67866
Post by: Budikah
Scarabs will reduce the Armor save of a model for each unsaved wound. Usually this is not an issue as most models have 1 wound. But when dealing with units that have more than one wound, say a Riptide. Whould that model need to roll for each wound 1 at a time? Should one be failed, the save is reduced for all future saves. How does FNP interact with this?
26767
Post by: Kevin949
 Budikah wrote: Scarabs will reduce the Armor save of a model for each unsaved wound. Usually this is not an issue as most models have 1 wound. But when dealing with units that have more than one wound, say a Riptide. Whould that model need to roll for each wound 1 at a time? Should one be failed, the save is reduced for all future saves. How does FNP interact with this?
FNP does nothing, first off.
Secondly, the suit would suffer unsaved wounds FIRST, and THEN if it's still alive it suffers from entropic strike and from that point on in the game the suit is SV -.
So, your scarabs must first cause unsaved wounds on the suit but if fails even one armor save then it loses it's armor save for the rest of game. Also note, the rule says "If a models suffers ONE OR MORE UNSAVED WOUNDS from a weapon or model with this special rule...."
Also, wounds are "always" taken one at a time. There is no such thing as simultaneous wounding. Only simultaneous shooting/attacking.
67866
Post by: Budikah
Alrighty... let me clarify a bit with a situation.
5 Scarabs charge a Riptide
They score 15 hits and then out of those 15 they also have 5 successful wounds.
Riptide starts to roll to save against those wounds - does it roll them all at once or one at a time? If the first of those 5 saves was failed would the 4 other saves be affected by the Entropic Strike?
How about in a multiple combat?
I'm thinking that the Saves must be rolled separately because as soon as one fails the rest of the rolls are subject to the effect of Entropic Strike.
43923
Post by: Quanar
 Kevin949 wrote:FNP does nothing, first off.
Secondly, the suit would suffer unsaved wounds FIRST, and THEN if it's still alive it suffers from entropic strike and from that point on in the game the suit is SV -.
So, your scarabs must first cause unsaved wounds on the suit but
Wouldn't passing FnP count the wound as "saved" (page 35 BRB) and thus not cause the armour to fall off?
Secondly, wounds in close combat are allocated one-at-a-time (page 25 BRB), as opposed to rolling saves in one go and then allocating (same-save shooting method, page 15 BRB).
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Quanar wrote:Wouldn't passing FnP count the wound as "saved" (page 35 BRB) and thus not cause the armour to fall off?
That is correct. Secondly, wounds in close combat are allocated one-at-a-time (page 25 BRB), as opposed to rolling saves in one go and then allocating (same-save shooting method, page 15 BRB).
This is not always correct. you can use the same save method if it is a single models unit as all of the saves will be the same.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Quanar wrote: Kevin949 wrote:FNP does nothing, first off.
Secondly, the suit would suffer unsaved wounds FIRST, and THEN if it's still alive it suffers from entropic strike and from that point on in the game the suit is SV -.
So, your scarabs must first cause unsaved wounds on the suit but
Wouldn't passing FnP count the wound as "saved" (page 35 BRB) and thus not cause the armour to fall off?
Secondly, wounds in close combat are allocated one-at-a-time (page 25 BRB), as opposed to rolling saves in one go and then allocating (same-save shooting method, page 15 BRB).
Based on the following FAQ, the answer would be no, you still lose your armor save:
BRB FAQ wrote:Q: In assault, what comes first – Feel No Pain rolls or the roll to
activate a Force weapon? (p37)
A: The roll to activate a Force Weapon is made before
determining whether or not the victim is permitted a Feel
No Pain roll.
Since both Force and ES are triggered by an unsaved wound.
66740
Post by: Mythra
Feel no Pain isn't a save so it doesn't stop the armor loss.
51399
Post by: alienvalentine
 Mythra wrote:Feel no Pain isn't a save so it doesn't stop the armor loss.
Agreed, and in answer to the OP's question about the Riptide, yes you would want to roll your saves on the Riptide one by one, as a single failed save would result in the model losing it's armor save, changing the way you're going to roll whatever wounds remain in the wound pool. Automatically Appended Next Post: Also as a side note in regards to the question about FNP I leave this section of the BRB FAQ:
Page 35 – Special Rules, Feel No Pain.
Add the following paragraph “If one or more models in a unit
have the Feel No Pain specialrule then the Mixed Saves
method of Wound allocation should always be used for
allocating Wounds and removing casualties from that unit; Feel
No Pain rolls should be individually made after each failed
save.”
So a Riptide with FNP should roll all it's saves one by one whether it's confronted with Scarabs or not.
26767
Post by: Kevin949
Quanar wrote: Kevin949 wrote:FNP does nothing, first off.
Secondly, the suit would suffer unsaved wounds FIRST, and THEN if it's still alive it suffers from entropic strike and from that point on in the game the suit is SV -.
So, your scarabs must first cause unsaved wounds on the suit but
Wouldn't passing FnP count the wound as "saved" (page 35 BRB) and thus not cause the armour to fall off?
Secondly, wounds in close combat are allocated one-at-a-time (page 25 BRB), as opposed to rolling saves in one go and then allocating (same-save shooting method, page 15 BRB).
You are referencing fast rolling, and while it's an allowed method of rolling it does not change the fact that allocating wounds and rolling saves is "always" done one at a time. The method in which you roll for it does not change the actual sequence of events. This is also why if there is something that triggers on unsaved wounds or some other special occurrence, it's always a good idea to eschew fast rolling or to use it sparingly in those situations. Automatically Appended Next Post:  alienvalentine wrote: Mythra wrote:Feel no Pain isn't a save so it doesn't stop the armor loss.
Agreed, and in answer to the OP's question about the Riptide, yes you would want to roll your saves on the Riptide one by one, as a single failed save would result in the model losing it's armor save, changing the way you're going to roll whatever wounds remain in the wound pool.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also as a side note in regards to the question about FNP I leave this section of the BRB FAQ:
Page 35 – Special Rules, Feel No Pain.
Add the following paragraph “If one or more models in a unit
have the Feel No Pain specialrule then the Mixed Saves
method of Wound allocation should always be used for
allocating Wounds and removing casualties from that unit; Feel
No Pain rolls should be individually made after each failed
save.”
So a Riptide with FNP should roll all it's saves one by one whether it's confronted with Scarabs or not.
That's a good point, a model with FNP is supposed to roll one at a time anyway.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Mythra wrote:Feel no Pain isn't a save so it doesn't stop the armor loss.
FNP is not a save, but it does create a saved wound.
51399
Post by: alienvalentine
No, a model that passes the FNP test ignores the effect of an unsaved wound. Ergo, any effects that are triggered by one or more models taking an unsaved would are triggered regardless of whether or not that model or models passed the FNP test, Soul Blaze, or Entropic Strike for example, they just don't take the wound.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
alienvalentine wrote: No, a model that passes the FNP test ignores the effect of an unsaved wound. Ergo, any effects that are triggered by one or more models taking an unsaved would are triggered regardless of whether or not that model or models passed the FNP test, Soul Blaze, or Entropic Strike for example, they just don't take the wound.
What do you mean no? Have you read the FNP rules? If the FNP roll is successful then "the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved." (P.35 FNP rules) If we treat the wound as saved, then we have a saved wound and not an unsaved wound.
26767
Post by: Kevin949
rigeld2 wrote:
Based on the following FAQ, the answer would be no, you still lose your armor save:
BRB FAQ wrote:Q: In assault, what comes first – Feel No Pain rolls or the roll to
activate a Force weapon? (p37)
A: The roll to activate a Force Weapon is made before
determining whether or not the victim is permitted a Feel
No Pain roll.
Since both Force and ES are triggered by an unsaved wound.
DeathReaper wrote: alienvalentine wrote:
No, a model that passes the FNP test ignores the effect of an unsaved wound. Ergo, any effects that are triggered by one or more models taking an unsaved would are triggered regardless of whether or not that model or models passed the FNP test, Soul Blaze, or Entropic Strike for example, they just don't take the wound.
What do you mean no? Have you read the FNP rules?
If the FNP roll is successful then "the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved." (P.35 FNP rules) If we treat the wound as saved, then we have a saved wound and not an unsaved wound.
Care to address then why Force Weapons are allowed before FNP is rolled for?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Because GW decided to put in an FaQ that tells us that force weapons are allowed before FNP.
That is the only reason Force Weapons work before FNP is rolled.
26767
Post by: Kevin949
 DeathReaper wrote:Because GW decided to put in an FaQ that tells us that force weapons are allowed before FNP.
That is the only reason Force Weapons work before FNP is rolled.
Ya, I suppose it couldn't possibly be the order of operations that has anything to do with it.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Kevin949 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:Because GW decided to put in an FaQ that tells us that force weapons are allowed before FNP.
That is the only reason Force Weapons work before FNP is rolled.
Ya, I suppose it couldn't possibly be the order of operations that has anything to do with it.
Then why is there an FaQ?
963
Post by: Mannahnin
To clarify the situation. Before the FAQ, I agreed the FNP "revoked" the unsaved wound and had to go before Force Weapon activation or Entropic Strike. Now that there's the FAQ on Force Weapons, I agree that FNP doesn't save you from them or Entropic Strike, as both of them trigger off the same thing.
63094
Post by: Gravmyr
Could it be they were clarifying order of operation?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
I wish they would have been that straightforward about it, but alas we get the usual gak that GW produces.
63094
Post by: Gravmyr
True.
22054
Post by: Bloodhorror
So do Boneswords ignore FNP as well then  ?
963
Post by: Mannahnin
If they cause Instant Death, sure.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
So back to the original question:
Let's say he has 5 wounds.
Does he roll armour saves at the same time?
Or does he roll the first, and if that fails, he can't get armour-saves for the other 4?
963
Post by: Mannahnin
In 6th ed you ALWAYS roll saves one at a time.
The ONLY time you can roll them together is when it makes no mechanical difference to the outcome. Like when you're rolling 5 saves for a squad of 5 guys who all have the same save, and there's no FNP in play and no characters in the squad. Rolling together is purely a convenience allowed when it has no mechanical impact.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
If they fail their LD test, yes.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
 Mannahnin wrote:In 6th ed you ALWAYS roll saves one at a time.
The ONLY time you can roll them together is when it makes no mechanical difference to the outcome. Like when you're rolling 5 saves for a squad of 5 guys who all have the same save, and there's no FNP in play and no characters in the squad. Rolling together is purely a convenience allowed when it has no mechanical impact.
That's good news for Scarabs  If the first hit comes through, the others can't be stopped by armour.
I didn't know that.
Another thing:
If I have 5 marines with all 5 FnP, does it have an impact if you roll them all at the time?
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how it makes any difference.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
If they're 5 identical models, it probably doesn't matter.
65714
Post by: Lord Krungharr
The Force Weapon ID rule says "Immediately after an unsaved wound", that is why they FAQd it so FNP doesn't negate the wound to allow the Force ID effect.
Does the Entropic Strike say "immediately" like the Force Weapon rule? If not, it's not the same situation as a Force Weapon.
Then I think we must default to the 'whosever turn it is gets to choose what happens first'. So if the Scarabs assault the Riptide and cause an unsaved wound, then the Entropic Strike happens first. But if the Riptide makes all his saves in that Necron turn, then gets an unsaved wound in his own turn, he would get FNP.....and then probably still have his armor fall off.
63094
Post by: Gravmyr
In reality it doesn't but per the FAQ you have to roll each save and FNP individually
71616
Post by: Zheak
Kevin949 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:Because GW decided to put in an FaQ that tells us that force weapons are allowed before FNP.
That is the only reason Force Weapons work before FNP is rolled.
Ya, I suppose it couldn't possibly be the order of operations that has anything to do with it.
sadly it counts as being saved.
it doesnt make sense that a scarab would eat your armor, and then you wouldnt feel it, so your bug vomits the armor back onto its enemy seemingly whole, but hey! we dont play 40k for its realism now do we?
72466
Post by: Jedly
I don't think some of you are applying the force weapon FAQ properly. I think we can all agree that activating a force weapon works like this:1) Fail save, 2) Test for force weapon, 3) Take FNP if able, 4) If FNP was successful step one changes and this whole series didn't happen.
Following the same thought process in this case: 1) Fail save 2) Scarabs eat armor 3) Take FNP 4) If FNP was successful than step one changes and this whole series did not happen, which would include #2.
The difference between the two being that activating the force weapon stops the FNP rule, while the effects of the entropic strike do not affect FNP, allowing the chance for it to be negated.
5760
Post by: Drunkspleen
I think Jedly has this correct, the ability to apply special rules before FNP is largely meaningless as FNP can cancel out the wound, and the ensuing special rule, anyway.
It only becomes relevant when the special rule is used to inflict Instant Death.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
Jedly wrote:I don't think some of you are applying the force weapon FAQ properly. I think we can all agree that activating a force weapon works like this:1) Fail save, 2) Test for force weapon, 3) Take FNP if able, 4) If FNP was successful step one changes and this whole series didn't happen.
That WAS the discussion.
They made the FAQ to explain that this doesn't work like that.
Force Weapon gives ID, so you cannot take FNP at all if you succeed in step 2.
48139
Post by: BarBoBot
I believe that's why he said take FnP If able. If the test to activate FW is failed you get FnP.
50763
Post by: copper.talos
The FAQ didn't give any justification to why the Force Weapon applies before FNP. So any "reasons" that someone may come up to why Force Weapons can be activated before FNP but Entropic Strike should not, are entirely unsupported.
The logic is simple:
Ability 1: When the enemy suffers an unsaved wound immediately do X.
Ability 2: When the enemy suffers an unsaved wound immediately do Y.
Since ability 1 got a FAQ that makes it apply before FNP, then ability 2 also applies before FNP.
62238
Post by: MarkyMark
So now we should be doing warpflame, soul blaze, black mace toughness test etc even if the wound is saved via FNP copper?. Totally disagree persoannly, FNP says count the wound as being saved FNP has a specfic exception to this ES and everything else does not
50763
Post by: copper.talos
What you (or I) think as right or wrong after the faq doesn't matter. There was a timing issue for abilities that apply immediately after suffering a wound and it has been solved via faq. That is all that matters.
So if those abilities you refer to happen immediately after suffering a wound, then yes they should be applied before FNP.
43923
Post by: Quanar
copper.talos wrote:What you (or I) think as right or wrong after the faq doesn't matter. There was a timing issue for abilities that apply immediately after suffering a wound and it has been solved via faq. That is all that matters.
The timing issue is now clear for the interaction between Force Weapons and FnP. Applying FAQ's that are an answer to a specific question out to a wider area of rules is not always the intended outcome. Force weapons and FnP needed clarifying because if you passed the Force test then FnP could not be rolled.
50763
Post by: copper.talos
Since there is no other faq regarding this exact timing issue, it can be used as a precedent to every other similar case.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
The digital codex clarifies this as all attacks occurring at the same iniative. So you get all saves against the entropic strike attacks generally occurring at initiative 2. FNP checks to ignore unsave wounds, and any remaining remove Armour via the rules for ES.
50763
Post by: copper.talos
I don't understand what you mean by "The digital codex clarifies this as all attacks occurring at the same iniative. ". Anyway the proper order is you do saves, apply any abilities that come immediately after suffering an unsaved wound and then do FNP.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
I have the iCodex for Necrons. It states that you resolve all ES attacks simultaneously. Part of the argument was that you roll saves for a model with FNp, one at a time, and the iCodex clarifies that to not matter. You can lose your Armour from the first hit from ES, also fail your FNP, but still get saves for all other wounds caused at the same iniative step. Only once that and FNP are resolved would you roll for ES to see if the Armour has been stripped.
Edit: Ignore read text below.
51948
Post by: The Infinite
 NecronLord3 wrote:I have the iCodex for Necrons. It states that you resolve all ES attacks simultaneously. Part of the argument was that you roll saves for a model with FNp, one at a time, and the iCodex clarifies that to not matter. You can lose your Armour from the first hit from ES, also fail your FNP, but still get saves for all other wounds caused at the same iniative step. Only once that and FNP are resolved would you roll for ES to see if the Armour has been stripped.
You don't roll to see if ES works vs armour saves, it just works on a failed save. Perhaps, in this instance, a word for word quote of the rule as it appears in the i-codex may be called for to see if there have been any stealth changes made?
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
I actually read that wrong myself. Here is the exact text:
As these effects are immediate, a wounded model will not get its armour save against other models attacking in the same Initiative step; equally, other models attacking in the same Initiative step will be able to roll against a vehicle or fortifications reduced armour value.
So this would appear to be one at a time Save>FNP>ES Once FNP fails you have no armour.
50763
Post by: copper.talos
Again you came to the wrong conclusion. You should ask yourself why should force weapons apply before FNP and ES should not? What part of the wording does differentiate the timing between these 2 abilities? You'll see that there is nothing there and so, as with force weapons, ES applies before the FNP.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
No the FAQ regarding FNP and Force Weapons resulted from the fact that Force Weapons have the potential to cause instant death which FNP does not work against.. So an FAQ was needed as it otherwise could always be used against force weapons. A specific instance needed for the FAQ.
FNP negates the failed save. If they both occur at the same time it is active players choice which goes first.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
But it still does not matter what goes first.
If you take FNP first and pass you treat the wound as saved and move on.
If you take ES first, then take FNP and pass you treat the wound as saved, making ES not remove the armor, as the wound was saved, and move on.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
I would agree with you except for the precedent set by the Force Weapon FAQ.
In fact, I argued your point repeatedly prior to that FAQ.
5760
Post by: Drunkspleen
DeathReaper's point isn't at odds with the Force Weapon FAQ though, there's no reason to allow the effects of Entropic Strike to remain once the source wound has been removed, maybe if FNP just said "you don't lose a wound" you could argue that, but it says to treat it as though it was saved, and treating it as such means the effects of ES are nullified.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
rigeld2 wrote:I would agree with you except for the precedent set by the Force Weapon FAQ.
In fact, I argued your point repeatedly prior to that FAQ.
I know you did, and since force weapons that are activated cause ID, then that negates FNP because the wound now causes ID. I imagine this is why the FAQ says what it says.
The same is not true of ES. ES does not cause ID and can never have any effect if we are treating the wound as saved right?
In a different thread you said
Is that no longer the case? (Rhetorical question as we all know this still applies).
50763
Post by: copper.talos
NecronLord3 wrote:No the FAQ regarding FNP and Force Weapons resulted from the fact that Force Weapons have the potential to cause instant death which FNP does not work against.. So an FAQ was needed as it otherwise could always be used against force weapons. A specific instance needed for the FAQ.
FNP negates the failed save. If they both occur at the same time it is active players choice which goes first.
Can you quote the part of the faq that says this?
Anyway to help you the faq doesn't provide any justifications. It solves the timing issue by applying the "when you suffer an unsaved would immediately do" abilities before the "when you suffer an unsaved would do" abilities. No reason provided so there is no reason to treat ES otherwise.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
copper.talos wrote: NecronLord3 wrote:No the FAQ regarding FNP and Force Weapons resulted from the fact that Force Weapons have the potential to cause instant death which FNP does not work against.. So an FAQ was needed as it otherwise could always be used against force weapons. A specific instance needed for the FAQ.
FNP negates the failed save. If they both occur at the same time it is active players choice which goes first.
Can you quote the part of the faq that says this?
Anyway to help you the faq doesn't provide any justifications. It solves the timing issue by applying the "when you suffer an unsaved would immediately do" abilities before the "when you suffer an unsaved would do" abilities. No reason provided so there is no reason to treat ES otherwise.
Its a rule in the rule book. Page 9 under Exceptions.
"When these things happen, the player whose turn it is decides the order in which the events occur."
Force Weapons bringing Instant Death to the equation and FNP not being able to be used against weapons that cause Instant death made their rules mutually exclusive of one another. ES and FNP do not have this issue. FNP however does cause the unsaved wound to be ignored, as if it was saved and this negates the effects of ES. So you can roll them in any order and you must do so separately per the FNP rules so it does not matter the order, but if FNP is passed, the armour is not removed. Once you fail a FNP roll, your armour is gone, you stop making saves and only roll for FNP for the remained of wounds in the wound pool.
50763
Post by: copper.talos
You are contradicting yourself. And anyway, can you just quote the part of the faq that supports all these "justifications"? Or are they all made up by you?
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Here's my take:
1. Scarabs cause a wound
2. Riptide fails roll to save
3. Wound becomes unsaved
4. Entropic Strike is immediately triggered due to unsaved wound; armour save is lost for remainder of game
5. Roll for FNP, if passed, model does not suffer unsaved wound. If failed, model takes a wound.
That's it. Simple. FNP can cancel out the wound, yes. But it cannot go back in time to cancel out an ability that is triggered by the wound. The reason FNP does not work on FW in this order of operations is because the immediate effect of the FW happens to be something that prevents FNP from being used.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
 azazel the cat wrote:Here's my take:
1. Scarabs cause a wound
2. Riptide fails roll to save
3. Wound becomes unsaved
4. Entropic Strike is immediately triggered due to unsaved wound; armour save is lost for remainder of game
5. Roll for FNP, if passed, model does not suffer unsaved wound. If failed, model takes a wound.
That's it. Simple. FNP can cancel out the wound, yes. But it cannot go back in time to cancel out an ability that is triggered by the wound. The reason FNP does not work on FW in this order of operations is because the immediate effect of the FW happens to be something that prevents FNP from being used.
With one caveat at 5, if the FNP is passed we treat the wound as saved. Now the model has to treat that wound as saved, and the armor can not be lost, as the wound has been saved.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
DeathReaper wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Here's my take:
1. Scarabs cause a wound
2. Riptide fails roll to save
3. Wound becomes unsaved
4. Entropic Strike is immediately triggered due to unsaved wound; armour save is lost for remainder of game
5. Roll for FNP, if passed, model does not suffer unsaved wound. If failed, model takes a wound.
That's it. Simple. FNP can cancel out the wound, yes. But it cannot go back in time to cancel out an ability that is triggered by the wound. The reason FNP does not work on FW in this order of operations is because the immediate effect of the FW happens to be something that prevents FNP from being used.
With one caveat at 5, if the FNP is passed we treat the wound as saved. Now the model has to treat that wound as saved, and the armor can not be lost, as the wound has been saved.
Unfortunately, no. That would require a time machine, as the ES effect has already been triggered by the time FNP steps up to the plate.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
copper.talos wrote:You are contradicting yourself. And anyway, can you just quote the part of the faq that supports all these "justifications"? Or are they all made up by you?
I dont need to site a non-existent FAQ entry for rules clearly defined in both the Codex and the BrB.
The Force Weapon FAQ you seem to be clinging to has no relevance to the situation, as I have explained in my previous reply. Automatically Appended Next Post: azazel the cat wrote:
Unfortunately, no. That would require a time machine, as the ES effect has already been triggered by the time FNP steps up to the plate.
You don't get the benefit of an effect which a rule tells you to later ignore.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
NecronLord3 wrote:copper.talos wrote:You are contradicting yourself. And anyway, can you just quote the part of the faq that supports all these "justifications"? Or are they all made up by you?
I dont need to site a non-existent FAQ entry for rules clearly defined in both the Codex and the BrB. The Force Weapon FAQ you seem to be clinging to has no relevance to the situation, as I have explained in my previous reply. Automatically Appended Next Post: azazel the cat wrote: Unfortunately, no. That would require a time machine, as the ES effect has already been triggered by the time FNP steps up to the plate.
You don't get the benefit of an effect which a rule tells you to later ignore.
FNP doesn't tell you to ignore the ES; it tells you to ignore the wound. But by the time you are told to ignore that, ES has already happened (hence, the "immediately" part of es) EDIT: so you may get to ignore the wound, but ES has already happened, and sticks.
72945
Post by: Baktru
Mythra wrote:Feel no Pain isn't a save so it doesn't stop the armor loss.
Disagreed. FnP litterally says to treat the Wound as "having been saved".
Both FnP and the Scarabs thing triggers when a save is missed.
There is no rule that says which happens first, hence the active player chooses which to apply first.
If FnP is applied first and the FnP roll is a success, the wound is now treated as not having been saved. However I do not see anything that causes this to now untrigger the Entropic Strike.
So as far as I can tell, FnP does not stop Entropic Strike.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
azazel the cat wrote:NecronLord3 wrote:copper.talos wrote:You are contradicting yourself. And anyway, can you just quote the part of the faq that supports all these "justifications"? Or are they all made up by you?
I dont need to site a non-existent FAQ entry for rules clearly defined in both the Codex and the BrB.
The Force Weapon FAQ you seem to be clinging to has no relevance to the situation, as I have explained in my previous reply.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote:
Unfortunately, no. That would require a time machine, as the ES effect has already been triggered by the time FNP steps up to the plate.
You don't get the benefit of an effect which a rule tells you to later ignore.
FNP doesn't tell you to ignore the ES; it tells you to ignore the wound. But by the time you are told to ignore that, ES has already happened (hence, the "immediately" part of es)
EDIT: so you may get to ignore the wound, but ES has already happened, and sticks.
No it doesn't. You treat it as if it had saved, so no ES.
50763
Post by: copper.talos
For those that have yet to grasp how the faq about the force weapon applies to ES, I repeat:
Ability 1: When the enemy suffers an unsaved wound immediately do X.
Ability 2: When the enemy suffers an unsaved wound immediately do Y.
Since ability 1 got a FAQ that makes it apply before FNP, then ability 2 also applies before FNP.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
And for those just clicking on page 3. Please read the entire context of the situation and exactly why it does not apply to ES.
The clarification to Force weapons is a unique and separate ruling with no contextual baring on the issue with ES.
43923
Post by: Quanar
copper.talos wrote:For those that have yet to grasp how the faq about the force weapon applies to ES, I repeat:
Ability 1: When the enemy suffers an unsaved wound immediately do X.
Ability 2: When the enemy suffers an unsaved wound immediately do Y.
Since ability 1 got a FAQ that makes it apply before FNP, then ability 2 also applies before FNP.
I think this is known as a "logical fallacy"? Someone with better debating terminology please correct me if I'm wrong.
Ability 1 triggers on an unsaved wound (Force Weapon). Ability 2 ditto ( ES). Ability 3 also ditto ( FnP).
If 1 happens before 3 due to FAQ, that does not mean 2 happens before 3, the intended order could well be 1 - 3 - 2 which would not contradict the FAQ.
True, you can also say that 1 - 2 - 3 also does not break he FAQ, and I suppose at this point I'm unlikely to convince you. Are you going to point out that FnP doesn't use the word "immediately"?
A question in response then: if a model with Fortune on it (re-roll failed saves) fails a save against an attack with ES, do you immediately lose the armour before getting a re-roll?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
azazel the cat wrote:FNP doesn't tell you to ignore the ES; it tells you to ignore the wound. But by the time you are told to ignore that, ES has already happened (hence, the "immediately" part of es)
EDIT: so you may get to ignore the wound, but ES has already happened, and sticks.
If you are treating the wound as saved, why are you taking the models armor save away? This breaks a rule. Automatically Appended Next Post: copper.talos wrote:For those that have yet to grasp how the faq about the force weapon applies to ES, I repeat:
Ability 1: When the enemy suffers an unsaved wound immediately do X.
Ability 2: When the enemy suffers an unsaved wound immediately do Y.
Since ability 1 got a FAQ that makes it apply before FNP, then ability 2 also applies before FNP.
Again timing does not matter at all, as once you pass FNP you have to treat the wound as saved.
If you remove the models armor save you have not treated the wound as saved.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
NecronLord3 wrote: azazel the cat wrote:NecronLord3 wrote:copper.talos wrote:You are contradicting yourself. And anyway, can you just quote the part of the faq that supports all these "justifications"? Or are they all made up by you?
I dont need to site a non-existent FAQ entry for rules clearly defined in both the Codex and the BrB.
The Force Weapon FAQ you seem to be clinging to has no relevance to the situation, as I have explained in my previous reply.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote:
Unfortunately, no. That would require a time machine, as the ES effect has already been triggered by the time FNP steps up to the plate.
You don't get the benefit of an effect which a rule tells you to later ignore.
FNP doesn't tell you to ignore the ES; it tells you to ignore the wound. But by the time you are told to ignore that, ES has already happened (hence, the "immediately" part of es)
EDIT: so you may get to ignore the wound, but ES has already happened, and sticks.
No it doesn't. You treat it as if it had saved, so no ES.
Except ES says "immediately", which means it goes off before FNP ever gets to roll.
DeathReaper wrote: azazel the cat wrote:FNP doesn't tell you to ignore the ES; it tells you to ignore the wound. But by the time you are told to ignore that, ES has already happened (hence, the "immediately" part of es)
EDIT: so you may get to ignore the wound, but ES has already happened, and sticks.
If you are treating the wound as saved, why are you taking the models armor save away? This breaks a rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
copper.talos wrote:For those that have yet to grasp how the faq about the force weapon applies to ES, I repeat:
Ability 1: When the enemy suffers an unsaved wound immediately do X.
Ability 2: When the enemy suffers an unsaved wound immediately do Y.
Since ability 1 got a FAQ that makes it apply before FNP, then ability 2 also applies before FNP.
Again timing does not matter at all, as once you pass FNP you have to treat the wound as saved.
If you remove the models armor save you have not treated the wound as saved.
because it is an event that happened in the past. You don't have a time machine, so you don't get to perform any revisionist history.
43923
Post by: Quanar
azazel the cat wrote:because it is an event that happened in the past. You don't have a time machine, so you don't get to perform any revisionist history.
You "perform revisionist history" every time you pass a FnP. You turn an unsaved wound into a saved wound which is contrary to all laws of space-time. Quickly! To the Delorien!
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Azazel - then you have broken the FNP rule, as you have not treated the wound as saved.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
nosferatu1001 wrote:Azazel - then you have broken the FNP rule, as you have not treated the wound as saved.
Not really. You can still treat the wound as being saved -but that doesn't mean that the wound had always been saved. That is, you can easily let FNP treat the wound as being saved while still acknowledging that ES was triggered (remember, ES gets triggered immediately; before FNP ever even gets to roll) Earlier on I listed numbered steps in the process that reconciles the two. EDIT: because, Nos, if you do not do it as I listed, then you have broken the ES rule (immediately) by waiting for the result of the FNP rule. So either you use my method, which does not break any rules, or else you have to choose to break the rule of ES or FNP. Since I prefer to not break any rules, I simply allow FNP to remove the wound, after it triggers ES. That way both rules actually work.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
You treat the wound as saved. If anything, that says it triggers off an unsaved wound, triggers of a saved wound you are breaking a rule.
50763
Post by: copper.talos
Only by the time the FNP makes the wound to be treated as saved, the ES has already been applied and the armour save has been removed from the model. It is not still dependent on that unsaved wound since it has been fully resolved already.
70808
Post by: Saltis
Does this post require the full rule of ES being pasted in here, and then scrutinising it carefully. If you lose your armour and THEN take a wound, but FNP saves the wound, it doesnt save your armour does it? FNP cannot rematierialise armour from nothing. Stop arguing a point that logically is impossible. If ES removes the armour, then you save the wound afterwards, then you only save the wound, not the armour, and thus you have fulfilled both rules from ES and FNP. As Azazel has said multiple times, this is the only logical way of seeing this. As ES is not a wound, its an effect, how can you save that?
/thread
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
 Saltis wrote:Does this post require the full rule of ES being pasted in here, and then scrutinising it carefully. If you lose your armour and THEN take a wound, but FNP saves the wound, it doesnt save your armour does it?
FNP saves the wound, If you lose your armor save to a wound that is treated as saved you have broken a rule as you are not treating the wound as saved.
FNP cannot rematierialise armour from nothing. Stop arguing a point that logically is impossible.
You do realize that the rules are an abstraction right?
They need to have a certain amount of abstractness to make the game playable.
The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.
The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.
What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.
"logically is impossible", and "rematierialise armour from nothing" means nothing. The model dir away you are not treating thed not actually have its armor melted, you are not creating armor out of air... The rules are an abstraction.
If ES removes the armour, then you save the wound afterwards, then you only save the wound, not the armour, and thus you have fulfilled both rules from ES and FNP. As Azazel has said multiple times, this is the only logical way of seeing this. As ES is not a wound, its an effect, how can you save that?
/thread
You do not make the armor go away because the rules tell you to treat the wound as saved.
If you take the armor away you are not treating the wound as saved, and breaking a rule.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Saltis wrote:Does this post require the full rule of ES being pasted in here, and then scrutinising it carefully. If you lose your armour and THEN take a wound, but FNP saves the wound, it doesnt save your armour does it? FNP cannot rematierialise armour from nothing. Stop arguing a point that logically is impossible. If ES removes the armour, then you save the wound afterwards, then you only save the wound, not the armour, and thus you have fulfilled both rules from ES and FNP. As Azazel has said multiple times, this is the only logical way of seeing this. As ES is not a wound, its an effect, how can you save that?
/thread
3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.
You don't apply logic and real world mechanics to this game. It will never work.
FNP nullifies the effects of the failed save, as the failed save is IGNORED. RAW
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Ok; in 5th Edition this argument was a good one because FNP made no goddamn sense.
In this edition they specifically say "treat the wound as saved" and people are still trying to do things that trigger off of unsaved wounds to a model that passes FNP?
Really guys?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Azazel - and FNP is also immediately.
If you treat the wound as saved, yet you have still lost your armour, the wound has NOT been saved - as you only lose your armour if the wound is not saved. You have broken the FNP rule.
If you treat the wound as saved, and dont lose your armour, you have broken neither rule.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
 Unit1126PLL wrote:Ok; in 5th Edition this argument was a good one because FNP made no goddamn sense.
In this edition they specifically say "treat the wound as saved" and people are still trying to do things that trigger off of unsaved wounds to a model that passes FNP?
Really guys?
Since they ruled that way for Force...
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
rigeld2 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Ok; in 5th Edition this argument was a good one because FNP made no goddamn sense.
In this edition they specifically say "treat the wound as saved" and people are still trying to do things that trigger off of unsaved wounds to a model that passes FNP?
Really guys?
Since they ruled that way for Force...
because the rules for FW and FNP were mutually exclusive. FNP specifically has one exception, weapons causing ID, FNP as written in 6th, would have always been allowed against FW or create a paradox. Thus, facilitating the need for an FAQ entry. ES vs FNP is not mutually exclusive, both can occur a the same time or in different orders, and the result will be the same as FNP retroactively ignores the unsaved wound.
49515
Post by: WarlordRob117
Im going to laugh my ass off when the FAQ comes down that shows when entropic strike strips armor from a failed wound that FNP cannot stop the effect, only the wound. Alot of you guys are using the same mentality when the whole "Abaddon cant join squads because of the different mark issue"... save yourself the breath and admit that regardless of how you think it is, the model still loses armor... entropic strike is not an attack, its an effect caused by an attack... FNP is not a save, its an effect triggered by a failed save... rules as written, as you guys love to say so often does not stop the armor from being stripped as the rules for FNP do not state that it prevents other effects from occuring, only loss of wounds.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Which has as much relevance as the price of tea in China.
FNP is not a save, its an effect triggered by a failed save... rules as written, as you guys love to say so often does not stop the armor from being stripped as the rules for FNP do not state that it prevents other effects from occuring, only loss of wounds.
And pray tell - what's the trigger for the ES effect?
What was your stance on the FNP vs Force debate? Or should I go through your posts to find it?
49515
Post by: WarlordRob117
rigeld2 wrote:
FNP is not a save, its an effect triggered by a failed save... rules as written, as you guys love to say so often does not stop the armor from being stripped as the rules for FNP do not state that it prevents other effects from occuring, only loss of wounds.
And pray tell - what's the trigger for the ES effect?
What was your stance on the FNP vs Force debate? Or should I go through your posts to find it?
When a model fails to save a wound, entropic strike immediately takes effect and the model loses it save. Since FNP is not a save you cannot use the arguement "treat the wound as saved" as you did not actually save the wound, you only had an effect triggered that negated the wound... the wound was still taken, it was just given back. This gives balance and allows the game to continue without breaking as you are not preventing affects that cannot be prevented.
I could just let you look through all my posts and try to find something that isnt there, but I'll be a good sport and save you the trouble... as the steps illustrate, when a model is wounded by a force weapon, the force weapon (provided it has a warp charge) immediately makes a leadership check... if the leadership check passes the wound causes instant death... the reason why this is important is because it prioritizes which saves a person wants to make... if the person fails his armor save he does not get FNP as the rules for FNP specifically state that they cannot be taken against attacks that cause ID... now we use this same logic to determine whether or not the effects of FNP prevent the loss of armor... does FNP say anything about preventing special rules, effects, or entropic strikes from occuring? since this is rhetorical, as I know that to not be the case, the only thing that FNP gives back is the wound, not the armor...
65714
Post by: Lord Krungharr
The FW FAQ was made not just because FW cause ID, it was because the rules for FW have the word "immediately" in there....so IMMEDIATELY after suffering an unsaved wound the FW can be activated, and GW decided that should take precedence over FNP attempts no matter whose turn it is. The ID from a FW happens after the wound is unsaved, not as a direct result of the unsaved wound (which is why a psychic test must be taken for it to work, fail that and no ID from FW).
There is not a precedent set by the FW FAQ regarding ES, unless ES has the word 'immediately after suffering an unsaved wound' in the Necron rulebook.
I don't have a Necron rulebook, and I did not see anyone write out the ES rule verbatim. So if the ES rule does not have the same wording as FW, then FNP can negate the wound which would cause ES effects in the FNP player's turn because of the player's choice when 2 simultaneous effects occur.
So will someone just spell out the damn ES rule verbatim? Does it have the word immediately in there?
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
It does say immediately.
I can't copy the exact text from my iCodex but the second paragraph starts with "As these effects are immediate..."
47462
Post by: rigeld2
 WarlordRob117 wrote:When a model fails to save a wound, entropic strike immediately takes effect and the model loses it save. Since FNP is not a save you cannot use the arguement "treat the wound as saved" as you did not actually save the wound, you only had an effect triggered that negated the wound... the wound was still taken, it was just given back. This gives balance and allows the game to continue without breaking as you are not preventing affects that cannot be prevented.
So you're ignoring the fact that FNP says to treat the wound as saved? Meaning if you do something that triggers off an unsaved wound you are explicitly not treating the wound as saved.
I could just let you look through all my posts and try to find something that isnt there, but I'll be a good sport and save you the trouble... as the steps illustrate, when a model is wounded by a force weapon, the force weapon (provided it has a warp charge) immediately makes a leadership check... if the leadership check passes the wound causes instant death... the reason why this is important is because it prioritizes which saves a person wants to make... if the person fails his armor save he does not get FNP as the rules for FNP specifically state that they cannot be taken against attacks that cause ID... now we use this same logic to determine whether or not the effects of FNP prevent the loss of armor... does FNP say anything about preventing special rules, effects, or entropic strikes from occuring? since this is rhetorical, as I know that to not be the case, the only thing that FNP gives back is the wound, not the armor...
Force does not cause ID - you should re-read the rules.
I agree that ES would still remove the armor, but you're arguing (and mocking people) the wrong way.
62238
Post by: MarkyMark
If your only arguement to deny FNP stopping ES taking the armour is that ES is done immediately then FNP on 1 wound models is useless as soon as they fail their armour then surely by your logic the model has no wounds so must be removed from play. The FNP against force weapon is now a specific exception, there is no exception at the moment for ES.
49515
Post by: WarlordRob117
rigeld2 wrote: WarlordRob117 wrote:When a model fails to save a wound, entropic strike immediately takes effect and the model loses it save. Since FNP is not a save you cannot use the arguement "treat the wound as saved" as you did not actually save the wound, you only had an effect triggered that negated the wound... the wound was still taken, it was just given back. This gives balance and allows the game to continue without breaking as you are not preventing affects that cannot be prevented.
So you're ignoring the fact that FNP says to treat the wound as saved? Meaning if you do something that triggers off an unsaved wound you are explicitly not treating the wound as saved.
I could just let you look through all my posts and try to find something that isnt there, but I'll be a good sport and save you the trouble... as the steps illustrate, when a model is wounded by a force weapon, the force weapon (provided it has a warp charge) immediately makes a leadership check... if the leadership check passes the wound causes instant death... the reason why this is important is because it prioritizes which saves a person wants to make... if the person fails his armor save he does not get FNP as the rules for FNP specifically state that they cannot be taken against attacks that cause ID... now we use this same logic to determine whether or not the effects of FNP prevent the loss of armor... does FNP say anything about preventing special rules, effects, or entropic strikes from occuring? since this is rhetorical, as I know that to not be the case, the only thing that FNP gives back is the wound, not the armor...
Force does not cause ID - you should re-read the rules.
I agree that ES would still remove the armor, but you're arguing (and mocking people) the wrong way.
Did say I was ignoring it, I was saying that FNP says nothing about stopping special rules like entropic strike from occuring, and since this is a permission style rule set, FNP does not give permission to discount entropic strikes effects
Huwhat planet are you from? and do they use the same BRB for 40K there? tell me... what exactly do force weapons do then?
And good Sir or Ma'am, as there is no wrong way to eat a reeses? there is no wrong way to argue... take it to the bank...
47462
Post by: rigeld2
WarlordRob117 wrote:Did say I was ignoring it, I was saying that FNP says nothing about stopping special rules like entropic strike from occuring, and since this is a permission style rule set, FNP does not give permission to discount entropic strikes effects
It says to treat the wound as saved.
Does a saved wound trigger ES?
Huwhat planet are you from? and do they use the same BRB for 40K there? tell me... what exactly do force weapons do then?
Force, when triggered, allows you to spend a WC and roll to have your attacks potentially cause ID - it does not cause ID by itself.
Important distinctions like that you keep trying to sweep under the rug.
And good Sir or Ma'am, as there is no wrong way to eat a reeses? there is no wrong way to argue... take it to the bank...
No, there are demonstrably wrong ways to argue. Me calling you an idiot would be the wrong way to argue. Me saying you're assertions are incorrect and citing rules is a right way to argue. Please try to do more of the latter and none of the former.
49515
Post by: WarlordRob117
rigeld2 wrote: WarlordRob117 wrote:Did say I was ignoring it, I was saying that FNP says nothing about stopping special rules like entropic strike from occuring, and since this is a permission style rule set, FNP does not give permission to discount entropic strikes effects
It says to treat the wound as saved.
Does a saved wound trigger ES?
Huwhat planet are you from? and do they use the same BRB for 40K there? tell me... what exactly do force weapons do then?
Force, when triggered, allows you to spend a WC and roll to have your attacks potentially cause ID - it does not cause ID by itself.
Important distinctions like that you keep trying to sweep under the rug.
And good Sir or Ma'am, as there is no wrong way to eat a reeses? there is no wrong way to argue... take it to the bank...
No, there are demonstrably wrong ways to argue. Me calling you an idiot would be the wrong way to argue. Me saying you're assertions are incorrect and citing rules is a right way to argue. Please try to do more of the latter and none of the former.
You didnt save the wound... thats why you have to take FNP... Ermegerd!!!
So I guess I have to dig for you? perhaps you should actually read my posts rather than try to disprove me because I turned off your "happy-feel good switch"
WarlordRob117 said: "as the steps illustrate, when a model is wounded by a force weapon, the force weapon (provided it has a warp charge) immediately makes a leadership check... if the leadership check passes the wound causes instant death... the reason why this is important is because it prioritizes which saves a person wants to make... if the person fails his armor save he does not get FNP as the rules for FNP specifically state that they cannot be taken against attacks that cause ID"
considering I had to go back to previous posts to show you something I wrote, which was rather lazy and disrespectful of you, Im not going to waste my time trying to prove to you that I didnt call you or any one else an idiot... these are just examples of your opinion, but if you wanna play that game, fine... You are wrong because the BRB says you are... you do not have permission to do something unless the rules give you permission... case closed
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Of course, but FNP, if passed does treat the wound as saved. and treated as means is, or the rules break down in spectacular ways.
You are wrong because the BRB says you are...
Please follow the tenets of the forum.
Tenets of You Make Da Call wrote: 1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.
Tenets listed Here
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Except the wound must be treated as saved.
So I guess I have to dig for you? perhaps you should actually read my posts rather than try to disprove me because I turned off your "happy-feel good switch"
WarlordRob117 said: "as the steps illustrate, when a model is wounded by a force weapon, the force weapon (provided it has a warp charge) immediately makes a leadership check... if the leadership check passes the wound causes instant death... the reason why this is important is because it prioritizes which saves a person wants to make... if the person fails his armor save he does not get FNP as the rules for FNP specifically state that they cannot be taken against attacks that cause ID"
And again - Force does not cause ID. It has the potential to, but that's not what FNP says.
And there's no "prioritization" of saves - you must take the best available.
considering I had to go back to previous posts to show you something I wrote, which was rather lazy and disrespectful of you, Im not going to waste my time trying to prove to you that I didnt call you or any one else an idiot... these are just examples of your opinion, but if you wanna play that game, fine... You are wrong because the BRB says you are... you do not have permission to do something unless the rules give you permission... case closed
Amusing since, as I've stated, I agree with your conclusion, I just think you're going about it the wrong way. And I replied to that post, saying essentially the same thing, so I don't see how I was lazy or disrespectful.
I never said you did call someone an idiot - I was implying that your tone and behavior isn't conducive to a good discussion. Your original post was very patronizing and insulting, and not a single rules quote in it.
You still haven't cited a rule, just your interpretations of rules. That's not how you have a rules discussion.
49515
Post by: WarlordRob117
Funny becuase people used the same argument when trying determine whether or not necron RP/EL rules applied lol
OHHHHH ya caught the tater... my apologies... (for the record, I never did like that touchy-feely tenet)
38373
Post by: Yonush
From what I can gather, The reason it works with Force is because if the check is passed, the attacks become ID which negates any FNP tests.
ES doesn't have any ablility to negate the FNP test, and FNP specificly states to treat a wound as saved. If you saved the wound, (I.e. treating the wound as saved) ES doesn't trigger.
I'd like to see how Boneswords work with it now. Wouldn't they like Force trigger prior because they also cause ID if successful?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Yonush wrote:From what I can gather, The reason it works with Force is because if the check is passed, the attacks become ID which negates any FNP tests.
But if you allow FNP to go first the wound is saved.
You only get into an "issue" if you allow FNP to "save" the wound but still roll for Force (which would negate FNP).
That's why this FAQ sets a precedent - they're not just saying that ID weapons roll first, they're saying that FNP only lets you keep the wound and other effects still apply - and in the case of Force (and Boneswords) you get to test for ID before FNP is rolled. For other abilities it doesn't matter as their effects can work with FNP just fine.
62238
Post by: MarkyMark
rigeld2 wrote:Yonush wrote:From what I can gather, The reason it works with Force is because if the check is passed, the attacks become ID which negates any FNP tests.
But if you allow FNP to go first the wound is saved.
You only get into an "issue" if you allow FNP to "save" the wound but still roll for Force (which would negate FNP).
That's why this FAQ sets a precedent - they're not just saying that ID weapons roll first, they're saying that FNP only lets you keep the wound and other effects still apply - and in the case of Force (and Boneswords) you get to test for ID before FNP is rolled. For other abilities it doesn't matter as their effects can work with FNP just fine.
So you are saying there is a gap between failing a save and FNP, wouldnt that mean 1 wound models are at zero wounds during that gap?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
MarkyMark wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Yonush wrote:From what I can gather, The reason it works with Force is because if the check is passed, the attacks become ID which negates any FNP tests.
But if you allow FNP to go first the wound is saved. You only get into an "issue" if you allow FNP to "save" the wound but still roll for Force (which would negate FNP). That's why this FAQ sets a precedent - they're not just saying that ID weapons roll first, they're saying that FNP only lets you keep the wound and other effects still apply - and in the case of Force (and Boneswords) you get to test for ID before FNP is rolled. For other abilities it doesn't matter as their effects can work with FNP just fine.
So you are saying there is a gap between failing a save and FNP, wouldnt that mean 1 wound models are at zero wounds during that gap?
There's 2 schools of thought: 1) FNP is literally worthless and does nothing - by the time you roll for it you've already subtracted a wound and it doesn't say that it restores the wound. 2) There's a sequence of triggers that must be inserted in an order before the wound is subtracted. Fail save, then process unsaved wound abilities, then process FNP, then subtract wound (if still relevant) is the simplest form of that process, and FNP doesn't remove the effect of the abilities that were triggered before it. edit: submitted before finishing my thought: #1 is pointless to address. Similar to making Wraithlords (and indeed any model without eyes) it could possibly be RAW but there's absolutely zero reason to explore it. #2 uses all rules as they're written and includes the FAQ precedent.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
The FAQ precedent is only for things that cause ID, as you do not even get to roll a FNP if the Force Weapon check is successful.
The FAQ is not a precedent in the case of things that do not cause ID as the situations are not the same.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
DeathReaper wrote:The FAQ precedent is only for things that cause ID, as you do not even get to roll a FNP if the Force Weapon check is successful.
And you don't even get to roll Force activation if the FNP roll is successful.
The FAQ is not a precedent in the case of things that do not cause ID as the situations are not the same.
For consistency's sake I disagree with you.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
rigeld2 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:The FAQ precedent is only for things that cause ID, as you do not even get to roll a FNP if the Force Weapon check is successful.
And you don't even get to roll Force activation if the FNP roll is successful.
Except for the FaQ that specifically changed this rule.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
DeathReaper wrote:rigeld2 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:The FAQ precedent is only for things that cause ID, as you do not even get to roll a FNP if the Force Weapon check is successful.
And you don't even get to roll Force activation if the FNP roll is successful.
Except for the FaQ that specifically changed this rule.
Thanks for missing my point completely.
Prior to FAQ - FNP had to be resolved first to determine if the wound was saved.
Post FAQ - FNP gets determined post effect.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
rigeld2 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:The FAQ precedent is only for things that cause ID, as you do not even get to roll a FNP if the Force Weapon check is successful.
And you don't even get to roll Force activation if the FNP roll is successful.
The FAQ is not a precedent in the case of things that do not cause ID as the situations are not the same.
For consistency's sake I disagree with you.
FAQ =/= Errata
47462
Post by: rigeld2
NecronLord3 wrote:rigeld2 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:The FAQ precedent is only for things that cause ID, as you do not even get to roll a FNP if the Force Weapon check is successful.
And you don't even get to roll Force activation if the FNP roll is successful.
The FAQ is not a precedent in the case of things that do not cause ID as the situations are not the same.
For consistency's sake I disagree with you.
FAQ =/= Errata
Only if you pretend that FAQs cannot change rules.
That's demonstrably false.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
They only change rules that they specifically are addressing in an FAQ. You can infer from FAQ entries how GW intends for similar rules to work, but it is not errata and one FAQ entry does not change rules in all cases. Specific answer for a specific question.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
NecronLord3 wrote:They only change rules that they specifically are addressing in an FAQ. You can infer from FAQ entries how GW intends for similar rules to work, but it is not errata and one FAQ entry does not change rules in all cases. Specific answer for a specific question.
Do you understand what "precedent" is?
50763
Post by: copper.talos
@NecronLord3 a faq can create a precedent for every similar situation. If you don't remember we played through 5th using a faq about an eldar exarch's weapon to resolve the shooting of the manticore...
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Except that ES VS FNP is not similar to Force USR Vs FNP.
The simple fact that the Force USR can cause ID changes the dynamics of the situation so much that they are no longer similar.
rigeld2 wrote:Thanks for missing my point completely.
Prior to FAQ - FNP had to be resolved first to determine if the wound was saved.
Post FAQ - FNP gets determined post effect.
I get that, but it has no bearing on ES, as you can still take FNP even if you resolve ES first, however if you pass FNP you have saved the wound and the models armor can not be removed off of a saved wound.
50763
Post by: copper.talos
DeathReaper wrote:Except that ES VS FNP is not similar to Force USR Vs FNP.
The simple fact that the Force USR can cause ID changes the dynamics of the situation so much that they are no longer similar..
There is absolutely no basis for your reasoning. The faq only states that force weapons activate before FNP. Force weapons and ES have identical triggers and are applied at the exact same time, so the faq can be used as a precedent for ES.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
copper.talos wrote:@NecronLord3 a faq can create a precedent for every similar situation. If you don't remember we played through 5th using a faq about an eldar exarch's weapon to resolve the shooting of the manticore...
For every similar situation? Really you are going to stick with that?
50763
Post by: copper.talos
I have given you already the example of the precedent set by a faq about an eldar exarch's weapon that was used as for manticores throughout an entire edition. Different types of units, different codices and yet it was still used because it was a similar situation.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
To bad ES and Force Weapons aren't similar at all. As FNP and ES are not mutually exclusive of one another, which Force Weapons and FNP were.
50763
Post by: copper.talos
Sorry but FW and ES are identical rules regarding to their mechanics. And that's all that matters. All these "mutually exclusive" stuff is made up and have no basis in the rules.
43923
Post by: Quanar
So identically-worded stuff is always FAQ'd in the same direction huh? What about almost-identical?
Eldar Autarch: "While the Autarch is alive, you may choose to add 1 to your rolls for reserves, ..."
Hive Commander: "... In addition, whilst the Hive Tyrant is alive you add +1 to your reserve rolls."
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2940052a_Tyranids_v1.2_JANUARY13.pdf
Q: If I have more than one Hive Tyrant with the Hive Commander ability, do their bonuses to reserve rolls stack? Also, do I get to outflank with one Troops unit, or one Troops unit per Hive Tyrant with this upgrade? (p34)
A: No, the reserve roll bonuses do not stack. You can only choose to outflank with a single unit of Troops, regardless of how many Hive Tyrants you have with this ability.
If a new unit came out tomorrow with "Adds +1 to reserve rolls." which precedent would you use?
70808
Post by: Saltis
I do not have access to my BRB at the moment as I am at work, but can someone paste the FNP rule in here.
Does it say it saves the wound, or saves the attack? if it saves the attack, it then removes ES, if it saves the wound, ES carries on and removes the armour...
I cannot see any other way of this argument being resolved...
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
FNP Treats the wound as saved.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
copper.talos wrote:Sorry but FW and ES are identical rules regarding to their mechanics. And that's all that matters. All these "mutually exclusive" stuff is made up and have no basis in the rules.
You mean aside from actually being covered in the rules.
50763
Post by: copper.talos
The rules never say "FNP and ES are mutually exclusive". It's made up. Likewise made up reasons came up when people argued that fnp should be used against wounds from force weapons despite the "immediately" in the FW rule (which FNP lacks) and GW had to faq it so "immediately" means immediately...
66089
Post by: Kangodo
Hmm, this reminds me of the discussion about Lemartes.
His STR and A immediately go to 5 if he suffers an unsaved wound, but he also has FNP.
So the main question would be: Can FNP undo triggers that were activated due to an unsaved wound?
I think it doesn't.
The wound is restored, but the effect (negative or positive) will remain active.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
copper.talos wrote:The rules never say " FNP and ES are mutually exclusive". It's made up. Likewise made up reasons came up when people argued that fnp should be used against wounds from force weapons despite the "immediately" in the FW rule (which FNP lacks) and GW had to faq it so "immediately" means immediately...
Obviously you are having trouble with this concept. You are quoting something I have never said. FNP and ES are not mutually excliusive. FNP and the ID from force weapons are, thus necessitating the need for the FAQ entry. FNP and ES are not mutually exclusive thus the order is not even an issue. Both can occur in any order and the end result will still be the same, as FNP retroactively causes an unsaved wound to be treated as saved.
60145
Post by: Lungpickle
Ok back on track. I play neurons as well as a buddy of mine. The key question here that might have gotten lost in all the rumblings is does a multi wound model who suffers an unsaved wound from scarabs, roll each save one at a time.
I play it as they do. Because once he miss one of the saves, he would loose his armor saves for the rest of the game. Though he cannot loose the invuln save he would then be forced to roll on invuln table.
So tell your opponent to pass off all the wounds to save the argument and alls fair and done.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
With FNP, yes you do per the FAQ. Without FNP you roll ES in one pool and all other attacks and the same initiative after that separately. Attacks from non ES wounds suffer the Armour penalty.
50763
Post by: copper.talos
NecronLord3 wrote: FNP and the ID from force weapons are, thus necessitating the need for the FAQ entry. FNP and ES are not mutually exclusive thus the order is not even an issue. Both can occur in any order and the end result will still be the same, as FNP retroactively causes an unsaved wound to be treated as saved.
Can you provide a quote of the rules that says " FNP and ES are not mutually exclusive thus the order is not even an issue". You obviously cannot, so this is made up and the rest of the argument crumbles. Stick to the actual rules.
I remember earlier posts about FNP and force weapons. Similarly made up arguments and rationalisations came up in order to justify the FNP's priority over force weapons. The old "you first must know if the wound is actually unsaved in order to apply the force weapon's ability". GW had to faq immediately to be immediately because of those made up arguments. ES is exactly the same case. Made up arguments and rationalisations won't change the precedent set by the faq.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
You are having issues with comprehension. That is clear from your previous post. So it will do me no good to explain the rules of the game which you obviously do not understand good day to you.
50763
Post by: copper.talos
No quote then? I didn't expect anything else you know. Good day to you too..
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
I don't need to quote the rules which have already been repeatedly explained to you over the last 4 pages.
50763
Post by: copper.talos
No rules have been quoted. Only made up arguments.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
Do you guys want this thread locked or something?
16387
Post by: Manchu
@all: Please remember Dakka Rule #1 is Be Polite. If you find yourself getting heated chatting over toy soldiers, take a walk, get some fresh air, call a friend, do anything but waste your time getting your blood pressure up breaking our rules. Thanks.
70567
Post by: deviantduck
From my point of view the argument gets broken down to two views:
1 - FNP = exact same thing as rolling your original armor save. if FNP passes the save was never failed and the effect never happened.
2 - FNP doesn't do anything except prevent you from allocating a wound. all effects from the unsaved wound are still triggered.
Due to GWs vague wording, i don't see how either one can be more right or more wrong. Our local group does play it RAI option 2 tho. Afterall, FNP literally refers to not feeling pain from a wound that you have already suffered. You just get to walk it off like a champ.
72945
Post by: Baktru
That is what you keep repeating, but the way it is written uses this odd turn of phrase where I am not entirely sure what the punctuation signifies..
"
On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved.
"
In my native language at least, anything behind that dash would be a mere clarification, a synonym even to to make it clearer what the first part means.
Now if the rule only had:
"Discount the wound", I would definitely say that it only discounts the wound and anything else triggered off of the unsaved wound still goes.
If it only had:
"Treat the wound as saved", I would interpret that as treat it just as if an armour or cover save was passed, there was no unsaved wound at all.
But... It includes both.
I started doubting just now how it should be played, after rereading the Doom's Absorb Life. Because somehow I think that ES should work when the FNP is passed and Absorb Life shouldn't. No matter that they work the same way...
IMHO, the only thing to do here is to have GW FAQ every single ability that triggers off of Unsaved Wounds, as to how it interacts with FNP. Or at least give a blanket FAQ for all of them in one go.
|
|
