen simultaneously which would mean that by the time FNP resolves so has ES and it doesn't matter at that point.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
Then you are not treating the wound as saved now are you. ES requires an unsaved wound to remove the armour. If you trigger that then FNP and are requiring that said armour is still removed, then you are not discounting it and treating it as having been saved. This is what we are trying to get across to you. If you do it your way the game mechanics really break down with so many other special rules.

I really could not care how you play it where you are but the group I play with have all agreed that removing the armour is not the proper interpretation, and unless it is FAQ'd otherwise, we will play it that you keep your armour.

I am treating it as saved and unsaved at different times. It is unsaved and then you treat is as having been saved. ES does not care about the latter, only the former. Retrospectively changing the wounds status to 'was saved' does not change the fact that ES was triggered and is permitted to resolve just as FNP was.

Local group rules are respected of course and i'd be happy to play by them if I were to visit. RAW is nearly impossible to play by anyway so pretty much everyone IMO plays their own version of RAI/HYWPI. I certainly don't want to play RAW

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

...ES has permission to initially resolve, but loses that permission when the wounds becomes saved...

This is a primary part of your argument for which there is no supporting text. Nothing in the BRB causes it to 'lose permission' once it is granted.

Is there an unsaved wound after FNP has resolved?
Does ES require an unsaved wound for it to be applied to a model?

It's been proven. You continue to ignore it, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

...ES has permission to initially resolve, but loses that permission when the wounds becomes saved...

This is a primary part of your argument for which there is no supporting text. Nothing in the BRB causes it to 'lose permission' once it is granted.

Is there an unsaved wound after FNP has resolved?
Does ES require an unsaved wound for it to be applied to a model?

It's been proven. You continue to ignore it, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.

"Is there an unsaved wound after FNP has resolved?"
No. However the unsaved wound did exist prior to FNP.

"Does ES require an unsaved wound for it to be applied to a model?"
Yes. Permission was granted to apply the effects of ES at the time the wound was unsaved and that permission is not contingent on the continued existence of the unsaved wound nor upon the ability to find proof that such a wound existed at one time.

Was the unsaved wound suffered by the model at any time?
Are you required to resolve ES if the model suffers the unsaved wound?

If at any time the model suffers the unsaved wound and you do not resolve ES, you have broken a rule.

 Abandon wrote:
If at any time the model suffers the unsaved wound and you do not resolve ES, you have broken a rule.

This is 100% false.

The wording on FNP tells you to treat the wound as saved.

Something you are not doing if the model no longer has an armor save because of ES...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
If at any time the model suffers the unsaved wound and you do not resolve ES, you have broken a rule.

This is 100% false.

The wording on FNP tells you to treat the wound as saved.

Something you are not doing if the model no longer has an armor save because of ES...

ES does not care if the wound was saved. It only cares if it is unsaved and before you roll FNP, it is indeed unsaved.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
If at any time the model suffers the unsaved wound and you do not resolve ES, you have broken a rule.

This is 100% false.

The wording on FNP tells you to treat the wound as saved.

Something you are not doing if the model no longer has an armor save because of ES...

ES does not care if the wound was saved. It only cares if it is unsaved and before you roll FNP, it is indeed unsaved.

ES can only be in effect off of an unsaved wound. we must roll FNP first to determine this because we should strive to break no rule and having a model that lost an armor save off of a wound we are treating as saved is breaking the rules.

Plain and simple.

Please answer this one question:

How are you treating the wound as saved if the model has no armor save because of ES?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
If at any time the model suffers the unsaved wound and you do not resolve ES, you have broken a rule.

This is 100% false.

The wording on FNP tells you to treat the wound as saved.

Something you are not doing if the model no longer has an armor save because of ES...

ES does not care if the wound was saved. It only cares if it is unsaved and before you roll FNP, it is indeed unsaved.

ES can only be in effect off of an unsaved wound. we must roll FNP first to determine this because we should strive to break no rule and having a model that lost an armor save off of a wound we are treating as saved is breaking the rules.

Plain and simple.

Please answer this one question:

How are you treating the wound as saved if the model has no armor save because of ES?

Theres plently of posts on this thread already about how the unsaved wound exists, and is always there.

Even if I believed FNP creates a paradox then..

How are you rolling FNP if you’re treating the wound as saved? Why is it OK for one rule to be able to do this, but not the other? FNP creates a paradox. OK. ES exists within a paradox. Why is that NOT ok? I can't show you a rule where Paradox is disallowed. Can you show me a rule where existing in a paradox is not allowed?

Even holding this interpretation your allowing paradox's, which means you must also allow the paradox that a a model has no armor save even if the wound is saved.

It’s a complete double standard.

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
If at any time the model suffers the unsaved wound and you do not resolve ES, you have broken a rule.

This is 100% false.

The wording on FNP tells you to treat the wound as saved.

Something you are not doing if the model no longer has an armor save because of ES...

ES does not care if the wound was saved. It only cares if it is unsaved and before you roll FNP, it is indeed unsaved.

ES can only be in effect off of an unsaved wound. we must roll FNP first to determine this because we should strive to break no rule and having a model that lost an armor save off of a wound we are treating as saved is breaking the rules.

Plain and simple.

Please answer this one question:

How are you treating the wound as saved if the model has no armor save because of ES?

Theres plently of posts on this thread already about how the unsaved wound exists, and is always there.

Even if I believed FNP creates a paradox then..

How are you rolling FNP if you’re treating the wound as saved? Why is it OK for one rule to be able to do this, but not the other? FNP creates a paradox. OK. ES exists within a paradox. Why is that NOT ok? I can't show you a rule where Paradox is disallowed. Can you show me a rule where existing in a paradox is not allowed?

Even holding this interpretation your allowing paradox's, which means you must also allow the paradox that a a model has no armor save even if the wound is saved.

It’s a complete double standard.

You are simply always handwaving away that suffering an unsaved wound inevitably and indebatable involves reducing the models wound count by 1. Please show how a wound can be suffered if the model still has all wounds that it had prior to the shooting attack or which rule lets you ignore the fact that suffering a wound would involve that. Otherwise your argument about "there always being an unsaved wound" is null and void if it wasnt even for the fact that the FNP explicitly tells you to discount said wound.


Okay this argument is circular for a while now. So im out here from now . Have fun for those that stay at the front

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
If at any time the model suffers the unsaved wound and you do not resolve ES, you have broken a rule.

This is 100% false.

The wording on FNP tells you to treat the wound as saved.

Something you are not doing if the model no longer has an armor save because of ES...

ES does not care if the wound was saved. It only cares if it is unsaved and before you roll FNP, it is indeed unsaved.

ES can only be in effect off of an unsaved wound. we must roll FNP first to determine this because we should strive to break no rule and having a model that lost an armor save off of a wound we are treating as saved is breaking the rules.

Plain and simple.

Please answer this one question:

How are you treating the wound as saved if the model has no armor save because of ES?

Theres plently of posts on this thread already about how the unsaved wound exists, and is always there.

Even if I believed FNP creates a paradox then..

How are you rolling FNP if you’re treating the wound as saved? Why is it OK for one rule to be able to do this, but not the other? FNP creates a paradox. OK. ES exists within a paradox. Why is that NOT ok? I can't show you a rule where Paradox is disallowed. Can you show me a rule where existing in a paradox is not allowed?

Even holding this interpretation your allowing paradox's, which means you must also allow the paradox that a a model has no armor save even if the wound is saved.

It’s a complete double standard.

You are simply always handwaving away that suffering an unsaved wound inevitably and indebatable involves reducing the models wound count by 1. Please show how a wound can be suffered if the model still has all wounds that it had prior to the shooting attack or which rule lets you ignore the fact that suffering a wound would involve that. Otherwise your argument about "there always being an unsaved wound" is null and void if it wasnt even for the fact that the FNP explicitly tells you to discount said wound.


Okay this argument is circular for a while now. So im out here from now . Have fun for those that stay at the front

Becuase FNP tells you you can avoid reducing the models wound count by 1. I've shown how we don't need to remove the unsaved wound for this to happen, by using other rules as examples. - All rules change something. We don't remove the items or rules which our change contradicts in any situation. Sorry if it seems like hand waving but this is very very basic rules talk, and to me it seems very weak to claim a special rule can't change something in a basic rule.

To reiterate the point of the post I've quoted with the logic;
So how can FNP stop -1W if a unsaved wound was not removed? - The exact same way Skilled rider works without removing the terrain from the table, or the way Skyfire works without removing 'Hard to hit' from the model. They pretend the situation is different to what it is.

The rule tell you you can do something, even though you normally couldn't. Its the whole point of special rules. Yes the basic rules say you must remove a wound from the model, then FNP special rule tells you you don't have to. If people are insisting you must remove the wound then, that logic applied to all rules and special rules breaks the game down to the point none of them actually do anything. I don't think this can really be made clearer.

Best example below is Relentless with Jink. If you claim using ES breaks the rules of FNP, then you can also say moving to use Jink also breaks the rules of Relentless -Becuase the movement must have not existed for relentless to do anything.

Of course I've chosen a few rules as examples, I could go through every single one and say the same.

 Nem wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nem - actually the previous roll never existed. Like reroll to hit and gets hot!. A "1" followed by a "2" would, under your interpretation of a reroll, still cause a gets hot!

&

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:
No reason we should have to remove the wound becuase it was unsaved. FNP tells you you don't have to remove the wound.

According to some people here FNP isnt able to retroactively change past events. If that was true ES would work. But if that was true how could feel no pain retroactively prevent the wound? Its either way ... retroactively changing everything including ES or not changing anything retroactively. Since part of suffering an unsaved wound is reducing the models wound count by 1 feel no pain has to either be able to retroactively change events that already occured (and that wound include ES) or it doesnt work at all.

I think we have a fair difference in views there, I see having permission to use the result of '2' as 'ignoring' or using it as if it were the first result of '1' rather than removing it, this would include for the purposes of gets hot. Like - I'm not applying the results of the first roll becuase I have permission to roll again, and apply the results of the second roll (rather than the first). If the first roll didn't exist, then the second roll is not a re-roll, it is -the- roll.

I see this for all rule interactions and SR that also interact with each other, as examples;

- Skyfire doesn't stop 'hard to hit' from existing, just lets you ignore its existence (for the relevant rules purposes, the purposes are described in the SR)
- Relentless doesn't mean you didn't move, it just gives you permission to act like you didn't (for the relevant rules purposes, the purposes are described in the SR)
- Skilled rider doesn't mean the terrain doesn't exist, just they have permission not to test for it

At some point I'd get to the point 2 or 3 rules work in conjunction. Rule A imposes 1 and 2 restriction based on a event, while Rules B only gives permission to ignore part 1, but overrides restrictions 1 and 2 because the event which imposed the restrictions did not exist. What actually happens is we only override restriction 1, both rules still function without removing the event or restriction 2. One of these is Relentless and Jink. If to use relentless the movement must not have been, then any use of Jink prior is breaking the rules, becuase jink requires movement.
We can’t say for a rule, or SR to function the item or event it overrides never existed or is removed from existence. We can say we ignore it, or it didn’t exist within the boundaries of that rule only. But removing from the past or future outside what the rule allows is going to cause issues.

So how can FNP stop -1W if a unsaved wound was not removed? - The exact same way Skilled rider works without removing the terrain from the table, or the way Skyfire works without removing 'Hard to hit' from the model. They pretend the situation is different to what it is.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Nem - Feel No Pain is not a reroll, so I fail to see how your argument even approaches relevancy.

We seem to be stuck at a point where we are basically debating how all rules work, so I thought I'd broaden the scope. Admittedly I chose re rolls specifically as a trap, if the first roll didn’t exist then it is not in fact a re-roll, which starts messing with the re rolling re roll rules. I'm sure theres better examples out there, that was just the one I thought of.

 Nem wrote:

To reiterate the point of the post I've quoted with the logic;
So how can FNP stop -1W if a unsaved wound was not removed? - The exact same way Skilled rider works without removing the terrain from the table, or the way Skyfire works without removing 'Hard to hit' from the model. They pretend the situation is different to what it is.

Right and since the model did not suffer an unsaved wound, because "They pretend the situation is different to what it is" there can be no armor removal.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

To reiterate the point of the post I've quoted with the logic;
So how can FNP stop -1W if a unsaved wound was not removed? - The exact same way Skilled rider works without removing the terrain from the table, or the way Skyfire works without removing 'Hard to hit' from the model. They pretend the situation is different to what it is.

Right and since the model did not suffer an unsaved wound, because "They pretend the situation is different to what it is" there can be no armor removal.

It did suffer a unsaved wound, the same way that terrain is still on the table and the model does still have hard to hit, it still exists but for the purpose of applying the special rule the special rule pretends it doesnt. Like -

FNP pretends the wound is saved to apply the rule - but the unsaved wound still happened. ES doesn't care about what FNP might be pretending to apply its rules.
Relentless pretends you didn't move to apply the rule - but the move still happened. For all other rule purposes outside relentless rule the move still happened. Jink doesn't care if relentless is pretending you didn't move.

They pretend something did or did not happen, or something is or is not happening, but within the remit of its own rules. We can't apply what relentless is pretending to any other rules (jink) or yes, everything breaks. Do you consider Jink to be breaking the rules if you also have and might utilise Relentless?

Except the unsaved wound cannot happen, as the wound was saved. Yes, this means FNP cant trigger, but given that is literally part of its own rules...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except the unsaved wound cannot happen, as the wound was saved. Yes, this means FNP cant trigger, but given that is literally part of its own rules...

Not to sound rude but that part is purly based on opinion of how your reading the rule. Entered earlier my reading with all signs pointing towards you treat the wound as having been saved from the point of passing FNP, rather than treating the wound as having been saved from the point you were allocated the wound before you took the save or at the time you took the save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The post was very long and wall of text like, but the difference I see can be summerised by the differences of these 2 sentances;

Treat it as having been saved
It is treated as having been saved.

Except I read it as the wound having never been unsaved - otherwise you are not correctly treating it as having been saved.

The alternate time line Grandfather paradox that fnp creates works within the rules. As numerous effects that require an unsaved wound to work cannot be left to work without an unsaved wound, while fnp 'killing its Grandfather' the unsaved wound allows the alternate timeline to playout as if fnp and any other effects never existed.

Alternatively we can play as only the wound is discounted with a plethora of effects operating without a trigger and Lemates rocking Fury Unbound with full wounds.

So either we've all been playing fnp wrong for the last few editions or the sudden interest in breaking fnp is just so ES can make it easier to kill something with fnp.

 Bausk wrote:
The alternate time line Grandfather paradox that fnp creates works within the rules. As numerous effects that require an unsaved wound to work cannot be left to work without an unsaved wound, while fnp 'killing its Grandfather' the unsaved wound allows the alternate timeline to playout as if fnp and any other effects never existed.

Alternatively we can play as only the wound is discounted with a plethora of effects operating without a trigger and Lemates rocking Fury Unbound with full wounds.

So either we've all been playing fnp wrong for the last few editions or the sudden interest in breaking fnp is just so ES can make it easier to kill something with fnp.

'All' is unfair, poll shows a considerable amount of people do not play it the same way as yourself.

The poll is subjective. Specifically to this Edition and its unknown how many of the voters (either side) have played anything but 6th or 5th.

Honestly, did you ever play Lemates as gaining fury unbound even if he made his fnp in 5th?

 Nem wrote:
Becuase FNP tells you you can avoid reducing the models wound count by 1.

Really? Those words seem to be missing from my BRB.

To reiterate the point of the post I've quoted with the logic;
So how can FNP stop -1W if a unsaved wound was not removed? - The exact same way Skilled rider works without removing the terrain from the table, or the way Skyfire works without removing 'Hard to hit' from the model. They pretend the situation is different to what it is.

They aren't the same situation at all. That's not "logic" that's hand waving. There's no pretending - the wound has been saved. Period. You're pretending it hasn't.

The rule tell you you can do something, even though you normally couldn't. Its the whole point of special rules. Yes the basic rules say you must remove a wound from the model, then FNP special rule tells you you don't have to. If people are insisting you must remove the wound then, that logic applied to all rules and special rules breaks the game down to the point none of them actually do anything. I don't think this can really be made clearer.

You're the one insisting that an effect that requires an unsaved wound to trigger can trigger on a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound. No, it doesn't break anything.

Best example below is Relentless with Jink. If you claim using ES breaks the rules of FNP, then you can also say moving to use Jink also breaks the rules of Relentless -Becuase the movement must have not existed for relentless to do anything.

Did you just hope no one would read the rules involved? Since it's so off topic I'm going to just point out that Relentless only applies when shooting. Since you don't make cover saves while shooting... Your example has no merit or basis in actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Because FNP tells you you can avoid reducing the models wound count by 1.

Really? Those words seem to be missing from my BRB.

FNP-...avoid being wounded.....The wound is discounted; Treat it as having been saved

...Can avoid being wounded... Present action // Past action ...Could avoid being wounded...
...The wound is discounted... Present action // Past action ... The wound was discounted
Treat it as having been saved .... Present action // Past action ... It is treated as having been saved

How can I take action now to avoid being wounded, discount and treat the wound as having been saved? By not applying -1W, since that could not have happened yet. (Or a model which only has 1 wound would have been removed as a casualty already) The unsaved wound doesn't have to be removed for FNP function.... the next sections address this.

The rule tell you you can do something, even though you normally couldn't. Its the whole point of special rules. Yes the basic rules say you must remove a wound from the model, then FNP special rule tells you you don't have to. If people are insisting you must remove the wound then, that logic applied to all rules and special rules breaks the game down to the point none of them actually do anything. I don't think this can really be made clearer.

You're the one insisting that an effect that requires an unsaved wound to trigger can trigger on a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound. No, it doesn't break anything.

Not fair, misquoting; I'm insisting the effect that requires a unsaved wound to trigger can trigger on a model that has suffered a unsaved wound, just FNP doesn't change the fact the unsaved wound existed.

Which is the point of these examples; I’m being told the unsaved wound MUST be removed for FNP to do anything, and that all rules work like that. I was showing how rules don't remove the item or rule which imposes the restriction they are overcoming.

Best example below is Relentless with Jink. If you claim using ES breaks the rules of FNP, then you can also say moving to use Jink also breaks the rules of Relentless -Because the movement must have not existed for relentless to do anything.

Did you just hope no one would read the rules involved? Since it's so off topic I'm going to just point out that Relentless only applies when shooting. Since you don't make cover saves while shooting... Your example has no merit or basis in actual rules.

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Because FNP tells you you can avoid reducing the models wound count by 1.

Really? Those words seem to be missing from my BRB.

FNP-...avoid being wounded.....The wound is discounted; Treat it as having been saved

...Can avoid being wounded... Present action // Past action ...Could avoid being wounded...
...The wound is discounted... Present action // Past action ... The wound was discounted
Treat it as having been saved .... Present action // Past action ... It is treated as having been saved

How can I take action now to avoid being wounded, discount and treat the wound as having been saved? By not applying -1W, since that could not have happened yet. (Or a model which only has 1 wound would have been removed as a casualty already) The unsaved wound doesn't have to be removed for FNP function.... the next sections address this.

I bolded the part you continuously ignore. The wound has been saved. Therefore the unsaved wound ceases to exist - it never did, according to FNP.

The rule tell you you can do something, even though you normally couldn't. Its the whole point of special rules. Yes the basic rules say you must remove a wound from the model, then FNP special rule tells you you don't have to. If people are insisting you must remove the wound then, that logic applied to all rules and special rules breaks the game down to the point none of them actually do anything. I don't think this can really be made clearer.

You're the one insisting that an effect that requires an unsaved wound to trigger can trigger on a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound. No, it doesn't break anything.

Not fair, misquoting; I'm insisting the effect that requires a unsaved wound to trigger can trigger on a model that has suffered a unsaved wound, just FNP doesn't change the fact the unsaved wound existed.

But it does - absolutely.

Best example below is Relentless with Jink. If you claim using ES breaks the rules of FNP, then you can also say moving to use Jink also breaks the rules of Relentless -Because the movement must have not existed for relentless to do anything.

Did you just hope no one would read the rules involved? Since it's so off topic I'm going to just point out that Relentless only applies when shooting. Since you don't make cover saves while shooting... Your example has no merit or basis in actual rules.

This was a extension of the last point that rules can function without removing the restriction from existence, as in, FNP can function in the present without removing the fact there was a unsaved wound, same way other rules can function without removing something.

You said that was your best example. It's not a valid example at all because they're scoped differently. If that's your best example you've failed to show your point.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Because FNP tells you you can avoid reducing the models wound count by 1.

Really? Those words seem to be missing from my BRB.

FNP-...avoid being wounded.....The wound is discounted; Treat it as having been saved

...Can avoid being wounded... Present action // Past action ...Could avoid being wounded...
...The wound is discounted... Present action // Past action ... The wound was discounted
Treat it as having been saved .... Present action // Past action ... It is treated as having been saved

How can I take action now to avoid being wounded, discount and treat the wound as having been saved? By not applying -1W, since that could not have happened yet. (Or a model which only has 1 wound would have been removed as a casualty already) The unsaved wound doesn't have to be removed for FNP function.... the next sections address this.

I bolded the part you continuously ignore. The wound has been saved. Therefore the unsaved wound ceases to exist - it never did, according to FNP.

I don't know if you meant to do that, but you bolded the part which is not RAW

No, I meant to bold the first third of that line. Sorry.
Doesn't change my point though.

Bausk - Can not say until I have the relevant material here.

What I can say is a quick google search on 5ed FNP, theres articles where people didn't think FNP could stop other abilities that triggered off a unsaved wound then either. Would have to go looking for any repository which has the 5th ed FAQ's in to have the full picture tho (If anyone knows of a site which makes those avaliable).

Also is and was debated from the beginning of 6th, so still, its fair to say its never always been played one way.

[edit]
If a FAQ came out tomorrow addressing FNP vs Ability also triggered on a unsaved wound (ignoring the Force one), we could then take that as a definitive indication of intent of the FNP rule reading. As we know some people think it means one thing, and some people think it means another, only one of those can be what GW designers think,(Maybe, It is possible even different designers think differently, looking at some codex’s against the rule book sometimes I think they don’t understand their own rules either) inevitably this means some people will have been playing FNP incorrectly for a long time. Mainly becuase GW doesn't do a good job of writing rules. I hear a lot about how its no MTG for sure (I don't play MTG but guess they don't get issues like this). 40k rules leave too much room for interpretation.


If it were to be in favour if FNP, I’d be bummed to read so, but would suck it up and apply it to the rules, all of them.
If it were to be in favour of the ability, then I would hope we don’t have to go through one of these threads for all the abilities trigged on an unsaved wound, because GW isn’t going to FAQ all of them.


I understand about the majority has to apply its own weight. I don't usually like going against the majority. But on this im 100% sure of how I read it and what that means for the rules. I do understand where the oposing side is coming from, I just disagree with the interpretation.

FYI there were no 5th edition FAQs involving FNP.

rigeld2 wrote:
FYI there were no 5th edition FAQs involving FNP.

Ok thanks, thought I must have missed something

If they faq'd ES or a similar ability they tend to elaborate and say that it applied to all similar or similar worded (immediately) abilities. They tend to say when something is applicable for all when it is.

 Bausk wrote:
If they faq'd ES or a similar ability they tend to elaborate and say that it applied to all similar or similar worded (immediately) abilities. They tend to say when something is applicable for all when it is.

Mmm in some cases certainly, I had a long standing argument with my friends a while back about infiltrators being able to charge if you go second. I pointed them to the correct pages on the rules, and the faq. They blanket refused to use the faq because 'its about scouts not infiltrators'. With games coming up and myself wanting to use genestealers I wanted to push the issue, but my 'rules lawyering' was ignored. Eventually one friend asked his other meta, and it was resolved. I think the point of that story is sometimes we're left to fill in the blanks, and that's pants.

And let us not forget the horrible issue with JotWW and Necrons. Even when St Celestine got a faq that her ability was not cancelled by JotWW, most rules lawyers in this forum made posts equivalent to screaming at the top of their lungs that that faq was only for St Celestine and although Necrons RP rule was almost identical, that faq should not be used as a precedent. And of course when JotWW was faqed to not affect the RP of Necrons, the same rules lawyers made posts equivalent to crying their eyes out because "GW has changed the rules".

And they same people that argued endlessly that "removed from play is not the same as removed as a casualty" and "the St Celestine faq should not be used as a precedent for Necrons" are arguing in this thread that "FNP goes back in time and makes the wound saved before FNP activates" and "the force weapon faq should not be used as a precedent for ES". And I am sure when the faq comes they'll start crying again about GW and not admit their own mistake...

copper.talos wrote:
And let us not forget the horrible issue with JotWW and Necrons. Even when St Celestine got a faq that her ability was not cancelled by JotWW, most rules lawyers in this forum made posts equivalent to screaming at the top of their lungs that that faq was only for St Celestine and although Necrons RP rule was almost identical, that faq should not be applied to them. And of course when JotWW was faqed to not affect the RP of Necrons, the same rules lawyers made posts equivalent to crying their eyes out because "GW has changed the rules".

And they same people that argued endlessly that "removed from play is not the same as removed as a casualty" and "the St Celestine faq should not be used as a precedent for Necrons" are arguing in this thread that "FNP goes back in time and makes the wound saved before FNP activates" and "the force weapon faq should not be used as a precedent for ES". And I am sure when the faq comes they'll start crying again about GW and not admit their own mistake...

Sure, why not. Let's use every FAQ as a precedent. Guess I no longer have to worry about ICs in Drop Pods thanks to the Tyranid FAQ.

A rudimentary knowledge of how rules work in 40k is sufficient to discern which situations are almost identical and can be used as a precedent and which are not.

copper.talos wrote:
A rudimentary knowledge of how rules work in 40k is sufficient to discern which situations are almost identical and can be used as a precedent and which are not.

And an IC in a drop pod is almost identical to an IC in a Mycetic Spore.

The Mycetic Spore's transport spore rule makes it very different from the drop pod, which means the mycetic spore's faq cannot be used for drop pods. Do you have another test? I am about to go to sleep.

copper.talos wrote:
Yeah, but the Mycetic Spore's transport spore rule makes it very different from the drop pod, which means the mycetic spore's faq cannot be used for drop pods. Do you have another test? I am about to go to sleep.

How? The Transport Spore special rule gives it permission to carry a unit. While attached to a unit an IC is a normal member of the unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:
The Mycetic Spore's transport spore rule makes it very different from the drop pod, which means the mycetic spore's faq cannot be used for drop pods. Do you have another test? I am about to go to sleep.

And Miraculous Intervention is very different from RP/EL.

I love how I'm being accused of double standards by someone applying double standards.

I am sure you can read the transport spore rule and see the differences. But this is the details, the bottom line is that all IC's have explicit permission to ride transports along with their units they are attached to. The Spore faq then is to be applied as an exception to this explicit permission. I think yakface made a very good article about this.


And to get back to the thread, in the case of FNP and ES, we don't have an explicit permission for FNP to make the wound saved before all other abilities with the force weapon faq making an exception. We have 2 almost identical situations that at one point in time 1 of them got a faq.

copper.talos wrote:
I am sure you can read the transport spore rule and see the differences. But this is the details, the bottom line is that all IC's have explicit permission to ride transports along with their units they are attached to. The Spore faq then is to be applied as an exception to this explicit permission. I think yakface made a very good article about this.

So it's almost like some FAQs can be applied at all times and some can't.
Wow. Exactly what was said.

And to get back to the thread, in the case of FNP and ES, we don't have an explicit permission for FNP to make the wound saved before all other abilities with the force weapon faq making an exception. We have 2 almost identical situations that at one point in time 1 of them got a faq.

Do you understand the difference between an ability that causes ID and one that doesn't?

Do you understand the concept of explicit permission? FNP does not have one that allows it to be applied before other rules. ICs have explicit permission to ride transports with units. These are very diferrent cases and you can't use one to argue for another.

And do you understand that the Force Weapon rule is not equal to ID? If it was the case then it would not need a faq, nor would you and other people argued back then that FNP applies before it. You apply the force weapon rule before FNP and you can easily have wounds without ID.

The Force rule can cause ID, so comparing it to ES is disingenuous.

The Force rule has the same activation requirements as ES, so comparing them in the context of "when does Entropic Strike activate" is entirely ingenuous.

Coppers point is when you take RAW for Force and FNP coupled with the FAQ between them it refutes 3 major points brought up here (Note: You must read force to get to this point rather than just thinking of it as ID, Force Weapon activation and ID are not the same);

-We don't know if we have a unsaved wound until FNP is tested.
-'Immediately on an unsaved wound' and 'on a unsaved wound' mean the same thing.
-The resolution of FNP can negate effects which happened before it was tested.

What’s important to people putting weight into the Force FAQ is that all of the above are never explicitly stated in the FNP rules. They are assumptions to how to rule must work based on the language used in FNP, and the resulting effects of FNP.

Now, the counter to this is that GW designers intended Force Weapon activation to be able to by-pass FNP in the same way as normal 'ID' (Though normal ID and Force Weapon do not work the same way). That is a logical step, and could very well be true.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The Force rule has the same activation requirements as ES, so comparing them in the context of "when does Entropic Strike activate" is entirely ingenuous.

Does ES ignore FNP? If not they are not the same and the FAQ doesnt apply.

 Nem wrote:
Coppers point is when you take RAW for Force and FNP coupled with the FAQ between them it refutes 3 major points brought up here (Note: You must read force to get to this point rather than just thinking of it as ID, Force Weapon activation and ID are not the same);

Except the FaQ can not apply as the powers are not similar.

One can cause ID, the other will never cause ID (As it is currently written).

Therefore Including the FaQ into an argument does nothing as the FaQ just does not apply.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The Force rule has the same activation requirements as ES, so comparing them in the context of "when does Entropic Strike activate" is entirely ingenuous.

Really? You have to pass a psychic test for ES to work?

They're not comparable. If ES and FNP both trigger, FNP stops ES but not vice versa. Force and FNP stop each other from functioning and therefore needed an FAQ and is a different situation.

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The Force rule has the same activation requirements as ES, so comparing them in the context of "when does Entropic Strike activate" is entirely ingenuous.

Really? You have to pass a psychic test for ES to work?

They're not comparable. If ES and FNP both trigger, FNP stops ES but not vice versa. Force and FNP stop each other from functioning and therefore needed an FAQ and is a different situation.

A. The psychic test is not an activation requirement, it is part of resolving the force special rule, just like rolling the die for Feel No Pain

B. I agree that an FAQ was more needed for Force vs FNP than one for ES vs. FNP is, I do not agree that the urgency at which the FAQ was required is relevant to this discussion.

Pre-FAQ Force and Entropic Strike activated simultaneously, post-FAQ they still activate simultaneously, as no rules were changed, merely clarified.

And post FNP resolution ES being applied is illegal. You've literally broken a rule. Why are you breaking a rule without allowance?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Coppers point is when you take RAW for Force and FNP coupled with the FAQ between them it refutes 3 major points brought up here (Note: You must read force to get to this point rather than just thinking of it as ID, Force Weapon activation and ID are not the same);

Except the FaQ can not apply as the powers are not similar.

One can cause ID, the other will never cause ID (As it is currently written).

Therefore Including the FaQ into an argument does nothing as the FaQ just does not apply.

Indeed, I mentioned so in the last 2 sentences of that post what the counter argument is. Of course, I have a sneaky advantage of remembering how yourself, and other pro FNP debaters interpreted and argued the Force Weapon rule pre FAQ- The fact that Force might cause ID doesn't matter (because of the assumptions I listed).

[edit-]


The 'Why' of the FAQ must be one of the following;
- The assumptions (listed) to how FNP works are incorrect.
- They changed the rules - GW Intended Force to work like any other ID ('we' don't believe that it was ID = Force Weapon in its interaction with FNP RAW)

The first 'why' of the above directly impacts ES, and all abilties which trigger on a failed save, or unsaved wound.

Yes ES is different to Force, but Force is different to ID. The assumptions being used to say ES can not take effect are the exact same ones which were being used to say FNP will always negate Force weapon. All of these are 100% in relation to the FNP rules, and 0% about ID, Force, or ES. No, the FAQ is about Force, not about ES, but when we consider the why one of those can very much apply to this debate.

rigeld2 wrote:
And post FNP resolution ES being applied is illegal. You've literally broken a rule. Why are you breaking a rule without allowance?

Post-FNP activation of ES is breaking a rule, an unsaved wound is only required for activation, not application. You know what is breaking a rule without allowance? Going back in time to negate the activation of Entropic Strike.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And post FNP resolution ES being applied is illegal. You've literally broken a rule. Why are you breaking a rule without allowance?

Post-FNP activation of ES is breaking a rule, an unsaved wound is only required for activation, not application. You know what is breaking a rule without allowance? Going back in time to negate the activation of Entropic Strike.

Actually FNP explicitly "goes back in time" and changes the wound.
So you're advocating applying an ability that requires an unsaved wound for activation when there is no unsaved wound?

I'm advocating activating an ability that requires an unsaved wound when there is an unsaved wound, and not arbitrarily checking the status of said wound after the ability is already resolved.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm advocating activating an ability that requires an unsaved wound when there is an unsaved wound, and not arbitrarily checking the status of said wound after the ability is already resolved.

Why is it resolving before FNP? And there never was an unsaved wound - we know that because FNP says that it had been saved.

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm advocating activating an ability that requires an unsaved wound when there is an unsaved wound, and not arbitrarily checking the status of said wound after the ability is already resolved.

Why is it resolving before FNP? And there never was an unsaved wound - we know that because FNP says that it had been saved.

Because the 40k ruleset works chronologically, things resolve in the order they're activated. Actually we do know there was an unsaved wound at one point, because we activated Feel No Pain; not that it matters, as Entropic Strike does not rely on the presence of an unsaved wound to maintain its effect.

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm advocating activating an ability that requires an unsaved wound when there is an unsaved wound, and not arbitrarily checking the status of said wound after the ability is already resolved.

Why is it resolving before FNP? And there never was an unsaved wound - we know that because FNP says that it had been saved.

How can you treat what was never there ?

GW will probably rule in favour of fluff on this one, if they even address it.

I always argue FAQs are not blanket rules, so I don't think FW proves it one way or the other, however I agree with some people using it as a pillar for their discussion. Just bare in mind FAQs have been in the past ruled differently for the same rules on different models

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Because the 40k ruleset works chronologically, things resolve in the order they're activated.

At best they're simultaneous. I'd argue that FNP must be resolved first (I have in fact - in this thread)

Actually we do know there was an unsaved wound at one point, because we activated Feel No Pain; not that it matters, as Entropic Strike does not rely on the presence of an unsaved wound to maintain its effect.

The resolution of FNP changes that to a saved wound, so after it resolves there never was an unsaved wound.
And again, to clarify, you're advocating applying Entropic Strike's effect to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound. Is that correct?

Nearly correct, I'm advocating applying a wound to a model that suffers an unsaved wound and ignoring what happens to that unsaved wound afterwards.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Nearly correct, I'm advocating applying a wound to a model that suffers an unsaved wound and ignoring what happens to that unsaved wound afterwards.

So you're paying attention to the unsaved wound (that ceases to exist) despite being told to discount it and that it has been saved?

I was not told this when I activated Entropic Strike.

Which is, of course, irrelevant. Rules change things.

It is entirely relevant that Entropic Strike has already been activated, as Feel No Pain removes the activation requirement, not the activation.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
It is entirely relevant that Entropic Strike has already been activated, as Feel No Pain removes the activation requirement, not the activation.

If you have no permission to activate (because it's been removed) why are you still applying the effect?

Because Entropic Strike doesn't state "While a model has an unsaved wound caused by a model with this special rule its armour save is removed" or something to that effect that would indicate the continuation of the activation requirement is necessary to have Entropic Strike apply.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Because Entropic Strike doesn't state "While a model has an unsaved wound caused by a model with this special rule its armour save is removed" or something to that effect that would indicate the continuation of the activation requirement is necessary to have Entropic Strike apply.

So the ability cannot have been activated (because there was no unsaved wound) and yet you're applying the effect. That's interesting.

This is the scenario:
A librarian with a force weapon attacks an enemy model with FNP and manages to cause 1 wound. Faq says that force weapon rule resolves before FNP and the librarian rolls . The librarian then loses 1 wound because of perils of the warp. Then the model rolls successfully FNP.

All of you that argue that FNP goes back in time to make the unsaved wounds count as saved, thus denying the trigger of abillities such as ES, that would also mean that in this scenario you also deny the trigger for the force weapon rule. Which leads to the librarian never having perils so he must regain its lost wound. If the librarian died from perils he must be resurrected and regain 1 wound.

Is it logical when an enemy succesfully rolls FNP to help the librarian regain wounds or even bring him back from the dead? Of course not! So it is wrong for FNP to go back in time to make wounds counts as saved. FNP makes wounds count as saved only after it resolves which means abilities like ES have already applied their effect.

copper.talos wrote:
This is the scenario:
A librarian with a force weapon attacks an enemy model with FNP and manages to cause 1 wound. Faq says that force weapon rule resolves before FNP and the librarian rolls . The librarian then loses 1 wound because of perils of the warp. Then the model rolls successfully FNP.

All of you that argue that FNP goes back in time to make the unsaved wounds count as saved, thus denying the trigger of abillities such as ES, that would also mean that in this scenario you also deny the trigger for the force weapon rule. Which leads to the librarian never having perils so he must regain its lost wound. If the librarian died from perils he must be resurrected and regain 1 wound.

Is it logical when an enemy succesfully rolls FNP to help the librarian regain wounds or even bring him back from the dead? Of course not! So it is wrong for FNP to go back in time to make wounds counts as saved. FNP makes wounds count as saved only after it resolves which means abilities like ES have already applied their effect.

Why are you trying to bring logic into a 40k rules discussion?

So you claim in the above scenario that the enemy's model FNP roll should help the librarian regain wounds and even come back from the dead?

copper.talos wrote:
So you claim in the above scenario that the enemy's model FNP roll should help the librarian regain wounds and even come back from the dead?

Yes. Since the trigger never happened and all.

If you think so, would you mind actually posting something like "a model's FNP roll can help its enemy regain lost wounds and even bring it back from the dead"? I want to use it as a signature.

Yeah, allowing you to quote me out of context is really a great idea. Please try not to mock other people for no reason.

Why am I out of context or mocking you? Do you or do you not genuinely believe that one model's FNP roll potentially can make an enemy model regain a wound?

Quoting me without the entire thread for context would be inappropriate and your intent is obvious.
Reported. It'd be good for you to politely discuss actual rules.

Reported? Because I am out of context? This can easily be fixed. How about this:

A successful FNP roll made by a model that suffers an unsaved wound by a force weapon, can help the enemy psyker by regaining a wound that was lost due to perils of the warp when activating that force weapon.

This should not be ridiculous at all and not to be mocked.

Because I'm discussing actual rules. You can go ahead and quote this one:

Models without actual eyes cannot draw Line of Sight.

And it would be exactly as relevant. What you're trying to do is take a sentence and put it in your sig without the corresponding rest of the thread and make it appear that I'm an idiot. Out of context that sentence is unreasonable. In context - IE, in a rules discussion, it's a perfectly reasonable stance.

Regardless - because all you're doing is trying to get something to insult me and not actually participating in a rules discussion, you're on ignore now.

Copper, took me a couple of re reads to understand that scenario, but I think your scenario is:
-A unit with a librarian rolls hits and wounds on let's say a unit of orks
-librarian rolls force and gets a double 6 and suffers perils
-Ork rolls Fnp and passes.
-librarian is resurrected as a result of the ork passing Fnp




Yeah that's a good pick up of an oddity

Oddities don't disprove rules however. I don't think that's intended at all, but it's how the rules currently work.

OK... I didn't think you'd actually take seriously me asking you for a quote. I hereby formally retract my request for your quote.

Anyway I think I proved my point already that if you treat FNP to be able to go back in time it leads to absurd results such as one model's FNP roll helping an enemy model regain wounds or get resurrected.


@Nem you got the scenario 100% right. And getting FNP to work in favour of enemy models makes it more than an oddity. It's "reductio ad absurdum" which proves that FNP cannot go back in time to make the wound saved but it can only make the wound saved after it is resolved.

Also the case of Epidimius rule, where your told to count all unsaved wounds, even those that are 'negated' by rules such as FNP, this rule believes that unsaved wound is not removed from existence. Of course, it needs to poke at FNP specifically as the tally count is continuous check after the time if FNP, if it did not you would have to remove the count from the tally.
page52 Codex Chaos Deamons

And it explicitly calls out to count the ones negated by FNP.
Almost like an exception....

How could it possibly apply its effects (which happen AFTER FNP) if it did not? I agree that once Fnp is resolved for all rule purposes after it is a saved wound. It defiantly would need an exception to be able to use the unsaved wound if it's being treated as saved at the time the model makes its counts

Avoid being wounded... Treat is as having been saved... Discounted.... Negated.... All of these are used to describe the effects, and one thing they have in common is non of them mean never existed

 Nem wrote:
How could it possibly apply its effects (which happen AFTER FNP) if it did not? I agree that once Fnp is resolved for all rule purposes after it is a saved wound. It defiantly would need an exception to be able to use the unsaved wound if it's now being treated as saved

Avoid being wounded... Treat is as having been saved... Discounted.... Negated.... All of these are used to describe the effects, and one thing they have in common is non of them mean never existed

(Emphasis mine)
The underlined does. Since we treat it as saved there can not possible be an unsaved wound.

When was it to be treated as saved from?

 Nem wrote:
How could it possibly apply its effects (which happen AFTER FNP) if it did not? I agree that once Fnp is resolved for all rule purposes after it is a saved wound. It defiantly would need an exception to be able to use the unsaved wound if it's being treated as saved at the time the model makes its counts

My point was that you can draw no conclusions from that rule because it has a specific exemption.

Avoid being wounded... Treat is as having been saved... Discounted.... Negated.... All of these are used to describe the effects, and one thing they have in common is non of them mean never existed

They really do...

Gravmyr wrote:
When was it to be treated as saved from?

Once FNP is successful, At all times it needs to be treated just as if it was saved.

Then how did you make a FNP roll?
Why are you resolving FNP before resolving the rest of the SR's?

There is nothing in the wording that indicates that the change in status from unsaved to saved goes back in time nor starts from any point then at the point that you made the FNP roll.

Why can it not be a linear?
Hit.
Wound.
Fail Save.
Activate Special Rules.
Resolve Special Rules.
Remove Model.

Can anyone in favor of no ES tell me why Force is taken before FNP?

If FAQs simply clarify the rules, per GW, then we have to look at the difference in the wording of the two rules. The only difference in the wording is the inclusion of immediately in Force. That being the case, then all rules with immediately should be resolved before those without it.

Gravmyr wrote:
Then how did you make a FNP roll?

Does not matter the wound was saved.

Why are you resolving FNP before resolving the rest of the SR's?

It does not matter if we resolve FNP First or last, once you succed FNP you have to treat the wound as saved. If anything that triggers off of an unsaved wound is in effect, you have broken a rule. Ergo it is only logical to roll FNP first.

There is nothing in the wording that indicates that the change in status from unsaved to saved goes back in time nor starts from any point then at the point that you made the FNP roll.

You must not have read the part in FNP that tells you to treat the wound as saved.

What happens when a model is wounded and makes his save does ES trigger then? No? then why are you trying to trigger it on a wound we are treating as saved?

Why can it not be a linear?
Hit.
Wound.
Fail Save.
Activate Special Rules.
Resolve Special Rules.
Remove Model.

That is all well and good, you can do it that way.

However if we treat the wound as saved it looks like this:
Hit.
Wound.
make Save.
Nothing else can be in effect because we are treating the wound as saved...

Can anyone in favor of no ES tell me why Force is taken before FNP?

Simple, the FaQ tells us this is the way it works for dealing with the Force USR.

If FAQs simply clarify the rules, per GW, then we have to look at the difference in the wording of the two rules. The only difference in the wording is the inclusion of immediately in Force. That being the case, then all rules with immediately should be resolved before those without it.

Not always, sometimes FAQ's change rules (Like in the case of the Force USR).

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Because Entropic Strike doesn't state "While a model has an unsaved wound caused by a model with this special rule its armour save is removed" or something to that effect that would indicate the continuation of the activation requirement is necessary to have Entropic Strike apply.

So the ability cannot have been activated (because there was no unsaved wound) and yet you're applying the effect. That's interesting.

You're claiming I can't activate something even though it is already activated. That's interesting.

So, how would you recommend we resolve this?
1. Model takes unsaved wound
2. Consult an oracle to divine the outcome of Feel No Pain
3. Either activate or negate the activation of Entropic Strike based on the result of step 2
4. Roll for Feel No Pain
OR
1. Model takes unsaved wound
2. Activate Entropic Strike
3. Roll for Feel No Pain
4. If FNP is successful, build time machine
5. Go back in time to stop activation of Entropic Strike

Instead of "build time machine " it should say Treat the wound as saved.

This way, on a saved wound, ES can not take effect.

Or you could just roll FNP first instead of " Consult an oracle to divine the outcome of Feel No Pain "

Simple and you do not break any rules that way.

Treat is still not treated ( the past tense of treat). You treat it, it is not treated. As saved.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Instead of "build time machine " it should say Treat the wound as saved.

I agree.

This way, on a saved wound, ES can not take effect.

I disagree, for numerous reasons that have already been explained in detail in this thread.

Or you could just roll FNP first instead of " Consult an oracle to divine the outcome of Feel No Pain

Simple and you do not break any rules that way.

Apart from not having permission to resolve rules in whatever order you feel like instead of chronological order.

 Nem wrote:
Treat is still not treated ( the past tense of treat). You treat it, it is not treated. As saved.

? "treat it as having been saved" The wound is not being saved, it has been saved. That's past tense. For it is clear. You retroactively alter the game-state on a successful FNP role.

Let’s recap.

Claiming that FNP goes back in time and can potentionally undo other rules is a big claim. The game works in sequential application of rule, or effects of rule. No other special rule does what you claim FNP does, you may be given permission to do something as if you had not, but I have gone through every single special rule in the Rule book, and what Codex's I have and none even comes close to being able to do what your claiming FNP does. It would be a one of a kind. If anyone has a special rule which removes events, items or other from the past, which causes other resulting effects to be undone from time please put it forward. It falls very much outside convention of how all rules work. (Reference, all rules, special rules, events, occurrences, abilities, wargear and psychic powers Nem knows of). All normal circumstances it’s a ‘what’s done is done’ if you will.

The order rules applied does have an effect on the outcome – Mind Shackle Scarabs and Refusing Challenges, Force and FNP etc. So, If ES happens before FNP, then to be able to say ‘Breaking the rules of FNP’ it means FNP effect must be applied to either the time the roll to save was made, it goes back to the time of a failed save. When rules impose a restriction, we don’t normally look at what has happened before re play that part of the game based on those restrictions. (Orders and sequences are on page 9).

Now to the actual claim that the effects of FNP are applied from the moment you fail your save, resulting in the unsaved wound never existing.
...Can avoid being wounded... Present application// Past application ...Could (have) avoided being wounded...
...The wound is discounted... Present application// Past application ... The wound was discounted
Treat it as having been saved.... Present application // Past application ... It is treated as having been saved

No one has tried to claim that the 2 listed structures for each of those sentences mean the same thing - although only the past application sentences are applying the effect of FNP to the past. Each of the present application sentences are applying the effect currently (and beyond, as far as the rules are concerned ‘What’s done is done’). By weird coincidence, this is how we said all special rules work, by applying their exceptions to basic rules without removing the basic rule from existence and causing re plays.

Now, as none of those sentences tell you to apply the effects to an event which happened in the past (Requires the Past application sentence and words), I’m saying you have no evidence on which to claim FNP applies its effects to what has already been. The closest we have got is ‘having been’ which when used in the full sentence still isn’t telling you to apply it to the past. For such an important exception to the way all rules work to contain no actual permission to re write gaming history, I do not see why it is so hard to believe FNP simply works the same way every other special rule does. Why is it so hard to believe FNP simply gives permission to not be wounded from the unsaved wound? Applying all Present applications of FNP is exactly what it does, the wound is discounted (you don’t have to take that wound off your stat line) Treat is as having been saved (You know, like, when you take one off your stat line, when you have a unsaved wound? Well treat is as having been saved – don’t take it off, with an extra bonus of not counting towards combat results, yay).

Really-
-Nothing broken.
-All Special rules are allowed to resolve. (Except in those cases rules have explicit permission to stop another rule (ID))
-Keeps to the format of all other special rules.
-Doesn’t make FNP useless (Avoiding being wounded on a 5+ is not bad at all)
-Doesn’t resurrect your opponents (Rig, you said you didn’t think it was intended, but maybe it’s that they didn’t intend FNP to go back in time and cause that?)
-Utilizing all RAW and nothing but the RAW to come to the conclusion.


Now if anyone can show me which part tells you to go back in time (Past tense sentance needed)....



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Treat is still not treated ( the past tense of treat). You treat it, it is not treated. As saved.

? "treat it as having been saved" The wound is not being saved, it has been saved. That's past tense. For it is clear. You retroactively alter the game-state on a successful FNP role.

Use the tense of the whole sentace. Step back, stop concentrating on the words having been, use the whole sentance.
If you tell me that the Past and Present sentance for Having been saved (above) mean the same thing. Then i'll look again.

having been does not = has been.

I can treat the sky as having been blue
It does not mean yesterday I treated the sky as having been blue.

The treat and treated make the difference to when I am treating the sky as having been blue from which is the issue at hand, when am I treating the wound as having been saved from?. The first sentance I am treating the sky as having been blue now, the second sentance I am treating the sky as having been blue from a point in the past.

The English language allows me to use past tense words in a structure with a present tense. The point here is when are we treating the wound as having been saved. 'Having been' does nothing to tell you when you should be treating it from.

As a counter point the change from 4+ to 5+ may account for the scope of fnps, "time altering", effect.

Granted it's speculation on my part.

I was under the impression FNP was easier to obtain (or more commonly found) since the changes, as in, in earlier editions it was pretty rare, as it became easier to obtain, the effects were lessened.

DeathReaper wrote:
Not always, sometimes FAQ's change rules (Like in the case of the Force USR).

A FAQ would most likely side with ES still effecting the model, as fluff matters to GW. Fluff also matters RAW based on some FAQs, but that's even harder to anticipate.

However, for those that argue for ES , do you also count Doom as still gaining wounds if FNP makes them count as saved ? I never have, but wonder if that leads us down any other paths?

It does matter as ES has already been triggered. That is the part you are skipping. You are choosing, based off the desire that FNP stop everything as far as I can tell, to activate and resolve FNP first with no rule backing.

If it doesn't matter when FNP is triggered then it also wouldn't matter when Force was activated except we are being told that it does. It is not logical to roll FNP when we have already been told that other abilities activate first which means there are clearly things that are activated at the same time and resolved first.

Again ES wound have been triggered when the wound was unsaved. The only way you end up with ES activating off a saved wound is if you decide to use a blanket statement that FNP goes back in time instead of becoming saved from the roll of FNP forward.

Still not right on the order unless you can back that FNP goes back to change the roll instead of changing the status from the point of the FNP roll.

The wording of neither FNP nor Force wasa changed. They clarified that Force happens first, to wit we have to look at the wording of the rules and see the differences. The only difference is the use of immediately therefor it must be what makes the difference in this case. If it makes a difference in one rule ignoring it in others is willfully ignoring the rules. If we follow the directions set by GW, ES along with all other rules including immediately, are resolved before the roll for FNP happens. It really doesn't matter at that point the results of the FNP roll as the SR's have already completed.

Going back in time like you are advocating would in theory allow me to go back during a combat and negate wounds dealt via (SW) Selective Preferred Enemy if it was used against a model that has changed type due to say Demons morphing into Demon Princes..... I doubt that they want time travel in the game as has been pointed out can cause a number of different problems with rules. It's not just people wanting ES to function "better" it people wanting to follow the rules as set fourth and not having to track the whole game like it was chess to make sure all the changes made can be changed back in the future.

What does it break to change the status at the point of the FNP roll instead of time traveling?

Before you say applying a SR to a wound that has been saved, I would like to point out that it was never activated nor applied to a model that had a saved wound it would be unsaved the entire time till FNP would be resolved.

Stormbreed wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Not always, sometimes FAQ's change rules (Like in the case of the Force USR).

A FAQ would most likely side with ES still effecting the model, as fluff matters to GW. Fluff also matters RAW based on some FAQs, but that's even harder to anticipate.

However, for those that argue for ES , do you also count Doom as still gaining wounds if FNP makes them count as saved ? I never have, but wonder if that leads us down any other paths?

I would argue that it does according to RAW, but I've never actually played it that way because it doesn't fit the fluff at all, and if GW actually bothered to FAQ it they'd side with the fluff. Besides, I get enough trouble explaining to my opponent why they can't take directional cover saves against Spirit Leech.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Besides, I get enough trouble explaining to my opponent why they can't take directional cover saves against Spirit Leech.

Off topic, but why not? Do you have a rules reason?

I think, after 16 pages, it is pretty clear:
If you use the terminology of 'treat as having been' to mean 'from the moment of the original save test' you end up with rules that function strangely.
If you use the terminology of 'treat as having been' to mean 'from this point forward' you end up with completely different rules that function strangely.

No matter what interpretation you take something is going to go wonky at some point. That is a very good indicator that the rule, as it currently is written, is broken. There needs to be a wide spread errata to the rule itself, explaining at what point in the time line do you treat the wound as being saved, at the very least. Any rule designed to work outside of this explanation would also need to be errata to include a line giving it permission to be applied even in cases where Feel No Pain is successful. Only then would we be able to know exactly which rules where meant to come before Feel No Pain and which are meant to come after.

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Besides, I get enough trouble explaining to my opponent why they can't take directional cover saves against Spirit Leech.

Off topic, but why not? Do you have a rules reason?

Basically because you can only get directional cover from shooting attacks, and Spirit Leech isn't a shooting attack.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Besides, I get enough trouble explaining to my opponent why they can't take directional cover saves against Spirit Leech.

Off topic, but why not? Do you have a rules reason?

Basically because you can only get directional cover from shooting attacks, and Spirit Leech isn't a shooting attack.

Yuck, do ever get people telling you, if your gonna be so hard core RAW then you don't have permission to allocate the wounds :(?

 PrinceRaven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Besides, I get enough trouble explaining to my opponent why they can't take directional cover saves against Spirit Leech.

Off topic, but why not? Do you have a rules reason?

Basically because you can only get directional cover from shooting attacks, and Spirit Leech isn't a shooting attack.

In that case I don't have to worry, as there is no way to allocate wounds.

Maybe we should start a new thread, but is it the same then for maledictions which can cause wounds? Either you let a directional cover save to be able to allocate it, or can't use the shooting phase rules allocations method? I do see some flip flopping in when you should and should not abide by X rules, it all becomes a little fuzzy. Expecially with the recent thread around PSA and the lack of profile, bought up some strange points when thinking about it.

Saying that I allow directional cover saves anyway from SL

Stormbreed wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Besides, I get enough trouble explaining to my opponent why they can't take directional cover saves against Spirit Leech.

Off topic, but why not? Do you have a rules reason?

Basically because you can only get directional cover from shooting attacks, and Spirit Leech isn't a shooting attack.

Yuck, do ever get people telling you, if your gonna be so hard core RAW then you don't have permission to allocate the wounds :(?

To which I generally respond "well then most of your models can't draw line of sight to shoot or charge because they don't have eyes". I think we can all agree there's a line between following the rules and being an idiot.

If anyone wants to discuss this further I'd be happy to discuss it on a different thread, we should stop before we derail this one.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Besides, I get enough trouble explaining to my opponent why they can't take directional cover saves against Spirit Leech.

Off topic, but why not? Do you have a rules reason?

Basically because you can only get directional cover from shooting attacks, and Spirit Leech isn't a shooting attack.

Feel free to start another thread but that opinion leads to being unable to allocate wounds.

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Besides, I get enough trouble explaining to my opponent why they can't take directional cover saves against Spirit Leech.

Off topic, but why not? Do you have a rules reason?

Basically because you can only get directional cover from shooting attacks, and Spirit Leech isn't a shooting attack.

Feel free to start another thread but that opinion leads to being unable to allocate wounds.

As is the case with this thread, I always try and make it least advantageous to myself when talking about rules in a game.

1. Looking at it from a fluffy view I'd say ES goes off.
2. Weirdly enough I wouldn't give my Doom wounds saved by EW.
3. I give people cover just like any other shooting attack from Doom.


All of that is HIWPI, but I feel its also RAI. Its also how the local TO's have applied the rules.

That is a really good point about the Doom.

Do you/would you let the doom regain wounds that were saved with FNP? (Since you are advocating letting ES work Absorb Life should work as well).

Here is what absorb life says "The doom...Immediately gains +1 Wound, to a maximum of 10 Wounds, for every unsaved wound it inflicts" (Tyranid Codex, 58)

Judging by what your side is advocating where you make a model lose its armor save, the answer is yes.

But then how does one "treat it as having been saved" (35) if you are removing the armor save, or letting the doom gain wounds?

@DR : Really, posters have already explained how, each in their own words, many times over. If you have a issue with what they explained please quote and note them rather than asking the same question over and over and over.

For the issue I think are based on fairness, intent etc
I don't think suffering an effect for taking a unsaved wound when then a FNP also goes through can exactly be called OP. The attacker already had to hit, wound, and if you have a save also for you to fail it. Probability is already working against them.FNP to then come in and 'save' the wound is already powerful enough. FNP changes the probability greatly when also factoring everything else in. To then tell someone they can't even activate a special ability for getting as far as the special rule needs is a little overkill. FNP already gives a great benefit. I think some people however think they have a right to a FNP the same way an armour save(not anyone in this thread particular, more the none rule scourer type). While they might acknowledge it says it's not a save in the rules, they still will pick up the dice immediately after failing an armour save, to see if the wound is saved, which is a state of mind rather than the state if rules.

Nem - to clarify, you would allow Doom to gain wounds if you pass your FNP?

Is that a loaded question? Heh. The rules are as DR stated ' …immediately gains +1 wound … For every unsaved wound it (Doom) inflicts'.

It meets points within my interpretation -of immediately. It is a passive effect so isn't activated, it just happens. And the criteria is inflicting a unsaved wound. Inflict if used in 40k as per the usual definition 'cause' then yes.

As far as the rule is concerned; Did Doom inflict a unsaved wound - yes. Then the effect of the cause is applied immediately.

Absorb life is a pretty top notch ability, don't think anyone would disagree that. Don't see why it's suddenly considered more so because your enemy has FNP and didn't die

Thanks - at least you're consistent.

It's interesting that Doom breaks and makes so many rules arguments. Sadness.

 Nem wrote:
@DR : Really, posters have already explained how, each in their own words, many times over. If you have a issue with what they explained please quote and note them rather than asking the same question over and over and over.

Well they have explained it, but they are breaking rules to do so, therefore can not be the correct interpretation.

FNP in fact can "treat it as having been saved" (35) (It being the Unsaved Wound)

So if we are treating the Unsaved wound as "Having been saved" then there is no actual Unsaved wound for effects to trigger off of.

To do so is breaking the rules and the opposing sides argument can not be correct as rules have been broken if ES or Absorb Life activate.

Since the other side does not have any actual rules that specify that ES or Absorb Life can be triggered on a wound we are treating as saved, then your arguments are null and void.

FNP, one successful treats the wound as saved negating/discounting the unsaved wound. To trigger effects off said unsaved wound is to not discount said unsaved wound.

That is all there is to it.

 Nem wrote:
As far as the rule is concerned; Did Doom inflict a unsaved wound - yes. Then the effect of the cause is applied immediately.

Incorrect, we have to treat the wound as saved.

To let the doom gain life is not treating the wound as saved.

Do you also believe that FNP can help enemy models by regaining wounds and bringing them back from the dead?

copper.talos wrote:
Do you also believe that FNP can help enemy models by regaining wounds and bringing them back from the dead?

I not sure I understand, can you clarify the question please, as in its current incarnation it makes no sense.

hes talking about a force weapon test which perils and kills the user, but the model he struck pass's his fnp and negates the unsaved wound that caused the psycher to test for force.

 DeathReaper wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
Do you also believe that FNP can help enemy models by regaining wounds and bringing them back from the dead?

I not sure I understand, can you clarify the question please, as in its current incarnation it makes no sense.

It's not a clear cut case. Fluff supports him and GW supports fluff.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
As far as the rule is concerned; Did Doom inflict a unsaved wound - yes. Then the effect of the cause is applied immediately.

Incorrect, we have to treat the wound as saved.

To let the doom gain life is not treating the wound as saved.

It's nice that you think that, but until you have rules to support your statement no one's going to seriously consider it.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
As far as the rule is concerned; Did Doom inflict a unsaved wound - yes. Then the effect of the cause is applied immediately.

Incorrect, we have to treat the wound as saved.

To let the doom gain life is not treating the wound as saved.

It's nice that you think that, but until you have rules to support your statement no one's going to seriously consider it.

It's almost like those rules have been quoted in this thread.
I wonder if reading the thread would benefit....

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
As far as the rule is concerned; Did Doom inflict a unsaved wound - yes. Then the effect of the cause is applied immediately.

Incorrect, we have to treat the wound as saved.

To let the doom gain life is not treating the wound as saved.

It's nice that you think that, but until you have rules to support your statement no one's going to seriously consider it.

It's almost like those rules have been quoted in this thread.
I wonder if reading the thread would benefit....

If people actually read the thread...we wouldn't have 15+ pages of people bringing the same arguments.

rigeld2 wrote:And post FNP resolution ES being applied is illegal. You've literally broken a rule. Why are you breaking a rule without allowance?

It is not illegal if you've already been told to apply it. Which you have. At that point, not applying it is breaking a rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And post FNP resolution ES being applied is illegal. You've literally broken a rule. Why are you breaking a rule without allowance?

Post-FNP activation of ES is breaking a rule, an unsaved wound is only required for activation, not application. You know what is breaking a rule without allowance? Going back in time to negate the activation of Entropic Strike.

Actually FNP explicitly "goes back in time" and changes the wound.
So you're advocating applying an ability that requires an unsaved wound for activation when there is no unsaved wound?

That is not the case. No on time travel I'm afraid.

There was an unsaved wound when it was activated. That is all that is required for permission to resolve ES.

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm advocating activating an ability that requires an unsaved wound when there is an unsaved wound, and not arbitrarily checking the status of said wound after the ability is already resolved.

Why is it resolving before FNP? And there never was an unsaved wound - we know that because FNP says that it had been saved.

It says they were saved now. At the time ES was activated, that was not the case.

rigeld2 wrote:

Actually we do know there was an unsaved wound at one point, because we activated Feel No Pain; not that it matters, as Entropic Strike does not rely on the presence of an unsaved wound to maintain its effect.

The resolution of FNP changes that to a saved wound, so after it resolves there never was an unsaved wound.
And again, to clarify, you're advocating applying Entropic Strike's effect to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound. Is that correct?

Actually it tells us to treat the wound as though it had been saved. That is not permission to treat ES as though the wound had been saved.

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Nearly correct, I'm advocating applying a wound to a model that suffers an unsaved wound and ignoring what happens to that unsaved wound afterwards.

So you're paying attention to the unsaved wound (that ceases to exist) despite being told to discount it and that it has been saved?

Actually no. Once ES is activated it does not care about the wound. So when you go to resolve ES (which happens at the same time as FNP) you do not check for the wound at all.

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
It is entirely relevant that Entropic Strike has already been activated, as Feel No Pain removes the activation requirement, not the activation.

If you have no permission to activate (because it's been removed) why are you still applying the effect?

Undeniably we had permission to activate it when FNP was triggered.

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Because Entropic Strike doesn't state "While a model has an unsaved wound caused by a model with this special rule its armour save is removed" or something to that effect that would indicate the continuation of the activation requirement is necessary to have Entropic Strike apply.

So the ability cannot have been activated (because there was no unsaved wound) and yet you're applying the effect. That's interesting.

but it was activated and you continually ignore that. Nothing turns it 'off'. We are not told to rewrite a time line. There is no time loop. At a point we are told to treat the wound differently than we wound normally treat it.... like it had been saved... You are not permitted to do anything else by that line. You cannot treat anything else differently other than the Wound. Meaning ES still goes off. Psykers that perils their FW check do not get resurrected.... stop it with the time traveling already please or show some text that indicates you are actually to 'go back' and change things. Treating one thing 'as if' is not going to cut it.

rigeld2 wrote:Quoting me without the entire thread for context would be inappropriate and your intent is obvious.
Reported. It'd be good for you to politely discuss actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:Because I'm discussing actual rules. You can go ahead and quote this one:

Models without actual eyes cannot draw Line of Sight.

And it would be exactly as relevant. What you're trying to do is take a sentence and put it in your sig without the corresponding rest of the thread and make it appear that I'm an idiot. Out of context that sentence is unreasonable. In context - IE, in a rules discussion, it's a perfectly reasonable stance.

Regardless - because all you're doing is trying to get something to insult me and not actually participating in a rules discussion, you're on ignore now.

This is funny because you place opposing arguments out of context quite often in obvious attempts to make them look absurd. That resurrected psyker staring at you does indeed make your time travel theory look absurd... but that you would complain about this tactic is lolz.

DJGietzen wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Treat is still not treated ( the past tense of treat). You treat it, it is not treated. As saved.

? "treat it as having been saved" The wound is not being saved, it has been saved. That's past tense. For it is clear. You retroactively alter the game-state on a successful FNP role.

And when do you start treating the wound as if it had been saved?
What was the state of the wound before then?
Does treating the wound differently somehow effect ES after it has been activated?

 Abandon wrote:
And when do you start treating the wound as if it had been saved?

Basically if FNP is successful, you have to treat the wound as if the armor save was successful. That is what 'Treat it as having been saved' means...

What was the state of the wound before then?

Irrelavent, we are treating it as if the save was successful, so it was a hit, a wound and a saved wound as per the FNP rules.

Does treating the wound differently somehow effect ES after it has been activated?

You can not even activate ES on a saved wound so why are you activating ES on a wound you are treating as saved?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
And when do you start treating the wound as if it had been saved?

Basically if FNP is successful, you have to treat the wound as if the armor save was successful. That is what 'Treat it as having been saved' means...

What was the state of the wound before then?

Irrelavent, we are treating it as if the save was successful, so it was a hit, a wound and a saved wound as per the FNP rules.

Does treating the wound differently somehow effect ES after it has been activated?

You can not even activate ES on a saved wound so why are you activating ES on a wound you are treating as saved?

Retrospectively treating the wound(now) as having been saved(then) is not stated to deactivate ES and as ES already has been activated it is permitted to do its thing.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
And when do you start treating the wound as if it had been saved?

Basically if FNP is successful, you have to treat the wound as if the armor save was successful. That is what 'Treat it as having been saved' means...

What was the state of the wound before then?

Irrelavent, we are treating it as if the save was successful, so it was a hit, a wound and a saved wound as per the FNP rules.

Does treating the wound differently somehow effect ES after it has been activated?

You can not even activate ES on a saved wound so why are you activating ES on a wound you are treating as saved?

Retrospectively treating the wound(now) as having been saved(then) is not stated to deactivate ES and as ES already has been activated it is permitted to do its thing.

Except FNP says to "treat it [the unsaved Wound] as having been saved" (35)

Therefore there was no Unsaved wound in the first place, because we are treating it as if we made our armor/cover/invuln save...

If it said treat the wound as saved, you might have a case, but FNP retroactively goes back to the take armor save step and pretends we passed that save, therefore there is no unsaved Wound.

@DeathReaper
This is the scenario:
A librarian with a force weapon attacks an enemy model with FNP and manages to cause 1 wound. Faq says that force weapon rule resolves before FNP and the librarian rolls . The librarian then loses 1 wound because of perils of the warp and is removed from the game as a casualty. Then the model rolls successfully FNP.

What do you think happens to the librarian and why?

delete

In the recent thread of Heavy VS Skyfire the correct point was argued that just because Skyfire says you can 'fire using normal BS skill' doesn't mean it can overcome the restriction of Heavy. Rules say a lot of things that sometimes can't overcome - other actions or restrictions which are already there. He argued that if he had to shoot as snap shots, it's breaking the rules of Skyfire 'fire at normal BS skill' which it does literally say, what he was not considering is an existing restriction was in place that Skyfire could not overcome because Skyfire did not give explicit permission to do so.

In the vast majority of cases, with suffering a unsaved wound only 1 thing happens, a -1W (100% my terminology). FNP has permission to stop that happening and that is that.

In a smaller number of cases, 2 things happen on suffering a unsaved wound. An effect is applied, and -1W.
FNP has permission to avoid, discount and treat the Wound as having been saved. FNP includes no inherit permission to do the same to other effects, only by claiming the effects of FNP go back in time and remove the unsaved wound from existence (Note, FNP says it effects the wound not unsaved wound), thereby removing the trigger for the other abilities.

Permission to do something isn't always absolute. When I see 'If you don't treat is as saved your breaking the rules of FNP' I see it akin to 'If you don't fire at full BS then your breaking the rules of Skyfire' and the hundreds of questions we get here on Dakka. The whole situation past and current are accounted when applying rules, and sometimes permission given in a special rule can not change something that already is, without explicit permission to do so.

In case 2 I would say the effect continues, and the -1W is not suffered. The special rule removed 50% of what the player was doing, which I not uncommon for rules to do so. I don't see a special rule as broken if it's only stopping 1 of 2 events, because that happens all the time.


@DR I believe the 'IT' referred to in treat it..... is actually 'Wound' rather than 'Unsaved Wound', based on the fist part of the sentence. 'the wound is discounted' I spoke earlier how referring to is as the 'Wound' rather than the 'unsaved wound' is deliberate terminology, as a Wound and a Unsaved Wound is not the same thing, A wound is something that is removed from the stat line, and unsaved wound is the cause of a wound being removed from the stat line. This differential makes a difference to how the effect we, the players apply it.

copper.talos wrote:
@DeathReaper
This is the scenario:
A librarian with a force weapon attacks an enemy model with FNP and manages to cause 1 wound. Faq says that force weapon rule resolves before FNP and the librarian rolls . The librarian then loses 1 wound because of perils of the warp and is removed from the game as a casualty. Then the model rolls successfully FNP.

What do you think happens to the librarian and why?

Well since the rules tell us to treat the wound as saved, we have to do just that. nothing that came from that unsaved wound can possibly take effect because we treat the wound as having made its armor save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:
@DR I believe the 'IT' referred to in treat it..... is actually 'Wound' rather than 'Unsaved Wound', based on the fist part of the sentence. 'the wound is discounted' I spoke earlier how referring to is as the 'Wound' rather than the 'unsaved wound' is deliberate terminology, as a Wound and a Unsaved Wound is not the same thing, A wound is something that is removed from the stat line, and unsaved wound is the cause of a wound being removed from the stat line. This differential makes a difference to how the effect we, the players apply it.

1) It never says 'the wound is discounted'

2) The wound refers to Unsaved wound from even earlier in the graph...

"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). Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered. On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved." (35)

The it refers to the unsaved wound as " you must take the Wound as normal" is a previous sentence...

Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered.

....

To me I'm getting swayed to other side of the argument. FNP specifically states it has an activation of an unsaved wound. So do the other effects we're talking about, I don't like it, but it seems Doom would gain wounds, man people are gonna hate me if I bring it up, and I don't plan too lol!

Stormbreed wrote:
Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered.

....

To me I'm getting swayed to other side of the argument. FNP specifically states it has an activation of an unsaved wound. So do the other effects we're talking about, I don't like it, but it seems Doom would gain wounds, man people are gonna hate me if I bring it up, and I don't plan too lol!

So "treat it [the unsaved Wound] as having been saved." (35) does not convince you that the wound is saved in the first place?

Interesting take on things, but that line should be all that is needed to treat the wound as if we made our Armor/Cover/Invulnerable save. Therefore no ES, no Doom absorb life Etc...