nohman wrote:Ok, then I have a question. What does the "Immediately" mean in ES?

Why is it there, what effect does it have on the timing for the roll?

EDIT: I'm also still waiting on those definitions. I also came across another one. "A". No idea what that refers to, really going to need a page citation as to what that means...

No idea, we are not told what impact 'immediately' has on the timing. You're asking for intent.

Hazarding a guess, I say nothing because we are not told how it relates to timing of other special rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You lost me Captain Antivas with the wall of quote. Now tell me the effects of 'immediately' in relation to the rules. I'm not seeing it contained in the ES rules.

Page 9 under Exceptions. It says:

BRB Page 9 wrote:Occasionally, the actions of one player will trigger the sudden appearance of a particular unit, or may activate some special rule or occurrence. When this happens, the exceptional rule will contain all the information you need to resolve it.

So we have a situation where the same occurrence has triggered two special rules: FNP and BS/ES. FNP tells us that when the unsaved wound is suffered you can try to avoid being wounded. BS/ES tell us that if an unsaved wound is suffered you immediately do something.

Like someone posted earlier if you are told when you get a cookie you eat it, and if someone gives you a cookie immediately say "thank you", then you would be given the cookie, say thank you, then eat it. Same thing.

Again, we don't have rules definitions for 99% of the words in the book. You are being ludicrously obtuse by just saying "lol has no meaning!" because it's not specifically defined. Neither is any other stupid example I picked, but you keep ignoring, and yet using each of those words.

nohman wrote:Again, we don't have rules definitions for 99% of the words in the book. You are being ludicrously obtuse by just saying "lol has no meaning!" because it's not specifically defined. Neither is any other stupid example I picked, but you keep ignoring, and yet using each of those words.

I'm not asking for the English definition!!!! I am asking for the rule definition!!!

What do 'immediate' actions trump and what trumps them? What happens if two 'immediate' actions trigger at the same time?

What is ES 'immediately' happening in front of?

Captain Antivas wrote:Page 9 under Exceptions. It says:

BRB Page 9 wrote:Occasionally, the actions of one player will trigger the sudden appearance of a particular unit, or may activate some special rule or occurrence. When this happens, the exceptional rule will contain all the information you need to resolve it.

So we have a situation where the same occurrence has triggered two special rules: FNP and BS/ES. FNP tells us that when the unsaved wound is suffered you can try to avoid being wounded. BS/ES tell us that if an unsaved wound is suffered you immediately do something.

Exactly, the exception rule does contain all the information needed. FNP tells us to treat the wound as saved. No unsaved wound caused.

Captain Antivas wrote:
So we have a situation where the same occurrence has triggered two special rules: FNP and BS/ES. FNP tells us that when the unsaved wound is suffered you can try to avoid being wounded. BS/ES tell us that if an unsaved wound is suffered you immediately do something.

Except that if you pass the FnP roll it is no longer an unsaved Wound.

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:
So we have a situation where the same occurrence has triggered two special rules: FNP and BS/ES. FNP tells us that when the unsaved wound is suffered you can try to avoid being wounded. BS/ES tell us that if an unsaved wound is suffered you immediately do something.

Except that if you pass the FnP roll it is no longer an unsaved Wound.

Except you cannot go back in time. ES/BS goes first by definition. (Rules and Oxford) The effect happens. The Wound is discounted so it doesn't kill the model, but the effect is still present.

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:Again, we don't have rules definitions for 99% of the words in the book. You are being ludicrously obtuse by just saying "lol has no meaning!" because it's not specifically defined. Neither is any other stupid example I picked, but you keep ignoring, and yet using each of those words.

I'm not asking for the English definition!!!! I am asking for the rule definition!!!

What do 'immediate' actions trump and what trumps them? What happens if two 'immediate' actions trigger at the same time?

What is ES 'immediately' happening in front of?

I get what you're asking for, but there aren't rule definitions for nearly every word in the book. Therefore wither we agree that words mean what they traditionally mean in any other setting, or we can't play the game because it's written in some kind of code we can't decipher.

I have a feeling that since the Bonesword/FNP thread as been locked, and that this is following the same circular logic it will be locked soon as well.

Indeed, I suspect this is an agree-to-disagree situation. I doubt GW will address it but I'll be interested to see the various tourney FAQs logic.

Captain Antivas wrote:Except you cannot go back in time. ES/BS goes first by definition. (Rules and Oxford) The effect happens. The Wound is discounted so it doesn't kill the model, but the effect is still present.

If that's true then FNP has no effect at all. You're going 'back in time' to discount the wound, turning it from unsaved to saved.
We're told to discount the wound, but also treat it as saved. If we're applying effects from unsaved wounds we're not treating it as saved.

nohman wrote:Ok, then I have a question. What does the "Immediately" mean in ES?

It means, before you roll for armor penetration at this initiative count, and before resolving attacks/wounds at lower initiatives.

40k doesn't have a "stack"/very fine timing rules like Magic: The Gathering or similar games. The writers only cut so fine. FNP saying to treat the wound as saved gives us our answer here. It's no longer an unsaved wound.

That's my two cents. If you want to keep this thread open, keep it polite.

@ nohman

And normally that suffices, but this is an interaction between two rules based on a timing word that has no special meaning in the rules. This means we cannot definitively say if ES happen first.

I can claim that we have to wait to ensure the Wound stays an unsaved Wound before triggering any “unsaved Wound” effects. This allows FnP to function and allows ES to follow the ‘immediately’ word everyone focuses on.


Nah, the other was locked because they were naughty...we are playing nice for the time being.

hisdudeness wrote:@ nohman

And normally that suffices, but this is an interaction between two rules based on a timing word that has no special meaning in the rules. This means we cannot definitively say if ES happen first.

Except that you cannot simply choose to ignore the definition of a word simply because there is not rules definition for it. This is the logical leap you are attempting and I cannot get behind it.

I can claim that we have to wait to ensure the Wound stays an unsaved Wound before triggering any “unsaved Wound” effects. This allows FnP to function and allows ES to follow the ‘immediately’ word everyone focuses on.

But the rules don't support that. The two special rules come into effect with the same occurrence. You cannot simply ignore that fact because it makes sense to you. Page 9 says that the special rule will determine the timing. Nothing in the FNP special rule states that you must resolve it before you move on, but ES/BS does. This is where we disagree.

To be honest I would be more willing to accept ES being taken back than stating that FNP always goes first. I see nothing in the rules that supports that. I can see how you can say that ES can be taken back, I don't agree but at least I can see the logic. I see no logic to having to determine the result of FNP before anything else.

Boneswords trigger on unsaved wounds.
You cannot be sure if there's an unsaved wound until after resolving FnP, since FnP treats the wound as saved.

Edit: yes they have the same trigger. But since FnP can alter that trigger it must come first.

@ Capyain Antivas

You just can't ignore the fact that a successful FnP roll makes the unsaved Wound an saved Wound.

Yes it does, I rolled FnP for every unsaved Wound. Any Wounds that stay unsaved immediately get the ES effect added.

FNP triggers on unsaved wounds. You have an unsaved wound that requires you do something immediately. Both special rules are triggered at the same time, according to the rules.

nohman wrote:Ok, then I have a question. What does the "Immediately" mean in ES?

Clearly it means after you suffer an unsaved wound (Which we need to resolve FNP to find this out), but before you reduce the models wounds by 1.

I still don't understand why they're mutually exclusive.

The wound becomes saved if you passed FNP, but you DID originally take an unsaved wound, and thus triggered both FNP and ES. If you argue that the FNP means the wound was never unsaved in the first place, then you are the one going back in time, and thus shouldn't be able to take FNP at all, and thus the rule does nothing, which is ludicrous.

So since the model suffered an unsaved wound, do you remove a Wound from the model (killing it if it only has 1 Wound)?

hisdudeness wrote:@ Capyain Antivas

You just can't ignore the fact that a successful FnP roll makes the unsaved Wound an saved Wound.

Yes it does, I rolled FnP for every unsaved Wound. Any Wounds that stay unsaved immediately get the ES effect added.

I am not. It does not make it an unsaved wound, it treats it as an unsaved wound. Like I said, if you want to say that both losing the armor and removing the wound from the model's wound characteristic are both effects I cannot argue with that. I can try, but based on your postings it has been brought to my attention that I cannot. The rules do not define result vs. effect and neither does the dictionary (I looked up the definition of result and had to change my position.) What I cannot support is that you take the FNP first. The effect is applied when the ES wound is unsaved, but I cannot argue with rules that when the FNP rule is passed both effects are ignored so I have to concede the point. But, it is imperative to other rules (such as other closed threads) that FNP is not given a pass to jump to the front of the line.

Captain Antivas wrote:FNP triggers on unsaved wounds. You have an unsaved wound that requires you do something immediately. Both special rules are triggered at the same time, according to the rules.

But we don't know if it will stay an unsaved Wound until after the FnP roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nohman wrote:I still don't understand why they're mutually exclusive.

The wound becomes saved if you passed FNP, but you DID originally take an unsaved wound, and thus triggered both FNP and ES. If you argue that the FNP means the wound was never unsaved in the first place, then you are the one going back in time, and thus shouldn't be able to take FNP at all, and thus the rule does nothing, which is ludicrous.

Because we are told to ignore the wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:@ Capyain Antivas

You just can't ignore the fact that a successful FnP roll makes the unsaved Wound an saved Wound.

Yes it does, I rolled FnP for every unsaved Wound. Any Wounds that stay unsaved immediately get the ES effect added.

I am not. It does not make it an unsaved wound, it treats it as an unsaved wound. Like I said, if you want to say that both losing the armor and removing the wound from the model's wound characteristic are both effects I cannot argue with that. I can try, but based on your postings it has been brought to my attention that I cannot. The rules do not define result vs. effect and neither does the dictionary (I looked up the definition of result and had to change my position.) What I cannot support is that you take the FNP first. The effect is applied when the ES wound is unsaved, but I cannot argue with rules that when the FNP rule is passed both effects are ignored so I have to concede the point. But, it is imperative to other rules (such as other closed threads) that FNP is not given a pass to jump to the front of the line.

Which for all game purposes is a saved wound. With all the effects of a saved wound. Whenever a rule looks to see what the status of the Wound is, it will see a saved Wound. Until we know the final status of the Wound we cannot apply other statuses.

hisdudeness wrote:Which for all game purposes is a saved wound. With all the effects of a saved wound. Whenever a rule looks to see what the status of the Wound is, it will see a saved Wound.

But can we agree that the FNP roll is not taken before the ES effect is applied?

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:Which for all game purposes is a saved wound. With all the effects of a saved wound. Whenever a rule looks to see what the status of the Wound is, it will see a saved Wound.

But can we agree that the FNP roll is not taken before the ES effect is applied?

Nope, You cannot apply ES effects until we know the final status of the Wound. Thus FnP is taken to finalize the status. Then we apply triggered effects. With FnP hanging over the wound, we do not know what type of Wound it will be.

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:Which for all game purposes is a saved wound. With all the effects of a saved wound. Whenever a rule looks to see what the status of the Wound is, it will see a saved Wound.

But can we agree that the FNP roll is not taken before the ES effect is applied?

Nope, You cannot apply ES effects until we know the final status of the Wound.

Then why do we know to roll FNP? Same trigger remember, so you can't trigger one without the other.

Again, they are simply not mutually exclusive, roll the dice at the same time if you want, if they both pass then your model doesn't take a wound, but has still lost his armour save.

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:Which for all game purposes is a saved wound. With all the effects of a saved wound. Whenever a rule looks to see what the status of the Wound is, it will see a saved Wound.

But can we agree that the FNP roll is not taken before the ES effect is applied?

Nope, You cannot apply ES effects until we know the final status of the Wound.

Then why do we know to roll FNP? Same trigger remember, so you can't trigger one without the other.

Again, they are simply not mutually exclusive, roll the dice at the same time if you want, if they both pass then your model doesn't take a wound, but has still lost his armour save.

Because we need to finalize the wound status.

Then you are not ignoring the Wound, as we are told to do. We are not told to limit what effects we apply, but to not apply any effects. To include special effects.

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:Which for all game purposes is a saved wound. With all the effects of a saved wound. Whenever a rule looks to see what the status of the Wound is, it will see a saved Wound.

But can we agree that the FNP roll is not taken before the ES effect is applied?

Nope, You cannot apply ES effects until we know the final status of the Wound.

Then why do we know to roll FNP? Same trigger remember, so you can't trigger one without the other.

Again, they are simply not mutually exclusive, roll the dice at the same time if you want, if they both pass then your model doesn't take a wound, but has still lost his armour save.

Because we need to finalize the wound status.

Rule cite please.

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:Which for all game purposes is a saved wound. With all the effects of a saved wound. Whenever a rule looks to see what the status of the Wound is, it will see a saved Wound.

But can we agree that the FNP roll is not taken before the ES effect is applied?

Nope, You cannot apply ES effects until we know the final status of the Wound.

Then why do we know to roll FNP? Same trigger remember, so you can't trigger one without the other.

Again, they are simply not mutually exclusive, roll the dice at the same time if you want, if they both pass then your model doesn't take a wound, but has still lost his armour save.

Because without resolving FnP you cannot know if the wound is unsaved or not.
They simply are mutually exclusive.

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:Which for all game purposes is a saved wound. With all the effects of a saved wound. Whenever a rule looks to see what the status of the Wound is, it will see a saved Wound.

But can we agree that the FNP roll is not taken before the ES effect is applied?

Nope, You cannot apply ES effects until we know the final status of the Wound.

Then why do we know to roll FNP? Same trigger remember, so you can't trigger one without the other.

Again, they are simply not mutually exclusive, roll the dice at the same time if you want, if they both pass then your model doesn't take a wound, but has still lost his armour save.

Because we need to finalize the wound status.

Rule cite please.

Common sense. You cannot apply triggered effects to a Wound if you don't know the Wound will stay the same and still ignore the Wound if it changes status. We ignore ALL effects of the saved Wound.

No they're not.

If it killed you, then yes. But as it is ES AND FNP can both happen to a model with no conflicts in the rules.

nohman wrote:No they're not.

If it killed you, then yes. But as it is ES AND FNP can both happen to a model with no conflicts in the rules.

Except you are not ignoring the Wound...

ES is an effect of the Wound and if you apply an effect of a Wound you do not ignore it.

nohman wrote:Rule cite please.

I roll my save.
I fail.
Is the wound unsaved?
You cannot answer the question without resolving FnP.
Yes, FnP is triggered, but because it can alter the wound from unsaved to saved it must be processed.

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:Which for all game purposes is a saved wound. With all the effects of a saved wound. Whenever a rule looks to see what the status of the Wound is, it will see a saved Wound.

But can we agree that the FNP roll is not taken before the ES effect is applied?

Nope, You cannot apply ES effects until we know the final status of the Wound.

Then why do we know to roll FNP? Same trigger remember, so you can't trigger one without the other.

Again, they are simply not mutually exclusive, roll the dice at the same time if you want, if they both pass then your model doesn't take a wound, but has still lost his armour save.

Because we need to finalize the wound status.

Rule cite please.

Common sense. You cannot apply triggered effects to a Wound if you don't know the Wound will stay the same and still ignore the Wound if it changes status.

Are you kidding? "Common Sense" is not a defence.

You'll claim "immediately" means dick all in the rules since we have no rules definition for it, but then you claim "common sense" to back your side up...

No. RAW please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

nohman wrote:Rule cite please.

I roll my save.
I fail.
Is the wound unsaved?
You cannot answer the question without resolving FnP.
Yes, FnP is triggered, but because it can alter the wound from unsaved to saved it must be processed.

Correct, you fail the save. Then ES triggers and so does FNP. If ES does not trigger then neither does FNP. If FNP passes your reward is you don't die.

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:Which for all game purposes is a saved wound. With all the effects of a saved wound. Whenever a rule looks to see what the status of the Wound is, it will see a saved Wound.

But can we agree that the FNP roll is not taken before the ES effect is applied?

Nope, You cannot apply ES effects until we know the final status of the Wound.

Then why do we know to roll FNP? Same trigger remember, so you can't trigger one without the other.

Again, they are simply not mutually exclusive, roll the dice at the same time if you want, if they both pass then your model doesn't take a wound, but has still lost his armour save.

Because we need to finalize the wound status.

Rule cite please.

Common sense. You cannot apply triggered effects to a Wound if you don't know the Wound will stay the same and still ignore the Wound if it changes status.

"Common Sense" is not a defence. Are you kidding?

You'll claim "immediately" means dick all in the rules since we have no rules definition for it, but then you claim "common sense" to back your side up...

No. RAW please.

Cite where we are told the effects of 'immediately' are in the rules, please.

Cite where we are told how to "roll" a dice please.

Can't be done, it's not in there, so we need to go with the traditionally understood definition. Same with a strict RAW definition of "immediately".

But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

nohman wrote:Are you kidding? "Common Sense" is not a defence.

You'll claim "immediately" means dick all in the rules since we have no rules definition for it, but then you claim "common sense" to back your side up...

No. RAW please.

Why are we told to treat the wound as saved?
From what you're saying all FNP does is discount the wound. The rules tells us to discount it, but it also says treat it as saved.
Why not stop at "discounting the wound" if that's all it does?
So why add "treat it as saved"? The only reason I can think of is because other abilities (ES for example) work off an unsaved wound.

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Easy! You roll for ES, on a 4+ you lose your armour save. That is a change that has been made to your profile. You then roll for FNP, and on a 5+ you also don't die, therefore the wound has been ignored. Since ES had the same trigger as FNP, negating it entirely would be going back in time to retroactively stop it.

And the definition of "immediately" is pretty common sense as well. I even gave you the dictionary definition of it, but you didn't accept it.

rigeld2 wrote:

nohman wrote:Rule cite please.

I roll my save.
I fail.
Is the wound unsaved?
You cannot answer the question without resolving FnP.
Yes, FnP is triggered, but because it can alter the wound from unsaved to saved it must be processed.

FNP is not a save. Stop treating it like it is. An unsaved Wound is defined very clearly in the rulebook. FNP says nothing about when it is applied, nor does it give permission to have it jump to the front of the line. They are both triggered at the same time and unless you can show me a rule that says that FNP has the initiative then it falls under Exceptions on Page 9 and we rely on the rule to tell how when to do it. One says immediately, one just says it can happen.

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Easy! You roll for ES, on a 4+ you lose your armour save. That is a change that has been made to your profile. You then roll for FNP, and on a 5+ you also don't die, therefore the wound has been ignored. Since ES had the same trigger as FNP, negating it entirely would be going back in time to retroactively stop it.

And the definition of "immediately" is pretty common sense as well. I even gave you the dictionary definition of it, but you didn't accept it.

But you applied an effect of the Wound we are told is now saved and should be ignored.

grendel083 wrote:

nohman wrote:Are you kidding? "Common Sense" is not a defence.

You'll claim "immediately" means dick all in the rules since we have no rules definition for it, but then you claim "common sense" to back your side up...

No. RAW please.

Why are we told to treat the wound as saved?
From what you're saying all FNP does is discount the wound. The rules tells us to discount it, but it also says treat it as saved.
Why not stop at "discounting the wound" if that's all it does?
So why add "treat it as saved"? The only reason I can think of is because other abilities (ES for example) work off an unsaved wound.

Right off the top of my head, a saved wound doesn't count for combat resolution. There may be other reasons for it, but I'm not familiar enough with every codex to state for certain. Not to mention it may be significant in codices going forward

I also have a challenge. Grant me the assumption that ES does come before FNP for a moment. Assuming it is meant to, how would you write the ES rules to indicate that, but without ever referring to FNP by name so it can work through multiple editions, and apparently without ever using the word immediately? Also assume you're trying not to be overly verbose as well.

Captain Antivas wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

nohman wrote:Rule cite please.

I roll my save.
I fail.
Is the wound unsaved?
You cannot answer the question without resolving FnP.
Yes, FnP is triggered, but because it can alter the wound from unsaved to saved it must be processed.

FNP is not a save. Stop treating it like it is. An unsaved Wound is defined very clearly in the rulebook. FNP says nothing about when it is applied, nor does it give permission to have it jump to the front of the line. They are both triggered at the same time and unless you can show me a rule that says that FNP has the initiative then it falls under Exceptions on Page 9 and we rely on the rule to tell how when to do it. One says immediately, one just says it can happen.

And ES is not given permission to to just in front of FnP. For all purposes of the rules a FnP negated Wound is saved. Thus no effects triggered off of unsaved Wounds can be applied.

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Easy! You roll for ES, on a 4+ you lose your armour save. That is a change that has been made to your profile. You then roll for FNP, and on a 5+ you also don't die, therefore the wound has been ignored. Since ES had the same trigger as FNP, negating it entirely would be going back in time to retroactively stop it.

And the definition of "immediately" is pretty common sense as well. I even gave you the dictionary definition of it, but you didn't accept it.

But you applied an effect of the Wound we are told is now saved and should be ignored.

No I didn't. I applied the effect of a special rule. If I applied the effect of a wound, your single wound model is now dead.

nohman wrote:

grendel083 wrote:

nohman wrote:Are you kidding? "Common Sense" is not a defence.

You'll claim "immediately" means dick all in the rules since we have no rules definition for it, but then you claim "common sense" to back your side up...

No. RAW please.

Why are we told to treat the wound as saved?
From what you're saying all FNP does is discount the wound. The rules tells us to discount it, but it also says treat it as saved.
Why not stop at "discounting the wound" if that's all it does?
So why add "treat it as saved"? The only reason I can think of is because other abilities (ES for example) work off an unsaved wound.

Right off the top of my head, a saved wound doesn't count for combat resolution. There may be other reasons for it, but I'm not familiar enough with every codex to state for certain.

I also have a challenge. Grant me the assumption that ES does come before FNP for a moment. Assuming it is meant to, how would you write the ES rules to indicate that, but without ever referring to FNP by name so it can work through multiple editions, and apparently without ever using the word immediately? Also assume you're trying not to be overly verbose as well.

Simple, "before any other special rules are applied do X..."

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Common sense = no rules to back me up. This has never flown when I tried it, so it will not fly here.

How is immediately not obvious? Because it defies your point? Look at the definition and get back to me.

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Easy! You roll for ES, on a 4+ you lose your armour save. That is a change that has been made to your profile. You then roll for FNP, and on a 5+ you also don't die, therefore the wound has been ignored. Since ES had the same trigger as FNP, negating it entirely would be going back in time to retroactively stop it.

And the definition of "immediately" is pretty common sense as well. I even gave you the dictionary definition of it, but you didn't accept it.

But you applied an effect of the Wound we are told is now saved and should be ignored.

No I didn't. I applied the effect of a special rule. If I applied the effect of a wound, your single wound model is now dead.

ES is an additional effect of the Wound.

But surely that still leaves the whole "it retroactively becomes a saved wound thus ES never applied at all!" loophole open? Since you'd still need to resolve if it was an unsaved wound or not?

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Common sense = no rules to back me up. This has never flown when I tried it, so it will not fly here.

How is immediately not obvious? Because it defies your point? Look at the definition and get back to me.

ANd how is "treated as saved" and "ignored" not immediately not obvious?

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Easy! You roll for ES, on a 4+ you lose your armour save. That is a change that has been made to your profile. You then roll for FNP, and on a 5+ you also don't die, therefore the wound has been ignored. Since ES had the same trigger as FNP, negating it entirely would be going back in time to retroactively stop it.

And the definition of "immediately" is pretty common sense as well. I even gave you the dictionary definition of it, but you didn't accept it.

But you applied an effect of the Wound we are told is now saved and should be ignored.

No I didn't. I applied the effect of a special rule. If I applied the effect of a wound, your single wound model is now dead.

ES is an additional effect of the Wound.

No it isn't. Pretty sure my Tesla Carbines don't cause ES. Nor do my Deathspitters. Or my Bonesword...

ES is it's own rule that triggers off a wound. If the wound goes through and triggers the effect, then it still happened,. If the wound is retroactively removed it has no bearing on it, since it has since been resolved.

Captain Antivas wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

nohman wrote:Rule cite please.

I roll my save.
I fail.
Is the wound unsaved?
You cannot answer the question without resolving FnP.
Yes, FnP is triggered, but because it can alter the wound from unsaved to saved it must be processed.

FNP is not a save. Stop treating it like it is. An unsaved Wound is defined very clearly in the rulebook. FNP says nothing about when it is applied, nor does it give permission to have it jump to the front of the line. They are both triggered at the same time and unless you can show me a rule that says that FNP has the initiative then it falls under Exceptions on Page 9 and we rely on the rule to tell how when to do it. One says immediately, one just says it can happen.

It's not a save - that's correct.
What do the last few words of FnP say?

nohman wrote:But surely that still leaves the whole "it retroactively becomes a saved wound thus ES never applied at all!" loophole open? Since you'd still need to resolve if it was an unsaved wound or not?

Exactly!! You cannot apply triggered effects to a situtaion where you don't know the final status. Thus we need to finalize the status.

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Common sense = no rules to back me up. This has never flown when I tried it, so it will not fly here.

How is immediately not obvious? Because it defies your point? Look at the definition and get back to me.

ANd how is "treated as saved" and "ignored" not immediately not obvious?

RAW definition for "ignored" please.

Also the RAW difference between a "saved" wound, and a "treated as saved" wound.

Remember, Hive Tyrants are "treated as ICs" when with Guard, but are NOT ICs. So there is a difference.

rigeld2 wrote:It's not a save - that's correct.
What do the last few words of FnP say?

"treat it as having been saved" is what FNP says.

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:But surely that still leaves the whole "it retroactively becomes a saved wound thus ES never applied at all!" loophole open? Since you'd still need to resolve if it was an unsaved wound or not?

Exactly!! You cannot apply triggered effects to a situtaion where you don;t know the final status.

That's my point. You tried to rewrite the ES rule so it obviously comes before FNP, but failed. So how would you do it without using the word immediately or referring to FNP specifically?

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Common sense = no rules to back me up. This has never flown when I tried it, so it will not fly here.

How is immediately not obvious? Because it defies your point? Look at the definition and get back to me.

ANd how is "treated as saved" and "ignored" not immediately not obvious?

RAW definition for "ignored" please.

Also the RAW difference between a "saved" wound, and a "treated as saved" wound.

Remember, Hive Tyrants are "treated as ICs" when with Guard, but are NOT ICs. So there is a difference.

1) Common sense, ignored has no ambigous meanings.
2) There is no difference between the two in game terms.
3) The difference in your example is status is situational and has no bearing on the current issue.

nohman wrote:That's my point. You tried to rewrite the ES rule so it obviously comes before FNP, but failed. So how would you do it without using the word immediately or referring to FNP specifically?

"After reducing the wounds of the enemy model affected by Entropic Strike, reduce its armor save to -."

That is how I would have worded it.

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:But surely that still leaves the whole "it retroactively becomes a saved wound thus ES never applied at all!" loophole open? Since you'd still need to resolve if it was an unsaved wound or not?

Exactly!! You cannot apply triggered effects to a situtaion where you don;t know the final status.

That's my point. You tried to rewrite the ES rule so it obviously comes before FNP, but failed. So how would you do it without using the word immediately or referring to FNP specifically?

It was a trap. I wanted you to bring up the loop hole and uncertain status of the unsaved Wound.

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Common sense = no rules to back me up. This has never flown when I tried it, so it will not fly here.

How is immediately not obvious? Because it defies your point? Look at the definition and get back to me.

ANd how is "treated as saved" and "ignored" not immediately not obvious?

RAW definition for "ignored" please.

Also the RAW difference between a "saved" wound, and a "treated as saved" wound.

Remember, Hive Tyrants are "treated as ICs" when with Guard, but are NOT ICs. So there is a difference.

1) Common sence that has no ambigous meanings.
2) There is no difference between the two in game terms.
3) The difference in your example is status is situational and has no bearing on the current issue.

1) Common Sense is not a basis for a rules discussion. "Common sense" to myself and other is that ES and FNP both happen at once. "Common Sense" to you and others is that it doesn't. RAW only please.
2) Cite proof of this from the rulebook please.
3) It shows a precedent that things "treated as" something, are not necessarily the same as a normal version.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:But surely that still leaves the whole "it retroactively becomes a saved wound thus ES never applied at all!" loophole open? Since you'd still need to resolve if it was an unsaved wound or not?

Exactly!! You cannot apply triggered effects to a situtaion where you don;t know the final status.

That's my point. You tried to rewrite the ES rule so it obviously comes before FNP, but failed. So how would you do it without using the word immediately or referring to FNP specifically?

It was a trap. I wanted you to bring up the loop hole and uncertain status of the unsaved Wound.

So you actually can't do it without reference to immediately or FNP, thus meaning that even trying to convey intent, you still got it wrong.

1) Your example is not common sense, it is a interpretation of the effects of 'immediately'.

2) Cite proof that they are different.

3) Nope, that is situtational status. There is no question of situational status in ES v FnP debate, this is a question of final status. Once the HT is in the correct situation (with Guard) it is for all purposes of the rules an IC. WHen not with Guard, the HT is for all purposes not an IC. I'm not getting your point with this one.

hisdudeness wrote:1) Your example is not common sense, it is a interpretation of the effects of 'immediately'.

2) Cite proof that they are different.

3) Nope, that is situtational status. There is no question of situational status in ES v FnP debate. Once the HT is in the correct situation (with Guard) it is for all purposes of the rules an IC. WHen not with Guard, the HT is for all purposes not an IC. I'm not getting your point with this one.

1) RAW for "common sense" please!

2) Easy. One has 2 more two more words in it than the other.

3) Yes there is a question, hence why this post is here and the mods haven't shut it down yet. Also the fact that there have been more than one person on each side of the debate. Also you're wrong, if he is "for all intents and purposes" an IC, he could leave the unit. He may not. If he is "for all purposes" NOT an IC, then he may not join the unit.

EDIT: Sorry, originally quoted you before your edit.

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Common sense = no rules to back me up. This has never flown when I tried it, so it will not fly here.

How is immediately not obvious? Because it defies your point? Look at the definition and get back to me.

ANd how is "treated as saved" and "ignored" not immediately not obvious?

Because they don't mean that the wound never happened. If you ignore your little brother he still exists. If you ignore your bills they still stack up. If you ignore your rent it is still going to come back and bite you.

My "common sense" argument is that the scarab broke off its claw in your chest. The acid (or whatever it is that wrecks your armor) is still applied, it is still penetrating your armor and still melting your armor, but you are tough enough to fight on despite that. You have a giant gaping wound in your chest, but since the armor was still penetrated and still melted away it is gone despite your ability to fight on. The important thing to remember is that FNP has nothing to do with your armor/invo save's ability to protect you. It is all about your body's ability to fight on despite serious injury. This is a common sense argument that is not supported by rules, and is therefore invalid. If yours is valid then so is mine. Or neither of ours is valid and we go with what is written.

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:1) Your example is not common sense, it is a interpretation of the effects of 'immediately'.

2) Cite proof that they are different.

3) Nope, that is situtational status. There is no question of situational status in ES v FnP debate. Once the HT is in the correct situation (with Guard) it is for all porposes of the rules an IC. I'm not getting your point with this one.

1) RAW for "common sense" please!

2) Easy. One has 2 more two more words in it than the other.

3) Yes there is a question, hence why this post is here and the mods haven't shut it down yet. Also the fact that there have been more than one person on each side of the debate. Also you're wrong, if he is "for all intents and purposes" an IC, he could leave the unit. He may not.

3) Isn't that a special restiction placed on the HT in his rules and as the CPT has pointed out, p9 tells us "..., the expceptional rule will contain all the onformation you need to resolve it."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Common sense = no rules to back me up. This has never flown when I tried it, so it will not fly here.

How is immediately not obvious? Because it defies your point? Look at the definition and get back to me.

ANd how is "treated as saved" and "ignored" not immediately not obvious?

Because they don't mean that the wound never happened. If you ignore your little brother he still exists. If you ignore your bills they still stack up. If you ignore your rent it is still going to come back and bite you.

My "common sense" argument is that the scarab broke off its claw in your chest. The acid (or whatever it is that wrecks your armor) is still applied, it is still penetrating your armor and still melting your armor, but you are tough enough to fight on despite that. You have a giant gaping wound in your chest, but since the armor was still penetrated and still melted away it is gone despite your ability to fight on. The important thing to remember is that FNP has nothing to do with your armor/invo save's ability to protect you. It is all about your body's ability to fight on despite serious injury. This is a common sense argument that is not supported by rules, and is therefore invalid. If yours is valid then so is mine. Or neither of ours is valid and we go with what is written.

No one ever claimed the Wound never happened. It just did not finalize as an unsaved Wound. And thus cannot trigger effects that look for unsaved Wounds.

On this note, I am going to eat lunch and get some stuff done around the house. I will pick back up later.

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:1) Your example is not common sense, it is a interpretation of the effects of 'immediately'.

2) Cite proof that they are different.

3) Nope, that is situtational status. There is no question of situational status in ES v FnP debate. Once the HT is in the correct situation (with Guard) it is for all porposes of the rules an IC. I'm not getting your point with this one.

1) RAW for "common sense" please!

2) Easy. One has 2 more two more words in it than the other.

3) Yes there is a question, hence why this post is here and the mods haven't shut it down yet. Also the fact that there have been more than one person on each side of the debate. Also you're wrong, if he is "for all intents and purposes" an IC, he could leave the unit. He may not.

3) Isn't that a special restiction placed on the HT in his rules and as the CPT has pointed out, p9 tells us "..., the expceptional rule will contain all the onformation you need to resolve it."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Common sense = no rules to back me up. This has never flown when I tried it, so it will not fly here.

How is immediately not obvious? Because it defies your point? Look at the definition and get back to me.

ANd how is "treated as saved" and "ignored" not immediately not obvious?

Because they don't mean that the wound never happened. If you ignore your little brother he still exists. If you ignore your bills they still stack up. If you ignore your rent it is still going to come back and bite you.

My "common sense" argument is that the scarab broke off its claw in your chest. The acid (or whatever it is that wrecks your armor) is still applied, it is still penetrating your armor and still melting your armor, but you are tough enough to fight on despite that. You have a giant gaping wound in your chest, but since the armor was still penetrated and still melted away it is gone despite your ability to fight on. The important thing to remember is that FNP has nothing to do with your armor/invo save's ability to protect you. It is all about your body's ability to fight on despite serious injury. This is a common sense argument that is not supported by rules, and is therefore invalid. If yours is valid then so is mine. Or neither of ours is valid and we go with what is written.

No one ever claimed the Wound never happened. It just did not finalize as an unsaved Wound. And thus cannot trigger effects that look for unsaved Wounds.

Urr, don't know the acronym CPT. I presume it's the rulebook in some way. P9 refers to the turn, so if we're not allowing precedents to be used, then it doesn't mean anything either.

Also, once again, rule cite that a wound needs to be "finalized" to trigger stuff that procs off it.

Hell, Rule definition for "finalized" please?

Here is a thought for you guys. What if they trigger at the same time but cannot resolve till both are applied?

Example

A marine fails it 3+ save from a scarab. The marine has FNP, and since both models have special rules, and the same trigger. You must resolve both before making any changes to the battlefield/models. Therefor, you must resolve both simultaniouly, and at the end check what the status is. Here we have a situation where both rules are applied, and resolved but the ultimate application is dependent on an unsaved wound. Since FNP says treat as a saved wound, the requirement for ES is no longer viable to be used.

If you want to argue that ES happens before FNP. Then the model would never in any circumstance get to roll a FNP save, because you have resolved the effects of an unsaved wound. Thus not allowing another special rule to possibly effect the situation. This unfortunately is not allowed in the rule book in any situation, and if you were to try that I am sure you would be treated as a WAAC.

And if you accused me of being a WAAC TFG, I'd point out that maaaybe the guy with 7K points of the main marine chapter with FNP perhaps isn't totally unbiased. So neither of us should do that, right?

"Resolving" (which I might add we don't have a RAW definition for, so could mean anything at all) ES doesn't resolve the wound. It just resolves the ES rule. You would then go on to resolve FNP, which might result in the wound being ignored, thus your model doesn't die. However the ES effect would remain, as it had been trigger and subsequently resolved. So whatever happens to its trigger is now irrelevant.

Except you do not know if you actually have an unsaved Wound if FNP has not yet been rolled.

DeathReaper wrote:Except you do not know if you actually have an unsaved Wound if FNP has not yet been rolled.

Yes you do, it's what let you roll FNP in the first place.

For the 1000th time...

Looks like everyone agrees about the process of the hits that put the wounds into the wound pool.
Then we go to page 15, and allocate wounds and remove casualties.
First step is saves, you get one save (cover, armor, invul) and are told to make a note of how many unsaved Wounds have been caused.

Next step is allocate unsaved Wounds and remove casualties.

So, where in that process does Feel No Pain come in?
A force weapon says that Unsaved Wounds cause instant death.
Entropic strike says unsaved destroy armor.
Instant Death says Unsaved wounds inflicted by an attack with this special rule automatically inflict instand Death, regardless ofthe victim's Toughness.
Feel No Pain says 5+ to ignore, and count as if passed, but not vs instant death.

The only way for the feel no pain clause of not vs instant death to work is if you have the feel no pain roll come AFTER effects that cause Unsaved Wounds.
It looks like to me, you roll to wound, roll your 1 save, apply special effects (ES, Force, Instant Death), and then roll FnP, if allowed.


Please all be polite, I'd like to see this topic resolved and not get locked.

-Matt

nohman wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Except you do not know if you actually have an unsaved Wound if FNP has not yet been rolled.

Yes you do, it's what let you roll FNP in the first place.

For the 1000th time...

But then FNP might cause that unsaved wound to become a saved wound.

If, after FNP, you have no unsaved wound; then you have no validation for Entropic strike to effect your model.

nohman wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Except you do not know if you actually have an unsaved Wound if FNP has not yet been rolled.

Yes you do, it's what let you roll FNP in the first place.

For the 1000th time...

And if you pass FNP there is no longer an unsaved wound.

That is why it resolves before anything else.

"Treated as saved" is there so rules that apply to saved wounds apply to successful FNP rolls. The wound doesn't happen because of the phrase "the unsaved wound is discounted".

The question in this case is one of timing. There is no rules support for FNP going first as both rules have nearly the exact same trigger "suffers an unsaved wound". You can however make the case that ES goes first because of the addition of the word immediately following the trigger. However if that is still too ambiguous for you the best you can say with rules support is that the rules are triggered simultaneously

Pg. 9 covers simultaneously triggered rules saying, "...the player whose turn it is decides the order in which the events occur."

Also the phrase "the unsaved wound is discounted" is not retroactive. The model suffered an unsaved wound at some point before FNP. Any effects resolved before FNP are already resolved and still apply. Effects resolved after FNP would not trigger if the wound was discounted.

DeathReaper wrote:

nohman wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Except you do not know if you actually have an unsaved Wound if FNP has not yet been rolled.

Yes you do, it's what let you roll FNP in the first place.

For the 1000th time...

And if you pass FNP there is no longer an unsaved wound.

That is why it resolves before anything else.

As HawaiiMatt pointed out you can't do that or ID would never get to negate FNP since it is also triggered by an unsaved wound.

I shoot a Conversion Beamer at a group of Marines w/Apothecary (T5 w/FNP)
I hit with my scatter.
I wound 4 times.
Marines fail 3 Jink saves.
I now have 3 unsaved wounds.
A weapon with 2x T that causes an unsaved wound causes ID
We then roll the FNP to make sure it is in fact a truly unsaved wound, which they pass. No wound, no ID. But this defies the rules. Since ES/BS/ID are all triggered by an unsaved wound if you consider one must wait until FNP is resolved you must apply the same standard to all.

nohman wrote:And if you accused me of being a WAAC TFG, I'd point out that maaaybe the guy with 7K points of the main marine chapter with FNP perhaps isn't totally unbiased. So neither of us should do that, right?

"Resolving" (which I might add we don't have a RAW definition for, so could mean anything at all) ES doesn't resolve the wound. It just resolves the ES rule. You would then go on to resolve FNP, which might result in the wound being ignored, thus your model doesn't die. However the ES effect would remain, as it had been trigger and subsequently resolved. So whatever happens to its trigger is now irrelevant.

How many points of an army I have has no bearing on the rules for me. I would argue it the same way regardless. To argue that I have a baised solely based on what army I play is something sad. See I could say that you only play Necrons now and that your opinion is biased, but unlike you I will not go that way.

Actually, if you were to resolve the ES special rule that means that any unsaved wound would remain an unsaved wound. Thus not allowing FNP to be rolled at all. Thus breaking the rules for FNP. See we have a situation here where your are refusing to look at the arguements of others and treat them at face value. I have no agenda other then to tell you how I read the rules, and interept them. At this point I would like you to state the full rules for both FNP and ES for everyone to see. Then explain what any of those words mean. You who are insisting that everyword must have a meaning is only detracting from an otherwise good debate. I feel you need to step back and relax just a little. Look at others arguements without looking for something wrong with them before you understand what they are saying then go back and see if there is a problem with something.

ES from what I remember occurs when there is an unsaved wound, so does FNP. The word immediatly stipulates if an unsaved wound occurs. FNP says that the wound counts as saved. Counts as means, treat like. For game purposes counts as is equal to what ever it is refering to. SO you must go by what the RB says in that situation. In this one that unsaved wound becomes a saved wound. Thus not allowing anything that needs an unsaved wound to effect the playing surface. See next your gonna say but then FNP doesn't work. To that I reply it is a specific instance in the rules that allows it to happen, aka a execption, thus allowing the rules to work in the proper fashion.

Captain Antivas wrote:As HawaiiMatt pointed out you can't do that or ID would never get to negate FNP since it is also triggered by an unsaved wound.

The fallacy here being that the ID triggering Unsaved wound is specifically stated in FNP.

"Note that Feel no Pain cannot be made against unsaved wounds that inflict Instant Death."

If the unsaved wound is from a weapon that inflicts the Instant Death Clause(be that from Double-T Strength; or from a weapon with the Instant Death rule); then the Feel no Pain rule specifically states in the above quote that Feel no pain rolls cannot be made.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:As HawaiiMatt pointed out you can't do that or ID would never get to negate FNP since it is also triggered by an unsaved wound.

The fallacy here being that the ID triggering Unsaved wound is specifically stated in FNP.

"Note that Feel no Pain cannot be made against unsaved wounds that inflict Instant Death."

If the unsaved wound is from a weapon that inflicts the Instant Death Clause(be that from Double-T Strength; or from a weapon with the Instant Death rule); then the Feel no Pain rule specifically states in the above quote that Feel no pain rolls cannot be made.

If you have to wait to resolve FNP to determine if a wound has been suffered to determine if it is a true unsaved wound before applying any other SR then this would include ID. This would also break both FNP and ID. That is the point.

No it is on triggering FNP(when the wound is still unsaved) that you see if the wound has the potential to cause ID.

The Wound does not cause ID until after you have found that you cannot FNP.

This is a specific Clause in FNP that only regards ID:
Take Wound
Does wound cause ID?
If no then FNP.

FNP interrupts the "Immediate" application of an unsaved wound(removal of the wound/destruction of the model); ID interrupts FNP.

Captain Antivas wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:As HawaiiMatt pointed out you can't do that or ID would never get to negate FNP since it is also triggered by an unsaved wound.

The fallacy here being that the ID triggering Unsaved wound is specifically stated in FNP.

"Note that Feel no Pain cannot be made against unsaved wounds that inflict Instant Death."

If the unsaved wound is from a weapon that inflicts the Instant Death Clause(be that from Double-T Strength; or from a weapon with the Instant Death rule); then the Feel no Pain rule specifically states in the above quote that Feel no pain rolls cannot be made.

If you have to wait to resolve FNP to determine if a wound has been suffered to determine if it is a true unsaved wound before applying any other SR then this would include ID. This would also break both FNP and ID. That is the point.

What I am saying is contrary to what you have ended up with. Here is an example to make more sense of this for you. If a GK hits one of my marines with a force weapon, which has not be activated yet. That causes a wound and if there is still a warp charge for the Gk to use. Then both SR would have to be resolved. At this point you check both for an unsaved wound. FNP is dependent on in the situation, that the wound does not cause instant death. The GK uses the force weapon thus making the wound cause instant death, thus not allowing a FNP roll to be made.

Like in the early example between FNP and ES, you must apply all modifiers to the situation before you can have an end result. Since the GK have a weapon that can cause instant death we have to see if they are instant death while checking the rules for FNP. Just like FNP and ES you check to see if an unsaved wound happens. FNP says no, there is no triggering effect for ES.

maybe in this situation we should look at both rules enteracting with each other, because they both have the same trigger. I think that is the only way that this would work. Since both are dependent on an unsaved wound we cannot apply any effects of an unsaved wound until both SR have been used. What I mean by this, FNP and ES both trigger on an unsaved wound. FNP stipulates that on a 5+ the unsaved wound counts as being a saved wound. ES stipulates that on an unsaved wound if an unsaved wound (happens? resolves? occurs?) I don't know but I assume its one of those 3. You check after applying both SRs. Since on effects the outcome of another you must give that one a chance to resolve before applying the effects of the other. Otherwise you break the game. This seems most logical to me.

Kommissar Kel wrote:No it is on triggering FNP(when the wound is still unsaved) that you see if the wound has the potential to cause ID.

The Wound does not cause ID until after you have found that you cannot FNP.

????? What page is that on?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:
If you have to wait to resolve FNP to determine if a wound has been suffered to determine if it is a true unsaved wound before applying any other SR then this would include ID. This would also break both FNP and ID. That is the point.

What I am saying is contrary to what you have ended up with. Here is an example to make more sense of this for you. If a GK hits one of my marines with a force weapon, which has not be activated yet. That causes a wound and if there is still a warp charge for the Gk to use. Then both SR would have to be resolved. At this point you check both for an unsaved wound. FNP is dependent on in the situation, that the wound does not cause instant death. The GK uses the force weapon thus making the wound cause instant death, thus not allowing a FNP roll to be made.

Like in the early example between FNP and ES, you must apply all modifiers to the situation before you can have an end result. Since the GK have a weapon that can cause instant death we have to see if they are instant death while checking the rules for FNP. Just like FNP and ES you check to see if an unsaved wound happens. FNP says no, there is no triggering effect for ES.

maybe in this situation we should look at both rules enteracting with each other, because they both have the same trigger. I think that is the only way that this would work. Since both are dependent on an unsaved wound we cannot apply any effects of an unsaved wound until both SR have been used. What I mean by this, FNP and ES both trigger on an unsaved wound. FNP stipulates that on a 5+ the unsaved wound counts as being a saved wound. ES stipulates that on an unsaved wound if an unsaved wound (happens? resolves? occurs?) I don't know but I assume its one of those 3. You check after applying both SRs. Since on effects the outcome of another you must give that one a chance to resolve before applying the effects of the other. Otherwise you break the game. This seems most logical to me.

Same question, where in the rules does it say that?

DeathReaper wrote:Is Entropic Strike resolved before FNP due to the wording of ES?

Entropic Strike (C:N p29) states "...suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses.."

FNP "On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved." P.35

No matter the timing or importance of what some of you think immediately means for ES, the specific tense used by FnP negates ES completely.

1. You trigger ES before FNP: FNP tells you to go back and treat the unsaved wound as having been saved, so ES is treated as never been trtrigger because the unsaved wound is treated as having been saved.

2. You trigger FnP before ES: You treat the unsaved wound as having been saved, so ES never has a chance to trigger.

The naysayers that say you cannot go back in time are countered by the FnP use of the past tense. You do not treat the unsaved wound as saved, you treat the unsaved wound as HAVING BEEN saved.

GW fixed the wording of FnP this edition just to avoid this confusion from 5th and some of you just can't accept the clear ruling on it.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Is Entropic Strike resolved before FNP due to the wording of ES?

Entropic Strike (C:N p29) states "...suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses.."

FNP "On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved." P.35

No matter the timing or importance of what some of you think immediately means for ES, the specific tense used by FnP negates ES completely.

1. You trigger ES before FNP: FNP tells you to go back and treat the unsaved wound as having been saved, so ES is treated as never been trtrigger because the unsaved wound is treated as having been saved.

2. You trigger FnP before ES: You treat the unsaved wound as having been saved, so ES never has a chance to trigger.

The naysayers that say you cannot go back in time are countered by the FnP use of the past tense. You do not treat the unsaved wound as saved, you treat the unsaved wound as HAVING BEEN saved.

GW fixed the wording of FnP this edition just to avoid this confusion from 5th and some of you just can't accept the clear ruling on it.

Edited by Manchu.

If ES is never triggered, neither was FNP. One cannot trigger without the other.

This is pointless though, Neither side is going to convince each other, you have to ignore the phrase "immediately" to come to your side. I have to ignore nothing on mine.

All this is going to do is bring the witches out of the woodwork, as is already starting to happen and get the topic locked, so let's just let it die.

The rules for FNP are illogical. It tells us that is is not a saving throw and later at the end of its paragraph that it is.

A FAQ needs to be done on this rule to clear up the mud on it as a lot of special rules hinge on the trigger 'Unsaved Wound(s)'.

Since this is RAI on my part, Id push my ES working as intended, and their FNP working as its intended at the same time. He/She loses their armor save, but keeps the model (which I think this is the direction *this* particular special rule will end up getting FAQed)


Until that time comes, Id talk with my opponent on how to handle the possible conflict in the upcoming battle. If an agreement couldnt be reached, then a roll off would be requested from my behalf when the time came. :3

I am ignoring nothing with mine. I can actually account for both situations and did so above.

You want to convienetly leave out the fact that FnP allows for you to go back and discount the unsaved wound and treat it as having been saved. You want to try and relate it to some Back to the Future time space continuam that suddenly experieces a earth shattering paradox. However, only one of the rules in question refers you to the past tense in resolution, which is FnP.

So when you want to try and retroactively apply ES to create the paradox that FnP can't happen if ES never happened, you can't ever refer to the past tense of ES as you do not have permission.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:I am ignoring nothing with mine. I can actually account for both situations and did so above.

You want to convienetly leave out the fact that FnP allows for you to go back and discount the unsaved wound and treat it as having been saved. You want to try and relate it to some Back to the Future time space continuam that suddenly experieces a earth shattering paradox. However, only one of the rules in question refers you to the past tense in resolution, which is FnP.

So when you want to try and retroactively apply ES to create the paradox that FnP can't happen if ES never happened, you can't ever refer to the past tense of ES as you do not have permission.

You are missing what he is saying. What he is saying is that since FNP and ES are both triggered at the same time you cannot apply one and not the other at the same time. Doing so would be breaking the rules. ID/ES/BS/FNP all trigger with an unsaved wound. You then look to the rules to determine which is applied and in what order. Since nothing in the FNP rules say it goes first, and has previously been brought up, doing so would break the rules.

I don't know if it's been said already but this is identical to the FNP/ID/EW fight, and as such since it is the same argument and the same possible results it leads to both camps being right.

Until it's FAQ'd to be clearer this (and the other) argument will never be amicably resolved because there is no clear concise answer that makes the other camp 100% incorrect.

Kevin949 wrote:I don't know if it's been said already but this is identical to the FNP/ID/EW fight, and as such since it is the same argument and the same possible results it leads to both camps being right.

Until it's FAQ'd to be clearer this (and the other) argument will never be amicably resolved because there is no clear concise answer that makes the other camp 100% incorrect.

But there is. This is a permissive ruleset, if you do not have permission to do something you cannot. Since you do not have permission to resolve FNP before anything else you cannot. Simple as that. ID negates FNP. EW does not allow you to override the FNP limitation rule so you cannot.

Captain Antivas wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:I don't know if it's been said already but this is identical to the FNP/ID/EW fight, and as such since it is the same argument and the same possible results it leads to both camps being right.

Until it's FAQ'd to be clearer this (and the other) argument will never be amicably resolved because there is no clear concise answer that makes the other camp 100% incorrect.

But there is. This is a permissive ruleset, if you do not have permission to do something you cannot. Since you do not have permission to resolve FNP before anything else you cannot. Simple as that. ID negates FNP. EW does not allow you to override the FNP limitation rule so you cannot.

I'm not going to turn this thread into that debate, but that is not the "only" answer. Permissive ruleset or not, if something is immune to something how it can it suffer "any" negatives of it?

But again, I simply brought it up because it's the same thing, almost an identical scenario (though slightly different rules), and basically the same two camps of "this is why you can" and "this is why you can't". And both are right and both are wrong.

My opinion of the matter? The wound is not resolved until FNP is passed or failed, it's not until the wound is 100% resolved that could emphatically say it was saved or unsaved. This is how I would play it. Am I saying it's the right way? No, it's just hiwpi.

The logic behind "the wound must be completely resolved before applying ES" is completely flawed.

ES: Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds, ...
FNP: When a model with this special rules suffers an unsaved wound, ...

The event that triggers both rules is exactly the same. EXACTLY. If the event is good enough to trigger one effect then it's clearly good enough to trigger the other. There is absolutely no indication that the wound must be fully resolved before applying any rules that trigger when a model "suffers" one or more unsaved wounds, because you wouldn't be able to resolve FNP itself!

Since the trigger event is the same then both rules apply. ES happens first because the model "immediately" loses the armor save. And immediately means immediately. Not when it pleases your opponent...

copper.talos wrote:The logic behind "the wound must be completely resolved before applying ES" is completely flawed.

ES: Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds, ...
FNP: When a model with this special rules suffers an unsaved Wound, ...

The event that triggers both rules is exactly the same. EXACTLY. If the event is good enough to trigger one effect then it's clearly good enough to trigger the other. There is absolutely no indication that the wound must be fully resolved before applying any rules that trigger when a model "suffers" one or more unsaved wounds, because you wouldn't be able to resolve FNP itself!

Since the trigger event is the same then both rules apply. ES happens first because the model "immediately" loses the armor save. And immediately means immediately. Not when it pleases your opponent...

Fixed that for you in red.

You also got it wrong then since it's:

The logic behind "the wound must be completely resolved before applying ES" is completely flawed.

ES: Any model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds, ...
FNP: When a model with this special rules suffers an unsaved Wound, ...

The event that triggers both rules is exactly the same. EXACTLY. If the event is good enough to trigger one effect then it's clearly good enough to trigger the other. There is absolutely no indication that the wound must be fully resolved before applying any rules that trigger when a model "suffers" one or more unsaved wounds, because you wouldn't be able to resolve FNP itself!

Since the trigger event is the same then both rules apply. ES happens first because the model "immediately" loses the armor save. And immediately means immediately. Not when it pleases your opponent...

I appreciate it. I do not own the Necron codex, and was unaware that ES also used Wounds (unlike, for example, Boneswords which says wounds).

Happyjew wrote:

copper.talos wrote:The logic behind "the wound must be completely resolved before applying ES" is completely flawed.

ES: Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds, ...
FNP: When a model with this special rules suffers an unsaved Wound, ...

The event that triggers both rules is exactly the same. EXACTLY. If the event is good enough to trigger one effect then it's clearly good enough to trigger the other. There is absolutely no indication that the wound must be fully resolved before applying any rules that trigger when a model "suffers" one or more unsaved wounds, because you wouldn't be able to resolve FNP itself!

Since the trigger event is the same then both rules apply. ES happens first because the model "immediately" loses the armor save. And immediately means immediately. Not when it pleases your opponent...

Fixed that for you in red.

And the capital W is relevant how? The point remains the same. Both are triggered by the same event so both are resolved at the same time. Nothing in the rule gives you permission to resolve FNP before anything else so you cannot do it. Plain and simple.

@happyjew I always forget to pay attention to that difference. It would really help if GW used something else than just a capital letter to differentiate such words...

@captain antivas if you missed my previous post, it's "Wounds" on ES too...

copper.talos wrote:@happyjew I always forget to pay attention to that difference. It would really help if GW used something else than just a capital letter to differentiate such words...

@captain antivas if you missed my previous post, it's "Wounds" on ES too...

I still don't see how it is relevant. Where in the rules does it say that a capital means it goes first? What rule dictates what a Wound means versus a wound? I know GW uses capitals to mean different things, but until they say specifically what one thing means over another I don't see how it can be argued that one means something else.

Captain Antivas wrote:
And the capital W is relevant how? The point remains the same. Both are triggered by the same event so both are resolved at the same time. Nothing in the rule gives you permission to resolve FNP before anything else so you cannot do it. Plain and simple.

Although I am of the opinion that FNP happens first (and as I side note, like rigeld I play Nids so having BS activate first would be nice), the reason I made the change to copper.talos' post is not as an attempt to argue that they are different. In my opinion if you are arguing how rules are written it is important that they are written the same way consistently. As it is, if I had the Necron codex, I would have also changed wounds to Wounds for that as well, which is why I appreciate copper pointing that out.

Happyjew wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:
And the capital W is relevant how? The point remains the same. Both are triggered by the same event so both are resolved at the same time. Nothing in the rule gives you permission to resolve FNP before anything else so you cannot do it. Plain and simple.

Although I am of the opinion that FNP happens first (and as I side note, like rigeld I play Nids so having BS activate first would be nice), the reason I made the change to copper.talos' post is not as an attempt to argue that they are different. In my opinion if you are arguing how rules are written it is important that they are written the same way consistently. As it is, if I had the Necron codex, I would have also changed wounds to Wounds for that as well, which is why I appreciate copper pointing that out.

OIC. I guess the only question I have is what in the rule makes you say FNP goes first?

Remember page 9 of the rulebook deals with simultaneous special rules. They happen in an order determined by the player whose turn it is. This usually benefits the attacker.

Tarrasq wrote:Remember page 9 of the rulebook deals with simultaneous special rules. They happen in an order determined by the player whose turn it is. This usually benefits the attacker.

Yes, unless the special rule gives you other guidelines. Like using the word "immediately."

copper.talos wrote:You also got it wrong then since it's:

The logic behind "the wound must be completely resolved before applying ES" is completely flawed.

ES: Any model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds, ...
FNP: When a model with this special rules suffers an unsaved Wound, ...

The event that triggers both rules is exactly the same. EXACTLY. If the event is good enough to trigger one effect then it's clearly good enough to trigger the other. There is absolutely no indication that the wound must be fully resolved before applying any rules that trigger when a model "suffers" one or more unsaved wounds, because you wouldn't be able to resolve FNP itself!

Since the trigger event is the same then both rules apply. ES happens first because the model "immediately" loses the armor save. And immediately means immediately. Not when it pleases your opponent...

Say what you want, copper, but you must have ignored everything else I said. You have your interpretation, I have mine. Neither of us are wrong (no matter how right you want to be).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Antivas wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:
And the capital W is relevant how? The point remains the same. Both are triggered by the same event so both are resolved at the same time. Nothing in the rule gives you permission to resolve FNP before anything else so you cannot do it. Plain and simple.

Although I am of the opinion that FNP happens first (and as I side note, like rigeld I play Nids so having BS activate first would be nice), the reason I made the change to copper.talos' post is not as an attempt to argue that they are different. In my opinion if you are arguing how rules are written it is important that they are written the same way consistently. As it is, if I had the Necron codex, I would have also changed wounds to Wounds for that as well, which is why I appreciate copper pointing that out.

OIC. I guess the only question I have is what in the rule makes you say FNP goes first?

What makes you think it goes second?

Remember the part where FNP is triggered on wounds. And taking tests for a wound can only happen if you took the wound in the first place.

Kevin949 wrote:What makes you think it goes second?

The use of the word "immediately".

Tarrasq wrote:Remember page 9 of the rulebook deals with simultaneous special rules. They happen in an order determined by the player whose turn it is. This usually benefits the attacker.

This seconded. My turn I have you roll FnP after I have wounded you, and my special rule if you survive it. Your turn you can do it the other way.

captain wrote:
Yes, unless the special rule gives you other guidelines. Like using the word "immediately."

I understand that and happen to agree with you however the post was intended for those who disagree with that point. Just making the point that if ES doesn't resolve first it must resolve at the same time as FNP as the rules allow for such a situation.

Also FNP does not remove wounds retroactively. It simply replaces an unsaved wound with a saved wound. That does not mean that the unsaved wound never happened, as it says right in the FNP rules that it did.

Tarrasq wrote:

captain wrote:
Yes, unless the special rule gives you other guidelines. Like using the word "immediately."

I understand that and happen to agree with you however the post was intended for those who disagree with that point. Just making the point that if ES doesn't resolve first it must resolve at the same time as FNP as the rules allow for such a situation.

Also FNP does not remove wounds retroactively. It simply replaces an unsaved wound with a saved wound. That does not mean that the unsaved wound never happened, as it says right in the FNP rules that it did.

'immediately' means nothing, this is not Magic where we have defined keywords on timing. Until someone shows me where this timing mechanic is, 'immediately' has no effect on the rules. No one has been able to tell me what goes before/after 'immediate' actions. Does that mean as soon as I point to a model and say "unsaved Wound here" even if I'm still thinking? That is immediately is it not? What if I'm using dice as unsaved Wound indicators and as I am thinking I place one next to a model, does ES take effect then? We are told "immediately", and that is 'immediately'.

Again, if you apply the effect of ES how are you ignoring the Wound? If you keep any effect of the Wound you are not ignoring it and thus breaking the rules for FnP. I'm not understanding how this simple concept is just pushed asided.

hisdudeness wrote:

Tarrasq wrote:

captain wrote:
Yes, unless the special rule gives you other guidelines. Like using the word "immediately."

I understand that and happen to agree with you however the post was intended for those who disagree with that point. Just making the point that if ES doesn't resolve first it must resolve at the same time as FNP as the rules allow for such a situation.

Also FNP does not remove wounds retroactively. It simply replaces an unsaved wound with a saved wound. That does not mean that the unsaved wound never happened, as it says right in the FNP rules that it did.

'immediately' means nothing, this is not Magic where we have defined keywords on timing. Until someone shows me where this timing mechanic is, 'immediately' has no effect on the rules. No one has been able to tell me what goes before/after 'immediate' actions. Does that mean as soon as I point to a model and say "unsaved Wound here" even if I'm still thinking? That is immediately is it not? What if I'm using dice as unsaved Wound indicators and as I am thinking I place one next to a model, does ES take effect then? We are told "immediately", and that is 'immediately'.

Again, if you apply the effect of ES how are you ignoring the Wound? If you keep any effect of the Wound you are not ignoring it and thus breaking the rules for FnP. I'm not understanding how this simple concept is just pushed asided.

I'm sorry but you cannot ignore a word used by GW simply because it has no definition in the rules. Not all words used in the rules are going to have clearly defined meanings in game terms, and when one does not have a clearly defined definition in game terms you cannot simply ignore it because it is inconvenient to you.

And for the record, I have answered your question you just refuse to see it. But because I really think this is worth discussing, I will do it again in a different way to help you see our side of the coin.

1. Your question of timing is answered by page 9. It tells us there that timing is important as different things can effect how you and your models interact. So you can say that timing is irrelevant, but GW disagrees. It further tells us two different things: the order in which simultaneous effects are applied is determined by the player whose turn if is, and the special rule will tell you when to resolve it. What this means is we look to the special rule and determine if there is any guidance about timing. In the absence of guidance we apply all effects triggered simultaneously and let the person whose turn it is decide in what order they are applied. In this case the FNP rule tells us the trigger, when the model suffers an unsaved wound, but nothing further. Nothing says it must go first or can be done before we do anything else, so therefore it does not. It cannot go first, by the way a permissive ruleset works. ES rule gives us the trigger, when a model suffers an unsaved wound, and further tells us that immediately after that something happens. The special rule provides us guidance about when to apply it so we turn to that first. The wording, in full context, says you apply it immediately after you have acknowledged the model suffers one or more unsaved wounds.

2. There is no such thing as an immediate action in WH40k. We don't claim there is. That's not to say that the use of the word immediately is somehow ignored. Immediately means just that, immediately. Once a special rule is triggered by an event you immediately, before anything else, resolve the rule. You then continue to apply any other rules triggered by that event. The game doesn't stop because we went off track to do something that happens using words the rules don't clearly define.

3. "does that mean as soon as I point to a model and say "unsaved wound there" even if I'm still thinking?"
Not even a little bit. You don't get to think further about an unsaved wound, there is no concern. Look on page 16 (pretty sure, I don't have my book with me) under the Take Saving Throws paragraph. It says, in effect, that you take Wounds, take any saving throws allowed, then count the number of unsaved Wounds applied. So for an unsaved Wound to exists the decision about where to put it has been made, it is allocated to the closest model to the firing unit, and you have already failed the save it was allowed. Note: in the situation where more than one model is the same distance away it does say suffers an unsaved wound. When you are considering which model gets to die the model has not suffered the unsaved wound. So again, no conflict. It seems you are overcomplicating things and it is not required. The answer is really quite simple. Has the model suffered a wound. If you place a die next to it but are clearly still deciding then no the model has not clearly suffered a wound and thus ES is not yet applied.

4. Someone else brought up a very good point: ES is not an effect of suffering an unsaved wound, it is an effect of the ES special rule being triggered by an unsaved wound. A FNP roll is triggered by an unsaved wound but is not an effect of suffering a wound but an effect of the FNP rule. Removing a wound from the model's wound characteristic is an effect of failing your save. This is evidenced by the fact that with mixed saves you allocate the wound, take the save if allowed, an remove the wound from the wound characteristic. (with a squad of the same save there is no allocation the unsaved wound is given to the closest model first.) FNP modifies removing a wound from the model's wound characteristic not failing the save. Treat it as having been saved and don't remove the wound, but FNP does not modify ES.

5. "If you apply the effect of ES how are you ignoring the wound?" A single wound model doesn't die. As I pointed out above FNP modifies removing the wound not failing your save. You are ignoring the wound being removed.

Captain Antivas wrote: In this case the FNP rule tells us the trigger, when the model suffers an unsaved wound, but nothing further. Nothing says it must go first or can be done before we do anything else, so therefore it does not. It cannot go first, by the way a permissive ruleset works.

and this is where you are incorrect.

We do not know the status of the wound until FNP is resolved.

It may be a saved wound after FNP, so logically we resolve FNP to see if it is actually a saved wound, or not.

Otherwise it is Schrodinger's unsaved Wound, hanging there in limbo both saved and unsaved...

Locking as circular. The arguments have been clearly expressed, and are just being repeated. Thanks, folks. Everyone remember to email GW the question so we maximize the chance that it gets FAQ'd.

Cheers.