My last message didn't make sense so I editted it to this "Since even you admit that ES resolves before FNP then then armor save is stripped off the model. Then FNP kicks in and says to ignore the injury. Does it also say to restore the armour save? " and was addreesed to deathreaper.

In the previous messages I proved that KK's reason for ES coming second to FNP was against rules and creates a paradox.

copper.talos wrote:My last message didn't make sense so I editted it to this "Since even you admit that ES resolves before FNP then then armor save is stripped off the model. Then FNP kicks in and says to ignore the injury. Does it also say to restore the armour save? " and was addreesed to deathreaper.

Thanks.

If you remove the armor save, are you ignoring the injury that allowed you to remove the armor save?

I hope and pray with every fiber of my being that they fix this with a different wording in 6th edition. I would agree with you 100% Nos, except that if you completely ignore the unsaved wound, you have ignored the event that allowed you to take your FNP roll in the first place. You either have or have not suffered an unsaved wound, and if you have not, then nothing (including FNP) triggers upon not suffering it, and if you have, then everything (including FNP and ES, etc...) triggers upon suffering it. That is my entire issue with the whole thing, and as long as a tournament judge consistently rules one way or the other I really don't care. For the record, in my circle of friends, we play it such that everything triggers. We take Pinning tests on units that suffer an unsaved wound from a barrage weapon that is ignored due to FNP. We allow Lemartes to gain his buff even if his unsaved wound is ignored due to FNP. We allow Acid Blood to trigger on an unsaved wound ignored by FNP. And we will allow Entropic Strike to strip the armor off of a model that makes it's FNP roll as well. We are consistent and there are no arguments, so it really makes no difference whether or not we do it this way. In a tournament if there is a disagreement we call a judge, and if they rule against us we go with it with no complaints.

This could easily be fixed by re-wording FNP to the following:

Feel No Pain
.....If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice. On a 1, 2 or 3 take the wound as normal (removing the model if it loses its final Wound). On a 4, 5 or 6, the unsaved wound and all contingient effects except for Feel No Pain are ignored and the model continues fighting.......

It cleanly removes the paradox by noting Feel No Pain as an exception, specifically states that all other contingent effects for suffering an Unsaved Wound do no trigger, and uses 'Unsaved Wound' consistently as the key wording instead of the synonym 'Injury'. If GW would write their rules with this kind of thing in mind (IE keyword based rules with consistent wording), then we would have about a billion fewer arguments for these kinds of issues.

Anyway, I am finished arguing this point. I have done so at length in multiple threads and I have yet to have my mind changed, or change any minds. It's going nowhere, and I would rather wait for 6th edition to see if they fix it (and be disappointed when they don't, of course). Have fun with your discussion.

pg 6 of the BRB "Heroes and large monsters are often able to withstand several injuries that would slay a lesser creature, and so have a Wounds value of 2,3 or more.

So injuries are directly associated with the wounds value and nothing more. You successfully ignore the injury by not reducing the wounds value. You don't get to negate/cancel/save etc anything else...

That is an anecdote from the Wounds stat Definition; and by your terming/association with it in that context, it would mean that FNP has no effect on single-wound models(Sorry Plague marines, BA, Gunnery Sgt Harker, et al; but Copper.Talos says you don't get to benefit from FNP since you oly have 1W)

If you wanted to use another instance of Injury(or injured) in this case more relevant to this discussion, you could use the instance in "Remove Casualties" on page 24 of the BRB; but then that is also dealing with what happens when a model suffers an unsaved wound(Last paragraph): "Casualties are not necessarily dead - thy may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way."

"Multiple-Wound Models" on page 25 of the BRB never uses the word injury in any conjugation(putting yet another whole in your theory that "injury" deals only with the wound stat and then only with Multiple-wound models).

So if a wording in the BRB is inconvenient is characterised as an anecdote? Well you can stretch and streeetch words all you want, but in the end injuries are directly associated with the wounds value ONLY.
As for single wound models *sigh* if multiple wound models need several injuries to die, then even a 6 year old can extrapolate that a single wound model need only a single injury. Which actually is what happens.

What about the "1 or more wounds" paradox you created with you logic? No comments about that?

They are also DIRECTLY associated with unsaved wounds. So, youre wrong, again.

No when a wording has little to do with the rules it is an anecdote.

Note how on pages 6 and 7 they discuss the meanings of all the stats trumpeting the abilities of the various types that have higher than average stats?

I will give you a few examples:

On WS: "An average human soldier has a WS3, while a genetically-enhanced Space marine will have a WS4 or even WS5" So does that mean that Space marines only ever have a WS4 or WS5? No, Scouts have a WS3, and Chapter Masters have a WS6; thus this is anecdotal.

On Toughness: "A human is T3, while a Ork is T4." Not all humans are T3, Commisar Yarrick and Col Straken are both T4, does this mean that they are not human? How about Orks, are Warbosses with their T5 not Orks?; What about Nob Bikers do they cease to be Orks when you put them on a Bike?

The definitions of the characteristics on Pages 6&7 tell you what the characteristics mean and what they do, not how they work. And the little anecdotes to characterize them certainly do not dictate how they relate to any other rules.

There is no 1 or more wounds paradox; you do not check to see if your model has received 1 or more unsaved wounds until after all the wounds are fully resolved, you then immediately remove the armour save if the model has suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds.

It is simple and it is clear; if all the unsaved wounds are ignored, then the model has not suffered from any unsaved wounds. You do not "Suffer" from nothing at all.

Aldarionn wrote:I would agree with you 100% Nos, except that if you completely ignore the unsaved wound, you have ignored the event that allowed you to take your FNP roll in the first place.

You still haven't explained why this is a problem.

There is nothing that allows you to re-evaluate if you were allowed to take FNP.
There is precedent in the rules for vehicle cover saves - which tell you to discard the hit that allowed you to take the cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:You successfully ignore the injury by not reducing the wounds value. You don't get to negate/cancel/save etc anything else...

If I did not suffer a wound (because I did not reduce my wound stat), why is an effect that requires me suffering a wound allowed to work?

By not reducing your wound stat you have successfully resolved FNP. That's what FNP is all about. Anything else is wishful thinking.

You only ever reduce your current wounds when you have suffered an unsaved wound.

FNP causes you to ignore the Unsaved wound; therefore you ignore any other effects associated with the unsaved wound.

If you are told to ignore an email because it was sent in error, do you look at the attachment and send a reply complaining it is wrong?

kirsanth wrote:If you are told to ignore an email because it was sent in error, do you look at the attachment and send a reply complaining it is wrong?

I've got a better one; if you are told a weapon ignores your armor save; do you still take your armor save?



Or even better:

If you are told a weapon Ignores cover, do you still benefit from Stealth and going to ground against it?

kirsanth wrote:If you are told to ignore an email because it was sent in error, do you look at the attachment and send a reply complaining it is wrong?

If you are told to ignore an email because it was sent in error, and you do, have you or have you not received that email?

copper.talos wrote:

kirsanth wrote:If you are told to ignore an email because it was sent in error, do you look at the attachment and send a reply complaining it is wrong?

If you are told to ignore an email because it was sent in error, and you do, have you or have you not received that email?

It doesn't matter if you did - you ignore it.

The question is if you have received it. Well did you or did you not?

I don't know. I was told to ignore it. I can't go check because that would mean I wasn't ignoring it.

No, the question was "do you look at the attachment and send a reply complaining it is wrong?"

Then Kommisar Kel asked a few more relevant ones, then you asked something else entirely.


Editing to add:
However, just to . . . well anyway.
I would not have a way to check - my Ignored messages are not there.

I can assume it was received, and that is why it was ignored. But as it WAS ignored, it is no longer at all relevant to my mail or any discussion involving it.

So you won't ever check your inbox again? Then how are you going to know if a new email arrives... ever...

Ignored emails are not in my inbox. They are ignored.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If this is confusing, click the ignore button in the dakkadakka interface for a user.

Exactly what Kir said, My Ignored E-Mail do not go to my inbox either, I am not sure what happens to them, but that is because they are set up to be ignored so I am never bothered with them.

If you are told to ignore something, then you have to ignore every product of that thing. To do otherwise is to not ignore the thing you are told to ignore.

Here is an idea; lets Ignore the real world example of an erroneous email, and how about you address my real-game examples?

Maybe he clicked ignore.

hehe

I suggest you read this http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2011/10/rulings-dark-eldar-hex-rifles-vs-feel-no-pain/

The e-mail still happened even if you try to ignored it.
The sales guy is still knocking at your door even if you ignore it.

All this is still based on when you roll dice.

4 SM equipped the same and 2 Scarabs attacking

The Attacker
1. Roll to Hit - 10 attacks 4+to hit rolls 8 six's and 2 one's = 8 hits

2. Roll to wound - 8 hits 5+ to wound rolls 4 six's and 4 one's = 4 wounds

The Defender
3. You now have 4 wounds to try to save against your 3+Sv and "you roll all 4 die at the same time not roll one then try FNP then roll one" rolling 4 one's failing your save - ES happens here Immediately

4. Since you have FNP and having failing a save you can now roll your FNP save rolling 4 six's and get your Wound/Life/Injury back and you are now standing on the battlefield Butt Naked "ES" happened" with your ammo belt and your weapons.

Unless you roll dice different than that, I would like to know the order in which you roll the dice for the same event.

PS: You will never be able to take a FNP save again unless it against anything other than you Sv as you no longer have a Sv save to fail that lets you take FNP as you must fail a save to take it and the auto save does not happen here as the example in the BRB when the guy was shot with a AP3 he had a Sv to fail even if was an auto due to the AP3.

This is my bet as to how the FAQ will go.
Not flaming anyone here just my take on the question.

Zenxzen wrote:PS: You will never be able to take a FNP save again unless it against anything other than you Sv as you no longer have a Sv save to fail that lets you take FNP as you must fail a save to take it and the auto save does not happen here as the example in the BRB when the guy was shot with a AP3 he had a Sv to fail even if was an auto due to the AP3.

That was one horrible sentence.

And that's wrong - having no save means that you will take an unsaved wound, which is the trigger for FNP. The trigger is not failing a save.

Your right that was badly done.

copper.talos wrote:I suggest you read this http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2011/10/rulings-dark-eldar-hex-rifles-vs-feel-no-pain/

It's like the person who wrote that post didn't come into the thread and say essentially the exact same thing.

Oh wait - he did.

And the argument hinges on the idea that FNP ignoring the wound completely would create a paradox, and paradoxes are unacceptable. If that were the case, vehicles would not be able to take cover saves, as the cover save discards the penetrating/glancing hit and a vehicle is only allowed a cover save if it suffers a penetrating/glancing hit. There's also no rules allowing you to go back in time and re-examine if FNP is able to be taken after FNP is successful.

Feel free to provide rules that say paradox's are unacceptable.

I understand why there is confusion but for me, both effects are triggered and get to resolve.

FNP lets you ignore the injury but I don't see how it untriggers Entropic Strike as both are resolved simultaneously and their effects don't clash, so for all intents and purposes they can pretend the other effect doesn't exist while they go about their business.

Even if we pretend the unsaved wound that triggered Entropic Strike never existed because it is "ignored"; Entropic Strike doesn't care, it is already happening.

Zenxzen wrote:The e-mail still happened even if you try to ignored it.
The sales guy is still knocking at your door even if you ignore it.

So a Chaos vehicle with Daemonic possession is still stunned(and thus cannot move or shoot), even though Daemonc possession ignores it?

And the unsaved wound still gets removed/the model is removed as a casualty; even though FNP ignores it?

Brilliant, yet another proponent of FNP never does anything.

Zenxzen wrote:The Defender
3. You now have 4 wounds to try to save against your 3+Sv and "you roll all 4 die at the same time not roll one then try FNP then roll one" rolling 4 one's failing your save - ES happens here Immediately

4. Since you have FNP and having failing a save you can now roll your FNP save rolling 4 six's and get your Wound/Life/Injury back and you are now standing on the battlefield Butt Naked "ES" happened" with your ammo belt and your weapons.

Unless you roll dice different than that, I would like to know the order in which you roll the dice for the same event.

The Attacker part was all correct, so I ignored it(this is getting fun); this part however...

First off; the syntax is all out of sorts on #3, I seriously am havin a heck of a time making out what you are trying to say, but I will repeat what I think you were trying to say:

"3. You now have 4 wounds to try to save against your 3+Sv. You roll your 4 dice(you do not have to roll them all at the same time, and if the unit were not Identical and you have all identical dice; you cannot) to save, failing all of them. You then roll for FNP with 4 dice, failing all of them. ES happens(not that it matters because the models in this example are SMs which are 1W models as standard; and as such are all dead)."

This is correct and in the correct order.

#4 is all wrong, mainly because you have already taken your FNP rolls; so thee is no #4 unless the models in question had multiple wounds.

Now, let me explain why FNP does go off before anything else:

Remove Casualties, BRB Page 24, first paragraph third sentence: "Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

This is where the "but Rule X says for each unsaved wound Immediately do Y; and FNP lacks the 'Immediately'" falls short; True enough FNP lack the word Immediately, but that is fine, it would still have to go off before anything else that the unsaved wound might cause because if it waited for all other "immediately's to go first, then the model wound already be removed as a casualty. The only way for FNP to work is for it to come into effect before Remove casualties, ad the only way for it to coe into effect before remove casualties is if it happens before all other "Immediately" effects.

Zenxzen wrote:PS: You will never be able to take a FNP save again unless it against anything other than you Sv as you no longer have a Sv save to fail that lets you take FNP as you must fail a save to take it and the auto save does not happen here as the example in the BRB when the guy was shot with a AP3 he had a Sv to fail even if was an auto due to the AP3.

This is my bet as to how the FAQ will go.
Not flaming anyone here just my take on the question.

First Flaw: as rigeld2 already pointed out; the trigger is an unsaved wound not a failed save.
Second flaw: a Sv value of "-" is a Save value, and is denied by any AP of 6 or better.
Third Flaw: An AP with a lower numeric value than your save does not automatically fail your save anyways, it outright denies the ability of a save("the target gets no armour save at all." BRB page 20, Armour piercing weapons, first bullet point, end of first sentence).

Conveniently, we have two terms to reflect this scenario.

Failed Save: The model has been hit, wounded, and either did not roll sufficiently high on its save or was not allowed one in the first place.
Unsaved Wound: The model has taken a wound and (if its total wounds exceed the Wound value on its profile) is removed from play as a casualty.

Astonishingly, FNP prevents the first from becoming the second. Entropic Strike, Hexrifles, and the like all trigger on unsaved wounds, and so are ignored on a successful FNP roll.

Ok, I will agree to the fact that you are a better writer, but I will do my best.

First you can not have an unsaved wound unless you had tried to rolled a save. Pg.75 FNP

Page 7 BRB under Zero-Level Characteristics states that a "-" has no save at all.

Page 20 states that like models take their rolls in one go not one at a time.
Bullet Point says if you have a save it is ignored in this case you have no save to ignore.

Page 24 BRB under Removing Casualties "For every model that fails its save, the unit takes an "unsaved wound"

You equate FNP as goes back in time and wound never happened.

I equate FNP as someone hits me knocking me down adrenalin kicks in and I jump back up and keep fighting ignoring my fat lip and broken teeth more RAI I think.

Zenxzen wrote:You equate FNP as goes back in time and wound never happened.

I equate FNP as someone hits me knocking me down adrenalin kicks in and I jump back up and keep fighting ignoring my fat lip and broken teeth more RAI I think.

Its a good thing that RAI and fluff have little bearing in YMDC.

I like that.

Well FNP ignores the wound. It doesn't say anything about additional effects of the attack, so unfortunately I think it's valid to be interpreted either way. Hopefully the FAQ comes out soon.

Also, the email example is hilarious.

Well, since FNP only ignores the injury (not the wound), then I can have a 'uge mob of ork boyz with a Wound characteristic of 0, and thus cannot be killed! HAHA! Zombie Orks!!

Happyjew wrote:Well, since FNP only ignores the injury (not the wound), then I can have a 'uge mob of ork boyz with a Wound characteristic of 0, and thus cannot be killed! HAHA! Zombie Orks!!

LoL, not really as Injury/Wound/Life have the same meaning and passing a FNP gives you back your life/wound/injury and sets it back from 0 to 1.

I can certainly see both sides of the argument here, but I come down on the side of any effect that triggers on 'an unsaved wound' as triggering simultaneously unless stated otherwise, (and in the case of an unsaved wound vs 1 or more unsaved wounds, I don't find that to be a valid difference, except to be more clear, thus if you take 10 unsaved wounds with pinning weapons, you don't need to then pass 10 leadership tests not to be pinned)

You only get to attempt to save a wound once. (see page 24) "the model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save" Which is why when a model is being shot at, he does not take his cover save, then his armor save, and then his invulnerable save. The model gets one, and only one attempt to save the wound. If this attempt to save the wound is failed, then the model will take a wound and have it subtracted from its wounds total potentially causing it to die. Again on page 24 "for every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."

Feel no pain, gives a model under certain circumstances a method of potentially not being removed from the table from losing his last wound, however it was still hit and wounded, it just was not enough to cripple/kill the figure. I.e. a flesh wound. It does not however go back in time and let you take another bite at the apple and break the only 1 save can be attempted per wound rule.

Passing your feel no pain does not mean that you were never hit in the first place, and as such, you are still liable to suffer any effects that come with failing your save, from having to pass a pinning check, having to pass a statistic test, or even having your armor removed. (or all three potentially in the future)

*edit* fixed typo

Norsehawk wrote:Feel no pain, gives a model under certain circumstances a method of potentially not being removed from the table from losing his last wound, however it was still hit and wounded, it just was not enough to cripple/kill the figure. I.e. a flesh wound. It does not however go back in time and let you take another bite at the apple and break the only 1 save can be attempted per wound rule.

No one is arguing that it does. The one allowed save was failed, which is (essentially) what kicks in FNP. And FNP works for more than just the last wound - you could have a 3W model making every FNP test and never dip below 3W.

Passing your feel no pain does not mean that you were never hit in the first place, and as such, you are still liable to suffer any effects that come with failing your save, from having to pass a pinning check, having to pass a statistic test, or even having your armor removed. (or all three potentially in the future)

You're right - FNP does not ignore the hit. It ignores the unsaved wound. If you apply any of the "after affects" you're not ignoring the unsaved wound.

"It's like the person who wrote that post didn't come into the thread and say essentially the exact same thing. Oh wait - he did."
-Rigeld

...and he sounds awfully handsome, too.

"And the argument hinges on the idea that FNP ignoring the wound completely would create a paradox, and paradoxes are unacceptable. If that were the case, vehicles would not be able to take cover saves, as the cover save discards the penetrating/glancing hit and a vehicle is only allowed a cover save if it suffers a penetrating/glancing hit. There's also no rules allowing you to go back in time and re-examine if FNP is able to be taken after FNP is successful. Feel free to provide rules that say paradox's are unacceptable."
-Rigeld

Actually the argument hinges on the premise that both effects are triggered by the same event, and neither has the power to affect the other once they are triggered, so they must both be resolved. The argument regarding the paradox is simply to rule out the possibility of going back and un-triggering the effects. Do you really need a rule to tell you that the creation of an irreconcilable time paradox is unacceptable? Really?

Anyhow, I was probably more eloquent in the article, so I agree with copper.talos (an unpaid endorser, I assure you!) that you should take a look at the article itself for a fuller, clearer picture of my argument. And if (when?) this thread gets locked, feel free to come and argue with me some more over there if you'd care to.

Hope this helps!
-GK

See, I've never understood the whole "creates a paradox" argument. If feel no pain makes it so that you never took the wound, why would you go back in time to try to take it?

If you have problems with that, shouldn't you have problems with twin-linked? A twin linked weapon may reroll a failed roll to hit. But if you reroll and successfully hit, then by the paradox argument you never actually missed, since the twin link retconned that. So then you shouldn't have gotten a reroll. Which means you would have missed, thereby saying you do get a reroll again....

This is not complex new rules, or wonky interactions between two rulebooks written without cross checking. It's all from the same rule in the BGB. If you think that everything that lets you negate something happening should check the past again after it's already taken back, you would never finish a game of 40k.

I can definitely see strong arguments for both sides, and it is (for some time) been an issue with Feel No Pain and how other effects that trigger on an "unsaved wound" are affected or not affected by it. I find it odd that GW haven't yet FAQ'd this, seeing as FNP and things that trigger on unsaved wounds aren't exactly a rarity, and are quite likely to come up in the average game. Nor is the answer immediately obvious, as can be seen by the arguments back and forth, both compelling.

I find myself leaning towards the train of thought that Feel No Pain allows you to ignore the wound, but no other effects. This is because, as others have said before, Feel No Pain is not, and cannot be, a "Save", therefore if indeed you are forced to roll a FNP check you have suffered an "Unsaved Wound" already.

FNP does allow you to retroactively ignore a wound, it does not allow you to retroactively ignore the fact that a wound did in fact occur. These two things may seem identical, but there is an important distinction between them.
Basically, Feel No Pain = ignoring a wound's direct negative affect on the model's wound characteristic, not: ignoring a wound and all the attendant effects that said unsaved wound may or may not entail.

Dr. Delorean wrote:
I find myself leaning towards the train of thought that Feel No Pain allows you to ignore the wound, but no other effects. This is because, as others have said before, Feel No Pain is not, and cannot be, a "Save", therefore if indeed you are forced to roll a FNP check you have suffered an "Unsaved Wound" already.

FNP does allow you to retroactively ignore a wound, it does not allow you to retroactively ignore the fact that a wound did in fact occur. These two things may seem identical, but there is an important distinction between them.
Basically, Feel No Pain = ignoring a wound's direct negative affect on the model's wound characteristic, not: ignoring a wound and all the attendant effects that said unsaved wound may or may not entail.

That's my view as well. Since you only get one chance to save a wound, cover save, armor save, or invulnerable save, you only get one. Thus, Feel no Pain is not a save since you would not be allowed by the rules to use it if you rolled one of the other saves. You only get one chance to save the wound, then if that save is failed, it is an unsaved wound. Feel no pain, pinning, entropic strike and other abilities activate on an unsaved wound. Thus if a model takes an unsaved wound by failing one of the saves, all the effects that are applicable are applied to the model. It cannot go back in time and change an unsaved wound into a saved wound since that is taking a second chance at saving a wound, which is not allowed in the rules. All it protects you from is the actual subtraction of the wound from the profile of the model. The model still suffered an unsaved wound, but it wasn't enough to kill/cripple their fighting ability, so any effects that rely on an unsaved wound would trigger.

So yes, you get shot with a pinning weapon, wounded, your armor does not protected and you shrug off the fire, you still need to take a pinning test.
You get munched on by a scarab, it goes through your armor but you are not killed, you still don't have armor anymore.
You get shot with a hex rifle, you get your feel no pain roll, but you must also take a toughness test.

And if you get wounded by a pinning hexrifle with entropic strike, you get your feel no pain, lose your armor save, take a pinning check, and take a toughness test in whatever order you wish to do with your opponent, but all the tests must be done.

Norsehawk wrote:

Dr. Delorean wrote:
I find myself leaning towards the train of thought that Feel No Pain allows you to ignore the wound, but no other effects. This is because, as others have said before, Feel No Pain is not, and cannot be, a "Save", therefore if indeed you are forced to roll a FNP check you have suffered an "Unsaved Wound" already.

FNP does allow you to retroactively ignore a wound, it does not allow you to retroactively ignore the fact that a wound did in fact occur. These two things may seem identical, but there is an important distinction between them.
Basically, Feel No Pain = ignoring a wound's direct negative affect on the model's wound characteristic, not: ignoring a wound and all the attendant effects that said unsaved wound may or may not entail.

That's my view as well. Since you only get one chance to save a wound, cover save, armor save, or invulnerable save, you only get one. Thus, Feel no Pain is not a save since you would not be allowed by the rules to use it if you rolled one of the other saves. You only get one chance to save the wound, then if that save is failed, it is an unsaved wound. Feel no pain, pinning, entropic strike and other abilities activate on an unsaved wound. Thus if a model takes an unsaved wound by failing one of the saves, all the effects that are applicable are applied to the model. It cannot go back in time and change an unsaved wound into a saved wound since that is taking a second chance at saving a wound, which is not allowed in the rules. All it protects you from is the actual subtraction of the wound from the profile of the model. The model still suffered an unsaved wound, but it wasn't enough to kill/cripple their fighting ability, so any effects that rely on an unsaved wound would trigger.

So yes, you get shot with a pinning weapon, wounded, your armor does not protected and you shrug off the fire, you still need to take a pinning test.
You get munched on by a scarab, it goes through your armor but you are not killed, you still don't have armor anymore.
You get shot with a hex rifle, you get your feel no pain roll, but you must also take a toughness test.

And if you get wounded by a pinning hexrifle with entropic strike, you get your feel no pain, lose your armor save, take a pinning check, and take a toughness test in whatever order you wish to do with your opponent, but all the tests must be done.

As I said a few pages back:

Pinning.

Assault Results.

Vulnerable to Blast/templates.

Remove casualties.

All of these things(and a great many others) are triggered via "Suffers an unsaved wound". If FNP does not ignore the Unsaved wound in total(which would be how you ignore something, like Cover saves or armour saves get totally ignored no matter what other benefits or penalties could be applied to them); then all of these still take place, including the removal of your model as a casualty(because FNP ignores the injury from the unsaved wound, which must be the wound itself; and if that is not the whole of the unsaved wound, then the model still dies because the remove casualties is based on the unsaved wound).

FNP Ignores the unsaved wound; that does not "retroactively remove" the unsaved wound, it creates no temporal paradox, it occurs before the Immediate removal of the model as a casualty, and if successful the unsaved wound is ignored(or discarded) in total.

Now the Reason I have said nothing on the Hexrifle discussion is that the Hexrifle cold possibly be a weapon that causes ID, thus negating FNP; but that does not get determined until after the wound has been unsaved.

"Pinning. Assault Results. Vulnerable to Blast/templates. Remove casualties. All of these things(and a great many others) are triggered via "Suffers an unsaved wound". If FNP does not ignore the Unsaved wound in total(which would be how you ignore something, like Cover saves or armour saves get totally ignored no matter what other benefits or penalties could be applied to them); then all of these still take place, including the removal of your model as a casualty(because FNP ignores the injury from the unsaved wound, which must be the wound itself; and if that is not the whole of the unsaved wound, then the model still dies because the remove casualties is based on the unsaved wound). "
-Komissar Kel

I disagree. Not all of these things occur despite a successful FNP roll.

Yes, you still have to take the pinning test if you pass FNP. See BGB p. 31 Like hexrifles, entropic strikes, etc. both effects are triggered by the unsaved wound, and neither has any impact on the other.
No, wounds ignored by FNP are not counted toward assault results. The assault result rules tell us that "wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count" (BGB p. 39). FNP would certainly qualify as a special rule with a similar effect to a saving throw. So FNP'ed wounds don't count.
Yes, vulnerable to blast/templates would cause two wounds, but nothing would prevent you from getting a FNP roll against both of 'em. See BGB p. 76
No, you would not remove a casualty (or subtract a wound) if you pass FNP, because by using context clues, you can see that's exactly what the FNP rule is telling you not to do when it says "ignore the injury". See BGB p. 75

FNP Ignores the unsaved wound; that does not "retroactively remove" the unsaved wound, it creates no temporal paradox, it occurs before the Immediate removal of the model as a casualty, and if successful the unsaved wound is ignored(or discarded) in total.
-Komissar Kel

I completely agree, but ignoring the wound means 'ignore it from this point on in the wound resolution process'. It does not mean going back and un-triggering or un-doing other completely separate effects which have also been triggered. As has been argued by many, including me, we absolutely cannot go back in time and un-trigger effects which have already been triggered. Nothing in the rules allows for that.

Now the Reason I have said nothing on the Hexrifle discussion is that the Hexrifle cold possibly be a weapon that causes ID, thus negating FNP; but that does not get determined until after the wound has been unsaved.
-Komissar Kel

I addressed that issue in my article on hexrifles vs. fnp. Since this isn't a hexrifle thread, I won't go into the details here.

Hope this helps!
-GK

GiantKiller wrote:

FNP Ignores the unsaved wound; that does not "retroactively remove" the unsaved wound, it creates no temporal paradox, it occurs before the Immediate removal of the model as a casualty, and if successful the unsaved wound is ignored(or discarded) in total.
-Komissar Kel

I completely agree, but ignoring the wound means 'ignore it from this point on in the wound resolution process'. It does not mean going back and un-triggering or un-doing other completely separate effects which have also been triggered. As has been argued by many, including me, we absolutely cannot go back in time and un-trigger effects which have already been triggered. Nothing in the rules allows for that.

Couldn't agree more; and when does FNP stop the wound from being applied?

Just prior to the Immediate application of the wound, which would be at the same time as all other "Immediately" effects.

Also you do not determine if a model has suffered "1 or more unsaved wounds" until after all wounds have been fully applied, so again the FNP ignores the unsaved wounds before ES ever gets a chance to kick in.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Couldn't agree more; and when does FNP stop the wound from being applied?

Just prior to the Immediate application of the wound, which would be at the same time as all other "Immediately" effects.

Also you do not determine if a model has suffered "1 or more unsaved wounds" until after all wounds have been fully applied, so again the FNP ignores the unsaved wounds before ES ever gets a chance to kick in.

I don't understand this logic.

If a swarm of Scarabs attacks a unit and causes 10 Wounds, and say the defender rolls 6 Saves, there are now 4 Unsaved Wounds.
All these Unsaved Wounds occur simultaneously, and they all trigger ES and FNP at the same time.

The "1 or more unsaved wounds" is to let you know that Entropic Strike only triggers once per model regardless of whether they suffer 1 or a million unsaved wounds (and giving a million chances to lose their armour).

No, there are no longer 4 unsaved wounds once you pass FNP - if there were then the unit would be down 4 models. As has been explained.

Are you ignoring the unsaved wound if you continue to pay attention to it? (ES) then you ahve broken a rule that explicitly tells you to IGNORE The unsaved wound

Even if magically the FNP transforms an unsaved wound to a saved wound, by the time FNP resolves ES has already stripped the model of its armour (ES resolves immediately, FNP doesn't). So at that time you need to cancel the effect itself not it's cause. And I don't see anywhere that says FNP restores armour saves.

The wording for FNP is "...the injury is ignored..".

One could equal Injury to Effect equally well as Injury to Unsaved Wound.

just looking for clarity, really.

copper.talos wrote:Even if magically the FNP transforms an unsaved wound to a saved wound, by the time FNP resolves ES has already stripped the model of its armour (ES resolves immediately, FNP doesn't). So at that time you need to cancel the effect itself not it's cause. And I don't see anywhere that says FNP restores armour saves.

Utter lack of rules again, joy.

You're also changing others arguments in order to create a strawman. Yet another logical fallacy.

And yet you fail again to explain why FNP resolves before ES...

And yet again you ignore your lack of rules.

"1 or more unsaved wound" is why. Its been explained to you a number of times by KK and others, and you keep ignoring it, fingers in ears style.

Read the tenets. Start using actual rules to back up your position, as you have failed to do so thus far.

"1 or more unsaved wounds" does not have to imply any kind of order, but rather a condition that explains the effect of ES.

That illlogical paradox?

First of all you "forget" that all wounds at a certain initative step happen simultaneously? It is in BRB you know. Now if you have a quote out of BRB or a FAQ that say wounds in a certain initiative step happen sequentially I'll give up. Since all wounds happen simultaneously why would ES delay it activation? No basis for ES delayed activation whatsoever then.

And now time for the paradox. What if you only get 1 unsaved wound. Then what? Using your "logic", ES will not need to wait for more wounds. So even if you roll successfully FNP your armour gets stripped. But if you get 2 or more unsaved wounds then your armour will be safe?! One would think more is better...

Do you see your logical fallacy now?

edit: @steelmage99 I totally agree with you. This has been pointed out before, but got ignored as it is "inconvenient" for some people...

Apparnetly you dont understand either logic or paradox. It is neither. Try again.

Sto putting words in my mouth. Stop constructing 2 different strawman arguments (the same logical fallacy twice in as many posts, a record?) and stop ignoring the arguments.

You are using words you dont know the meaning of. An incorrect argument (which KKels isnt, btw, just helping you out here) is not de facto a logical fallacy. Your arguments, however, are ENTIRELY based on logical fallacies.

So, you know that unsaved wound you are supposed to be ignoring, because you passed FNP? Guess what youre NOT doing - ignoring it.

Find a rule that addresses how you are allowed to pay attention to, and ignore something, at the same time. At the very least stop creating strawman arguments

I guess by your last post you admit that ES resolves before FNP then...

What part of "putting words in others mouths" are you struggling with?

copper.talos wrote:And yet you fail again to explain why FNP resolves before ES...

nosferatu1001 wrote:And yet again you ignore your lack of rules.

"1 or more unsaved wound" is why. Its been explained to you a number of times by KK and others, and you keep ignoring it, fingers in ears style.

Read the tenets. Start using actual rules to back up your position, as you have failed to do so thus far.

copper.talos wrote:That illlogical paradox?

First of all you "forget" that all wounds at a certain initative step happen simultaneously? It is in BRB you know. Now if you have a quote out of BRB or a FAQ that say wounds in a certain initiative step happen sequentially I'll give up. Since all wounds happen simultaneously why would ES delay it activation? No basis for ES delayed activation whatsoever then.

And now time for the paradox. What if you only get 1 unsaved wound. Then what? Using your "logic", ES will not need to wait for more wounds. So even if you roll successfully FNP your armour gets stripped. But if you get 2 or more unsaved wounds then your armour will be safe?! One would think more is better...

Do you see your logical fallacy now?

edit: @steelmage99 I totally agree with you. This has been pointed out before, but got ignored as it is "inconvenient" for some people...

Steelmage99 wrote:"1 or more unsaved wounds" does not have to imply any kind of order, but rather a condition that explains the effect of ES.

copper.talos wrote:And yet you fail again to explain why FNP resolves before ES...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Apparnetly you dont understand either logic or paradox. It is neither. Try again.

Sto putting words in my mouth. Stop constructing 2 different strawman arguments (the same logical fallacy twice in as many posts, a record?) and stop ignoring the arguments.

You are using words you dont know the meaning of. An incorrect argument (which KKels isnt, btw, just helping you out here) is not de facto a logical fallacy. Your arguments, however, are ENTIRELY based on logical fallacies.

So, you know that unsaved wound you are supposed to be ignoring, because you passed FNP? Guess what youre NOT doing - ignoring it.

Find a rule that addresses how you are allowed to pay attention to, and ignore something, at the same time. At the very least stop creating strawman arguments

The discussion at that point started with me saying ES resolves before FNP, you said that is not valid because of the "1 or more wounds" thing. I have proven that "logic" is against the rules and it creates a paradox (logic and paradox are greek words by the way, so don't think you know their meaning better than me).

So is there anything else to suggest that ES resolves after FNP?

copper.talos wrote:And yet you fail again to explain why FNP resolves before ES...

I have already explained it twice.

Lets see if you can understand explanation #3:

Go to remove Casualties, page 24 of the BRB; you will see there in the very first paragraph that you Immediately Apply the Unsaved wound(which means removal of the model or application of the wound to multiple-Wound models). This puts the Application of the unsaved wound at the Same timing as any other "Immediately" effects that trigger on an unsaved wound.

Now FNP would absolutely have to go off before the "Immediately" of the Wound application, because to go off any time later would be too late, the wound would already be applied.

Once FNP resolved the Unsaved wound is ignored(it is not technically changed into a Saved Wound, it is simply ignored altogether) from that point on; and remember FNP is resolved before "Immediately" effects.

That is the Basics on why FNP goes before anything else that is triggered on an unsaved wound.



Now for the part that I have explained 6 or 7 times in this thread:

ES does not resolve until all simultaneous attacks(All shooting from 1 unit, all CC attacks from 1 Initiative step) are fully resolved; this definitely means that even without the above, FNP resolves first because you do not determine if a model has suffered "1 or more unsaved wounds" until every simultaneous attack is resolved.

edit: On your "logic and Paradox" fallacy, and the Simultaneous nature of the attacks; You have your argument backwards, you are arguing from an illogical standpoint. this is purely for education.

Since all attacks(from a single unit shooting or single initiative step in close combat) are simultaneous and not sequential(which is 100% accurate, btw); then all of those simultaneous attacks must be fully resolved before you can determine if 1 or more unsaved wounds have been suffered, it also would certainly not resolve against any of those attacks.

I will illustrate this with a pair of examples using Triarchs against a Hive Tyrant:

5 Triarchs with voidblades assault a Hive Tyrant; they manage to not lose any models to the tyrants attacks. The Triarchs make their 15 attacks, hitting 8 times and wounding 5. One of those wounds was rending. The Tyrant would take 1 wound from the unsaveable rending wound, and then roll 4 3+ Armor saves. As you see he takes a wound, but all the simultaneous wounds would resolve at the same time before the ES kicks in, thus getting their Armour saves. After all of this the Hive tyrant will have lost its 3+ Armour save as it has taken 1 or more unsaved wounds.

5 Triarchs with voidblades assault a Hive Tyrant that somehow has FNP; they manage to not lose any models to the tyrants attacks. The Triarchs make their 15 attacks, hitting 8 times and wounding 5. The Tyrant would then roll 5 3+ Armor saves, failing 2 of them but then making his FNP. Since we are still resolving all of those Simultaneous wounds ES wold not Kick in unitl they are all fully resolved, and since FNP is an interupt on the Wound application, t is part of the Attack resolution process. In the End the Hive tyrant keeps its 3+ Armour save, because after the Simultaneous attacks have been resolved the HT hasn't suffered any unsaved wounds(the 2 that were FNP'd are ignored).

The rules disagree with you. You have 2 different abilities that trigger on the same cause, in this case an unsaved wound. So which of the 2 abilities takes priority is only depended upon the wording of these two abilities. And reading both rules, the word "immediately" gives priority to ES.

Kommissar Kel wrote:ES does not resolve until all simultaneous attacks(All shooting from 1 unit, all CC attacks from 1 Initiative step) are fully resolved; this definitely means that even without the above, FNP resolves first because you do not determine if a model has suffered "1 or more unsaved wounds" until every simultaneous attack is resolved.

I think you have a different concept of "simultaneous" than the rest of the world. To help you, if 15 unsaved wounds from 6 models happen simultaneously, then there is no time gap between them, it's from rolling saves to 15 unsaved wounds with nothing in between. So no delays whatsoever.

copper.talos wrote:I think you have a different concept of "simultaneous" than the rest of the world. To help you, if 15 unsaved wounds from 6 models happen simultaneously, then there is no time gap between them, it's from rolling saves to 15 unsaved wounds with nothing in between. So no delays whatsoever.

That's not what simultaneous means. It means that they all happen at the same time. So all 15 wounds happen at the same time. In this context, "happen" means "resolved". So you roll 15 FNPs and figure out unsaved wounds from there. You are not allowed to roll 12 FNPs, see what happens, then roll the other 3.

Wow, just Wow.

The word Immediately shows up in remove casualties; so you are trying to say that FNP happens after remove casualties right?


So again FNP does nothing according to you; your model is already Gone or has lost a wound well before FNP can resolve.


FNP resolves before wound application, therefore it resolves before all the "Immediately" effects, that is the only possible way that FNP can work and any of this nonsense about FNP lacking the Word "immediately" means it resolves after effects that do have the word "Immediately" means that it does not resolve until the odel in question loses the wound/is destroyed.



I think you have a different concept of what my quote says than the rest of the world. To help you all simultaneous attacks resolving before Es kicks in, maintains all simultaneous attacks as being... well Simultaneous.

I had never said there was any delays in any of the attacks, I said they were simultaneous, you go from all the attacks, to the attacks that hit rolling to wound, to the attacks that wound attempting to save to the failed saves attempting to FNP, to the application of any remaining unsaved wounds. After this point, if the model is still on the table, you can go straight into the check: Did the model suffer 1 or more unsaved wounds?

@rigeld 2 Timeline is hits->wounds->saves->unsaved wounds. On these unsaved wounds both ES and FNP trigger.
And I do say that all the simultaneous unsaved wounds happen at the same time. I don't get why you think I am telling otherwise.


@ΚΚ To get things straight. FNP doesn't have in its wording anything that would even hint of it having a priority. But yes it has a priority over the "immediately remove casualties", but that is the same for all effects that trigger on unsaved wounds. For example pinning weapons that cause 1 unsaved wound and kill 1 model, do cause a pinning check. And nowhere in the pinning weapon rules is any hint of a priority either. So effects that trigger on unsaved wounds, all have inherently a priority over "immediately remove casualties". So when it comes down to comparing ES and FNP, ES gets priority because of the "immediately" in its wording.

Just out of curiosity, did we ever get a consensus as to whether Necrons who pass RP/EL lose their armor?

copper.talos wrote:On these unsaved wounds both ES and FNP trigger.

No they do not.

I have proven this time and time again.

At this point you are simply trolling.

Happyjew wrote:Just out of curiosity, did we ever get a consensus as to whether Necrons who pass RP/EL lose their armor?

Yes they do, as they are the same models and most certainly have suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds; they lose their armor save.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Are you ignoring the unsaved wound if you continue to pay attention to it? (ES) then you ahve broken a rule that explicitly tells you to IGNORE The unsaved wound

You are ignoring the Injury by not applying the wound and removing the model (if it has no more wounds left).
No where does FNP say to ignore ES (how could it) or other triggered effects.

ignoring the injury can only mean ignoring the unsaved wound, anything else applies the wound to the model since it is applying unsaved wounds that applies the wound to the model and/or removes the model as a casualty.

If you are ignoring the wound you are completely ignoring it(since FNP tel you to ignore the wound and does not tell you to apply any effects other than the wound application)

Thanatos - so, you agree that you are not Ignoring the wound?

Ignoring the wound means ignore the wound. Not "ignore the wound for X, Y reasons, but not Z, A' and B" because the rules do not say anything close to what you are claiming

Kel - given copper has entirely ignored your explanations, creasted strawmen and continues to muddy their "argument" responding further to the poster seems like it will have little positive result.

I would say that you ARE ignoring the wound (e.g. You don't remove the model, etc);
you are not, however, ignoring the things that triggered off of the unsaved wound.

FNP doesn't say to ignore those other things.
They are already "on the stack" to use a MTG term.
When ES resolves, FNP hasn't ignored the injury yet.
(Note I don't advocate that ES resolves before FNP, I believe they resolve simultaneously)

ASIDE
I know fluff and RAI arguments aren't used here in YMDC;
I don't know why as GW seems to use fluff in their rules all the time (See FAQ about Daemons, etc.)
So if you will indulge me for a moment,
If I hit you, and your armour fails.
Your armour will suffer the effects of Entropic Strike.
The fact that adrenaline, or magic or whatever, allows you to ignore any injury you suffer from the strike, doesn't help you with your armour.

Which means you have not ignored the unsaved wound.
ALso, FNP happens before ES. It HAS to, because ES happens at the same time as Remove Casualties - if you;d read KKels argument this would have been clear.

Fluff works very badly in this game, a you roll to Armour Save after ive already wounded you. Entirely the wrong order of operations whenyou think about it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:... because ES happens at the same time as Remove Casualties...

you are either making things up or you can provide with a quote on this. So what will it be?

I've read Kels argument and I am unconvinced that ES and FNP don't occur at the same time given the exact same trigger (they both shove themselves infront of the Remove Casualties step).
I know you say the "1 or more" should push it to later but I don't agree with that either.
For me that line is only there to stop you getting multiple ES against a single model.



And yes I agree that the order of wounding should probably follow the order of the bullet/sword:
Hit -> Save -> Wound -> FNP.

It would at least mean that this argument would be moot, as ES would be resolved before the Wound roll.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I know you say the "1 or more" should push it to later but I don't agree with that either.
For me that line is only there to stop you getting multiple ES against a single model.

Multiple ES wounds against a single model don't do anything more than one ES wound against a single model. The armor save is removed. Why have a rule there stop something that explicitly doesn't matter?

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I've read Kels argument and I am unconvinced that ES and FNP don't occur at the same time given the exact same trigger (they both shove themselves infront of the Remove Casualties step).
I know you say the "1 or more" should push it to later but I don't agree with that either.
For me that line is only there to stop you getting multiple ES against a single model.



And yes I agree that the order of wounding should probably follow the order of the bullet/sword:
Hit -> Save -> Wound -> FNP.

It would at least mean that this argument would be moot, as ES would be resolved before the Wound roll.

How does something that happens at the same time as casualty removal shove itself in front of casualty removal/wound application?

Let alone the fact that you do not even check for ES until after all the wounds are resolved(since it is attacks causing 1 or more unsaved wounds, not for each unsaved wound), so ES does not even happen simultaneously with casualty removal/wound application


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:... because ES happens at the same time as Remove Casualties...

you are either making things up or you can provide with a quote on this. So what will it be?

You are correct; ES does not happen until after the wounds are all applied.

But for the Casualty removal happening Immediately:

I provided the quote on this several times; hell i told you where to look in the last post I made directed towards you.

or are you just Ignoring everything I type?

Wow, talk about getting hot under the collar. Reading through this thread has definitely ruffled some feathers.

I see how both sides are arguing their points. Which makes it easier to put in my 2 cents, wanted or not.

(Do not give me any lines about "find the paragraph bull****" as this is a demonstration in logic not reading skills or word hunting. So you English majors (as I'm sure there are actually very few in here) can keep those comments silent that'd be great, thanks.)

1. Their really isn't a "stacking" order for triggered effects in this game like there are in Magic: The Gathering. That alone would probably solve most of these issues, tbh.

2. The Hit > Save > Wound > USR(roll) does make more sense and would be the logical way to do it.

However, in regards to this topic, lets assume for ease of explanation that Hit > Save > Wound etc WAS how it was rolled for and not the other way around.

Necron ES hits LotD.
LotD fails his Save.
LotD takes an unsaved wound.
LotD's Armor Save is set to "-".
LotD rolls for FNP and succeeds.
LotD does not suffer a injury/wound and is not removed from play.

This is a logical way to look at this problem/equation. Hold off on the "injury isn't a wound". Yes I understand this, I am not an idiot. But to think of this in a logical manner and not resort to name calling or chiding is best. Leave your emotions at the door and this debate isn't as convoluted as it appears.

In this example, everything works. ES is applied because the unsaved wound happened. If there was no Unsaved Wound, FNP would not have needed to be rolled for and thusly, ES wouldn't have triggered either.

Now let us apply this to the rules as they currently are.

Hit > Wound > Save > USR(roll)

Necron ES hits LotD.
Necron ES Wounds LotD.
LotD rolls his Save and fails.
LotD's Save is set to '-'.
LotD rolls for FNP and succeeds.
LotD doesn't suffer an injury/wound and is not removed from play.

Now, with the switch of the priority in rolls. It becomes confusing. It's also confusing because of the way FNP is worded in connection with the dice roll scheme. FNP doesn't negate the event happening, it negates the killing blow or wound removal on multi-wound models. However, the unsaved wound still occurs therefor making ES (and other on unsaved wound effects) trigger. Now, whether you want to roll them one before the other is irrelevant.

FNP is not meant to erase the hit or wound or save. It simply allows you to stop the removal of the unsaved wound. That is all. Now yes, this IS NOT written in the rules verbatim. I know this, you know this.

But if this were not the intent for the rule, can we all not concede that it would make FNP grossly over-powered? I mean, you're not dying but you have a negative status effect?! Is that not enough for you? You need your little plastic men to be Gods to everyone else's army? Can they can not have an ability that your little men can be subjected to?

Also, one last note, lets think of the name for this USR. Feel No Pain, it's not Feel No Wound, or Wound Didn't Happen.

Again for the record. I know this is not stated in the BRB, I know this isn't worded word for word the way I've described it. But simply put, in a logical thought process, does this not make sense?

Another major problem with this issue, is I think/believe people are getting to attached to the word "Wound". What I mean is if you're ignoring the effects of wound removal, it doesn't mean the wound never happened. It just means you're ignoring the effect of the wound, not the wound itself actually occurring. Once again not in RAW I know, but logical thought has to prevail when things are unclear.

Not to mention, shouldn't games be fun and fair? What is fair about your men being completely unaffected by half the games effects with one simple USR? Do any of the other USR's carry that much power in them? As far as I can tell, no they don't.

And whats the most important rule of the BRB? (This is RAW.)
Pg.2 First Boxed in Text. Para. 3:
"The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choise is entirely yours."

Cheers~

Your second section is still not how the order of operations function.

it is : hit>wound>save>USR>Application of Wound/effects.

Without the USR it is simply: hit>wound>save>Application of Wound/effects.

In both cases ES does not resolve until all simultaneous attacks are fully resolved with the above(as, again you cannot check if 1 or more unsaved wound has been suffered at each attack); and the immediately portion of ES's save loss is after the Check, not after each unsaved wound.

So you would have:
Necron ES hits LotD.
Necron ES Wounds LotD.
LotD rolls his Save and fails.
LotD rolls for FNP and succeeds.
LotD doesn't suffer an injury/wound and is not removed from play.

Without FNP you would have:
Necron ES hits CM.
Necron ES Wounds CM.
CM rolls his Save and fails.
CM suffers an injury/wound.
CM's Save is set to '-'.

Fexor wrote:And whats the most important rule of the BRB? (This is RAW.)
Pg.2 First Boxed in Text. Para. 3:
"The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choise is entirely yours."
Cheers~

First off:
#7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.
found Here

Fexor wrote:In this example, everything works. ES is applied because the unsaved wound happened. If there was no Unsaved Wound, FNP would not have needed to be rolled for and thusly, ES wouldn't have triggered either.

Actually if you are ignoring the unsaved wound because you passed FNP we do not know if the unsaved wound happened or not because we are ignoring it. so no effects can trigger from an unsaved wound that we are ignoring.

Fexor wrote:Now, with the switch of the priority in rolls. It becomes confusing. It's also confusing because of the way FNP is worded in connection with the dice roll scheme. FNP doesn't negate the event happening, it negates the killing blow or wound removal on multi-wound models. However, the unsaved wound still occurs therefor making ES (and other on unsaved wound effects) trigger. Now, whether you want to roll them one before the other is irrelevant.

Yes it is a bit confusing, but FNP goes off first as Kel has shown.

Fexor wrote:FNP is not meant to erase the hit or wound or save. It simply allows you to stop the removal of the unsaved wound. That is all. Now yes, this IS NOT written in the rules verbatim. I know this, you know this.
Also, one last note, lets think of the name for this USR. Feel No Pain, it's not Feel No Wound, or Wound Didn't Happen.

Its meant to ignore the unsaved wound, because that is now the rule is written.

Right it is Feel No Pain, thus the part about it Ignoring the Unsaved wound. We are pretending it does not exist, to have effects to trigger off of something we are told to ignore is breaking the rules.

Fexor wrote:Again for the record. I know this is not stated in the BRB, I know this isn't worded word for word the way I've described it. But simply put, in a logical thought process, does this not make sense?

A lot of things in this rule set ignore logic, so trying to apply logic to the rules will utterly break the game and make it unplayable.

copper.talos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:... because ES happens at the same time as Remove Casualties...

you are either making things up or you can provide with a quote on this. So what will it be?

Apparently you ENTIRELY ignore absolutely every single thing KKel says.

He has given you the rules quote, 3 times now. He has demonstrated impeccable logic showing why FNP occurs before ES, and you have yet to address a single damn part of it.

You continually duck the point, dont. Or dont post. The latter would be easier.

@Kommissar:

I'm sorry but I think you are completely missing the point and arguing just to argue.

In order for FNP to be triggered the model MUST take an unsaved wound. Yes? I think we can all agree on that.

Because, if you saved against it, there's no reason to roll FNP. Correct? Again, I think we can all agree on this.

The part that (to me) is going over your head is FNP states that "the injury is ignored". And this what is tripping you up. Injury is the key word that GW is using to describe the wound removal. Not that the wound never happened or was saved.

Which, when using logic, would dictate that you did suffer an unsaved wound, but your FNP allows you to keep fighting and ignore the wound removal not the wound ever happening. Which, would also mean that ES and similar effects would still take effect on a successful FNP roll. Your dudes still alive! But there's a cost for living. ie. Pinning, or ES, etc.

FNP ignores wound removal, not the unsaved wound. That is why they say 'injury' not 'wound' is ignored and this is the part your not understanding. I'm trying to break this down as politely as possible.

FNP is not a saving throw, your wound is still unsaved, the wound removal is ignored. Wound Removal = Injury.

This is pretty simple, but because there's no "word legend" all you're going to come back at me with is "show me where that's stated." And I can't because there is no word legend in the book, it's something that is easily inferred by them not using the word 'wound' but 'injury' instead.

Is this a GW confusing goof, definitely. Is it something that I think we as players can't get around, absolutely not. FNP is not meant to be a godlike power, it's just meant to keep your model on the table, not to ignore every subsequent rule in the book due to poor explanation and lack of a word glossary.

"FNP ignores wound removal, not the unsaved wound"
This is the incorrect part. Injury and unsaved wound are equivalent terms, as defined in the rule that has been quoted a number of times now.

You are paying attention to the unsaved wound, therefore you have broken a rule. Dont break rules.

Fexor wrote:And whats the most important rule of the BRB? (This is RAW.)
Pg.2 First Boxed in Text. Para. 3:
"The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choise is entirely yours."

So the only actual rule you quoted is one the tenents of this forum tell you isn't valid?

Awesome. Remember, YMDC is about rules as written. Not as intended, not as logically thought out if you analyze a completely wrong way of playing, not as house rules, not as exaggerating strawmen make things seem...

But if this were not the intent for the rule, can we all not concede that it would make FNP grossly over-powered?

Remember, intent is irrelevant. And no, it doesn't make it overpowered - like I said, I've *never* seen it played that way in person.

What is fair about your men being completely unaffected by half the games effects with one simple USR? Do any of the other USR's carry that much power in them?

Half the games effects? The only ones that come to mind are Hex Rifle, Pinning, and ES. Regardless of how many more you can name, I seriously doubt it's anywhere near half. And you don't completely ignore them unless you make the FNP roll.

Another major problem with this issue, is I think/believe people are getting to attached to the word "Wound". What I mean is if you're ignoring the effects of wound removal, it doesn't mean the wound never happened. It just means you're ignoring the effect of the wound, not the wound itself actually occurring.

If the wound happens (which is what you're advocating) then FNP does nothing. There is no "effect" of the wound - suffering a wound means you subtract one from your wound stat. FNP doesn't ignore that - it ignores the wound completely. Saying that it just ignores the effect of the would means that the wound is still applied - so you have models walking around at 0 wounds (because the wound was applied and the "effect" of removing the model is ignored) or you have the wound still applied, and since the model is at 0 wounds it's removed - FNP or not.

FNP has to ignore the existence of the wound. Which means ES, et al. do not trigger.

DeathReaper wrote:

Fexor wrote:And whats the most important rule of the BRB? (This is RAW.)
Pg.2 First Boxed in Text. Para. 3:
"The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choise is entirely yours."
Cheers~

First off:
#7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.
found Here

Fexor wrote:In this example, everything works. ES is applied because the unsaved wound happened. If there was no Unsaved Wound, FNP would not have needed to be rolled for and thusly, ES wouldn't have triggered either.

Actually if you are ignoring the unsaved wound because you passed FNP we do not know if the unsaved wound happened or not because we are ignoring it. so no effects can trigger from an unsaved wound that we are ignoring.

Fexor wrote:Now, with the switch of the priority in rolls. It becomes confusing. It's also confusing because of the way FNP is worded in connection with the dice roll scheme. FNP doesn't negate the event happening, it negates the killing blow or wound removal on multi-wound models. However, the unsaved wound still occurs therefor making ES (and other on unsaved wound effects) trigger. Now, whether you want to roll them one before the other is irrelevant.

Yes it is a bit confusing, but FNP goes off first as Kel has shown.

Fexor wrote:FNP is not meant to erase the hit or wound or save. It simply allows you to stop the removal of the unsaved wound. That is all. Now yes, this IS NOT written in the rules verbatim. I know this, you know this.
Also, one last note, lets think of the name for this USR. Feel No Pain, it's not Feel No Wound, or Wound Didn't Happen.

Its meant to ignore the unsaved wound, because that is now the rule is written.

Right it is Feel No Pain, thus the part about it Ignoring the Unsaved wound. We are pretending it does not exist, to have effects to trigger off of something we are told to ignore is breaking the rules.

Fexor wrote:Again for the record. I know this is not stated in the BRB, I know this isn't worded word for word the way I've described it. But simply put, in a logical thought process, does this not make sense?

A lot of things in this rule set ignore logic, so trying to apply logic to the rules will utterly break the game and make it unplayable.

Alright, well your first point I can atest to. My bad.

However, FNP does not say "ignore the wound" you are interjecting that into your own interpretation, period.

The rule states it ignored the "injury". Injury in this case is referring to 'Wound Removal', not ignoring the unsaved wound. Therefor, Unsaved Wound effects would apply, saving FNP before or after ES doesn't matter. Again, no word bank, just logical thinking. Otherwise, I'm sure they would've said "unsaved wound is ignored".

Also, without logic how can you ever stand a chance in a debate? If you have no common ground, you have no leg to stand on. So yes, logic does play a part. And please keep the debate on topic, trying to slide in a jabbing comment about it being a "game" isn't helpful and proves nothing about the topic at hand. Thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:"FNP ignores wound removal, not the unsaved wound"
This is the incorrect part. Injury and unsaved wound are equivalent terms, as defined in the rule that has been quoted a number of times now.

You are paying attention to the unsaved wound, therefore you have broken a rule. Dont break rules.

Really? Should I print the entire rule for you? From the page? No where in FNP's rule description does it say 'Injury' and 'Unsaved Wound' are synonymous. Like I said, there is no word bank or definition. You're simply implying they're the same, which is your intended ruling.

Fexor wrote:And please keep the debate on topic, trying to slide in a jabbing comment about it being a "game" isn't helpful and proves nothing about the topic at hand. Thanks.

Fexor wrote:FNP is not meant to be a godlike power, it's just meant to keep your model on the table, not to ignore every subsequent rule in the book due to poor explanation and lack of a word glossary.

Fexor wrote:But if this were not the intent for the rule, can we all not concede that it would make FNP grossly over-powered? I mean, you're not dying but you have a negative status effect?! Is that not enough for you? You need your little plastic men to be Gods to everyone else's army? Can they can not have an ability that your little men can be subjected to?

Yeah, good idea. Lets leave snide remarks about it being a game out of it and keep with a rules debate, okay?

Fexor wrote:The rule states it ignored the "injury". Injury in this case is referring to 'Wound Removal', not ignoring the unsaved wound. Therefor, Unsaved Wound effects would apply, saving FNP before or after ES doesn't matter. Again, no word bank, just logical thinking. Otherwise, I'm sure they would've said "unsaved wound is ignored".

The rule says that on a 1, 2, or 3 you take the wound as normal. On a 4, 5, or 6 the injury is ignored. Context tells me that the injury being ignored means that I do not take the wound as normal. Since there are no rules surrounding what that means, it can only mean that I do not take the wound, which means ES can not be triggered.

Go back, reread the thread. Note how 1 -3 you take the Unsaved Wound as normal, 4 - 6 you ignore the Injury.

A simple understanding of context tells you the rest. Well, it should do.

Your argument fails at this point.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fexor wrote:And whats the most important rule of the BRB? (This is RAW.)
Pg.2 First Boxed in Text. Para. 3:
"The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choise is entirely yours."

So the only actual rule you quoted is one the tenents of this forum tell you isn't valid?

Awesome. Remember, YMDC is about rules as written. Not as intended, not as logically thought out if you analyze a completely wrong way of playing, not as house rules, not as exaggerating strawmen make things seem...

But if this were not the intent for the rule, can we all not concede that it would make FNP grossly over-powered?

Remember, intent is irrelevant. And no, it doesn't make it overpowered - like I said, I've *never* seen it played that way in person.

What is fair about your men being completely unaffected by half the games effects with one simple USR? Do any of the other USR's carry that much power in them?

Half the games effects? The only ones that come to mind are Hex Rifle, Pinning, and ES. Regardless of how many more you can name, I seriously doubt it's anywhere near half. And you don't completely ignore them unless you make the FNP roll.

Another major problem with this issue, is I think/believe people are getting to attached to the word "Wound". What I mean is if you're ignoring the effects of wound removal, it doesn't mean the wound never happened. It just means you're ignoring the effect of the wound, not the wound itself actually occurring.

If the wound happens (which is what you're advocating) then FNP does nothing. There is no "effect" of the wound - suffering a wound means you subtract one from your wound stat. FNP doesn't ignore that - it ignores the wound completely. Saying that it just ignores the effect of the would means that the wound is still applied - so you have models walking around at 0 wounds (because the wound was applied and the "effect" of removing the model is ignored) or you have the wound still applied, and since the model is at 0 wounds it's removed - FNP or not.

FNP has to ignore the existence of the wound. Which means ES, et al. do not trigger.

Yeah I know, already apologized for it. Want to say it a 3rd time?

FNP does not have to ignore the existence of the wound, otherwise you wouldn't roll for it. The Unsaved Wound has to happen for FNP to trigger, period, that's the rule AS WRITTEN.

FNP's effect doesn't say "ignore the wound" it says "ignore the injury", doesn't say "ignore effects on Unsaved Wounds with Successful FNP rolls" either. The order of the FNP rule doesn't matter either. The triggering effect is an "UNSAVED WOUND". Without that you have no ES, you have no FNP, period.

Fexor wrote:Yeah I know, already apologized for it. Want to say it a 3rd time?

I was typing that post at the same time as others were. I'm not going to apologize for calling you out on it, but I don't require you to apologize again since I was ninjaed.

FNP does not have to ignore the existence of the wound, otherwise you wouldn't roll for it. The Unsaved Wound has to happen for FNP to trigger, period, that's the rule AS WRITTEN.

That means that for vehicles, the penetrating/glancing hit has to happen, even though a successful cover save says to discard that hit. Man, sucks for vehicles.

FNP's effect doesn't say "ignore the wound" it says "ignore the injury", doesn't say "ignore effects on Unsaved Wounds with Successful FNP rolls" either. The order of the FNP rule doesn't matter either. The triggering effect is an "UNSAVED WOUND". Without that you have no ES, you have no FNP, period.

So you're claiming that our method would cause a paradox, and paradoxes are bad?

Wow, I see. So your rulings are the only right ones when you can't back them up. Gotcha.

As you've said "intent" doesn't matter. Your supposed "context" is your intent. You've proven nothing except that you have no argument back, because neither side knows GW's intent for the rule.

As for what you're calling "snide remarks" they weren't directed at anyone and nor were they snide, they were merely observations, however yours was directed completely at me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fexor wrote:Yeah I know, already apologized for it. Want to say it a 3rd time?

I was typing that post at the same time as others were. I'm not going to apologize for calling you out on it, but I don't require you to apologize again since I was ninjaed.

FNP does not have to ignore the existence of the wound, otherwise you wouldn't roll for it. The Unsaved Wound has to happen for FNP to trigger, period, that's the rule AS WRITTEN.

That means that for vehicles, the penetrating/glancing hit has to happen, even though a successful cover save says to discard that hit. Man, sucks for vehicles.

FNP's effect doesn't say "ignore the wound" it says "ignore the injury", doesn't say "ignore effects on Unsaved Wounds with Successful FNP rolls" either. The order of the FNP rule doesn't matter either. The triggering effect is an "UNSAVED WOUND". Without that you have no ES, you have no FNP, period.

So you're claiming that our method would cause a paradox, and paradoxes are bad?

When did vehicles get FNP? Awesome way to sway the topic to your side with irrelevant material.

Fexor: as I have stated a number of times over several pages(as has Nos and many other posters); if "injury" in FNP is not synonymous with Unsaved wound, then the Wound is still applied/model is still removed as a casualty, as that is based on the model suffering an unsaved wound.

Furthermore as I have shown time and again FNP must trigger before the application of the unsaved wound because you immediately remove a model suffering an unsaved wound as a casualty per the remove casualties rules.

Fexor wrote:As you've said "intent" doesn't matter. Your supposed "context" is your intent. You've proven nothing except that you have no argument back, because neither side knows GW's intent for the rule.

No, context is 100% relevant. Without it, there is no definition for injury, so the FNP USR does nothing.

As for what you're calling "snide remarks" they weren't directed at anyone and nor were they snide, they were merely observations, however yours was directed completely at me.

Yes. I was trying to point out that you should leave the game related remarks out and focus on rules.

hen did vehicles get FNP? Awesome way to sway the topic to your side with irrelevant material.

It's completely relevant, and I never claimed vehicles got FNP.

Roll to wound is successful.
Armor save is failed.
FNP is rolled, ignoring wound.

Some claim that the 3rd step creates a paradox, and since paradoxes are bad, it cannot be allowed. I've countered with:

Weapon hits vehicle.
Penetrating hit is rolled.
Cover save discards Penetrating hit.

That explicitly discards the Penetrating hit, meaning that the cover save could not be taken, which reinstates the Penetrating hit, which allows a cover save... it's a paradox, but the rules allow it.

FNP says on a 1-3 take the wound as normal, 4-6 ignore the injury. the only thing injury can refer to is the wound.

If you make a FnP roll on a 1 wound model did the model ever not have 1 wound?

if the answer is no, then the model never suffered a wound.

If a model with FnP is hit by an attack that gives another model wounds back and it passes its FnP roll the model in question never loses a wound and the other model does not regain wounds.

If a model with FnP is hit by an attack that requires loss of a wound or suffering an unsaved wound, and it never loses a wound due to passing FnP then it never lost a wound, and it never suffered an unsaved wound. if it had suffered an unsaved wound its wounds would be 0 not 1.

Kommissar Kel wrote:How does something that happens at the same time as casualty removal shove itself in front of casualty removal/wound application?

Let alone the fact that you do not even check for ES until after all the wounds are resolved(since it is attacks causing 1 or more unsaved wounds, not for each unsaved wound), so ES does not even happen simultaneously with casualty removal/wound application

You say as early as the first page that ES doesn't occur until all the ES wounds have resolved.
I don't know what that means.
All the attacks, of say the scarabs, hit at the same time, wound at the same time and fail their saves at the same time.
There is no waiting period for wounds to resolve.

I keep reading your "1 or more" argument and I really don't understand how this translates to occurring after FNP.
I am genuinely trying to understand it, but it doesn't make sense to me.

a) The very first line of Remove Casualties is "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."
b) The very first line of FNP (after fluff) is "If a model [with FNP] suffers an unsaved wound."
c) The very first line of Entropic Strike is "Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds [from ES] immediately loses its armour save...."

For me both b and c are triggered at time a, no sooner and no later.

Ok, I can help with that.

You have a process for how attacks are resolved correct?(we do have that process a few posts ago).

Now if ES was applied anytime before the full series of simultaneous attacks, then you would be attempting that application for each unsaved wound correct?(We also have rules that use each unsaved wound either as a trigger or that factors into that rules resolution)

But ES specifies that it triggers on 1 or more unsaved wounds, so it can only trigger once correct?

Now since we know ES can only trigger once, and the rule does not specify that it triggers on the first unsaved wound(such as the case with NFWs), then it must not trigger until all unsaved wounds are applied from the Model/weapon's attacks.

Since we cannot check that 1 or more unsaved wounds have been caused from a source until all attacks from that source(which are simultaneous) have been resolved, then we do not check for ES's trigger until after the application of all unsaved wounds which itself does not occur until after FNP has triggered and been rolled.

now for remove casualties, you have to read beyond the very first line(see how there is quite a bit more paragraph there, and 2 more after it; those are all still part of the rule); the third line tells us of the timing of wound application:

"Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is Immediately removed from the table as a casualty.

So the problems with your understanding of your A, B, and C; is that you did not read far enough into the rule to see what the first line means(as it actually has little to do with the actual remove casualties other than to define "suffers an unsaved wound"), and then you were trying to apply "1 or more unsaved wounds" to every wound; which would lead to multiple applications of a rule that is to be applied once.

Now using your set, with the correct line in casualty removal we have:
a) Snippet of remove casualties: "for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."
b) The very first line of FNP (after fluff) is "If a model [with FNP] suffers an unsaved wound."
c) The very first line of Entropic Strike is "Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds [from ES] immediately loses its armour save...."

We find that the failed save causes the suffering of an unsaved wound, which should be the cause for immediate removal, In order for FNP to do anything in the game it must kick in before all "for each unsaved wound one/the model is immediately"-type effects. Then in order for ES to follow it's rules for only 1 application per Source, it must wait until all attacks have been completely resolved, so it would go last in any event(not even just FNP)

So what happens if there is only 1 attack that causes 1 unsaved wound then? Why would in this case FNP take priority over ES?

(Don't get your hopes up though. I still strongly disagree that this "1 or more" is a valid argument since all wounds happen simultaneously).

Because as I have shown time and time and time again FNP comes before Wound application.

Yes All wounds happen simultaneously, that has no effect whatsoever on ES having to wait until all those simultaneous wounds are resolved, aside of course for reinforcing it.

Kommissar Kel wrote:
Now if ES was applied anytime before the full series of simultaneous attacks, then you would be attempting that application for each unsaved wound correct?(We also have rules that use each unsaved wound either as a trigger or that factors into that rules resolution)

But ES specifies that it triggers on 1 or more unsaved wounds, so it can only trigger once correct?

Now since we know ES can only trigger once, and the rule does not specify that it triggers on the first unsaved wound(such as the case with NFWs), then it must not trigger until all unsaved wounds are applied from the Model/weapon's attacks.

Since we cannot check that 1 or more unsaved wounds have been caused from a source until all attacks from that source(which are simultaneous) have been resolved, then we do not check for ES's trigger until after the application of all unsaved wounds which itself does not occur until after FNP has triggered and been rolled.

This assumes that you have more than 1 attacks with more than 1 unsaved wounds. But you can have 1 attack with 1 unsaved wound. So how could all this apply to this case?

Feel no pain ignores the injury. Wouldn't entropic strike be a type of injury? Seems like it would hurt to me. Therefore ignored by the FNP roll.

Copper - it seems like you still havent read the argument.

ES happens AFTER FNP, as it must do so - as it applies at the same time as remove casualties.

You have not addressed this, and cannot, as otherwise you will be claiming that FNP does nothing.

Big hole in your chest == injury
Big hole in your breastplate =/=imjury.
Plain english

But let's hear what KK has to say...

@nosferatu0001 I can't accept something just because. What you are saying has no basis in any written passage in BRB or codex. But again let's hear what KK has to say...

OK, as apparently quoting the BRB at you doesnt work - try this simple quesiton.
Answer with yes or no: is Injury equivalent to Unsaved Wound. If yes, no need to explain (as that is what the rule says, to say otherwise requires you to ignore what context means, and to have to come up with what Injury means without reference to any rule within 40k) If no, then please give rules page and quotes as to why.
Doing it step by step, as apparently Kel giving out an entire argument in one go isnt working.

I have addressed that in earlier messages. I am too bored now to repeat my self again. You can look it up yourself if you wish.
I just want to hear KKs response. Where is KK anyway?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Copper - it seems like you still havent read the argument.

ES happens AFTER FNP, as it must do so - as it applies at the same time as remove casualties.

You have not addressed this, and cannot, as otherwise you will be claiming that FNP does nothing.

ES does not happen at the same time as remove casualties either; since the remove casualties is the wound application step for models with more than 1 wound, and ES does not trigger until after you have resolved all attacks(after the model has already taken the wound).

Copper: You are correct, giant whole in your breastplate does not = injury, but it also does not occur until after you have taken an injury.

You have not suffered any unsaved wounds; so you have not triggered ES on the check.

Nos isn't asking you to accept it "just because", nos just has no reason to retype everything I have already typed, citing page and passage in the BRB.

The rules have been laid out before you several times with proper citations, I have tried to re-organize and simplify the explanations in a few different ways; your final rebuttal has returned to the strawman argument that has no basis on any rules and ignores the fact that the injury(the unsaved wound) has already been ignored before it could ever be applied.

I have shown you that application of the unsaved wound to the model happens immediately(a word you are clinging to for the application of ES, even though that is in error), and therefore even if you were correct that the unsaved wound immediately applies the loss of armor save; FNP would still resolve before it(as all the "immediately" effects would trigger simultaneously, and therefore the wound would be applied before FNP ever gets a chance to kick in).

In short; you cannot check to see if 1 or more(or any) unsaved wounds are caused until all of the Simultaneous attacks are fully resolved(this would not change for 1 attack either), and the attacks are not fully resolved until after the wound has been applied, the wound is not applied until after FNP has been attempted.

I had to take the Puppy out and bring the 2 older dogs inside.

Ah, so you dont believe they are equivalent, and are thus making up rules OR claiming FNP doesnt work at all.

Only reason you wouldnt answer such a simple question. Kel has also explained, VERY patiently, exactly wy you are wrong on a number of occasions now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah, so you dont believe they are equivalent, and are thus making up rules OR claiming FNP doesnt work at all.

Only reason you wouldnt answer such a simple question. Kel has also explained, VERY patiently, exactly wy you are wrong on a number of occasions now.

I have no choice, until I have hard evidence of trolling, I am compelled to answer direct questions.

KK please explain how this:

"Kommissar Kel wrote:
Now if ES was applied anytime before the full series of simultaneous attacks, then you would be attempting that application for each unsaved wound correct?(We also have rules that use each unsaved wound either as a trigger or that factors into that rules resolution)

But ES specifies that it triggers on 1 or more unsaved wounds, so it can only trigger once correct?

Now since we know ES can only trigger once, and the rule does not specify that it triggers on the first unsaved wound(such as the case with NFWs), then it must not trigger until all unsaved wounds are applied from the Model/weapon's attacks.

Since we cannot check that 1 or more unsaved wounds have been caused from a source until all attacks from that source(which are simultaneous) have been resolved, then we do not check for ES's trigger until after the application of all unsaved wounds which itself does not occur until after FNP has triggered and been rolled. "

you written earlier can be used in the case of 1 attack with 1 unsaved wound. It should cover all cases, shouldn't it? So I don't get why you avoid this simple explanation...

copper.talos wrote:Big hole in your chest == injury
Big hole in your breastplate =/=imjury.
Plain english

For the record,

in·ju·ry
   [in-juh-ree] Show IPA
noun, plural -ju·ries.
1. harm or damage that is done or sustained: to escape without injury.
2. a particular form or instance of harm: an injury to one's shoulder; an injury to one's pride.
3. wrong or injustice done or suffered.

I would say a bunch of robot bugs chewing giant holes in your suit of armor while trying to eat your flesh counts as an injury by "Plain english"

Have you ever heard the expression "Damn, my breastplate is injured"?

Anyway don't you feel the suspense? Waiting how KK's theory applies to 1 attack that causes 1 unsaved wound is short of a thriller! It takes him a lot of time so it must be something big...

copper.talos wrote:KK please explain how this:
you written earlier can be used in the case of 1 attack with 1 unsaved wound. It should cover all cases, shouldn't it? So I don't get why you avoid this simple explanation...

I didn't avoid it, I addressed that in my last post.

I will do so again; since the last address wasn't as detailed.

Just because there is only 1 attack, does not change the check. In fact it reinforces the check even more so. you do not check until the attack is fully resolved, mainly because until the wound is applied(which is after FNP as I have shown), the model has not suffered any unsaved wounds.

You have to have suffered 1 unsaved wound in order for ES to trigger, failing the save would normally apply the wound and immediately move to the check, then applying ES.

But in this case we have a model with FNP, since FNP interrupts the application of the wound; the check would still not come until after the wound is applied and the wound is not applied until after the FNP roll is failed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:Have you ever heard the expression "Damn, my breastplate is injured"?

Anyway don't you feel the suspense? Waiting how KK's theory applies to 1 attack that causes 1 unsaved wound is short of a thriller! It takes him a lot of time so it must be something big...

Nah, I just multi-task the hell out of my time; also half the time I am double-checking verbiage/BRB+Codices, and in this case I am posting on other questions as well.

I haven't heard that expression. But we also don't have scarabs irl. Now if we did have such things, I imagine the situation would be like Cprl. Hicks in Aliens when the acid is eating through his breastplate. He seems rather unhappy and kind of damaged. Injured, one might even say.

Kommissar Kel wrote:...snip...

Right I see what you are saying.

So for example:
There are 3 Failed Saves (for say a 3 wound FNP model called Jim).

Due to Line 1 of Remove Casualties "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."
Step 1: The 3 failed saves become 3 Unsaved Wounds.

Line 2 is irrelevant, so we go to Line 3 of Remove Casualties "...for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."
Step 2: The 3 Unsaved Wounds become 3 removed Models (or wounds in the case of Jim and that means he is removed from the table).

FNP has to occur before this or it would be a useless rule, so it occurs at Step 1.5 (i.e. After the failed saves become unsaved wounds and before the models are removed from table).
Step 1.5: The model has 3 Unsaved Wounds -> trigger FNP.

I hope we agree thus far.

Then the question becomes when does ES occur. It has to occur after the failed saves become unsaved wounds we can agree.
When there is no FNP, ES can happen as Step 2 as we don't need a Step 1.5 (we could but it wouldn't be necessary as ES works at Step 2 just fine)
If Jim isn't removed from the table he loses his armour.

However, when we go to the trouble of creating Step 1.5 for FNP, we find that all the conditions for ES are met at this time as well,
we aren't locked into occurring at Step 2 which means ES could trigger at our new Step 1.5 just as easily.

Except it has exactly the same trigger time (immediately...) as Remove casualties. So you are now creating 2 effects which BOTH happen "immediately" but stating one "immeidately" (ES) happens BEFORE the other (Remove Casualties)

There is NO SUPPORT in any rule or language anywhere for you to decide that one "immediately" happens before the other.

Your argument is 100% refuted

Reinforce what check? I hope you are not meaning this one:
"Since we cannot check that 1 or more unsaved wounds have been caused from a source until all attacks from that source(which are simultaneous) have been resolved, then we do not check for ES's trigger until after the application of all unsaved wounds which itself does not occur until after FNP has triggered and been rolled. "

This check is completely invalid from the beggining. "Since we cannot check that 1 or more unsaved wounds have been caused from a source until all attacks from that source". It's 1 attack -> 1 unsaved wound. No need to check for any more attacks and any more wounds. Your whole argument crumbles from there on...


And again this "one or more wounds" isn't ever going to convince any one who is impartial.

Yet again you apparently miss the argument.

ES happens after FNP. If you pass FNP, there is no Unsaved Wound you can pay attention to any longer. This is true for k and k + 1 wounds, thus is true for any number of wounds.

copper.talos wrote:Reinforce what check? I hope you are not meaning this one:
"Since we cannot check that 1 or more unsaved wounds have been caused from a source until all attacks from that source(which are simultaneous) have been resolved, then we do not check for ES's trigger until after the application of all unsaved wounds which itself does not occur until after FNP has triggered and been rolled. "

This check is completely invalid from the beggining. "Since we cannot check that 1 or more unsaved wounds have been caused from a source until all attacks from that source". It's 1 attack -> 1 unsaved wound. No need to check for any more attacks and any more wounds. Your whole argument crumbles from there on...


And again this "one or more wounds" isn't ever going to convince any one who is impartial.

Did you read the rest of my post, it explains both how and why it reinforces the same check.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it has exactly the same trigger time (immediately...) as Remove casualties. So you are now creating 2 effects which BOTH happen "immediately" but stating one "immeidately" (ES) happens BEFORE the other (Remove Casualties)

There is NO SUPPORT in any rule or language anywhere for you to decide that one "immediately" happens before the other.

Hmmm, I think that works, but I'll have to look at it again when I've slept to be sure.

Thanks KK and Nos.

ASIDE:
Though of course it required us to rewrite the book to get FNP to work Silly GWs.
And also it wouldn't surprise me if GW FAQ it the other way.

Thought I would add a little comment. Criticism will so be ignored

Imo - feel no pain is in its self an answer. To use the FNP rule the bearer of such qualities must be able to feel pain or the test could never be failed. Since armour has no ability to feel anything this would imply the the entity encased within the armour is the bearer of this rule. To trigger the FNP rule the armour must some how be circumvented to allow the bearer to use the rule. Therefor the ES rule should affect the armour while the FNP protects the entity inside leave the victim without armour but still pumped up enough to fight on.

As for RP and ES what kind of self repair would not go as far as fixing the metal skeleton the necron is encased in seriously....

It's a game have fun xxx

Your argument as to why FNP resolves before ES started with this, the "process for how attacks are resolved"

Kommissar Kel wrote:Ok, I can help with that.

You have a process for how attacks are resolved correct?(we do have that process a few posts ago).

Now if ES was applied anytime before the full series of simultaneous attacks, then you would be attempting that application for each unsaved wound correct?(We also have rules that use each unsaved wound either as a trigger or that factors into that rules resolution)

But ES specifies that it triggers on 1 or more unsaved wounds, so it can only trigger once correct?

Now since we know ES can only trigger once, and the rule does not specify that it triggers on the first unsaved wound(such as the case with NFWs), then it must not trigger until all unsaved wounds are applied from the Model/weapon's attacks.

Since we cannot check that 1 or more unsaved wounds have been caused from a source until all attacks from that source(which are simultaneous) have been resolved, then we do not check for ES's trigger until after the application of all unsaved wounds which itself does not occur until after FNP has triggered and been rolled.

When prompted what happens when 1 attack and 1 unsaved wound happens you replied

Kommissar Kel wrote: But in this case we have a model with FNP, since FNP interrupts the application of the wound; the check would still not come until after the wound is applied and the wound is not applied until after the FNP roll is failed.

Why would you write all the stuff before since at the end, you take that FNP has priority over ES as a given? You are supposed to prove that, not take it for granted in order to prove that whole "1 or more wounds" thing is valid! You confused your own self.

Your whole "process for how attacks are resolved", this concept that "ES needs to check all attacks & all wounds, so until that happens FNP takes priority", is a mess, that crumbles on one simple case: 1 attack -> 1 unsaved wound. It can't cover all cases, so it is invalid.

And after all why would you take that FNP takes priority over ES a given? Is there something that tells so in its wording? No. Is there a hint? No. Something anything? I know, I know... That "immediately remove casualties" thing. What about it? You have even a hint in FNP wording that takes priority over that? No. Does it happen? Of course. Now let's look at another ability that triggers on unsaved wounds: pinning weapons. Do pinning weapons have a written priority, or even a hint at least, over "immediately remove casualties"? No. Does it happen? Of course. Hexrifles: Do they have a written priority, or even a hint at least, over "immediately remove casualties"? No. Does it happen? Of course. You see a pattern here? Every ability that triggers on unsaved wounds has inherently priority over "immediately remove casualties" without needed even a hint in its wording. ES is no different. There is nothing that suggests otherwise. Both ES, FNP, pinning weapons, hexrifles etc have priority over "immediately remove casualties" so they trigger together. ES interestingly has "immediately" in its wording. Which means that it resolves before any other effects.

I am going to throw my ball into the court of "you lose your armor" you took an unsaved wound triggering FnP and Triggering ES at the same time.

Clay Williams wrote:I am going to throw my ball into the court of "you lose your armor" you took an unsaved wound triggering FnP and Triggering ES at the same time.

As shown on page 1, and every page after that; if this were the truth, FNP does nothing at all since suffering an unsaved wound is the cause for Wound application(including the removal of your model as a casualty).

Further shown on the last few pages ES does not trigger on every, nor each unsaved wounds, so it does not trigger until well after FNP.

TL;DR-type posts are not helpful in this discussion.

Well Kommissar I do not think it is helpful to argue your point 500 different ways while all saying the same thing over and over again.

I have my point of view ... you have yours. From reading how often you respond in this thread and the nature of your words you are too passionate about a point of view to see another's logic. Have fun with that.