megatrons2nd wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your "How I think it works- ES first" breaks rules.

Nope I explain how it doesn't please supply rules to disprove based on the whole of my text.

Treated as having been saved means that we have to treat the wound as if the armor/cover/invuln was never failed.

You're saying it's okay to apply ES to a model that has never suffered an unsaved wound, the rules explicitly contradict that.

Except it doesn't say "treated as being saved".

It Says"Treat it as having been saved" which "treat it as having" is a present tense wordage. It is changing the status "now" not "then".

"treat it as having been saved." The it refers to the unsaved wound, we have to treat the unsaved wound as if we had made the armor/cover/invuln save in the first place, which produces a saved wound not an unsaved wound. The Unsaved wound does not exist. it is discounted, why are you trying to count it for ES etc...?

ES activating off of a saved wound is breaking rules.

copper.talos wrote:
I don't think you know what parallel means. Certainly it cannot be used for events that are interdependent. You need a successful hit to roll to wound. You need an unsaved wound to roll for FNP.

And the game isn't real life. Only the rules dictate what to do so your "pepper spray" example is worthless. A nice example would have been:
Rule A. When you get pepper sprayed cover your eyes
Rule B. When you get pepper sprayed immediately turn away from the attacker.

So when you get pepper sprayed you should turn away from the attacker and then cover your eyes.

Your pepper spray example is wrong.

Rule A: When you get pepper sprayed cover your eyes.
Rule B: If you get pepper sprayed, immediately turn away from the attacker.

Using similar terminology to the rules in question (minus the treat as not having been sprayed), you would first cover your eyes, and then turn away.

I disagree, the moment you get pepper sprayed the if clause of rule b has been fulfilled and you must immediately turn away. Then you can cover your eyes.

copper.talos wrote:
I disagree, the moment you get pepper sprayed the if clause of rule b has been fulfilled and you must immediately turn away. Then you can cover your eyes.

Except it says "When you get pepper sprayed cover your eyes." so you do that at the same time as you get pepper sprayed, not after any other actions.

I disagree. This is a binary condition. You can either have been pepper sprayed or not. So the immediate rule will take priority.

copper.talos wrote:
I disagree. This is a binary condition. You can either have been pepper sprayed or not. So the immediate rule will take priority.

You can disagree all you want, but that does not mean your argument is correct. In this case your argument is not correct.

copper.talos wrote:
I disagree. This is a binary condition. You can either have been pepper sprayed or not. So the immediate rule will take priority.

The intermediate rule occurs after being wounded, whereas the other happens when you are being wounded. As you must be wounded for the immediate action to occur, the other must have already occurred.

A binary event means its either 0 or 1. It is true or false. It happened or it didn't happen. There is no delay between the two conditions. So the immediate rule takes priority.

copper.talos wrote:
A binary event means its either 0 or 1. It is true or false. It happened or it didn't happen. There is no delay between the two conditions. So the immediate rule takes priority.

If it is a binary event, I'm sure you have a rule to back up your assertion.

copper.talos wrote:
A binary event means its either 0 or 1. It is true or false. It happened or it didn't happen. There is no delay between the two conditions. So the immediate rule takes priority.

Im not denying that ES will, in fact, trigger. I am simply saying FNP is resolved first, and from then on the result is applied. From there on, if the wound is saved than ES will disperse, as there is no longer an unsaved wound. If it is failed ES will apply as normal.

OK that's easy. A wound after saves can either be saved or unsaved. There is no middleground in the rules.

@Thatguyhsagun Both FNP and ES trigger. This is undeniable. In order to resolve them there are two things to keep in mind.

Special rules are cumulative. Making FNP cancel ES breaks this rule. ES going first doesn't cancel FNP.
One rule must apply immediately, which means any non immediate rules must happen afterwards. So ES first and FNP second.

ES never triggers if FnP is passed.

ES requires you to have suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds.

If you pass FnP how many unsaved wounds did you suffer? none.

if for some reason ES and FnP did go at the same time, you could not determine if a model had suffered a wound until after you had rolled FnP, so you could not determine if the model had suffered one or more unsaved wounds as successfully passing FnP means there was never have been an unsaved wound, it was avoided/ treated the wound as having been saved. ES requires the model to suffer 1 or more unsaved wounds, and regardless of order that determination can not be met until FnP is rolled.

Special rules are cumulative means that special rules which modify the same stat can add up as per the rules for multiple modifiers, it doesn't mean things get to go when you want them to go and has nothing to do with timing. And in this case special rules being cumulative has nothing to do with anything anyone has brought up in this entire thread as none of the rules being discussed are things that are cumulative.

ES going first and FnP passing breaks the rule for ES.

ES applies immediately if the model suffers 1 or more unsaved wounds. a 1 wound model that is wounded, fails its armor save, and at anytime passes FnP was never wounded, and never goes to 0 wounds. If you are at 1 wound, and never reach 0 wounds you suffered 0 unsaved wounds. We know this because if the model was reduced to 0 wounds for any reason it would be removed from play as per the rules for having a 0 characteristic, therefore there cannot be a point in the wound resolution that stops with a model having an unsaved wound, goes from 1 wound to 0 wounds, and remains in play on the table.

blaktoof wrote:
ES never triggers if FnP is passed.

ES requires you to have suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds.

If you pass FnP how many unsaved wounds did you suffer? none.

if for some reason ES and FnP did go at the same time, you could not determine if a model had suffered a wound until after you had rolled FnP, so you could not determine if the model had suffered more or 1 unsaved wounds as successfully passing FnP means there was never an unsaved wound, it was avoided/ treated the wound as having been saved. Es requires the model to suffer 1 or more unsaved wounds, and regardless of order that determination can not be met until FnP is rolled.

Special rules are cumulative means that special rules which modify the same stat can add up as per the rules for multiple modifiers, it doesn't mean things get to go when you want them to go and has nothing to do with timing. And in this case special rules being cumulative has nothing to do with anything anyone has brought up in this entire thread as none of the rules being discussed are things that are cumulative.

ES going first and FnP passing breaks the rule for ES.

ES applies immediately if the model suffers 1 or more unsaved wounds. a 1 wound model that is wounded, fails its armor save, and at anytime passes FnP was never wounded, and never goes to 0 wounds. If you are at 1 wound, and never reach 0 wounds you suffered 0 unsaved wounds. We know this because if the model was reduced to 0 wounds for any reason it would be removed from play as per the rules for having a 0 characteristic, therefore there cannot be a point in the wound resolution that stops with a model having an unsaved wound.

If your argument was in any way true, Then why doesn't it negate unsaved wounds with the instant death rule. If you make your FNP roll, than you never suffered any unsaved wounds with the instant death rule. You said yourself, you've suffered 0 unsaved wounds right? and if you didn't suffer any unsaved wounds, then how could they have the instant death rule?

sirlynchmob wrote:
Then why doesn't it negate unsaved wounds with the instant death rule.

Because FNP specifies it can't be used in that situation.
Rules are cool.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Then why doesn't it negate unsaved wounds with the instant death rule.

Because FNP specifies it can't be used in that situation.
Rules are cool.

yes, but I lost count of how many times it was claimed "how do you know if you have a unsaved wound unless you've made your FNP roll?"

Obviously you can have unsaved wounds with other effects that FNP can not negate.

Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule.

because feel no pain specifically says it may not be taken against instant death.

If a model suffers an unsaved Wound from an attack with this special rule, it is reduced to 0 Wounds and is removed as a casualty.

The model doesn't lose wounds from ID until after it has suffered the unsaved wound.

"Feel no pain saves may not be taken against destroyer attacks or against unsaved wounds that have the instant death special rule"

Obviously the unsaved wound isn't suffered until after FnP is resolved as per mine and many other posters statements.

Copying this here because the other thread is the same discussion as this thread.

FNP: 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 and so can be used against attacks that state that 'no saves of any kind are allowed', for example those inflicted by Perils of the Warp).

Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks (pg 163) or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule.

Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered.... On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved.

pg 36 Types of Saving Throws: ... If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound.

pg 35 Take Saves & Remove Casualties: The model get to make a saving throw, if it has one. If it fails, reduce that model's Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.

FNP specifically says it is not a saving throw but then it refers to it as a save in the following paragraph. (see underlined). Bad rules are bad but we'll try to interpret this anyway. Letsl treat it as not a save.

The last rule I quoted, about removing casualties, is the important one. That is the basic rule that FNP must interrupt to function. Things like ES only work if the model is still alive AFTER this... "If it fails, reduce that model's Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty." The rulebook never describes or defines 'unsaved wound'. We must assume that it is after the above general rule resolves because when else would it be? FNP interrupts this, otherwise it wouldn't function.

Now the question is... do things like ES also interrupt this? Do you, RAW, need to roll for ES before removing casualties or do you do it after removing casualties?
Is the wound 'unsaved' when the casualty is removed or somewhere between reducing the wound by 1 and removing the casualty? RAW isn't clear.

HIWPI: If a model's wounds are reduced by 1, then it has suffered an unsaved wound. At that moment, if it has 0 wounds, it is removed as a casualty before anything else triggers. Therefore FNP must be rolled before you can determine if an unsaved wound is suffered because if it is suffered before FNP is rolled then FNP does nothing. RAW, it's possible to say that FNP does in fact do nothing because of their poor wording. I choose to believe that FNP is rolled before the wound is actually suffered, therefore things like ES do not trigger until FNP is rolled, no matter how badly worded FNP is. This effectively makes FNP a save that does not count as a save for rules that say 'ignore saves'... which is kind of what they're trying to tell us in the rule. It's a save but not a save.

Interestingly there are lots of special rules which trigger on unsaved wounds, not just ES - some of which are not resolved until a later time so never interfere with FNP or timing.

Zimko for rules which are 'when you inflict a unsaved wound' / 'when a model with this weapon inflicts a unsaved wound' / 'when you inflict one or more unsaved wounds'

Do you think those are different then?



And the rules we know we have a unsaved wound, just FNP is rolled before it is wounded. If we don't know there is a unsaved wound you can't roll FNP.

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

Is the wound 'unsaved' when the casualty is removed or somewhere between reducing the wound by 1 and removing the casualty? RAW isn't clear.

Wounds are unsaved after you fail your save, on fast dice, you roll all your saves then allocate the unsaved wounds rather than wounds -before saves-






Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule.

because feel no pain specifically says it may not be taken against instant death.

If a model suffers an unsaved Wound from an attack with this special rule, it is reduced to 0 Wounds and is removed as a casualty.

The model doesn't lose wounds from ID until after it has suffered the unsaved wound.

"Feel no pain saves may not be taken against destroyer attacks or against unsaved wounds that have the instant death special rule"

Obviously the unsaved wound isn't suffered until after FnP is resolved as per mine and many other posters statements.

Except the rules disagree. FNP - When you suffer a unsaved wound. You have suffered a unsaved wound, no if's, butt's or how. The only problems caused by FNP and the rules, is warping around people trying to resolve FNP before anything, this is causing then to 'oh so it must be like this to work'.

Yes, if you warp rules you have to warp more rules to make it fit your interpretation.

If it's a question of intent I don't know, my group have always read as and played such abilities are resolved as per the owning player rule, and FNP does not interfere with resolved rules, I've always read it as such. Could they have intended that? or just written badly? Sure, but all we can do is debate what we know, and wait for a FAQ to guide us.

What I do know is yes, ID is clear. But FNP and ES? neither contain clauses that they can not be used against the other. FNP doesn't state it is rolled before other effects from unsaved wounds- Of which there are many so FNP would be the place to put that sort of clarification.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your "How I think it works- ES first" breaks rules.

Nope I explain how it doesn't please supply rules to disprove based on the whole of my text.

Treated as having been saved means that we have to treat the wound as if the armor/cover/invuln was never failed.

You're saying it's okay to apply ES to a model that has never suffered an unsaved wound, the rules explicitly contradict that.

Except it doesn't say "treated as being saved".

It Says"Treat it as having been saved" which "treat it as having" is a present tense wordage. It is changing the status "now" not "then".

"treat it as having been saved." The it refers to the unsaved wound, we have to treat the unsaved wound as if we had made the armor/cover/invuln save in the first place, which produces a saved wound not an unsaved wound. The Unsaved wound does not exist. it is discounted, why are you trying to count it for ES etc...?

ES activating off of a saved wound is breaking rules.

FNP activating off a saved wound is breaking the rules.

But it's ok, FNP isn't just a special rule, it's super special rule - wish they would write some rules to say so though. Of course, we could acknowledge the rules don't break over stuff that has already happened, and that the exist like this > Rule -Resolve > Rule- Resolve > Rule Resolve. Which causes no issues at all, there is no 'check things that happened in the past to see if they are now illegal' state, just a forward movement.

blaktoof wrote:

Obviously the unsaved wound isn't suffered until after FnP is resolved as per mine and many other posters statements.

FNP:"Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered..."

Denial is one thing, actual rules is another.

 Nem wrote:
Interestingly there are lots of special rules which trigger on unsaved wounds, not just ES - some of which are not resolved until a later time so never interfere with FNP or timing.

Zimko for rules which are 'when you inflict a unsaved wound' / 'when a model with this weapon inflicts a unsaved wound' / 'when you inflict one or more unsaved wounds'

Do you think those are different then?

I think all those are the same trigger. The rule for failing a save tells us to remove casualties as part of failing that save and reducing the number of wounds on a model. Therefore, all those triggers occur once that is done.

So RAW, FNP does nothing because their wording is bad.

HIWPI: FNP interrupts the 'unsaved wounds process' and is rolled before determining if the wound is unsaved, thus before reducing the wounds on a model and removing them as casualties.

Special rules have general permission to break or bend the main game rules. It doesn't matter if removing casualties is part of failing a save. FNP has permission to bend that rule to make itself useful. It applies at the precise moment FNP describes in its wording: Between an unsaved wound and the model getting wounded. Not before and not after.

copper.talos wrote:
Special rules have general permission to break or bend the main game rules. It doesn't matter if removing casualties is part of failing a save. FNP has permission to bend that rule to make itself useful. It applies at the precise moment FNP describes in its wording: Between an unsaved wound and the model getting wounded. Not before and not after.

So suffering an unsaved wound and the model getting wounded are not the same thing?

The rulebook doesn't define an unsaved wound so we don't know if you can have an unsaved wound without removing the wound. The rule on page 35 says that when failing a save, your remove a wound from the model, it says nothing about what an unsaved wound is. So RAW is what in regards to an unsaved wound?

It seems to me that FNP is the only special rule that has permission to interrupt the general rule of removing wounds from models after failing a save. All other rules that occur when an unsaved wound is suffered do not interrupt this process and thus are done after wound is removed. That's my interpretation... I don't know if it is RAW but it makes sense.

The fast dice section says unsaved wounds happen after a failed save. All special rules that need an unsaved wound to trigger do so at that point. FNP isn't any more special than other specials rules you know...

copper.talos wrote:
No when special rules are applied.

Right so special rules that prevent wounds... like FNP... interrupt that general rule of failing saves. While special wounds that don't prevent wounds occur after the wound is lost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ES says it happens when a model suffers an unsaved wound... meaning after it loses a wound. FNP says that it happens at the same time but it prevents that wound. Therefore FNP interrupts the wounding process and must be applied before the model actually suffers the wound. Otherwise FNP doesn't function. It's a poorly written rule but if we want to play the game with FNP then we should use it in a way that it functions.

I edited my post to update it to your edit. Any way the reply still stands. And don't forget

FNP:"Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered..."

The model has suffered an unsaved wound to trigger FNP. That same wound will trigger ES also...

Yep, the wound was suffered, the model is dead. RAW is FNP sucks.

Zimko wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
No when special rules are applied.

Right so special rules that prevent wounds... like FNP... interrupt that general rule of failing saves. While special wounds that don't prevent wounds occur after the wound is lost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ES says it happens when a model suffers an unsaved wound... meaning after it loses a wound. FNP says that it happens at the same time but it prevents that wound. Therefore FNP interrupts the wounding process and must be applied before the model actually suffers the wound. Otherwise FNP doesn't function. It's a poorly written rule but if we want to play the game with FNP then we should use it in a way that it functions.

Now what about Special Rules, what happens when two special rules activate at the same time from the same trigger? Which is resolved first and why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Based on the above arguments it seems that some of you wish to say that FNP must be rolled before determining the application of Effects caused by or triggered by an unsaved wound.

There are some rules Such as (Ground test: BRB, Pg 69) Which require that a FMC that suffers an unsaved wound during a phase must at the end of said phase take a test or be grounded. (However if said FMC passes all of its FNP's then there is no Grounding test, this is because the unsaved wound is counted as having been saved long before the grounding test ever happens) Yes the grounding test did trigger off the unsaved wounds when they happened but it also checks to see at the end of the phase if there are any unsaved wounds not the instant the unsaved wound happens.

Now (Feel no Pain: BRB pg 164.) "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...) On a 5+ The unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved".

Then there are...

(Entropic Strike: Necron Codex, pg 29) "Any model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon of Model with this Special rule immediately loses its armour save for the remainder of the battle".

(Concussive: BrB pg 62) " A model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon with this special rule is reduced to Initiative 1 until the end of the following Assault phase."

(Soul Blaze: BrB pg 172) " If a unit suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from an attack with this special rule, it is set ablaze and continues to burn".

(Strikedown: BrB pg172) "Any non-vehicle model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds or passes one or more saving throws against an attack with the Strikedown special rule moves as if it is in difficult terrain until the end of its next turn."

There are more rules that trigger off an unsaved Wound from Codex's I do not own.

At this point in this argument when the effects of ES are applied should be a moot point as the word Immediately is part of the ES SR. Meaning that as soon as the model (fails its save/suffers an unsaved Wound) it loses its armour save for the rest of the battle.

Strikedown's effects work off both saved Wounds and unsaved Wounds so again moot point.

Soul Blaze and Concussive both trigger off of unsaved Wounds at the exact same time that FNP does. Note: No where in the FNP SR does it state that FNP must be, should be, or is rolled immediately before other SR to determine if the effects of those other SR may take effect.

Thus leading me to cite these gems.

(Pg 156 BRB: A Compendium of Special Rules) "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once, However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."

(Sequencing: BrB pg 17) "you'll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time... When this happens, and the wording if not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order."

So RAW FNP is not given explicit permission to resolve before any other USR/SR. ES is given Explicit permission to resolve before FNP due to happening Immediately after an unsaved Wound is suffered, the same unsaved Wound that is triggering FNP. Soul Blaze and Concussive are not given explicit permission to resolve before any other USR/SR thus the player whose turn it is can decide the order, and Strikdown does not care one way or the other.

These are the Rules as Written, why is this still going on?

Both sides of the argument make sense. I suspect that the "active player chooses the order" may have better rules support but then we are again left with the wording of FNP to mix things up.

We are not told when to apply the effects, just "immediately after (unsaved wound)" or "when suffers (unsaved wound)".

MtG was for whatever reason brought up again, can we agree that is a reason in itself to kill any thread?

FnP and ES do not activate at the same time.

If you suffer an unsaved wound your wounds go from 1-0 and you are removed from play. FnP does not give permission for a model to regain wounds, or ignore suffering 1 or more unsaved wounds. It gives permission to make a special feel no pain roll to avoid being wounded, this roll is not a saving throw, but is a save.

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.

There is no wound taken unless you fail the save, ie you have to fail the save to actually suffer the 1 or more wounds required by ES/Concussive/whatever otherwise you had an unsaved wound but suffered 0 unsaved wounds, because the wound was avoided/saved/discounted.


FnP either doesn't work, because it happens after the model suffers an unsaved wound.

or it works during the time the model is determined to have an unsaved wound but before it suffers it.


ES is givern permission to resolve if a model suffers 1 or more unsaved wounds immediately.

if a model has gone from 1-0 wounds is when it has suffered 1 or more wounds.

if a model had 1 wound, had an unsaved wound but never went to 0 wounds(such as by passing FnP [no wound is taken unless you fail FnP], it suffer 0 unsaved wounds. ES requires that you suffer 1 or more unsaved wounds.

ES and FnP cannot resolve at the same time, because FnP specifically states it allows you to avoid being wounded, which means the wound has not been applied yet. so although both use the word unsaved wound you cannot resolve if the wound is unsaved until the FnP roll has been made to save/avoid/discount the roll as the model has suffered 0 unsaved wounds until then. Otherwise the model would be removed from play and you would be breaking the RAW of FnP that lets the wound be ignored/discounted/avoided and that the wound is not taken until the model fails its FnP roll as per the rulebook quote on failing FnP above.

A lot of this argument seems to have a lot of clashing wording, and clashing activation time. Concussive actually came up in a game just the other day, though we didn't even debate on how it was resolved, we all had the same interpretation in mind. Orks vs Blood Angels. He was using Thunder Hammers against a mob of my Boyz. Whenever the Hammer wielding models inflicted a wound (normally didn't matter since that model often died), we wouldn't resolve the Concussive effect unless my FNP rolls failed from the Painboy.

The argument of 'activation times' seems ambiguous, that I'll grant. But I still lean on the side of FNP must try to save the wound before other effects happen on unsaved wounds. People argue that these extra effects cannot be ignored because the wound was saved by FNP, but I use Magic as an example on my reasoning. In Magic, if an effect is activated, but if another effect happens at the same time that would prevent the previous effect from happening, the effect CAN and WILL fail to resolve. This is also due to Magic having 'the stack' to help resolve effects in proper order. If the active player can dictate when the order of effects resolve, then this shouldn't be hard to resolve.

But with the rules as they are currently written: These effects need unsaved wounds to trigger properly. FNP comes immediately after Armor/Invul saves, and despite not being a technical save, will treat the wounds taken as saved. If the FNP passes, Concussive/ES will fail to trigger. If FNP fails, these effects will then trigger and resolve.

Even if these abilities did trigger before FNP, they wouldn't resolve until after FNP did. And if all those wounds become saved via FNP, then the requirements for the abilities is no longer fulfilled, and they would fizzle.

Well, suffering a unsaved wound is not something actually defined, according to the wording in FNP it's before the model loses a wound from the statline, as the whole thing is written talking about it in the context of not yet being wounded etc, making suffering a unsaved wound more likely to be the allocation of a unsaved wound, but before the model is wounded/ loses a wound.

Again not working is based on the assumption we know how we suffer a unsaved wound- I motion it's the allocation of, but not yet the application of a unsaved wound.

I motion that GW doesn't know how to express what they want, and that 'suffering an unsaved wound' will be inconsistently used throughout the book. We've been over every facet of the arguments in this thread and the chase for a solid answer has run it's course. Can we lock it now?

Agreed. GW step up and give us a ruling please!

Melevolence wrote:


But with the rules as they are currently written: These effects need unsaved wounds to trigger properly. FNP comes immediately after Armor/Invul saves, and despite not being a technical save, will treat the wounds taken as saved. If the FNP passes, Concussive/ES will fail to trigger. If FNP fails, these effects will then trigger and resolve.

Please cite where in the FNP USR that FNP is Given permission to be immediately rolled after a Failed Saving throw.

I have already cited in my previous post that the More Explicit rule is given permission to go before less explicit rules when two the trigger off the same activation.

 BLADERIKER wrote:

Melevolence wrote:


But with the rules as they are currently written: These effects need unsaved wounds to trigger properly. FNP comes immediately after Armor/Invul saves, and despite not being a technical save, will treat the wounds taken as saved. If the FNP passes, Concussive/ES will fail to trigger. If FNP fails, these effects will then trigger and resolve.

Please cite where in the FNP USR that FNP is Given permission to be immediately rolled after a Failed Saving throw.

I have already cited in my previous post that the More Explicit rule is given permission to go before less explicit rules when two the trigger off the same activation.

The FNP rules itself give permission to be immediately rolled after a Failed Saving throw.

FNP happens when you suffer an unsaved wound. Everything else happens immediately after suffering an unsaved wound.

FNP is first.

If the rules said so we wouldn't be having another 10+ page thread.

 BLADERIKER wrote:


There are some rules Such as (Ground test: BRB, Pg 69) Which require that a FMC that suffers an unsaved wound during a phase must at the end of said phase take a test or be grounded. (However if said FMC passes all of its FNP's then there is no Grounding test, this is because the unsaved wound is counted as having been saved long before the grounding test ever happens) Yes the grounding test did trigger off the unsaved wounds when they happened but it also checks to see at the end of the phase if there are any unsaved wounds not the instant the unsaved wound happens.

Now (Feel no Pain: BRB pg 164.) "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...) On a 5+ The unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved".

Then there are...

(Entropic Strike: Necron Codex, pg 29) "Any model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon of Model with this Special rule immediately loses its armour save for the remainder of the battle".

(Concussive: BrB pg 62) " A model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon with this special rule is reduced to Initiative 1 until the end of the following Assault phase."

(Soul Blaze: BrB pg 172) " If a unit suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from an attack with this special rule, it is set ablaze and continues to burn".

(Strikedown: BrB pg172) "Any non-vehicle model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds or passes one or more saving throws against an attack with the Strikedown special rule moves as if it is in difficult terrain until the end of its next turn."

There are more rules that trigger off an unsaved Wound from Codex's I do not own.

At this point in this argument when the effects of ES are applied should be a moot point as the word Immediately is part of the ES SR. Meaning that as soon as the model (fails its save/suffers an unsaved Wound) it loses its armour save for the rest of the battle.

Strikedown's effects work off both saved Wounds and unsaved Wounds so again moot point.

Soul Blaze and Concussive both trigger off of unsaved Wounds at the exact same time that FNP does. Note: No where in the FNP SR does it state that FNP must be, should be, or is rolled immediately before other SR to determine if the effects of those other SR may take effect.

Thus leading me to cite these gems.

(Pg 156 BRB: A Compendium of Special Rules) "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once, However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."

(Sequencing: BrB pg 17) "you'll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time... When this happens, and the wording if not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order."

So RAW FNP is not given explicit permission to resolve before any other USR/SR. ES is given Explicit permission to resolve before FNP due to happening Immediately after an unsaved Wound is suffered, the same unsaved Wound that is triggering FNP. Soul Blaze and Concussive are not given explicit permission to resolve before any other USR/SR thus the player whose turn it is can decide the order, and Strikdown does not care one way or the other.

These are the Rules as Written, why is this still going on?

This is the full summary of rules courtesy of BLADERIKER. Along with Nem's excellent posts there is nothing left to be added.

FNP is first because of the reasons I gave, refusing to accept that does not mean your arguments are correct.

FnP specifically calls out that the wound isnt taken until you make the FnP roll.

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.

as such the model has suffered 0 unsaved wounds until the time as the roll is made. If the roll fails the wound is taken as normal, at this point the model has suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds. Until then the model has suffered 0 unsaved wounds, even if it has an unsaved wound as it still has a save in the Form of FnP. And yes FnP says its not a saving throw, but it does say it is a save.

poorly written rule but obvious in what it says RAW and the intent.

if the model suffered the unsaved wound before rolling FnP it would be wounded already and FnP would be giving it back the wound, which it doesn't.

FnP avoids/saves/discounts the wound so there never was a unsaved wound that progressed to removing a wound from the models statline.

ES specifically calls out the model suffering 1 or more unsaved wounds, the model has suffered 0 unsaved wounds until FnP is rolled.

at this point there is no counter argument to this from any of the people who feel ES should go first, because there is a failure from certain players to quote any rules which are relavent to the discussion other than insisiting they go at the same time but es goes first because it says immediately while going on about the rules for cumulative effects which has to do with applying stat modifiers but they ignore that, and then they ignore the part of ES that calls out that the model has to actually suffer 1 or more unsaved wounds not just have unsaved wounds. They also ignore the part that the model would be reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty if it had suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds prior to rolling FnP as any model reduced to 0 wounds is removed as a casualty.

The model has suffered 0 unsaved wounds until FnP is rolled.

is there anyone who isnt a necron player at this point who is still saying ES goes before FnP?

I prefer RAW where "each time an unsaved wound is suffered" means an unsaved wound is suffered. Not the opposite. OK?

I don't see a reason why we should change RAW to match your opinion when RAW can give a perfectly legal outcome, even more when your opinion conflicts with the "all special rules are cumulative" and the old FAQ.

copper.talos wrote:
I prefer RAW where "each time an unsaved wound is suffered" means an unsaved wound is suffered. Not the opposite. OK?

I don't see a reason why we should change RAW to match your opinion when RAW can give a perfectly legal outcome, even more when your opinion conflicts with the "all special rules are cumulative" and the old FAQ.

So you believe that FnP has no function as if an unsaved wound is suffered ie the model goes from 1-0 wounds it is removed from play. Despite that FnP specifically says the wound only happens if the roll is failed, "the model is wounded as normal" if the roll isn't failed the model isn't wounded, there is no unsaved wound. Obviously resolution of whether a model has 1 or more unsaved wounds has not happened until it rolls FnP, as per the RAW for FnP save, it is discounted and treated as having been saved.

This rule doesn't say the model suffered a wound, it says the model gets a save to avoid suffering the wound, if the save is failed its wounded as normal. If it is passed the wound is saved. Until the roll has happened the model has not been wounded, and has not gone from 1wound to 0 wounds, so has not suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds.

I don't see why we should change RAW to match your opinion when RAW can give a perfectly legal outcome, even more when your opinion conflicts with the RAW, and in some cases your statements are outright false.

for example the old codex FAQ on ES was in regards to vehicles and whether armor value was reduced before rolling for penetration and has nothing to do with this topic despite the fact you have falsely claimed it does.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99204455/m2420315a-Necron-6th-Ed-V1

here is the v1.4 faq

http://www.teambelgium.eu/FAQ/Necrons_v1.4.pdf

also nothing about this topic, they did however state ES can remove armor value from buildings.

regardless last edition faq =/= this editions faq.

all special rules being cumulative has to do with if they modify the same thing, ie stealth/shrouded both modifer cover saves, they are cumulative.

your insistence that it is relevant in this topic is 100% misguided.

BLADERIKER's summary has all the answers. No need to repeat it again. ES can apply first and FNP second without any problems RAW. On the contrary your opinions is in conflict with RAW since it depends on "each time an unsaved wound is suffered" to actually mean an unsaved wound is not suffered. The exact OPPOSITE!

Regarding cumulative part, the actual rule is "However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative." Do you see any restrictions such as the need to modify the same thing? Do you? I said it the last time you invented rules to match your opinion: you look desperate. Stick to RAW and stop making yourself look bad.

And finally regarding the old faq, you seem not to follow the thread from the begininng. The old FAQ i refer to of course isn't about ES. It was about another rule that acivated on an unsaved wound and applied immediately. That rule was faqed to apply before FNP. Although tha FAQ doesn't exist anymore it meant among other 3 things:
1. The time paradox FNP theory is out of the question
2. That unsaved wounds were actually suffered before FNP
3. That special rules can be applied before FNP.
FNP's wording hasn't changed so it is still relevant.

To summarize your opinion is against RAW, and since RAW can give a legal outcome we can follow it without needing to change it as you suggest.

ES requires that a model suffers 1 or more unsaved wounds.

How many Unsaved wounds has a Model suffered that has not made its FnP rolls yet?

If it was a 1 wound model is the model still at 1 Wound before rolling FnP or is at 0 wounds if it has failed its armor saving throw and not yet made its FnP save.

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.

and yes FnP is a save.

Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule.

bladdrikers post was fradualent as it left out parts of rules which were relevant to the topic to falsely put forward an incorrect claim.

copper.talos wrote:
BLADERIKER's summary has all the answers. No need to repeat it again. ES can apply first and FNP second without any problems RAW.

No it cant, because it leaves you with a situation where a model has not lost a wound but somehow has lost his armor on a wound that had been saved.

@blaktoof

You "forget" that FNP specifically mentions that it is not a saving throw and the fast dice section clearly says that unsaved wounds happen after saving throws and not after "feel no pain saves".

So BLADERIKER summary is full. And it's nice you acknoweledge the rule that an unsaved wound is suffered in order to activate FNP. An unsaved wound suffered for one rule is an unsaved wound suffered for every rule. Next you should try acknoweledging the rule that all special rules are cumulative and ES and FNP must be applied cumulatively leading to models with full wounds but no armour saves

please insert your head into the sand more.

FnP is a save. FnP is not a saving throw. Both are RAW.

There is no wound until the FnP roll is made, you keep avoiding the question because you and I both know the answer. it is 0 wounds are suffered until the FnP roll is made becase the models Wound characterstic has not gone from 1 to 0, which means the model has suffered 0 unsaved wounds until FnP is made.

ES requires that a model suffers 1 or more unsaved wounds.

How many Unsaved wounds has a Model suffered that has not made its FnP rolls yet?

If it was a 1 wound model is the model still at 1 Wound before rolling FnP or is at 0 wounds if it has failed its armor saving throw and not yet made its FnP save.

which you and the few necron players in this thread will continue to fail to address.

Your opinion reverts back to unsaved wounds don't exist before FNP but since RAW it activates when "an unsaved Wound is suffered", your opinion is deeply flawed.

As I said I prefer RAW where "an unsaved Wound is suffered" actually means an unsaved wound is suffered. Of course you can continue to pretend that it says something else...

We know that what GW means to say is that FNP prevents an unsaved wound from actually being suffered. But RAW is that it doesn't trigger until after it is suffered, thereby killing the model if it has 1 wound.

So RAW FNP does nothing for 1 wound models.

RAI is like a bad word in this forum but in this case it is pretty clear what they meant. They just sucked as conveying it correctly.

copper.talos wrote:
Your opinion reverts back to unsaved wounds don't exist before FNP but since RAW it activates when "an unsaved Wound is suffered", your opinion is deeply flawed.

As I said I prefer RAW where "an unsaved Wound is suffered" actually means an unsaved wound is suffered. Of course you can continue to pretend that it says something else...

and yet you still can't answer the question, I would say this is fascinating but considering I and others proposed it many many pages ago in this thread and no one from the pro ES going at same/first camp has been willing to answer it we can just assume we all know the answer.

blaktoof wrote:
please insert your head into the sand more.

FnP is a save. FnP is not a saving throw. Both are RAW.

There is no wound until the FnP roll is made, you keep avoiding the question because you and I both know the answer. it is 0 wounds are suffered until the FnP roll is made becase the models Wound characterstic has not gone from 1 to 0, which means the model has suffered 0 unsaved wounds until FnP is made.

ES requires that a model suffers 1 or more unsaved wounds.

How many Unsaved wounds has a Model suffered that has not made its FnP rolls yet?

If it was a 1 wound model is the model still at 1 Wound before rolling FnP or is at 0 wounds if it has failed its armor saving throw and not yet made its FnP save.

which you and the few necron players in this thread will continue to fail to address.

That line of logic means you can never make a FNP roll. If you don't first suffer a unsaved wound you can not make a FNP roll.

Also we know your argument is demonstrable false as we do have unsaved wounds before the FNP roll. How else would you get a unsaved wound with the instant death specil rule? You're argument would lead to being able to take a FNP roll on wounds that cause instant death.

except that FnP specifically calls out that you cannot take FnP rolls on ID, which then begs the question why would they need to do this unless the argument put forth is correct.

and yet you still wont answer the question.

blaktoof wrote:
except that FnP specifically calls out that you cannot take FnP rolls on ID, which then begs the question why would they need to do this unless the argument put forth is correct.

and yet you still wont answer the question.

It clearly shows how your argument is wrong.

You take a wound
you fail your save
you now have 'suffers an unsaved wound' state.
And you suffer the wound before FNP is rolled, that is how you know you can roll FNP.

As we now have a unsaved wound, it will trigger all special rules looking for a unsaved wound, and we can also see if the unsaved wound causes instant death. Then the active player can decide the order as the rules state he is allowed to do.

so You have models going from 1-0 wounds before FnP is rolled.

If at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.

You just made FnP do nothing for 1 wound models, grats.

blaktoof wrote:
so You have models going from 1-0 wounds before FnP is rolled.

If at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.

You just made FnP do nothing for 1 wound models, grats.

And you have FNP never being able to trigger so the 1 wound model dies anyways. Grats. Clearly your logic on this is flawed.

No, i like many others in this thread propose that FnP resolves before unsaved wounds are applied, as it is a save and calls out the wound is only taken if you fail the roll showing that it happens during the unsaved wound being suffered but before the model finally has an unsaved wound to apply to its profile and reduce the models wounds from 1 - 0.

clearly your logic on this is flawed.

the end result is a few outcomes.

Outcome 1:

your wounded
you fail your saving throw
you have an unsaved wound and your model is removed from play if it was at 1 wounds as a suffered unsaved wound reduces a model from 1-0 wounds.
nothing triggers

Outcome 2:

Your wounded
you fail your saving throw
You apply everything at once that triggers off unsaved wounds and end up breaking the rules for both FnP and ES as the wound is saved, and treated as never being unsaved therefore you have 0 unsaved wounds (you need 1 or more to apply ES) and by applying ES you ignore that none of the wounds were unsaved. This breaks the RAW that FnP treats the wound as having been saved/avoided, and breaks the RAW that ES requires the model to have suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds, which it did not.

Outcome 3:
your wounded
you fail your saving throw
you get a FnP save to see if were really wounded.
you pass- you were not wounded (you have suffered no unsaved wounds)
you fail- you were wounded, you suffer 1 unsaved wound per FnP save fail

Outcome 1 is silly.

Outcome 2 breaks rules

Outcome 3 follows all the rules and allows for application of all special rules/non special rules should the FnP save allow for the model to actually be wounded.

blaktoof wrote:
No, i like many others in this thread propose that FnP resolves before unsaved wounds are applied, as it is a save and calls out the wound is only taken if you fail the roll showing that it happens during the unsaved wound being suffered but before the model finally has an unsaved wound to apply to its profile and reduce the models wounds from 1 - 0.

clearly your logic on this is flawed.

Your whole statement is demonstrably wrong. Just like the others making that claim, that claim is wrong.

You should read what FNP needs to even be used. Than see how your argument would mean you could take a FNP roll against wounds with instant death. Take your time, go read the rules and you should see why your statement is wrong. and why outcome 3 is also wrong.

FnP specifically says you cannot use it against ID or Destroyer, so your statement is invalid.

blaktoof wrote:
FnP specifically says you cannot use it against ID or Destroyer, so your statement is invalid.

Not quite, you can not take a FNP roll against "unsaved wounds with the ID rule" so clearly we have unsaved wounds before the FNP roll is made.

you pass- you were not wounded (you have suffered no unsaved wounds)
you fail- you were wounded, you suffer 1 unsaved wound per FnP save fail

Can you see why this is wrong now. you claim if you pass FNP you've suffered no unsaved wounds, so if you suffered no unsaved wounds, than when do you have a "unsaved wound with the ID rule"?

If you pass you did not suffer an unsaved wound, FnP specifically says the wound is avoided/treated as having been saved.

FnP also would do nothing if the unsaved wound was applied to the model before rolling FnP, not only that but the wording does not state anything along the lines of the wound being returned, given back, regained. it specifically tells us the wound was saved/avoided which means there was no unsaved wound if FnP is passed.

You do not get to roll to prevent the wound if it has ID due to FnP saying that you cannot. Rules are our friends.

blaktoof wrote:
please insert your head into the sand more.

FnP is a save. FnP is not a saving throw. Both are RAW.

There is no wound until the FnP roll is made, you keep avoiding the question because you and I both know the answer. it is 0 wounds are suffered until the FnP roll is made becase the models Wound characterstic has not gone from 1 to 0, which means the model has suffered 0 unsaved wounds until FnP is made.

ES requires that a model suffers 1 or more unsaved wounds.

How many Unsaved wounds has a Model suffered that has not made its FnP rolls yet?

If it was a 1 wound model is the model still at 1 Wound before rolling FnP or is at 0 wounds if it has failed its armor saving throw and not yet made its FnP save.

which you and the few necron players in this thread will continue to fail to address.

It has suffered 1 unsaved wound. Reason,,,You failed a save. FnP is a special rule that is activated upon an unsaved wound. Unsaved wounds is not defined in the rules, but by inserting it between failing the save and removing a wound(as done in the fast rolling section where the only place the Terminology for Unsaved wounds is used in dealing wounds) we can come up with the assumption that this is the location it belongs in the process. You also are fixating on a single line in the FnP rule, the rule only uses the discounting of an unsaved wound once. If your FnP uses a different number than the standard 5+ than you discount the wound, not the unsaved wound. The beginning of the rule also specifies that it is used to avoid the wound, not an unsaved wound. So using RAI, we can surmise that it is a special rule that negates a wound, not other special rules.

I am not a Necron player. I play, Tau Empire, Eldar, and Dark Eldar.

of course passing FnP discounts/avoids/saves the unsaved wound. It never happened.

otherwise you would have inflated Assault results and challenge results based on unsaved wounds that were saved and never happened. It would also mean you had unsaved wounds that were saved and the wounds were discounted, but you would have to take grounding tests at the end of the phase, etc.

blaktoof wrote:
of course passing FnP discounts/avoids/saves the unsaved wound. It never happened.

otherwise you would have inflated Assault results and challenge results based on unsaved wounds that were saved and never happened. It would also mean you had unsaved wounds that were saved and the wounds were discounted, but you would have to take grounding tests at the end of the phase, etc.

For assault results it is the side that caused the most wounds that wins the combat. I don't know why it tells you to total the amount of unsaved wounds done. Probably a cut/paste error. Also it specifies that wounds negated by saving throws or special rules do not count. As such, doing it our way does not inflate assault results.

As to grounded tests, why wouldn't it need to take a test? It use to be from a hit, but that made markerlights actually hurt the dang things, so on an unsaved wound is a pretty fair compromise.

The problem is simple:
Game Workshop lacks coherent use of Terminology, almost as if the Authors have different ideas on what each Terminology means.

well you stated that saving/avoiding/negating the wound does not prevent unsaved wounds and they are still there.

To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved Wounds inflicted by each side onto their opponents.

Obviously it does effect assault results.

interestingly..

Wounds that have been negated by saving throws or special rules do not count towards determining who won the combat. Neither do Wounds in excess of a model’s Wounds characteristic; only the Wounds actually suffered by enemy models count

points out that if something saves a wound it is not actually suffered, and as you said

Also it specifies that wounds negated by saving throws or special rules do not count. As such, doing it our way does not inflate assault results.

if FnP negates/saves/avoids the wound as per above where you even stated it does, the wound is never suffered. So how are you applying something that was never suffered for ES that requires you to suffer 1 or more unsaved wounds.

Please stop. You are completely utterly wrong, and simply cherry picking to try and get ES to work without breaking the rest of the game.

blaktoof wrote:
well you stated that saving/avoiding/negating the wound does not prevent unsaved wounds and they are still there.

No one has said this, but you keep tilting at that windmill named strawman. You should stick to the rules for FNP, you keep changing words and adding in words that are not there.

We have an unsaved wound, we allocate it to a model.
All special rules that trigger off from unsaved wounds apply. All rules require the same trigger "a model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds" All 3 are activated at the same time because they all have the same trigger.
We follow the rules for sequencing because rules are cool. And this one tells us how to handle 3 things resolving at the same time.
The active player assigns the special rules one at a time in the order he chooses
so ES, goes first because it's done immediately, then concussive, then FNP
You lose your armor, it's reduced to I1, but you make your FNP roll so you're model isn't removed as a casualty.
Now the unsaved wound is treated as having been saved.

There is no time travel in 40k so all other results stand. There was a unsaved wound, it was needed for all 3 special rules to work, including FNP.

So at the end of the assault phase that unsaved wound isn't counted, and here's where I will disagree with megatrons2nd, the FMC wound not need to make a grounding test.

There is nothing in the FNP USR that is explicitly expressed, which gives FNP precedence to resolve before any other USR that triggers off of an unsaved wound.

Fact: To make a FNP roll the model must have suffered an unsaved Wound. If the model did not suffer an unsaved Wound then the Trigger for FNP (An Unsaved Wound) was never met and FNP cannot be rolled.

No one, as yet has cited where in the FNP USR that FNP is explicitly given Permission to resolve before any other USR. It has been shown to be a strongly held belief that there is permission to resolve before other USR's but no evidence to support this claim. Where as, RAW FNP will resolve after rules that are given explicit permission to go first in sequence (things which happen immediately), and at the same time as rules that are not given explicit permission to resolve before other rules, such as Concussive, and Soul Blaze...Etc...

Fact: FNP, ES, Concussive, Soul Blase...ETC... all Trigger off of an unsaved wound. Of these USR only ES is explicitly given permission to resolve Immediately after an unsaved would is suffered, all the others resolve at the exact time, which can cause a conflict, leading to the player in control choosing the order of resolution for those rules in sequence conflict.

GW made it very Clear that rules that explicitly state when they activate will always be applied before rules that do not, and when there is a conflict in simultaneous resolution the player in control chooses the sequence of events.

Wounds that have been negated by saving throws or special rules do not count towards determining who won the combat. Neither do Wounds in excess of a model’s Wounds characteristic; only the Wounds actually suffered by enemy models count

if FnP is passed, there was no wound suffered.

blaktoof wrote:
well you stated that saving/avoiding/negating the wound does not prevent unsaved wounds and they are still there.

To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved Wounds inflicted by each side onto their opponents.

Obviously it does effect assault results.

interestingly..

Wounds that have been negated by saving throws or special rules do not count towards determining who won the combat. Neither do Wounds in excess of a model’s Wounds characteristic; only the Wounds actually suffered by enemy models count

points out that if something saves a wound it is not actually suffered, and as you said

Also it specifies that wounds negated by saving throws or special rules do not count. As such, doing it our way does not inflate assault results.

if FnP negates/saves/avoids the wound as per above where you even stated it does, the wound is never suffered. So how are you applying something that was never suffered for ES that requires you to suffer 1 or more unsaved wounds.

Please stop. You are completely utterly wrong, and simply cherry picking to try and get ES to work without breaking the rest of the game.

You don't even see the disconnect do you?

Only wounds suffered by a model count. No excess wounds, even if you have 6 unsaved wounds, and the model has 3 wounds, how many unsaved wounds are there? How many wounds? So using the assault results rules, there are 3 wounds counted in the results. There are 6 unsaved wounds in the count. Excess unsaved wounds don't effect the assault results.

See how it calls out "special rules" that negate wounds? That is where FnP is, a special rule activated by, you guessed it, an Unsaved Wound. It does not state the wound is never suffered. Where does that leap in logic come from? Both rules require an unsaved wound. Please stop, you are completely utterly wrong, and cherry picking fragments of rules to get FnP to time travel and be a super uber always goes first mega special rule, and claim that time travel isn't breaking the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

Wounds that have been negated by saving throws or special rules do not count towards determining who won the combat. Neither do Wounds in excess of a model’s Wounds characteristic; only the Wounds actually suffered by enemy models count

if FnP is passed, there was no wound suffered.

Exactly, no wound was suffered, so doesn't effect assault results, just like the assault results rules specifically state. There was an unsaved wound, that activates multiple special rules.

If no unsaved wound is suffered because you pass the FnP save you cannot apply affects that come from unsaved wounds. There was never an unsaved wound if the FnP is passed. There may be one until it is rolled.

Was an unsaved wound suffered to activate FNP? Yes. An unsaved wound suffered for one special rule is an unsaved wound suffered for all special rules.

The above is also compatible with all special rules are cumulative rule, where your opinion is blatantly against it.

if FnP is passed, there was not an unsaved wound suffered. as per the rulebook.

can you find something that says if FnP passes there was still an unsaved wound suffered?

Wounds that have been negated by saving throws or special rules do not count towards determining who won the combat. Neither do Wounds in excess of a model’s Wounds characteristic; only the Wounds actually suffered by enemy models count

fnp passed= no unsaved wound was suffered.

That is a basic rule, applies at the assault result point and has a specific wording to prevent counting wounds that were negated by special rules.

ES is a special rule, applies immediately after an unsaved wound and has no wording to prevent activation by special rules.

Similarities NONE.

And why do you avoid the "all special rules are cumulative" rule? Run out of ideas for new rules to invent? Maybe you think that rule is "all special rules other than FNP are cumulative"? Or something like "All special rules are cumulative, with the exception of the ones blaktoof finds inconvenient"? I really would like to know your (new) interpretation...

blaktoof wrote:
if FnP is passed, there was not an unsaved wound suffered. as per the rulebook.

can you find something that says if FnP passes there was still an unsaved wound suffered?

Wounds that have been negated by saving throws or special rules do not count towards determining who won the combat. Neither do Wounds in excess of a model’s Wounds characteristic; only the Wounds actually suffered by enemy models count

fnp passed= no unsaved wound was suffered.

FnP passed=No wound suffered

There was still an unsaved wound suffered. The very beginning of the rule says an unsaved wound was suffered. The rule says it is used to ignore the wound, in 2 places even. Guess what, using the rule that says when two rules activate at the same time the active player chooses the order in which they resolve. Show me in the FnP rule where it has permission to ignore this rule.

In your turn when you choose the order FnP will stop Es, Concussion, etc... In my turn I can put these rules forst, and then FnP will go off, and the wound will go away.

copper.talos wrote:
ES is a special rule, applies immediately after an unsaved wound and has no wording to prevent activation by special rules.

Underline added for emphasis.

FNP happens at the same time the unsaved wound is being suffered. ES happens after suffering the unsaved wound.

Ergo, FNP happens first, and if successful, there is no unsaved wound for ES to trigger off of.

FNP:Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered

So Happyjew you are simply wrong.

You must have a different rulebook then I do.

Mine says

"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..."

Look a bit under that....

And why do you avoid the "all special rules are cumulative" rule? Run out of ideas for new rules to invent? Maybe you think that rule is "all special rules other than FNP are cumulative"? Or something like "All special rules are cumulative, with the exception of the ones blaktoof finds inconvenient"? I really would like to know your (new) interpretation...

other than your post stating blatant lies about another poster, and being a troll post I have actually answered you on this two times now. here is the third.

Cumulative has nothing to do with timing.

Cumulative has to do with multiple things that modify the same stat.

here are some examples to help you understand what the word cumulative means.

Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.

benefits from different blessings are cumulative. Unless otherwise stated, blessings cannot modify characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).

A lack of armour leaves vital parts of these vehicles vulnerable. If a vehicle is Open-topped, add 1 to any rolls made on the Vehicle Damage table (this is cumulative with other modifiers).

The building’s Armour Value is reduced by 1 (on all facings) for the remainder of the battle. This is cumulative with any other penalties to the building’s Armour Value.

Scatterfield. A unit that controls this objective counts its cover saves as being 1 point better than normal (so a unit in the open would have a 6 + cover save). This bonus is cumulative with the Stealth and Shrouded special rules.

6 - Grav Wave Generator. Any unit attempting to charge a unit in control of this objective subtracts 2 from its charge range (to a minimum of 0). This is cumulative with the penalty for charging through Difficult Terrain, if applicable.

Cover save bonuses from the Shrouded and Stealth special rules are cumulative (to a maximum of a 2 + cover save).

Banishment is a malediction that targets a single unit with the Daemon special rule within 24". Whilst this power is in effect, all models in the target unit suffer a -1 penalty to their invulnerable save (normally reducing it to 6 +). This is cumulative with any other modifiers to a Daemon’s invulnerable save, but cannot make it worse than 6 +.

as you can see cumulative means things that modify a stat can combine together using the rules for applying modifiers.

It does not mean that two separate things that do not modify a stat, such as FnP and ES or Concussive go off at the same time.

if you can find an instance of cumulative in the rulebook that specifically calls out that you can make different things happen at once that are not related to modifying the same stat please cite it.


and the section from assault specifically calls out that something that saves or prevents an unsaved wound a model has, means the wound was never suffered.

Just as FnP calls out that the model avoids/saves/discounts the wound. The model is only wounded as normal if it fails the FnP roll.

if the model passes FnP there was not an unsaved wound suffered. RAW.

So then if you have FnP then you can't also use It will not die? Those would be cumulative effects. Maybe the Dark Eldar can't use the Heat Lance that has Melta and Lance, another cumulative effect.

@blaktoof
All these rules you quoted are irrelevant. It is a pitty you took all that time to make such a worthless post. The only rule that is relevant and (for some reason) you didn't quote is this:
(under "A compendium of special rules")
However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative.

Do you see any restrictions? Any hint of a restriction? It is a blanket statement about all special rules being cumulative.

I know it is a new edition and mistakes can easily be made, but if you are arguing hard about a rule at least check the BRB extensively before posting.

copper.talos wrote:
All these rules you quoted are irrelevant. It is a pitty you took all that time to make such a worthless post. The only rule that is relevant and (for some reason) you didn't quote is this:
(under "A compendium of special rules")
However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative.

Do you see any restrictions? Any hint of a restriction? It is a blanket statement about all special rules being cumulative.

I know it is a new edition and mistakes can easily be made, but if you are arguing hard about a rule at least check the BRB extensively before posting.

My point was his interpretation wouldn't allow these to be used together. I am sure there are more, but these were all I could get before my battery died on my E reader.

@Megatrons2nd II am with you 100% on this. All sorts of oddities can result from special rules not being cumulative. I was just replying to blaktoof's post and all the rules he posted about blessings and vehicle damag tables and I didn't see you posted something first. I will fix it.

@ Talos No problems.



This debate will never end do to poorly written rules, unless GW writes an FAQ.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
So then if you have FnP then you can't also use It will not die? Those would be cumulative effects. Maybe the Dark Eldar can't use the Heat Lance that has Melta and Lance, another cumulative effect.

both of your examples are flawed.

it will not die and feel no pain do not go at the same time. they are not cumulative with each other in any regard as one saves unsaved wounds, and the other gives you back wounds at the end of the turn. This example does nothing to illustrate your point and further highlights how far from having a reasonable grasp on the rules you are. The irony here is you and others support that suffering an unsaved wound means you went from 1 wound to 0 wounds, which IWND would actually be relavent to in wording as it deals with returning lost wounds, whereas with FnP there is no wound suffered, ie the model never goes from 1-0 wounds until the fnp roll is failed.

Melta modifies a roll you make and lance modifies a value of the model, they are not cumulative as they do not modify the same stat.

At this point I am putting both you and copper on ignore for obvious reasons.

feel free to do the same to me, I do not mind never seeing your posts again.

And of course no response about "However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative." which means both ES and FNP must apply.

To be honest I didn't expect any better...

When does an unsaved wound become a lost wound? (IE. when do we lower the Wounds Characteristic by 1?)

Is it immediately after the Saving roll is failed? Is it after Allocation of a wound to a Model? Or is it after all USR's that trigger off of an unsaved Wound resolve.

Example: A T5, 1W, 3++ w(FNP) model is assaulted and hit by a Thunder Hammer.

The model is hit.

The Hit wounds.

The 3++ save is failed.

An unsaved Wound has been Suffered. (Model has yet to have its Wounds lowered by one)

FNP and Concussive both Trigger off of the suffered unsaved Wound.

Neither FNP nor Concussive are given Explicit permission to resolve before the other.

Player attacking chooses to resolve Concussive First and then FNP.

Model is effected by Concussive as there is an unsaved wound at this point.

FNP is successful and then discounts the unsaved wound, thus stopping the lowering of the Wounds by one. Treating it as saved.

The model has survived but is now concussed.


Now same example with FNP being resolved First. Starting at FNP and Concussive Trigger.

Player attacking Chooses to have FNP resolve First.

FNP is successful and then discounts the unsaved wound, thus stopping the lowering of the Wounds by one. Treating it as saved.

Model is not effected by Concussive as there is not an unsaved Wound at this point.

The Model has survived and is not concussed.


Against a Weapon with ES this is moot as ES is the more Explicit rule and happens Immediately after the unsaved Wound is suffered, and Strike down just does not care one way or the other.

blaktoof wrote:


Cumulative has nothing to do with timing.

Cumulative has to do with multiple things that modify the same stat.

here are some examples to help you understand what the word cumulative means.

Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.

as you can see cumulative means things that modify a stat can combine together using the rules for applying modifiers.

It does not mean that two separate things that do not modify a stat, such as FnP and ES or Concussive go off at the same time.

if you can find an instance of cumulative in the rulebook that specifically calls out that you can make different things happen at once that are not related to modifying the same stat please cite it.

I love this one. You did my work for me. Right there with the multiple effects of psychic powers being cumulative. Sounds like the effects of multiple special rules being cumulative to me. As Psychic powers do all sorts of things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
So then if you have FnP then you can't also use It will not die? Those would be cumulative effects. Maybe the Dark Eldar can't use the Heat Lance that has Melta and Lance, another cumulative effect.

both of your examples are flawed.

it will not die and feel no pain do not go at the same time. they are not cumulative with each other in any regard as one saves unsaved wounds, and the other gives you back wounds at the end of the turn. This example does nothing to illustrate your point and further highlights how far from having a reasonable grasp on the rules you are. The irony here is you and others support that suffering an unsaved wound means you went from 1 wound to 0 wounds, which IWND would actually be relavent to in wording as it deals with returning lost wounds, whereas with FnP there is no wound suffered, ie the model never goes from 1-0 wounds until the fnp roll is failed.

Melta modifies a roll you make and lance modifies a value of the model, they are not cumulative as they do not modify the same stat.

At this point I am putting both you and copper on ignore for obvious reasons.

feel free to do the same to me, I do not mind never seeing your posts again.

Maybe they are flawed. Just like putting the end before the beginning, or time traveling a rule. The unsaved wound is the point between failing a save, and applying the wound to a model. As it is not defined anywhere, save the fast rolling section, we must infer that anything based off of an unsaved wound goes in between the fail of the save, and removing the wound. You are the one fixating on the wound removal before special rules.

I am sorry that you feel the need to ignore my posts, because I don't see the rules the same way you do, your loss. Why would I ignore you? What would that solve?

I find that when people place other people on ignore for trying to respectfully substantiate their side of an argument, that those doing the ignoring are expressing that they no-longer wish to listen to the debate and are thus retracting all of their views and statements. Just my two cents.

Fair warning has been given to this thread recently, the thread is now locked and warnings will be applied