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

...snip..

... On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved."

Entropic Strike
"Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds... (effects of the rule)"

Concussive
"A model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds....(effects of the rule)"

Some people are saying that FNP now saves against effects like concussive, entropic strike or rules that use unsaved wounds to trigger them. My problem with this rule has always been that it triggers with the same conditions as some effects like those I've listed. In such a case, it would appear that they should be resolved at the same time. Without a direct reference stating that it counteracts any effects that it would incur from having an unsaved wound and instead "treating it as being saved", I'm on the fence whether or not FNP in 7th edition can stop ES or Concussive.

As far as I can see, as soon as a model "suffers an unsaved wound" it should immediately resolve all effects that this condition triggers which could be FNP, ES and Concussive.

This was very lengthy in 5th I believe with one side stating you had to resolve FNP first, or reverse the effects of the other rules, or you are not treating it like the wound was saved and the other side stating exactly what you are and that the active player chooses. Needs a FAQ or rewording of FNP.

i don't see much of a problem here you pretty much posted all that needs to be said.

"On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved"

You treat the wound as if it was saved. What do you do with entropic strike and concussive if you save the wound vs it?




EDit: without the rules in front of me my personal how i would play it (currently). FNP says to treat it as saved and ES and concussive says only on unsaved wounds. My question I can see could be read as rhetorical but it was not meant to be.


Edit#2: and re-reading it from the other side of the fence i'm now at a loss for how it will work. Is there anything in the rules how to handle things that happen at the same time? In the mean time if this comes up I'll just go for the flip a coin and resolve it for that game way.

And it starts....

I dont feel strongly about it either way, but if you follow the logic that Force activates before FNP (which we know it does), then why shouldnt any of the other abilities that trigger on an unsaved wound not trigger?

We know it did... now it happens in a different phase.

i agree with you @sonicaucie all effects would resolve at same time. Also leave all effects even if FNP is successful since its not an ordinary save the rule even says that its isn't an ordinary save too so it wouldn't negate effects that's my opinion.

'always favour the attacking option' thats how we tend to play, if the defender don't like that then give them some grief! haha



Peace

The list of items that FnP doest this to is more than just these, theres a lot of items where if a model suffers an unsaved wound its removed from play or takes a test and is removed from play, etc.

If the model makes its FnP roll and it didn't lose a wound did it suffer an unsaved wound.

Ie a 3 wound model is hit, fails its Inv save, but makes FnP and still has 3 wounds. How many unsaved wounds did it suffer?

My math comes up to 0.

How can you apply the effects of entropic strike when your told to treat the wound as saved?

Entropic does nothing if the wound is saved...

Which would be fine if the wound have been saved before the ability is triggered. Since it's triggered at the same time as FNP even if the FNP roll is successful we still have to apply the affect.

 BarBoBot wrote:
How can you apply the effects of entropic strike when your told to treat the wound as saved?

Entropic does nothing if the wound is saved...

The point is that the conditions for FNP, ES, Concussive and many other abilities are the same. When FNP triggers, so has ES and such. This is when the argument of "order of abilities resolving" comes into effect. As all abilities are triggering at the exact same time and FNP specifies treat the wound as saved, then the order in which FNP is used would affect the outcome. The player whose turn it is gets to dictate the order in which things happen, so it would be possible for a player to simply state that concussive or ES takes place before the FNP roll and therefore any outcome which FNP has is immediately nullified since it happens too late in the order to do so since it does not specify specifically that it counteracts effects that happen from taking an unsaved wound.

I.E:

- Model A suffers an unsaved wound
- Player whose turn it is now chooses to resolve ES, Concussive, FNP in whatever order he chooses

This is ofcourse you believe that FNP is countering it. There are people who believe that ES, Concussive and such must be resolved even if FNP is made because the model still suffered an unsaved wound triggering the effect. I.E: it is simply too late altogether for FNP to have an effect as the effects have already been activated as soon as FNP is activated.

Gravmyr wrote:
Which would be fine if the wound have been saved before the ability is triggered. Since it's triggered at the same time as FNP even if the FNP roll is successful we still have to apply the affect.

Applying an effect off of a wound that is treated as saved, that is breaking a rule.

As is not fulfilling SR's that have been triggered already.

It should be noted that FNP is not a Save but a Special Roll that is taken after a unsaved wound is inflicted.

Thus a multi wound model that fails a save test against a wound, but passes a FNP test still suffered an unsaved wound, that is being ignored due to FNP.

A single Wound Model that suffers an unsaved wound but passes their FNP still had to suffer that unsaved wound to even be able to use FNP.

So if the trigger for Entropic Strike, Concussive, and similar affects is a unsaved wound, the question is did the model during the phase suffer an unsaved wound from a Weapon or attack with those rules? and if they did suffer an unsaved wound, did they ignore the loss of that wound due to FNP?

HIWPI is that while the wound is not lost due to FNP the effects such as Concussive and ES are applied as the model did suffer an unsaved wound.

I also feel that in the case of two things triggering at the same time that the player who's turn it is gets to decide the order at which things happen, much like how MMS are better for Necrons that charge than those that get charged.

If your treating the wound as saved, then you can't apply the effects of ES.

If you apply the effects your not treating the wound as saved, no matter if 2 things happen simultaneously or not. If the wound is discounted, it never happened.

This goes back to a very similar discussion involving the stacking of psychic powers. If you have managed to make your roll to activate the power, in this case has the model suffered an unsaved wound, then you have permission to apply the affect of the power or in this case a USR. If you are arguing it one way for psychic powers how can you are argue it another way when USR's are involved?

Eihnlazer wrote:
I dont feel strongly about it either way, but if you follow the logic that Force activates before FNP (which we know it does), then why shouldnt any of the other abilities that trigger on an unsaved wound not trigger?

They FAQ'd Force due to the fact that if one goes off the other cannot.

If Force goes first, then the weapon causes ID and cannot be FNP'd away.
If FNP goes first, then the weapon did not cause an unsaved Wound and cannot be activated.


Now with ES.
If ES goes first, the model loses his armour and then you are not treating the Wound as having been saved.
If FNP goes first, then there is no unsaved Wound for the effect to trigger.

Gravmyr wrote:
As is not fulfilling SR's that have been triggered already.

and that is okay because the wound is treated as having been saved, and not activating ES is just fine because we are treating the wound as a saved wound.

FNP must go first to find out if you have a saved wound or an unsaved wound.

 DeathReaper wrote:

and that is okay because the wound is treated as having been saved, and not activating ES is just fine because we are treating the wound as a saved wound.

FNP must go first to find out if you have a saved wound or an unsaved wound.

Which is in direction contradiction to your argument concerning the right to stack psychic powers is it not?
Activation has already happened before you roll for FNP and there is nothing in it that says to stop resolving other USR's is there?

Gravmyr wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

and that is okay because the wound is treated as having been saved, and not activating ES is just fine because we are treating the wound as a saved wound.

FNP must go first to find out if you have a saved wound or an unsaved wound.

Which is in direction contradiction to your argument concerning the right to stack psychic powers is it not?
Activation has already happened before you roll for FNP and there is nothing in it that says to stop resolving other USR's is there?

I think the difference is in the wording. Used to be that making your FNP save had the wound being ignored, discarded, or what have you. Now it specificalyl says that the wound counts as being saved, which is much more specific than just discarding or ignoring it. It really does loop back to "Has the model suffered an unsaved wound?", the answer to which will be no. It did not suffer an unsaved wound, because FNP made it a saved wound. The effects cannot be applied, because the wound was saved.

Gravmyr wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

and that is okay because the wound is treated as having been saved, and not activating ES is just fine because we are treating the wound as a saved wound.

FNP must go first to find out if you have a saved wound or an unsaved wound.

Which is in direction contradiction to your argument concerning the right to stack psychic powers is it not?
Activation has already happened before you roll for FNP and there is nothing in it that says to stop resolving other USR's is there?

There is. The fact that the wound has been saved.
It's not a contradictory stance at all - you're reaching (hard) to try and say that it is.

rigeld2 wrote:

There is. The fact that the wound has been saved.
It's not a contradictory stance at all - you're reaching (hard) to try and say that it is.

Saved from the moment you make the roll. Which does not change the fact that the USR has already been activated. I suppose you won't mind quoting a rule to support not resolving a USR that was activated.

@morganfreeman: Once activated it doesn't matter that what activated it has been changed, if it did when a wound from a Vindicare Assassin was Look out sir!'d then the first model that had the wound allocated would not loose the save yet it was FAQed to affect both the first model and the model the wound was transferred to.

Gravmyr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

There is. The fact that the wound has been saved.
It's not a contradictory stance at all - you're reaching (hard) to try and say that it is.

Saved from the moment you make the roll. Which does not change the fact that the USR has already been activated. I suppose you won't mind quoting a rule to support not resolving a USR that was activated.

@morganfreeman: Once activated it doesn't matter that what activated it has been changed, if it did when a wound from a Vindicare Assassin was Look out sir!'d then the first model that had the wound allocated would not loose the save yet it was FAQed to affect both the first model and the model the wound was transferred to.

Go ahead and resolve it. You've now applied an effect requiring an unsaved wound to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound.
That's what we call "Breaking a rule." Perhaps you've heard of it?

And the Vindicaire FAQ was a rules change - unless you can find some rules basis for his removing the save from *two* models considering he can only ever hit one.

Gravmyr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

There is. The fact that the wound has been saved.
It's not a contradictory stance at all - you're reaching (hard) to try and say that it is.

Saved from the moment you make the roll. Which does not change the fact that the USR has already been activated. I suppose you won't mind quoting a rule to support not resolving a USR that was activated.

@morganfreeman: Once activated it doesn't matter that what activated it has been changed, if it did when a wound from a Vindicare Assassin was Look out sir!'d then the first model that had the wound allocated would not loose the save yet it was FAQed to affect both the first model and the model the wound was transferred to.

Has the wound even been unsaved though? With how FNP is written now, it's basically a fantasy-esque double save. Fail your first save? Np, have this second save - nothing happens until after that one.

Again, FNP has been changed to save wounds, not simply ignore or discard them. It would seem that it's basically a back-up armor save with some special rules revolving around when you get it and when you don't.

BY choosing to apply FNP first you have broken the sequencing rule from pg 17, which states the active player chooses which order to resolve rule triggered at the same time. That's what we call "Breaking a rule." Perhaps you've heard of it? I assume you didn't quote a rule that allows your interpretation because one does not exist. The same way many rules are "rules changes" in the FAQ they are not per GW it's a clarification. If you are viewing it as anything else your vision of what is written is different from GW's and whether or not we like it is wrong.

@morganfreeman: FNP never tells us when it was saved just that is is treated as having been saved. Since I have no instructions about going back in time and unallocating the wound or not resolving other powers I fail to see how I can not apply the affects. It actually tells you to discount the wound first, which is to lessen the normal cost, then it tells us to treat it as having been saved.

There's 2 "reasonable" scenarios here.

Scenario 1.

Model fails its save, suffers ES/whatever

The model is still allowed a FnP roll (unless we are talking a 6 on a destroyer hit..)

If the model passes its FnP roll the unsaved wound is discounted and counts as being saved.

Scenario 2

The model fails its save

The model is allowed a FnP roll, succeeds and the wound is discounted and counts as saved.

In both scenarios there was no unsaved wound. The difference is in one of the scenarios something incorrect happened, there was application of an effect that only triggers if a model suffers an effect that the model never suffered.

If you apply the entropic strike under scenario 1 you are saying there was at some point an unsaved wound, this has impacts beyond ES, like for combat results in assault etc.

Obviously that is not the case.

additionally if a model is reduced to 0 wounds from 1 it is removed from play. Does this mean we take our models off the table then roll FnP for them if they fail their save on opponents turn?

Obviously none of that makes sense.

The FnP has to resolve before anything that triggers from unsaved wounds regardless of player turn, because the act of triggeting anything off an unsaved wound when none has occured due to FnP is incorrect.

I assume you have a rule to quote that states that we cannot apply the affects of a rule/power if the trigger no longer exists or that you stop activating rules if the trigger no longer exists.

I vote that the effect doesn't happen. It's the phrase "treat it as having been saved" that does it for me.

But it is ambiguous, I think I understand the opposing argument, and it's another thing that requires a FAQ.

Here, have a 23 page thread from 6th!
The rules have changed only a little and do not significantly impact this argument.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/560047.page

I'll sum up posts in there from me; If ES is activated first, then the effects should remain if the wound is treated as saved. You avoid being wounded (-1 W) you treat the -1 W as if it has been saved (IE, you don't apply the wound to the characteristic line), not discount any special rules that might have triggered from suffering the wound (Like FNP...), more importantly you only have permission to ignore the wound as a item from the time of a successful FNP, not any special rule which triggered from it.

Discounting special rules should be consistent in play, which means to discount ES, you should also discount the results of FNP as the trigger is the same. There is no unsaved wound for FNP to trigger off!

IF FNP is activated first, then ES does not get to take effect.

Many things *never* happened during the game, in several areas you are told to treat something as having moved when it didn't, the actuality of if it does or does not exist in the rules at that time is of little consequence. The game is linear - the trigger does not need to still be present after the rule is in use, nor does ES require it to be. Like in instances we treat as having moved, we do not go back in time and change everything before that event up til the movement phase and declare it illegal because a state has now changed to act as if it had moved, it just effects from the time, and things that happened before it are not changed or removed - the game moves forward.

Now while I find there is general agreement with the principle of not going back and declaring things illegal which have been done because we are now treating it as if something else had happened - very recently in two threads this concept has been used with things like Embarking is treated as having moved- people think FNP is somehow different - but not in my mind.

In the thread I also bring up the difference of English in - Treat as having been saved and Treated as having been saved.You treat it as having been saved, you don't go back in the 40k timeline to be treated as having been saved.

 Happyjew wrote:
They FAQ'd Force due to the fact that if one goes off the other cannot.

If Force goes first, then the weapon causes ID and cannot be FNP'd away.
If FNP goes first, then the weapon did not cause an unsaved Wound and cannot be activated.


Now with ES.
If ES goes first, the model loses his armour and then you are not treating the Wound as having been saved.
If FNP goes first, then there is no unsaved Wound for the effect to trigger.

I liked this one explanation. Made my choice on position.

All the IFs have to combine in the super-resolution of the conjunction world of clauses.

Gravmyr wrote:
BY choosing to apply FNP first you have broken the sequencing rule from pg 17, which states the active player chooses which order to resolve rule triggered at the same time. That's what we call "Breaking a rule." Perhaps you've heard of it? I assume you didn't quote a rule that allows your interpretation because one does not exist. The same way many rules are "rules changes" in the FAQ they are not per GW it's a clarification. If you are viewing it as anything else your vision of what is written is different from GW's and whether or not we like it is wrong.

No, GW demonstrably changes rules using FAQs. But that's irrelevant.
I'm not applying FNP first. Feel free to remove a models armor save using ES. Then I make the wound saved with FNP.
You now have a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound from a ES weapon with the ES effect applied. That's breaking a rule.
Do you need me to quote the FNP rule? I can, but I didn't because I assumed you were familiar with it. Here, I'll go ahead and quote the relevant section:

Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered. On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved.

I apologize for my assumption. The underlined means that if you do anything that requires an unsaved wound, you're breaking a rule.

FNP never tells us when it was saved just that is is treated as having been saved. Since I have no instructions about going back in time and unallocating the wound or not resolving other powers I fail to see how I can not apply the affects. It actually tells you to discount the wound first, which is to lessen the normal cost, then it tells us to treat it as having been saved.

First of all, "treat as" is equivalent to "is" in 40k.
Second, the underlined is false. "having been saved" is an instruction to ignore the fact that you failed your save because you actually passed it.

And you keep bringing up other powers... it's not a comparable situation. Stop harping on it.

Gravmyr wrote:
I assume you have a rule to quote that states that we cannot apply the affects of a rule/power if the trigger no longer exists or that you stop activating rules if the trigger no longer exists.

Your not treating the wound as saved if you apply the effects of ES, period.

You're also not treating the wound as saved if you have taken an FNP roll now are you?

rigeld2 wrote:
treat it as having been saved.

You are?

Gravmyr wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
I assume you have a rule to quote that states that we cannot apply the affects of a rule/power if the trigger no longer exists or that you stop activating rules if the trigger no longer exists.

I did quote it. I'm surprised you didn't see it. Should I make it bold for you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gravmyr wrote:
You're also not treating the wound as saved if you have taken an FNP roll now are you?

So now you're saying FNP does nothing?
After all, when you suffer an unsaved would you're supposed to subtract 1 from your Wounds characteristic... Why aren't you doing that, yet you are applying other effects?

What you quoted says nothing about auxiliary effects or triggered SR's now does it? Exactly what in the FNP rules tells you to change the activated SR's?

What i am saying is there is no way for FNP to actually treat an unsaved wound as a saved wound vis-a-vis negating all triggered SR's as it is a triggered SR.

The main question is: Was there ever an unsaved wound?

If you answered yes, then FNP works, and the Special Rules invoked by ES also works.

by FnPs own rules if it succeeds there was never an unsaved wound.

treat as saved cannot = unsaved.

So there was an unsvaved wound if FnP fails.

But there was not an unsaved wound if FnP succeeds

ES has 2 things that make it trigger even if the model passes its FNP roll:

1. The trigger is the same so if you have permission to activate FNP you also have permission to activate ES. Both effects can be applied without breaking any of these 2 rules. The model doesn't lose a wound and the model loses its armour save.

2. The effect of ES is applied "immediately" where the FNP has no such wording. So you have one effect that applies immediately when a model suffers an unsaved wound and another effect that doesn't happen immediately when a model suffers an unsaved wound. The immediate effect must take priority over the non immediate effect, which means ES is applied before FNP.

So can we leave our models that suffer unsaved wounds on the table and then roll later since it doesn't happen immediately?

Maybe in a few turns so they cant get shot again..

The trigger wording may be the same, but the issue is.

If you succeed a FnP rule you never had an unsaved wound.

if you never had an unsaved wound you shouldn't have applied modifiers that apply to models that suffer an unsaved wound, because the model never suffered an unsaved wound.

Gravmyr wrote:
What you quoted says nothing about auxiliary effects or triggered SR's now does it? Exactly what in the FNP rules tells you to change the activated SR's?

The fact that you treat the wound as saved. I even underlined it.

What i am saying is there is no way for FNP to actually treat an unsaved wound as a saved wound vis-a-vis negating all triggered SR's as it is a triggered SR.

So you're saying that FNP literally does nothing?

If it fails, reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.

Because according to you, those sentences still apply.

@blaktoof If you are told
a) when someone offers you a cookie you should immediately say "Thank you"
b) when someone offers you a cookie you should eat the cookie

And someone offers you a cookie, what would you do? Eat the cookie first and then say thank you? (Well you could, but you get what I mean...)

or
c) If macho man Randy Savage snaps into a slim jim, jumps out of the balcony and smacks the cookie out of my hand before either happend as if you never had the cookie.

Yeah i'm not saying thank you, because there was no cookie.



In this example of a picture the person who looks like they could personify a stereotype of jesus is the cookie. The cookie had chocolate chips and sprinkles, but never made it into my hand because I made my Feel no Cookie roll. If I had the cookie, I would have sa;d "thank you" and gotten crumbs on my 3+ shirt of awesomeness and vorpal dice rolling. Which we all know reduces the vorpal dice rolling to just dice rolling. But it didn't happen, thank you my macho man randy savage.

below is a copy of my shirt that wasnt covered in crumbs because I passed my FnC roll.

Hmm nice try deflecting the obvious...

the obvious that the analogy was poorly worded and biased and included nothing regarding the fact that one of the outcomes of FnP- namely passing it, means the event never happened?

yes. I am sorry I did not take one of the two options that did not include that and would support your claim.

@blaktoof OK how about this
a) when someone offers you a cookie you should immediately say "Thank you"
b) when someone offers you a cookie you should walk away like nothing happend.

Better?

Bad analogy is still bad.

You don't get to apply effects from ES unless there is an unsaved wound. A passed FnP roll treats it as saved. Ergo there is no unsaved wound.

With your reasoning, a single wound model that suffers a wound and passes FnP still dies because the wound was unsaved at one point.

The analogy is just fine. What you don't (want to) get is that a model can lose its armour save and still have full wounds. There is no rule against it. But if you apply an effect before ES, then the ES stops being immediate, and you have broken a rule.

Sorry, but if you apply the effect you haven't treated it as a saved wound have you?

We can talk in circles all day, and your bad analogies won't change that.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Sorry, but if you apply the effect you haven't treated it as a saved wound have you?

You have indeed. You see the armour save of the model was stripped before FNP was applied. The FNP treats the wound as saved to a model that has already no armour save. So you end up with a model with no armour save and full wounds, which, as an end result, is not against the rules.

copper.talos wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Sorry, but if you apply the effect you haven't treated it as a saved wound have you?

You have indeed. You see the armour save of the model was stripped before FNP was applied. The FNP treats the wound as saved to a model that has already no armour save. So you end up with a model with no armour save and full wounds, which, as an end result, is not against the rules.

Why does Entropic Strike happen before FNP?

 CrownAxe wrote:

copper.talos wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Sorry, but if you apply the effect you haven't treated it as a saved wound have you?

You have indeed. You see the armour save of the model was stripped before FNP was applied. The FNP treats the wound as saved to a model that has already no armour save. So you end up with a model with no armour save and full wounds, which, as an end result, is not against the rules.

Why does Entropic Strike happen before FNP?

2 reasons from sequencing.

1 ES happens immediately (specific wording as to when it happens) upon a unsaved wound.
2 active player chooses the order of things, so he chooses ES than FNP.

In the end you can be left with a model with no armor and no wounds taken.

Because the ES wording, unlike FNP's, make it apply "immediately" when a model suffers an unsaved wound.

That FnP doesnt trigger other things that apply from unsaved wounds such as-

Remove from play if it reduces to 0
count as unsaved wounds for combat resolution
etc.

Shows that FnP comes before these things occur, even if its the opponents turn and they can decide the order of things.

most likely because if you pass a FnP roll there was never an unsaved wound.

ES may play immediately, but that doesn't mean it comes before other things always.

Obviously FnP comes before the final resolution if there was an unsaved wound or not.

otherwise on my turn you can remove your FnP models from play before making your FnP rolls. As you have no permission to put models back on the table from being removed from play you are welcome to make your FnP rolls after that, and keep the models off table.

Gravmyr wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

and that is okay because the wound is treated as having been saved, and not activating ES is just fine because we are treating the wound as a saved wound.

FNP must go first to find out if you have a saved wound or an unsaved wound.

Which is in direction contradiction to your argument concerning the right to stack psychic powers is it not?

Not at all even close to the same argument.

Activation has already happened before you roll for FNP and there is nothing in it that says to stop resolving other USR's is there?

Yes, FNP treats the wound as saved, therefore it must be rolled for first to see if you actually have an unsaved or a saved wound.

With ES, why does a model not have an armor save, the wound was treated as saved, why would you roll anything but FNP first?

Would you strip an armor save from a model that saved the wound?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

copper.talos wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Sorry, but if you apply the effect you haven't treated it as a saved wound have you?

You have indeed. You see the armour save of the model was stripped before FNP was applied. The FNP treats the wound as saved to a model that has already no armour save. So you end up with a model with no armour save and full wounds, which, as an end result, is not against the rules.

Why does Entropic Strike happen before FNP?

2 reasons from sequencing.

1 ES happens immediately (specific wording as to when it happens) upon a unsaved wound.
2 active player chooses the order of things, so he chooses ES than FNP.

In the end you can be left with a model with no armor and no wounds taken.

For number 2, by your reasoning, the player whose turn it is can just elect to have the model lose the wound and be removed from play (assuming a 1 wound model) since it triggers off of the unsaved wound, just like FNP and ES, which would make FNP rather useless most of the time.

copper.talos wrote:
Because the ES wording, unlike FNP's, make it apply "immediately" when a model suffers an unsaved wound.

and FNP happens when the model suffers an unsaved Wound. So FNP is rolled for when the unsaved wound happens. At the exact same time as when the unsaved wound occurs.

"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..." (Feel No Pain rules).

Yep, that's the exact same trigger event as ES, an unsaved wound, only ES must apply "immediately" after that unsaved wound ie
1. without lapse of time; at once.
2. with no object or space intervening.
3. closely: immediately in the vicinity.
4. without intervening medium or agent.
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/immediately)

So if you apply FNP before ES, then ES wouldn't be applied immediately, would it? FNP applies after the immediate effect of ES and it treats the unsaved wound as saved to a model without an armour save.

I think it's down to the wording.

If it said it activates due to "A failed save" then it would regardless of whether the model is wounded by it or not.

as it says "an unsaved wound" and feel no pain "treats the wound as saved" then the wound is treated as saved, and all effects have to comply with that too.

Why, what's wrong with treating wounds as saved to models without an armour save? It's not against the rules you know...

copper.talos wrote:
Why, what's wrong with treating wounds as saved to models without an armour save? It's not against the rules you know...

It is, because if a wound was saved then ES would not have any affect.

if you strip a models armor save you are not treating the wound "as having been saved" (FNP rules in the BRB).

Immediately:
1. without lapse of time; at once.
2. with no object or space intervening.
3. closely: immediately in the vicinity.
4. without intervening medium or agent.
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/immediately)

If you apply FNP before ES then ES doesn't happen immediately. And FNP can fail you know. If you apply ES before FNP then FNP treats the wound as saved to a model that has no armour save. No problem with that.

ES does happen immediately, but only upon an unsaved wound, which we only have if the FNP is failed. then strip all the armor save you want.

Pass the FNP, then we have to treat the wound as saved. ergo no unsaved wound created if FNP is passed. This is why you resolve FNP first.

@rigeld2: Which changes the past how? It does not in fact tell you to treat the model as if it had never received an unsaved wound nor does it say to negate or remove and auxiliary effects triggered by the unsaved wound.

I never said anything even close to that. If nothing that triggers off an unsaved wound can apply to the model how can you apply FNP? How can FNP activate if there was never an unsaved wound per the time traveling removal of the unsaved period? If you claim that FNP can activate then remove any effects that have happened that to the model due to treating the wound as having been saved how do you continue to apply the effects of FNP, is it not an effect that requires there to be a unsaved wound for FNP to effect the model?

Looking at the rules strictly as they are written there are three possible outcomes to an FNP model suffering from an Entropic Strike, etc., wound:
1: You can negate everything that requires an unsaved wound to have it trigger. Which causes FNP to conflict with itself as well as there not being any rules backup for halting resolution nor negating the effects of SR's if the trigger is removed.
2: You can halt the further resolution of SR's that happen after the resolution of FNP. Following the sequencing rules for order of resolution but does not have a rule basis that has been posted for halting resolution.
3: You can apply all SR's that have been activated. Follows the rules for order of resolution and all work due to the fact that there is no rule to halt resolution once activation has occurred nor negation clause in FNP.

Looking back to 6th Force was FAQed to happen before FNP. The only difference in the wording of the rules was the inclusion of immediately in Force. To say immediately means nothing ignores the fact that a rule with that worded was already faqed to occur before this self same rule.

Please find a quote that gives me permission to halt resolution of anything once triggered or something in FNP that tells you at what point you start treating the wound as saved or permission to remove the effects of other SR's based off FNP. This needs to be spelled out as there is no way to continue this discussion unless you can quote something that actually conflicts with the Sequencing section or that gives you permission to negate/change other effects.

 DeathReaper wrote:
ES does happen immediately, but only upon an unsaved wound, which we only have if the FNP is failed. then strip all the armor save you want.

Pass the FNP, then we have to treat the wound as saved. ergo no unsaved wound created if FNP is passed. This is why you resolve FNP first.

If you only have a unsaved wound if FNP is failed, than how do you ever take a FNP roll? It needs an unsaved wound to happen.

It's a nice opinion you have, it's a shame you have no rules support to go with it.

@deathreaper All you think about is that the wound is treated as saved so it never existed. What if you fail the FNP roll?

There is an unsaved wound, you roll FNP you fail and then you apply ES? Still wrong, the unsaved would is the same wound that triggered ES in the first place and you applied FNP before ES, so ES didn't happen immediately.

Except of course if you think that FNP treats the wound as saved beforehand, you roll and if you fail then you create another unsaved wound...

looking at it a little closer i feel this is Schrödinger's wound. It is saved and unsaved at the same time. My view point of the matter goes like this.

Model takes a wound and fails it's armor/invul save.
order of effects ES sees its trigger happen of an unsaved wound and takes effect.
FNP sees its trigger happen of an unsaved wound and takes effect.
FNP roll is passed and we are told to treat that unsaved wound as saved.
ES's trigger of the unsaved wound is now treated as saved because of FNP.
We don't wanna break any rules so ES isn't applied because it's trigger is no longer in effect of an unwaved wound.
ES pulls a marty Mcfly if he fails to bring his parents togeather.
FNP in a sense does the same because that unsaved wound is now treated as a saved wound so FNP wouldn't be needed either so it fades away.

Bit of a scratch on a record player and going back in time sillyness. And on the flip side.

Model takes a wound and fails it's armor/invul save.
order of effects ES sees its trigger happen of an unsaved wound and takes effect.
FNP sees its trigger happen of an unsaved wound and takes effect.
FNP roll is passed and we are told to treat that unsaved wound as saved.
We aren't told to remove ES if the unsaved wound becomes saved.but it's trigger has still been met before FNP so it stays.
We don't wanna break any rules so ES stays because it's conditions have been met and we aren't told to remove it.
ES pulls a marty Mcfly and saves his parents so he doesn't fade meaning he didn't need to go back in time in the first place.
FNP in a sense does the same because that unsaved wound is now treated as a saved wound so FNP wouldn't be needed either so it fades away.


Thats what i gather from both sides of the fence. I'm in the option one group but only loosely because FNP tells us to do something weird and to re-write events on what happened (by discounting an unsaved wound and counting it as saved).


Best way to solve this is to update the necron codex next.

As far as I know the only time you treat a Wound cancelled by FNP as unsaved is for Epidemius, however, his special rule specifically calls out FNP.

Read FNP's rule page 164 third paragraph after the fluff note. It says treat it as having been saved.

Do you treat it as saved from the time you succeed in FNP or in the past?
Does ES require an ongoing unsaved wound to continue to be in effect?

If you shoot a heavy weapon at full effect and then later do something which is means the model is now treated as having moved (in the movement phase), do you go back and undo those shooting actions because the model moved? - Because that is what is being advocated.


You apply rules as they happen, not to other rules that have happened. If ES goes first, there is no reason why it would not stay. It doesn't need a unsaved wound after it is applied. FNP does not need to check for its trigger after the results are applied. The checks are done as you trigger. If you needed the trigger to still be present, then FNP would itself collapse the game, as it would check for a unsaved wound, there wouldn't be one, rolling FNP must be undone, then your in a circular motion.


So you treat the wound as saved from all actions from that point. The next action would be to remove the wound characteristic. FNP says nope, and you move on. There is not another check on ES To interfere with FNP.


Treat as having done something, is without a doubt for checks from that point on, if not the rules break down in all sorts of areas. ES does not check again for a unsaved wound if applied before FNP.

 Nem wrote:
Do you treat it as saved from the time you succeed in FNP or in the past?

Since the rules for FNP says to treat the Wound "as having been saved" it is going back in time and changing the Wound from Unsaved to Saved.

Yes, this creates a paradox with FNP. It has done so for a few editions now.

In 6th there was a FAQ that ruled FNP happens AFTER an effect which triggers on unsaved wounds and resolves immediately. No paradoxes back then. And in 5th it was a grey area.

Also creating paradoxes leads to absurdity. There is a way to resolve these rules without paradoxes and not disregard important parts of a rule such as "immediately". ES goes first and FNP after.

 Nem wrote:
Do you treat it as saved from the time you succeed in FNP or in the past?
Does ES require an ongoing unsaved wound to continue to be in effect?

If you shoot a heavy weapon at full effect and then later do something which is means the model is now treated as having moved (in the movement phase), do you go back and undo those shooting actions because the model moved? - Because that is what is being advocated.


You apply rules as they happen, not to other rules that have happened. If ES goes first, there is no reason why it would not stay. It doesn't need a unsaved wound after it is applied. FNP does not need to check for its trigger after the results are applied. The checks are done as you trigger. If you needed the trigger to still be present, then FNP would itself collapse the game, as it would check for a unsaved wound, there wouldn't be one, rolling FNP must be undone, then your in a circular motion.


So you treat the wound as saved from all actions from that point. The next action would be to remove the wound characteristic. FNP says nope, and you move on. There is not another check on ES To interfere with FNP.


Treat as having done something, is without a doubt for checks from that point on, if not the rules break down in all sorts of areas. ES does not check again for a unsaved wound if applied before FNP.

Well stated, and I agree that FNP dose not negate effects that trigger on an unsaved wound. All FNP negates is the loss of a wound that was unsaved, (By treating it like it had been saved)

So thanks to FNP the model did not lose a wound, but it still under the effects of Concussive, ES, etc... Due to being almost killed.

Remember the rules are written to "Forge a Narrative" as such the FnP rule is written to make the Space Marine keep walking as his armor falls off of him, and he keeps on fighting. Or the warrior looks at the scratch caused by the hex rifle, goes to keep on fighting, and is shocked/horrified that he is turning into a glass statue. The warrior who just plowed a guy with his concussive hammer, is sure of his victory, but the guy he hammered into the ground staggers to his feet.

I have always read the rule as effecting the wound, and not special rules. I'm not sure about the new rules, but the old rules allowed for multiple special rules affecting the same model, and being true. So under the old rules you could not take a wound, yet still lose the armor. But prevailing opinion was that FnP was the best special rule ever, and goes before every other rule in the game.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
ES does happen immediately, but only upon an unsaved wound, which we only have if the FNP is failed. then strip all the armor save you want.

Pass the FNP, then we have to treat the wound as saved. ergo no unsaved wound created if FNP is passed. This is why you resolve FNP first.

If you only have a unsaved wound if FNP is failed, than how do you ever take a FNP roll? It needs an unsaved wound to happen.

It's a nice opinion you have, it's a shame you have no rules support to go with it.

FNP creates a paradox within itself that, if successful, negates its need to be rolled.

Either way creates a saved wound and if you apply effects off of a saved wound that require an unsaved wound, you are breaking the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:
@deathreaper All you think about is that the wound is treated as saved so it never existed. What if you fail the FNP roll?

There is an unsaved wound, you roll FNP you fail and then you apply ES? Still wrong, the unsaved would is the same wound that triggered ES in the first place and you applied FNP before ES, so ES didn't happen immediately.

Except of course if you think that FNP treats the wound as saved beforehand, you roll and if you fail then you create another unsaved wound...

FNP says to treat the wound "as having been saved" This means we treat the original armor or cover or invuln as successful if the FNP roll was successful.

You still have not posted a rule that allows you to choose which Sr's you are going to process and which you have not. You are choosing to process FNP but nothing else. Please post a rule allowing you to choose which rules to follow and which not. A rule mind you not your opinion as to you have to process FNP first because it can stop the others. That is a real world logic being applied to this game which it is clear you are loathed to do as you posted numerous times should not be done. The same can be said for using the least advantageous reading of FNP which would be to allow all rules to be applied but not reduce the models wounds by one.

You process everything if applicable.

ES is not applicable until you see if the wound has been saved.

FNP is applicable as soon as the armor/cover/invuln save is failed, and if successful we treat that wound as if they passed the armor/cover/invuln save ergo FNP has to come first because we have to treat the wound as having been saved.

applying ES to a wound that we are treating as having been saved is breaking a rule.

So breaking at least two is better? How can you apply FNP if you go back in time and negate the wound which allows you to roll for FNP? That's one which you have admitted and you are breaking the one for Sequencing. So yeah let's break a bunch of rules instead...... Stop trying to claim it goes back in time and does anything other stop from reducing the model's wounds by one. Back it up with a rule or I will have to assume you are trolling and ignore you.

You are not breaking any rules when you roll FNP first.

How are you rolling FNP first without using the rules for sequencing on pg 17? I want a rule quote here otherwise you will be violating tenet 1 or 4 of YMDC.

Gravmyr wrote:
So breaking at least two is better? How can you apply FNP if you go back in time and negate the wound which allows you to roll for FNP? That's one which you have admitted and you are breaking the one for Sequencing. So yeah let's break a bunch of rules instead...... Stop trying to claim it goes back in time and does anything other stop from reducing the model's wounds by one. Back it up with a rule or I will have to assume you are trolling and ignore you.

it does go back in time it pulls a marty Mcfly and saves the day(wound). it turns the unsaved wound into a saved wound making its need to roll moot. Another way of looking at it is it creatures an alternate timeline which is the new main timeline. You want a rule here it is "On a +5, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved.'(FNP rule in BRB) Saved is in its past tense same with been. it is telling you to ignore that the wound was ever unsaved.

It was Nem I think, back in 6th edition, that wrote a good post about FNP's timing. The bottom line was treat is present tense, so you treat the wound from then on as having being saved.

Nem can correct me of course...

In my opinion, it is giving you a clue that you have to go back and re-write things. 'Treat it as having BEEN saved." Also for those that missed it the rule also states '... it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to AVOID being wounded ...'

This, to me, says that it does, in fact, go back and change the past so that said wound does not occur. To apply ES to a model that has not suffered a wound is breaking rules.

Anyone arguing that you can't apply ES to a model that has not suffered a wound please explain why you are applying one rule and not the rest then. If both abilities require an unsaved wound how are you applying the effects of one and not the other.

Secondly if you think that changing the wound from unsaved to saved stops the resolution of an already triggered SR post a rule that states that you cannot apply it. As has been posted already we have multiple abilities triggered you need to show a rule that actually stops their resolution after they have been triggered. It is like the stacking of psychic powers, the trigger has been met I now have permission to resolve the effect.

There is a very good example question from 6th. If a model with force a weapon hit a model with FNP, attempts to activate the weapon but suffers a perils and dies, does that model come back and regain it's warp charge if the other model makes his FNP roll? Those are the kinds of things we are arguing against, history revision in which you may cause other problems such as model placement or changes in wound allocation.

I did ... see the post above yours where the rules say avoid? I even underlined it. If you AVOID being wounded how are you applying the effects of ES to something that has been avoided?

That answers absolutely none of my questions. If people are not going to back up their statements and explain their stance they are breaking tenet 1 of YMDC. As such i have flagged your response as breaking tenet 1.

Gravmyr wrote:
That answers absolutely none of my questions. If people are not going to back up their statements and explain their stance they are breaking tenet 1 of YMDC. As such i have flagged your response as breaking tenet 1.

In a discussion such as this one there is no quoting rules as everyone would just quote FNP and ES.

If you prefer, everyone could quote both of these rules before they post? Would that please you?

OIIIIIIO quoted rules and is breaking tenet 1 less then you are at the moment:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
'Treat it as having BEEN saved."

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
'... it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to AVOID being wounded ...'

YOUR past 5 posts, at least, do not contain rule quotes

 Happyjew wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Do you treat it as saved from the time you succeed in FNP or in the past?

Since the rules for FNP says to treat the Wound "as having been saved" it is going back in time and changing the Wound from Unsaved to Saved.

Yes, this creates a paradox with FNP. It has done so for a few editions now.

Happy I would agree but treat ad having moved and such things are also in the rules, which is again referring to something in the past - since we don't 're write the game for those it is simply playing inconsistently to do so with FNP.

Treat As having done something has come up twice recently. Once in embarking/falling back thread and again within dark Eldar webway thread. Both concluded the 'having done' is only in effect from the time imposed onwards, and does not interfere with the past. If anyone who agreed with the concept there, but not here can come up with a rule based notable reason why FNP is different to the rest of treat as havings, then I would revisit the debate. But at this time, no reasons forward, it is just playing inconsistently.

I have already posted the relent rules. Multiple times. When you are just joining in the conversation and your only response is to agree with another poster but not add anything then respond that part of a rule answers three questions.....

I made three statements, of which two had questions. Answering "I did ... see the post above yours where the rules say avoid? I even underlined it. If you AVOID being wounded how are you applying the effects of ES to something that has been avoided?" Which does this answer?

Using the logic that FNP has removed the unsaved wound and you cannot apply the effects of an SR that requires an unsaved wound how are you rolling for FNP? Whatever reason you can come up with reinforces that you can apply SR's that require an unsaved wound even after the initial trigger is removed.

I also asked about a scenario from 6th that was not answered and gives a good idea behind your logical process. The question about halting an already activated SR is valid and there is no rule in the book that stops it from happening. It is exactly like activating a power, once activated how do you stop the resolution?

Yes, FNP creates a paradox within itself.

But treating the wound as having been saved means that we treat the wound as if we had not failed the armor/cover/invuln save.

That is your opinion but it still doesn't cover why in your mind you have to roll FNP first. You have already stated that you agree your reading creates a paradox. What rule are you using to apply FNP first? I've asked about it three times now and you have not been able to provide a rule allowing that.

Nor have you addressed why you are treating FNP different than the rest of the SR's.

You have to roll FNP first because if you do not, you could wind up with breaking a rule.

Roll FNP first:

Pass, we treat the wound as if we made our armor/cover/invuln save, nothing that triggers off of an unsaved wound can be used as we have a saved wound.

Fail, anything that triggers off of an unsaved wound can be used as we have an unsaved wound.

Roll FNP second:

Pass: Roll for any effects off of the unsaved wound, then we pass FNP, now we break rules because we do not have an unsaved wound, we treat the wound as if we made our armor/cover/invuln save and ES or concussive can not be applied when we treat a wound as if we made our armor/cover/invuln save.

Fail: No change from rolling FNP first.

Again what rule are you using to do this. As we all know you need permission to do anything. What rule are you using to not use the sequencing rules on pg 17? Without one you are breaking a second rule using your interpretation.

I have the digital edition, can you be more specific as to what you are referring when you say page 17?

There is a section marked sequencing on that page in the BRB it tells you how to apply multiple rules that have been activated at the same time.

"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound, it can make a special FNP roll to avoid being wounded ... blah blah blah"

The wording of ES REQUIRES an unsaved wound, FNP allows you to AVOID being wounded .... I do not see what is so complicated about this.

Explain to me, if you can, if a wound has been avoided via the paradox that FNP creates, how it is ever justifiable to suffer any sort of damage from an attack that has been avoided. I would like you to quote rules that support the stance of enforcing damage in a situation where damage has been avoided.

Gravmyr wrote:
There is a section marked sequencing on that page in the BRB it tells you how to apply multiple rules that have been activated at the same time.

"you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time"

This does not apply as FNP is not resolved at the same time as Entropic Strike, Concussive, ect.

It has to go before them because of the way FNP is worded. Specifically the avoid being wounded part.

I am using the same justification that you are to apply the effects of FNP after the wound has been avoided. It is your stance that it goes back in time and changes the wound to never having been unsaved. If so how did you roll for FNP? If you did roll for FNP you can't apply it's effect because it's per your reading you need an unsaved wound to apply it. See where this is going?

I notice you still did not address any of my questions but it's fine I'll answer yours....

The section about sequencing pg 17 tells you to apply the effects of all activated abilities in the order the active player chooses. Not once in that that section does it mention what to do if one of them negates the trigger of others. Without a rule telling you not to apply them they have already been activated and must be resolved.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:


Explain to me, if you can, if a wound has been avoided via the paradox that FNP creates, how it is ever justifiable to suffer any sort of damage from an attack that has been avoided. I would like you to quote rules that support the stance of enforcing damage in a situation where damage has been avoided.

The very beginning of the special rules section, the very last sentence:

"However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative"



So in the rules, you save the wound, and lose the armor. No paradox, no time travel, no problems.

@DR: What in the wording of activation makes FNP go first? Stating that you need to in order to see if there is a wound didn't hold up against Force weapons in 6th and it doesn't here. The only wording in the rules that is different is that Entropic strike uses immediately, just like Force use to, and Force was FAQed to go first. Please post a rules quote or even a section that states that FNP must be rolled first. Not an interpretation or opinion. You need a specific exemption from the rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
There is a section marked sequencing on that page in the BRB it tells you how to apply multiple rules that have been activated at the same time.

"you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time"

This does not apply as FNP is not resolved at the same time as Entropic Strike, Concussive, ect.

It has to go before them because of the way FNP is worded. Specifically the avoid being wounded part.

How does this not apply? FnP is triggered on an unsaved wound, and so does ES, Concussive, Hex Rifle, and a few others to boot. Guess what that is the same time. The effect of the SR is an unsaved wound, but as pointed out earlier, the effects of multiple special rules stack. As such lose the armor, not the wound, get knocked down, and not lose a wound, get removed from play, yet not lose a wound.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:


Explain to me, if you can, if a wound has been avoided via the paradox that FNP creates, how it is ever justifiable to suffer any sort of damage from an attack that has been avoided. I would like you to quote rules that support the stance of enforcing damage in a situation where damage has been avoided.

The very beginning of the special rules section, the very last sentence:

"However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative"



So in the rules, you save the wound, and lose the armor. No paradox, no time travel, no problems.

Then you are not treating the wound as having been saved ... that, too, is a paradox. You are applying damage to something that it has been explicitly avoided ... you treat it as having been saved.

Is the wound linked to the armour save? No. By the time FNP applies, the model already lost its armour save. The wound is treated as having being saved to a model with no armour save. You end up with a model with no armour save and full wounds. The cumulative effect of both rules. Not applying ES immediately and therefore before FNP, is against the rules though and it goes against "However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative".

Gravmyr wrote:
@DR: What in the wording of activation makes FNP go first? Stating that you need to in order to see if there is a wound didn't hold up against Force weapons in 6th and it doesn't here. The only wording in the rules that is different is that Entropic strike uses immediately, just like Force use to, and Force was FAQed to go first. Please post a rules quote or even a section that states that FNP must be rolled first. Not an interpretation or opinion. You need a specific exemption from the rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
[FNP] has to go before them because of the way FNP is worded. Specifically the avoid being wounded part.

(Emphasis mine)

This, The underlined part, in the wording of activation makes FNP go first.

Does it avoid being wounded if ES goes off? Yes, being wounded is taking a wound off the characteristic, nothing to do with ES, ES is not wounding the model is it?

 Nem wrote:
Does it avoid being wounded if ES goes off? Yes, being wounded is taking a wound off the characteristic, nothing to do with ES, ES is not wounding the model is it?

But if you remove the armor save you are not treating the wound as having been saved.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Does it avoid being wounded if ES goes off? Yes, being wounded is taking a wound off the characteristic, nothing to do with ES, ES is not wounding the model is it?

But if you remove the armor save you are not treating the wound as having been saved.

And if you treat it as saved you can not make your feel no pain roll
since you didn't make your FNP roll you have a unsaved wound
so you roll for FNP If you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES

The only way to break the paradox is resolve both as you are told to resolve it under sequencing. They both were triggered, they both resolve. Or just keep rolling FNP til you fail and take the wound as well. It's a classic time traveling mistake, breaking the rules is bad enough, try not to break the laws of time as well.

You treat the wound as having being saved to a model with no armour save which is completely legal. Armour save and wounds are not linked. You can lose one and keep the other.

As a Necron player that uses a lot of Scarab Swarms I have to agree with FNP negating ES. Wound was saved, ES doesn't go through. I can understand the other side's reasoning behind it somewhat but to me this feels the logical interpretation.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Does it avoid being wounded if ES goes off? Yes, being wounded is taking a wound off the characteristic, nothing to do with ES, ES is not wounding the model is it?

But if you remove the armor save you are not treating the wound as having been saved.

And if you treat it as saved you can not make your feel no pain roll
since you didn't make your FNP roll you have a unsaved wound
so you roll for FNP If you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES

The only way to break the paradox is resolve both as you are told to resolve it under sequencing. They both were triggered, they both resolve. Or just keep rolling FNP til you fail and take the wound as well. It's a classic time traveling mistake, breaking the rules is bad enough, try not to break the laws of time as well.

Yes, FNP creates a paradox within itself, but that is how the rules are written, so we follow them.

There is no paradox in FNP. In 6th there was a FAQ that ruled FNP to apply after an effect that also triggered on unsaved wounds and applied immediately. FNP's wording hasn't changed. No paradox then, no paradox now...

copper.talos wrote:
There is no paradox in FNP. In 6th there was a FAQ that ruled FNP to apply after an effect that also triggered on unsaved wounds and applied immediately. FNP's wording hasn't changed. No paradox then, no paradox now...

This is not 100% correct.

In 6th there was a FAQ that ruled FNP to apply after Force weapon activation. This is the important distinction because an activated Force weapon negated the FNP roll altogether.

I am 100% correct. Force back then was a special rule that triggered from an unsaved wound and applied immediately. FNP was ruled to apply after it.

DeathReaper wrote:
This, The underlined part, in the wording of activation makes FNP go first.

It does not say that it goes first it tells you what it is. You do understand that it has to specifically say what rules it negates right? It's not something you can say under my interpretation it gets to do x. In order for it to negate a rule it must say it negates x or does not follow x or uses these rules instead of x. Like the Abyssal staff using leadership instead of Toughness. You can't provide that.

OIIIIIIO wrote:Then you are not treating the wound as having been saved ... that, too, is a paradox. You are applying damage to something that it has been explicitly avoided ... you treat it as having been saved.

Only if you use your interpretation of going back in time. If you use the whole sentence and say that the wound is discounted, as this is not defined they had to add to treat it as saved as that was spelled out, you reduce the cost of the wound which is the fact that the model does not have it's wounds reduced by one, then everything is fine. No rule is broken if you use the whole sentence.

Gravmyr wrote:
Anyone arguing that you can't apply ES to a model that has not suffered a wound please explain why you are applying one rule and not the rest then. If both abilities require an unsaved wound how are you applying the effects of one and not the other.

Because otherwise FNP is nonfunctional. As I've pointed out. Perhaps you missed my post?

Secondly if you think that changing the wound from unsaved to saved stops the resolution of an already triggered SR post a rule that states that you cannot apply it. As has been posted already we have multiple abilities triggered you need to show a rule that actually stops their resolution after they have been triggered. It is like the stacking of psychic powers, the trigger has been met I now have permission to resolve the effect.

No, false, proven incorrect, not sure how else to say this.
I'm not saying that the resolution of ES is stopped. I'm saying that to apply the ES effect to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound is breaking a rule.

There is a very good example question from 6th. If a model with force a weapon hit a model with FNP, attempts to activate the weapon but suffers a perils and dies, does that model come back and regain it's warp charge if the other model makes his FNP roll? Those are the kinds of things we are arguing against, history revision in which you may cause other problems such as model placement or changes in wound allocation.

In 6th it was FAQed and this argument can no longer apply, so you're bringing up irrelevant issues. Perhaps you could use relevant arguments when you post? That'd be great.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Does it avoid being wounded if ES goes off? Yes, being wounded is taking a wound off the characteristic, nothing to do with ES, ES is not wounding the model is it?

But if you remove the armor save you are not treating the wound as having been saved.

And if you treat it as saved you can not make your feel no pain roll
since you didn't make your FNP roll you have a unsaved wound
so you roll for FNP If you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES

The only way to break the paradox is resolve both as you are told to resolve it under sequencing. They both were triggered, they both resolve. Or just keep rolling FNP til you fail and take the wound as well. It's a classic time traveling mistake, breaking the rules is bad enough, try not to break the laws of time as well.

Yes, FNP creates a paradox within itself, but that is how the rules are written, so we follow them.

I'm glad you agree, roll til you fail.

copper.talos wrote:
I am 100% correct. Force back then was a special rule that triggered from an unsaved wound and applied immediately. FNP was ruled to apply after it.

Yes the FAQ ruled that Force happens before FNP.

However, they did not say that Force happens first because it is resolved immediately.

If you really want to know why in that situation Force had to go first, let me know, I'll gladly explain it.

First you say that the FAQ didn't give an explanation and then you offer to give one. Well that would be your own explanation and I am not interested in that.

This FAQ made clear one thing. A special ability that triggered from an unsaved wound applied before FNP. Its ruling is compatible with the "However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative" and the timing provided by "immediately". The only thing that FAQ is not compatible to is FNP creating a time paradox. These are not explanations. These are facts.

Gravmyr wrote:
I have already posted the relent rules. Multiple times. When you are just joining in the conversation and your only response is to agree with another poster but not add anything then respond that part of a rule answers three questions.....

I made three statements, of which two had questions. Answering "I did ... see the post above yours where the rules say avoid? I even underlined it. If you AVOID being wounded how are you applying the effects of ES to something that has been avoided?" Which does this answer?

Using the logic that FNP has removed the unsaved wound and you cannot apply the effects of an SR that requires an unsaved wound how are you rolling for FNP? Whatever reason you can come up with reinforces that you can apply SR's that require an unsaved wound even after the initial trigger is removed.

I also asked about a scenario from 6th that was not answered and gives a good idea behind your logical process. The question about halting an already activated SR is valid and there is no rule in the book that stops it from happening. It is exactly like activating a power, once activated how do you stop the resolution?

If the trigger is removed then there is no rolling for FNP because there is no more unsaved wound. FNP pulls a marty mcfly. Think of FNP as reseting that wound from unsaved to saved. If it is saved you don't need to roll for FNP because there is no longer an unsaved wound.

For "Using the logic that FNP has removed the unsaved wound and you cannot apply the effects of an SR that requires an unsaved wound how are you rolling for FNP?" You aren't rolling FNP for a saved wound. FNP changes the outcome of the unsaved wound to a saved wound making it no longer needed to be rolled, because there is no longer an unsaved wound. If the trigger is removed there is no action for the SR to apply to.

For " If both abilities require an unsaved wound how are you applying the effects of one and not the other?" you are applying both it doesn't matter what order. ES says "oh hey an unsaved wound no more armor!" then FNP says "Oh hey an unsaved wound...(roll is made and saved) oh wait my mistake that is a saved wound." and goes away. ES blinks and looks at the "unsaved wound" and says "oh wait my mistake there wasn't an unsaved wound nvm i can't apply my effect" and goes away. Does this explain it better for you?

copper.talos:

If you have a model with 1 Wound and FNP, and I shoot it with a weapon that does not cause ID, can I decide that you subtract 1 Wound from the profile (meaning the model is removed as a casualty), before rolling FNP, since they happen at the same time?

copper.talos wrote:
I am 100% correct. Force back then was a special rule that triggered from an unsaved wound and applied immediately. FNP was ruled to apply after it.

No you are not 100% correct. Force caused ID, so that is why FNP could not be taken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I'm glad you agree, roll til you fail.

Not at all, once you pass FNP we treat the wound as if the armor/cover/invuln was passed, no more rolls needed.

Bottom line: To apply the ES effect to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound is breaking a rule.

rigeld2 wrote:
Because otherwise FNP is nonfunctional. As I've pointed out. Perhaps you missed my post?

So it doesn't keep the model alive? Interesting.....it's not our stance that they die.

rigeld2 wrote:No, false, proven incorrect, not sure how else to say this.
I'm not saying that the resolution of ES is stopped. I'm saying that to apply the ES effect to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound is breaking a rule.

Still have not been able to make a valid argument as to why you choose to apply one and not the other. Until you can present that there is no reason to read anything else posted.

rigeld2 wrote:In 6th it was FAQed and this argument can no longer apply, so you're bringing up irrelevant issues. Perhaps you could use relevant arguments when you post? That'd be great.

Does that mean your logic is irrelevant as well? It is a good basis as the rules concerning this have not changed.

Happyjew wrote:Yes the FAQ ruled that Force happens before FNP.

However, they did not say that Force happens first because it is resolved immediately.

If you really want to know why in that situation Force had to go first, let me know, I'll gladly explain it.

We have to use what the rules say unless you have a GW official release that specifically tells us the full reasoning. The only difference in the wording of the two is the use of immediately.

@happyjew You subtract the wound after all the abilities that trigger from an unsaved wound are resolved in the correct order.

 DeathReaper wrote:

No you are not 100% correct. Force caused ID, so that is why FNP could not be taken.

So since Force caused ID after it was applied, you agree that special rules that trigger from unsaved and apply immediately, they do so before FNP. So ES resolves first leaving the model with armour save. Then FNP applies to a model with no armour save and if successful the wound is discounted, which results in leaving a model with no armour save and full wounds.

copper.talos wrote:
@happyjew You subtract the wound after all the abilities that trigger from an unsaved wound are resolved in the correct order..

Why can I not decide to have the Wound subtraction take place at the first? They happen at the same time right? And since it is my turn I get to choose the order of operations, right?

So you still make FMC's take a grounding test at the end of the phase even if the unsaved wound is being treated as saved through FNP?

@happyjew I suggest you read about basic vs advanced rules.

@DeathReaper Grounded tests do not happen immediately after an unsaved wound.,ES does. That is the basis of my argument that makes ES apply before FNP so it cannot be used for grounded tests.

Gravmyr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because otherwise FNP is nonfunctional. As I've pointed out. Perhaps you missed my post?

So it doesn't keep the model alive? Interesting.....it's not our stance that they die.

But it is if you are attempting to appear consistent. As I've explained. Do I need to repeat myself?

rigeld2 wrote:No, false, proven incorrect, not sure how else to say this.
I'm not saying that the resolution of ES is stopped. I'm saying that to apply the ES effect to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound is breaking a rule.

Still have not been able to make a valid argument as to why you choose to apply one and not the other. Until you can present that there is no reason to read anything else posted.

Because, and I apparently have to repeat myself, FNP literally does nothing if it can't cancel out "triggers".

rigeld2 wrote:In 6th it was FAQed and this argument can no longer apply, so you're bringing up irrelevant issues. Perhaps you could use relevant arguments when you post? That'd be great.

Does that mean your logic is irrelevant as well? It is a good basis as the rules concerning this have not changed.

No. I'm using arguments from this edition, not last edition.

We have to use what the rules say unless you have a GW official release that specifically tells us the full reasoning. The only difference in the wording of the two is the use of immediately.

Please tell me where, in the rules, Force is tested for on an Unsaved Wound. As far as I can tell, that was last edition. So please - do use what the current rules say.

copper.talos wrote:
@DeathReaper Grounded tests do not happen immediately after an unsaved wound.,ES does. That is the basis of my argument that makes ES apply before FNP so it cannot be used for grounded tests.

What is the difference?

If you allow ES/Concussive to trigger would you deny the grounding test?

That is not consistent, because you are saying that the model suffered an unsaved wound for ES/Concussive, but not for grounding tests...

rigeld2 wrote:

Because, and I apparently have to repeat myself, FNP literally does nothing if it can't cancel out "triggers".

No, it allows a model to not lose a wound. A rule that literally does nothing is the skimmer that is forced to end it's move over an enemy model being offset so it is not on said model. Since the only way to end a move on an enemy model is deep striking. As Tank shock/ramming moves the enemy models out from under the tank.

So yes not taking a wound is an effect, and is not literally doing nothing.

I don't see how you are calling it an unsaved wound when you still have a roll to save it.

rigeld2 wrote:But it is if you are attempting to appear consistent. As I've explained. Do I need to repeat myself?

Casualty removal is not an SR nor a psychic power. If you want to try to straw man me and choose to say it is on my turns you will be forced to remove the model before you can roll for FNP.

rigeld2 wrote:Because, and I apparently have to repeat myself, FNP literally does nothing if it can't cancel out "triggers".

Good to know you have to live in a world of absolutes..... this is not a game for that there is an exception to nearly every rule.

rigeld2 wrote:No. I'm using arguments from this edition, not last edition.

Doesn't mean the logic behind them is any different then last edition or marks any better sense.

DeathReaper wrote:What is the difference?

If you allow ES/Concussive to trigger would you deny the grounding test?

That is not consistent, because you are saying that the model suffered an unsaved wound for ES/Concussive, but not for grounding tests...

Those tests are also not SR's.

For a full breakdown just so you don't have to go back to the other thread and this one from earlier and collect my views.
1: Active player chooses which order they are resolved in.
2: If there is a wording to indicate haste those are done first, ie Entropic Strike.

After looking at this I have to side with ES/Concussive, applying to a model that failed its Save but passed its FNP.

1: Different USR are cumulative.

2: Player who's turn it is decides sequence.

3: FNP requires an unsaved wound to trigger.

4: A model can avoid wound lose (Via FNP) and still be concussed or lose it armour save etc...

@DeathReaper

as Gravmyr pointed out Grounded test is not a SR. Furthermore the wordings are very different between ES and Grounded test. Immediately isn't the same as the end of the phase, is it? And lastly the FAQ was about a SR that triggers on an unsaved wound and happens immediately. So it covers ES but not grounded tests.

Gravmyr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:But it is if you are attempting to appear consistent. As I've explained. Do I need to repeat myself?

Casualty removal is not an SR nor a psychic power. If you want to try to straw man me and choose to say it is on my turns you will be forced to remove the model before you can roll for FNP.

rigeld2 wrote:Because, and I apparently have to repeat myself, FNP literally does nothing if it can't cancel out "triggers".

Good to know you have to live in a world of absolutes..... this is not a game for that there is an exception to nearly every rule.

These two answers together are amusing to me. So you agree that your interpretation leads to FNP being useless, and you call it a Strawman at the same time. Cool story bro?

rigeld2 wrote:No. I'm using arguments from this edition, not last edition.

Doesn't mean the logic behind them is any different then last edition or marks any better sense.

When your bring up rules as support and those rules (Force) have drastically changed, the logic must be different. You brought up Force, not me. You need to defend the choice to bring it up because it's totally irrelevant.

For a full breakdown just so you don't have to go back to the other thread and this one from earlier and collect my views.
1: Active player chooses which order they are resolved in.
2: If there is a wording to indicate haste those are done first, ie Entropic Strike.

When you are hit, sit down and act like you weren't hit.
Immediately after you are hit, jump up and down 3 times.

Go ahead - keep pretending that "immediately" happens sooner than "when". And that suffering something that requires an unsaved wound is totally with the rules when a model hasn't suffered one. Because that argument means FNP does nothing.

FNP: When you suffer an unsaved wound.
ES: Immediately AFTER suffering an unsaved wound.

With this wording, FNP happens first because it happens while the wound is being suffered while ES happens after it is suffered. If FNP is successful then the wound is treated as being saved and is not suffered.

No paradox... no time loop... just simple rules.

edit: adding rules quotes cause stuff

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

Entropic Strike
"Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds... (effects of the rule)"

rigeld2 wrote:

When you are hit, sit down and act like you weren't hit.
Immediately after you are hit, jump up and down 3 times.

The above example is biased and incorrect. The correct form would be like this:

When you are hit, sit down and act like you weren't hit.
When you are hit, immediately jump up and down 3 times.

So the immediate action would happen before the other one.

Edit: The correct wording for ES: "Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds..." so there is no difference between FNP and ES. Both trigger at the same event.

for all the people who think FnP triggers at the same time as things that count unsaved wounds.

If you have a unit of 1 wound models in assault that is wounded 9 times, has a 3+ armor save, and fails 3 saves. Suffering 6 wounds.

They have a 5+ FnP roll, and make 2 out of the 6 FnP rolls, leaving 4 unsaved wounds.

the unit removes 4 models.

Does it count unsaved wounds for combat resolution as 6 or 4?

ASSAULT RESULT Unsaved Wounds caused in a challenge count towards the assault result, alongside any unsaved Wounds caused by the rest of the characters’ units.

if there was an unsaved wound it would count as a unsaved wound per the assault results.

if FnP passes means there was never an unsaved wound, it would not.

If you for some reason think that the unit suffers 6 unsaved wounds for the assault results, please explain why this isn't mentioned under FnP, as models with FnP being in assault isn't really something unlikely to happen.

The check of how many unsaved wounds were caused first of all is not a SR and secondly it happens after FNP fully resolves. ES is a SR that is triggered at the same time as FNP and applies immediately therefore before FNP.

That's not the point.

If there was never an unsaved wound, it would not count towards combat results.

if there was never an unsaved wound that means that FnP if rolled successfully means there was never an unsaved wound.

If FnP treats the wound as saved (which it does RAW) and there was never an unsaved wound, then you cannot trigger anything SR or otherwise off of the never unsaved wound.

which is what people have been saying since the first part of this thread.

IE regardless of order of operation even if FnP and ES happened at the same time. If you do apply ES to a model that passed FnP you have broken the rules for ES as there was never an unsaved wound.

copper.talos wrote:
The check of how many unsaved wounds were caused first of all is not a SR and secondly it happens after FNP fully resolves. ES is a SR that is triggered at the same time as FNP and applies immediately therefore before FNP.

how is 'immediately after' before 'when it happens'?

Why is it being a "special rule" even relevant? It's been brought up dozens of time but no one has said why it's relevant.

I am guessing some people are imagining it is, then claiming both ES and FnP happen at the same time so they can pick which goes first, despite the fact one obviously means the other could never happen regardless of the order if it succeeds as it means the event never happened.

rigeld2 wrote:
Why is it being a "special rule" even relevant? It's been brought up dozens of time but no one has said why it's relevant.

There is a section in the basic rule book (page 17 as noted earlier) that says that special rules can cause some timing issues and then lists how to resolve these timing issues. It explicitly calls out special rules only. Things that are not special rules are not covered by this.

Feel No Pain and Entropic Strike does NOT happen at the same time. The rules for timing of special rules states that you must perform one first, then the other. It also states that the active player is free to choose which one goes first.

The problem seems to be that the Feel No Pain rules are somewhat vague and with certain interpretations it implies that you should go back in time and reverse effects that happened earlier in the game. To solve this, some people suggest ignoring the rules for special rule timing. This is not acceptable to all people in this thread.

WGMelchior wrote:
Feel No Pain and Entropic Strike does NOT happen at the same time. The rules for timing of special rules states that you must perform one first, then the other. It also states that the active player is free to choose which one goes first.

If they don't happen at the same time, page 17 doesn't apply. So them being special rules is - like I said - irrelevant.

rigeld2 wrote:

WGMelchior wrote:
Feel No Pain and Entropic Strike does NOT happen at the same time. The rules for timing of special rules states that you must perform one first, then the other. It also states that the active player is free to choose which one goes first.

If they don't happen at the same time, page 17 doesn't apply. So them being special rules is - like I said - irrelevant.

The activation conditions for both are filled at the same time. But the effects are not resolved at the same time. You perform the effects of one completely, then you perform the effects of the other. I apologize for being unclear.

I guess it's important for this to only apply to special rules, otherwise the active player would probably try to sneak in the "If W=0, you die" rule first and completely bypass Feel No Pain on single wound models.

WGMelchior wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

WGMelchior wrote:
Feel No Pain and Entropic Strike does NOT happen at the same time. The rules for timing of special rules states that you must perform one first, then the other. It also states that the active player is free to choose which one goes first.

If they don't happen at the same time, page 17 doesn't apply. So them being special rules is - like I said - irrelevant.

The activation conditions for both are filled at the same time. But the effects are not resolved at the same time. You perform the effects of one completely, then you perform the effects of the other. I apologize for being unclear.

I guess it's important for this to only apply to special rules, otherwise the active player would probably try to sneak in the "If W=0, you die" rule first and completely bypass Feel No Pain on single wound models.

First of all, you misquoted the rule. It is not limited to special rules.

While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order.

Emphasis mine, note that it doesn't say "special". This is from the digital copy, so if it's not what you're referring to please quote it.
So again, being special is irrelevant.
Note also that the rule says "resolved" not "triggered". And also if the wording isn't clear as to which is to be resolved first.
FNP must be resolved first in all cases because you don't know if you have an unsaved wound or not until after it resolves. Clear by reading the rules, no timing issues, no going back in time. Claiming otherwise means you have a special rule (FNP) that literally does nothing.

Zimko wrote:
FNP: When you suffer an unsaved wound.
ES: Immediately AFTER suffering an unsaved wound.

With this wording, FNP happens first because it happens while the wound is being suffered while ES happens after it is suffered. If FNP is successful then the wound is treated as being saved and is not suffered.

No paradox... no time loop... just simple rules.

edit: adding rules quotes cause stuff

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

Entropic Strike
"Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds... (effects of the rule)"

This settles it for me. The wound was avoided, there is no wound.

Naw wrote:

Zimko wrote:
FNP: When you suffer an unsaved wound.
ES: Immediately AFTER suffering an unsaved wound.

With this wording, FNP happens first because it happens while the wound is being suffered while ES happens after it is suffered. If FNP is successful then the wound is treated as being saved and is not suffered.

No paradox... no time loop... just simple rules.

edit: adding rules quotes cause stuff

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

Entropic Strike
"Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds... (effects of the rule)"

This settles it for me. The wound was avoided, there is no wound.

Agreed... FNP is during the act of taking the wound, ES is after that act has been resolved. Thus they are not at the same time, and ES never is triggered because the unsaved wound is stopped before the trigger happens.

rigeld2 wrote:
FNP must be resolved first in all cases because you don't know if you have an unsaved wound or not until after it resolves. Clear by reading the rules, no timing issues, no going back in time. Claiming otherwise means you have a special rule (FNP) that literally does nothing.

That is indeed how we played it in my town but we always considered it a house rule to make Feel No Pain part of the actual saving process. I personally think Feel No Pain should be clarified because it is not explicit, only very implicit, in the wording on timing.

Zimko wrote:FNP: When you suffer an unsaved wound.
ES: Immediately AFTER suffering an unsaved wound.

With this wording, FNP happens first because it happens while the wound is being suffered while ES happens after it is suffered. If FNP is successful then the wound is treated as being saved and is not suffered.

No paradox... no time loop... just simple rules.

edit: adding rules quotes cause stuff

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

Entropic Strike
"Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds... (effects of the rule)"

See that is part of the issue, as DR can attest they threw suffers, suffer and suffered around willey nilley in 5th. I thought it implied timing as well but it's use is all over the board.

Beyond that please take a look at the wording of FNP from 5th. "If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound..." Entropic strike reads: "Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds..." Looking at these wordings and the argument that ES happens after the wound is suffered, I assume you never rolled FNP as it would have happened after the model was removed from the board. If you didn't and you rolled it right after the saves then why are you trying to move when ES happens in this edition?

blaktoof wrote:I am guessing some people are imagining it is, then claiming both ES and FnP happen at the same time so they can pick which goes first, despite the fact one obviously means the other could never happen regardless of the order if it succeeds as it means the event never happened.

This is a permission based ruleset. You need a rule that tells you that something is going to happen in a particular order. if the trigger is the same, like concussive and FNP it can imply all it wants but unless there is wording that specifically states do this before everything else or this rule overrides x then you go by the basic rules. There is no line that states this.

The half line that the time traveling side keeps quoting also states that the wound is discounted which is present tense before telling you to treat it as having been saved. Why focus on that wording and throw the rest of the sentence away?

In the end you need to provide a rule, a specific one, stating that you do not use the rules on pg 17 for sequencing. Looking at it I still say they need to reword sr's and casualty removal otherwise I do in fact have the option of forcing the wound to be removed first.

Except then you'd be breaking the rules by not discounting the wound or treating it as having been saved when FNP tells you to.

Your method breaks rules. Mine does not. Your method renders FNP literally pointless. Mine does not. How could yours possibly be correct, assuming the writers did not write pointless rules?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Bottom line: To apply the ES effect to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound is breaking a rule.

Well, their stance is that at the moment they apply ES it wouldn't be breaking a rule.
I can see how they think that and it's my opinion that GW should make a FAQ telling us that FNP comes before any other effect. That's how we play it.

rigeld2 wrote:
Except then you'd be breaking the rules by not discounting the wound or treating it as having been saved when FNP tells you to.

Your method breaks rules. Mine does not. Your method renders FNP literally pointless. Mine does not. How could yours possibly be correct, assuming the writers did not write pointless rules?

Still stops the removal of a wound, so not literally pointless. Your method breaks the order of operations rule, and the multiple special rules affecting a single model rule. So how can you possibly be correct? Assuming GW doesn't write pointless rules, which they do.

This will go around forever, because both ways breaks a rule, if not more. Using the order of operations rule, your way works in your turn, with FnP going first, and in our turn it works the way we say, and goes second. This is supported in the rules.

The model has to suffer one or more Unsaved Wounds for ES, Concussive, Pinning, Soul Blaze, and Strikedown to take effect.

With FNP there is no unsaved wound suffered.

When an Unsaved wound is suffered by a FMC it needs to take a grounding test, you only do this is FNP is failed, ergo unless you fail FNP you do not suffer an unsaved wound.

How I didn't realize this nugget of information before is beyond me. Thank you for the debate gentlemen, but it turns out that FNP is indeed first as I have rules showing it as such.

(The ES, Concussive, Pinning, Soul Blaze, and Strikedown rules all include the wording "suffers one or more unsaved Wounds").

 DeathReaper wrote:
The model has to suffer one or more Unsaved Wounds for ES, Concussive, Pinning, Soul Blaze, and Strikedown to take effect.

With FNP there is no unsaved wound suffered.

When an Unsaved wound is suffered by a FMC it needs to take a grounding test, you only do this is FNP is failed, ergo unless you fail FNP you do not suffer an unsaved wound.

How I didn't realize this nugget of information before is beyond me. Thank you for the debate gentlemen, but it turns out that FNP is indeed first as I have rules showing it as such.

(The ES, Concussive, Pinning, Soul Blaze, and Strikedown rules all include the wording "suffers one or more unsaved Wounds").

So then what is required to make a FNP roll in the first place? At what Part of the Pahse does this roll happen?

What is Required to make a Ground Check? and at what part of the Phase does this roll/Check happen?

Fnp Can only be roll for if and only if the Model suffers an unsaved wound, and this roll is made after the unsaved wound is suffered.

A grounding Check is made for a Model that suffers an unsaved Wound, and this roll happens at the end of the phase in which the model suffered an unsaved wound.

How then can you use the argument that, a Roll at the end of the phase which is only taken if a model suffered an unsaved wound is in anyway the same as a effect that happens the very instant a model suffers an unsaved wound? A grounding check which triggers off of an unsaved wound (Which FNP can negate due to when FNp is rolled Verses when the Grounding check is made) is in no way the same as two effects that trigger, off the same trigger, at the same instant.

It seems that this is a case of Player turn deciding what happens first much like MMS and Challenges.

No, Deathreaper pointed out critical wording i had not noticed either in the rule:
"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded"

When you suffer is at the exact same point in time as the wound itself. Whereas all the other rules (and grounded) are after you know if you have an unsaved wound or not (after you roll your armor save+FNP)

The wording for ES regarding the trigger event is exactly the same with FNP. What is valid for one is valid for the other. They are different to when they apply their effect. ES must happen immediately FNP must not. Immediate actions take priority over non immediate ones, so FNP tries to negate the wound to a model that has no armour save.

@DR: See that is what I have been asking for, a rule based reason not an interpretation or RAI. I can and do get behind this reasoning, I hadn't looked at each individually and apparently neither had DR. Good catch.

I'd like to see how they word ES when it comes out... Knowing them they'll come up with a more vague way of putting it just to make life interesting.

 BlackTalos wrote:
No, Deathreaper pointed out critical wording i had not noticed either in the rule:
"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded"

When you suffer is at the exact same point in time as the wound itself. Whereas all the other rules (and grounded) are after you know if you have an unsaved wound or not (after you roll your armor save+FNP)

(Emphasis mine)

100% this, the underlined specifically.

If ES wording used "suffered" you would have been correct. Both rules use present tense for a reason. And you should wonder why all major tournaments (BAO, ECT) have ruled that ES applies before FNP. Are all TOs wrong?

What's the relevance of the BAO to this rules discussion?

Are you claiming TO's are rules writers or that they have special inside input that we don't?

Major tournaments have a bunch of people spending lots of time to make a FAQ. If one FAQ agrees with an argument it can be a coincidence, if all FAQs agree it must mean something. And at least players that want to play in a competitive environment should be aware of this.

BAO also ruled that a character can join a unit that infiltrates despite the clear RAW that they can't.

Are you claiming TO rulings should be used as official rulings?

I guess everyone should make a note in their rulebook that a 2++ rerollable only succeeds on a reroll of 4+ right?

Stick to the facts.

"2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs...."

BAO and other TO are not "real" faqs and are only homebrew rules that are "made on the fly".

RAW es needs an unsaved wound.
RAW FNP makes the wound as if it was never unsaved.

HIWP FNP "resets" the wound needed for ES causing ES to not trigger.

If you want to do the FNP first / above all others side any good in the discussion, stop stating that FNP changes the past or resets anything. FNP changes a wound from unsaved to saved. If you state it goes back in time to do that then you are forcing it to cause a paradox within itself. If it's viable for one rule to function in that paradox it stands that it is also viable for other rules to function in that paradox. FNP needs an unsaved wound just as much as ES concussive or any of the others.

Yeah except FnP discounts the wound so.... There is no unsaved wound.

"Treat the wound as having been saved" changes the past.

but it doesn't matter because you have to actually suffer an unsaved wound to apply Entropic Strike, Concussive, ect.

You do not actually suffer an Unsaved wound unless the FNP roll is failed.

If you have not suffered the wound then FNP cannot activate.

FnP discounts it. It never happened.

Do you know what discount means?

The rule says treat it as being saved. Are you doing that if you appy ES?

You 're not getting it have you read the thread? If you say you can't apply ES because there is no wound then how are you applying FNP with there being no wound?

Yep I've been reading the thread, and its been mentioned to you more times than needed.

You don't know if you have a unsaved wound until you have made the FnP roll. Mmkay?

Gravmyr wrote:
You 're not getting it have you read the thread? If you say you can't apply ES because there is no wound then how are you applying FNP with there being no wound?

By your logic you can never roll FNP ever

I find it interesting that the Pro-ES side wants ES, Concussive, etc to work, however, they do not think that I should decide that the Wound removal happens before FNP, despite happening at the same time as FNP.

You need that wound to be suffered in order for FNP to activate. By negating that you are breaking the same rule that you are claiming applying ES would... You still didn't answer my question by the way. How are you activating FNP without a wound?

Gravmyr wrote:
You need that wound to be suffered in order for FNP to activate. By negating that you are breaking the same rule that you are claiming applying ES would... You still didn't answer my question by the way. How are you activating FNP without a wound?

We know this is wrong because if you were right FNP would never work

Then please answer how you can activate FNP without an unsaved wound.

Gravmyr wrote:
If you have not suffered the wound then FNP cannot activate.

You actually suffer a wound when you reduce the models wounds by 1. This does not happen with FNP.

When you suffer is at the exact same point in time as the wound itself. Whereas all the other rules (and grounded) are after you know if you have an unsaved wound or not (after you roll your armor save+FNP)

Gravmyr wrote:
Then please answer how you can activate FNP without an unsaved wound.

It works because FNP wouldn't work otherwise

To quote FNP "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound..."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do I need to go back and bring in your own arguments about suffer DR?

Yes. It paradoxically negates itself . But since FNP is a written rule we have to assume it still works because it would be redundant to write a rule that does not function at all. So the only safe assumption is that FNP would still work in this situation.

Yet you have no issue saying that it would break a rule to apply es to a model without an unsaved wound so it can't apply and simply allow the model to not lower it's wounds by one? The definition of discount, to lower the cost, would fit this interpretation perfectly.

Edit: Fixed a mis-speak

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
If you have not suffered the wound then FNP cannot activate.

You actually suffer a wound when you reduce the models wounds by 1. This does not happen with FNP.

When you suffer is at the exact same point in time as the wound itself. Whereas all the other rules (and grounded) are after you know if you have an unsaved wound or not (after you roll your armor save+FNP)

While I understand what you are saying from the HYWPI Side, From a RAW prospective both FNP and Other USR's that trigger at the same time are resolved in the case of a conflict by the Controlling turns player.

While FNP treats an unsaved Wound as saved, it still requires an unsaved wound to trigger. And there is no other trigger given that will allow a FNP roll other than suffering an unsaved wound in the first place.

This is the identical argument to Force Vs FNP back in 6th. Where the Pro FNP side kept stating that you had to resolve FNP First to see if Force could even be activated, despite the wording of Force stating if happened immediately.

While I do not have an issue with FNP stopping the loss of the Wound, I cannot see how a model that has suffered an unsaved wound (Which is the trigger for FNP) does not also lose its armour save, or be reduced to I-1 due to the same said Unsaved Wound (Which is the trigger for the other Effects)

Gravmyr wrote:
Yet you have no issue saying that it would paradoxical to apply es to a model without an unsaved wound so it can't apply and simply allow the model to not lower it's wounds by one? The definition of discount, to lower the cost, would fit this interpretation perfectly.

Entropic Strike and the like don't have a effect paradoxically negating themselves.

FNP does.

Except you treat the wound as saved if you pass FnP.

Its not unsaved.

@BarBoBot If you go back in time then there wasn't a wound to activate it.

Gravmyr wrote:
@BarBoBot If you go back in time then there wasn't a wound to activate it.

FNP's existence would be redundant so we know it still works despite this being the case.

 BLADERIKER wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
If you have not suffered the wound then FNP cannot activate.

You actually suffer a wound when you reduce the models wounds by 1. This does not happen with FNP.

When you suffer is at the exact same point in time as the wound itself. Whereas all the other rules (and grounded) are after you know if you have an unsaved wound or not (after you roll your armor save+FNP)

While I understand what you are saying from the HYWPI Side, From a RAW prospective both FNP and Other USR's that trigger at the same time are resolved in the case of a conflict by the Controlling turns player.

While FNP treats an unsaved Wound as saved, it still requires an unsaved wound to trigger. And there is no other trigger given that will allow a FNP roll other than suffering an unsaved wound in the first place.

This is the identical argument to Force Vs FNP back in 6th. Where the Pro FNP side kept stating that you had to resolve FNP First to see if Force could even be activated, despite the wording of Force stating if happened immediately.

While I do not have an issue with FNP stopping the loss of the Wound, I cannot see how a model that has suffered an unsaved wound (Which is the trigger for FNP) does not also lose its armour save, or be reduced to I-1 due to the same said Unsaved Wound (Which is the trigger for the other Effects)

There are a number of things that apply when a model suffers a Wound. FNP, ES, Concussive, reduce the model's Wounds by 1, etc.

If ES, Concussive, etc. can happen first due to timing, then during my turn, I can decide to have the "reduce the model's Wounds by 1." go first. This means that FNP does absolutely nothing except on the owning player's turn.

You want an actual working thought out breaking no rules or logic use this. The act of reducing the models wounds by 1 is the model suffering the wound. At the moment of reducing the wounds by 1 is "when a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound......" Roll for FNP and treat it as having been saved from that moment forward. Therefor the wound is not suffered.... Now no paradox and it actually spells out where FNP would go and that the rest of the rules go. Or you can continue to say that it goes back in time and negates itself.... which by default breaks a rule.

 BLADERIKER wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
If you have not suffered the wound then FNP cannot activate.

You actually suffer a wound when you reduce the models wounds by 1. This does not happen with FNP.

When you suffer is at the exact same point in time as the wound itself. Whereas all the other rules (and grounded) are after you know if you have an unsaved wound or not (after you roll your armor save+FNP)

While I understand what you are saying from the HYWPI Side, From a RAW prospective both FNP and Other USR's that trigger at the same time are resolved in the case of a conflict by the Controlling turns player.

While FNP treats an unsaved Wound as saved, it still requires an unsaved wound to trigger. And there is no other trigger given that will allow a FNP roll other than suffering an unsaved wound in the first place.

This is the identical argument to Force Vs FNP back in 6th. Where the Pro FNP side kept stating that you had to resolve FNP First to see if Force could even be activated, despite the wording of Force stating if happened immediately.

While I do not have an issue with FNP stopping the loss of the Wound, I cannot see how a model that has suffered an unsaved wound (Which is the trigger for FNP) does not also lose its armour save, or be reduced to I-1 due to the same said Unsaved Wound (Which is the trigger for the other Effects)

Actually I have not posted one "HYWPI Side" argument, it is all RAW.

When you suffer an unsaved wound is at the exact same point in time as the failed save. Whereas all the other rules (and grounded) are after you know if you have an unsaved wound or not (after you roll your armor save+FNP)

@crownaxe Your missing the point of time traveling at that point when you would need FNP to activate there wouldn't be an unsaved wound to do so therefor nothing would go back to change it to saved..... There is no point where there would be a redundancy.

It.doesn't matter if passing fnp negates the need to roll fnp because.if.the.wound is saved then the wound is saved and no effect can be applied as the required an unsaved wound which never happened, and the fact that the wound was saved is fine with fnp as it now just means you didn't need to roll fnp.as the wound was saved.

Except then you would get to the point where we went back in time and the wound would become unsaved as nothing went back to change it.

Gravmyr wrote:
@crownaxe Your missing the point of time traveling at that point when you would need FNP to activate there wouldn't be an unsaved wound to do so therefor nothing would go back to change it to saved..... There is no point where there would be a redundancy.

It's like you didn't even read my post. I proved that when time traveling to make the wound saved FNP still works

No you make a HIWPI comment not prove raw it works. Claiming that it has to do something and can't stop itself is not an argument nor is claiming a rule has to do something. If that's the case when can the skimmer rule about moving off models after being forced to stop ever kick in?

Did you look at my post where I actually gave you a working non-paradoxical argument?

Gravmyr wrote:
No you make a HIWPI comment not prove raw it works. Claiming that it has to do something and can't stop itself is not an argument nor is claiming a rule has to do something. If that's the case when can the skimmer rule about moving off models after being forced to stop ever kick in?

Did you look at my post where I actually gave you a working non-paradoxical argument?

How is anything I said a HIWPI argument. You think I would jump through such hoops just to rationalize something that doesn't need any rules basis what so ever.

And you didn't give me a proper argument. You tried to claim that Entropic Strike is a paradox too which is completely wrong.

Fixed that.

You've already said it's paradoxical. In order to end the cycle that it creates you have to do one of two things roll until you fail or stop at a rule being applied to wound when the model has not suffered an unsaved wound. Since you put forth stopping at the second it is exactly like applying ES to a model that has not suffered and unsaved wound at that point, now isn't it?

Gravmyr wrote:
Fixed that.

You've already said it's paradoxical. In order to end the cycle that it creates you have to do one of two things roll until you fail or stop at a rule being applied to wound when the model has not suffered an unsaved wound. Since you put forth stopping at the second it is exactly like applying ES to a model that has not suffered and unsaved wound at that point, now isn't it?

No. ES doesn't force you to ignore a wound. If you require FNP to roll over and over the rule literally does nothing.

Keep tilting though.

The game is linear. There is even a rule for when multiple rules are activated at the same time. My turn I chose when they occur. It is not our fault that GW can't write consistent/logical rules. I am sure that it is intended to prevent wounds, I am also sure that in my turn when I chose to roll ES first, and you later pass FnP you still lose the armor, but in your turn you can take FnP first and then prevent ES from activating, and I am sure it is meant to go before wound removal, and Grounding tests as those do not happen until the end of the phase, so would be negated by the timing.

It appears to me that the Pro FnP always first is placing an end effect before the trigger. In a linear game it is performed in an order, and the trigger happens regardless of the end effect of the special rule:

Hit
Rules activation order determined by active player
Wound
Rules activation order determined by active player
Fail Save
Rules activation order determined by active player
Remove wounds
Rules activation order determined by active player(grounding test is here)

It is linear until you see that FNP breaks the linear aspect of it by changing the unsaved to saved wound.

we Treat the wound as having been saved, which means that there was not an unsaved wound to begin with.

Treat as having been saved is not a go to the past statement. It is a statement akin to a "from now on" statement.

It's like you go to school with your homework unfinished. You teacher then takes your recess away, makes you do your homework, and then says we'll treat it as if it were done. You don't take an incomplete on the homework, but you still had a side effect of losing your recess.

'... to avoid being wounded ... blah blah blah' clearly dictates that the wound will not count at all. This is part of the FNP rule. If you are avoiding being wounded, then how are you apllying ES to a model at all? It requires a wound, FNP allows you to 'AVOID' the wound. This is very clear on pg. 164.

Come on guys

FNP saved wounds are TREATED AS BEING SAVED. That does in fact mean that effects that activate on successful wounds have no influence if negated by FNP.

I'm not seeing the paradox thing maybe someone can explane it to me in a different way or as a whole?

FNP sees an unsaved wound.
FNP is rolled and is made.
The wound is treated as having been saved.
if we "go to the past" the model saved a wound.
FNP twiddles its thumbs because the model saved the wound.


I'm not seeing the paradox here. Just marty Mcfly.

I don't see how a FNP is a paradox.

1) You get a wound
2) You fail your save
3) You take your Feel No Pain
4) This goes back to the area between #1 and #2 and changes #2 into "You passed your save", creating a new time-line: One with a saved wound.

No one said it should be the same time-line afterwards. Either way, I fail to see how it being a paradox or not has effect on ES.

The point I am trying to make is if you already have a rule that says there has to be an unsaved wound and you've used it claiming that you can't apply another rule with the same logic should be acceptable.

It does not say you go back and pass your save you treat the wound as saved that is the only thing that is changing.

I posted earlier what I think is a good breakdown of how it works. I even posted I agreed with DR's reading of the rules and FNP happens at the moment of suffering and goes first. Why are people claiming it has to go first and that it has to go back in time? If it stops the wound from the moment of the roll then the wound is not suffered and it does not negate itself. I am arguing that we should come up with a line of thought that does not cause inconsistencies or paradox.

Gravmyr wrote:
The point I am trying to make is if you already have a rule that says there has to be an unsaved wound and you've used it claiming that you can't apply another rule with the same logic should be acceptable.

You're claiming if FNP applies then ES has to, and FNP doesn't go back in time, yes?
That's incorrect - to say that is to say FNP does literally nothing.

I posted earlier what I think is a good breakdown of how it works. I even posted I agreed with DR's reading of the rules and FNP happens at the moment of suffering and goes first. Why are people claiming it has to go first and that it has to go back in time? If it stops the wound from the moment of the roll then the wound is not suffered and it does not negate itself. I am arguing that we should come up with a line of thought that does not cause inconsistencies or paradox.

You act like a paradox is a bad thing.
And I made that exact argument earlier, only to be told I was wrong or ignored.

There's essentially two interpretations...

1. FNP is made at the same time the wound is suffered and save is failed. (before ES triggers)

2. FNP and ES trigger at the same time.

If 1 then all is well.

If 2 then pro-FNP side says that upon a successful FNP save we go back in time and treat the wound as saved, thus ES (and FNP, yay no infinite loops) doesn't happen. pro-ES side says active player chooses which happens first and when FNP succeeds it treats the wound as saved from that point onward (no time traveling).

Path of least resistance and fewer rules mangling is 1... I'm going with 1.

Zimko, there is another issue with number 2, Pro-ES side.

They conveniently ignore that reducing the Wounds characteristic by 1 also happens at that time. That means that the only time FNP can do anything is during the owning player's turn.

1 is simply wrong since both trigger events are the same, the occurrance of an unsaved wound.

2 there is no paradox as was proven in the previous FAQ about force. So this whole line of thinking is dead wrong.

You end up with 2 SRs that trigger the same time and 1 happens immediately while the other doesn't. So you must resolve the immediate one first which is ES.

@happyjew SRs are advanced rules that have permission to override basic rules. So while normally after an unsaved wound you reduce the wounds of the model, these rules have permission to override that process. I told you this a few pages ago...

Saying they happen at the same time and require the active player to choose which to use first is one thing... but to say that the word 'immediate' makes it somehow faster is completely wrong and has no basis in the rules.

copper.talos wrote:
1 is simply wrong since both trigger events are the same, the occurrance of an unsaved wound.

2 there is no paradox as was proven in the previous FAQ about force. So this whole line of thinking is dead wrong.

You end up with 2 SRs that trigger the same time and 1 happens immediately while the other doesn't. So you must resolve the immediate one first which is ES.

@happyjew SRs are advanced rules that have permission to override basic rules. So while normally after an unsaved wound you reduce the wounds of the model, these rules have permission to override that process. I told you this a few pages ago...

And the previous ruling for Force weapons could just as easily be used to support the other interpretation. Maybe force was ruled to happen first, because it succeeding negated the potential for FNP to work... therefor since it's result had an effect on other triggers, FNP should come first now since it's success or failure would similarly influence ES or Concussive attacks.

You still don't get it. Force was ruled to resolve before FNP, which means all these theories about time paradox creating FNP are invalid.

Back to reasonable linear time then, where ES is triggered at the same time with FNP but resolves first. FNP doesn't negate any triggers since the model has already lost its armour save.

@zimko immediately is a crucial part of ES' wording to indicate its timing. You can't choose to just ignore it, especially in a rules argument dedicated to the timing of two rules.

The wording for FNP changed since last edition to include the part about treating the wound as saved and now there isn't an FAQ about Force triggering before FNP. The theories about FNP reversing the unsaved wound to being a saved wound is valid because the rule says...

On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved.

This wording was not in 6th edition.

I don't agree with this theory. If they trigger at the same time then I believe the active player chooses which occurs first. But I also don't believe they trigger at the same time.

FNP occurs while resolving whether or not a wound occurs. When a 'to wound' roll succeeds you must then determine if the wound becomes saved. The wording for FNP tells us that it must be resolved to finish the process of determining if the wound is saved or unsaved. Only then can abilities like ES resolve.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
In the end, all the above interpretations are valid. None are absolutely wrong but neither are they explicitly stated by the rules of being correct. An FAQ (once again) is needed. Play it how you wish.

I agree with zimko.

from the wording at start of FnP it happens as part of the wound resolution.

The model hasn't suffered the unsaved wound until after the FnP fails which is at the time of when/if a model suffers an unsvaved wound do x,y,z to it.

Essentially its a reroll on a stat that doesn't exist to not be wounded before you suffer the wound but after you failed everything else that would make the wound unsaved.

This generates no rules weirdness.

having it resolve at the time after a unsaved wound has been suffered means you get situations where you have to include it in assault results, during certain turns people could opt that you remove models because a model that suffers a wound is reduced to 0 wounds and can be removed from play. It could be argued that if you get to pick the order of things then you could pick remove from play comes before FnP rolls after a model suffers an unsaved wound. Which is legal RAW. obviously this does not make sense, especially if FnP passes and there was never an unsaved wound.

Zimko wrote:
The wording for FNP changed since last edition to include the part about treating the wound as saved and now there isn't an FAQ about Force triggering before FNP. The theories about FNP reversing the unsaved wound to being a saved wound is valid because the rule says...

On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved.

This wording was not in 6th edition.

Actually, it was. Page 35.

rigeld2 wrote:

Actually, it was. Page 35.

Touche. Still, old edition is old edition.

rigelds2 wrote:You're claiming if FNP applies then ES has to, and FNP doesn't go back in time, yes?
That's incorrect - to say that is to say FNP does literally nothing.

My big problem is with the way you present your logic. You don't take more than a sentence or two to make a statement. That's not enough to communicate the basis for your logic. You are making conclusions without backing them up till later in another post. That's the basis for Tenet 1 and what makes a debate possible.

Edit: I had to remove two

Edit2: Bah... Now I've lost it but I see rigeld2 saw it which is good enough.

Gravmyr, let me ask you this.

Does a model lose a Wound before or after it loses its Armour from ES?

Gravmyr wrote:
That's not what I said.

Are you sure?

Let me rephrase, you cannot both claim that ES cannot apply to a model that has not suffered a wound when FNP requires the model to suffer a wound to activate.

Well... you can. Because that's how it works.

I simply stated that is the act of suffering a wound is required for both then it doesn't make logical sense that you can apply one but not the other using the statement that it needs the unsaved wound to activate.

Yes it does.
We agree that FNP should do something - that's the point of the discussion, right?
With that understanding, your argument (that something that triggers one must trigger all) means that FNP does nothing - because there's a little thing called "Remove Casualties" that requires - wait for it - a wound to be removed and the model to be removed if that wound number is 0.
So FNP triggering off of the unsaved wound and then making that wound saved so nothing else can resolve makes perfect sense. Because we agreed that FNP should do something, and if all triggers must process at the same rate (and FNP can't invalidate them) FNP does nothing. You limited your argument to ES. That's a poor discussion tactic - you have to think about what else your argument means. Again, I pointed this out before.

I have an issue with stating that if a model looses it's save from ES but remains alive via FNP then FNP did nothing.

That's not what I've said. I've clarified it in other posts.

My big problem is with the way you present your logic. You don't take more than a sentence or two to make a statement. That's not enough to communicate the basis for your logic. You are making conclusions without backing them up till later in another post. That's the basis for Tenet 1 and what makes a debate possible.

The way my brain works is A+B=C, so I don't always explain B if it seems obvious. If you have an issue with the way I communicate, feel free to click the yellow triangle of friendship. I haven't voilated any tenets.

As you can see I started to reword it but I lost it when I misclicked.

gravmyr wrote:You want an actual working thought out breaking no rules or logic use this. The act of reducing the models wounds by 1 is the model suffering the wound. At the moment of reducing the wounds by 1 is "when a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound......" Roll for FNP and treat it as having been saved from that moment forward. Therefor the wound is not suffered.... Now no paradox and it actually spells out where FNP would go and that the rest of the rules go. Or you can continue to say that it goes back in time and negates itself.... which by default breaks a rule.

gravmyr wrote:@DR: See that is what I have been asking for, a rule based reason not an interpretation or RAI. I can and do get behind this reasoning, I hadn't looked at each individually and apparently neither had DR. Good catch.

I'd like to see how they word ES when it comes out... Knowing them they'll come up with a more vague way of putting it just to make life interesting.

Above is how I think it works.

I'm guilty of making claims myself but I also ask questions. A single line response that does not actually explain your line of thinking doesn't help anyone. If we all could slow down and post intelligent fleshed out responses I think we would see far less of 8 page debates. Can we agree on those parts, let's ask more questions to clarify while fleshing out our statements as we make them to help each other? We can all attempt to communicate or we can just sit around and grunt and point. I find the communication a better more fulfilling route, as well as helpful in understanding a cloudy ruleset.

Gravmyr wrote:
let's ask more questions to clarify while fleshing out our statements as we make them to help each other?

Fair enough.

I'll ask again.

Does ES, Concussive, etc. happen before or after a model loses a Wound (by which I mean their Wounds characteristic is reduced by 1)?

Guess i should have made my concession more clear. FNP happens and removes the trigger before the rest can activate.

There is no such thing as unsaved wounds in the casualty removal section. So no special rules will work....Ever. The rules say to allocate wounds, make saves, and if it fails reduce it's wounds by 1, if it reaches zero it is removed as a casualty. There is no possible way to use FnP, or any other rule for that matter, because it is never an unsaved wound. It is always a wound.

Megatrons2nd,
That is a issue with the lack of a Dedicated Glossary, we have to use Logic to work some of these things out: Given there is a Save process, we can determine if a Wound is in a Saved or Unsaved state via that process.
Prior to that it is just an Allocated Wound, which also is a state that can trigger other Rules.

JinxDragon wrote:
Megatrons2nd,
That is a issue with the lack of a Dedicated Glossary, we have to use Logic to work some of these things out:
Given there is a Save process, we can determine if a Wound is in a Saved or Unsaved state via that process.

The contention is that FnP goes back and undoes the process, or does absolutely nothing.

The process is interrupted by the special rules, that happens to be activated by an unsaved wound. It stops the wound from happening, and interrupts the process of removing the model. It does mot interrupt the process and stop every other special rule in the game. Using the process leaves the active player to choose which order the rules are applied, including FnP, ES, etc.....All special rules that activate on the unsaved wound activate the moment the save is failed. Then the wound is removed if not stopped by a rule.

As written no special rule works, as there is no such thing as "unsaved wound" in the game, it is only wounds. Doing it otherwise is a house rule. Just like making FnP go back in time and remove a trigger.

The game is linear. The game has a process. There is no time travel, especially since that breaks the process.

I am using logic, and applying the rules linearly the way the game is written, and using the rule that lets the active player choose the order in which special rules are applied, and stacking the effects of multiple special rules.

Except if FNP is passed it tells us to "Treat the wound as having been saved" this means we go back to the armor/cover/invuln step and pretend the save was passed and not failed.

The reason people who have the opinion that ES applies don't care what the FNP rule says is because they trigger at the same time. For me the timeline would be:
1. Model take a wound
2. Model fails save
3. BOTH FNP and ES trigger
Rules say the player whose turn it is decides order of rules applying at the same time.
4. Player decides to apply ES first
5. FNP still happen, can save the wound of a model that now no longer have an AS.

Some of you say you can apply the same method to remove the wound and model first, but even in this case you would still apply FNP after and FNP specifically states it avoids the wound, so it doesn't matter.

However, there is no rule that says FNP goes first and no rule that says FNP negates everything that already triggered at the same time, however it does say it negates the wound.

ickz wrote:
The reason people who have the opinion that ES applies don't care what the FNP rule says is because they trigger at the same time. For me the timeline would be:
1. Model take a wound
2. Model fails save
3. BOTH FNP and ES trigger
Rules say the player whose turn it is decides order of rules applying at the same time.
4. Player decides to apply ES first
5. FNP still happen, can save the wound of a model that now no longer have an AS.

Some of you say you can apply the same method to remove the wound and model first, but even in this case you would still apply FNP after and FNP specifically states it avoids the wound, so it doesn't matter.

However, there is no rule that says FNP goes first and no rule that says FNP negates everything that already triggered at the same time, however it does say it negates the wound.

Here is the problem.

As you said, Wound reducing happens at the same time and as such is nominated to go first. This means that on a 1 (remaining) Wound model, it is removed as a casualty and as such cannot use FNP.

Also please answer the question I posted to Gravmyr, before he conceded. When does the effect of ES happen, before or after reducing the model's Wound characteristic by 1?

ickz wrote:

4. Player decides to apply ES first
5. FNP still happen, can save the wound of a model that now no longer have an AS.

Some of you say you can apply the same method to remove the wound and model first, but even in this case you would still apply FNP after and FNP specifically states it avoids the wound, so it doesn't matter.

So why is the wound not applied (consequence of an unsaved wound) but ES (consequence of an unsaved wound) is?
Your argument is inconsistently applied.

That the wound reducing is nominated to go first is not a problem as my opinion is that it still happens at the same trigger/time as FNP.
for this case:
1. model fails save
2. FNP and wound reducing triggers
3. wound reducing goes first, model gets removed
4. FNP was still already triggered and have to be resolved and saves that wound (because FNP is specific about avoiding the wound)
5. model comes back.

To clarify, my opinion is that even though the rules that are triggered at the same time has to be resolved in a specific order, they all still have to be resolved as they have already been triggered.

As such the last question you had for me doesn't matter, whatever goes first, both parts have to be resolved in the end.

ickz wrote:
As such the last question you had for me doesn't matter, whatever goes first, both parts have to be resolved in the end.

This is the inconsistency here. You're requiring ES to stick around after the wound is saved, but you're adamant that the removed wound doesn't stick around after the wound is saved.
Both are triggered by the same thing. You've even agreed that both can resolve before FNP can resolve.
But you allow one to be rewound and not the other. The definition of inconsistent. As such, your argument cannot be correct.

rigeld2 wrote:

ickz wrote:

4. Player decides to apply ES first
5. FNP still happen, can save the wound of a model that now no longer have an AS.

Some of you say you can apply the same method to remove the wound and model first, but even in this case you would still apply FNP after and FNP specifically states it avoids the wound, so it doesn't matter.

So why is the wound not applied (consequence of an unsaved wound) but ES (consequence of an unsaved wound) is?
Your argument is inconsistently applied.

hmm, i can agree that i am being inconsistent, I change my opinion slightly based on what you are saying, so we now have these scenarios:

1. wound > ES > FNP = wound is taken, no model to apply ES to, FNP saves wound of model (see last previous reply for reasoning) (I now changed my opinion for this case).
2. wound > FNP > ES = wound saved by FNP, model no longer have an unsaved wound for ES.
3. FNP > wound > ES = wound is no longer unsaved after FNP has been resolved.
4. FNP > ES > wound = wound is no longer unsaved after FNP has been resolved.
5. ES > wound > FNP = ES is applied, wound is dealt, FNP saves the wound of the model without AS
6. ES > FNP > wound = ES is applied, FNP counts the wound as saved from now, therefore no wound is dealt

as a small disclaimer I will say that I am not sure that I am right, as this clearly needs an FAQ, and even though I would play it like you guys say to not be TFG, I would still like to post my view for the sake of the discussion (as it is a possible outcome).

But you allow one to be rewound and not the other. The definition of inconsistent. As such, your argument cannot be correct.

I allow one to be rewound (the wound) because FNP is VERY specific about stating that it rewinds exactly that; the wound.

Wound reducing is part of the basic rules. There is permission for advanced rules such as ES and FNP to override them. This is the reason why FNP applies before tne model dies and not some time paradox hocus pocus that is inconsistent with the only FAQ ever on the subject. So the idea that ES applying before FNP would mean that wound reducing should apply too, is against one of the most fundamental rules: advanced > basic

If FNP triggers after the basic rule for removing a model triggers then advanced > basic doesn't apply... unless of course you want to treat the wound as having been saved and turn back time.

copper.talos wrote:
Wound reducing is part of the basic rules. There is permission for advanced rules such as ES and FNP to override them. This is the reason why FNP applies before tne model dies and not some time paradox hocus pocus that is inconsistent with the only FAQ ever on the subject. So the idea that ES applying before FNP would mean that wound reducing should apply too, is against one of the most fundamental rules: advanced > basic

copper.talos, nobody onthe Pro-ES side wants to answer my question. I wonder why?

Does ES happen before or after reducing a models Wounds characteristic by 1?

a rule being advanced versus basic has only to do with overriding basic rules, it has nothing to do with order they go in.

There is no logical reason why removal of a model for suffering an unsaved wound that has 1 wound would be "overriden" for a special rule that went at the same time. They are exclusive things that do not affect each others outcomes directly bot resolve at the same time in this hypothetical situation some people are putting forth.

The trigger event is the occurance of an unsaved wound. Following basic rules you proceed to reduce the wounds of the model by 1. Advanced rules such as FNP and ES have permission to interrupt that process.

Advanced rules have permission to modify basic rules that are happening/in effect/being rolled for at the same time, the do not have permission to resolve first when they go off at the same time.

For example. ES/Concussive go off when a model suffers an unsaved wound. A model is required to be removed from play if it suffers an unsaved wound that would reduce it to 0 wounds.

These events happen at the same time but none of the advanced rules listed modify the basic rule or each other at that time. In effect it doesn't matter in this case as if you opt to apply ES to the model first on your turn, it then gets reduced to 0 wounds and is removed from play [unless of course its a necron or has some way to come back lol- which you could opt they lose their armor save and if they RP or EL come back with no armor..]

FnP either modifies the event of the unsaved wound making it a saved wound, meaning it goes off at the same time the wound is being determined as unsaved, or the wound is unsaved and the model suffers the effect of the unsaved wound and then triggers affects that go off when an unsaved wounds is suffered.

Considering FnPs wording and that its a advanced rule that modifies a basic rule, it has to be modifying the unsaved wound before the model suffers it.

Considering Es/Concussion/Hexrifle are things that are advanced rules that have special effects, but they do not modify the determination of whether a wound is saved or unsaved they have to go off after FnP.

I am sorry but you have it all wrong. Advanced rules have permission to interrupt basic rule process. Some advanced rules wouldn't be able to work otherwise. FNP is such a rule since it doesn't modify anything, it ADDS another effect between the occurance of an unsaved wound and reducing the wounds of a model. Same with ES.

ES does not add an effect or occurance between the occurance of determing if a wound is unsaved and suffering an unsaved wound.


also can you cite any page number to support that advance rules have permission to interrupt basic rules that go at the same time and go first?

copper.talos wrote:
I am sorry but you have it all wrong. Advanced rules have permission to interrupt basic rule process. Some advanced rules wouldn't be able to work otherwise. FNP is such a rule since it doesn't modify anything, it ADDS another effect between the occurance of an unsaved wound and reducing the wounds of a model. Same with ES.

There is no interrupt, however. There are simply two rules that occur at the same time. One being basic and one being advanced is irrelevant, as they do not conflict .