Gravmyr wrote:
rigeld2: Everyone's point is quite simple, did you roll FNP? If you did there clearly was an unsaved wound and as so you are not treating it as a saved wound. How do you address this? You keep saying that if the model has lost it's Armour save you are not treating it as having been saved. The same has to be said if you have made a FNP roll. ES and FNP are one time effects that have a lasting affect on the model. How can you advocate going back and negating only select parts of the effects but not the rest? As soon as you say you have to go back and change everything that has happened due to there being an unsaved wound you would have to do the same for the use of FNP. The reverse is just as true, did you roll FNP? Then you are not treating the wound as saved.

Perhaps you aren't reading all of my posts.
If you go back and evaluate ES it cannot apply. If you go back and evaluate FNP it cannot be rolled for.
Since the wound is now saved that doesn't matter. I'm not being selective - indeed I'm applying the exact same thought process to every rule.
If you think otherwise you're failing to read and understand my posts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:

'It is as if it had been saved'
Or since 'saved' already carries the past tense:
'It is saved'

No, that's not how it changes. It changes to "it has been saved". Removing relevant words changes the meaning of the sentence.

The effect of ES is that the armour is gone the effect of FNP is the wound is changed. If you are allowing the wound to be changed but not the armour to be gone then you are inherently being selective.

Gravmyr wrote:
The effect of ES is that the armour is gone the effect of FNP is the wound is changed. If you are allowing the wound to be changed but not the armour to be gone then you are inherently being selective.

Then you're obviously not understanding what I'm typing. I don't know how to make it any simpler. I'll end with: "That's not what I'm saying." and won't bother responding to you any more.

In the end it comes to this:
A. Make FNP apply after it is activated and the worst thing it could happen is having an unharmed model lose its save, which was (as many people think) intended in the first place.

B. Make FNP go back in time to make the wound saved before FNP activated and you can have psykers returning from the dead and getting back used warp charges because their enemy rolled FNP successfully, which was never -ever- intended.

A) is your opinion on what is intended. Please rephrase to make it clear this is what you believe, not a fact.

Yet again, force weapons have specific permission to.go before fnp to see if you can cancel fnp. Your postition it not valid, because force weapons can cancel fnp. You postitiom insists that the wouns from perils is a direct link to fnp. Which in fact it is not it is from a sr. You are going to say but id the wound is saved then the librarian could neber have rolled for force. Problem is we are tild by the faq that if the librarians owner wishes to cause id wounds he gets to do so following the force weapons rules ans requirements. Once the test is taken and failed it matters not what the outxome of fnp is because we
have rules that directly effect the funcriom of the orher.

In this case fnp makes a failed save, armor invulnerable count as passed. In this case giving us a situation in which the acrivation of es could be affected. I am in the belief that following the precedent of force and fnp that fnp can and does affect es. Thus my nelief you wait to see if fnp is passed to activate es.


Posted un haste from my phone

It is an opinion that Force is made before FNP due to it counter acting FNP. There is nothing in the FAQ that gives a reason as to why it is that way. All it states is there is an outcome to the Force roll. If there is no reason given we have to make a comparison between the rules. The only difference is the inclusion of immediately in Force.

The FAQ did not grant specific permission for Force Weapons to activate before Feel No Pain, it clarified that they always could activate before Feel No Pain.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you are saying you can have a saved wound that was once unsaved.

The rules do not allow for that.

Oh, really? That's exactly what they say to do.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

'It is as if it had been saved'
Or since 'saved' already carries the past tense:
'It is saved'

No, that's not how it changes. It changes to "it has been saved". Removing relevant words changes the meaning of the sentence.

Ok, that works to, though you left out the 'is' you said was important. Lets go with that replacement anyways.

'On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - it has been saved'.

Still not telling you to go back in time... Still the same meaning we've been telling you... the wound changes from 'unsaved' to 'has been saved'

Which means it was previously saved. Prior to now it was saved.

Whatever, I'm done. You go ahead and break a rule.

rigeld2 wrote:
Which means it was previously saved. Prior to now it was saved.

Whatever, I'm done. You go ahead and break a rule.

Right. At the point you successfully roll FNP, from that moment forward, it was saved at some unspecified point in the past(presumably when a save would have been appropriate)... ES does not care about this change.

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Which means it was previously saved. Prior to now it was saved.

Whatever, I'm done. You go ahead and break a rule.

Right. At the point you successfully roll FNP, from that moment forward, it was saved at some unspecified point in the past(presumably when a save would have been appropriate)... ES does not care about this change.

Not only from that moment forward, we have to treat it as if the Armor/Cover/Invuln save was made in the first place...

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Which means it was previously saved. Prior to now it was saved.

Whatever, I'm done. You go ahead and break a rule.

Right. At the point you successfully roll FNP, from that moment forward, it was saved at some unspecified point in the past(presumably when a save would have been appropriate)... ES does not care about this change.

No, it always WAS saved. It cannot be unsaved, as the rules only allow saved / unsaved, not unsaved -> saved.

Break a rule all you like, just be aware youre doing so.

DR / Nos: You still haven't addressed the return of models from failed Psychic tests as has been brought up. If there was never a wound how was Force activated, Warp charge spent and test failed? Does the model come back and get it's warp charge back? Per your reading it could have never tried to activate it in the first place.

Those of us that are pointing out the FAQ are doing so because per GW those are [u]only[user] clarifications. If it is anything else people have to have been reading it completely incorrectly in the first place. When Force vs FNP came up the same basic argument came up that FNP would deny Force. That is not the case. The FAQ simply stated Force happens first. You cannot continue arguing that FNP can negate the past past without it negating the situation above.

Yet any argument which relies on "this is a FAQ so it is only a clarification" is immediately debunked. SitW and vehicles, plus Out of Range are sufficient prove of the opposite.

Are you saying that because sometimes GW forgets that FAQs are supposed to be clarifications we should assume every FAQ is not a clarification?

No, just that any argument that is based around "this cannot be a change because it was a FAQ" is immediately thrown out as being a valid argument.

It is an unsound position to base an argument on, as a single counter example (and I gave 2, to be sure) proves it to be a false position.

Again: read exactly what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. I never stated "we should assume every FAQ is not a clarification"; I was very precise with what I DID say

I'd say it's reasonably sound if not a valid argument, as the majority of FAQs are not rule changes, and are not intended to be rule changes.

Yet this was in response to someone stating " people have to have been reading it completely incorrectly in the first place"

Was Out of Range " people have to have been reading it completely incorrectly in the first place"? No, it was a complete new rule, totally replacing the one in the rulebook.

I was diagreeing with that level of "its a FAQ,, therefore automatically it is not a rules change" wrongness

The Errata corrects any
mistakes in the codex, while the Amendments bring the
rulebook up to date with the latest version of the rules. The
Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers
commonly asked questions about the rules.

Its pretty clear what each area is, and that FAQ's don't blanket rule changes about anything other then what the question is in regards too.

Some FAQ's have even used Fluff to make rulings!

How both sides on this argument don't see that either can possibly be correct is beyond me. Again I don't play Doom gains his wounds when FNP works, however I wouldn't be surprised if GW faq'd ES to work.

I agree it's not automatically a clarification, but when we have 2 interpretations, one of which is a clarification and one of which is a rules-change, shouldn't we give more weight to the one in which the FAQ is a clarfication?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I agree it's not automatically a clarification, but when we have 2 interpretations, one of which is a clarification and one of which is a rules-change, shouldn't we give more weight to the one in which the FAQ is a clarfication?

I wouldn't because GW has demonstrated they will go in completely different directions from one FAQ to the next, hell they might even ERRATA complete rule changes.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I agree it's not automatically a clarification, but when we have 2 interpretations, one of which is a clarification and one of which is a rules-change, shouldn't we give more weight to the one in which the FAQ is a clarfication?

No, because you have no evidence as to which one is the preferred one. GW themselves seemingly do not know when they make rules changes or not, so why are you assuming they must have meant one way, and not the other?

Because FAQs are supposed to be clarifications, it is stated that their purpose is to clarify, the majority of them are clarifications, and it is entirely reasonable to believe that the Force vs FNP FAQ is a clarification, as the rules supported that interpretation pre-FAQ.

Stating it has to go first is not a clarification, but a change to the rules. One could negate the other, so the only other way would have been a roll off to see which took precedence.

They instead changed the rules so that the immediately in Force was more immediate than that of FNP

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Stating it has to go first is not a clarification, but a change to the rules. One could negate the other, so the only other way would have been a roll off to see which took precedence.

They instead changed the rules so that the immediately in Force was more immediate than that of FNP

Or they wrote immediately into the rule to mean just that, There would be no need to write immediately into those rules which have them. they can function perfectly well without it- unless they intended for them to activate before other non immediately worded rules. RAW FNP has no immediately - this is a idea which is made up to defend FNP's placement, and is not RAW.

RAW wise I think Immediately places Force (etc) before FNP etc - otherwise immediately is a totally redundant and unneeded word which appears in some rules, but not others- I believe the rules which contain this do so for a reason.... Interestingly enough all the ones I can think of at the moment are on suffering a unsaved wound.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Stating it has to go first is not a clarification, but a change to the rules. One could negate the other, so the only other way would have been a roll off to see which took precedence.

They instead changed the rules so that the immediately in Force was more immediate than that of FNP

Pre-FAQ there were obviously large groups of people on both sides of whether or not Force activated before FNP, FAQ comes along and clarifies this ambiguity, saying that Force does in fact activate before FNP, which half the player-base thought was RAW anyway. I don't see how that could seen as anything but a clarification.

It was not a clarification, because there was NO RAW stating it happened before, previously. T he closest was the "roll off every time" FAQ answer when you have two genuinely competing actions like lash whips and banshee masks (old)

Changing from roll off (based on lash whips ruling) to force always happens first isnt a clarification.

Otherwise you can argue out of range is a "clarification" - a number of people already played it the way the FAQ changed the rules to. Does not make this any less a rules change.,

Would you guys also say that concussive takes effect?

"A model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon with this special rule is reduced to Initiative 1 until the end of the following Assault phase" (35)

Or Instant Death, or Pinning, or Soul Blaze?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Would you guys also say that concussive takes effect?

"A model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon with this special rule is reduced to Initiative 1 until the end of the following Assault phase" (35)

Or Instant Death, or Pinning, or Soul Blaze?

I would have to look at the rules in the book, but if the rule is written as you have quoted, then I could see an argument that FNP negates the concussive effect, because it does not have an "immediate" effect.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Would you guys also say that concussive takes effect?

"A model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon with this special rule is reduced to Initiative 1 until the end of the following Assault phase" (35)

Or Instant Death, or Pinning, or Soul Blaze?

Funny thing, The instant death rule(as per page 16 of the rule book)requires the knowledge as to whether or not the wound is saved, and you interpretation of the rule means you would have to check FnP before you could find out if the wound could cause instant death.

And why wouldn't you get pinned/take cover if you were grazed by a bullet?

Or get caught on fire when hit by a weapon that can catch you on fire, even if it doesn't initially hurt you?

 megatrons2nd wrote:
And why wouldn't you get pinned/take cover if you were grazed by a bullet?

Or get caught on fire when hit by a weapon that can catch you on fire, even if it doesn't initially hurt you?

Because Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. as said in the Tenets of the forum...

"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. "

Read them all here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

 DeathReaper wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
And why wouldn't you get pinned/take cover if you were grazed by a bullet?

Or get caught on fire when hit by a weapon that can catch you on fire, even if it doesn't initially hurt you?

Because Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. as said in the Tenets of the forum...

"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. "

Read them all here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

I was only giving a reason why it could work. If you want real world Example I would have said "how would FnP help when you are burning to death because you were set on fire?"

The Sniper one is both real world and rules. You take a sniper hit, you get pinned. As a believer in the FnP only removing the wound, not the effects, it doesn't stop the pinning effect.

What about the first half of my post? The part that treats the rule the same, for all effects, as the way you interpret it?

A wound that has the ID rule causes ID (Also Str 2xT) so I am not sure what you are getting at with the first part of your post.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
. As a believer in the FnP only removing the wound, not the effects

And this is where your argument is incorrect.

FNP treats the wound as saved.

Why would a unit take a pinning test if they only have saved wounds?


I am not saying that the rules are unclear, but in situations where the rules are unclear we must strive to take the least advantageous interpretation as the action taker (It is the Ethical and sporting way to play it). In the case of a unit that causes pinning this means no pin test, in the case of ES it means No ES applied Etc.

Why did you make a FNP roll if there was never an unsaved wound? You keep asking if your interpretation is correct how can anything happen. We agree how can anything happen? We have asked a number of times about a fairly simple situation using your interpretation what happens. You ignore it and say that we have to be wrong but fail to address what could easily happen with Force vs FNP. I have to assume you are intentionally ignoring this because you find no way to reconcile this out come with your view without accepting that you have to change large swathes of the past and possibly cause additional problems.

We have told you that yes you will end up with triggered effects happening without the triggering situation still existing by our reading. I find it strange that you have no qualms about FNP not having a trigger left but the others "need" to have one.

Also just noticed that Soul Blaze never works RAW.... but that's another thread all together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So those using FNP should not only get the most advantageous but we should also treat all the other rules to get the least advantageous reading..... interesting. In other words FNP should stop everything but everything else should be trimmed back.....

Gravmyr wrote:
Why did you make a FNP roll if there was never an unsaved wound?

Because FNP creates a Paradox.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Which means it was previously saved. Prior to now it was saved.

Whatever, I'm done. You go ahead and break a rule.

Right. At the point you successfully roll FNP, from that moment forward, it was saved at some unspecified point in the past(presumably when a save would have been appropriate)... ES does not care about this change.

Not only from that moment forward, we have to treat it as if the Armor/Cover/Invuln save was made in the first place...

The underlined is not stated in the rule. It gives a past tense without a specified time in the past. The moment you do something you can then say I have done something. I'll use rigelds 'it has been saved' as an example. You take an unsaved wound but succeed on your FNP roll, 'it has been saved'. That is why I said 'presumably' in my above post. What you have stated is not communicated in the rule and is therefore, not RAW.

-see response to nos for more

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Which means it was previously saved. Prior to now it was saved.

Whatever, I'm done. You go ahead and break a rule.

Right. At the point you successfully roll FNP, from that moment forward, it was saved at some unspecified point in the past(presumably when a save would have been appropriate)... ES does not care about this change.

No, it always WAS saved. It cannot be unsaved, as the rules only allow saved / unsaved, not unsaved -> saved.

Break a rule all you like, just be aware youre doing so.

In any case onto the 'from that moment forward' part. That is exactly what you get when you are to take an action in the present. The tense on the wording 'treat it as' is present, meaning you do it now. It can only refer to the wound so you 'treat the wound now as if having been saved' this is not time travel. It is a present change effecting only to the wound placing it in a state that it would be in if it had been saved at some previous point and as 'treat as' equals 'is', it is now in that state for all rules purposes.

DeathReaper wrote:A wound that has the ID rule causes ID (Also Str 2xT) so I am not sure what you are getting at with the first part of your post.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
. As a believer in the FnP only removing the wound, not the effects

And this is where your argument is incorrect.

FNP treats the wound as saved.

Why would a unit take a pinning test if they only have saved wounds?


I am not saying that the rules are unclear, but in situations where the rules are unclear we must strive to take the least advantageous interpretation as the action taker (It is the Ethical and sporting way to play it). In the case of a unit that causes pinning this means no pin test, in the case of ES it means No ES applied Etc.

You've glazed over a very good point. ID only comes into play with an unsaved wound so your theory that we don't know if a wound is saved or not till FNP is rolled is quite debunked as it would not allow ID to function vs FNP.

DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Why did you make a FNP roll if there was never an unsaved wound?

Because FNP creates a Paradox.

Still need proof on that.

 Abandon wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Which means it was previously saved. Prior to now it was saved.

Whatever, I'm done. You go ahead and break a rule.

Right. At the point you successfully roll FNP, from that moment forward, it was saved at some unspecified point in the past(presumably when a save would have been appropriate)... ES does not care about this change.

Not only from that moment forward, we have to treat it as if the Armor/Cover/Invuln save was made in the first place...

The underlined is not stated in the rule. It gives a past tense without a specified time in the past. The moment you do something you can then say I have done something. I'll use rigelds 'it has been saved' as an example. You take an unsaved wound but succeed on your FNP roll, 'it has been saved'. That is why I said 'presumably' in my above post. What you have stated is not communicated in the rule and is therefore, not RAW.

It does give a specified time when it says to treat it as having been saved. This part literally means we have to treat the wound as if we made the Armor/Cover/Invuln save.

 Abandon wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Why did you make a FNP roll if there was never an unsaved wound?

Because FNP creates a Paradox.

Still need proof on that.

Well FNP removes the trigger condition because if you treat the wound as having been saved there is no Unsaved wound for FNP to trigger off of.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It was not a clarification, because there was NO RAW stating it happened before, previously.

A significant amount of 40k players thought that the "immediately" in Force made it go first according to RAW. Just because you, personally, disagreed with that interpretation does not mean it wasn't a viable RAW interpretation of the rules. If we have two significant sides arguing that, per RAW, X rule interaction works a certain way, and an FAQ comes along siding with the one side, how is that not a clarification?

The point remains that you are ok with FNP negating itself and all other powers yet you are only negating the other powers and not FNP. By your own omission FNP creates a paradox that can never actually resolve. Don't you think that in and of itself tells you that you have to be reading the power incorrectly? I also noticed that you are ignoring the possible consequences of the interaction between Force and FNP with your reading. By the reading we have put forth yes you end up with SR's and abilities that are triggered and then have their trigger negated. By both GW's and the forums rules reality has no impact on the rules, as such I've yet to see a rule that negates a SR or power if the trigger is removed.

If you are using the rule of least advantageous rule of thumb then how do you get to FNP negating all other powers? Wouldn't the least advantageous be to simply negate the actual loss of a wound, leaving the model to be affected by SR's?

FNP says When you suffer an unsaved wound you roll FNP.

This goes off before something that happens immediately after suffering an unsaved wound.

 DeathReaper wrote:
FNP says When you suffer an unsaved wound you roll FNP.

This goes off before something that happens immediately after suffering an unsaved wound.

When X happens do Y
When X happens, immediately do Z
Why is Y occurring before Z?

The Force Weapon vs. FNP FAQ creates precedent for ignoring FNP for the purposes of any effect whose rule has that word 'immediately' in it, as the Force Weapon rule has.

So if Entropic Strike has the word 'immediately' after not making the armor save they lose their armor save for good, then the model loses its armor save. If it does not have immediately in the Entropic Strike rule, then it's player-turn choice which happens first.

But since it's not a Force Weapon, and apparently no FAQ exists to solve it, the model should still get to make the FNP roll if not an Instant Death situation besides a Force Weapon. And then we get to the paradox as FNP treats the wound as being saved.....dammit!

Okay so it treats the wound as being saved, but in this case failing the armor save, whether or not a wound was actually taken on the model, is the condition to meet for Entropic Strike to work. So I would say yes, FNP can save the wound, but since the armor failed, model loses the armor. Case dismissed! With prejudice...

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Which means it was previously saved. Prior to now it was saved.

Whatever, I'm done. You go ahead and break a rule.

Right. At the point you successfully roll FNP, from that moment forward, it was saved at some unspecified point in the past(presumably when a save would have been appropriate)... ES does not care about this change.

Not only from that moment forward, we have to treat it as if the Armor/Cover/Invuln save was made in the first place...

The underlined is not stated in the rule. It gives a past tense without a specified time in the past. The moment you do something you can then say I have done something. I'll use rigelds 'it has been saved' as an example. You take an unsaved wound but succeed on your FNP roll, 'it has been saved'. That is why I said 'presumably' in my above post. What you have stated is not communicated in the rule and is therefore, not RAW.

It does give a specified time when it says to treat it as having been saved. This part literally means we have to treat the wound as if we made the Armor/Cover/Invuln save.

Really? "treat it as having been saved" is giving a specific time? I mean, it does... but that time is not in the past... it's right now at the present. nothing else about this denotes a specific point in time. It literally says to 'treat it as...' with present tense, referring to the wound so literal meaning 'Treat the wound now as...' '...having...' as in possessing something '....been saved' indicating a quality/state/attribute of the subject along with verbiage and denotation as from a previous point in time.

So 'Treat the wound now as prepossessing the state it would have if it was saved at a previous point in time'
...would be a verbose way of putting it without changing the meaning.

-or with 'treat as' = 'is'(removing the 'Treat as' and replacing with indications of actuality)

'The wound now has the state it would have if it was saved at a previous point in time'

Now you can presume all you want as to the 'previous point in time' but looking at the the words used and how they translate to meaning in the English language and into 40k terms you'll realize it does not matter.

It is not a time travel paradox, it is completely linear and indicates much less than you seem to think it does.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Why did you make a FNP roll if there was never an unsaved wound?

Because FNP creates a Paradox.

Still need proof on that.

Well FNP removes the trigger condition because if you treat the wound as having been saved there is no Unsaved wound for FNP to trigger off of.

This statement is itself incorrect as well as the Time Travel Theory it is based off of.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
FNP says When you suffer an unsaved wound you roll FNP.

This goes off before something that happens immediately after suffering an unsaved wound.

When X happens do Y
When X happens, immediately do Z
Why is Y occurring before Z?

Because Y happens when X happens, and Z happens Immediately after X happens. Y goes first as it is simultaneous with X because When X happens Y happens. (AKA X and Y happen at the same time, Z happens Immediately after X, and consequently Y).

I am glad we could work that out.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Because FNP creates a Paradox.

It creates a paradox the way you play it. A paradox that ends up restoring psykers back to life and giving them back warp chargers. A ridiculous situation that no one, even you, is going to agree to with it.

If you treat FNP like every other rule in the game, a non-paradox creating way, then you treat the wound as saved after FNP activates, which means both rules apply and no ridiculous situations happen.

And for the record, a paradox is a greek work which means a logical dead end, something unreasonable. So that's what you are proposing, something unreasonable, just like the librarian scenario I presented to you, and you still refuse to answer...

copper.talos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Because FNP creates a Paradox.

It creates a paradox the way you play it. A paradox that ends up restoring psykers back to life and giving them back warp chargers. A ridiculous situation that no one, even you, is going to agree to with it.

If you treat FNP like every other rule in the game, a non-paradox creating way, then you treat the wound as saved after FNP activates, which means both rules apply and no ridiculous situations happen.

And for the record, a paradox is a greek work which means a logical dead end, something unreasonable. So that's what you are proposing, something unreasonable, just like the librarian scenario I presented to you, and you still refuse to answer...

I was using this definition of Paradox: "A paradox is a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true."

in this case FNP contradicts itself as it removes its own trigger.

Also, looking more closely at the ES rules, it says (Any non-vehicle model that suffers an unsaved wound immediately looses its armour save for the rest of the game. [as noted in the OP]).

You do not suffer a unsaved wound unless you apply the effects of said unsaved wound,

After a failed save we get unsaved wounds that have been caused. After we apply the wound and reduce the models wounds by 1 is when the wound has been suffered.

"First of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw, if it has one (see page 16), for each Wound being resolved. Make a note of how many unsaved Wounds have been caused" (15, Emphasis mine)

failed saves = Unsaved wounds caused. When a model is subjected to the effects of the unsaved wound, only then has the unsaved wound been suffered.

You still fail to answer the question: does or does not your way of playing FNP results in psykers returning to life and gaining used warp charges because their enemy rolled FNP successfully...

 Lanna wrote:
Hello am Lanna,I am out here to spreed this good news to the entire world on how i got my ex love back.I was going crazy when my love left me for another woman 7 months ago,But when i meet a friend that introduce me to Dr Olokun the great messenger to the oracle that he serve,I narrated my problem to Him about how my ex love left me and also how i needed to get a job.He only said to me that i have come to the right place were i will be getting my heart desire without any side effect.He told me what i need to do,After it was been done,In the next 5 days,My lover called me on the phone and was pleading for forgiveness,I was called for interview in my desired company were i needed to work as a marketing manager.I am so happy and overwhelmed that i have to tell this to the entire world to contact Dr Olokun at the following email address and get all your problem solve..No problem is too big for him to solve..Contact him on: (drolokun23@gmail.com ) and get your problems solve like me.

Lanna you understand your ex is still out there porking other chicks daily, he just wants to hold on to a decent chick so he can keep up appearances to friends and family while slamming sluts all night while you sit at home wondering "when will his job end".

So copper, even if you pass FNP you still lose a wound? Given the only way to SUFFER an unsaved wound is to lose a wound, and you claim that es still happens even if you don't lose a wound, this has to be true.

So, do you play that FNP is functionally useless? Or are you just being inconsistent?

I notice that you, DR, are now saying that only when the model reduces it's wound total by one is it suffering a wound. I seem to remember you arguing the exact opposite to support your reading of Swarms and instant death wounds. Which is it when the model reduced it's wounds or when the wounds are put into a pool for a unit with the rule?
Edit: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/497144.page In case you forgot.

Secondly how does FNP even trigger then? If the only way for a model to suffer a wound is to reduce it's wound characteristic by one then the model is already removed from play by the time you would even make the roll. If that is the case do all special powers continue after the model is removed from play so long as the trigger has happened? If they are allowed to continue for how long, till the trigger is gone, till the end of the turn, indefinitely due to the controlling power which would end it is gone? How do we tell which can continue and which cannot? You are picking FNP and Force to activate but not the rest based off a belief that somehow removing a trigger removes everything that has already activated off of it and or it will affect the outcome of what happens later. There is no actual rules basis for this.

You don't remove a wound because special rules have the power to omit eventual outcomes- they change the rules, give permission to ignore restrictions, permission to change basic rules, skip basic rules, modify stats and create additional restrictions. Removal of the wound is done after suffering a unsaved wound, if not, FNP couldn't even activate in the first place, as Gram has pointed out.

Still, If FNP can function in a paradox, why can other special rules not? Or is it just selective rule application.

If ES is applied first and FNP passes, to treat the wound as saved, removing the trigger for ES but not FNP is selective rule application, which ever way you look at it.

If we remove the trigger, do it for both or none ( let's try to be consistent when applying rules ), naturally both ends you in a ground hog situation. None leaves you applying both rules and moving on. This 'breaking of rules' is created by playing inconsistently, which doesn't seem like it should be my problem to explain away. If you apply effects of special rules selectively, your going to break it.

As to the psyker question, the faq requires it to go before fnp. the test is made for all unsaved wounds to have the instant death rule, which is functionally different than es removing a single models armour save. the results of the psychic test are applicable for all potential unsaved wounds so one fnp will not alter its effect or result.

How can he have rolled if there was no unsaved wound? If you remove it from the past, you must remove everything that resulted from it (or ES isn't removed anyway) including the test for force, including everything that resulted from that.

Which is why we don't play 40k backwards.

FNP gives permission to change the status of the unsaved wound, not permission to change everything that might have already occurred from it, such as ES, Or psyker death

Force is triggered off of an unsaved wound, singular. Each wound can potentially trigger it. Each time ES triggers it can potentially remove the chance for every wound there after to even get a save for the rest of that combat and the rest of the game. If we are going for long reaching ES is far further reaching then Force in most cases.

I keep seeing that the only reason they could have told you to roll Force before FNP is that it keeps FNP from working. What are you basing this off of? What in the FAQ is telling you this?

Stormbreed wrote:

 Lanna wrote:
Hello am Lanna,I am out here to spreed this good news to the entire world on how i got my ex love back.I was going crazy when my love left me for another woman 7 months ago,But when i meet a friend that introduce me to Dr Olokun the great messenger to the oracle that he serve,I narrated my problem to Him about how my ex love left me and also how i needed to get a job.He only said to me that i have come to the right place were i will be getting my heart desire without any side effect.He told me what i need to do,After it was been done,In the next 5 days,My lover called me on the phone and was pleading for forgiveness,I was called for interview in my desired company were i needed to work as a marketing manager.I am so happy and overwhelmed that i have to tell this to the entire world to contact Dr Olokun at the following email address and get all your problem solve..No problem is too big for him to solve..Contact him on: (drolokun23@gmail.com ) and get your problems solve like me.

Lanna you understand your ex is still out there porking other chicks daily, he just wants to hold on to a decent chick so he can keep up appearances to friends and family while slamming sluts all night while you sit at home wondering "when will his job end".

That is quite the non sequitur there Storm...

Gravmyr wrote:
I notice that you, DR, are now saying that only when the model reduces it's wound total by one is it suffering a wound. I seem to remember you arguing the exact opposite to support your reading of Swarms and instant death wounds. Which is it when the model reduced it's wounds or when the wounds are put into a pool for a unit with the rule?
Edit: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/497144.page In case you forgot.

This clearly was not the case, as the FaQ says that they are not doubled.

Also the use of suffer in the rules is very inconsistent.

So you go from one extreme to the other? Interesting.

This means that before the faqs you were saying one thing to argue for the swarms/ID issue and you were saying the exact opposite to argue for the force/FNP issue. Which makes you inconsistent, not the rules...

Gravmyr wrote:
So you go from one extreme to the other? Interesting.

Not at all actually...

I said the use of suffer in the rules is very inconsistent.

copper.talos wrote:
This means that before the faqs you were saying one thing to argue for the swarms/ID issue and you were saying the exact opposite to argue for the force/FNP issue. Which makes you inconsistent, not the rules...

I was saying that because it appeared true, the FaQ came out and it seemed not true.

However the use of suffer in the rules is very inconsistent.

Both swarm/ID and force/FNP exist since the beginning of 6th, before any faq, so there was a point in time you were arguing for these 2 rules using contradictory arguments. That is what makes you inconsistent.

But this is apparently an exception, since I see you are very consistent on NOT answering if your way of playing FNP results in psykers returning to life and gaining used warp charges because their enemy rolled FNP successfully.

The difference is force is a test for an effect that applies to all unsaved wounds. es is an effect that happens if an unsaved wound is applied. the test is distinct as it is not an effect, this is clarified as occuring before effects by the faq.

ES and Force have the same trigger. There is nothing to differentiate between them.

Just because it affects multiple wounds does not change the fact that it is triggered off and unsaved wound and by the reading being put forth nothing that is triggered off an unsaved wound should complete. ES is an effect with the exact same trigger as Force and FNP so if you are saying one cannot complete none can.

I'm still waiting for someone to put forth why, per the FAQ, you seem to think Force happens before FNP.

They have the same trigger to a point. es however doesn't apply to all wounds, es is an effect where as force is a test for an effect and the force test is faq'd to be taken before fnp (and by extension all other effects) are accounted for. The effect of force, if sucessful, then is accounted for negating fnp. The test is a separate entity to the effect it has if it is successful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gravmyr wrote:
Just because it affects multiple wounds does not change the fact that it is triggered off and unsaved wound and by the reading being put forth nothing that is triggered off an unsaved wound should complete. ES is an effect with the exact same trigger as Force and FNP so if you are saying one cannot complete none can.

I'm still waiting for someone to put forth why, per the FAQ, you seem to think Force happens before FNP.

as i just said the test is taken before fnp, or any effects, as per the faq not its effect if its successful.

All rules work like this trigger->effect. The trigger can be anything, a player's choice, a 6 on a dice roll, anything. Effect is what happens when a rule is triggered, and likewise the effect can be anything, a psychic test to activate a force weapon, more attacks etc.

ES and Force have the same trigger, ES' and Force's effects apply immediately after the trigger. So there is no difference between them.

copper.talos wrote:
All rules work like this trigger->effect. The trigger can be anything, a player's choice, a 6 on a dice roll, anything. Effect is what happens when a rule is triggered, and likewise the effect can be anything, a psychic test to activate a force weapon, more attacks etc.

ES and Force have the same trigger, ES' and Force's effects apply immediately after the trigger. So there is no difference between them.

except the listed differences and force has an faq to resolve the test before fnp. Exceptions are not the general rule.

DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
FNP says When you suffer an unsaved wound you roll FNP.

This goes off before something that happens immediately after suffering an unsaved wound.

When X happens do Y
When X happens, immediately do Z
Why is Y occurring before Z?

Because Y happens when X happens, and Z happens Immediately after X happens. Y goes first as it is simultaneous with X because When X happens Y happens. (AKA X and Y happen at the same time, Z happens Immediately after X, and consequently Y).

I am glad we could work that out.

This is way off. The only difference in the above between Y and Z is that Z has the word immediately added into it's timing relation to X. This does not delay Z but rather gives it a sense of urgency indicating it should be done right away. Otherwise it is given the exact same timing as Y.

DeathReaper wrote:.

You do not suffer a unsaved wound unless you apply the effects of said unsaved wound,

After a failed save we get unsaved wounds that have been caused. After we apply the wound and reduce the models wounds by 1 is when the wound has been suffered.

"First of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw, if it has one (see page 16), for each Wound being resolved. Make a note of how many unsaved Wounds have been caused" (15, Emphasis mine)

failed saves = Unsaved wounds caused. When a model is subjected to the effects of the unsaved wound, only then has the unsaved wound been suffered.

If this were the case FNP would always fail to function as the model would be removed before FNP could trigger.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So copper, even if you pass FNP you still lose a wound? Given the only way to SUFFER an unsaved wound is to lose a wound, and you claim that es still happens even if you don't lose a wound, this has to be true.

So, do you play that FNP is functionally useless? Or are you just being inconsistent?

The part I underlined is the thing that makes FNP non-functional in your theory. It has nothing to do with what copper said as it is your own assertion.

DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
So you go from one extreme to the other? Interesting.

Not at all actually...

I said the use of suffer in the rules is very inconsistent.

copper.talos wrote:
This means that before the faqs you were saying one thing to argue for the swarms/ID issue and you were saying the exact opposite to argue for the force/FNP issue. Which makes you inconsistent, not the rules...

I was saying that because it appeared true, the FaQ came out and it seemed not true.

However the use of suffer in the rules is very inconsistent.

Then why are you basing arguments on the term.

@bausk what makes you think force is an exception?!!! It is not written anywhere.

In structure both ES and Force are exactly the same:
When a model suffers an unsaved wound, immediately do X/Y.
Force got a faq to do X before FNP, and within that faq there isn't written any exception, justification, reasoning, anything at all. Just the answer: Do X before FNP. And there is no reason why Y shouldn't be done before FNP too...

And for the record are you in favour of FNP going back in time to make the wound saved before FNP activates? If yes then please also answer the if a psyker can get back to life and regain used warp charges if an enemy rolls FNP successfully.

Again your senario does not work... you keep insisting it does but I have yet to see why. The roll for Force is allowed and independent of FNP. If you look at the text in Force if you fail there is no addtional effect, thus making your idea wrong. The roll for Force is independant of FNP but directly affect if FNP can be activated.

I think this whole time warp thing is bunk plain and simple.

I subscribe to a simpler idea. Kind of like order of operations, I think it should work like this because cause and effect, along with an FAQ anwser.

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.

Direct quote from the FAQ, so stop saying there is nothing in the FAQs about the Force going before FNP. Its right there.
Addtionally, with this in mind FNP can make it so the activation of ES be stopped, thus my idea of order of operations. Seeings how Force can stop FNP.

Copper, if you read the thread you would know the answer to my standpoint on fnp.

However I'll humour you anyway. Fnp alters the state of an unsaved wound to be saved if successful. The test for force specifically happens before comparing fnp to any potential ID effects. It comes diwn to negation.

If something can potentially negate another it must be tested for first. As fnp can potentially negate any effect with the exception of ID then it simply must follow force. As the test and the potential effect of force are two separate things in addition to being triggerable and applicable to all unsaved wounds makes the test and its result stay regardless of fnps outcome.

You don't get it. The psyker returning to life is a scenario meant to prove that FNP going back in time to make wounds saved is ridiculous. This was the last "defence" of a few people here to allow FNP to counter ES, and at least one of them agreed that even he wouldn't play it this way. So:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
I think this whole time warp thing is bunk plain and simple.

I agree!

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
Direct quote from the FAQ, so stop saying there is nothing in the FAQs about the Force going before FNP. Its right there.

I actually said exactly the same thing, that the faq resolves the the timing of Force, so it resolves before FNP.

Now ES and Force have the exact same timing. Exact! Since you agree that Force resolves before FNP, there is no reason why you shouldn't agree that ES resolves before FNP too! And also since you agree that FNP does not go back in time, then there is no way that FNP can stop ES from applying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bausk wrote:
If something can potentially negate another it must be tested for first.

Page and number please.

 Bausk wrote:
As fnp can potentially negate any effect with the exception of ID then it simply must follow force.

No. All I can read in the rule actually is to help a model "avoid being wounded" not "negate any effect". If the wording was as such, we wouldn't be having this thread.

 Bausk wrote:
As the test and the potential effect of force are two separate things.

No. Rules aren't compartmentalised. There are no "separate things" within a rule. There is always a trigger and always an effect. The trigger is an unsaved wound and the effect is everything you do to resolve the rule, spend warp charge, psychic test etc.

 Bausk wrote:
in addition to being triggerable and applicable to all unsaved wounds makes the test and its result stay regardless of fnps outcome.

Same applies to ES.

The FAQ telling you to test for Force first is not a why, it is a clarification that you should have been doing so to begin with. Now what reasoning did they give for that clarification? I'll help, none. With no reason being given why are you:
A: Assuming that this is an exception?
B: Assuming that the reason for Force happening first is due to it's ability to negate FNP? Particularly when many of the people who are now arguing that both these powers go before everything else were arguing that FNP could negate Force before and should go first.
C: Giving any precedence to powers that have no rule backing for going before identically worded SR's?

Edit: scratch similarly replace with identically

Gravmyr wrote:
The FAQ telling you to test for Force first is not a why, it is a clarification that you should have been doing so to begin with. Now what reasoning did they give for that clarification? I'll help, none. With no reason being given why are you:
A: Assuming that this is an exception?
B: Assuming that the reason for Force happening first is due to it's ability to negate FNP? Particularly when many of the people who are now arguing that both these powers go before everything else were arguing that FNP could negate Force before and should go first.
C: Giving any precedence to powers that have no rule backing for going before identically worded SR's?

Edit: scratch similarly replace with identically

Really there is no reasoning at all in the anwser???

A: The roll to activate a Force Weapon is made before
determining whether or not the victim is permitted a Feel
No Pain roll

My emphasis ( btw that is reasoning it is also a why) ..... but anyways that right there is reasoning, which I again say builds on my idea that FNP can stop ES from activating because it can directly effect ES's activation. I know that SR's that are FAQ'd do not effect others but I think it's pretty simple to see that in other parts of the rules you use order of operations to determine things. For example, modifying a stat line, mutiplier, addtition subtraction, lastly Set value.

I am not one of those people who thought you could cancel force with FNP so your statement that others were doing it before has no bearing now to me, also it is not an assumption it is fact because that is what GW has directed us to do. Again by the FAQ.

I do not agree that ES goes before FNP and have explained why I believe so, in fact the wording from FNP can and does affect whether or not ES can activate, so with this in mind I again point to an order of operations to allow things to work. In this process I niether break any rules or create time warps, or make it so no rules are allowed to function properly. If you continue to argue that ES works regardless of FNP please show rules allowing you to treat a saved wound as unsaved and allowing you to activate SRs and break other ones.

That is a result of the roll not the reasoning behind. If it had said that you were rolling first so that you could determine whether or not FNP could activate then it would have been the reason for checking it first. I'm not the one making a claim that there is a rule telling you to activate all abilities that can affect others first, you are. Unless you can back that with a rules quote you are making an assumption that it goes first. As such you are the one basically making up a rule unless you can give me a BRB quote telling you to do so..... Order of operations that you are looking at applies to math not sure what your line of thinking is to get this to apply to if then statements but please proceed.

The rule you are breaking by applying FNP at all if there is no unsaved wound is FNP, not to mention every other rule that states when a model suffers an unsaved wound do x. They all activate at the same time some even tell you to do x immediately. Where in FNP does it say it stops all activated SR's/powers? It doesn't even imply this, there is, on the other hand, part of FNP that keeps getting left out, discount. Discount does not mean negate nor does it mean it never existed it means that it started out as something and was changed.

" If you continue to argue that ES works regardless of FNP please show rules allowing you to treat a saved wound as unsaved and allowing you to activate SRs and break other ones. " It would be the same rule you are using to apply one activated SR but not others. There clearly was an unsaved wound or FNP could not activate. It has already activated nothing in FNP negates already activated SR's. If you are going to continue to argue that FNP negates everything please show proof in FNP that it affects anything but the wound, you do not have permission to pick and choose what is activated and what is not nor do you have permission to negate anything that is already activated.

Your belief that something that can negate something else automatically goes first needs to be backed by an actual rule otherwise you are simply doing what you want not actually following the rules. There is no rule that states if a trigger is removed the result is negated. There is no rule concerning the order at which SR's are activated and therefor resolved. Without a rule we have to assume it is simultaneously. There is no rule against this. There is a timing word put into some SR's which can be read to do these first.

Activating a special rules in an order based on the effect. You can't demand people show rules when yours is based on an assumption to how rules work. Special rules trigger and apply effects in order of trigger, we don't decide which ones can go first based on the effect- this has no basis in the rules.

To me, no, FNP can not resolve if force is successful, FNP says you can not roll it on ID. FNP does not say it negates all special rules which may have applied from a unsaved wound, or that it must be rolled for before applying effects from a unsaved wound, and ES does not say immediately on a unsaved wound (after other special rules).

Force activation successful, you are not permitted to roll FNP. If FNP is successful you can not roll Force. Your argument falls down there as if you must roll the cancelling first why Force and not FNP, as they will both stop the other from applying. One will always cancel out the other. This is not the case for ES and FNP. ES does not cancel FNP out.

If you ES is applied first, and FNP is successful, applying both effects in a consistent manner between both rules, then it's possible to apply both and nothing is broken. Mr Warlord lives, but is deprived of his armor save.

Gravmyr wrote:
That is a result of the roll not the reasoning behind. If it had said that you were rolling first so that you could determine whether or not FNP could activate then it would have been the reason for checking it first. I'm not the one making a claim that there is a rule telling you to activate all abilities that can affect others first, you are. Unless you can back that with a rules quote you are making an assumption that it goes first. As such you are the one basically making up a rule unless you can give me a BRB quote telling you to do so..... Order of operations that you are looking at applies to math not sure what your line of thinking is to get this to apply to if then statements but please proceed.

The rule you are breaking by applying FNP at all if there is no unsaved wound is FNP, not to mention every other rule that states when a model suffers an unsaved wound do x. They all activate at the same time some even tell you to do x immediately. Where in FNP does it say it stops all activated SR's/powers? It doesn't even imply this, there is, on the other hand, part of FNP that keeps getting left out, discount. Discount does not mean negate nor does it mean it never existed it means that it started out as something and was changed.

" If you continue to argue that ES works regardless of FNP please show rules allowing you to treat a saved wound as unsaved and allowing you to activate SRs and break other ones. " It would be the same rule you are using to apply one activated SR but not others. There clearly was an unsaved wound or FNP could not activate. It has already activated nothing in FNP negates already activated SR's. If you are going to continue to argue that FNP negates everything please show proof in FNP that it affects anything but the wound, you do not have permission to pick and choose what is activated and what is not nor do you have permission to negate anything that is already activated.

Your belief that something that can negate something else automatically goes first needs to be backed by an actual rule otherwise you are simply doing what you want not actually following the rules. There is no rule that states if a trigger is removed the result is negated. There is no rule concerning the order at which SR's are activated and therefor resolved. Without a rule we have to assume it is simultaneously. There is no rule against this. There is a timing word put into some SR's which can be read to do these first.

The closest thing anyone can show you is a FAQ allowing FW to work before FNP. Stop trying to force the hand.

How. How. How.

After all these pages do people not see its gonna come down to a rule by rule allowance.

I wouldn't let Doom gain wounds m

I'm not so sure about ES.

The FAQ would let ES happen because it's fluffy but not Doom.

In either case of the two major ideas on ES vs FNP, neither would be effected by any order of operations.

In Time Warp Theory, you go back in time and redo everything so that ES and FNP do not activate.

In Linear Timeline Theory, ES is not effected by any changes to the wound after it has been activated.

Stormbreed wrote:

The closest thing anyone can show you is a FAQ allowing FW to work before FNP. Stop trying to force the hand.

How. How. How.

After all these pages do people not see its gonna come down to a rule by rule allowance.

I wouldn't let Doom gain wounds m

I'm not so sure about ES.

The FAQ would let ES happen because it's fluffy but not Doom.

I assume then that you are going to request that Dakka be shut down. The idea is to discuss and work out how people are coming up with the reasoning they are using to make their arguments. When someone is asking why you are not supporting their theory but they can't back up their own view then it's hard for someone to not ask why they are at their reading. The purpose of these discussion is to try to come to a consensus as to how something should work. If you can't show why you are choosing to do something based off of rules then most likely your reading is incorrect. IF people don't want to support their readings with rules then they probably should not be taking part in the discussion.