I ran into a debate of rules mentioned it the title I show the rules and then give the situation.
Helfrost
Spoiler:
“When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from this weapon, it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered or be removed from play.”
Feel No Pain
Spoiler:
“When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state that ‘no saves of any kind are allowed’, for example those inflicted by Perils of the Warp).
Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule.
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.
If a unit has the Feel No Pain special rule with a number in brackets afterwards – Feel No Pain (6+), for example – then the number in brackets is the D6 result needed to discount the Wound.”
Reanimation Protocols
Spoiler:
"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Reanimation Protocols roll to avoid being wounded. This is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state ‘no saves of any kind are allowed’. Reanimation Protocols rolls may even be taken against hits with the Instant Death special rule, but cannot be used against hits from Destroyer weapons or any special rule or attack that states that the model is ‘removed from play’.
Roll a D6 each time the model suffers an unsaved Wound, subtracting 1 from the result if the hit that inflicted the Wound had the Instant Death special rule. On a 5+, discount the unsaved Wound – treat it as having been saved. Certain special rules and wargear items can provide modifiers to this dice roll; these are cumulative, but the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+.
If a unit has both the Reanimation Protocols and Feel No Pain special rules, you can choose to use one special rule or the other to attempt to avoid the Wound, but not both. Choose which of the two special rules you will use each time a model suffers an unsaved Wound."
Since all 3 of the above rules (gotten from the glossaries of the ebook/ipad editions) all have a triggering action of a model suffering an unsaved wound. I was wondering on how Helfrost reacts with either FNP or RP. From reading the rules it seems the special rules will be triggered at the same time? so if that is the can both a strength test and a Roll for FNP/FP will both be made, if the Strength test is failed the model in question would be removed from play, if it is not and the FNP/RP roll is passed the wound would not be taken. Is this the case?
Also the Rule Book states in the chapter titled "The Turn" under the section "Sequencing"
Spoiler:
“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.”
If the above rule applies wouldn't it be my choice on which order these rules get applied in?
You do indeed "suffer and unsaved wound" to trigger the FNP, but if you roll the 5+ you go back in time and save the wound, negating any "suffer" effect.
Reanimation protocals is almost the same. Hellfrosts remove from play effect never even gets a chance if your RP saves the wound.
As per my stance in the other thread I'm assuming you found:
The permission to roll for RP is when the model suffers an unsaved wound. The permission to roll for Helfrost is also when the model suffers an unsaved wound. The wording is identical, therefore the rules are simultaneous. As per page 17 under sequencing, when two rules are simultaneous, the player whose turn it is decides the order in which they are resolved. This leaves us with two scenarios:
Scenario 1 -The player decides to roll reanimation first. If reanimation is passed, you treat the wound as having been saved and helfrost does not proc. If reanimation is failed, helfrost procs. Scenario 2 - The player decides to roll Helfrost first. If the Helfrost test is failed, the model is removed from play and no reanimation is allowed. If the Helfrost test is passed, reanimation procs. ^That is RAW
The reason I would house rule it so that Helfrost always procs first is because of the line in Reanimation that states that reanimation rolls may not be taken against attacks with the "removed from play" special rule. This rule, according to the current RAW, has no functional use. Any attack that simply removes the model does not cause a wound, and Reanimation needs a wound to proc. So you could take that line out of the rules for reanimation entirely and it would still be the exact same. Because of this, I believe it was GW's intention that Reanimation may not be taken against unsaved wounds with an attached special rule that causes the model to be removed from play. If helfrost procs and fails, you are left with an unsaved wound with no "removes from play" effect on it, and reanimation is free to proc. ^ That is HIWPI.
FNP automatically has priority over anything that isnt Instant Death. Its in the FNP rules/FAQ. There were many arguments about it already done on this forum. Reanimation protocals is worded basically identically.
Im personally in agreement it should be handled as Bojazz suggests with player turn priority.
Bojazz wrote: As per my stance in the other thread I'm assuming you found:
The permission to roll for RP is when the model suffers an unsaved wound. The permission to roll for Helfrost is also when the model suffers an unsaved wound. The wording is identical, therefore the rules are simultaneous. As per page 17 under sequencing, when two rules are simultaneous, the player whose turn it is decides the order in which they are resolved. This leaves us with two scenarios:
Scenario 1 -The player decides to roll reanimation first. If reanimation is passed, you treat the wound as having been saved and helfrost does not proc. If reanimation is failed, helfrost procs.
Scenario 2 - The player decides to roll Helfrost first. If the Helfrost test is failed, the model is removed from play and no reanimation is allowed. If the Helfrost test is passed, reanimation procs.
^That is RAW
The reason I would house rule it so that Helfrost always procs first is because of the line in Reanimation that states that reanimation rolls may not be taken against attacks with the "removed from play" special rule. This rule, according to the current RAW, has no functional use. Any attack that simply removes the model does not cause a wound, and Reanimation needs a wound to proc. So you could take that line out of the rules for reanimation entirely and it would still be the exact same. Because of this, I believe it was GW's intention that Reanimation may not be taken against unsaved wounds with an attached special rule that causes the model to be removed from play. If helfrost procs and fails, you are left with an unsaved wound with no "removes from play" effect on it, and reanimation is free to proc.
^ That is HIWPI.
Yes I did find your posts on another thread, it is currently the only thread besides this one, when I searched before it was the only thing I could find. And I agree with you
Fragile wrote: RP and FNP both cause the wound to be treated as saved. Therefore you would not have to test for Helfrost.
I agree with this, so long as Reanimation is rolled first. Unfortunately, the rules are both called at the same time since they BOTH proc on unsaved wounds, so it is up to the player whose turn it is to decide which order they will be resolved in. If Helfrost goes first and removed the model, Reanimation/FNP have no permission to resolve.
Fragile wrote: RP and FNP both cause the wound to be treated as saved. Therefore you would not have to test for Helfrost.
I agree with this, so long as Reanimation is rolled first. Unfortunately, the rules are both called at the same time since they BOTH proc on unsaved wounds, so it is up to the player whose turn it is to decide which order they will be resolved in. If Helfrost goes first and removed the model, Reanimation/FNP have no permission to resolve.
Eihnlazer wrote: FNP automatically has priority over anything that isnt Instant Death. Its in the FNP rules/FAQ. There were many arguments about it already done on this forum. Reanimation protocals is worded basically identically.
Above is a link to the current FAQ of the rule book where FNP rules are found, in my first post I have linked the verbatim rule as found in the Rule Book.
I don't think the Op see's the part that after you suffer an unsaved wound you then take a str Test or be removed from play... if you have a single wound and fail RP/FNP then there is no test as you are already removed from play as a casualty.
BLADERIKER wrote: I don't think the Op see's the part that after you suffer an unsaved wound you then take a str Test or be removed from play... if you have a single wound and fail RP/FNP then there is no test as you are already removed from play as a casualty.
I see that part just fine, but if the Helfrost test isn't passed the model must be removed from play. Using the Sequencing rules the way Bojazz has illustrated gets around FNP/RP.
To walk the scenario out further: I shoot a wound with helfost cannon, you fail your armor save and cause an unsaved wound on your Necron. At this point Reanimation protocols and helfrost have their requirements met for being activated. In this case you would take a S test because of Helfrost and roll for RP, if the S test is failed the model is removed from play even if the RP roll succeeds. if the S test is passed and the RP roll is passed the model gets back up.
The effects happen at the same time, it is shown in both rules in the first sentence.
Fragile wrote: RP and FNP both cause the wound to be treated as saved. Therefore you would not have to test for Helfrost.
I agree with this, so long as Reanimation is rolled first. Unfortunately, the rules are both called at the same time since they BOTH proc on unsaved wounds, so it is up to the player whose turn it is to decide which order they will be resolved in. If Helfrost goes first and removed the model, Reanimation/FNP have no permission to resolve.
Show the rule forbidding RP.
I assume you mean "show the rule forbidding RP if the player whose turn it is decides to resolve Helfrost First, and the model fails the test causing the model to be removed from play". In that case:
Reanimation Protocols wrote:Reanimation Protocols rolls may even be taken against hits with the Instant Death special rule, but cannot be used against hits from Destroyer weapons or any special rule or attack that states that the model is ‘removed from play’.
Otherwise, as i stated above, RP is totally allowed.
And here is your problem. Both rules triggered. The wound did not remove the model from play. Failing the Helfrost test did. So therefore you must still resolve the RP. Assuming you succeed, you now treat that wound as saved. If that wound is saved then it does not meet the requirements for Helfrost. It creates a paradox in the rules. The only way to resolve it and not break rules, is to resolve FNP/RP first.
I decide to have the Necron player resolve Helfrost first (as per "Sequencing"). The Necron model fails the test and is removed from play. Where is there permission for special rules to be triggered on a dead model?
I decide to have the Necron player resolve Helfrost first (as per "Sequencing"). The Necron model fails the test and is removed from play. Where is there permission for special rules to be triggered on a dead model?
FWIW, I would play resolve FNP/RP first.
Two special rules activate when the wound is suffered. You resolve the HF and remove the model. You now have to resolve the second. The rules break... There is only one way to resolve it without breaking a rule.
The rules do not break. Two rules activate, and as per sequencing the player chooses which to resolve first. If the player resolves Helfrost first, and the model is removed then that is fully resolved. You then have no model to resolve reanimation on, and so it is not resolved. When a model is removed, all actions queued for that model are cancelled. For instance, If a unit has to take a morale check due to taking 25% casualties, and then gets shot by another squad and is wiped off the table, you do not take the morale check, even though that test was queued up for the squad. Similarly, if you have reanimation queued up for a model, and then it is removed from the table, you do not roll reanimation. No rules are broken. Both processes work with the RAW.
Another similar example is grounding tests. Since 7th edition dropped I have been taking grounding tests on FMCs every time I suffer an unsaved wound, even if I then make a FNP roll. That was the consensus at the beginning of 7th.
Apparently because of sequence, since grounding tests happen at the end of the phase, and FNP happens immediately apparently, that logic would dictate that I don't have to take a grounding test so long as I make my FNP?
My playgroup had a similar discussion with FNP and Grounding Tests. We decided to use BAO/LVO's precedence with the old Entropic Strike rule. Because Entropic Strike says "immediately" we determined that it happens before a FNP check is made. But in this situation there is no text saying that the toughness test takes place before FNP would occur. You still treat the wound as if it were saved, regardless of FNP or RP not being a "save".
I debated extensively previously on items like entropic strike and others that FNP would not take priority based on the perhaps outcome, and that when two rules are triggered at the same time we would resolve based on that BRB quote for special rules triggering at the same time.
The premises are as follows;
For FNP auto priority (Main point):
FNP causes the unsaved wound to be saved, applying the rule on a saved wound is not permitted, and is breaking the rules.
Against FNP auto priority (Counter main point):
Should [notfnp] be resolved first it's effects do not require the ongoing presence of a unsaved wound to function. The rules don't check for permissions we may or may not had in the past and change resolve rules based on what we now have permission [or restrictions] to do. FNP can and still may negate the wound being taken from the stat line.
This case is even more interesting. If we are prioritizing both rules based on what might be the outcome one is saving the wound one is dead (no permission to roll FNP) one is saved (No permission to roll HF). This rule in particular negates FNP 'auto priority' more so than others.
But my main problem with FNP is considering we already have rules for SR's triggering at the same time, if they wanted FNP to be different (and always come first) they could have made it clear by adding that wording to the rule rather than us digging to find deeper meaning and ruling based off paradoxes and such.
tag8833 wrote: Another similar example is grounding tests. Since 7th edition dropped I have been taking grounding tests on FMCs every time I suffer an unsaved wound, even if I then make a FNP roll. That was the consensus at the beginning of 7th.
Apparently because of sequence, since grounding tests happen at the end of the phase, and FNP happens immediately apparently, that logic would dictate that I don't have to take a grounding test so long as I make my FNP?
In that case the rules are not triggered at the same time, and the grounding test is completely independent of FNP. If FNP is rolled and successful, there is no unsaved wound for grounding to then test against.
And for the record I agreed with her position when some people tried to use FNP to cheat against entropic strike and I still agree with her now that I could cheat my opponent using RP to counter hellfrost-like effects.
Bottom line is IF the model suffers an unsaved wound in order to activate FNP/RP THEN that same wound also activates all other effects with the same trigger.
My standpoint is that no rules "go back in time", because it does not say that they do. If FNP pass, the wound is treated as saved, from that moment, but it can never go back in time to stop effects that was initiated by the unsaved wound before FNP was rolled.
So in this case, sequencing is important.
If FNP or RP is rolled first and the roll is passed, there will be no Strength test, because both FNP and RP treats the wound as if it was saved. This will likely only happen in assault when it is the defending player´s turn.
However if Helfrost is rolled first (i.e. it is the attacking player's turn), player has to make a Strength test, and if it fails, the model is removed from game without any RP or FNP rolls being allowed.
jay_mo wrote: My standpoint is that no rules "go back in time", because it does not say that they do. If FNP pass, the wound is treated as saved, from that moment, but it can never go back in time to stop effects that was initiated by the unsaved wound before FNP was rolled.
So in this case, sequencing is important.
If FNP or RP is rolled first and the roll is passed, there will be no Strength test, because both FNP and RP treats the wound as if it was saved. This will likely only happen in assault when it is the defending player´s turn.
However if Helfrost is rolled first (i.e. it is the attacking player's turn), player has to make a Strength test, and if it fails, the model is removed from game without any RP or FNP rolls being allowed.
I agree completely with the above, with an emphasis on this, which is clearly a key point for this thread:
Bojazz wrote: Unfortunately, the rules are both called at the same time since they BOTH proc on unsaved wounds, so it is up to the player whose turn it is to decide which order they will be resolved in.
jay_mo wrote: My standpoint is that no rules "go back in time", because it does not say that they do. If FNP pass, the wound is treated as saved, from that moment, but it can never go back in time to stop effects that was initiated by the unsaved wound before FNP was rolled.
So you don't treat the wound as saved?
Because triggering effects that require an unsaved wound when the wound has been saved is ... an interesting stance.
jay_mo wrote: My standpoint is that no rules "go back in time", because it does not say that they do. If FNP pass, the wound is treated as saved, from that moment, but it can never go back in time to stop effects that was initiated by the unsaved wound before FNP was rolled.
So you don't treat the wound as saved?
Because triggering effects that require an unsaved wound when the wound has been saved is ... an interesting stance.
I do... There are plenty of things that you can "treat as" something else from now on, without going back in time. If I borrow something from you and you say "Treat it like your own", I don't call the police and claim that you stole it from me in the past because it has been "my own" all the time, it means I start treating it as my own from the point when you told me to....
So, if at the time I roll FNP, that wound already triggered my model be removed from the game, if I pass the roll, I treat the wound as if it was saved from there. Unfortunately I can't do anything about the model that was already removed from the game.
jay_mo wrote: My standpoint is that no rules "go back in time", because it does not say that they do. If FNP pass, the wound is treated as saved, from that moment, but it can never go back in time to stop effects that was initiated by the unsaved wound before FNP was rolled.
So you don't treat the wound as saved?
Because triggering effects that require an unsaved wound when the wound has been saved is ... an interesting stance.
I do... There are plenty of things that you can "treat as" something else from now on, without going back in time. If I borrow something from you and you say "Treat it like your own", I don't call the police and claim that you stole it from me in the past because it has been "my own" all the time, it means I start treating it as my own from the point when you told me to....
Wow... it's almost like real world analogies don't work...
So, if at the time I roll FNP, that wound already triggered my model be removed from the game, if I pass the roll, I treat the wound as if it was saved from there. Unfortunately I can't do anything about the model that was already removed from the game.
If the wound was saved, why was the model removed from the game? Applying Helfrost on a saved wound would be illegal.
jay_mo wrote: My standpoint is that no rules "go back in time", because it does not say that they do. If FNP pass, the wound is treated as saved, from that moment, but it can never go back in time to stop effects that was initiated by the unsaved wound before FNP was rolled.
So in this case, sequencing is important.
If FNP or RP is rolled first and the roll is passed, there will be no Strength test, because both FNP and RP treats the wound as if it was saved. This will likely only happen in assault when it is the defending player´s turn.
However if Helfrost is rolled first (i.e. it is the attacking player's turn), player has to make a Strength test, and if it fails, the model is removed from game without any RP or FNP rolls being allowed.
I agree completely with the above, with an emphasis on this, which is clearly a key point for this thread:
Bojazz wrote: Unfortunately, the rules are both called at the same time since they BOTH proc on unsaved wounds, so it is up to the player whose turn it is to decide which order they will be resolved in.
THIS
There are already a number of people in this thread who have laid out the rules which explain how this works. The sequence is decided by which player's turn it is.
If I shoot you with helfrost in my turn I will remove the target from play before you roll your RP or FNP.
If I shoot you with helfrost in your turn you will most likely choose to roll your RP or FNP before allowing me to remove the model from play, but this is up to you when it is your turn.
Wow... it's almost like real world analogies don't work...
That's not my point. My point is that the statement "Treat it as x", does not implicitly mean "treat it as it has been x for all eternity". It is true that it does not say "Treat it as x from now on", but that interpretation is much closer at hand. My real life example was to demonstrate how this works in the language.
And that was my answer to you claiming that I do not treat it as saved. You are right that I do not treat it as if it has always been saved, but I do treat it as if it was saved from now on. Which also is "treating it as saved"
jay_mo wrote: That's not my point. My point is that the statement "Treat it as x", does not implicitly mean "treat it as it has been x for all eternity". It is true that it does not say "Treat it as x from now on", but that interpretation is much closer at hand. My real life example was to demonstrate how this works in the language.
And if you'd understand the difference between "treat as" in the real world and "treat as" in 40k, you'd understand why it doesn't work like that.
jay_mo wrote: That's not my point. My point is that the statement "Treat it as x", does not implicitly mean "treat it as it has been x for all eternity". It is true that it does not say "Treat it as x from now on", but that interpretation is much closer at hand. My real life example was to demonstrate how this works in the language.
And if you'd understand the difference between "treat as" in the real world and "treat as" in 40k, you'd understand why it doesn't work like that.
As I said my point is not to compare how things work in the real world with how they work in 40k, merely to give an example of what the sentence "treat it as x" means. This was my answer to you claiming that I do not "treat it as saved". You are right that I do not treat it as if it has always been saved in all eternity, but I do treat it as if it was saved from now on. Which also is "treating it as saved".
I find it surprising that you think this does not confer with rules in 40k. In my experience most rules for games (board games etc) are sequential, kind of like programming. If you want to claim that 40k-rules are different, well, that's up to you, but I don't see it. The only difference I see is that they are more complex and move vaguely written, but the concepts are still the same.
Bojazz wrote: The rules do not break. Two rules activate, and as per sequencing the player chooses which to resolve first. If the player resolves Helfrost first, and the model is removed then that is fully resolved. You then have no model to resolve reanimation on, and so it is not resolved. When a model is removed, all actions queued for that model are cancelled. For instance, If a unit has to take a morale check due to taking 25% casualties, and then gets shot by another squad and is wiped off the table, you do not take the morale check, even though that test was queued up for the squad. Similarly, if you have reanimation queued up for a model, and then it is removed from the table, you do not roll reanimation. No rules are broken. Both processes work with the RAW.
+1 on this... unless someone shows that there is a rule based argument that sidesteps the sequence rules, I see this as the answer.
(don't start dropping in all the "did you read the thread" stuff, just because I went back a few for the post I agreed with)
jay_mo wrote: I find it surprising that you think this does not confer with rules in 40k. In my experience most rules for games (board games etc) are sequential, kind of like programming. If you want to claim that 40k-rules are different, well, that's up to you, but I don't see it. The only difference I see is that they are more complex and move vaguely written, but the concepts are still the same.
That's how they should be written, but they demonstrably aren't.
For example, know what else triggers on an unsaved wound? The Remove Casualties rules. Using your argument, FNP does nothing because the wound removal is already "on the stack" (using MTG terms) and FNP doesn't change that.
We also now have a precedent from the Dark Eldar FAQ.
Q: Is a Shadow Field lost if a model suffers an unsaved Wound that is subsequently discounted due to a feel no pain roll?
A: Yes.
This shows that even if the wound is discounted afterwards, the effects that happened while the wound was NOT discounted still apply. So even if you argue that reanimation should still trigger after helfrost removed the model, the model would still be removed from play regardless of whether or not reanimation discounts the wound.
jay_mo wrote: I find it surprising that you think this does not confer with rules in 40k. In my experience most rules for games (board games etc) are sequential, kind of like programming. If you want to claim that 40k-rules are different, well, that's up to you, but I don't see it. The only difference I see is that they are more complex and move vaguely written, but the concepts are still the same.
That's how they should be written, but they demonstrably aren't.
For example, know what else triggers on an unsaved wound? The Remove Casualties rules. Using your argument, FNP does nothing because the wound removal is already "on the stack" (using MTG terms) and FNP doesn't change that.
I see your point, but logically all special rules that trigger on "unsaved wound" are resolved before the Remove Casualty.
(Not sure the MTG stack is the best analogy, because it is a slightly special game mechanic, but if so the remove casualty would be on the bottom of the stack)
Otherwise they would never work, as you say. And as I said before it's about the sequence... If FNP resolves before the Helfrost, then it works, because the wound is treated as saved. But in the other order, it is too late. So the sequential order would look like this:
1. Trigger FNP. Wound treated as saved from here.
2. Trigger Helfrost [Cancelled, there is no wound]
3. Remove model [Cancelled, there is no wound]
or
1. Trigger Helfrost -> failed Str-check -> Remove model from play
2. Trigger FNP. Wound saved. (You could argue that this step is cancelled because there is no longer any model to trigger FNP on)
3. Remove model [Cancelled, there is no wound]
However in the last example, the model is no longer in play since it was removed in step 1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bojazz wrote: We also now have a precedent from the Dark Eldar FAQ.
Q: Is a Shadow Field lost if a model suffers an unsaved Wound that is subsequently discounted due to a feel no pain roll?
A: Yes.
This shows that even if the wound is discounted afterwards, the effects that happened while the wound was NOT discounted still apply. So even if you argue that reanimation should still trigger after helfrost removed the model, the model would still be removed from play regardless of whether or not reanimation discounts the wound.
Second thing I will point out is that the Hell frost Shot itself does not have the remove from play rule, only the failed test after an unsaved wound.
So if the model suffers an unsaved wound and only has one wound to lose does the hell frost trigger at all?
Are we required to apply to a model removed as a causality the hell frost rule even if it is no longer on the playing field? The answer is no.
Also I wish to point out that while similar, FNP is different from RP as they save against a few different USR's and are restricted by different USR's while both triggering off of an unsaved wound.
Kind of like.
Model is hit by hellfrost weapon, model fails save (armor, Cover, invul.) if ID or Str Dis present then FNP is restricted and model is removed as causality, Hellfrost has no target and does not come into play.
Model is hit by hellfrost weapon, model fails save (armor, Cover, invul.) if ID is present then RP is not restricted and can be taken, If RP is failed or weapon was a Str D Weapon then Model is removed as a causality, Hellfrost has no target and does not come into play.
BLADERIKER wrote: Second thing I will point out is that the Hell frost Shot itself does not have the remove from play rule, only the failed test after an unsaved wound.
So if the model suffers an unsaved wound and only has one wound to lose does the hell frost trigger at all?
Are we required to apply to a model removed as a causality the hell frost rule even if it is no longer on the playing field? The answer is no.
Also I wish to point out that while similar, FNP is different from RP as they save against a few different USR's and are restricted by different USR's while both triggering off of an unsaved wound.
Kind of like.
Model is hit by hellfrost weapon, model fails save (armor, Cover, invul.) if ID or Str Dis present then FNP is restricted and model is removed as causality, Hellfrost has no target and does not come into play.
Model is hit by hellfrost weapon, model fails save (armor, Cover, invul.) if ID is present then RP is not restricted and can be taken, If RP is failed or weapon was a Str D Weapon then Model is removed as a causality, Hellfrost has no target and does not come into play.
You really should provide a rules quote stating that if the model only has one wound it is not removed from play by helfrost. Otherwise, this would simply be a HIWPI or opinion.
the problem with sequencing is part of the sequence for suffering an unsvaved wound is reducing a models wound from whatever by -1 for each wound 'suffered'. For a 1 wound model this means if you use sequencing the player who's turn it is not never gets to roll FnP versus anything because you can opt to reduce their wounds from 1-0 before they roll FnP, if a model is reduced from 1-0 it is immediately removed as a casualty.
Until FnP is rolled and determined it is not determined that a model has suffered an unsaved wound.
jay_mo wrote: I find it surprising that you think this does not confer with rules in 40k. In my experience most rules for games (board games etc) are sequential, kind of like programming. If you want to claim that 40k-rules are different, well, that's up to you, but I don't see it. The only difference I see is that they are more complex and move vaguely written, but the concepts are still the same.
That's how they should be written, but they demonstrably aren't.
For example, know what else triggers on an unsaved wound? The Remove Casualties rules. Using your argument, FNP does nothing because the wound removal is already "on the stack" (using MTG terms) and FNP doesn't change that.
I see your point, but logically all special rules that trigger on "unsaved wound" are resolved before the Remove Casualty.
I'm sure you can provide rules for that assumption? That'd be great - thanks.
Otherwise they would never work, as you say. And as I said before it's about the sequence... If FNP resolves before the Helfrost, then it works, because the wound is treated as saved. But in the other order, it is too late. So the sequential order would look like this:
1. Trigger FNP. Wound treated as saved from here.
2. Trigger Helfrost [Cancelled, there is no wound]
3. Remove model [Cancelled, there is no wound]
or
1. Trigger Helfrost -> failed Str-check -> Remove model from play
2. Trigger FNP. Wound saved. (You could argue that this step is cancelled because there is no longer any model to trigger FNP on)
3. Remove model [Cancelled, there is no wound]
However in the last example, the model is no longer in play since it was removed in step 1.
So, since it's my turn and I get to set the sequence the way I want, why can't I do this:
1. Trigger Remove Casualties. Model is removed because it only had one wound left.
2. Trigger FNP. Wound saved (but the model's gone)
3. Trigger Helfrost (model's still gone).
Please use actual rules to prove your assumptions, not "it's only logical" or other appeals.
Bojazz wrote: We also now have a precedent from the Dark Eldar FAQ.
Q: Is a Shadow Field lost if a model suffers an unsaved Wound that is subsequently discounted due to a feel no pain roll?
A: Yes.
This shows that even if the wound is discounted afterwards, the effects that happened while the wound was NOT discounted still apply. So even if you argue that reanimation should still trigger after helfrost removed the model, the model would still be removed from play regardless of whether or not reanimation discounts the wound.
Perfect! =)
A) GW has demonstrably changed rules in the past using FAQs.
B) This doesn't address FNP in general, it's very specific to the Shadow Field - an item available to a single Codex.
It's not "Perfect" it's actually meaningless unless the discussion was about the Shadow Field.
blaktoof wrote: the problem with sequencing is part of the sequence for suffering an unsvaved wound is reducing a models wound from whatever by -1 for each wound 'suffered'. For a 1 wound model this means if you use sequencing the player who's turn it is not never gets to roll FnP versus anything because you can opt to reduce their wounds from 1-0 before they roll FnP, if a model is reduced from 1-0 it is immediately removed as a casualty.
Until FnP is rolled and determined it is not determined that a model has suffered an unsaved wound.
Basic vs Advanced (BRB Ipad Edition page 375) “...Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. ...”
The above rule would never allow you to ignore FNP in the situation you have described.
blaktoof wrote: the problem with sequencing is part of the sequence for suffering an unsvaved wound is reducing a models wound from whatever by -1 for each wound 'suffered'. For a 1 wound model this means if you use sequencing the player who's turn it is not never gets to roll FnP versus anything because you can opt to reduce their wounds from 1-0 before they roll FnP, if a model is reduced from 1-0 it is immediately removed as a casualty.
Until FnP is rolled and determined it is not determined that a model has suffered an unsaved wound.
Basic vs Advanced (BRB Ipad Edition page 375) “...Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. ...”
The above rule would never allow you to ignore FNP in the situation you have described.
BvA only applies in a conflict.
There's no conflict - sequencing applies. I choose to resolve the Remove Casualties step first. Please cite actual rules to prevent this.
blaktoof wrote: the problem with sequencing is part of the sequence for suffering an unsvaved wound is reducing a models wound from whatever by -1 for each wound 'suffered'. For a 1 wound model this means if you use sequencing the player who's turn it is not never gets to roll FnP versus anything because you can opt to reduce their wounds from 1-0 before they roll FnP, if a model is reduced from 1-0 it is immediately removed as a casualty.
Until FnP is rolled and determined it is not determined that a model has suffered an unsaved wound.
Basic vs Advanced (BRB Ipad Edition page 375) “...Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. ...”
The above rule would never allow you to ignore FNP in the situation you have described.
If that were the case this whole thread would not be a discussion as it is about helfrost which is resolved during shooting (shooting is a basic rule...) versus a special rule-Feel No Pain (an advanced rule).
helfrost triggers from a basic rule, suffering of an unsaved wound as resolved by a shooting attack. You do not get to apply the effect of helfrost until you have resolved the shooting attack and determined if there is an unsaved wound. Determination of the unsaved wound is basic rule.
To claim that how that wound is determined is changed if a weapon has a special rule that triggers from an unsaved wound would be a result of having two different sets of rules for determining how an unsaved wound is determined.
the first way:
model suffers a shot from a S:4 weapon, is wounded, fails its save but has FnP. Does it get FnP before determining if the wound is saved?
the second way:
Model suffers a shot from a S:4 weapon, the weapon has a special rule that triggers off an unsaved wound, but has FnP. Does it get a FnP before determining if the wound is saved?
The answer has to be the same for both as to how FnP is done, as there is no rules support it would be a different way.
If the answer is both, and it allows helfrost to be picked in sequencing then you would be allowed to reduce a models wounds from 1-0 and remove it as a casualty in sequencing as well before the other player could roll FnP-which makes no sense, and has no rules support.
blaktoof wrote: helfrost triggers from a basic rule, suffering of an unsaved wound as resolved by a shooting attack. You do not get to apply the effect of helfrost until you have resolved the shooting attack and determined if there is an unsaved wound. Determination of the unsaved wound is basic rule.
To claim that how that wound is determined is changed if a weapon has a special rule that triggers from an unsaved wound would be a result of having two different sets of rules for determining how an unsaved wound is determined.
which makes no sense, and has no rules support.
Reanimation Protocols and FNP trigger from the same basic rule of suffering of an unsaved wound.
example:
My shooting Phase:
1. Model Suffers a S4 Helfrost wound and fails it's chosen save.
2. Model Suffers an unsaved wound.
3. Model triggers Helfrost Rule AND FNP/RP 4. Sequencing happens giving active player ability to chose resolution order.
Removing casualties can't happen until all Special Rules are resolved as detailed by Basic V. Advanced (full rule linked below)
Basic versus Advanced
Spoiler:
“Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models.
Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm or even a tank). The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry. Army List Entries can be found in a number of Games Workshop publications, such as a Warhammer 40,000 codex.
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.”
as does reducing wounds and removing casualties immediately.
so if you allow sequencing, then a player can opt to always ignore that you have FnP and have you do that in the sequence first as that is a result of an unsaved wound as well.
blaktoof wrote: as does reducing wounds and removing casualties immediately.
so if you allow sequencing, then a player can opt to always ignore that you have FnP and have you do that in the sequence first as that is a result of an unsaved wound as well.
CronikCRS wrote: Removing casualties can't happen until all Special Rules are resolved as detailed by Basic V. Advanced (full rule linked below)
Basic versus Advanced
Spoiler:
“Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models.
Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm or even a tank). The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry. Army List Entries can be found in a number of Games Workshop publications, such as a Warhammer 40,000 codex.
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.”
Please explain how the quoted rule "details" that all special rules are resolved first?
You've asserted Sequencing applies. Please underline or otherwise emphasize the rule in the BvA rule you've quoted that requires Basic rules be sequenced after Advanced rules.
You said it exists - prove it.
Please explain how the quoted rule "details" that all special rules are resolved first?
You've asserted Sequencing applies. Please underline or otherwise emphasize the rule in the BvA rule you've quoted that requires Basic rules be sequenced after Advanced rules.
You said it exists - prove it.
First sentence of the 3rd paragraph "Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules."
Helfrost, FNP and RP are all special rules, Special Rules are considered to be Advanced Rules. The process outlined in The Shooting Phase are the basic rules as to what will happen normally with no Special Rules being applied; As shown on page 405 of the iPad edition, The shooting sequence.. this is gone into further detail on later pages. These rules are your basic rules for the shooting phase. Step 6 in the Shooting Sequence is Allocate wounds and Remove Casualties, All 3 of the special rules being discussed happen in-between the failed saving throw and the removal of the model as a casualty (or decreasing it wounds by 1). This cannot until all of the special rules being discussed here are resolved as show in the basic versus advanced rules, specifically the sentence I listed above and the example that follows after it.
Please explain how the quoted rule "details" that all special rules are resolved first?
You've asserted Sequencing applies. Please underline or otherwise emphasize the rule in the BvA rule you've quoted that requires Basic rules be sequenced after Advanced rules.
You said it exists - prove it.
First sentence of the 3rd paragraph "Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules."
Helfrost, FNP and RP are all special rules, Special Rules are considered to be Advanced Rules. The process outlined in The Shooting Phase are the basic rules as to what will happen normally with no Special Rules being applied; As shown on page 405 of the iPad edition, The shooting sequence.. this is gone into further detail on later pages. These rules are your basic rules for the shooting phase. Step 6 in the Shooting Sequence is Allocate wounds and Remove Casualties, All 3 of the special rules being discussed happen in-between the failed saving throw and the removal of the model as a casualty (or decreasing it wounds by 1). This cannot until all of the special rules being discussed here are resolved as show in the basic versus advanced rules, specifically the sentence I listed above and the example that follows after it.
Please explain where the contradiction is between Helfrost and Remove Casualties.
Please explain where the contradiction is between Helfrost and Remove Casualties.
I will go ahead and add in FNP/RP contradictions too
Helfrost tries to remove the model from play with a strength test, while Remove Casualties will try to remove the model by decreasing it's wounds by 1 to 0.
FNP/RP try to use a roll of (x) to discount the unsaved wound leaving the model with 1 instead 0, while Remove Casualties will try to remove the model by decreasing it's wounds by 1 to 0.
These of the Basic v Advanced contradictions. That being said there isnt much need to enforce the S test of Helfrost on a 1 wound model that doesn't have FNP/RP or any other special rule that would allow the model to survive.
Please explain where the contradiction is between Helfrost and Remove Casualties.
I will go ahead and add in FNP/RP contradictions too
Helfrost tries to remove the model from play with a strength test, while Remove Casualties will try to remove the model by decreasing it's wounds by 1 to 0.
FNP/RP try to use a roll of (x) to discount the unsaved wound leaving the model with 1 instead 0, while Remove Casualties will try to remove the model by decreasing it's wounds by 1 to 0.
These of the Basic v Advanced contradictions. That being said there isnt much need to enforce the S test of Helfrost on a 1 wound model that doesn't have FNP/RP or any other special rule that would allow the model to survive.
The Helfrost rule doesn't contradict the Remove Casualties rule.
And you've still not shown how the Sequencing rule you've asserted is relevant forces you to resolve Advanced rules first.
The Helfrost rule doesn't contradict the Remove Casualties rule.
And you've still not shown how the Sequencing rule you've asserted is relevant forces you to resolve Advanced rules first.
Helfrost is absolutely a contradiction to remove casualties. Helfrost doesn't try to decrease it wounds at all, upon failing a S test the model is just removed, it would not matter if it had 1 wound or 10 wounds. While remove casualties tries to decrease its wounds by 1 to 0.
But even that isn't case here the situation is a Weapon with Helfrost and a model with FNP/RP. It is clear that there is a Contradiction between FNP/RP and Remove Casualties. That being said Remove Casualties cannot be resolved until FNP/RP is resolved because of Basic v Advanced. Because of this Remove Casualties cannot be Sequenced until after FNP/RP.
The Helfrost rule doesn't contradict the Remove Casualties rule.
And you've still not shown how the Sequencing rule you've asserted is relevant forces you to resolve Advanced rules first.
Helfrost is absolutely a contradiction to remove casualties. Helfrost doesn't try to decrease it wounds at all, upon failing a S test the model is just removed, it would not matter if it had 1 wound or 10 wounds. While remove casualties tries to decrease its wounds by 1 to 0.
Even if I concede that (which I don't, but it's tangential at best) you still haven't shown how Sequencing forces Advanced to be resolved first.
But even that isn't case here the situation is a Weapon with Helfrost and a model with FNP/RP. It is clear that there is a Contradiction between FNP/RP and Remove Casualties. That being said Remove Casualties cannot be resolved until FNP/RP is resolved because of Basic v Advanced. Because of this Remove Casualties cannot be Sequenced until after FNP/RP.
Sorry was in the middle of an edit when you replied.
BrotherGecko wrote: Well RP can be solve pretty easy. Its says in RPs rules that it can not be used against "Removes From Play". So you don't get an RP roll.
This is incorrect. Helfrost is not the trigger. The unsaved wound is.
Even if I concede that (which I don't, but it's tangential at best) you still haven't shown how Sequencing forces Advanced to be resolved first.
Sequencing doesn't force advanced to be resolved first.
Sequencing allows the player who's turn it is to choose which is resolved first when more than one event occur simultaneously.
This is in the BRB under sequencing on page 17.
In this case, feel no pain, reanimation protocol, and helfrost are all triggered by an unsaved wound and would appear to occur simultaneously. Therefore, using sequencing, the player who's turn it is chooses. What this amounts to is that in player 1's shooting phase his helfrost weapons will remove casualties from play if they fail a strength test before fnp or rp can take effect, and in player 2's assault phase, he would get to use fnp to ignore helfrost overwatch since in his turn he gets to choose the sequence of simultaneous events and if fnp is handled first the model treats it as though it did not take a wound so helfrost would not be able to trigger.
Now whether or not rp can be used in the assault phase against helfrost is debatable. Clearly RAW, the necron player would choose the sequence and would use the reanimation protocol to ignore the wound and at that point the model wouldn't take a strength test even though RAI, I think they intended them to do so.
I decide to have the Necron player resolve Helfrost first (as per "Sequencing"). The Necron model fails the test and is removed from play. Where is there permission for special rules to be triggered on a dead model?
FWIW, I would play resolve FNP/RP first.
Two special rules activate when the wound is suffered. You resolve the HF and remove the model. You now have to resolve the second. The rules break... There is only one way to resolve it without breaking a rule.
The rules dont break, per sequencing Helfrost went first and failed. Helfrost has the 'removed from play' caveat to it. RP is not allowed to be taken from an ability that causes 'removed from play' per the RP rules.
Even if I concede that (which I don't, but it's tangential at best) you still haven't shown how Sequencing forces Advanced to be resolved first.
Sequencing doesn't force advanced to be resolved first.
Sequencing allows the player who's turn it is to choose which is resolved first when more than one event occur simultaneously.
Right. Now, using the sequencing argument (that sequencing allows Helfrost to be resolved before FNP/RP) on my turn I shoot some FNP dudes with Bolters. You fail your saves. I choose to sequence Remove Casualties before FNP.
Cite a rule preventing that.
Even if I concede that (which I don't, but it's tangential at best) you still haven't shown how Sequencing forces Advanced to be resolved first.
Sequencing doesn't force advanced to be resolved first.
Sequencing allows the player who's turn it is to choose which is resolved first when more than one event occur simultaneously.
Right. Now, using the sequencing argument (that sequencing allows Helfrost to be resolved before FNP/RP) on my turn I shoot some FNP dudes with Bolters. You fail your saves. I choose to sequence Remove Casualties before FNP.
Cite a rule preventing that.
FNP
Unless you're trying to be deliberately disingenuous. The normal order of rule occurrence applies because there are no conflicting rules that happen at the same time in your example
You are not grasping what he is trying to convey. If you force sequencing to allow the Hellfrost Cannon to not allowing FNP or RP to be rolled then by the same token, a person could force sequence of remove casualties prior to FNP, as they ALL proc off of the same basic rule.
Even if I concede that (which I don't, but it's tangential at best) you still haven't shown how Sequencing forces Advanced to be resolved first.
Sequencing doesn't force advanced to be resolved first.
Sequencing allows the player who's turn it is to choose which is resolved first when more than one event occur simultaneously.
Right. Now, using the sequencing argument (that sequencing allows Helfrost to be resolved before FNP/RP) on my turn I shoot some FNP dudes with Bolters. You fail your saves. I choose to sequence Remove Casualties before FNP.
Cite a rule preventing that.
FNP
Unless you're trying to be deliberately disingenuous. The normal order of rule occurrence applies because there are no conflicting rules that happen at the same time in your example
How does something that triggers off of suffering a wound not occur at the same time as something that triggers off of suffering a wound?
How does something that triggers off of suffering a wound not occur at the same time as something that triggers off of suffering a wound?
I believe that it has been explained that the procedure for removing models with unsaved wounds is a basic rule, and that FNP, RP, and Helfrost are all advanced rules.
If you're really asking how it happens, it happens because whenever an advanced rule and a basic rule conflict you use the advanced rule. Removing models who lost their last wound after failing a save is basic and would conflict with FNP, RP, and Helfrost rules which are advanced and tell you to do something else when failing that save instead.
OIIIIIIO wrote: You are not grasping what he is trying to convey. If you force sequencing to allow the Hellfrost Cannon to not allowing FNP or RP to be rolled then by the same token, a person could force sequence of remove casualties prior to FNP, as they ALL proc off of the same basic rule.
Well then its a basic vs advanced situation, Basic being remove models that lose all wounds from play vs advanced FNP rule.
Again its a disingenuous argument
Rigeld2 is constantly ignoring the already posted rules regarding Sequencing. In the case of his example the wording is explicit on which happens in what sequence, where as FNP vs Helfrost does not.
This discussion kind of reminds me of the scenario in the Preferred Enemy/Blast debate, specifically the thought that PE grants a reroll without requiring the To Hit roll of 1 (lets not start that debate again please)
RP "cannot be used against hits from Destroyer weapons or any special rule or attack that states that the model is ‘removed from play"
Helfrost is an attack that states a model is "removed from play"...granted, it only procs on a Strength test roll of 6, but it still contains the key phrase that negates RP.
ClassicCarraway wrote: This discussion kind of reminds me of the scenario in the Preferred Enemy/Blast debate, specifically the thought that PE grants a reroll without requiring the To Hit roll of 1 (lets not start that debate again please)
RP "cannot be used against hits from Destroyer weapons or any special rule or attack that states that the model is ‘removed from play"
Helfrost is an attack that states a model is "removed from play"...granted, it only procs on a Strength test roll of 6, but it still contains the key phrase that negates RP.
It is an interesting similarity. One could make a rather tenuous argument that if you get rerolls for blasts from PE, then RP doesn't save you from helfrost and vice versa. Tenuous in the sense that you would effectively be arguing that simply having the first rule (regardless of whether or not it was triggered) was enough for the second rule to be affected.
How does something that triggers off of suffering a wound not occur at the same time as something that triggers off of suffering a wound?
I believe that it has been explained that the procedure for removing models with unsaved wounds is a basic rule, and that FNP, RP, and Helfrost are all advanced rules.
Correct!
In the sequencing rules, please cite where that's relevant.
If you're really asking how it happens, it happens because whenever an advanced rule and a basic rule conflict you use the advanced rule. Removing models who lost their last wound after failing a save is basic and would conflict with FNP, RP, and Helfrost rules which are advanced and tell you to do something else when failing that save instead.
Does this answer your question?
No, because the argument at hand is discussing sequencing. Not basic vs advanced.
WrentheFaceless wrote:
OIIIIIIO wrote: You are not grasping what he is trying to convey. If you force sequencing to allow the Hellfrost Cannon to not allowing FNP or RP to be rolled then by the same token, a person could force sequence of remove casualties prior to FNP, as they ALL proc off of the same basic rule.
Well then its a basic vs advanced situation, Basic being remove models that lose all wounds from play vs advanced FNP rule.
So Remove Casualties and FNP are not rules that, and I'll quote here, "two or more rules [that] are to be resolved at the same time"?
I've been assured that Helfrost and FNP are... and from what I can tell of the rules, FNP and RC are...
Again its a disingenuous argument
I assure you, this statement is incorrect.
Rigeld2 is constantly ignoring the already posted rules regarding Sequencing. In the case of his example the wording is explicit on which happens in what sequence, where as FNP vs Helfrost does not.
It's explicit? Please elaborate.
When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound,
- FNP
If it fails, reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.
- RC So a model suffers an unsaved wound. You're going to tell me that reducing its wounds by one and suffering a wound aren't "rules ... to be resolved at the same time"?
NightHowler wrote: <snip insulting comment that in no way added to the thread, regardless of the fact that it was a movie quote>
So no actual rules debate from you? That's cool. In the future, it'd be better if you either not post, or post to say you can't find a rules fault to my argument.
FNP/RP must come first because you don't know if the wound is unsaved yet or not.
To use the Sequencing argument you must concede that a model with a single wound could be removed as a casualty before FNP could ever be rolled.
FNP/RP must come first because you don't know if the wound is unsaved yet or not.
To use the Sequencing argument you must concede that a model with a single wound could be removed as a casualty before FNP could ever be rolled.
This is wrong because they happen at the same time. Therefore - sequencing.
Edited to remove snarkiness since you gave me a debate.
Also Edited to say that FNP, RP, and Helfrost are all triggered by an unsaved wound and therefore must happen at the same time. We are not told which to resolve first and so we MUST use sequencing. Saying that we don't know if a wound has been unsaved yet is not accurate - it's unsaved when you fail your save roll. The fact that you can later have a chance to get that save back if you roll a successful FNP or RP is irrelevant since you must first decide the sequence of which will happen first - FNP, RP, or Helfrost. The sequencing rule tells us what to do in that situation.
FNP/RP must come first because you don't know if the wound is unsaved yet or not. To use the Sequencing argument you must concede that a model with a single wound could be removed as a casualty before FNP could ever be rolled.
This is wrong because they happen at the same time. Therefore - sequencing.
So you agree that single wound models don't get FNP/RP? edit: on your opponents turn
So you agree that single wound models don't get FNP/RP? edit: on your opponents turn
No. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if there are more than one special rules that are all triggered at the same time, and one of those special rules could prevent the others, that sequencing tells you very clearly how to proceed. If you do Helfrost first you don't get FNP or RP. If you do FNP or RP first you don't get Helfrost - and which comes first depends on sequencing.
tag8833 wrote:Big complication. From the Dark Eldar FAQ released today:
Q. Is a shadow field lost if a model suffers an unsaved Wound that is subsequently discounted due to a successful Feel No Pain roll?
A. Yes.
I think that is a clear precedence. Feel No Pain does not stop you from "Suffering" an "Unsaved Wound"
Addressed earlier in the thread. It doesn't really set a precedent as it's very specific on what is being asked and answered. The Shadow Field is a special thing, and the answer doesn't broaden the applicability of the question.
So you agree that single wound models don't get FNP/RP? edit: on your opponents turn
No. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if there are more than one special rules that are all triggered at the same time, and one of those special rules could prevent the others, that sequencing tells you very clearly how to proceed. If you do Helfrost first you don't get FNP or RP. If you do FNP or RP first you don't get Helfrost - and which comes first depends on sequencing.
And why are you limiting this to only special rules? The sequencing rules don't limit themselves to special rules. So you're inserting an arbitrary limitation?
And why are you limiting this to only special rules? The sequencing rules don't limit themselves to special rules. So you're inserting an arbitrary limitation?
Sequencing doesn't have to limit itself to special rules since we are already told that special rules override basic rules.
If you are told by a basic rule to remove the model after it fails a save, but told by an advanced rule that instead of removing it you roll a dice and do something else - you follow the advanced rule. The interaction between advanced and basic is not one of sequencing. The interaction between helfrost and FNP is.
And why are you limiting this to only special rules? The sequencing rules don't limit themselves to special rules. So you're inserting an arbitrary limitation?
Sequencing doesn't have to limit itself to special rules since we are already told that special rules override basic rules.
So BvA says that we don't actually have multiple rules to resolve at the same time?
I don't see that anywhere. Are you sure?
Sequencing doesn't have to limit itself to special rules since we are already told that special rules override basic rules.
So BvA says that we don't actually have multiple rules to resolve at the same time?
I don't see that anywhere. Are you sure?
I'm not sure I understand your question. When did I say that BvA says we don't have multiple rules to resolve? What I said was that BvA tells us that instead of removing the casualty after failing a save, we use one of 3 advanced rules and that if those 3 advanced rules happen simultaneously (as RP, FNP, and Helfrost do) then you use the sequencing rule on page 17 of the BRB to figure out which one is resolved first.
Sequencing doesn't have to limit itself to special rules since we are already told that special rules override basic rules.
So BvA says that we don't actually have multiple rules to resolve at the same time?
I don't see that anywhere. Are you sure?
I'm not sure I understand your question. When did I say that BvA says we don't have multiple rules to resolve? What I said was that BvA tells us that instead of removing the casualty after failing a save, we use one of 3 advanced rules and that if those 3 advanced rules happen simultaneously (as RP, FNP, and Helfrost do) then you use the sequencing rule on page 17 of the BRB to figure out which one is resolved first.
I'm boiling this down to its simplest form.
A single bolter wound on a Tactical Marine with FNP. Please, using rules, explain why Sequencing does not apply here.
A single bolter wound on a Tactical Marine with FNP. Please, using rules, explain why Sequencing does not apply here.
Because sequencing only happens when two rules are supposed to occur simultaneously. But we are told by the advance vs basic that whenever an advanced rule (like FNP) would conflict with a basic rule, the advanced rule happens instead (paraphrasing here for the sake of expediency).
Basic rule says that when you suffer a wound and fail a save, you remove the model (if it has no additional wounds).
Advanced rule says that when you suffer a wound and fail a save, you roll a dice and get back up (with some caveats).
A single bolter wound on a Tactical Marine with FNP. Please, using rules, explain why Sequencing does not apply here.
Because sequencing only happens when two rules are supposed to occur simultaneously. But we are told by the advance vs basic that whenever an advanced rule (like FNP) would conflict with a basic rule, the advanced rule happens instead (paraphrasing here for the sake of expediency).
Basic rule says that when you suffer a wound and fail a save, you remove the model (if it has no additional wounds).
Advanced rule says that when you suffer a wound and fail a save, you roll a dice and get back up (with some caveats).
I'm not sure how something that conflicts means that it doesn't happen simultaneously.
The wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first - it's implied, and BvA is pretty explicit, but not applying the Sequencing rules seems out of place in your argument.
Basic rules are, upon failing a save, the unsaved wound removes an appropriate amount of wounds from the models wound characteristic, until it reaches 0 and removed from play.
That is the basic flow of events from the rule book, not verbatim because I dont have it in front of me.
FNP triggers upon an unsaved wound. It is an Advanced Rule. The rulebook tells us that Advanced rules trump basic rules such as the normal order of resolving unsaved wounds.
Therefore its clear per RAW on how to resolve the situation you're arguing rigeld. The Sequencing rule doesnt take affect because there is no dispute, the rules explicitly tell us how to solve "X unit has FNP, is wounded by bolters and is unsaved". You dont get to pick they suffer wounds because FNP tells you that they have that rule.
Hellfrost/FNP/RP all trigger on 'when a unit takes unsaved wounds", therefore they all trigger 'at the same time' and enither has priority over the other. The rule book also states that in a situation like this the posted Sequencing quote on page 1. The player who's turn it it is decides the order.
And if Helfrost is failed the model is removed from play, there is no model left for RP to apply to, which is RAW
Unless you can provide rules which states they happen 'similtaneously' and dont apply to the "Sequencing" rules.
TLDR: Bolter wound on model with FNP doesnt apply sequencing, Basic Vs Advance explains sequence
Hellfrost/RP/FNP, Sequencing applies, because neither rule's wording implies it takes precendence over the other, they all hapen 'at the same time' so player who's turn it is decides. None of them 'imply' they go before the others
Feel free to post rules that contradict this, per RAW.
I'm not sure how something that conflicts means that it doesn't happen simultaneously.
The wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first - it's implied, and BvA is pretty explicit, but not applying the Sequencing rules seems out of place in your argument.
Because advanced rules don't happen simultaneously with basic rules. You simply do what the advanced rule says to do instead of doing anything else.
In the case of Helfrost, RP, and FNP however, they are all advanced rules and they are all triggered by failing an armor save. Because they are all 3 advanced rules and are all triggered at the same time, sequencing directs you to let the player who's turn it is decide the order.
RP very clearly do not negate Helfrost. The statement that removed from play doesn't allow them to work covers that. And since the attacker determines what order things happen, Helfrost would always be first, thus not allowing RP. Models that are removed from play are just that, removed from play. You don't get to trigger any of their abilities since, for all intents and purposes, ceased to be.
its in the FAQ now... RE things like entropic strike where FNP may undo the wound that was caused, but it wont undo the special rules that were imparted.
you get your FNP and RP rolls, you still roll the hellfrost as well if they succeed.
casvalremdeikun wrote: RP very clearly do not negate Helfrost. The statement that removed from play doesn't allow them to work covers that. And since the attacker determines what order things happen, Helfrost would always be first, thus not allowing RP. Models that are removed from play are just that, removed from play. You don't get to trigger any of their abilities since, for all intents and purposes, ceased to be.
Keep in mind that if RP triggers first, there is no failed save to trigger the Helfrost, so if a group of necron warriors charged a space wolves unit with a helfrost weapon and the helfrost weapon were fired in overwatch, the necron warriors would be able to use sequencing to trigger RP first. Since there is no longer a failed save for the models that pass their RP roll, Helfrost would not trigger in that situation.
easysauce wrote: its in the FAQ now... RE things like entropic strike where FNP may undo the wound that was caused, but it wont undo the special rules that were imparted.
you get your FNP and RP rolls, you still roll the hellfrost as well if they succeed.
Wouldn't it just be easier for you to roll helfrost first and only if you succeed on the Str test do you get to roll FNP or RP?
easysauce wrote: its in the FAQ now... RE things like entropic strike where FNP may undo the wound that was caused, but it wont undo the special rules that were imparted.
you get your FNP and RP rolls, you still roll the hellfrost as well if they succeed.
casvalremdeikun wrote: RP very clearly do not negate Helfrost. The statement that removed from play doesn't allow them to work covers that. And since the attacker determines what order things happen, Helfrost would always be first, thus not allowing RP. Models that are removed from play are just that, removed from play. You don't get to trigger any of their abilities since, for all intents and purposes, ceased to be.
Keep in mind that if RP triggers first, there is no failed save to trigger the Helfrost, so if a group of necron warriors charged a space wolves unit with a helfrost weapon and the helfrost weapon were fired in overwatch, the necron warriors would be able to use sequencing to trigger RP first. Since there is no longer a failed save for the models that pass their RP roll, Helfrost would not trigger in that situation.
Still wouldn't work. With the new FAQ setting the precedent, FNP and RP only negate the wound itself, not the special rules triggered by the wounding attack.
easysauce wrote: its in the FAQ now... RE things like entropic strike where FNP may undo the wound that was caused, but it wont undo the special rules that were imparted.
you get your FNP and RP rolls, you still roll the hellfrost as well if they succeed.
Which faq is this?
Dark eldar FAQ is what im looking at,
it has a FAQ where the wound is FNP'd away, but the special rules stay
FNP only lets you ignore wounds, nothing else,
entropic strike, the DE sheilds rules, ect ect are all rules outside of the wound.
FNP lets you ignore the wound, but not special rules outside of wounds.
easysauce wrote: its in the FAQ now... RE things like entropic strike where FNP may undo the wound that was caused, but it wont undo the special rules that were imparted.
you get your FNP and RP rolls, you still roll the hellfrost as well if they succeed.
Which faq is this?
The new Dark Eldar one that states that even if a model succeeds on FNP, they would still lose their shadow field. IE, FNP and RP would ONLY negate the wound.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Still wouldn't work. With the new FAQ setting the precedent, FNP and RP only negate the wound itself, not the special rules triggered by the wounding attack.
You can not apply an FAQ for one codex's piece of wargear across the entire game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: its in the FAQ now... RE things like entropic strike where FNP may undo the wound that was caused, but it wont undo the special rules that were imparted.
you get your FNP and RP rolls, you still roll the hellfrost as well if they succeed.
I don't see how it changes anything. You still have to choose a sequence with which these are resolved.
If helfrost is resolved first, you'll never get to use RP or FNP since the model will be removed from play.
If either RP or FNP is resolved first, you'll not be allowed to use Helfrost since there would no longer be an unsaved wound.
telling us how something works in one FAQ is enough...
they do not literally need to make errata for every single special rule ..
if FNP doesnt remove special rules from one type of wound, there is no reason to believe it does from others.
Its far more precedent and evidence then you can bring up for FNP ignoring both special rules and wounds for everything and claim that the DEfaq is the exception, not the rule.
easysauce wrote: telling us how something works in one FAQ is enough...
they do not literally need to make errata for every single special rule ..
if FNP doesnt remove special rules from one type of wound, there is no reason to believe it does from others.
Its far more precedent and evidence then you can bring up for FNP ignoring both special rules and wounds for everything and claim that the DEfaq is the exception, not the rule.
Not sure if serious, or trolling...
The dark eldar FAQ literally says that Shadowfield is lost even if the model makes it's feel no pain roll. It makes no mention of feel no pain changing in any way. It is referencing one single item of dark eldar wargear, and you're going to extrapolate from that one FAQ about one single piece of wargear that now everything else in the game affects a model even after it makes it's feel no pain roll.
Once you start applying errata and FAQ for one codex's wargear to every other unit in the game, you start a very serious problem of trying to interpret every other rules interaction through the lens of one item of wargear from one faction.
And even if you are correct about FNP, are we supposed to assume that it applies to RP. What about holofields? How far do these sweeping changes hidden in the DEfaq go?
megatrons2nd wrote: The Dark Eldar FAQ does prove that FnP doesn't go back in time as some have been known to claim.
right... this is all we need to know...
if this is how we treat FNP with regards to one wound/special rule combo, then there is no reason to expect it to work differently with other combos.
yes, the FAQ is specific to one wound/rule combo... that doesn't mean it doesn't set precedent.
The faq has one explicit wound/rule combo and has told us explicitly that FNP does undo the wound, but not the rule.
If you could find a single FAQ that said the opposite, then sure, you might have an argument that its not applied the same in every rule/wound combo.
but you dont have that.
so we have one position, with some pretty good precedent being set in a faq,
and one position with no precedent, no faq, no nothing.
ergo, you go with the position with the most proof, and if the position with zero proof criticizes the position with at least some proof, thats not really a sound position to take.
I'm not sure how something that conflicts means that it doesn't happen simultaneously.
The wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first - it's implied, and BvA is pretty explicit, but not applying the Sequencing rules seems out of place in your argument.
Because advanced rules don't happen simultaneously with basic rules. You simply do what the advanced rule says to do instead of doing anything else.
In the case of Helfrost, RP, and FNP however, they are all advanced rules and they are all triggered by failing an armor save. Because they are all 3 advanced rules and are all triggered at the same time, sequencing directs you to let the player who's turn it is decide the order.
The problem is you are now claiming that FnP does something other than what it does.
It changes if a model suffers a wound or not, not what happens if the model did suffer a wound.
Helfrost and casualty removal when wounds are reduced from 1-0 are results of a wound actually being suffered.
FnP is not the result of a wound actually being suffered, because the model is not reduced from 1-0 wounds and then you roll FnP which is the model actually suffering the wound.
Roll a D6each 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.
FnP has to occur at some time before the models wounds are actually reduced, because the wound is not reduced from 1-0 until you roll FnP and fail the FnP role. Until that time there is no actual wound suffered. In fact given sequencing FnP most likely occurs during the save step as it states "treat is as having been saved" which is what its states RAW in the quote above from the BRB. As per step 6 of the shooting sequence.
If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
You do not reduced a models wounds from 1-0 until it suffers an unsaved wound, so it is not removed as a casualty (a result of suffers an unsaved wound) until that happens. FnP has to occur before that part of the step as it calls out "treat it as having been saved" so it comes in after the save fail but before the model actually suffers an unsaved wound.
the model does not actually go from 1-0 wounds, which is the process of actually suffering an unsaved wound.
if helfrost was meant to deny FnP, it would have just said so in its rules.
not sure if it bears any merit in the discussion, but the OP quote uses 'suffers' for fnp, when the ebook uses 'suffered' Not sure if OP is quoting from a mini book, or normal BRB, or mistyped.
Dozer Blades wrote: Sorry but you can't in general take from one codex and apply it to all others.
GW has said FNP interacts with one rule/wound combo in a particular manner.
There is no reason to believe FNP interacts differently when other wound/rule combos come up.
There are many many wound/rule combos out there, GW has clarified one for sure, who knows if/when they will get around to the others.
The lack of specific FAQ's for every single one does nothing for your case, or mine.
That there is at least one FAQ showing GW's official intent for FNP in at least one wound/rule combo situation, is just that...
one example of them telling us how to deal with FNP and wound/rule combos.
would it be ideal to have an example for every single combo? yes... will it happen? no... but having one example of FNP working this way is still *infinitely* more examples of how it works then people who say it doesn't work this way have.
You cannot claim that one sides lack of proof means anything, when its more proof then you have yourself.
the force weapon vs ID vs FNP is/was also only in the GK codex FAQ, yet it applies across the board.
One specific faction FAQ, that deals with a generic USR like FNP can and does very much set precedent for similar rules interactions in other books.
I don't think suffering an unsaved wound triggers the remove casualty rule. I think that it triggers the reduce the models wounds by one. It that reduces the model's wounds to 0 then the remove as casualty rule is activated. Basically I see suffering an unsaved Wound as gaining a -1 Wound counter on the model which sets off the list of unsaved wound triggered effects.
Dozer Blades wrote: Sorry but you can't in general take from one codex and apply it to all others.
Of course you can. If GW explains how they want you to interpret certain wording "Suffers an unsaved wound", it it perfectly reasonable to extrapolate that any rule that uses the language "Suffers an unsaved wound" should be interpreted in the same fashion.
To put it another way, we now have a definitive RAW argument for FNP not negating effects that are triggered by "suffering an unsaved wound:. We have lost the RAW argument that FNP negates effects that are triggered by "suffering an unsaved wound". The only way that the "Its a codex specific thing" would apply is if the rule in the codex used wording different from the rules in other codexes, or the BRB. It doesn't. "Suffers an unsaved Wound" is the wording used for all of these effects, and we now know how FNP should interact with it. If you really wanted to argue you could maintain that Resurrection Protocols function differently in regards to "Suffering an unsaved wound" from FNP, but I doubt many people would embrace such a distinction.
Dozer Blades wrote: Sorry but you can't in general take from one codex and apply it to all others.
Of course you can. If GW explains how they want you to interpret certain wording "Suffers an unsaved wound", it it perfectly reasonable to extrapolate that any rule that uses the language "Suffers an unsaved wound" should be interpreted in the same fashion.
To put it another way, we now have a definitive RAW argument for FNP not negating effects that are triggered by "suffering an unsaved wound:. We have lost the RAW argument that FNP negates effects that are triggered by "suffering an unsaved wound". The only way that the "Its a codex specific thing" would apply is if the rule in the codex used wording different from the rules in other codexes, or the BRB. It doesn't. "Suffers an unsaved Wound" is the wording used for all of these effects, and we now know how FNP should interact with it. If you really wanted to argue you could maintain that Resurrection Protocols function differently in regards to "Suffering an unsaved wound" from FNP, but I doubt many people would embrace such a distinction.
Dozer Blades wrote: Sorry but you can't in general take from one codex and apply it to all others.
Of course you can. If GW explains how they want you to interpret certain wording "Suffers an unsaved wound", it it perfectly reasonable to extrapolate that any rule that uses the language "Suffers an unsaved wound" should be interpreted in the same fashion.
To put it another way, we now have a definitive RAW argument for FNP not negating effects that are triggered by "suffering an unsaved wound:. We have lost the RAW argument that FNP negates effects that are triggered by "suffering an unsaved wound". The only way that the "Its a codex specific thing" would apply is if the rule in the codex used wording different from the rules in other codexes, or the BRB. It doesn't. "Suffers an unsaved Wound" is the wording used for all of these effects, and we now know how FNP should interact with it. If you really wanted to argue you could maintain that Resurrection Protocols function differently in regards to "Suffering an unsaved wound" from FNP, but I doubt many people would embrace such a distinction.
And again RP is not FNP.
No but the wording means they are functionally the same. They function in the same way, the fact they are different rules are no kind of debate, you would have to show where and why in the wording of the rules make them function different in this situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: its in the FAQ now... RE things like entropic strike where FNP may undo the wound that was caused, but it wont undo the special rules that were imparted.
you get your FNP and RP rolls, you still roll the hellfrost as well if they succeed.
I did not expect the continuation of that - Someone mentioned on Pg1 about FMC's grounding tests which are taken at the end of the phase - I guess it has large implications for that also (Well, for people who didn't take GT's, as evidently some already were).
WrentheFaceless wrote: Basic rules are, upon failing a save, the unsaved wound removes an appropriate amount of wounds from the models wound characteristic, until it reaches 0 and removed from play.
That is the basic flow of events from the rule book, not verbatim because I dont have it in front of me.
FNP triggers upon an unsaved wound. It is an Advanced Rule. The rulebook tells us that Advanced rules trump basic rules such as the normal order of resolving unsaved wounds.
Therefore its clear per RAW on how to resolve the situation you're arguing rigeld. The Sequencing rule doesnt take affect because there is no dispute, the rules explicitly tell us how to solve "X unit has FNP, is wounded by bolters and is unsaved". You don't get to pick they suffer wounds because FNP tells you that they have that rule.
Hellfrost/FNP/RP all trigger on 'when a unit takes unsaved wounds", therefore they all trigger 'at the same time' and neither has priority over the other. The rule book also states that in a situation like this the posted Sequencing quote on page 1. The player who's turn it it is decides the order.
And if Helfrost is failed the model is removed from play, there is no model left for RP to apply to, which is RAW
Unless you can provide rules which states they happen 'simultaneously' and dont apply to the "Sequencing" rules.
TLDR: Bolter wound on model with FNP doesn't apply sequencing, Basic Vs Advance explains sequence
Hellfrost/RP/FNP, Sequencing applies, because neither rule's wording implies it takes precedence over the other, they all happen 'at the same time' so player who's turn it is decides. None of them 'imply' they go before the others
Feel free to post rules that contradict this, per RAW.
This is the best explanation i would agree to for the Sequencing V Basic & Advanced part of this thread.
Sequencing does not mention BvA but they will still both apply...
When it comes down to the Hellfrost V FNP/RP, I can see and agree to both sides of the argument, but blacktoof's explanation has got me leaning towards FNP/RP happening first:
blaktoof wrote: Helfrost and casualty removal when wounds are reduced from 1-0 are results of a wound actually being suffered.
FnP has to occur at some time before the models wounds are actually reduced, because the wound is not reduced from 1-0 until you roll FnP and fail the FnP role. Until that time there is no actual wound suffered. In fact given sequencing FnP most likely occurs during the save step as it states "treat is as having been saved"
if helfrost was meant to deny FnP, it would have just said so in its rules.
Which I would TL : DR as:
Hellfrost requires a Wound to have been suffered (you have reduced the model by 1 wound). FNP/RP is almost a second save: The model is just about to suffer a Wound (if the test is failed, THEN you have reduced the model by 1 wound)
But sequencing isn't based on what the outcome of a SR might be, sequencing is based on trigger events in 40k.
The argument blaktoof puts forward is a good reason to also never roll FNP at all. You can only roll FNP if you have a unsaved wound. To be able to invoke it, roll it at all you need a unsaved wound.
The only outcomes of that are:
1. We know we have a unsaved wound, and we roll for SR's which trigger on a unsaved wound.
2. Or we don't know if we have a unsaved wound. Which means we can not roll FNP.
Since we roll for FNP at all, we all agree there is a unsaved wound, FNP itself knows there is a unsaved wound, and tell us there is so. So technically we take a wound off the model, then put it back on before removing it as a casualty.
The problem with this list in how they are dealt - if you fail a save then you remove a wound and remove the model if it reaches 0. There is no space in between for anything other than saves normally, but they chose to have this after saves because it's the only logical placement for it, when you have suffered a unsaved wound. I think we can all agree though FNP is not intended to have the model removed if it reaches 0 'before' its FNP roll.
That doesn't mean then the logical jump is you havn't suffered a unsaved wound when FNP clearly states you have, its a problem with the short space of events in that process.
The thing is, i agree with the method of resolution he puts forward: "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."
The above states that, once you fail FNP, you must take the Wound, but the Wound is not taken until after the roll is made. So for a short example of how i see things work, from his interpretation:
A) Suffer an unsaved Wound > FNP > take the Wound (from 1 to 0, or 6 to 5) > remove the model. B) Suffer an unsaved Wound > take the Wound (from 1 to 0, or 6 to 5) > Hellfrost > remove the model.
Sure, suffering a Wound and taking the wound is "the same", but what if you look at the shooting rules: "If it fails (Save), reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty."
There is no space there for the whole FNP method, but it must insert itself somewhere between "If it fails" and "reduce that model’s Wounds by 1."
Hellfrost, however seems like it will comes after "reduce that model’s Wounds by 1.".
"an unsaved Wound is suffered" might be the same timing wording, but upon clearer inspection of both rules, they are on either side, and separated by the timing of "reduce that model’s Wounds by 1." This is not an existing RaW timing and only a logical conclusion...
BlackTalos wrote: The thing is, i agree with the method of resolution he puts forward:
"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."
The above states that, once you fail FNP, you must take the Wound, but the Wound is not taken until after the roll is made. So for a short example of how i see things work, from his interpretation:
A) Suffer an unsaved Wound > FNP > take the Wound (from 1 to 0, or 6 to 5) > remove the model.
B) Suffer an unsaved Wound > take the Wound (from 1 to 0, or 6 to 5) > Hellfrost > remove the model.
Sure, suffering a Wound and taking the wound is "the same", but what if you look at the shooting rules:
"If it fails (Save), reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty."
There is no space there for the whole FNP method, but it must insert itself somewhere between "If it fails" and "reduce that model’s Wounds by 1."
Hellfrost, however seems like it will comes after "reduce that model’s Wounds by 1.".
"an unsaved Wound is suffered" might be the same timing wording, but upon clearer inspection of both rules, they are on either side, and separated by the timing of "reduce that model’s Wounds by 1." This is not an existing RaW timing and only a logical conclusion...
The fact remains that FNP, and these other items are triggered at the same time on the same conditions, so if FNP is triggered sometime before you remove the wound, then functionally so do the others- just it doesn't normally make sense to try and apply them to a model which you know is going to be removed.This would also cover Eternal Warrior, which upon suffering a unsaved wound stops the ID effect of it (before you remove a wound). Or the Swarms rule which changes the wound value when it suffers a unsaved wound, all in all I would say GW at least believe suffering a unsaved wound is some 'limbo' mode we have going on before you actually remove the wound from the line, despite their description of the sequence in the shooting phase.
The problem is there has now been 2 FAQ's that disprove the theory, at least based on intent (note that FNP has not changed)
In 6th there was the FAQ for force weapons being able to activate before FNP - while force weapons would have caused ID if successful, and had the clause 'immediately on suffering a unsaved wound' and could be used as a reason to why they rules via FAQ force weapons come before FNP, though in this particular argument they shouldn't have. We now have another FAQ suggesting FNP doesn't happen before any other effects with 'suffering a unsaved wound', and while I understand the basis (I spent a lot of time looking at wounds and Wounds and all sorts) it's becoming difficult to argue that's either the intent, or that 'suffers a unsaved wound' and 'suffers a unsaved wound' are not at the same time.
BlackTalos wrote: Hellfrost requires a Wound to have been suffered (you have reduced the model by 1 wound).
FNP/RP is almost a second save: The model is just about to suffer a Wound (if the test is failed, THEN you have reduced the model by 1 wound)
This is what I've been trying to say.
You don't know if the wound is unsaved until after FNP/RP. So rolling Helfrost before determining that is breaking a rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nem wrote: The problem is there has now been 2 FAQ's that disprove the theory, at least based on intent (note that FNP has not changed)
In 6th there was the FAQ for force weapons being able to activate before FNP - while force weapons would have caused ID if successful, and had the clause 'immediately on suffering a unsaved wound' and could be used as a reason to why they rules via FAQ force weapons come before FNP, though in this particular argument they shouldn't have. We now have another FAQ suggesting FNP doesn't happen before any other effects with 'suffering a unsaved wound', and while I understand the basis (I spent a lot of time looking at wounds and Wounds and all sorts) it's becoming difficult to argue that's either the intent, or that 'suffers a unsaved wound' and 'suffers a unsaved wound' are not at the same time.
GW has been known to change rules using FAQs for a long time. Claiming a single instance proves everything is simply ludicrous.
rigeld2 wrote: You don't know if the wound is unsaved until after FNP/RP. So rolling Helfrost before determining that is breaking a rule.
It's my interpretation that because the wording of FNP/RP says "the unsaved wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved" instead of simply stating that the unsaved wound is saved means that even if you pass FNP/RP it has still technically suffered an unsaved wound that was discounted (not saved) and would have to roll for helfrost.
BlackTalos wrote: Hellfrost requires a Wound to have been suffered (you have reduced the model by 1 wound).
FNP/RP is almost a second save: The model is just about to suffer a Wound (if the test is failed, THEN you have reduced the model by 1 wound)
This is what I've been trying to say.
You don't know if the wound is unsaved until after FNP/RP. So rolling Helfrost before determining that is breaking a rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nem wrote: The problem is there has now been 2 FAQ's that disprove the theory, at least based on intent (note that FNP has not changed)
In 6th there was the FAQ for force weapons being able to activate before FNP - while force weapons would have caused ID if successful, and had the clause 'immediately on suffering a unsaved wound' and could be used as a reason to why they rules via FAQ force weapons come before FNP, though in this particular argument they shouldn't have. We now have another FAQ suggesting FNP doesn't happen before any other effects with 'suffering a unsaved wound', and while I understand the basis (I spent a lot of time looking at wounds and Wounds and all sorts) it's becoming difficult to argue that's either the intent, or that 'suffers a unsaved wound' and 'suffers a unsaved wound' are not at the same time.
GW has been known to change rules using FAQs for a long time. Claiming a single instance proves everything is simply ludicrous.
Of course, sometimes they change the rules, sometimes they don't change the rules, sometimes they add rules, sometimes they take away rules. They are though, the best insight outside the words in the BRB to what a rule is attempting to do. Through 6th and 7th, there are 2 FAQs against the theory of 'not knowing if there is a unsaved wound till after FNP'. If one came out tomorrow with 'FNP always comes before *a particular rule*' I would say they changed the rules (well, actually I'd just be like OK lets play this consistently across the board, but that's just me), that is though a matter of perspective here.
Anyway, I know what you think about it, you know what I think about it for anyone who is new here some older threads for you FNP VS...
rigeld2 wrote: You don't know if the wound is unsaved until after FNP/RP. So rolling Helfrost before determining that is breaking a rule.
It's my interpretation that because the wording of FNP/RP says "the unsaved wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved" instead of simply stating that the unsaved wound is saved means that even if you pass FNP/RP it has still technically suffered an unsaved wound that was discounted (not saved) and would have to roll for helfrost.
"treat as" must mean the same as "is" as far as 40k goes, or all kinds of things break down.
So the wound, for all intents and purposes, is saved.
Further support that FnP is a modification of the save process before actually removing the wound for a model to go from1-0 where they actually suffer an unsaved wound.
from the assault section in the BRB:
To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved Wounds inflicted by each side onto their opponents.
Determining assault results is based on unsaved wounds.
Wounds that have been negated by saving throws or special rules do not count towards determining who won the combat. Neither do Wounds in excess of a model’s Wounds characteristic; only the Wounds actually suffered by enemy models count
FnP is a special rule that negates a wound, so the models do not actually suffer an unsaved wound towards combat resolution.
The wording of FnP is, poor. It is listed as not a save, but then states it is a save.
When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw
Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or...
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.
Either this is crazy rules where it is both not a save and a save at the same time.
Or it further supports the timing that it happens during the save step, but before the model actually suffers a wound and goes from 1-0 wounds. As we are told that it is not a save, so okay its not a save. The model makes a save(if allowed) if it fails that before it actually suffers an unsaved wound which would go from 1-0 wounds, it gets a FnP roll at the save step, as we are told it is treated as being saved. This has to be a modification of the save roll, despite not being a save, otherwise it would have to say something to the effect of 'before reducing the models wounds by 1 roll a d6.." which it does not.
Also regarding the dark eldar shadowfield, given the other things brought up in the new faqs It is not okay to say that because of that ruling for that one item then all things that are 'unsaved wounds' work this way.
The reasoning given:
the rules for walkers are basic rules, they are in the vehicle section. The rule that the walker turns to face attacks is a basic rule specific to walkers.
The rule for HoW stated that it hit the facing the unit charged, HoW is a specific advanced rule.
If advanded trumps basic, then there would be no reason for the change in the new far/errata that Walkers turn to face HoW.
GW made this specific rules interaction for this specific advanced rule and specific type of vehicle that goes against the rules of Basic Vs. Advanced.
So either the shadowfield FnP rule is a one off rule regarding FnP, or its all encompassing.
But if faq/errata rules are all encompasing now there is an argument that advanced rules do not trump basic rules based on the walker ruling that has happened. Which is silly.
BlackTalos wrote: The thing is, i agree with the method of resolution he puts forward: "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."
The above states that, once you fail FNP, you must take the Wound, but the Wound is not taken until after the roll is made. So for a short example of how i see things work, from his interpretation:
A) Suffer an unsaved Wound > FNP > take the Wound (from 1 to 0, or 6 to 5) > remove the model. B) Suffer an unsaved Wound > take the Wound (from 1 to 0, or 6 to 5) > Hellfrost > remove the model.
Sure, suffering a Wound and taking the wound is "the same", but what if you look at the shooting rules: "If it fails (Save), reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty."
There is no space there for the whole FNP method, but it must insert itself somewhere between "If it fails" and "reduce that model’s Wounds by 1."
Hellfrost, however seems like it will comes after "reduce that model’s Wounds by 1.".
"an unsaved Wound is suffered" might be the same timing wording, but upon clearer inspection of both rules, they are on either side, and separated by the timing of "reduce that model’s Wounds by 1." This is not an existing RaW timing and only a logical conclusion...
The fact remains that FNP, and these other items are triggered at the same time on the same conditions, so if FNP is triggered sometime before you remove the wound, then functionally so do the others- just it doesn't normally make sense to try and apply them to a model which you know is going to be removed.This would also cover Eternal Warrior, which upon suffering a unsaved wound stops the ID effect of it (before you remove a wound). Or the Swarms rule which changes the wound value when it suffers a unsaved wound, all in all I would say GW at least believe suffering a unsaved wound is some 'limbo' mode we have going on before you actually remove the wound from the line, despite their description of the sequence in the shooting phase.
The problem is there has now been 2 FAQ's that disprove the theory, at least based on intent (note that FNP has not changed) In 6th there was the FAQ for force weapons being able to activate before FNP - while force weapons would have caused ID if successful, and had the clause 'immediately on suffering a unsaved wound' and could be used as a reason to why they rules via FAQ force weapons come before FNP, though in this particular argument they shouldn't have. We now have another FAQ suggesting FNP doesn't happen before any other effects with 'suffering a unsaved wound', and while I understand the basis (I spent a lot of time looking at wounds and Wounds and all sorts) it's becoming difficult to argue that's either the intent, or that 'suffers a unsaved wound' and 'suffers a unsaved wound' are not at the same time.
I understand what you are saying, but i would still split the "unsaved Wound is suffered" into 3 parts:
1) Suffer an unsaved Wound: - You have been allocated a Wound, and you have failed your save. 2) Take the wound: - Your "Wounds Characteristic" goes down by 1. 3) Remove the model: - If your W Characteristic is now 0, you must remove the model. Or you are left at 5 Wounds if you had 6.
Somehow, all of the above actually happen when a model "suffers an unsaved Wound".
Now i can try to place most of the Special rules listed within the sequence above. Even if the above sequence does not necessarily exist by RaW (it is a single phrase, so not really a "sequence")
1) Suffer an unsaved Wound FNP happens here. 2) Take the woundID happens here. EW happens here. Swarms happens here. Helfrost happens here. ID happens here. 3) Remove the model
Force was modified to be Instant Death. Shadow field, by it's wording, is very strange. It happens after 3) technically, so everything else must have already happenend (including FNP discarding the Wound "ages ago"). But i can easily see how simply reaching step 1) would (by the fluff and possibly RaW - definitely RaI) be enough to activate the rule. But then you could say that the shadowfield is meant to be nullified when the save is failed, so technically even before 1).
You will notice ID is up there twice: The wording is unclear as to whether the reduction of Wounds is instead of the 1 (Like D-Weapons), above shown next to step 2. Or if it is an additional effect: The model reduces its Wounds by 1, followed by a removal of the rest (and therefore apply after 2) . )
I would go for the first option, as ID is referenced by EW...
Blacktoof's post has also made me realised that you are incorrect when you say:
I would say GW at least believe suffering a unsaved wound is some 'limbo' mode we have going on before you actually remove the wound from the line, despite their description of the sequence in the shooting phase.
Helfrost clearly (IMHO) happens after the Wound has been removed: "it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"
Helfrost clearly (IMHO) happens after the Wound has been removed: "it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"
But the rules don't say that FNP happens before a wound is suffered and Helfrost happens after.
The rules actually say:
Helfrost:
“When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from this weapon..."
FNP:
“When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..."
Reanimation Protocols:
"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..."
To claim that one happens first is not a RAW statement. RAW they happen "when a model suffers an unsaved wound". In other words "simultaneously". Which is why we would have to use the sequencing rule to determine which happens first.
Helfrost clearly (IMHO) happens after the Wound has been removed: "it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"
But the rules don't say that FNP happens before a wound is suffered and Helfrost happens after.
The rules actually say:
Helfrost:
“When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from this weapon..."
FNP:
“When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..."
Reanimation Protocols:
"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..."
To claim that one happens first is not a RAW statement. RAW they happen "when a model suffers an unsaved wound". In other words "simultaneously". Which is why we would have to use the sequencing rule to determine which happens first.
As i said if you managed to read my entire post:
i would still split the "unsaved Wound is suffered" into 3 parts:
1) Suffer an unsaved Wound: - You have been allocated a Wound, and you have failed your save.
2) Take the wound: - Your "Wounds Characteristic" goes down by 1.
3) Remove the model: - If your W Characteristic is now 0, you must remove the model. Or you are left at 5 Wounds if you had 6.
Somehow, all of the above actually happen when a model "suffers an unsaved Wound".
Helfrost clearly (IMHO) happens after the Wound has been removed: "it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"
But the rules don't say that FNP happens before a wound is suffered and Helfrost happens after.
The rules actually say:
Helfrost:
“When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from this weapon..."
FNP:
“When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..."
Reanimation Protocols:
"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..."
To claim that one happens first is not a RAW statement. RAW they happen "when a model suffers an unsaved wound". In other words "simultaneously". Which is why we would have to use the sequencing rule to determine which happens first.
As i said if you managed to read my entire post:
i would still split the "unsaved Wound is suffered" into 3 parts:
1) Suffer an unsaved Wound: - You have been allocated a Wound, and you have failed your save.
2) Take the wound: - Your "Wounds Characteristic" goes down by 1.
3) Remove the model: - If your W Characteristic is now 0, you must remove the model. Or you are left at 5 Wounds if you had 6.
Somehow, all of the above actually happen when a model "suffers an unsaved Wound".
FNP happens before 2) but Helfrost happens after.
I did read your entire post. My question is where do you find the rule to support your conclusion?
I'm not trying to be snarky. For me, it seems that when the trigger for all 3 is "suffers an unsaved wound" it's difficult to defend the position that one happens before another.
BlackTalos wrote: The only existing RaW (but as i said, i logically conclude from RaW, it is not Explicit) is this:
BlackTalos wrote: "If it fails (Save), reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty."
but that happens after the rule comes into play.
the trigger for all 3 rules is the same.
for example, helfrost skips the part about reduce the model's wounds by 1 and therefore also skips the part about remove it as a casualty. With helfrost, if it fails a save, it makes a S test and if it fails that test it is removed from play. With FNP, if it fails a save, it makes a FNP test and if it passes that it acts as if it had saved. BOTH helfrost and FNP are triggered by exactly the same thing - an unsaved wound.
If it fails (Save), reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.
The above is the "3 Steps" i am pretty much "concluding" from RaW.
If you do not see it from the above and my explanation:
I completely understand and agree with your position on this. I just think there is more there in the internal logical function, for which you would have to look past: "“When a model (...) suffers an unsaved Wound"
BlackTalos wrote: If it fails (Save), reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.
The above is the "3 Steps" i am pretty much "concluding" from RaW.
If you do not see it from the above and my explanation:
I completely understand and agree with your position on this. I just think there is more there in the internal logical function, for which you would have to look past: "“When a model (...) suffers an unsaved Wound"
I'm just going to say I don't agree, you can split it down into 3 parts, but each happens on point 1. Suffering a unsaved wound.
None of them activate on step take wound, or step remove the model from play. All of them are activated on step 1. If the distinction needed, or was intended to be made, its quite easy for it to be written so. Even without breaking it down into steps FNP could be written 'When a model with this special rule is about to suffer a unsaved wound' or 'before a model with this special rule suffers a unsaved wound'. Which would conveniently also fall into 'explicit which would go first'. Now, I know GW are not famed for writing but since this rule been questionable for a few editions now...
Even the part you said I'm not correct on, its because your ignoring part of the sentence....
"it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"
VS
"it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"
...Which would be when it suffered the unsaved wound. Suffer a unsaved wound? STR test. Suffer a unsaved wound? STR test. Its only saying the same as FNP's clarification you can take it on every wound you suffer.
And your placing rules based on where you want them to be in the sequence. There's really no reason why the others would be placed after suffering a unsaved wound. 3 steps may be RAW, but still all of them happen RAW at step 1.
EDIT: Either way ID has to happen at the same step. Or Force does, we know force has Priority over FNP, and perhaps everything else worded 'immediately'. Which they could have also put in FNP since the terminology already exists
NightHowler wrote: for example, helfrost skips the part about reduce the model's wounds by 1 and therefore also skips the part about remove it as a casualty. With helfrost, if it fails a save, it makes a S test and if it fails that test it is removed from play. With FNP, if it fails a save, it makes a FNP test and if it passes that it acts as if it had saved. BOTH helfrost and FNP are triggered by exactly the same thing - an unsaved wound.
I do, however, disagree with this. Helfrost: “When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from this weapon, it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered or be removed from play.”
The underlined above means that you do not skip the part about reducing by 1. Each Wound needs to be suffered: The model must have been reduced by -1W before he makes the Strength test. The word "separate" also clearly cuts the line between having to take the Wound first, and then "separately" making a strength test. But all of this happens "When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds", yes. Which is "at the same time" as FNP.
The trigger is the same, but my point was that "an unsaved wound" has 3 different time-steps itself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nem wrote: Even the part you said I'm not correct on, its because your ignoring part of the sentence....
"it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered" VS "it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered" ...Which would be when it suffered the unsaved wound. Suffer a unsaved wound? STR test. Suffer a unsaved wound? STR test. Its only saying the same as FNP's clarification you can take it on every wound you suffer.
I'd point out the first part does agree with you: "When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds" However: "for each Wound suffered" does not contain the word "unsaved" which is where i draw my conclusions from that it is "after step 2)"
Nem wrote: And your placing rules based on where you want them to be in the sequence. There's really no reason why the others would be placed after suffering a unsaved wound. 3 steps may be RAW, but still all of them happen RAW at step 1.
I think the best way to describe this specific point of view is this:
They all trigger before step 1), as soon as the model fails a Save roll. However. All of these rules (ID less accurate) contain wording which implies that the effect of the rules is separate.
IE: You fail an armour save. You trigger: Helfrost Feel No Pain Instant Death Eternal Warrior Reanimation protocol
Conflicts? EW specifically modifies the ID rules (only loose 1, not all) RP and FNP conflict, you must choose (IIRC)
Result: . . . . . . . . . /--> Roll RP -->\ Fail Save --> Roll FNP --> reduce Wound by 1 (because ID said more, but EW modified) --> Roll Strength test --> Remove model.
Nem wrote: EDIT: Either way ID has to happen at the same step. Or Force does, we know force has Priority over FNP, and perhaps everything else worded 'immediately'. Which they could have also put in FNP since the terminology already exists
Instant Death is a quality of the wound, and Force gives a weapon ID in the Psychic Phase so, so ID wounds are determined long before any of this.
Force doesn't have "priority" over FNP - it happens at a completely different time.
The actual rules trigger for Helfrost is not 'suffers an unsaved wound' because that is not the point you are told to take the S test.
The trigger is for each wound suffered. If a model actually suffers a wound, it is because its wound characteristic has been reduced by 1. This is past the point you check for saves/special rules that modify saves.
So there may be a point they all trigger when there is an unsaved wound, but many of these things have rules that do not actually involve rolling for the effect until wounds are lost.
FnP by its mechanics happens before the loss of the wound as it states you roll a d6 if you roll a 4 or less you take the wound as normal, if you roll a 5+ the wound is treated as saved.
If FnP happened 'after each wound suffered' the models would already be reduced in wounds, and it would have no affect on models that have only 1 wound and would only benefit models with 2+ wounds.
Fnp happens at the time the wound is suffered from failing, before the actual removal of the wound from 1-0 which is the wound actually being suffered. If the wound is not reduced from 1-0 yet no wounds have been suffered to trigger a S test from helfrost/etc.
Yes you have presented the rules that have the same trigger for all 3 without something in the rule saying this happens first you are using logic to determine it not a Rule.
This whole debate basically comes down to whether FNP "saves" the wound. It does not. As stated the wound is "discounted" not saved. A discounted wound is "treated as saved" but it is not saved, it is discounted.
So both FNP/RP and helfrost would trigger at the same time. When the model suffer an unsaved wound. Since FNP/RP does not "save" the unsaved wound but rather discounts it. The model would still have to take the S test for helfrost for each unsaved wound regardless of whether it was discounted with FNP/RP because they are discounted not saved.
Mordaem wrote: This whole debate basically comes down to whether FNP "saves" the wound. It does not. As stated the wound is "discounted" not saved. A discounted wound is "treated as saved" but it is not saved, it is discounted.
If the wound is unsaved, you still subtract a wound from the profile. Because you do that for unsaved wounds.
edit: It's a good thing then that the actual rules for FNP say to treat the wound as saved. So the wound is, in fact, using rules, saved.
Except you don't subtract it because the wound is discounted, not saved. If it was saved the rule would simply state the unsaved wound is saved, but it doesnt.
Saying the wound is discounted and to treat it as saved is redundant unless the unsaved wound is still unsaved but simply ignored as thought it was. Nowhere in the rules for FNP do the words "The wound is saved" appear because it does not save the wound.
All throughout the BRB it says to form a dialog so I'm going to do just that to I'll my point.
If I shoot you and your armor doesnt stop my bullet then I put a hole in you. If your strong enough or on drugs you may be able to.fight through the pain of being shot. This does not mean I didn't shoot you.
This is how FNP works. Just because the model was able to continue fighting as though it wasn't wounded because you "treat the wound as saved" doesn't mean it was not wounded.
Mordaem wrote: Nowhere in the rules for FNP do the words "The wound is saved" appear because it does not save the wound.
actual rules wrote:On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved.
"treat as if" must mean the same as "is" for 40k to work, so yes - the rule does say that the wound is saved.
All throughout the BRB it says to form a dialog so I'm going to do just that to I'll my point.
If I shoot you and your armor doesnt stop my bullet then I put a hole in you. If your strong enough or on drugs you may be able to.fight through the pain of being shot. This does not mean I didn't shoot you.
This is how FNP works. Just because the model was able to continue fighting as though it wasn't wounded because you "treat the wound as saved" doesn't mean it was not wounded.
That's a cute fluff explanation. Too bad it has literally no bearing on the actual rules.
That's a cute fluff explanation. Too bad it has literally no bearing on the actual rules.
Right. But we're not actually arguing rules anymore are we. Since the rules say that all 3 special rules occur if a model has an unsaved wound but we've decided for non-rules reasons to ignore the rules on sequencing.
ClassicCarraway wrote: This discussion kind of reminds me of the scenario in the Preferred Enemy/Blast debate, specifically the thought that PE grants a reroll without requiring the To Hit roll of 1 (lets not start that debate again please)
RP "cannot be used against hits from Destroyer weapons or any special rule or attack that states that the model is ‘removed from play"
Helfrost is an attack that states a model is "removed from play"...granted, it only procs on a Strength test roll of 6, but it still contains the key phrase that negates RP.
It is an interesting similarity. One could make a rather tenuous argument that if you get rerolls for blasts from PE, then RP doesn't save you from helfrost and vice versa. Tenuous in the sense that you would effectively be arguing that simply having the first rule (regardless of whether or not it was triggered) was enough for the second rule to be affected.
Tenuous, maybe, but it is effectively the same logic used to justify PE getting a blast scatter reroll. So if one is of the school of thought that PE does allow a reroll of a Blast scatter, then to be consistent, one would have to accept that Helfrost completely negates RP.
NightHowler wrote: for example, helfrost skips the part about reduce the model's wounds by 1 and therefore also skips the part about remove it as a casualty. With helfrost, if it fails a save, it makes a S test and if it fails that test it is removed from play. With FNP, if it fails a save, it makes a FNP test and if it passes that it acts as if it had saved. BOTH helfrost and FNP are triggered by exactly the same thing - an unsaved wound.
I do, however, disagree with this. Helfrost:
“When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from this weapon, it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered or be removed from play.”
The underlined above means that you do not skip the part about reducing by 1. Each Wound needs to be suffered: The model must have been reduced by -1W before he makes the Strength test.
The word "separate" also clearly cuts the line between having to take the Wound first, and then "separately" making a strength test.
But all of this happens "When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds", yes. Which is "at the same time" as FNP.
The trigger is the same, but my point was that "an unsaved wound" has 3 different time-steps itself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nem wrote: Even the part you said I'm not correct on, its because your ignoring part of the sentence....
"it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"
VS
"it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"
...Which would be when it suffered the unsaved wound. Suffer a unsaved wound? STR test. Suffer a unsaved wound? STR test. Its only saying the same as FNP's clarification you can take it on every wound you suffer.
I'd point out the first part does agree with you: "When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds"
However: "for each Wound suffered" does not contain the word "unsaved" which is where i draw my conclusions from that it is "after step 2)"
Nem wrote: And your placing rules based on where you want them to be in the sequence. There's really no reason why the others would be placed after suffering a unsaved wound. 3 steps may be RAW, but still all of them happen RAW at step 1.
I think the best way to describe this specific point of view is this:
They all trigger before step 1), as soon as the model fails a Save roll.
However.
All of these rules (ID less accurate) contain wording which implies that the effect of the rules is separate.
IE: You fail an armour save.
You trigger:
Helfrost
Feel No Pain
Instant Death
Eternal Warrior
Reanimation protocol
Conflicts?
EW specifically modifies the ID rules (only loose 1, not all)
RP and FNP conflict, you must choose (IIRC)
Result:
. . . . . . . . . /--> Roll RP -->\
Fail Save --> Roll FNP --> reduce Wound by 1 (because ID said more, but EW modified) --> Roll Strength test --> Remove model.
Ok, so I have debated before against FNP based on a possible sequence in the 'Unsaved wound' area, it wasn't much different, but I dropped it quite quickly as it's impossible to prove based on it not being listed as a sequence, and dual terminology being used. This was based on the purpose of FNP and is much like the last post from Mordaem.
It does this within FNP rule, it uses the word 'unsaved wound' and 'the wound' as the same thing.
Roll a D6 every time a unsaved wound is suffered On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5+ the unsaved wound is discounted ..... ..... D6 result needed to discount the Wound
FNP also uses the word 'Wounded' which I have previously dubbed the -1W. But above, the difference can not be verified if there is any, the rules use both interchangeably through sloppy writing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: More examples of suffers a wound being used to describe a wound before armor save...
Gets hot
For each To Hit roll of 1, the firing model immediately suffers a Wound (armour or invulnerable saves can be taken)
Repeated in Rending rule
For each To Wound roll of a 6, the target automatically suffers a Wound, regardless of its Toughness. These Wounds are resolved at AP2.
Little different, but if suffering a wound was after suffering a unsaved wound you wouldn't be able to use FNP against power 'Purge Soul' due to..
Suffers a Automatic Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed.
This pattern for Purge soul also continues through some other powers.
Cover saves:
Models do not get cover saves against any Wounds Suffered from CC attacks
Which is using wounds suffered terminology before saving throws.
I motion GW doesn't write in a specific difference against suffering/suffered a Wound / Unsaved Wound, at the least you can have suffered a wound before you take your armour saves, they are not consistent in this area at all, A 'wound' is something which more often that not happens before a 'unsaved wound', and FNP is also rolled when it is suffered. Meaning if 'suffered' made a difference (which I believe it doesn't) then Hellfire would be placed before FNP, as you have suffered a wound before you have suffered a unsaved wound.
If there was meant to be a difference though, in that way specifically, while It would effect Hellfire it would effect very few other rules which are generated by unsaved wound, things like concussive do not contain the roll when suffered a wound.
NightHowler wrote: for example, helfrost skips the part about reduce the model's wounds by 1 and therefore also skips the part about remove it as a casualty. With helfrost, if it fails a save, it makes a S test and if it fails that test it is removed from play. With FNP, if it fails a save, it makes a FNP test and if it passes that it acts as if it had saved. BOTH helfrost and FNP are triggered by exactly the same thing - an unsaved wound.
I do, however, disagree with this. Helfrost: “When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from this weapon, it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered or be removed from play.”
The underlined above means that you do not skip the part about reducing by 1. Each Wound needs to be suffered: The model must have been reduced by -1W before he makes the Strength test. The word "separate" also clearly cuts the line between having to take the Wound first, and then "separately" making a strength test. But all of this happens "When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds", yes. Which is "at the same time" as FNP.
The trigger is the same, but my point was that "an unsaved wound" has 3 different time-steps itself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nem wrote: Even the part you said I'm not correct on, its because your ignoring part of the sentence....
"it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered" VS "it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered" ...Which would be when it suffered the unsaved wound. Suffer a unsaved wound? STR test. Suffer a unsaved wound? STR test. Its only saying the same as FNP's clarification you can take it on every wound you suffer.
I'd point out the first part does agree with you: "When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds" However: "for each Wound suffered" does not contain the word "unsaved" which is where i draw my conclusions from that it is "after step 2)"
Nem wrote: And your placing rules based on where you want them to be in the sequence. There's really no reason why the others would be placed after suffering a unsaved wound. 3 steps may be RAW, but still all of them happen RAW at step 1.
I think the best way to describe this specific point of view is this:
They all trigger before step 1), as soon as the model fails a Save roll. However. All of these rules (ID less accurate) contain wording which implies that the effect of the rules is separate.
IE: You fail an armour save. You trigger: Helfrost Feel No Pain Instant Death Eternal Warrior Reanimation protocol
Conflicts? EW specifically modifies the ID rules (only loose 1, not all) RP and FNP conflict, you must choose (IIRC)
Result: . . . . . . . . . /--> Roll RP -->\ Fail Save --> Roll FNP --> reduce Wound by 1 (because ID said more, but EW modified) --> Roll Strength test --> Remove model.
Ok, so I have debated before against FNP based on a possible sequence in the 'Unsaved wound' area, it wasn't much different, but I dropped it quite quickly as it's impossible to prove based on it not being listed as a sequence, and dual terminology being used. This was based on the purpose of FNP and is much like the last post from Mordaem.
It does this within FNP rule, it uses the word 'unsaved wound' and 'the wound' as the same thing.
Roll a D6 every time a unsaved wound is suffered On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5+ the unsaved wound is discounted ..... ..... D6 result needed to discount the Wound
FNP also uses the word 'Wounded' which I have previously dubbed the -1W. But above, the difference can not be verified if there is any, the rules use both interchangeably through sloppy writing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: More examples of suffers a wound being used to describe a wound before armor save...
Gets hot
For each To Hit roll of 1, the firing model immediately suffers a Wound (armour or invulnerable saves can be taken)
Repeated in Rending rule
For each To Wound roll of a 6, the target automatically suffers a Wound, regardless of its Toughness. These Wounds are resolved at AP2.
Little different, but if suffering a wound was after suffering a unsaved wound you wouldn't be able to use FNP against power 'Purge Soul' due to..
Suffers a Automatic Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed.
This pattern for Purge soul also continues through some other powers.
Cover saves:
Models do not get cover saves against any Wounds Suffered from CC attacks
Which is using wounds suffered terminology before saving throws.
I motion GW doesn't write in a specific difference against suffering/suffered a Wound / Unsaved Wound, at the least you can have suffered a wound before you take your armour saves, they are not consistent in this area at all, A 'wound' is something which more often that not happens before a 'unsaved wound', and FNP is also rolled when it is suffered. Meaning if 'suffered' made a difference (which I believe it doesn't) then Hellfire would be placed before FNP, as you have suffered a wound before you have suffered a unsaved wound.
If there was meant to be a difference though, in that way specifically, while It would effect Hellfire it would effect very few other rules which are generated by unsaved wound, things like concussive do not contain the roll when suffered a wound.
I think i understand where we are getting confused with the whole "suffers a Wound" here:
I am in no way saying that "suffers a Wound" must happen after FNP or saves. I was making a point as to how the two wordings are completely different: suffers a Wound =/= suffers an unsaved Wound
"suffers a Wound" can indeed (Gets Hot, Rending, etc) happen at the To Wound stage. Because they mostly imply that saves are coming next (Rending is AP2: "you probably won't get a save". Gets hot:"you can save"... etc)
"suffers an unsaved Wound" however, is a clear point in time: the model has rolled a save, but failed. The special rules identified earlier have triggered. As soon as the Save is failed. FNP, by it's wording, seem to apply immediately (before you remove the -1W), while EW would clearly modify ID at the point when the Wound is "stricken off the sheet" (my step 2) above).
Helfrost however, has the wording for each Wound suffered. Now this could be, as you say, a wound Suffered during the To Wound step. But i do not think that is possible: First you need to trigger the rule with "When " - so it must be after the save has failed. Secondly, "it must pass a separate Strength test", which can only be "separate" from suffering the unsaved (timing) Wound and will be taken "for each Wound suffered". Which, at this point, can only be when the Wound is "stricken off the sheet" (my step 2) above).
TL: DR: FNP / RP and Helfrost both trigger simultaneously, but the effects of "rule modification" or "when to apply the rule" are at different times after the Wound was failed to be saved.
Yes, I know what you mean but I was pointing out sometimes they use them interchangeably, through what I presume is laziness Each wound is suffered could be before saves, each unsaved wound, or upon each removal of a wound.
Due to the beginning of the rule, its probably each unsaved wound, and they omitted 'unsaved' through lazyness (Like in some sentences of the FNP rule one uses 'unsaved wound' the other uses 'wound' and they mean unsaved wound....)Rather than triggering the rule at two different times. 'Separate test' can be separate test for each unsaved wound...
Should there be a difference and FNP is resolved first though, at the moment I don't think we can be sure FNP stops anything other than the wound removal and other effects continue no matter the outcome of FNP (Despite the fact one of the sentences for resolution specifies 'unsaved wound' rather than 'wound'. If only the 'Wound' line existed then, IMO, that RAW would line up with the FAQ) , or the order of resolution. A clearer divide in time is a FMC's grounding test and what we do with that.
The FMC grounded test sort of supports what i was thinking for these rules: The trigger is the unsaved Wound (upon failing a save), but the effects only happen at the end of the phase.
Note that i am also saying FNP comes first because it then discounts the unsaved Wound, and all the rules that had triggered, but happen later, no longer have their effects applied as the "Unsaved Wounds process" is interrupted and 'discounted'.
As for the Wound V unsaved, from 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 (this is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state that ‘no saves of any kind are allowed’, for example those inflicted by Perils of the Warp). Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule. 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.
Only "wounded" above is a cause for concern, as you indeed describe it. I would simply hand-wave it away and say "to avoid being wounded" is the same as them saying: "to avoid being obliterated", that it has no strength by RaW, but as you say, possible confusion.
as for "the Wound" if you roll 4 or less: It is no longer describing the "unsaved Wound". That part is referring to when the Wound is "stricken off the sheet" (my step 2) above). It was also how i place the FNP roll before the "step 2"; because the result is then synonymous to step 2 (this "the Wound").
"treat as if" must mean the same as "is" for 40k to work, so yes - the rule does say that the wound is saved.
Please state where it says "treat as if" must mean the same as "is" for 40k to work.
Spoiler:
Otherwise, a nova is treated like a shooting attack, and indeed will have a profile like a ranged weapon.
So it's not really a shooting attack so we have no idea how to allocate wounds.
Spoiler:
If a weapon can fire in more than one mode, or can fire more than one type of ammo, select a weapon mode/ammo type – treat weapons firing different modes/ammo types as differently named weapons.
But they're not differently named, so you roll to hit and wound with them all together. Meaning this rule does literally nothing.
Spoiler:
That model is treated as being the closest model and remains so until either the firing unit’s attack ends or the model is slain.
But it's not the closest model therefore there's no model to allocate wounds to.
Spoiler:
If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.
But it doesn't have a single CCW, so we treat it as having a CCW, but it doesn't have a CCW... (repeat)
Spoiler:
However, Bikes treat all difficult terrain as dangerous terrain instead.
But it's not dangerous terrain so you don't have to make dangerous terrain checks! Woohoo!
Spoiler:
If they do so, they treat the impassable terrain as dangerous terrain.
Hmmm... they have permission to end their move on impassable terrain, but no rules on how to handle that... if only there was a rule that said impassable terrain is dangerous terrain. Ah well.
Spoiler:
As with Jump units, ‘Jet Pack’ is not a classification in and of itself. Instead, you’ll find it occurs in addition to another – Jet Pack Infantry, for example. If no such distinction is made in a unit entry, treat the model as Jet Pack Infantry.
But they're not really JPI so go ahead and use whatever Unit Type rules you want - I mean, obviously they're not *Infantry*.
There's more, should I go on? And would you agree that "treat as" is the same as "count as"? There's dozens more for that as well.
If "treat as" and "count as" don't mean "is" the 40k rules break spectacularly.
So what I am reading from you Rigeld, as long as a Jump Infantry or Bike model is in terrain, that terrain IS dangerous terrain? Awesome! Have fun assaulting my Reavers, with skilled rider they auto pass Dangerous terrain, and now every model you assault me with has to take a dangerous terrain test.
"treat as if" must mean the same as "is" for 40k to work, so yes - the rule does say that the wound is saved.
Please state where it says "treat as if" must mean the same as "is" for 40k to work.
Spoiler:
Otherwise, a nova is treated like a shooting attack, and indeed will have a profile like a ranged weapon.
So it's not really a shooting attack so we have no idea how to allocate wounds.
Spoiler:
If a weapon can fire in more than one mode, or can fire more than one type of ammo, select a weapon mode/ammo type – treat weapons firing different modes/ammo types as differently named weapons.
But they're not differently named, so you roll to hit and wound with them all together. Meaning this rule does literally nothing.
Spoiler:
That model is treated as being the closest model and remains so until either the firing unit’s attack ends or the model is slain.
But it's not the closest model therefore there's no model to allocate wounds to.
Spoiler:
If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.
But it doesn't have a single CCW, so we treat it as having a CCW, but it doesn't have a CCW... (repeat)
Spoiler:
However, Bikes treat all difficult terrain as dangerous terrain instead.
But it's not dangerous terrain so you don't have to make dangerous terrain checks! Woohoo!
Spoiler:
If they do so, they treat the impassable terrain as dangerous terrain.
Hmmm... they have permission to end their move on impassable terrain, but no rules on how to handle that... if only there was a rule that said impassable terrain is dangerous terrain. Ah well.
Spoiler:
As with Jump units, ‘Jet Pack’ is not a classification in and of itself. Instead, you’ll find it occurs in addition to another – Jet Pack Infantry, for example. If no such distinction is made in a unit entry, treat the model as Jet Pack Infantry.
But they're not really JPI so go ahead and use whatever Unit Type rules you want - I mean, obviously they're not *Infantry*.
There's more, should I go on? And would you agree that "treat as" is the same as "count as"? There's dozens more for that as well.
If "treat as" and "count as" don't mean "is" the 40k rules break spectacularly.
You've made your point, but none of these examples talk about going back in time and reversing effects due to the "treat as" rule.
In all of these rules, "treat as" can be interpreted as "treat as from now on", without any of the effects you mention...
Can you give an example of a rule that breaks if you treat "treat as x" as "is x from now on, until other stated", but do not "is and has always been x" ?
Black I'd need some quotes from books I don't have on me atm, but
Mega; I would say treats as is, IS but only as far as the specified circumstances...
I mean, that's the definition and common use of 'treat as' anyway. It is, but with limitations. In this case only the bikes are treating the terrain as difficult, so the terrain is only difficult to bikes.
I can treat a pot like a kettle, but to everyone else it's still a pot, for treats as and counts as, it does very much matter who or what is treating what like... what.... Treats as is pretending something is which ultimately isn't, but in 40k terms that means ruling like it is.
jay_mo wrote: You've made your point, but none of these examples talk about going back in time and reversing effects due to the "treat as" rule.
In all of these rules, "treat as" can be interpreted as "treat as from now on", without any of the effects you mention...
Can you give an example of a rule that breaks if you treat "treat as x" as "is x from now on, until other stated", but do not "is and has always been x" ?
If the wound is saved, how are you rolling to see if Helfrost removes the model?
Do you do that if the wound is saved?
The bikes treat the terrain as dangerous terrain. They do not make it dangerous terrain. What terrain are the bikes in? Difficult terrain. what is difficult terrain? Well, it is difficult terrain. What happens if the bike enters difficult terrain? They treat it as dangerous. Do they ever change the status of the terrain? Nope. Does "treat as" equal "is"? Nope. They are given the effect similar, but never change it's status, to dangerous terrain.
Nem wrote: Black I'd need some quotes from books I don't have on me atm, but
If you just go by what you know i can always go find them and then copy-paste from the Digital brb/dex?
Nem wrote: Mega; I would say treats as is, IS but only as far as the specified circumstances...
I mean, that's the definition and common use of 'treat as' anyway. It is, but with limitations. In this case only the bikes are treating the terrain as difficult, so the terrain is only difficult to bikes.
I can treat a pot like a kettle, but to everyone else it's still a pot, for treats as and counts as, it does very much matter who or what is treating what like... what.... Treats as is pretending something is which ultimately isn't, but in 40k terms that means ruling like it is.
I agree with this:
"treat as" means "IS" for those circumstances, not outside of.
When you are a bike, difficult terrain IS Dangerous terrain. But Tanks, Infantry and Flyers don't see that at all. I'm not sure where this is going / coming from, but it is also clear that the following is correct if you go by the logic i described earlier:
rigeld2 wrote: If the wound is saved, how are you rolling to see if Helfrost removes the model?
Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).
Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).
The only problem I have with this argument is that you are using logic instead of RAW to decide that you resolve FNP first. The RAW say that when two events occur simultaneously you resolve them using the rule for sequencing which says that the player who's turn it is decides which occurs first.
jay_mo wrote: You've made your point, but none of these examples talk about going back in time and reversing effects due to the "treat as" rule.
In all of these rules, "treat as" can be interpreted as "treat as from now on", without any of the effects you mention...
Can you give an example of a rule that breaks if you treat "treat as x" as "is x from now on, until other stated", but do not "is and has always been x" ?
If the wound is saved, how are you rolling to see if Helfrost removes the model?
Do you do that if the wound is saved?
Is the wound saved? Not when the rules were activated. How do you know you are allowed to roll Fnp/RP until you know if the model suffered a Remove from play/instant death wound?
Game freeze. The rules Paradox themselves into never being able to resolve either one. Can't use FnP/RP against ID/RfP, but until Fnp/RP is resolved you don't know if the wound is unsaved, but you don't know if you are allowed to use FnP/RP until you know if the attack causes ID/RfP. Time to pack up and go home, as the game can not progress beyond this point.
Hence the Sequencing rule. My turn ID/RfP goes first, your turn FnP/RP goes first. You can't put the end before the beginning.
Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).
The only problem I have with this argument is that you are using logic instead of RAW to decide that you resolve FNP first. The RAW say that when two events occur simultaneously you resolve them using the rule for sequencing which says that the player who's turn it is decides which occurs first.
Very true, and i have always said my posts were a logical conclusion, not "pure RaW".
But is it not logic that stops you from Deploying on top of Rhinos, embarking the Relic on a Flyer or conclude that FNP must works (by "pure RaW" FNP is stuck in an unresolvable loop) Amongst examples i cannot remember...
Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).
The problem with this logic, is that it works the other way around as well... if you resolve Helfrost first and fail, then both FNP and RP are invalidated because the model is now being removed from play instead of simply taking a wound. And a model that is being removed from play is not granted a FNP roll.
Thus, since the both rule are triggered, and the resolution of each negates the other, neither can be given logical priority. Therefor, you have to resolve them as per the rules for simultaneous actions... which as clearly spelled out in the book, say the choice goes to the person whose turn it is.
Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).
The only problem I have with this argument is that you are using logic instead of RAW to decide that you resolve FNP first. The RAW say that when two events occur simultaneously you resolve them using the rule for sequencing which says that the player who's turn it is decides which occurs first.
You fail your armor/invul save. Do you have an unsaved wound?
FNP/RP can still make a wound saved. You can't know the answer until you resolve them first.
Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).
The problem with this logic, is that it works the other way around as well... if you resolve Helfrost first and fail, then both FNP and RP are invalidated because the model is now being removed from play instead of simply taking a wound. And a model that is being removed from play is not granted a FNP roll.
Thus, since the both rule are triggered, and the resolution of each negates the other, neither can be given logical priority. Therefor, you have to resolve them as per the rules for simultaneous actions... which as clearly spelled out in the book, say the choice goes to the person whose turn it is.
I agree, if they were resolved simultaneously.
This is not the case as i have shown above, but feel free to make your own choice as it does not seem that you read my explanation. If you did, you would know that:
Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).
The problem with this logic, is that it works the other way around as well... if you resolve Helfrost first and fail, then both FNP and RP are invalidated because the model is now being removed from play instead of simply taking a wound. And a model that is being removed from play is not granted a FNP roll.
Thus, since the both rule are triggered, and the resolution of each negates the other, neither can be given logical priority. Therefor, you have to resolve them as per the rules for simultaneous actions... which as clearly spelled out in the book, say the choice goes to the person whose turn it is.
I agree, if they were resolved simultaneously.
This is not the case as i have shown above, but feel free to make your own choice as it does not seem that you read my explanation. If you did, you would know that:
Is impossible, as FNP is resolved first. (Before the -1W - Whereas Helfrost must happen after -1W)
Going back and reading your arguments, I disagree with that assertion. The phrase 'for each wound suffered' that your argument hinges on doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the timing of that roll. It is merely a reminder that no matter how many wounds are taken you have to make the test each time. However since wounds are still applied one at a time, each the Helfrost roll would be made each time 'the model suffers and unsaved wound' which is again at the same time as FNP. There for if FNP must happen before the wound is taken off, then so must Helfrost. And both of them would then prevent the other from resolving, as Helfrost no longer cares about the wound cause the model is now being removed, and FNP turns the unsaved wound into saved so from then on you treat the wound as saved negating Helfrost. No matter which comes first they both have to be FULLY resolved before the other one can start.
If it worked as you suggested, then you would have to wait to make Helfrost until all the wounds had been allocated, saved and removed, in which case there is no long a model to make a save against, and in the case of a multi-wound model you would have to apply several wounds to it, then make your str tests which would drastically change results, as 1 failure for the first wound would mean the other wounds are supposed to be allocated elsewhere.
Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).
The problem with this logic, is that it works the other way around as well... if you resolve Helfrost first and fail, then both FNP and RP are invalidated because the model is now being removed from play instead of simply taking a wound. And a model that is being removed from play is not granted a FNP roll.
Thus, since the both rule are triggered, and the resolution of each negates the other, neither can be given logical priority. Therefor, you have to resolve them as per the rules for simultaneous actions... which as clearly spelled out in the book, say the choice goes to the person whose turn it is.
I agree, if they were resolved simultaneously.
This is not the case as i have shown above, but feel free to make your own choice as it does not seem that you read my explanation. If you did, you would know that:
Is impossible, as FNP is resolved first. (Before the -1W - Whereas Helfrost must happen after -1W)
I don't know the Hellfrost rule, but what about the Direswords Soulrazor rule? It activates when a model Suffers and unsaved wound. Using the exact wording as FnP. How about the Dark Eldar's Parasite's kiss, which immediately replaces a wound when it inflicts an unsaved wound, unlike the animus Vitae which requires it to be inflicted.
Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).
The only problem I have with this argument is that you are using logic instead of RAW to decide that you resolve FNP first. The RAW say that when two events occur simultaneously you resolve them using the rule for sequencing which says that the player who's turn it is decides which occurs first.
RAW does not actually state the two events occur at the same time.
both mention unsaved wounds, however in the case of helfrost you do not know how many times to roll a S test to resolve helfrost until the model suffers wounds as the number of rolls is equal to the number of wounds the model suffered.
If the model was a 1 wound model and is still at 1 wound, it has suffered 0 wounds so far, if the model has an unsaved wound and has some special rule which allows it to check to see if the unsaved wound was saved or not before the wound is taken off, it is still at 1 wound. FnP in its rules actually lists that the roll is to discount the wound and treat it as saved, and that you do not actually lose the would until the roll is made and failed. If you go past this point and apply the basic rule of wound removal the RAW of FnP has not been followed as it is not a rule based on returning wounds to models (that would be regeneration or IWND) but a rule based on not losing unsaved wounds. Ie wounds are at 1 and failed a save, if you go to 0 you have passed the point you can do FnP. Until the model has its wounds reduced from the value it was at before the attack, it has not suffered any number of wounds to its wounds profile. At this point the amount of wounds suffered being 0 means you are rolling 0 dice for a S test for helfrost.
As such the roll for FnP has to come before the model is reduced by any wounds, so it is still at 1 wound but is at the point where it did not make any saves.
So until you roll FnP the amount of S tests the model would have to roll would be 0.
after you roll FnP the wound(s) is(are) actually removed (suffered) and you know how many times to roll a S test for helfrost.
Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).
The only problem I have with this argument is that you are using logic instead of RAW to decide that you resolve FNP first. The RAW say that when two events occur simultaneously you resolve them using the rule for sequencing which says that the player who's turn it is decides which occurs first.
RAW does not actually state the two events occur at the same time.
both mention unsaved wounds, however in the case of helfrost you do not know how many times to roll a S test to resolve helfrost until the model suffers wounds as the number of rolls is equal to the number of wounds the model suffered.
If the model was a 1 wound model and is still at 1 wound, it has suffered 0 wounds so far, if the model has an unsaved wound and has some special rule which allows it to check to see if the unsaved wound was saved or not before the wound is taken off, it is still at 1 wound. FnP in its rules actually lists that the roll is to discount the wound and treat it as saved, and that you do not actually lose the would until the roll is made and failed. If you go past this point and apply the basic rule of wound removal the RAW of FnP has not been followed as it is not a rule based on returning wounds to models (that would be regeneration or IWND) but a rule based on not losing unsaved wounds. Ie wounds are at 1 and failed a save, if you go to 0 you have passed the point you can do FnP. Until the model has its wounds reduced from the value it was at before the attack, it has not suffered any number of wounds to its wounds profile. At this point the amount of wounds suffered being 0 means you are rolling 0 dice for a S test for helfrost.
As such the roll for FnP has to come before the model is reduced by any wounds, so it is still at 1 wound but is at the point where it did not make any saves.
So until you roll FnP the amount of S tests the model would have to roll would be 0.
after you roll FnP the wound(s) is(are) actually removed (suffered) and you know how many times to roll a S test for helfrost.
I'm sorry, but this is not in the rules. The rules say when a model suffers an unsaved wound is the trigger for RP, FNP, and Helfrost. It absolutely does not say to roll for helfrost after subtracting one wound from a model. The trigger for all three rules is the same and using each rule's mechanic (which happens AFTER the rule is triggered) to say one happens before another is not how the rules are written. You are never told that you have to subtract 1 wound before rolling helfrost, you are told to roll helfrost for each wound - this is ENTIRELY different.
You are saying that you roll your FNP before removing a wound and then if you pass no wound is lost. I agree with this.
You are also saying that you wait until after wounds are lost before rolling Helfrost. I disagree with this and the rules also disagree with this. The rules say when to roll helfrost is exactly the same as when you roll FNP. And if you fail that roll the model is removed from play. Removed from play means that you never get the chance to lose that wound. You don't get removed from play and also get a -1 wound stage because you never get that far. You fail your armor save - you make your strength test - and if you fail you are removed from play.
Because they happen at the same time you are required to use the rule which governs events that happen simultaneously. That rule says that whichever player's turn it is, that player decides which happens first.
This is how the rules are written, and until someone gives me an actual rule that says otherwise, anything else is simply a HIWPI.
ALSO, I'd be curious to see your response to Happyjew's question.
I think the intention is that removed from play effect from hell frost is made specifically to counteract things such as RP. Rp was not intended to ignore the remove from play effect of helkfrost. Furthermore I think the rules while not exactly clear on the subject does support the opinion that the rules happen simultaneously at best. Removed from play is the strongest effect in game if they wanted RP to work with hellfrost they would of gave hellfrost the similar but less restrictive instant death rule. I think the intention is pretty clear on this one and people are just looking for arguments to cheese RP through the intended rule.
I appreciate you think it is a HYWPI argument but that is not the case.
It does not matter that they all state 'unsaved wounds' because how their rules actually work breaks them up at that point.
FnP is taken during the save step, not after the model has lost the wound.
Helfrost test is taken "it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered or be removed from play" so the trigger is not unsaved wounds, if it were then it would say "it must pass a strength test for each unsaved wound suffered or be removed from play" but it does not say that.
FnP is done before you remove any wounds from a model, which is the act of suffering wounds. How many wounds has a model suffered that has an unsaved wound but has not rolled FnP? the answer is 0, because the models wound value is unchanged. The model may have suffered 'unsaved wounds' but the RAW of helfrost does not say to roll for each unsaved wound suffered, but for each wound suffered. So at the time you can roll for FnP the model has suffered 0 wounds, so how can you roll helfrost?
Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).
The only problem I have with this argument is that you are using logic instead of RAW to decide that you resolve FNP first. The RAW say that when two events occur simultaneously you resolve them using the rule for sequencing which says that the player who's turn it is decides which occurs first.
You fail your armor/invul save. Do you have an unsaved wound?
FNP/RP can still make a wound saved. You can't know the answer until you resolve them first.
You fail your armor/invul save. Do you have an unsaved wound?
If no then FNP/RP cant be rolled for in the first place. If yes, then all 3 trigger and its the player's whos turn it is to decide which one is done first RAW
Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).
The only problem I have with this argument is that you are using logic instead of RAW to decide that you resolve FNP first. The RAW say that when two events occur simultaneously you resolve them using the rule for sequencing which says that the player who's turn it is decides which occurs first.
You fail your armor/invul save. Do you have an unsaved wound?
FNP/RP can still make a wound saved. You can't know the answer until you resolve them first.
You fail your armor/invul save. Do you have an unsaved wound?
If no then FNP/RP cant be rolled for in the first place. If yes, then all 3 trigger and its the player's whos turn it is to decide which one is done first RAW
so the RAW for helfrost tells you to roll how many times per unsaved wound? I can see RAW for each wound suffered, but no RAW telling you to do anything until there is a suffered wound. The roll for S test being after the model is wounded and 1 roll per wound it lost is different than 1 roll per unsaved wound it has, and it clearly does not say 'unsaved' when it tells you to roll the S test.
blaktoof wrote: I appreciate you think it is a HYWPI argument but that is not the case.
It does not matter that they all state 'unsaved wounds' because how their rules actually work breaks them up at that point.
FnP is taken during the save step, not after the model has lost the wound.
Helfrost test is taken "it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered or be removed from play"
FnP is done before you remove any wounds from a model, which is the act of suffering wounds. How many wounds has a model suffered that has an unsaved wound but has not rolled FnP? the answer is 0, because the models wound value is unchanged. The model may have suffered 'unsaved wounds' but the RAW of helfrost does not say to roll for each unsaved wound suffered, but for each wound suffered. So at the time you can roll for FnP the model has suffered 0 wounds, so how can you roll helfrost?
They all state "when a model suffers an unsaved wound" how is that not the same trigger? That is the very first thing each of these rules states before it tells you what to do. Stop looking at the middle and end of a rule to determine a trigger.
blaktoof wrote: FnP is done before you remove any wounds from a model, which is the act of suffering wounds. How many wounds has a model suffered that has an unsaved wound but has not rolled FnP? the answer is 0, because the models wound value is unchanged. The model may have suffered 'unsaved wounds' but the RAW of helfrost does not say to roll for each unsaved wound suffered, but for each wound suffered. So at the time you can roll for FnP the model has suffered 0 wounds, so how can you roll helfrost?
Unfortunately that rules interpretation is in direct contradiction to the new Dark Eldar FAQ. FNP happens when the wound is suffered, but the effect that is triggered doesn't take place until the end of the phase.
By your interpretation of "Suffers an unsaved wound" the Shadow Field would not be lost. Therefore you interpretation cannot be correct, and discounting a wound does not negate any effect caused by "Suffering an unsaved wound". Or to put it another way. You still Suffered an Unsaved wound, even if that wound was later discounted, which seemed to me to be the obvious interpretation since 7th edition dropped.
Let me offer a scenario where it might seem more obvious. There is a Tyranid Warlord trait called "Adaptive Biology"
"If the Warlord suffers one or more unsaved Wounds, it gains the Feel No Pain (5+) special rule at the beginning of its next Movement phase and keeps it for the remainder of the game."
They also have an upgrade called "Regeneration"
"At the end of each friendly turn, roll a D6 for each model with the regeneration biomorph that has less than its starting number of Wounds, but has not been removed as a casualty. On a 4+, that model regains a single Wound lost earlier in the battle."
So if a Hive Tyrant with Regen, and the Adaptive biology trait perils and takes a wound in the psychic phase, and then Regenerates that wound at the end of its turn, does it gain the effects of Adaptive Biology at the start of its next movement phase? By your interpretation it wouldn't because even though it suffered a wound, that wound was later regenerated, and therefore it has been retconned that the wound never happened? Does that seem like a more reasonable scenario than "Suffering an Unsaved Wound" effects can still be triggered even if the current wounds characteristics are at full? Because to me, the wound was suffered, and then regenerated. Or in the case of Feel No Pain, it was Suffered and then Discounted. No matter what, it was suffered.
jay_mo wrote: You've made your point, but none of these examples talk about going back in time and reversing effects due to the "treat as" rule.
In all of these rules, "treat as" can be interpreted as "treat as from now on", without any of the effects you mention...
Can you give an example of a rule that breaks if you treat "treat as x" as "is x from now on, until other stated", but do not "is and has always been x" ?
If the wound is saved, how are you rolling to see if Helfrost removes the model?
Do you do that if the wound is saved?
I think I already explained this many times. But no, if I resolve FNP first and it succeeds, then I do not roll Helfrost, because as you say, the wound will be treated as saved after the FNP roll.
But if I already have rolled Helfrost, and removed the model, and after that roll FNP, even if the roll passed, the model has already been removed, and FNP can't do anything about that.
The wound is however treated as saved from that point, so it should not count negative when seeing who should do a model check, for instance.... I don't see this as breaking any rules... I follow the rule for fnp because I do treat it as saved from the point when the fnp roll is passed, as that rule say. Also I follow sequencing rule, rule for helfrost and so on.
Can anyone drop the relevant wording for Shadow Field?
I've considered the *intent* of FNP before *could* be to only stop the model losing a wound characteristic, and it wasn't meant to interfere with triggering of any other rules which come off the unsaved wound, mainly based on the first sentence of FNP, and combat resolution's ''wounds actually suffered'' statements.
I don't think there is any RAW logical reason for the FAQ but I wouldn't say it is obviously not intended with those rule sets, like we have known some others to be. But I don't have the rules for SF in front of me either.
Well either resolved rules change and FNP breaks the rules by trying to activate on something that doesn't exist so the wound is then again unsaved since FNP no longer applies... Unless anyone can quote why everything else on a unsaved wound would care but FNP would not, it's a pretty game breaking interpretation.
Or accept resolved rules don't care that the unsaved wound is gone. And everything functions properly.
You could also argue 'From this point on' is the default, and if it's any time not at present in the rules it requires a stipulation to tell us when it is treating it as something else.
Deepstike.. count as having moved in the previous Movement phase. Vehicles, except
for Walkers, count as having moved at Combat Speed (even Immobilised vehicles)
Levitation: ..and all models count as having moved in the Movement
phase for the purposes of shooting weapons in the Shooting phase
Both of them use the same grammatical tenses as FNP, one specifies that it counted as moved in the previous phase, one specifies that it's counts as moved in a phase that hasn't happened yet. FNP contains no specific wording as to when to treat the unsaved wound as saved, but since we've already suffered a unsaved wound the only time would be at the time of resolution or later.
But for FNP to be resolved first, the best case is arguing it somehow fits into explicit that it is to be resolved before others per the sequencing rules, but then the FNP VS threads are self implication that it is not. GW has a RAW system for deciding sequencing, either the player decides or the rules that are meant to be resolved first are explicit in the fact they do so. Sequencing based on potential resolution is both none existent in the rules, and unnecessary since 'how to sequence' in this circumstance already has rules.
megatrons2nd wrote: I don't know the Hellfrost rule, but what about the Direswords Soulrazor rule? It activates when a model Suffers and unsaved wound. Using the exact wording as FnP. How about the Dark Eldar's Parasite's kiss, which immediately replaces a wound when it inflicts an unsaved wound, unlike the animus Vitae which requires it to be inflicted.
Do you think you could quote the important line for those? For comparison's sake.
Nem wrote: Can anyone drop the relevant wording for Shadow Field?
I've considered the *intent* of FNP before *could* be to only stop the model losing a wound characteristic, and it wasn't meant to interfere with triggering of any other rules which come off the unsaved wound, mainly based on the first sentence of FNP, and combat resolution's ''wounds actually suffered'' statements.
I don't think there is any RAW logical reason for the FAQ but I wouldn't say it is obviously not intended with those rule sets, like we have known some others to be. But I don't have the rules for SF in front of me either.
The shadow field save is lost for the rest of the battle at the end of any phase in which the model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds.
So as per my description earlier: it triggers upon failing a Save. Even if FNP would then activate and "remove" the unsaved Wound, by then the rule is already activated. (I'll Add it to the list below in my reply to chanceafs.
chanceafs wrote: Going back and reading your arguments, I disagree with that assertion. The phrase 'for each wound suffered' that your argument hinges on doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the timing of that roll. It is merely a reminder that no matter how many wounds are taken you have to make the test each time. However since wounds are still applied one at a time, each the Helfrost roll would be made each time 'the model suffers and unsaved wound' which is again at the same time as FNP. There for if FNP must happen before the wound is taken off, then so must Helfrost. And both of them would then prevent the other from resolving, as Helfrost no longer cares about the wound cause the model is now being removed, and FNP turns the unsaved wound into saved so from then on you treat the wound as saved negating Helfrost. No matter which comes first they both have to be FULLY resolved before the other one can start.
If it worked as you suggested, then you would have to wait to make Helfrost until all the wounds had been allocated, saved and removed, in which case there is no long a model to make a save against, and in the case of a multi-wound model you would have to apply several wounds to it, then make your str tests which would drastically change results, as 1 failure for the first wound would mean the other wounds are supposed to be allocated elsewhere.
No, my timing explanation does not cover multiple Wounds (so taking 3 Wounds and then applying Helfrost). It is all in the resolution of a single Wound allocation, which follows the following RaW:
If it fails (Save), reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.
You follow the above for every single Wound, correct? I have shown how the above splits up:
1) Suffer an unsaved Wound. Shadow Field happens here. -------------------------------------------------------------------- FNP happens here. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Take the woundID happens here. EW happens here. Swarms happens here. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Helfrost happens here. ID happens here. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Remove the model
This is the process for 1 Wound only: Helfrost happens just as the model "for each Wound suffered" (Step 2) above - but it does not modify step 2, so it come just after you've suffered the Wound) but it also happens before you check if the model has 0 Wounds and is removed as a casualty. If the model has 6 Wounds, the process above will be: Fail Save --> Roll FNP (Fail) --> reduce Wound by 1 (because ID said more, but EW modified) --> Roll Strength test (Say you fail this, then the model is removed here) --> Remove model if Wounds =0. (After this check, you would allocate the second Wound, and go through the process again.)
blaktoof wrote: FnP is done before you remove any wounds from a model, which is the act of suffering wounds. How many wounds has a model suffered that has an unsaved wound but has not rolled FnP? the answer is 0, because the models wound value is unchanged. The model may have suffered 'unsaved wounds' but the RAW of helfrost does not say to roll for each unsaved wound suffered, but for each wound suffered. So at the time you can roll for FnP the model has suffered 0 wounds, so how can you roll helfrost?
Unfortunately that rules interpretation is in direct contradiction to the new Dark Eldar FAQ. FNP happens when the wound is suffered, but the effect that is triggered doesn't take place until the end of the phase.
By your interpretation of "Suffers an unsaved wound" the Shadow Field would not be lost. Therefore you interpretation cannot be correct, and discounting a wound does not negate any effect caused by "Suffering an unsaved wound". Or to put it another way. You still Suffered an Unsaved wound, even if that wound was later discounted, which seemed to me to be the obvious interpretation since 7th edition dropped.
Let me offer a scenario where it might seem more obvious. There is a Tyranid Warlord trait called "Adaptive Biology"
"If the Warlord suffers one or more unsaved Wounds, it gains the Feel No Pain (5+) special rule at the beginning of its next Movement phase and keeps it for the remainder of the game."
They also have an upgrade called "Regeneration"
"At the end of each friendly turn, roll a D6 for each model with the regeneration biomorph that has less than its starting number of Wounds, but has not been removed as a casualty. On a 4+, that model regains a single Wound lost earlier in the battle."
So if a Hive Tyrant with Regen, and the Adaptive biology trait perils and takes a wound in the psychic phase, and then Regenerates that wound at the end of its turn, does it gain the effects of Adaptive Biology at the start of its next movement phase? By your interpretation it wouldn't because even though it suffered a wound, that wound was later regenerated, and therefore it has been retconned that the wound never happened? Does that seem like a more reasonable scenario than "Suffering an Unsaved Wound" effects can still be triggered even if the current wounds characteristics are at full? Because to me, the wound was suffered, and then regenerated. Or in the case of Feel No Pain, it was Suffered and then Discounted. No matter what, it was suffered.
Poor comparison - Regeneration never says the wound was saved.
And indeed - pre-FAQ the Shadowfield wasn't lost. And using something that specific as precedent for a RAW is tenuous at best.
jay_mo wrote: You've made your point, but none of these examples talk about going back in time and reversing effects due to the "treat as" rule.
In all of these rules, "treat as" can be interpreted as "treat as from now on", without any of the effects you mention...
Can you give an example of a rule that breaks if you treat "treat as x" as "is x from now on, until other stated", but do not "is and has always been x" ?
If the wound is saved, how are you rolling to see if Helfrost removes the model?
Do you do that if the wound is saved?
I think I already explained this many times. But no, if I resolve FNP first and it succeeds, then I do not roll Helfrost, because as you say, the wound will be treated as saved after the FNP roll.
But if I already have rolled Helfrost, and removed the model, and after that roll FNP, even if the roll passed, the model has already been removed, and FNP can't do anything about that.
Why are you rolling Helfrost if you don't know the wound is unsaved? Does it apply on hits?
Nem wrote: Can anyone drop the relevant wording for Shadow Field?
I've considered the *intent* of FNP before *could* be to only stop the model losing a wound characteristic, and it wasn't meant to interfere with triggering of any other rules which come off the unsaved wound, mainly based on the first sentence of FNP, and combat resolution's ''wounds actually suffered'' statements.
I don't think there is any RAW logical reason for the FAQ but I wouldn't say it is obviously not intended with those rule sets, like we have known some others to be. But I don't have the rules for SF in front of me either.
Shadow Field Rule "A shadow field confers a 2+ invulnerable save. The Shadow field save is lost for the rest of the battle at the end of any phase in which the model suffers on or more unsaved wounds."
tag8833 wrote: Shadow field happens at the end of the phase. But is triggered by the failed save, and cannot then be un triggered.
Only because of the FAQ. Pre-FAQ this was false.
Why? because by the time you reached the end of the phase, FNP had removed the trigger? I'd say it would still have triggered. By the FaQ, this would be RaI (It's not an errata?)
Ed: Ah i see from the wording: "phase in which the model suffers", which would not be true at the time of checking (End phase)
No, my timing explanation does not cover multiple Wounds (so taking 3 Wounds and then applying Helfrost). It is all in the resolution of a single Wound allocation, which follows the following RaW:
If it fails (Save), reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.
You follow the above for every single Wound, correct?
I have shown how the above splits up:
1) Suffer an unsaved Wound. Shadow Field happens here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
FNP happens here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Take the woundID happens here. EW happens here. Swarms happens here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Helfrost happens here. ID happens here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Remove the model
This is the process for 1 Wound only: Helfrost happens just as the model "for each Wound suffered" (Step 2) above - but it does not modify step 2, so it come just after you've suffered the Wound) but it also happens before you check if the model has 0 Wounds and is removed as a casualty.
If the model has 6 Wounds, the process above will be:
Fail Save --> Roll FNP (Fail) --> reduce Wound by 1 (because ID said more, but EW modified) --> Roll Strength test (Say you fail this, then the model is removed here) --> Remove model if Wounds =0. (After this check, you would allocate the second Wound, and go through the process again.)
Let me fix this for you to make it RAW
1) Suffer an unsaved Wound.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
FNP happens here. RP happens here. Shadow Field is lost here (but we are told this happens even if FNP also happens so no need for sequencing). Helfrost happens here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Take the wound --------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Remove the model
That is LITERALLY what the rules say. Trying to put Helfrost later in that list is not what the rules say. To make this clear I'll quote the rule again for you.
Helfrost: When a models suffers one or more unsaved wounds from this weapon, it must pass a separate Strength test for each wound suffered or be removed from play.
When must it pass a separate Strength test for each wound suffered? When it suffers the unsaved wound. That's EXACTLY the same time that you roll FNP. This is the rule.
The fact that it states that it rolls for each wound is to help people who use fast dice understand that you roll for each wound, not once for all the wounds. If you're not using fast dice it's very simple:
You roll one save. You failed it? You roll a strength test. You failed that too? You're removed from play. You didn't fail it? You roll your next save.
With fast dice being an option they had to explain that you made the roll for each wound. You're taking the fact that they got sloppy with that part of it and said "for each wound suffered" to try and make Helfrost happen later than it should. But even this is not RAW since we are very clearly told when to make the Strength test. When a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds.
But WHEN the roll is made is clearly stated at the beginning of the rule. When a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds
When is FNP rolled? When a model suffers an unsaved wound
If we disagree then we disagree and I can respect that you have a different opinion than I do. I can even see why you believe what you do.
1) Suffer an unsaved Wound(Fails the save). FNP, ID > EW, SF, Swarms, Helfrost are triggered here. -------------------------------------------------------------------- FNP happens here. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Take the woundID happens here. EW happens here. Swarms happens here. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Helfrost happens here. ID happens here. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Remove the model(if W=0)
Obviously only if you can see that the rules triggering and when the effect of them happens is a different timing. With Shadow Field "happening" at the end of the Phase.
Still can't believe this debate is still going. The fact is FNP and RP are not saves and so they cannot save an unsaved wound.
Just because it says treats as saved does not make it saved as they both state explicitly "this is not a saving throw." The treats as saved portion is simply telling you how to deal with a Wound that has been discounted.
If this was not the case there would be no reason to state that it is not a saving throw or to ever call the unsaved wound discounted instead of saying it's simply saved.
megatrons2nd wrote: I don't know the Hellfrost rule, but what about the Direswords Soulrazor rule? It activates when a model Suffers and unsaved wound. Using the exact wording as FnP. How about the Dark Eldar's Parasite's kiss, which immediately replaces a wound when it inflicts an unsaved wound, unlike the animus Vitae which requires it to be inflicted.
Do you think you could quote the important line for those? For comparison's sake.
Sure in no particular order: The activation sentence in FnP, Soul Razor, Instant Death, Concussive, and Soul Blaze
When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound
A model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon with this special rule....
If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack with this special rule
If a unit suffers one or more unsaved wounds from an attack with this special rule....
When a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds from this weapon.....
For the Animus Vitae If an unsaved wound is inflicted with the animus vitae, all models with the power from pain special rule......
For the Parasites Kiss Each time the bearer inflicts an unsaved wound with the parasite's kiss it immediately gains one wound lost previously in battle.
Note all the suffers an unsaved wounds listed up there. In the mechanics of the rules, both Soulrazor and Fnp say to do something for each wound suffered. I am going to have to make the assumption that the frost weapon uses similar terminology to soulrazor.
Mordaem wrote: Still can't believe this debate is still going. The fact is FNP and RP are not saves and so they cannot save an unsaved wound.
Only if you ignore the actual rules.
Just because it says treats as saved does not make it saved as they both state explicitly "this is not a saving throw." The treats as saved portion is simply telling you how to deal with a Wound that has been discounted.
If this was not the case there would be no reason to state that it is not a saving throw or to ever call the unsaved wound discounted instead of saying it's simply saved.
The reason they state it's not a save is that you can never take more than one saving throw - so an armor + FNP save would be illegal.
nosferatu1001 wrote:You are adding the qualifier "from that point", when the rule never states that
The wound is saved, which is past, present and continuing on. The wound was never unsaved
No, as much as I'm adding "from that point", you are adding the "past, present and continuing" part. The rules states neither of them. Which means treating it as x from now on, as much fulfils the rule as treating it as it was always x.
If a rules says "the magician turns your model into a pig, treat it as a pig", that doesn't mean you have to treat it as it was always a pig, backtracking all shooting attacks that your model did since the game started. It means treat it as a pig from now on. In that case it is obvious, in the FNP case it is less obvious, my point is that it is an equally (or more) valid interpretation to add the "from now on" than adding the "past, present and future" -thing.
rigeld2 wrote:Why are you rolling Helfrost if you don't know the wound is unsaved? Does it apply on hits?
It is unsaved when Helfrost is rolled. And when FNP is rolled. FNP is not a save. It says so in the rules. An unsaved wound is something that wasn't saved by a save. FNP has the ability to flick a magic wand and turn an unsaved wound into a saved wound. Like turning a model into a pig. But the wound has still been an unsaved wound once and it that was during those times the Helfrost was rolled.
Nowhere in the FNP rules does it say that the unsaved wound that FNP turned into a saved wound was never an unsaved wound. In fact, it says it WAS once an unsaved wound. It was when it triggered the FNP.
jay_mo wrote: Nowhere in the FNP rules does it say that the unsaved wound that FNP turned into a saved wound was never an unsaved wound. In fact, it says it WAS once an unsaved wound. It was when it triggered the FNP.
So you're doing something that requires an unsaved wound when the only wound that ever happened has been saved?
When must it pass a Strength Test?
For each wound suffered.
Does this rule apply to all Wounds that the model takes? Dangerous terrain, etc?
No, when a models suffers () unsaved wounds from this weapon.
Obviously only if you can see that the rules triggering and when the effect of them happens is a different timing. With Shadow Field "happening" at the end of the Phase.
You do realize that FnP says "Roll a D6 each time an unsaved wound is suffered."
Sounds an awful lot like "take a S test for each unsaved wound suffered"
Or "take a LD test for each wound suffered"
Using the full rule for other rules and not the full rule for FnP to try and prove FnP goes first doesn't work when you further look at the FnP rule and see it says the same thing.
jay_mo wrote: Nowhere in the FNP rules does it say that the unsaved wound that FNP turned into a saved wound was never an unsaved wound. In fact, it says it WAS once an unsaved wound. It was when it triggered the FNP.
So you're doing something that requires an unsaved wound when the only wound that ever happened has been saved?
And you're asserting that's legal?
Have you even read my posts? The answer is there.
FNP requires an unsaved wound just as much as Helfrost. Why don't you wait rolling FNP until you know if your FNP roll passes?
jay_mo wrote: Nowhere in the FNP rules does it say that the unsaved wound that FNP turned into a saved wound was never an unsaved wound. In fact, it says it WAS once an unsaved wound. It was when it triggered the FNP.
So you're doing something that requires an unsaved wound when the only wound that ever happened has been saved?
And you're asserting that's legal?
Have you even read my posts? The answer is there.
I have. And your statements lead to an illegal situation - either you're rolling for Helfrost before you know if the wound is saved or not, or you're rolling for Helfrost when the model has not suffered a wound.
Either way - your method breaks rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jay_mo wrote: FNP requires an unsaved wound just as much as Helfrost. Why don't you wait rolling FNP until you know if your FNP roll passes?
FNP creates a paradox with itself. That doesn't mean it's wrong.
jay_mo wrote: Nowhere in the FNP rules does it say that the unsaved wound that FNP turned into a saved wound was never an unsaved wound. In fact, it says it WAS once an unsaved wound. It was when it triggered the FNP.
So you're doing something that requires an unsaved wound when the only wound that ever happened has been saved?
And you're asserting that's legal?
No, we are applying all the rules equally. All said rules activate when a model suffers an unsaved wound. We then apply sequencing, meaning your turn FnP goes first, and our turn the other rule goes first.
As a further question, How do you know you are allowed to use FnP until you know if you are going to suffer a removed from play or instant death attack? Unless you are are asserting that FnP can work against instant death. Because you know, instant death isn't valid until it is known if the wound is unsaved or not. Just because there is another step to it does not remove the fact that it has a rule that prevents FnP from working.
FNP creates a paradox with itself. That doesn't mean it's wrong.
It only creates a paradox with itself when you don't look at it linearly. You know, the way the rules are written. The linear quality of the rules backed up with the sequencing rule proves my point. Everything happens in an order, no going back in time. Thus the sequencing rule telling us how to resolve rules that activate at the same time, and how to resolve them.
jay_mo wrote: FNP requires an unsaved wound just as much as Helfrost. Why don't you wait rolling FNP until you know if your FNP roll passes?
FNP creates a paradox with itself. That doesn't mean it's wrong.
The thing is, you are saying that my interpretation of the rules are illegal, I am merely trying to explain to you, in all ways I can think of, that there is a way to interpret the text in the manner I do, just as it is possible to interpret it the way you do.
I haven't said that you are wrong, I'm just saying I'm not wrong either. As I've said, it is nothing paradoxal with treating the wound as saved from when the FNP roll is made, but once unsaved before. So that when using sequencing, if Helfrost resolves before FNP - Helfrost is allowed to happen, while in the opposite order Helfrost can be prevented by FNP. And it is still following the rules as they are written.
I'm not saying you are breaking the rules, since 40k-rules often are open to several interpretations. I just say I don't choose to follow your interpretation, because I believe mine is just as valid, and makes more sense in my opinion.
jay_mo wrote: FNP requires an unsaved wound just as much as Helfrost. Why don't you wait rolling FNP until you know if your FNP roll passes?
FNP creates a paradox with itself. That doesn't mean it's wrong.
The thing is, you are saying that my interpretation of the rules are illegal, I am merely trying to explain to you, in all ways I can think of, that there is a way to interpret the text in the manner I do, just as it is possible to interpret it the way you do.
I haven't said that you are wrong, I'm just saying I'm not wrong either. As I've said, it is nothing paradoxal with treating the wound as saved from when the FNP roll is made, but once unsaved before. So that when using sequencing, if Helfrost resolves before FNP - Helfrost is allowed to happen, while in the opposite order Helfrost can be prevented by FNP. And it is still following the rules as they are written.
I'm not saying you are breaking the rules, since 40k-rules often are open to several interpretations. I just say I don't choose to follow your interpretation, because I believe mine is just as valid, and makes more sense in my opinion.
The problem with your interpretation is that - as I've said - it breaks rules.
It's also illogical - Sequencing effects like that so I survive better on my turn? That's stupid.
You haven't made a single RAW argument other than sequencing, and I've shown why that's flawed. Your interpretation requires it to be correct. Since it isn't, your interpretation cannot be correct, regardless of your belief.
megatrons2nd wrote: I don't know the Hellfrost rule, but what about the Direswords Soulrazor rule? It activates when a model Suffers and unsaved wound. Using the exact wording as FnP. How about the Dark Eldar's Parasite's kiss, which immediately replaces a wound when it inflicts an unsaved wound, unlike the animus Vitae which requires it to be inflicted.
Do you think you could quote the important line for those? For comparison's sake.
Sure in no particular order: The activation sentence in FnP, Soul Razor, Instant Death, Concussive, and Soul Blaze
When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound A model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon with this special rule.... If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack with this special rule If a unit suffers one or more unsaved wounds from an attack with this special rule.... When a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds from this weapon.....
For the Animus Vitae If an unsaved wound is inflicted with the animus vitae, all models with the power from pain special rule...... For the Parasites Kiss Each time the bearer inflicts an unsaved wound with the parasite's kiss it immediately gains one wound lost previously in battle.
Note all the suffers an unsaved wounds listed up there. In the mechanics of the rules, both Soulrazor and Fnp say to do something for each wound suffered. I am going to have to make the assumption that the frost weapon uses similar terminology to soulrazor.
I need the entire rule and its effects to compare. Not just the "suffers an unsaved wound" trigger. I have repeated (too many times now) that the trigger for all these rules is exactly the same.
But the effects are at different times. Like Shadowfield effect are at the End of the Phase.....
You do realize that FnP says "Roll a D6 each time an unsaved wound is suffered." Sounds an awful lot like "take a S test for each unsaved wound suffered" Or "take a LD test for each wound suffered" Using the full rule for other rules and not the full rule for FnP to try and prove FnP goes first doesn't work when you further look at the FnP rule and see it says the same thing.
You got those quotes wrong. I hope that when you quote the other rules you are copying the exact RaW?
RaW: "pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"
The strength one I do not have access to as that is a marine codex and I only used what I read on here, because I hate marines and their rules and think they are the most god awful pieces of stolen/copied/regurgitated material in the history of man. The Tau are more original than marines, and we know where those came from.
For FnP it is in the FnP rule on page 164 fourth paragraph of the FnP rule(including the fluff paragraph)
For the Soul Razor rule is copied, though truncated, direct from the Eldar Codex.
BlackTalos, just so that I understand your position better, am I correct in understanding that you say we can never use the trigger for any rule in the book to know when it happens but instead we have to read the rule and interpret what it does to tell us when it happens for sequencing?
NightHowler wrote: BlackTalos, just so that I understand your position better, am I correct in understanding that you say we can never use the trigger for any rule in the book to know when it happens but instead we have to read the rule and interpret what it does to tell us when it happens for sequencing?
Slightly different. My position, summarised as aptly as i can is this:
You use the trigger to "have" the Rule, so for the current example:
-As soon as the model fails the save roll (he Rolls a 1), he is under the effect of 5 rules: - FNP + ID + EW + Helfrost + RP.
Although the model now "has" 5 rule effects on it, do they clash?
Yes: EW effect mentions that ID only does -1W
Yes: RP says it much choose RP or FNP (<--- correct me here)
No other clashes. Why? Because no other effects interact with each other.
So you apply them in the order that their effects go by.
1) Suffer an unsaved Wound(Fails the save). FNP, ID > EW, SF, Swarms, Helfrost are triggered here.
FNP happens here.
2) Take the woundID happens here. EW happens here. Swarms happens here.
Helfrost happens here. ID happens here.
3) Remove the model(if W=0)
These are when the Effects happen. Not the trigger. But they still all trigger.
So when sequencing on page 17 says, "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..." that it doesn't really matter if the trigger is the start of the movement phase, you can resolve them in order of the mechanic of the rule instead of the trigger and ignore sequencing for those rules?
Soulrazor wrote: When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from this weapon, it must pass a separate Leadership test for each Wound suffered or be removed from play.
Triggers on unsaved Wounds, like all the others. Effects are exactly like Helfrost: each time a Wound is suffered (-1W, Step 2) above) the model has to check.
If there not a Soulrazor V FNP thread?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NightHowler wrote: So when sequencing on page 17 says, "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..." that it doesn't really matter if the trigger is the start of the movement phase, you can resolve them in order of the mechanic of the rule instead of the trigger and ignore sequencing for those rules?
Usually those rules happen "immediately", so you can't really "immediately" 3 things at the same time. Hence Sequencing.
If a rule said: A) "at the start of the movement phase, count the model's Wounds. If the number is 2 or less, remove the model at the end of the Shooting Phase" and another had: B)"at the start of the movement phase, if the model has 2 Wounds left, add 1 Wound at the end of the movement phase"
Do you sequence them?
Clearly the model regains a Wound at the end of movement. Why would you still remove him at the end of the Shooting Phase? He has 3 Wounds left. You could Sequence "B" first. It still means "A" will have it's effects before "B", and invalidating it either way.
If the model's FNP succeeded, and "the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved." Why do you still roll Helfrost.
If the model's FNP succeeded, and "the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved." Why do you still roll Helfrost.
Because at the exact same time you roll your FNP roll you roll a strength test as well.
I guess where we really disagree is when you say you have to roll Helfrost after a wound is lost. As I understand it, you believe this is the timing because of the wording of Helfrost that you roll for "each wound suffered" which you are interpret to mean "after -1 wounds" instead of "after each failed save". Am I correct in how I understand your reasoning?
If the model's FNP succeeded, and "the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved." Why do you still roll Helfrost.
Because at the exact same time you roll your FNP roll you roll a strength test as well.
I guess where we really disagree is when you say you have to roll Helfrost after a wound is lost. As I understand it, you believe this is the timing because of the wording of Helfrost that you roll for "each wound suffered" which you are interpret to mean "after -1 wounds" instead of "after each failed save". Am I correct in how I understand your reasoning?
Yes, that is indeed where i get it from.
When actually playing on the table, sure, the rolls are at the same time between other roll, but that is the same as saying Saves rolls and FNP rolls are at the same time. You have to look at RaW to know you roll saves first and then FNP. I think the same applies here.
If the model's FNP succeeded, and "the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved." Why do you still roll Helfrost.
Because at the exact same time you roll your FNP roll you roll a strength test as well.
I guess where we really disagree is when you say you have to roll Helfrost after a wound is lost. As I understand it, you believe this is the timing because of the wording of Helfrost that you roll for "each wound suffered" which you are interpret to mean "after -1 wounds" instead of "after each failed save". Am I correct in how I understand your reasoning?
Yes, that is indeed where i get it from.
When actually playing on the table, sure, the rolls are at the same time between other roll, but that is the same as saying Saves rolls and FNP rolls are at the same time. You have to look at RaW to know you roll saves first and then FNP. I think the same applies here.
You roll to hit, then wound, then remove casualties, then roll saves. Because that is how the rules are written. Of course we know that is not how it works, because Saves interrupt the removal process. The wound was already done, so any rule that says for each wound suffered goes before the save process.
I guess it would be, I wound you 4 time with a weapon that says for each wound suffered, you fail 2 saves, then you would take 4 rolls against the LD or S test. because you suffered 4 wounds with the weapon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Happyjew wrote: rigeld, when does a model suffer a wound? Before or after reducing the wounds characteristic by 1?
Immediately after you roll the to wound roll. Read the wounding process, you save wounds. As such you are already wounded, so the rule obviously happens even if you pass your save.
If the model's FNP succeeded, and "the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved." Why do you still roll Helfrost.
Because at the exact same time you roll your FNP roll you roll a strength test as well.
I guess where we really disagree is when you say you have to roll Helfrost after a wound is lost. As I understand it, you believe this is the timing because of the wording of Helfrost that you roll for "each wound suffered" which you are interpret to mean "after -1 wounds" instead of "after each failed save". Am I correct in how I understand your reasoning?
Yes, that is indeed where i get it from.
When actually playing on the table, sure, the rolls are at the same time between other roll, but that is the same as saying Saves rolls and FNP rolls are at the same time. You have to look at RaW to know you roll saves first and then FNP. I think the same applies here.
But this is another place where I believe your reasoning breaks down. The book uses the words "suffer a wound" to describe what happens both before a save is made and after a save is made.
BRB page 36, column 2, paragraph 3, under Armor Saves: If the result is lower than the armor save value, the armor fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a wound.
BRB page 37, column 1, paragraph 2, under Invulnerable Saves: Invulnerable saves are different to armor saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a wound.
So you could use page 36 to say that Helfrost doesn't happen at the same time because you have to wait until the model suffers a wound (which I disagree with, but for the sake of this argument), but I could use page 37 to say that Helfrost happens even before you make a save (which again I think is false, but I'm demonstrating why we can't use "suffer a wound" to show timing).
I argue that we absolutely must use the trigger to show exactly when something happens. The model suffers an unsaved wound the second that an armor save is failed. When it suffers that wound you roll a strength test. You see the use of the word suffer that wound to describe the failed armor save? My position is that this choice of words was made carelessly and cannot be used to delay a rule until after the other special rules with the same trigger.
When must it pass a Strength Test?
For each wound suffered.
Does this rule apply to all Wounds that the model takes? Dangerous terrain, etc?
No, when a models suffers () unsaved wounds from this weapon.
Obviously only if you can see that the rules triggering and when the effect of them happens is a different timing. With Shadow Field "happening" at the end of the Phase.
You do realize that FnP says "Roll a D6 each time an unsaved wound is suffered."
Sounds an awful lot like "take a S test for each unsaved wound suffered"
Or "take a LD test for each wound suffered"
Using the full rule for other rules and not the full rule for FnP to try and prove FnP goes first doesn't work when you further look at the FnP rule and see it says the same thing.
helfrost does not say to to take a S test for each unsaved wound suffered, it says to take a S test for each wound suffered.
helfrost does not say to to take a S test for each unsaved wound suffered, it says to take a S test for each wound suffered.
Yeah, already went through that one. I don't own marine crap, so I missed it in the reading of the posts here. There have been a couple misquotes on here, by both sides. It is amazing what the human mind will insert or omit when you read something to quickly. I am currently rereading all the relevant rules, very slowly, so I can continue this discussion better armed for any further rules discrepancies.
