So using a weapong like the black mace it states if the target suffers an unsaved wound they must take a toughness test or be removed.
Do feel no pain or reanimation protocols stop this from happening?
I would assume no because FNP and RP are technically not saves, and that the model still suffered an unsaved wound then, regardless of it making or failing the roll to FNP it.
"Models that are 'removed from play' by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties, as far as the game rules are concerned."
"Basic vs Advanced... On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a (advanced) 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."
Pg 164 BRB
"Feel No Pain... When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound, it can make special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw and can be used against attacks that state '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 destoryer attacks or against unsaved wounds that have the instant death special rule.
... On a X+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved."
Pg 69 CSM
"Cursed... If a model suffers an unsaved wound from the Black Mace it must immediately take a toughness test. If the test is failed, remove the model as a casualty with no saves of any kind allowed. In addition, at the end of the phase in which the Black Mace causes one or more unsaved Wounds, all non-vehicle enemy models within 3" of the bearer, which haven't suffered an unsaved wound from the Black Mace this phase, must make a Toughness test. Any models that fail the test suffer a Wound with no saves of any kind allowed."
All the pertaining rules I can see need to be referenced so far.
+ Reanimation Protocols.
Wallur wrote: Second: As for FNP, the wound has been taken wether you discount it or not. So, even if your model stays at his Max numer of wounds, it still suffered it and discarded, but was suffered, since FNP requieres your model to suffer a wound to trigger. SO:
Wound was suffered? Yes -> Black Mace removes model from play
Automatically Appended Next Post:
REANIMATION PROTOCOLS wrote:
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.
Conclusions
Based on the discussions in this thread at this point I am going to go ahead and lock it as I do not wish to continue to reiterate the same points over and over again.
My personal conclusion is that off a successful wound which has failed a save, being an armour, invulnerable, or cover save as defined by the BRB that model must immediately roll a toughness test and upon failure is removed without a chance to FNP or RP.
Various FAQ's and ITC rulings on similar rules disputes point to an ordered process when determining the order in which an FNP roll can be taken.
Due to the nature of how these two rules work, and their ability to nullify each other, the fundamental reason as to why Curse would take precedence is due to both rules triggering off the same event, however with Curse having a clause that it must be tested immediately after a wound has failed to be saved.
Curse in addition has a rule where enemy models in the area must take a toughness test or suffer a single wound, these results may make a FNP or RP because it is a single wound, and is not a type of damage that negates FNP or RP to trigger normally.
Once again this is not an official ruling, but my interpretation after debating for 5 pages with various people both for and against the results.
Thank you to everyone who contributed to this discussion.
If you feel that this should / should not be played this way, discuss it with your opponent first, and feel free to quote me for my interpretations of how these two rules would interact with each other.
Assuming that nothing else has changed recently, when two rules trigger off the same event, ie unsaved wound, the player who's turn it is gets to decide the order in which they are resolved.
So in your turn, black mace resolves first, in your opponents turn FNP/RP resolves first, in which case black mace may do nothing, as the wound is saved before it gets a look in.
The wound dealt is technically discounted via FNP or RP and therefore never happened. That is the argument against stuff like this and grounding tests.
That is HIWPI as well, however, I'm interested in seeing what people say.
I want to know because I have a demon prince anda necrons friend that I want to introduce to each other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whacked wrote: The wound dealt is technically discounted via FNP or RP and therefore never happened. That is the argument against stuff like this and grounding tests.
That is HIWPI as well, however, I'm interested in seeing what people say.
FNP says in its rules though that it does not count as a save. So yes you may ignore the wound, but you still technically suffered an unsaved wound if you go by RAW
The wound is "discounted" there for you pay no attention to it, as if it never happened. People would be taking grounding tests everywhere on FMCs if they discounted their unsaved wounds with FNP.
There is only one situation that I can think of that gives your argument credibility and it was the recent FAQ for Dark Eldar (I believe?) with the wargear that is removed once you take an unsaved wound even if you FNP.
Edit: CrownAxe beat me to it, but I also believe the precedent only exists because of the implicit wording of Shadow Field in that situation.
Konrax wrote: I want to know because I have a demon prince anda necrons friend that I want to introduce to each other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whacked wrote: The wound dealt is technically discounted via FNP or RP and therefore never happened. That is the argument against stuff like this and grounding tests.
That is HIWPI as well, however, I'm interested in seeing what people say.
FNP says in its rules though that it does not count as a save. So yes you may ignore the wound, but you still technically suffered an unsaved wound if you go by RAW
Both FNP and RP consider the Wound as Saved if successful, though. Keep that in Mind. While not being Saves, they can still Save the Wound.
'Treat it as having been saved' needs to be better explained by the Authors, as evident by the huge amount of debate that occurs whenever this terminology is encountered. As many different interpretations exist... my advise is to talk to your opponent and work it out with them.
Konrax wrote: So using a weapong like the black mace it states if the target suffers an unsaved wound they must take a toughness test or be removed.
Do feel no pain or reanimation protocols stop this from happening?
I would assume no because FNP and RP are technically not saves, and that the model still suffered an unsaved wound then, regardless of it making or failing the roll to FNP it.
What do you guys think?
The tough test that is required from the black mace is after an unsaved wound is taken. The tough test would happen after any FNP or RP would resolved and a wound made it thought. If I remember right it effects the whole unit. So since it specifically yes it does not cause a wound, it does not trigger FNP or RP. Just removed from the game. Its one of few weapons in the game that have remove from play effects still. Stomp attacks are the same way. If you get stomped and a 6 is rolled, models are just removed. No FNP. No RP.
CrownAxe wrote: There is a precedent set by the Dark Eldar FAQ that the Shadow Field is lost even if they passed their FNP (which has the same unsaved wound trigger)
Bad example. Shadow Fields were lost if you failed a save, not suffered a Wound.
Konrax wrote: So using a weapong like the black mace it states if the target suffers an unsaved wound they must take a toughness test or be removed.
Do feel no pain or reanimation protocols stop this from happening?
I would assume no because FNP and RP are technically not saves, and that the model still suffered an unsaved wound then, regardless of it making or failing the roll to FNP it.
What do you guys think?
The tough test that is required from the black mace is after an unsaved wound is taken. The tough test would happen after any FNP or RP would resolved and a wound made it thought. If I remember right it effects the whole unit. So since it specifically yes it does not cause a wound, it does not trigger FNP or RP. Just removed from the game. Its one of few weapons in the game that have remove from play effects still. Stomp attacks are the same way. If you get stomped and a 6 is rolled, models are just removed. No FNP. No RP.
Any D-weapon ignores FNP/RP. Not just a 6 on the chart.
I would still argue that the unit suffered an unsaved wound since it's save was failed. However the wounds caused were reduced to 0 by it passing a feel no pain roll.
So it would be -1 then +1 wound and therefore it had still suffered the wound, regardless of how many wounds the model has at the end of the phase.
The rule specifically says it does not count as a save and may be taken when saves are not usually allowed.
My interpretation is that if I get a wound and you fail a save, despite successfully making a FNP roll you still need to take a toughness test, since FNP does not count as a save for rules purposes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JinxDragon wrote: The words are 'treat it as being saved,' by stating the Unsaved Wound still occurred have you treating it in the same way as a Saved Wound?
You can't get the benefit of it being applied when you normally get no saves, and also have it ignore rules that apply when saves are passed. One or the other but not both.
Konrax wrote: Show me where it says that FNP counts as a save.
The rule specifically says it does not count as a save and may be taken when saves are not usually allowed.
My interpretation is that if I get a wound and you fail a save, despite successfully making a FNP roll you still need to take a toughness test, since FNP does not count as a save for rules purposes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JinxDragon wrote: The words are 'treat it as being saved,' by stating the Unsaved Wound still occurred have you treating it in the same way as a Saved Wound?
You can't get the benefit of it being applied when you normally get no saves, and also have it ignore rules that apply when saves are passed. One or the other but not both.
FNP doesn't have to count as a save. If you make it, you will then treat the wound as having been saved. (Just as if the first save had been passed.) Thus, no further effects that trigger on an unsaved wound can be fulfilled? (Was an unsaved wound applied? If you are playing FNP correctly than no, for rules purposes it was not.)
Konrax wrote: Your not really giving me any substance here to work with.
I quoted that the rules specifically say it isn't a save, but you say you treat the wound as if it was saved without it being a save.
Not to be a TFG here but I don't see any reason why you would get to ignore that rule with a passed FNP.
The dark eldar field has similar wording and they said that the save was still technically failed despite a FNP being passed.
Incorrect. The Dark Eldar field had different wording which had nothing to do with Wounds. It dealt with a save. Whether or not the model was wounded, it still failed it's 2+ invulnerable save, and as such the field was lost.
Konrax wrote: Your not really giving me any substance here to work with.
I quoted that the rules specifically say it isn't a save, but you say you treat the wound as if it was saved without it being a save.
Not to be a TFG here but I don't see any reason why you would get to ignore that rule with a passed FNP.
The dark eldar field has similar wording and they said that the save was still technically failed despite a FNP being passed.
Incorrect. The Dark Eldar field had different wording which had nothing to do with Wounds. It dealt with a save. Whether or not the model was wounded, it still failed it's 2+ invulnerable save, and as such the field was lost.
What is the wording for the shadow field then?
Maybe it can help draw some insight at least on how to resolve this.
Konrax wrote: Your not really giving me any substance here to work with.
I quoted that the rules specifically say it isn't a save, but you say you treat the wound as if it was saved without it being a save.
Not to be a TFG here but I don't see any reason why you would get to ignore that rule with a passed FNP.
The dark eldar field has similar wording and they said that the save was still technically failed despite a FNP being passed.
Incorrect. The Dark Eldar field had different wording which had nothing to do with Wounds. It dealt with a save. Whether or not the model was wounded, it still failed it's 2+ invulnerable save, and as such the field was lost.
The effect of FNP isn't prevent the model from suffering a wound, The effect of FNP is to make the failed save count as saved which should have prevented the shadowfield from being lost at all until GW flat out said "no its lost"
Konrax wrote: Your not really giving me any substance here to work with.
I quoted that the rules specifically say it isn't a save, but you say you treat the wound as if it was saved without it being a save.
Not to be a TFG here but I don't see any reason why you would get to ignore that rule with a passed FNP.
The dark eldar field has similar wording and they said that the save was still technically failed despite a FNP being passed.
Incorrect. The Dark Eldar field had different wording which had nothing to do with Wounds. It dealt with a save. Whether or not the model was wounded, it still failed it's 2+ invulnerable save, and as such the field was lost.
The effect of FNP isn't prevent the model from suffering a wound, The effect of FNP is to make the failed save count as saved which should have prevented the shadowfield from being lost at all until GW flat out said "no its lost"
I'm not really buying this " counts as a save" when the FNP rule specifically says it doesn't count as a save.
It just says the wound that would have been suffered is ignored, so the wound itself is ignored, but for all intents and purposes it had still suffered an unsaved wound despite the target wounds profile not being changed.
Demonic possession works the opposite saying that a result of crew shaken or stunned is ignored but a hullpoint is still lost. That rule basically outright said the effect is ignored but not the wound. FNP only states the wound is ignored and nothing about the effects caused by the wound in the first place.
Another circumstance is the use of a force weapon with force activated. If a target is hit by a force weapon, all wounds caused by the weapon have the insant death special rule, which would then ignore FNP. So to me this example shows that the effect of the weapon applies before the FNP roll would come into affect.
Konrax wrote: Your not really giving me any substance here to work with.
I quoted that the rules specifically say it isn't a save, but you say you treat the wound as if it was saved without it being a save.
Not to be a TFG here but I don't see any reason why you would get to ignore that rule with a passed FNP.
The dark eldar field has similar wording and they said that the save was still technically failed despite a FNP being passed.
Incorrect. The Dark Eldar field had different wording which had nothing to do with Wounds. It dealt with a save. Whether or not the model was wounded, it still failed it's 2+ invulnerable save, and as such the field was lost.
The effect of FNP isn't prevent the model from suffering a wound, The effect of FNP is to make the failed save count as saved which should have prevented the shadowfield from being lost at all until GW flat out said "no its lost"
FNP discounts the Wound, [treated] as if it had been saved. However, the model still failed it's 2+ invulnerable save whether or not FNP was passed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Konrax wrote: Another circumstance is the use of a force weapon with force activated. If a target is hit by a force weapon, all wounds caused by the weapon have the insant death special rule, which would then ignore FNP. So to me this example shows that the effect of the weapon applies before the FNP roll would come into affect.
Bad example. Weapons with the Force special rule gain the ID special rule after activation which is done during the Psychic phase. As such, when you deal the Wounds they already have the ID special rule.
Personally fluffwise it is a cursed daemon weapon so even it touching you would be very dangerous, despite being super tough and shrugging off what would be considered an injury. I know this has no impact at all on rules as written but it may help with context and RAI.
On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved. - Feel No Pain
Feel No Pain may not be a save in and of itself, but it does tell us to discount the unsaved Wound and to treat it as having been saved. If you do not discount the unsaved Wound entirely, treating it as a Saved result, then you are breaking this poorly written and paradoxical Rule.
Also see any of my previous rants on Wounds and Wounds, two completely different things that have the same name: The To Wound process, which includes Allocation and Saving Throws, are refereed to as 'Wounds' While reducing the Wound Characteristic is also refereed to as Wounds
All because Game Workshop likes ******* with us....
Konrax wrote: Has anyone else run into this rules paradox here?
Personally fluffwise it is a cursed daemon weapon so even it touching you would be very dangerous, despite being super tough and shrugging off what would be considered an injury. I know this has no impact at all on rules as written but it may help with context and RAI.
Me and a friend ran into the problem about a month ago. Black Mace vs Necrons. How we played it made more sense back then, than after reading this topic though.
We played it that the toughness test happens first, if the model passes the toughness test you roll for RP to see if the wound goes trough. If you fail the toughness test you just die because RP cant protect from remove effects.
Konrax wrote: Has anyone else run into this rules paradox here?
Personally fluffwise it is a cursed daemon weapon so even it touching you would be very dangerous, despite being super tough and shrugging off what would be considered an injury. I know this has no impact at all on rules as written but it may help with context and RAI.
Me and a friend ran into the problem about a month ago. Black Mace vs Necrons. How we played it made more sense back then, than after reading this topic though.
We played it that the toughness test happens first, if the model passes the toughness test you roll for RP to see if the wound goes trough. If you fail the toughness test you just die because RP cant protect from remove effects.
But if he passed the rp he would of stayed.. I understand you house ruled it, but the intention is clear. Fnp and rp will let the character ignore the black mace
Konrax wrote: Has anyone else run into this rules paradox here?
Personally fluffwise it is a cursed daemon weapon so even it touching you would be very dangerous, despite being super tough and shrugging off what would be considered an injury. I know this has no impact at all on rules as written but it may help with context and RAI.
Me and a friend ran into the problem about a month ago. Black Mace vs Necrons. How we played it made more sense back then, than after reading this topic though.
We played it that the toughness test happens first, if the model passes the toughness test you roll for RP to see if the wound goes trough. If you fail the toughness test you just die because RP cant protect from remove effects.
But if he passed the rp he would of stayed.. I understand you house ruled it, but the intention is clear. Fnp and rp will let the character ignore the black mace
We werent sure what happened first though. Because both trigger on unsaved wounds, the only time it happened was in his turn, so maybe that made us choose the way we did, I cant remember exactly.
Konrax wrote: Has anyone else run into this rules paradox here?
Personally fluffwise it is a cursed daemon weapon so even it touching you would be very dangerous, despite being super tough and shrugging off what would be considered an injury. I know this has no impact at all on rules as written but it may help with context and RAI.
Me and a friend ran into the problem about a month ago. Black Mace vs Necrons. How we played it made more sense back then, than after reading this topic though.
We played it that the toughness test happens first, if the model passes the toughness test you roll for RP to see if the wound goes trough. If you fail the toughness test you just die because RP cant protect from remove effects.
He does have a point though that the effect would ignore the RP but it says it would be rolled at the end of the phase. FNP doesn't really say at what point during the phase it would be rolled I believe.
Konrax wrote: Has anyone else run into this rules paradox here?
Personally fluffwise it is a cursed daemon weapon so even it touching you would be very dangerous, despite being super tough and shrugging off what would be considered an injury. I know this has no impact at all on rules as written but it may help with context and RAI.
Me and a friend ran into the problem about a month ago. Black Mace vs Necrons. How we played it made more sense back then, than after reading this topic though.
We played it that the toughness test happens first, if the model passes the toughness test you roll for RP to see if the wound goes trough. If you fail the toughness test you just die because RP cant protect from remove effects.
He does have a point though that the effect would ignore the RP but it says it would be rolled at the end of the phase. FNP doesn't really say at what point during the phase it would be rolled I believe.
Both the black mace and RP say that they happen when your model gets an unsaved wound. In our case he was the turn player, so we gave his effect priority I believe.
The relationship between Unsaved Wounds, FNP/RP, and other triggers is a lot like the relationship between Ordnance Weapons and non- Ordnance on Vehicles.
There is nothing requiring you to process Ordnance Weapons first, so if you Fire it last, it is too late for it affect other Weapons. This is a jerk move, though, and can see a player losing future games by it.
By placing the trigger of an UnSaved Wound before it can be Saved in a different way, is just like firing Ordnance Weapons last. You can do it, and it is RAW, but stupid.
Honestly I have a good friend who plays necrons all the time and I just want to have an idea about how people feel it works. I'm heading home from work and I'm going to check the rules if I can find something to support either argument.
Charistoph wrote: The relationship between Unsaved Wounds, FNP/RP, and other triggers is a lot like the relationship between Ordnance Weapons and non- Ordnance on Vehicles.
There is nothing requiring you to process Ordnance Weapons first, so if you Fire it last, it is too late for it affect other Weapons. This is a jerk move, though, and can see a player losing future games by it.
By placing the trigger of an UnSaved Wound before it can be Saved in a different way, is just like firing Ordnance Weapons last. You can do it, and it is RAW, but stupid.
Except that ordnance weapons say you can only snapfire your other weapons. If you fired them, and it wasnt snapfire, you cant fire the ordnance weapon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Konrax wrote: Honestly I have a good friend who plays necrons all the time and I just want to have an idea about how people feel it works. I'm heading home from work and I'm going to check the rules if I can find something to support either argument.
I would just say in his turn the black mace goes first, in your turn reanimation protocols goes first. This way its a 50/50 of who has the benefit, and if its a good friend, im sure just playing it fair to both parties will be the best solution?
First, as for RP: it specifically says in the rule that RP can't be taking againts a wound with the "remove from play" if the Black Mace has the "remove from play" RP can't be used. (I can't believe no one has said that)
It looks like that clause at the end of the FNP rule state that wounds saved in this manner are treated as saves so I would say it would not trigger the black mace.
However there would be no FNP save for failed toughness tests caused afterwards.
Seems like the FNP rule can and can't be a save at the same time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wallur wrote: First, as for RP: it specifically says in the rule that RP can't be taking againts a wound with the "remove from play" if the Black Mace has the "remove from play" RP can't be used. (I can't believe no one has said that)
Second: As for FNP, the wound has been taken wether you discount it or not. So, even if your model stays at his Max numer of wounds, it still suffered it and discarded, but was suffered, since FNP requieres your model to suffer a wound to trigger. SO:
Wound was suffered? Yes -> Black Mace removes model from play
Automatically Appended Next Post:
REANIMATION PROTOCOLS wrote:
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.
I think because the mace triggers at the end of the phase and says any unsaved wounds, and FNP says count the wounds as if they were saved, and the end of the phase cant occur until FNP roles are done, then the mace wouldn't trigger on FNP saves.
Edit: Actually the wound caused by a failed save must immediately take a toughness test according to the black mace. So I would assume it needs to pass the test first, if it does then it may roll the FNP / RP
However toughness tests after caused by an unsaved wound wound allow no FNP to occur.
Edit 2: The mace states at the end of the phase all enemy units within 3 must make a toughness test or suffer a single wound with no saves of any kind allowed. No FNP can still be taken during those pesky no saves allowed because its not a save but to treat it as if it was saved even though no saves are allowed.
Charistoph wrote: The relationship between Unsaved Wounds, FNP/RP, and other triggers is a lot like the relationship between Ordnance Weapons and non- Ordnance on Vehicles.
There is nothing requiring you to process Ordnance Weapons first, so if you Fire it last, it is too late for it affect other Weapons. This is a jerk move, though, and can see a player losing future games by it.
By placing the trigger of an UnSaved Wound before it can be Saved in a different way, is just like firing Ordnance Weapons last. You can do it, and it is RAW, but stupid.
Except that ordnance weapons say you can only snapfire your other weapons. If you fired them, and it wasnt snapfire, you cant fire the ordnance weapon.
Charistoph wrote: The relationship between Unsaved Wounds, FNP/RP, and other triggers is a lot like the relationship between Ordnance Weapons and non- Ordnance on Vehicles.
There is nothing requiring you to process Ordnance Weapons first, so if you Fire it last, it is too late for it affect other Weapons. This is a jerk move, though, and can see a player losing future games by it.
By placing the trigger of an UnSaved Wound before it can be Saved in a different way, is just like firing Ordnance Weapons last. You can do it, and it is RAW, but stupid.
Except that ordnance weapons say you can only snapfire your other weapons. If you fired them, and it wasnt snapfire, you cant fire the ordnance weapon.
Vector Strike wrote: FnP/RP turns a unsaved wound into a saved one. How can that still let things that only occur on unsaved wounds (that now don't exist) to happen?
It doesn't. But anyone will try and find a loop hole for everything. It's human nature to attempt to disprove anything you don't agree with, even if it means twisting words or making things up. Ipso facto, this whole thread.
Because if a model is removed from play because of a special ability, why does it get to take a FnP roll?
It works both ways, each rule cancels out the other.
You can't claim FnP has a priority over other special rules that activate on the same trigger event because there is no such grounding in the rules. The only ruling there is on simultaneous rules, because lets face it they both activate at the same time, is that the player whos' turn it is decides which goes first.
It's not a save... When suffers a wound... Treat it like it has been saved.
As they said, all depends on the order of resolving.
First, the wound has to be suffered to roll FNP. After you succed FNP you treat it like saved.
Wallur wrote: The loop hole is the rule of FNP itself.
It's not a save... When suffers a wound... Treat it like it has been saved.
As they said, all depends on the order of resolving.
First, the wound has to be suffered to roll FNP. After you succeed FNP you treat it like saved.
Pretty much. The Black Mace's Wound isn't Remove From Play until after the Toughness Test. The Toughness Test itself is triggered by an Unsaved Wound. FNP/RP can prevent the Toughness Test from happening in the first place and is not blocked by the Black Mace's initial Wounding itself, only failing the Toughness Test ignores FNP/RP.
So, much like Ordnance causing an affect "previous" in time, so, too, can RP/FNP prevent Black Mace's Toughness Test from even initiating.
AndrewC wrote: Because if a model is removed from play because of a special ability, why does it get to take a FnP roll?
It works both ways, each rule cancels out the other.
You can't claim FnP has a priority over other special rules that activate on the same trigger event because there is no such grounding in the rules. The only ruling there is on simultaneous rules, because lets face it they both activate at the same time, is that the player whos' turn it is decides which goes first.
Cheers
Andrew
Yes you can claim FnP has a priority because if you use FNP you no longer have an unsaved wound. We have to roll FNP first, if we don't we don't know if we have an unsaved wound or not.
1. Player turn decides order of rule resolution. If the first passes the second never goes.
2. Would not still count as a unsaved wound after if FNP is passed.
I realize #2 is in direct conflict with a current FAQ, but with kak wording of FNP, no other FAQ'd comparisons and how hot this issue is already it's fair to cut it some slack.
Evidently I disagree with some people on point 1#, Which I believe to be RAW. I have pages and pages on why already and have no desire to get pulled back into the FNP roundabout. If anyone wishes to read further;
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/635145.page#7581340 Or search my post history for FNP.
Nem, the problem with 1 is that means for 1 Wound models, most of the time FNP does nothing.
Consider:
You have a unit of Plague Marines (1 Wound, with FNP). I light them up and (after saves) have inflicted 5 Wounds. Since it is my turn, I decide order of things that happen at the same time, right? So I decide to have the Wounds characteristic on a the model be reduced by 1, and immediately be removed as a casualty. Now the model is RFP and you do not get your FNP.
AndrewC wrote: Because if a model is removed from play because of a special ability, why does it get to take a FnP roll?
It works both ways, each rule cancels out the other.
You can't claim FnP has a priority over other special rules that activate on the same trigger event because there is no such grounding in the rules. The only ruling there is on simultaneous rules, because lets face it they both activate at the same time, is that the player whos' turn it is decides which goes first.
Cheers
Andrew
Yes you can claim FnP has a priority because if you use FNP you no longer have an unsaved wound. We have to roll FNP first, if we don't we don't know if we have an unsaved wound or not.
That's good,can you please provide the page and paragraph that states FnP has that priority? Also we know that we have an unsaved wound, because if we didn't so wouldn't be rolling for FnP would we?
Happy, the problem I see with your objection is that we already know that advanced rules take precedence over basic rules. And FnP meets all the criteria for advanced and wound resolution meets the description for basic, so it's not a great leap or conclusion to see that FnP must be resolved before wound resolution and removing models from play. So when two rules both with the same trigger event occurs I see no problem with the player turn deciding the order of resolution.
There is no rule that take effect which states "when a model suffers a wound, remove that model." Happyjew
So no. Your example isn't valid because there is nothing forcing your model to die yet. But as soon as it suffered an unsaved wound FNP activates and, if you save, you will not have taken a wound.
Wallur wrote: The loop hole is the rule of FNP itself.
It's not a save... When suffers a wound... Treat it like it has been saved.
As they said, all depends on the order of resolving.
First, the wound has to be suffered to roll FNP. After you succeed FNP you treat it like saved.
Pretty much. The Black Mace's Wound isn't Remove From Play until after the Toughness Test. The Toughness Test itself is triggered by an Unsaved Wound. FNP/RP can prevent the Toughness Test from happening in the first place and is not blocked by the Black Mace's initial Wounding itself, only failing the Toughness Test ignores FNP/RP.
So, much like Ordnance causing an affect "previous" in time, so, too, can RP/FNP prevent Black Mace's Toughness Test from even initiating.
The black mace says take a toughness test immediately after an unsaved wound, and since FNP is not a save you must immediately take a toughness test. Then if the test is passed you can FNP the wound that was caused earlier to count it as if it was saved.
Happyjew wrote:Nem, the problem with 1 is that means for 1 Wound models, most of the time FNP does nothing.
Consider:
You have a unit of Plague Marines (1 Wound, with FNP). I light them up and (after saves) have inflicted 5 Wounds. Since it is my turn, I decide order of things that happen at the same time, right? So I decide to have the Wounds characteristic on a the model be reduced by 1, and immediately be removed as a casualty. Now the model is RFP and you do not get your FNP.
It's different: There are steps before decreasing the Wound Characteristic.
-Roll a Save
-Apply all rules that state "when failed/passed save -> in this step is that you roll FNP/RP/Black Mace
-Decrease Wound Characteristic.
And as we are told in the BRB, when multiple rules happen at the same time, the player whose turn is decide the order.
If it is my turn and I'm charging with the black mace and hit and wound, y decide Black mace goes before FNP. If I'm still locked in combat next turn, my opponent would decide the other way.
Wallur wrote: The loop hole is the rule of FNP itself.
It's not a save... When suffers a wound... Treat it like it has been saved.
As they said, all depends on the order of resolving.
First, the wound has to be suffered to roll FNP. After you succeed FNP you treat it like saved.
Pretty much. The Black Mace's Wound isn't Remove From Play until after the Toughness Test. The Toughness Test itself is triggered by an Unsaved Wound. FNP/RP can prevent the Toughness Test from happening in the first place and is not blocked by the Black Mace's initial Wounding itself, only failing the Toughness Test ignores FNP/RP.
So, much like Ordnance causing an affect "previous" in time, so, too, can RP/FNP prevent Black Mace's Toughness Test from even initiating.
The black mace says take a toughness test immediately after an unsaved wound, and since FNP is not a save you must immediately take a toughness test. Then if the test is passed you can FNP the wound that was caused earlier to count it as if it was saved.
That is true, since the wound has not the "remove from play" rule, it's a test later on, then RP can be taken... the same way I said above.
No it can't because FNP is not a save, it says that in the rule.
Black mace states you immediately take a toughness test on an unsaved wound after it has occurred, since the only "save" you have has been failed you must "immediately" test. If the test is passed you may ignore the wound caused by the strike after using a FNP roll which would count the wound lost as saved but is not actually considered a save.
Sorry for rules lawyering here but this is the only way to get a real grasp of how these two rules should work with each other.
Edit: if the cursed rule didn't say immediately after, and a removed from play test (like the second part) then a FNP would be warranted.
FratHammer wrote: There is no rule that take effect which states "when a model suffers a wound, remove that model." Happyjew
So no. Your example isn't valid because there is nothing forcing your model to die yet. But as soon as it suffered an unsaved wound FNP activates and, if you save, you will not have taken a wound.
Never said that. I said that when a model fails its save you reduce the Wound characteristic by 1. If the model only had 1 Wound, then it is immediately removed from play.
Happyjew wrote:Nem, the problem with 1 is that means for 1 Wound models, most of the time FNP does nothing.
Consider:
You have a unit of Plague Marines (1 Wound, with FNP). I light them up and (after saves) have inflicted 5 Wounds. Since it is my turn, I decide order of things that happen at the same time, right? So I decide to have the Wounds characteristic on a the model be reduced by 1, and immediately be removed as a casualty. Now the model is RFP and you do not get your FNP.
It's different: There are steps before decreasing the Wound Characteristic.
-Roll a Save
-Apply all rules that state "when failed/passed save -> in this step is that you roll FNP/RP/Black Mace
-Decrease Wound Characteristic.
And as we are told in the BRB, when multiple rules happen at the same time, the player whose turn is decide the order.
If it is my turn and I'm charging with the black mace and hit and wound, y decide Black mace goes before FNP. If I'm still locked in combat next turn, my opponent would decide the other way.
Your order is off. Decreasing Wound characteristic is done when failed save occurs, just like FNP. Therefore since it is my choice to choose the order, I can choose to reduce the Wound characteristic before you get to roll for FNP.
Konrax wrote: No it can't because FNP is not a save, it says that in the rule.
Black mace states you immediately take a toughness test on an unsaved wound after it has occurred, since the only "save" you have has been failed you must "immediately" test. If the test is passed you may ignore the wound caused by the strike after using a FNP roll which would count the wound lost as saved but is not actually considered a save.
Sorry for rules lawyering here but this is the only way to get a real grasp of how these two rules should work with each other.
Edit: if the cursed rule didn't say immediately after, and a removed from play test (like the second part) then a FNP would be warranted.
Yes but FNP says that if passed you treat the wound as being saved, that means that for all rule purposing it has been saved. Rules that require the wound to be saved apply, rules that require the wound not to be saved, does not apply.
Again, both rules (FNP and Black Mace) Happens at the same time, the way to deal with simultaneous rules has been explained already.
The save is failed, you must immediately make a toughness test or be removed. If it did only 1 wound, or didn't say immediately after a failed save you would be right.
FNP is not a save, therefore the only save that could be made has been failed you must immediately test or be removed from play, if passed the wound can be saved, which would indeed negate the toughness test before, if you weren't already removed from the game.
Second part at the end of the phase all models within 3 roll a toughness test or suffer a single wound can also be FNP but only because it doesn't say immediately after a failed save, and that it only causes a single wound.
Your order is off. Decreasing Wound characteristic is done when failed save occurs, just like FNP. Therefore since it is my choice to choose the order, I can choose to reduce the Wound characteristic before you get to roll for FNP.
FratHammer wrote: There is no rule that take effect which states "when a model suffers a wound, remove that model." Happyjew
So no. Your example isn't valid because there is nothing forcing your model to die yet. But as soon as it suffered an unsaved wound FNP activates and, if you save, you will not have taken a wound.
Never said that. I said that when a model fails its save you reduce the Wound characteristic by 1. If the model only had 1 Wound, then it is immediately removed from play.
Happyjew wrote:Nem, the problem with 1 is that means for 1 Wound models, most of the time FNP does nothing.
Consider:
You have a unit of Plague Marines (1 Wound, with FNP). I light them up and (after saves) have inflicted 5 Wounds. Since it is my turn, I decide order of things that happen at the same time, right? So I decide to have the Wounds characteristic on a the model be reduced by 1, and immediately be removed as a casualty. Now the model is RFP and you do not get your FNP.
It's different: There are steps before decreasing the Wound Characteristic.
-Roll a Save
-Apply all rules that state "when failed/passed save -> in this step is that you roll FNP/RP/Black Mace
-Decrease Wound Characteristic.
And as we are told in the BRB, when multiple rules happen at the same time, the player whose turn is decide the order.
If it is my turn and I'm charging with the black mace and hit and wound, y decide Black mace goes before FNP. If I'm still locked in combat next turn, my opponent would decide the other way.
Your order is off. Decreasing Wound characteristic is done when failed save occurs, just like FNP. Therefore since it is my choice to choose the order, I can choose to reduce the Wound characteristic before you get to roll for FNP.
Rules that say "immediately after failing a save throw" are done before reducing the wound characteristic
The problem is that FNP and Black Mace test, both happen "immediately after failing" both happen at the same time, immediately after failing. Decreasing the wound characteristec is not done immediately after failing, it goes after all the "immediately after failing" things that can be done.
Lets go to the important, Step by step.
Fail the save.
Immediately after I failed, 2 rules are triggered and I have to do 2 things (other rules, procedure that don't have the words "Immediately after Failing a saving throw" can't be called here)
-FNP/RP roll
-Black Mace Toughness Test.
Which do you do first?
If I FNP roll first, then I can treat the wound as if it has been saved, then the Black Mace won't apply because it's wound has been saved for rules purpose.
If Black Mace goes first, and fail the Test, the model is removed from play, so there is no model to roll the FNP/RP (it is removed from game)
Now, how do you decide, wich of 2 things that happen simultaneously is resolved first? BRB says the payer whose turn is, is the one to decide.
FNP is taken after a failed save, immediately after a failed save would take priorty first as the FNP rule doesn't also say immediately after a failed save, it says only after a failed save.
I don't think the player decides this one.
Also FNP can't be taken on wounds that remove from play, so the test would decide if the hit was powerful enough to remove from play first, then a FNP can be taken.
Feel no pain happens at the "roll saves" step. If i remember correctly this happens before determining weapon effects.
In any case, the nurgle dp swings the black mace, wounds someone, that person then takes their FNP to see if they can discount the wound that was caused. If the wound that was caused gets discounted, there is no longer an unsaved wound to trigger the mace's effect. Pretty simple.
This is the power of FNP. If it worked any other way, models would die unless they have more than one wound. I believe FNP also states that it makes unsaved wounds have no effect.. Which i believe the black mace toughness test is definitely an effect of an unsaved wound.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Helfrost weapons do the same thing but with strength tests. Feel no pain is meant to remove the effects of unsaved wounds. It discounts their existence entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, feel no pain in your interpretation would no longer stop concussive from happening, or blind if there is a weapon causing it on a wound, or FMC grounding tests, or even pinning.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: Feel no pain happens at the "roll saves" step. If i remember correctly this happens before determining weapon effects.
In any case, the nurgle dp swings the black mace, wounds someone, that person then takes their FNP to see if they can discount the wound that was caused. If the wound that was caused gets discounted, there is no longer an unsaved wound to trigger the mace's effect. Pretty simple.
This is the power of FNP. If it worked any other way, models would die unless they have more than one wound. I believe FNP also states that it makes unsaved wounds have no effect.. Which i believe the black mace toughness test is definitely an effect of an unsaved wound.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Helfrost weapons do the same thing but with strength tests. Feel no pain is meant to remove the effects of unsaved wounds. It discounts their existence entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, feel no pain in your interpretation would no longer stop concussive from happening, or blind if there is a weapon causing it on a wound, or FMC grounding tests, or even pinning.
That's not correct at all. None of those examples remove a model from the game, bypassing a FNP roll. FNP states that the wound counts as a save if it is passed, but can not be used against wounds that cause the model to be removed from the game. A wound that caused grounding that is saved by FNP would no longer ground it, and also none of those abilities or triggers say "immediately after a failed save".
All those examples would not trigger as they were "saved" by FNP, but you can't save a wound that would remove you from the game.
The rule states that the FNP roll is made after saves have been made, and immediately after a save would be the next as it specifies the order.
Another argument is that codex rules supersede rule book rules, so by that nature it would work against FNP in the manner I describer. However reanimation protocols with the same wording with the exception of a max save and saves against instant death has a rule worded the same as FNP with the exception that it can't be used against d weapons and wounds that cause a unit to be removed from play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wallur wrote: I don't remember concussive, but blind is triggered on hit, not on wound, you can even fail the To Wound Roll and get blindede anyway.
Konrax, can you quote the rule for the Black Mace please? I'd like to read it.
Absolutely that would most likely help eh?
I'm at work and can't post for another 5 hours or so but I will when I get home.
Wallur wrote: The loop hole is the rule of FNP itself.
It's not a save... When suffers a wound... Treat it like it has been saved.
As they said, all depends on the order of resolving.
First, the wound has to be suffered to roll FNP. After you succeed FNP you treat it like saved.
Pretty much. The Black Mace's Wound isn't Remove From Play until after the Toughness Test. The Toughness Test itself is triggered by an Unsaved Wound. FNP/RP can prevent the Toughness Test from happening in the first place and is not blocked by the Black Mace's initial Wounding itself, only failing the Toughness Test ignores FNP/RP.
So, much like Ordnance causing an affect "previous" in time, so, too, can RP/FNP prevent Black Mace's Toughness Test from even initiating.
The black mace says take a toughness test immediately after an unsaved wound, and since FNP is not a save you must immediately take a toughness test. Then if the test is passed you can FNP the wound that was caused earlier to count it as if it was saved.
I never stated that FNP was a Save, but a successful FNP/RP roll is treated as Saved, i.e. no longer an Unsaved Wound.
And it is not the Wound that is Remove From Play, but the Toughness Test that is. Since the Wound is not Remove From Play, that means that FNP/RP are not directly affected by this Wound.
The toughness test required immediately after an unsaved wound if failed would ignore a FNP save. Since FNP is not a save, and saves are made before FNP, and since the toughness test is taken immediately after an unsaved wound, I would think that the test still comes before the FNP roll since a failed test would remove from play.
If FNP said it is rolled immediately after an unsaved wound then they would both be occurring at the same time, which it doesn't say that.
I will be posting the black mace rules later on when I get home.
Konrax wrote: The toughness test required immediately after an unsaved wound if failed would ignore a FNP save. Since FNP is not a save, and saves are made before FNP, and since the toughness test is taken immediately after an unsaved wound, I would think that the test still comes before the FNP roll since a failed test would remove from play.
If FNP said it is rolled immediately after an unsaved wound then they would both be occurring at the same time, which it doesn't say that.
I will be posting the black mace rules later on when I get home.
And if FNP is passed, it treats the Wound as Saved. This is why I used the Ordnance Weapon reference.
HappyJew, the lack of the rule is what I'm saying is why your argument isn't valid at all. So yes, you're right, you didn't say that, but it is what you need for a valid argument to exist.
Charistoph, I'm going to wait to see the wording on the rule, but so far in the argument, I gotta say I'm leaving toward no FNP if it says "immediately after" because then there wouldn't be a FNP on a model that doesn't exist. And "immediately" would seem to take preference over a rule that doesn't say "immediately" so I'll go back to eating popcorn and waiting on the rule.
Ordinance weapons say if any weapon that fired before that wasn't a snap shot you can't fire it then. Someone already went over that.
You can't make a FNP roll though if you have been removed from the game at that point is what I'm saying, regardless of the FNP roll counting it as a save because its already gone.
Yes the toughness test is triggered by the wound, but it is done immediately after a failed save, and since FNP states its not a save then the toughness test must go next. If the test is passed you can then FNP the wound it caused.
I will post all the rules later pertaining to this paradox because it all hinges on a few interpretations here.
Honestly I would agree with you *if* the toughness test wasn't taken immediately after a failed save. FNP can be taken on wounds that normally don't allow any saves at all such as perils of the warp, however if you roll a 1 and fail the leadership test you are removed from the game without a FNP roll.
Konrax wrote: Ordinance weapons say if any weapon that fired before that wasn't a snap shot you can't fire it then. Someone already went over that.
No, it does not state that. It could be implied, but not stated. But again it is a good example of a situation where something that may change a result earlier if performed later.
Konrax wrote: You can't make a FNP roll though if you have been removed from the game at that point is what I'm saying, regardless of the FNP roll counting it as a save because its already gone.
But that Test is only made if the Wound is not Saved, and FNP/RP can Save the Wound without being a Save, and the Wound isn't natively RFP.
Konrax wrote: Yes the toughness test is triggered by the wound, but it is done immediately after a failed save, and since FNP states its not a save then the toughness test must go next. If the test is passed you can then FNP the wound it caused.
It is not a Save, but it can still Save the Wound. And if the Wound is Saved, the Toughness Test is not triggered. If the Toughness Test is not triggered, there is no RFP.
Konrax wrote: Honestly I would agree with you *if* the toughness test wasn't taken immediately after a failed save. FNP can be taken on wounds that normally don't allow any saves at all such as perils of the warp, however if you roll a 1 and fail the Toughness test you are removed from the game without a FNP roll.
I disagree, as I've stated. The RFP doesn't happen till later, and FNP can remove the trigger that causes the Test because it CAN be applied to the Wound that causes the Test and not the Wound loss that comes from failing the Toughness Test, just like Ordnance causes Snap Fire to a Vehicle's other Weapons.
AndrewC wrote: Because if a model is removed from play because of a special ability, why does it get to take a FnP roll?
It works both ways, each rule cancels out the other.
You can't claim FnP has a priority over other special rules that activate on the same trigger event because there is no such grounding in the rules. The only ruling there is on simultaneous rules, because lets face it they both activate at the same time, is that the player whos' turn it is decides which goes first.
Cheers
Andrew
Yes you can claim FnP has a priority because if you use FNP you no longer have an unsaved wound. We have to roll FNP first, if we don't we don't know if we have an unsaved wound or not.
That's good,can you please provide the page and paragraph that states FnP has that priority? Also we know that we have an unsaved wound, because if we didn't so wouldn't be rolling for FnP would we?
Happy, the problem I see with your objection is that we already know that advanced rules take precedence over basic rules. And FnP meets all the criteria for advanced and wound resolution meets the description for basic, so it's not a great leap or conclusion to see that FnP must be resolved before wound resolution and removing models from play. So when two rules both with the same trigger event occurs I see no problem with the player turn deciding the order of resolution.
Cheers
Andrew
Its an intrinsic part of FNP.
if you dont roll FNP first then FNP does nothing. because if you allow all effects of an unsaved wound even on a successful FNP roll, you have to reduce the wound characteristic and immediately remove the 1 wound model as a casualty. Which is clearly not the case.
Konrax wrote: Ordinance weapons say if any weapon that fired before that wasn't a snap shot you can't fire it then. Someone already went over that.
No, it does not state that. It could be implied, but not stated. But again it is a good example of a situation where something that may change a result earlier if performed later.
Konrax wrote: You can't make a FNP roll though if you have been removed from the game at that point is what I'm saying, regardless of the FNP roll counting it as a save because its already gone.
But that Test is only made if the Wound is not Saved, and FNP/RP can Save the Wound without being a Save, and the Wound isn't natively RFP.
Konrax wrote: Yes the toughness test is triggered by the wound, but it is done immediately after a failed save, and since FNP states its not a save then the toughness test must go next. If the test is passed you can then FNP the wound it caused.
It is not a Save, but it can still Save the Wound. And if the Wound is Saved, the Toughness Test is not triggered. If the Toughness Test is not triggered, there is no RFP.
Konrax wrote: Honestly I would agree with you *if* the toughness test wasn't taken immediately after a failed save. FNP can be taken on wounds that normally don't allow any saves at all such as perils of the warp, however if you roll a 1 and fail the Toughness test you are removed from the game without a FNP roll.
I disagree, as I've stated. The RFP doesn't happen till later, and FNP can remove the trigger that causes the Test because it CAN be applied to the Wound that causes the Test and not the Wound loss that comes from failing the Toughness Test, just like Ordnance causes Snap Fire to a Vehicle's other Weapons.
If you roll for the toughness test later then it isn't happening immediately after a failed save which is incorrect.
Since FNP is not a save but a pseudo save it occurs after all saves have been made. If the test needs to be done immediately after, and its effect was anything less than a d weapon hit, or remove from the game, then I would agree to just make FNP saves first (as statistically it wouldn't make a difference), however failed toughness tests would negate the ability to roll a FNP.
Unfortunately you are trying to treat FNP as if it is a save, and that it occurs at the same time as a save, when the rule says it is taken after saves have been made and that it does not count as a save, with the addition that the pseudo save can't be made against wounds that remove models from play, which would be true if a toughness test was failed immediately after the models real save was taken.
if you dont roll FNP first then FNP does nothing. because if you allow all effects of an unsaved wound even on a successful FNP roll, you have to reduce the wound characteristic and immediately remove the 1 wound model as a casualty. Which is clearly not the case.
So in other words, there is no rule giving priority to FnP.
And no, as has already been established the removal of the wound is a basic rule, and FnP is an advanced rule, and the advanced rule takes precedence. There is no good argument for FnP to take precedence over another rule that also triggers on an unsaved wound.
Konrax wrote: Since FNP is not a save but a pseudo save it occurs after all saves have been made. If the test needs to be done immediately after, and its effect was anything less than a d weapon hit, or remove from the game, then I would agree to just make FNP saves first (as statistically it wouldn't make a difference), however failed toughness tests would negate the ability to roll a FNP.
Not true. No further Saves are allowed, but FNP/RP are not Saves. FNP/RP cannot be allowed against Remove From Play, but the Wound that causes the Toughness Test is not Remove From Play when it was not Saved, so they can be applied against that specific Wound that triggered the Toughness Test. If successful, than that Wound is no longer Unsaved, but to be treated as Saved, and so the Toughness Test is null and void.
Konrax wrote: Unfortunately you are trying to treat FNP as if it is a save, and that it occurs at the same time as a save, when the rule says it is taken after saves have been made and that it does not count as a save, with the addition that the pseudo save can't be made against wounds that remove models from play, which would be true if a toughness test was failed immediately after the models real save was taken.
No, I am not trying to treat it as a Save. You think I am, even though I have repeatedly stated otherwise, and that is what is coloring your response. It is a way to Save the Wound after it was Not Saved. And again, the Wound that triggers the Toughness Test is not classed as Remove From Play, so FNP/RP are allowed against it. The Toughness Test itself is Remove From Play, but not the Unsaved Wound.
So, if you apply the Toughness Test first, and then FNP, it could be that the Wound is Saved anyway, and thereby negating the initial Toughness Test and wasting both of your time.
if you dont roll FNP first then FNP does nothing. because if you allow all effects of an unsaved wound even on a successful FNP roll, you have to reduce the wound characteristic and immediately remove the 1 wound model as a casualty. Which is clearly not the case.
So in other words, there is no rule giving priority to FnP.
And no, as has already been established the removal of the wound is a basic rule, and FnP is an advanced rule, and the advanced rule takes precedence. There is no good argument for FnP to take precedence over another rule that also triggers on an unsaved wound.
Cheers
Andrew
Not quite, FNP states that if it is passed, treat the wound as if it was saved, which would cancel out a previous rule applied on a successful wound. However it can't be taken against wounds that are d, instant death (FNP only), and remove from play. Now you could make the argument that you could still make the roll for FNP after a model has been removed from play by the black mace wounding a target, however it has already been removed by that point.
I can understand completely why people would assume you get to roll it regardless since the wording of the rule is extremely ambiguous.
if you dont roll FNP first then FNP does nothing. because if you allow all effects of an unsaved wound even on a successful FNP roll, you have to reduce the wound characteristic and immediately remove the 1 wound model as a casualty. Which is clearly not the case.
So in other words, there is no rule giving priority to FnP.
And no, as has already been established the removal of the wound is a basic rule, and FnP is an advanced rule, and the advanced rule takes precedence. There is no good argument for FnP to take precedence over another rule that also triggers on an unsaved wound.
Cheers
Andrew
hate quoting myself, hate more retyping
Wallur wrote: Lets go to the important, Step by step.
Fail the save.
Immediately after I failed, 2 rules are triggered and I have to do 2 things (other rules, procedure that don't have the words "Immediately after Failing a saving throw" can't be called here)
-FNP/RP roll
-Black Mace Toughness Test.
Which do you do first?
If I FNP roll first, then I can treat the wound as if it has been saved, then the Black Mace won't apply because it's wound has been saved for rules purpose.
If Black Mace goes first, and fail the Test, the model is removed from play, so there is no model to roll the FNP/RP (it is removed from game)
Now, how do you decide, wich of 2 things that happen simultaneously is resolved first? BRB says the payer whose turn is, is the one to decide.
Just give me a good reason why FNP would trigger before Toughness, both trigger when save is failed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I agree with Konrax respect that the Black Mace has the words "Immediately after" while FNP only says "after" .
The Word "immediately after" gives a faster reaction than "after".
You get FNP against the initial wound. But if you fail that, you have to take the toughness test and see what it does, and if you fail that toughness test, you dont get a FNP against it removing the model from Play.
Its the way FNP works for everything.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I see the term "immediately" in the black mace rules as designating it happens before the morale check at the end of combat, so that the models removed from play count towards combat resolution. Not to designate it can supercede FNP, which always always is rolled directly after the model suffers a wound, and is used to cause an unsaved wound to no.longer have an effect.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would also argue that the potential for the model to negate the effect of the unsaved wound during the "roll saves" step due to FNP would mean that the unsaved wound is still a variable before the FNP is rolled, rather than having already suffered the wound. You need to determine whether the model suffered the wound before you trigger the effect, and if he can negate the unsaved wound with a special rule, it isn't determined unless he rolls his FNP.
Otherwise 1 wound models with FNP would be pointless, as has been pointed out several times. You would then reduce the wound characteristic to 0 and remove the model under your interpretation, and it would never get its FNP. Poorly worded, but FNP is meant to instantly see if the wound is negated by the model.
"Models that are 'removed from play' by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties, as far as the game rules are concerned."
"Basic vs Advanced... On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a (advanced) 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."
Pg 164 BRB
"Feel No Pain... When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound, it can make special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw and can be used against attacks that state '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 destoryer attacks or against unsaved wounds that have the instant death special rule.
... On a X+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved."
Pg 69 CSM
"Cursed... If a model suffers an unsaved wound from the Black Mace it must immediately take a toughness test. If the test is failed, remove the model as a casualty with no saves of any kind allowed. In addition, at the end of the phase in which the Black Mace causes one or more unsaved Wounds, all non-vehicle enemy models within 3" of the bearer, which haven't suffered an unsaved wound from the Black Mace this phase, must make a Toughness test. Any models that fail the test suffer a Wound with no saves of any kind allowed."
All the pertaining rules I can see need to be referenced so far.
+ Reanimation Protocols.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One thing I am wondering is do you get a FNP roll when you roll a 1 on perils of the warp and fail the leadership test?
In a friendly game I wouldn't even bother disputing it just because of the level of rules lawyering required but I would love to see maybe an itc ruling or what other people think in general.
It's a point where it's really hard to say which rule takes precedent. I'd much rather see players resolve it themselves in a way both sides feel satisfied rather than put it up to a third party. I am a Nurgle player myself but side with the Necrons in this case because it seems the most conservative approach in my mind - not that my opinion is more right than anyone else.
The only reference that I can find in which this was addressed was for last ed with GK force weapons vs FnP. Both activated off an unsaved wound, it was FAQd as the force weapon had to be resolved first as the potential ID cancelled out the FnP, much in the same way the current argument of the black mace toughness test removes the model.
"Feel No Pain... When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound it can make special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded "
"Cursed... If a model suffers an unsaved wound from the Black Mace it must immediately take a toughness test."
I keep reading it, and can't think of other way to resolve that than the way I already said.
Those are 2 rules that triggers at the same time.
Apply Rulling for simultaneous rules.
Force is activated long before FNP could be claimed... And FNP against instant death is a clear no. Why was that ever in dispute? It just makes the psyker's weapons have instant death. This situation is at least a special rule triggering after the unsaved wound that requires further action to resolve. The waters are far muddier here.
I think I would play it as simultaneous ruling tells us to play it, even though i think the intent is to feel no pain before the black mace does it's thing. It's just too ambiguous to make a clear case for either side.
Wallur wrote: "Feel No Pain... When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound it can make special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded "
"Cursed... If a model suffers an unsaved wound from the Black Mace it must immediately take a toughness test."
I keep reading it, and can't think of other way to resolve that than the way I already said.
Those are 2 rules that triggers at the same time.
Apply Rulling for simultaneous rules.
But if you do not attempt FNP/RP, have you truly determined that the Wound is not Saved?
Note that this is a question about concepts and not about timing.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: Force is activated long before FNP could be claimed... And FNP against instant death is a clear no. Why was that ever in dispute? It just makes the psyker's weapons have instant death. This situation is at least a special rule triggering after the unsaved wound that requires further action to resolve. The waters are far muddier here.
I think I would play it as simultaneous ruling tells us to play it, even though i think the intent is to feel no pain before the black mace does it's thing. It's just too ambiguous to make a clear case for either side.
It was in dispute because in 5th/6th edition, they both triggered off an unsaved Wound, and each one negated the other (FNP discounted the Wound, so Force could not activate, Force made the Wound ID so FNP could not activate).
if you dont roll FNP first then FNP does nothing. because if you allow all effects of an unsaved wound even on a successful FNP roll, you have to reduce the wound characteristic and immediately remove the 1 wound model as a casualty. Which is clearly not the case.
So in other words, there is no rule giving priority to FnP.
Actually, FNP does that for us. since you do not know if you have an unsaved wound or not until FNP is rolled.
But if you do not attempt FNP/RP, have you truly determined that the Wound is not Saved?
Note that this is a question about concepts and not about timing.
At this point it's irrelevant, you already know that you have an unsaved wound, otherwise you wouldn't be rolling for FnP.
But FNP/RP can make the Wound Saved instead of Unsaved, ignoring it and giving priority over something else would be the same as applying it before rolling ANY Save, since at that point, they are all technically Unsaved as well.
Or to put it another way:
DeathReaper wrote:...you do not know if you have an unsaved wound or not until FNP is rolled.
if you dont roll FNP first then FNP does nothing. because if you allow all effects of an unsaved wound even on a successful FNP roll, you have to reduce the wound characteristic and immediately remove the 1 wound model as a casualty. Which is clearly not the case.
So in other words, there is no rule giving priority to FnP.
Actually, FNP does that for us. since you do not know if you have an unsaved wound or not until FNP is rolled.
Yes, you do. If you didn't have an unsaved wound, you wouldn't be rolling FNP
I see two ways of resolving this issue.
1. As the two rules are (imo) quite clearly triggered at the same time, the brb ruling that player turn decides which to resolve first takes effect.
2. IF you consider the two rules to be in conflict with each other, which i believe the "you don't know if you have an unsaved wound" argument would cause, then the brb ruling that codex special rules override brb advanced rules takes effect. meaning that Cursed takes precedence.
HIWPI no. 1 is the most objectively fair way to play it
"Treat as Saved" does not equal "Saved" It is an effect of special rule that is similar.
Trying to give one special rule precedence over another that uses the same "trigger" is not how the rules are written. There is a rule for using two rules that activate on the same event. This rule has already been posted in this thread, at least twice. FnP/RP are NOT Saves, thy are SPECIAL RULES, and are treated accordingly, the end effect doesn't matter until you get to that point. The game is written LINEARLY, so once an event happens, it has happened and no amount of wishing will change that, the paradox is in your mind.
"Treat as Saved" does not equal "Saved" It is an effect of special rule that is similar.
Trying to give one special rule precedence over another that uses the same "trigger" is not how the rules are written. There is a rule for using two rules that activate on the same event. This rule has already been posted in this thread, at least twice. FnP/RP are NOT Saves, thy are SPECIAL RULES, and are treated accordingly, the end effect doesn't matter until you get to that point. The game is written LINEARLY, so once an event happens, it has happened and no amount of wishing will change that, the paradox is in your mind.
I agree with everywthing, excepto that "treat as saved" is not equal to save, but it is treated as save for rule purposing.
But again, simultaneous ruling is the most objective way to deal with it.
The same FAQs of one special rule can't be always applied to another special rule. Though being no good ruling, I'g go with the rule that applies to the closest scenario.
In my eyes this is actually pretty clear. There are two rules in the FnP ruling. Since they are both written they must both be taken into account.
1. FnP is not a save.
2. On a successful FnP roll, the wound in question counts as saved.
So a DP with the black mace swings it at a 1-wound 4++/FnP dude and does 1 wound. Dude takes his save but misses it. At this point the dude ought to suffer an unsaved wound. Dude hasn't suffered the wound yet though otherwise he would be dead (ergo removed from the table atm). Then FnP kicks in. The same FnP that is not a save. Dude makes his 5+ FnP roll. Ergo the wound in question "counts as being saved". The obvious result from this chain of events is that the dude does not die FROM THE WOUND.
Then the black mace effect wants to kick in but there is a catch. Said wound counts as saved. Now it is obvious that a saved wound cannot also be an unsaved wound at the same time. Ergo the black mace does not work as it can't find an unsaved wound to apply itself.
I understand that a FnP is not a save. However, this does not mean that "saved wounds" can only occur from saves. As FnP clearly shows, it is not a save that can make wounds count as saved. So regardless of whether or not FnP is a save or not, a successful FnP roll makes the wound in question equal to a "saved wound". And since a saved wound cannot be an unsaved wound, the black mace is shutted down.
Wallur wrote: "Feel No Pain... When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound it can make special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded "
"Cursed... If a model suffers an unsaved wound from the Black Mace it must immediately take a toughness test."
I keep reading it, and can't think of other way to resolve that than the way I already said.
Those are 2 rules that triggers at the same time.
Apply Rulling for simultaneous rules.
The difference is the word immediately, meaning it needs to be taken first.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
topaxygouroun i wrote: In my eyes this is actually pretty clear. There are two rules in the FnP ruling. Since they are both written they must both be taken into account.
1. FnP is not a save.
2. On a successful FnP roll, the wound in question counts as saved.
So a DP with the black mace swings it at a 1-wound 4++/FnP dude and does 1 wound. Dude takes his save but misses it. At this point the dude ought to suffer an unsaved wound. Dude hasn't suffered the wound yet though otherwise he would be dead (ergo removed from the table atm). Then FnP kicks in. The same FnP that is not a save. Dude makes his 5+ FnP roll. Ergo the wound in question "counts as being saved". The obvious result from this chain of events is that the dude does not die FROM THE WOUND.
Then the black mace effect wants to kick in but there is a catch. Said wound counts as saved. Now it is obvious that a saved wound cannot also be an unsaved wound at the same time. Ergo the black mace does not work as it can't find an unsaved wound to apply itself.
I understand that a FnP is not a save. However, this does not mean that "saved wounds" can only occur from saves. As FnP clearly shows, it is not a save that can make wounds count as saved. So regardless of whether or not FnP is a save or not, a successful FnP roll makes the wound in question equal to a "saved wound". And since a saved wound cannot be an unsaved wound, the black mace is shutted down.
Codex rules go first, and on top of that the black mace says it needs to be immediately taken, and feel no pain says it is not a save. So initial unsaved wound satisfied the black mace requirement of an unsaved wound, then must immediately test, then if failed any other rule to discount the wound caused can come in effect.
Immediately yes, but at the event of an unsaved wound happening. Until an unsaved wound happens, the Black mace effect cannot trigger. And an unsaved wound does not happen until the FnP roll is also made. This is unless the exact wording of FnP specifically states that you take a FnP when a model suffers an unsaved wound. Can someone paste the exact wording of FnP? That would be great.
Also there is no such thing as "Codex rules go first". Codex rules supersede the Core rules in a case of direct meaning conflict. This is not the case of meaning conflict and it is not a case of sequence. The model either suffers an unsaved wound before the FnP can be attempted or it doesn't until after the FnP is tested for. So the Black mace either proccs or doesn't procc. If someone is kind enough to post the exact ruling for FnP it would help greatly.
In short, the question here is : Can there exist an "unsaved wound" before the FnP roll? If yes, then the black mace works regardless of the result of the FnP roll. If not, then it has to wait.
Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered. - Feel No Pain
Feel free to flip a table over how poorly written this Rule is... or join me in my head banging spot, the walls are padded for a reason!
Personally, I have never accepted the fundamental argument that the Rules must be applied 'in a liner format,' should a Rule state it has the power to 'undo a previous action' then it would be more then able to go back and change events from that point in the timeline. I won't state this is what Feel No Pain does, because it is poorly written we can not be sure what it actually wants us to do, but 'treat it as having been saved' is past tense. The reason complicated games avoid such timeline manipulating Rules is due to the amount of 'book keeping' that would be required to ensure you reverted everything back to the correct place in the time-line. It is far easier to avoid the situation entirely by cleaver Rule writing, such as requiring any Rule that could cause a branching timeline to be resolved before all others... pity Game Workshop is not cleaver.
Or maybe I am over-looking something and someone can quote a line from the book that out-right states a Rule can not be retroactively applied?
No this actually makes everything clear. Since the "unsaved wound" is suffered before the FnP roll according to the rules, then we have a Black mace effect proc before the FnP roll, and therefore regardless of the roll of the FnP, the Black mace effect happens.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Immediately yes, but at the event of an unsaved wound happening. Until an unsaved wound happens, the Black mace effect cannot trigger. And an unsaved wound does not happen until the FnP roll is also made. This is unless the exact wording of FnP specifically states that you take a FnP when a model suffers an unsaved wound. Can someone paste the exact wording of FnP? That would be great.
Also there is no such thing as "Codex rules go first". Codex rules supersede the Core rules in a case of direct meaning conflict. This is not the case of meaning conflict and it is not a case of sequence. The model either suffers an unsaved wound before the FnP can be attempted or it doesn't until after the FnP is tested for. So the Black mace either proccs or doesn't procc. If someone is kind enough to post the exact ruling for FnP it would help greatly.
In short, the question here is : Can there exist an "unsaved wound" before the FnP roll? If yes, then the black mace works regardless of the result of the FnP roll. If not, then it has to wait.
All the exact rules are quoted in the first post with page reference.
megatrons2nd wrote:"Treat as Saved" does not equal "Saved" It is an effect of special rule that is similar.
Where does it say that?
megatrons2nd wrote:Trying to give one special rule precedence over another that uses the same "trigger" is not how the rules are written. There is a rule for using two rules that activate on the same event. This rule has already been posted in this thread, at least twice. FnP/RP are NOT Saves, thy are SPECIAL RULES, and are treated accordingly, the end effect doesn't matter until you get to that point. The game is written LINEARLY, so once an event happens, it has happened and no amount of wishing will change that, the paradox is in your mind.
Actually, that IS how the rules are written. It happens all the time, and there is even a general principle that addresses it. Most of the rules of 40K are abstract and use a lot of synonyms to get their point across, which actually leads to much of these rule confusions. But there is another point that no one has addressed yet, and I will ask it next.
topaxygouroun i wrote:No this actually makes everything clear. Since the "unsaved wound" is suffered before the FnP roll according to the rules, then we have a Black mace effect proc before the FnP roll, and therefore regardless of the roll of the FnP, the Black mace effect happens.
What is the definition of "unsaved wound"? It is actually used quite often, but I cannot find it in the rulebook. The first incident that I can find is Instant Death. It is referenced many times, but never actually provided an actual definition.
Without a rulebook definition, we have to look at it from the standard English, which means "Not Saved Wound". Any Wound being Allocated is currently Not Saved, otherwise, why would it be Allocated? So, from this stand point, the Black Mace would be applied before any Armour Save, Invulnerable Save, or Cover Save would be made, not just Feel No Pain or Reanimation Protocols. After all, if we can prevent an Advanced Rule from Saving a Wound, why not the Basic? What about rerollable Saves? It failed once, does the Black Mace get to disallow the reroll?
Personally, I find this a repellent concept, and I would apply a definition of "Unsaved Wound" as "having failed any allowed attempt to Save it". In this case, yes, FNP and RP would get a chance to Save the Wound, but at least allow it to be consistent across the board instead of allowing Instant Death to destroy Characters before they can roll a Save.
megatrons2nd wrote:"Treat as Saved" does not equal "Saved" It is an effect of special rule that is similar.
Where does it say that?
megatrons2nd wrote:Trying to give one special rule precedence over another that uses the same "trigger" is not how the rules are written. There is a rule for using two rules that activate on the same event. This rule has already been posted in this thread, at least twice. FnP/RP are NOT Saves, thy are SPECIAL RULES, and are treated accordingly, the end effect doesn't matter until you get to that point. The game is written LINEARLY, so once an event happens, it has happened and no amount of wishing will change that, the paradox is in your mind.
Actually, that IS how the rules are written. It happens all the time, and there is even a general principle that addresses it. Most of the rules of 40K are abstract and use a lot of synonyms to get their point across, which actually leads to much of these rule confusions. But there is another point that no one has addressed yet, and I will ask it next.
topaxygouroun i wrote:No this actually makes everything clear. Since the "unsaved wound" is suffered before the FnP roll according to the rules, then we have a Black mace effect proc before the FnP roll, and therefore regardless of the roll of the FnP, the Black mace effect happens.
What is the definition of "unsaved wound"? It is actually used quite often, but I cannot find it in the rulebook. The first incident that I can find is Instant Death. It is referenced many times, but never actually provided an actual definition.
Without a rulebook definition, we have to look at it from the standard English, which means "Not Saved Wound". Any Wound being Allocated is currently Not Saved, otherwise, why would it be Allocated? So, from this stand point, the Black Mace would be applied before any Armour Save, Invulnerable Save, or Cover Save would be made, not just Feel No Pain or Reanimation Protocols. After all, if we can prevent an Advanced Rule from Saving a Wound, why not the Basic? What about rerollable Saves? It failed once, does the Black Mace get to disallow the reroll?
Personally, I find this a repellent concept, and I would apply a definition of "Unsaved Wound" as "having failed any allowed attempt to Save it". In this case, yes, FNP and RP would get a chance to Save the Wound, but at least allow it to be consistent across the board instead of allowing Instant Death to destroy Characters before they can roll a Save.
Wounds and saves are both defined quite clearly in the rule book.
FNP saying it is not a save, but an ability trigger after a failed save makes it clear as to how its effects are applied.
Last the trigger words for both abilities are the same " unsaved wound" however the black mace has the clause of immediately after in addition to the wording which would directly dictate that it needs to be rolled first before any other ability triggered off the same event can occur.
I've been very open with discussing how these abilities trigger and their effects and I have put points both for and against. After looking at all the rules I take the stance for the reasons I listed before.
If you can put forward a compelling argument other than "it counts as a save" which the rule itself specifically states it is not, then I would be happy to accept it for what it is.
Konrax wrote: Wounds and saves are both defined quite clearly in the rule book.
Your point? Just because two things are defined doesn't mean a third is. What is the definition of an Unsaved Wound?
Konrax wrote: FNP saying it is not a save, but an ability trigger after a failed save makes it clear as to how its effects are applied.
Never said it was a save, why do people keep harping on that? It is a rule that allows a Wound to be Saved just as if a Save was successful. That seems to be a part that is missed, glossed or trampled over.
Konrax wrote: Last the trigger words for both abilities are the same "unsaved wound" however the black mace has the clause of immediately after in addition to the wording which would directly dictate that it needs to be rolled first before any other ability triggered off the same event can occur.
To which I point out that a Rule that CAN cause the Wound to be Saved can cause that trigger to disappear just as easily as Ordnance affects Shooting.
Konrax wrote: If you can put forward a compelling argument other than "it counts as a save" which the rule itself specifically states it is not, then I would be happy to accept it for what it is.
Maybe you are correct, since it would be pointless arguing with someone who does not even listen to other arguments.
If both rules have the same trigger, and both rules can nullify each other out, then the one rule that specifically says "immediately after" should take precedence, would you agree?
if you dont roll FNP first then FNP does nothing. because if you allow all effects of an unsaved wound even on a successful FNP roll, you have to reduce the wound characteristic and immediately remove the 1 wound model as a casualty. Which is clearly not the case.
So in other words, there is no rule giving priority to FnP.
Actually, FNP does that for us. since you do not know if you have an unsaved wound or not until FNP is rolled.
Yes, you do. If you didn't have an unsaved wound, you wouldn't be rolling FNP
I see two ways of resolving this issue.
1. As the two rules are (imo) quite clearly triggered at the same time, the brb ruling that player turn decides which to resolve first takes effect.
2. IF you consider the two rules to be in conflict with each other, which i believe the "you don't know if you have an unsaved wound" argument would cause, then the brb ruling that codex special rules override brb advanced rules takes effect. meaning that Cursed takes precedence.
HIWPI no. 1 is the most objectively fair way to play it
Except that FNP Treats the wound as having been saved...
Why are you applying effects that trigger on an unsaved wound if you are treating the wound as having been saved?
Konrax wrote: If both rules have the same trigger, and both rules can nullify each other out, then the one rule that specifically says "immediately after" should take precedence, would you agree?
Answer the question defining "Unsaved Wound" first.
What qualifies a Wound to be Unsaved?
Per English rules, Unsaved simply means "not Saved". There is no sense of time regarding this nor any reason as to why the " not" is in play. Uneaten food is simply not eaten. It could be because people have chosen nor to eat, it is not time to eat, or that they were unable to eat it.
Under this discussion is the presumption that "Unsaved Wound" translates to "a Wound that was allocated and had no Save available or the Save has failed.". It is to this I am questioning why you think this and where this is defined?
If a Wound cannot have a Save rolled for it, but has access to a Rule that can still Save it, is it truly Unsaved?
Konrax wrote: If both rules have the same trigger, and both rules can nullify each other out, then the one rule that specifically says "immediately after" should take precedence, would you agree?
Answer the question defining "Unsaved Wound" first.
What qualifies a Wound to be Unsaved?
Per English rules, Unsaved simply means "not Saved". There is no sense of time regarding this nor any reason as to why the " not" is in play. Uneaten food is simply not eaten. It could be because people have chosen nor to eat, it is not time to eat, or that they were unable to eat it.
Under this discussion is the presumption that "Unsaved Wound" translates to "a Wound that was allocated and had no Save available or the Save has failed.". It is to this I am questioning why you think this and where this is defined?
If a Wound cannot have a Save rolled for it, but has access to a Rule that can still Save it, is it truly Unsaved?
I agree, but if another rule that says it must be immediately tested for and can nullify the rule then it must be taken in priority.
They both have the exact same wording as to what triggers each rule, one however says it must be immediately taken after. Failing the test and being removed from play disallows the FNP rule from ever triggering.
It is rather simple if you compare the two rules next to each other and it is clear.
This isn't an exercise in the english language here.
The definition of an unsaved wound isn't in the book because saves are clearly defined as either an armour, invulnerable, or cover save which is chosen by the defending player. Saves are only made when there has been a wound caused, which is also clearly stated in the rule book. If any of those saves are failed, then both the black mace and FNP are triggered. The difference being the black mace specifically says immediately after, so by the way a save is defined, you must test immediately after.
If FNP also said immediately after as well, then the player whose turn it is decides the order in which they are taken.
DeathReaper wrote: Except that FNP Treats the wound as having been saved...
Why are you applying effects that trigger on an unsaved wound if you are treating the wound as having been saved?
Yes "Treats" Present tense word....This means from here on out it is saved, not go back in time and make it a saved wound. For the go back in time the rule would need to say "Treated as saved" or something similar, the present tense word at the beginning of the sentence sets the timing. It would sound awful weird saying "Treats the wound as save" now don't you think?
Konrax wrote:I agree, but if another rule that says it must be immediately tested for and can nullify the rule then it must be taken in priority.
Than you are missing the points of the question as it is being applied in this situation, since you seem to be misappropriating them.
1) The Wound generated by a Black Mace does not actually have the native capacity to nullify an attempt to Save the Wound unless it fulfills another qualification, such as AP or being Instant Death for the model.
2) Reanimation Protocol, and a sufficiently Tough model with Feel No Pain, can Save that Wound and then nullify the Toughness Test.
3) The Curse could be read as only nullifying the noun saves for the Toughness Test, but not the verb saves, and FNP and RP only operate as a verb save. Remember, the Wound itself is NOT Remove From Play, just the Toughness Test is.
Konrax wrote:They both have the exact same wording as to what triggers each rule, one however says it must be immediately taken after. Failing the test and being removed from play disallows the FNP rule from ever triggering.
Again, what counts as an Unsaved Wound? If FNP/RP cannot have a chance to Save a Wound it normally would be able to Save, than is it a truly an Unsaved Wound?
Konrax wrote:It is rather simple if you compare the two rules next to each other and it is clear.
This isn't an exercise in the english language here.
The definition of an unsaved wound isn't in the book because saves are clearly defined as either an armour, invulnerable, or cover save which is chosen by the defending player. Saves are only made when there has been a wound caused, which is also clearly stated in the rule book. If any of those saves are failed, then both the black mace and FNP are triggered. The difference being the black mace specifically says immediately after, so by the way a save is defined, you must test immediately after.
All rule discussions are exercises in semantics, and so, exercising the English language.
Saves as a Noun are defined, yes. Saved as a Verb, not so much. In addition, you seem to completely ignore as to what is "not Saved". As soon as a Wound is allocated to a model, it has yet to be Saved, and so Not Saved. Never mind that nothing has had a chance to Save it, yet. If it can apply before something that can Save a Wound, then why not before anything can Save the Wound? So, going by that interpretation, the Curse hits as soon as the Wound is Allocated.
In order to not utilize this interpretation, you must present adequate evidence that an "Unsaved Wound" means that the model has been allocated a Wound it has no Save against, or that its Save has failed. Or failing that, concede that if a rule can Save the Wound, it must needs be applied before truly declaring a Wound as "Unsaved".
Your chance to prove it.
megatrons2nd wrote:
DeathReaper wrote: Except that FNP Treats the wound as having been saved...
Why are you applying effects that trigger on an unsaved wound if you are treating the wound as having been saved?
Yes "Treats" Present tense word....This means from here on out it is saved, not go back in time and make it a saved wound. For the go back in time the rule would need to say "Treated as saved" or something similar, the present tense word at the beginning of the sentence sets the timing. It would sound awful weird saying "Treats the wound as save" now don't you think?
And yet, if the Wound is Saved, it is no longer Unsaved, so leaving the Toughness Test of the Curse out the window without an Unsaved Wound to Test from. Or should I bring up Ordnance again?
Much like Ordnance Weapons being fired first to guarantee you aren't attempting to cheat your opponent, so, too, should any attempt to Save a Wound fail before applying any other "Unsaved Wound" qualification.
Or, should I just start shooting Ordnance Weapons last so the rest of the guns are not limited by it?
"Cursed... If a model suffers an unsaved wound from the Black Mace it must immediately take a toughness test. If the test is failed, remove the model as a casualty with no saves of any kind allowed. In addition, at the end of the phase in which the Black Mace causes one or more unsaved Wounds, all non-vehicle enemy models within 3" of the bearer, which haven't suffered an unsaved wound from the Black Mace this phase, must make a Toughness test. Any models that fail the test suffer a Wound with no saves of any kind allowed."
Assuming, for the moment, that you take the toughness test before taking FNP... what happens when you pass the toughness test and then pass FNP? Do you then have to take ANOTHER toughness test at the end of the phase since the wound was treated as 'saved' but you still 'suffered' it? If the answer is yes, and you fail that toughness test, then I assume you get another FNP roll?
Automatically Appended Next Post: What does it mean to 'suffer an unsaved wound' anyway? Even if you pass FNP and treat it as saved... you still suffered an unsaved wound otherwise FNP wouldn't proc. It just gets too weird if you read too deeply into this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I suppose a better example is...
Guy with Black Mace is in a challenge. He inflicts 3 wounds and allocates the first wound to the model in the challenge. The model fails it's save and then fails it's toughness test and dies.
Then the remaining wounds get allocated to other models in the combat... the first being a model with FNP. He passes the toughness test AND passes his FNP 'saves'.
This means that model will have to take ANOTHER toughness test despite having 'suffered an unsaved wound from the Black Mace' because it was paradoxed into being saved by FNP.
And this situation is why I think things like FNP should be taken before any other 'suffers an unsaved wound' trigger happens.
Konrax wrote:I agree, but if another rule that says it must be immediately tested for and can nullify the rule then it must be taken in priority.
Than you are missing the points of the question as it is being applied in this situation, since you seem to be misappropriating them.
1) The Wound generated by a Black Mace does not actually have the native capacity to nullify an attempt to Save the Wound unless it fulfills another qualification, such as AP or being Instant Death for the model.
2) Reanimation Protocol, and a sufficiently Tough model with Feel No Pain, can Save that Wound and then nullify the Toughness Test.
3) The Curse could be read as only nullifying the noun saves for the Toughness Test, but not the verb saves, and FNP and RP only operate as a verb save. Remember, the Wound itself is NOT Remove From Play, just the Toughness Test is.
Konrax wrote:They both have the exact same wording as to what triggers each rule, one however says it must be immediately taken after. Failing the test and being removed from play disallows the FNP rule from ever triggering.
Again, what counts as an Unsaved Wound? If FNP/RP cannot have a chance to Save a Wound it normally would be able to Save, than is it a truly an Unsaved Wound?
Konrax wrote:It is rather simple if you compare the two rules next to each other and it is clear.
This isn't an exercise in the english language here.
The definition of an unsaved wound isn't in the book because saves are clearly defined as either an armour, invulnerable, or cover save which is chosen by the defending player. Saves are only made when there has been a wound caused, which is also clearly stated in the rule book. If any of those saves are failed, then both the black mace and FNP are triggered. The difference being the black mace specifically says immediately after, so by the way a save is defined, you must test immediately after.
All rule discussions are exercises in semantics, and so, exercising the English language.
Saves as a Noun are defined, yes. Saved as a Verb, not so much. In addition, you seem to completely ignore as to what is "not Saved". As soon as a Wound is allocated to a model, it has yet to be Saved, and so Not Saved. Never mind that nothing has had a chance to Save it, yet. If it can apply before something that can Save a Wound, then why not before anything can Save the Wound? So, going by that interpretation, the Curse hits as soon as the Wound is Allocated.
In order to not utilize this interpretation, you must present adequate evidence that an "Unsaved Wound" means that the model has been allocated a Wound it has no Save against, or that its Save has failed. Or failing that, concede that if a rule can Save the Wound, it must needs be applied before truly declaring a Wound as "Unsaved".
Your chance to prove it.
megatrons2nd wrote:
DeathReaper wrote: Except that FNP Treats the wound as having been saved...
Why are you applying effects that trigger on an unsaved wound if you are treating the wound as having been saved?
Yes "Treats" Present tense word....This means from here on out it is saved, not go back in time and make it a saved wound. For the go back in time the rule would need to say "Treated as saved" or something similar, the present tense word at the beginning of the sentence sets the timing. It would sound awful weird saying "Treats the wound as save" now don't you think?
And yet, if the Wound is Saved, it is no longer Unsaved, so leaving the Toughness Test of the Curse out the window without an Unsaved Wound to Test from. Or should I bring up Ordnance again?
Much like Ordnance Weapons being fired first to guarantee you aren't attempting to cheat your opponent, so, too, should any attempt to Save a Wound fail before applying any other "Unsaved Wound" qualification.
Or, should I just start shooting Ordnance Weapons last so the rest of the guns are not limited by it?
Saves are clearly defined in the rule book and what counts as a save against wounds suffered.
FNP and RP both say they are not saves.
Both the above rules and Curse are triggered by the same event.
FNP and RP both make the case as to the wound counting as being saved if it was passed, while the rule itself does not count as a save. (Which would mean that the requirement of an unsaved wound has been satisfied and triggers both abilities.)
Curse has the clause that it must be immediately taken after a failed save. The FNP roll just happens after a failed save.
It is impossible to count FNP as a save, and therefore take it simultaneously because you are only ever allowed one save as defined by saves in the rule book.
Thereby FNP can not retroactively be used to nullify an ability before it that is successful and would nullify the effects of FNP as in being removed from play. (In which case there are no wounds to be saved)
However a passed toughness test would still allow for the initial wound caused to be discounted through the FNP and RP rule.
As far as the ordinance shooting is concerned I would never do that as I only play friendly games, but the ability on the most powerful weapon in the Chaos codex having its possibility for success cut in half via a similar manifestation of rules interpretation is equally unfair.
"Cursed... If a model suffers an unsaved wound from the Black Mace it must immediately take a toughness test. If the test is failed, remove the model as a casualty with no saves of any kind allowed. In addition, at the end of the phase in which the Black Mace causes one or more unsaved Wounds, all non-vehicle enemy models within 3" of the bearer, which haven't suffered an unsaved wound from the Black Mace this phase, must make a Toughness test. Any models that fail the test suffer a Wound with no saves of any kind allowed."
Assuming, for the moment, that you take the toughness test before taking FNP... what happens when you pass the toughness test and then pass FNP? Do you then have to take ANOTHER toughness test at the end of the phase since the wound was treated as 'saved' but you still 'suffered' it? If the answer is yes, and you fail that toughness test, then I assume you get another FNP roll?
Automatically Appended Next Post: What does it mean to 'suffer an unsaved wound' anyway? Even if you pass FNP and treat it as saved... you still suffered an unsaved wound otherwise FNP wouldn't proc. It just gets too weird if you read too deeply into this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I suppose a better example is...
Guy with Black Mace is in a challenge. He inflicts 3 wounds and allocates the first wound to the model in the challenge. The model fails it's save and then fails it's toughness test and dies.
Then the remaining wounds get allocated to other models in the combat... the first being a model with FNP. He passes the toughness test AND passes his FNP 'saves'.
This means that model will have to take ANOTHER toughness test despite having 'suffered an unsaved wound from the Black Mace' because it was paradoxed into being saved by FNP.
And this situation is why I think things like FNP should be taken before any other 'suffers an unsaved wound' trigger happens.
If failed remove from play, if passed roll FNP, if passed model does not lose a wound, if failed model loses a wound.
If there are any unsaved wounds at the end of combat (after all FNP have been taken) then all enemies within 3 take a toughness test who were no already wounded by the mace.
If they fail that the model suffers a wound (not removed from play! Which is equal to a wound from perils) with out any kind of save allowed.
Roll FNP on all additional wounds caused by the triggered ability since FNP isn't a save and can be used to save wounds that allow no saves of any kind.
Zimko, One of my favourite rants about Game Workshop has been their use of the same piece of terminology for multiple things!
One such example is 'suffers a Wound,' which has been used in lines like "the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound" and "Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound." Those are just two examples where a model suffers a Wound before the Saving Throw process occurs but also after the Save Throw process occurs, but more exist within the Rulebook. Simply do a control-f search through a digital Rulebook or Codex for 'suffers a Wound' you can easily find other examples where Game Workshop goes back and forth on when the Model actually 'Suffers a Wound.'
Don't get me started on Wound and Wounds, I have made that rant twice this week alone....
As far as the ordinance shooting is concerned I would never do that as I only play friendly games, but the ability on the most powerful weapon in the Chaos codex having its possibility for success cut in half via a similar manifestation of rules interpretation is equally unfair.
So basicly just do whatever we think is fair. mmk.
DeathReaper wrote: Except that FNP Treats the wound as having been saved...
Why are you applying effects that trigger on an unsaved wound if you are treating the wound as having been saved?
Yes "Treats" Present tense word....This means from here on out it is saved, not go back in time and make it a saved wound. For the go back in time the rule would need to say "Treated as saved" or something similar, the present tense word at the beginning of the sentence sets the timing. It would sound awful weird saying "Treats the wound as save" now don't you think?
It actually does go back in time and make it a saved wound. As per the FNP rules.
The wording of FNP makes it clear that the save was never failed. you have to treat the wound as having been saved.
"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." (Feel No Pain rules).
So if you "treat it as having been saved." you can not trigger anything off of that wound as the wound is now saved just as if you had successfully made your Cover/Armor/Invuln save against this wound.
Konrax wrote: Saves are clearly defined in the rule book and what counts as a save against wounds suffered.
FNP and RP both say they are not saves.
And this demonstrates that you are not paying attention.
This is not a question about "Saves" as a noun (object, person, place, thing, or idea), but about the VERB (action, state, or occurrence).
If a Save is passed, the Wound is Saved. If FNP or RP pass, the Wound is Saved (or at least, treated as such).
Are you understanding this concept, yet?
Konrax wrote: Both the above rules and Curse are triggered by the same event.
FNP and RP both make the case as to the wound counting as being saved if it was passed, while the rule itself does not count as a save. (Which would mean that the requirement of an unsaved wound has been satisfied and triggers both abilities.)
How can something be both Saved and Unsaved at the same time? It either is, or is not. If it is Saved, then there can be no Test. If it is not, there will be a Test.
Konrax wrote: Curse has the clause that it must be immediately taken after a failed save. The FNP roll just happens after a failed save.
No, it does not. It states for an Unsaved Wound. You have yet to produce the concept that Unsaved Wound only means a Failed Save.
Konrax wrote: It is impossible to count FNP as a save, and therefore take it simultaneously because you are only ever allowed one save as defined by saves in the rule book.
Your are arguing against a case unpresented, and so I wonder if you are actually paying attention, or just cannot grasp the paradigms I am presenting. FNP/RP are not Saves, but they do Save Wounds. You are treating them as if they cannot.
Konrax wrote: Thereby FNP can not retroactively be used to nullify an ability before it that is successful and would nullify the effects of FNP as in being removed from play. (In which case there are no wounds to be saved)
And still ignoring the actual argument. The Black Mace does not state anywhere that it ignores FNP. So, FNP would still be allowed, either way. If it passed, the Wound the Toughness Test is no longer Unsaved, but Saved. Either this is a paradox, or you are doing it wrong.
Konrax wrote: However a passed toughness test would still allow for the initial wound caused to be discounted through the FNP and RP rule.
And possibly trigger another Toughness Test if it fails due to being Unsaved? No thank you for that logic.
The problem here is you are combining a Verb and a Noun as being the same thing, without posting the rules that state as such.
Christoph, you made a real cluster of all the things already covered and you want Konrax to respond... Did you read all the posts leading up to this, because I feel like you didn't. If you did, did you not notice all the rules quotes he used? I'm really confused why you cherry picked his quotes then refuted them with no evidence and claimed HE needed to site rules... He's been doing so for the last couple days...
Konrax, I still RAW 100% age with your argument. And "Technically correct is the best kind of correct." -Bureaucrat Grade 1.
jokerkd wrote: Caristoph, the definition of unsaved wound is irrelevant given that the definition can be assumed to be the same in both rules.
Obviously I disagree. But does that mean I can roll my RP before my Cover Saves, then?
See how it becomes relevant?
No because RP requires a save to be failed first before the wound that caused it can be checked through RP.
Although statistically it would make no difference if you rolled RP first and then cover saves off failed RPs.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Charistof the volume of personal attacks you are using to support your argument shows how little substance you have with them.
Various rule book quotes later and your only valid argument is that FNP causes a failed wound to be considered as saved. The only grounds that has is that it speaks in the past tense, which you could assume the save would be counted retroactively.
However with that being said just because it can travel back in time to change the events of the past, sadly the time machine used to save the wound was destroyed by the demonic energies of the black mace.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FratHammer wrote: Christoph, you made a real cluster of all the things already covered and you want Konrax to respond... Did you read all the posts leading up to this, because I feel like you didn't. If you did, did you not notice all the rules quotes he used? I'm really confused why you cherry picked his quotes then refuted them with no evidence and claimed HE needed to site rules... He's been doing so for the last couple days...
Konrax, I still RAW 100% age with your argument. And "Technically correct is the best kind of correct." -Bureaucrat Grade 1.
Thanks for making those points, it is important that we try to get the rules right in both RAI and RAW.
For example my necrons friend rolls the result of his CTans shooting attack first and then gets to pick the target because... Well it only makes sense that a star god would have enough intelligence to use an attack that could at least damage the target it picked.
FratHammer wrote: Yeah... Wish Orcs did. We just point our smasha guns and zap guns at everything. I hate it. Hence why one is never fielded by anyone... Ever.
My necrons friend has an ork army that trys to run as many random chance guns as possible and the list is dangerous and hilarious at the same time.
Shock attack guns can be amazing or down right bad, entertaining for sure!
FratHammer wrote:Christoph, you made a real cluster of all the things already covered and you want Konrax to respond... Did you read all the posts leading up to this, because I feel like you didn't. If you did, did you not notice all the rules quotes he used? I'm really confused why you cherry picked his quotes then refuted them with no evidence and claimed HE needed to site rules... He's been doing so for the last couple days..
I asked for one thing recently, and no one has addressed it. You seem to think it as a real cluster, but you don't actually address it, and no one besides myself actually has. And you say I am making a real cluster? The cluster is already there to begin with, caused by GW, I'm just pointing it out.
What is an Unsaved Wound? What is the definition of it?
1) Literal: It is a Wound that is not Saved. This would apply to any Wound being Allocated to a model, since it has, in truth, not been Saved, yet.
2) Assumption #1: A Wound that a Save cannot or has failed to Save. This seems to be the presumption that most are operating under. In this case, if proven RAW, than the concept of the Black Mace's trigger having priority over FNP/RP is valid.
3) Assumption #2: A Wound that has not been Saved by any method available to the model. In this case, FNP/RP have primacy since there is a chance that they could Save the Wound and deny the Curse its Trigger.
Konrax wrote:No because RP requires a save to be failed first before the wound that caused it can be checked through RP.
Incorrect. RP, much like FNP and Curse, require an Unsaved Wound, and NOT a Failed Save. The Dark Eldar Wargear in question is what required a Failed Save, not an Unsaved Wound.
Konrax wrote:Charistof the volume of personal attacks you are using to support your argument shows how little substance you have with them.
What personal attacks? I ask for proof. I get no response. Someone presents an argument against something not said, such as "FNP is not a Save", when no one has stated as such, and I remind them of it is personal? Or are you referring that I suggest that they may not be paying attention to the other side's argument?
Konrax wrote:Various rule book quotes later and your only valid argument is that FNP causes a failed wound to be considered as saved. The only grounds that has is that it speaks in the past tense, which you could assume the save would be counted retroactively.
However with that being said just because it can travel back in time to change the events of the past, sadly the time machine used to save the wound was destroyed by the demonic energies of the black mace.
And yet, we see it done in this ruleset quite often. The model fails to make successful roll on its Save, and it is removed as a casualty when it suffers the Wound. FNP and RP turn back the clock and provide an opportunity of "nope, not quite".
Konrax wrote:...it is important that we try to get the rules right in both RAI and RAW.
I have no actual problem with this, so long as it is properly pointed out. But my point in bringing up the Unsaved Wound issue is simply this: It can mean several different things depending on the individual, and depending on how it is interpreted can mean different interpretations of how the Curse of the Black Mace interacts with FNP and RP.
Review what I posted above regarding the definition. Two of them are How People Play It listed as Assumptions, while one is as literally RAW as you can get. Unless you can find where in the rulebook it actually defines "unsaved Wound" as anything without making assumptions and roundabout interpretations, that's how it stands.
1. Is still irrelevant as even if that were the case, player turn or "codex > brb" would take effect as both rules would still be triggered at the same time.
2. Is hiwpi. When I've had a chance to have a look at my brb, I will get back to you on whether this is raw or rai.
3. Cannot be possible as it would break the fnp rule. Unsaved wound cannot be defined as something that can only happen after fnp has been taken because then you wouldn't have a trigger for fnp in the first place
Christoph, you're trying to imply an unsaved wound is any wound before it has been saved. That is incorrect.
On pgs 34+51 of my mini rule book what you're claiming are unsaved wound are merely wounds. It goes on to describe them as being placed into a pool then assigned to models who must immediately attempt to save vs those sounds assigned to it.
Unsaved wounds are later mentioned in FNP which states once you have suffered an "unsaved wound" you may use FNP.
So, we have a wound, which is clearly expressed as such and only as such which is assigned from a wound pool directly to a model who must IMMEDIATELY attempt to save. If this fails, you have gained an "unsaved wound" and can now attempt to FNP. Unfortunately IMMEDIATELY after failing an unsaved wound you had to take a toughness test, which you failed. Now, since a unit/model that is not in the game doesn't get to use its special rules, you can no longer FNP, which would trigger after the IMMEDIATE trigger of the black mace.
To short hand this: An unsaved wound, is a wound that failed to be saved after assigned to a model and failing its saves if it was allowed one.
FratHammer wrote:Christoph, you made a real cluster of all the things already covered and you want Konrax to respond... Did you read all the posts leading up to this, because I feel like you didn't. If you did, did you not notice all the rules quotes he used? I'm really confused why you cherry picked his quotes then refuted them with no evidence and claimed HE needed to site rules... He's been doing so for the last couple days..
I asked for one thing recently, and no one has addressed it. You seem to think it as a real cluster, but you don't actually address it, and no one besides myself actually has. And you say I am making a real cluster? The cluster is already there to begin with, caused by GW, I'm just pointing it out.
What is an Unsaved Wound? What is the definition of it?
1) Literal: It is a Wound that is not Saved. This would apply to any Wound being Allocated to a model, since it has, in truth, not been Saved, yet.
2) Assumption #1: A Wound that a Save cannot or has failed to Save. This seems to be the presumption that most are operating under. In this case, if proven RAW, than the concept of the Black Mace's trigger having priority over FNP/RP is valid.
3) Assumption #2: A Wound that has not been Saved by any method available to the model. In this case, FNP/RP have primacy since there is a chance that they could Save the Wound and deny the Curse its Trigger.
Konrax wrote:No because RP requires a save to be failed first before the wound that caused it can be checked through RP.
Incorrect. RP, much like FNP and Curse, require an Unsaved Wound, and NOT a Failed Save. The Dark Eldar Wargear in question is what required a Failed Save, not an Unsaved Wound.
Konrax wrote:Charistof the volume of personal attacks you are using to support your argument shows how little substance you have with them.
What personal attacks? I ask for proof. I get no response. Someone presents an argument against something not said, such as "FNP is not a Save", when no one has stated as such, and I remind them of it is personal? Or are you referring that I suggest that they may not be paying attention to the other side's argument?
Konrax wrote:Various rule book quotes later and your only valid argument is that FNP causes a failed wound to be considered as saved. The only grounds that has is that it speaks in the past tense, which you could assume the save would be counted retroactively.
However with that being said just because it can travel back in time to change the events of the past, sadly the time machine used to save the wound was destroyed by the demonic energies of the black mace.
And yet, we see it done in this ruleset quite often. The model fails to make successful roll on its Save, and it is removed as a casualty when it suffers the Wound. FNP and RP turn back the clock and provide an opportunity of "nope, not quite".
Konrax wrote:...it is important that we try to get the rules right in both RAI and RAW.
I have no actual problem with this, so long as it is properly pointed out. But my point in bringing up the Unsaved Wound issue is simply this: It can mean several different things depending on the individual, and depending on how it is interpreted can mean different interpretations of how the Curse of the Black Mace interacts with FNP and RP.
Review what I posted above regarding the definition. Two of them are How People Play It listed as Assumptions, while one is as literally RAW as you can get. Unless you can find where in the rulebook it actually defines "unsaved Wound" as anything without making assumptions and roundabout interpretations, that's how it stands.
Regardless of your interpretation of an unsaved wound, the trigger is identical for both rules, so either way you look at it both rules would trigger on the same event. The only difference is one says immediately after the trigger event, and the other one doesn't.
At least a dozen times you asked if I was paying attention and am I grasping simple language concepts while ignoring a very simple concept I keep presenting over and over again which I just said again.
It doesn't matter how you define an unsaved wound, both rules share the same trigger.
And failing a toughness test and getting a wound won't trigger another toughness test because FNP isn't a save.
Edit: rumours this morning say a new Chaos codex is coming very soon, so this entire exercise in rules lawyering might be for nothing..
For the record I still don't see an argument that invalidates FNP or RP going before the mace.
Edit: rumours this morning say a new Chaos codex is coming very soon, so this entire exercise in rules lawyering might be for nothing..
Curse is a really minor aspect of the FNP issue.
I'll try to pose the full question in an organized manner:
Does "saving" an unsaved wound with FNP/RP also cancel the fact that you did suffer an unsaved wound?
This is fundamental for the working of the concussive USR, pinning USR. There are also Frost and Stasis anomaly effects, THAT DO NOT PRESENT THE "IMMEDIATELY" WORD so we don't have an easy answer like in the case of Curse.
Powers like the mind worm also depend on this.
Now we actually have a GW answer on this that says that FNP does not cancel the fact that you suffered an unsaved wound.
In particular GW said:
Question: "If a unit with a night shield suffers an unsaved wound that is then discounted through a Feel No Pain roll, does it lose it's shield?"
Answer: "Yes"
The night shield rule says: "If at the end of a phase the model has suffered an unsaved wound then it loses the benefits of the shield for the reminder of the game"
So it is clear that in this case for GW the Feel no pain does not cancel the fact that you did suffer an unsaved wound, and there can be no discussions here, this is the RAW.
I'd like to hear arguments on why one should not consider this FAQ applicable to the all the aforementioned rules, please explain in what you think this situation differs from the other ones.
And for the last time Night shields deactivating on a failed save were a thing of last edition! 7E shields are lost on an unsaved wound.
Put simply, it shouldn't be considered because it applies to a single item in a single codex.
For example, back in 6th edition, GW said that Tyranids could not fire emplaced weapons/weapon emplacements. Should we have applied that ruling across all armies?
jokerkd wrote:1. Is still irrelevant as even if that were the case, player turn or "codex > brb" would take effect as both rules would still be triggered at the same time.
Moderately relevant over all, but agreed not in the case of the relationship between FNP/RP and Curse. There is literally no difference in result between this and #2, because of the trigger timing. However, in this case things like Concussive, Instant Death, etc, would trigger before any Save rolls would be attempted.
jokerkd wrote:2. Is hiwpi. When I've had a chance to have a look at my brb, I will get back to you on whether this is raw or rai.
As far as I have found this is RAI. This is because the timing of an Unsaved Wound is not defined in the rulebook.
jokerkd wrote:3. Cannot be possible as it would break the fnp rule. Unsaved wound cannot be defined as something that can only happen after fnp has been taken because then you wouldn't have a trigger for fnp in the first place
Yes, and no. It would still trigger FNP, because it has not had a chance to Save the Wound, yet. And it is this perception of Unsaved Wound which has caused this discussion to last as long as it did before I asked for the definition of an Unsaved Wound. Many have been discounted of this definition since then, no doubt.
FratHammer wrote:Christoph, you're trying to imply an unsaved wound is any wound before it has been saved. That is incorrect.
On pgs 34+51 of my mini rule book what you're claiming are unsaved wound are merely wounds. It goes on to describe them as being placed into a pool then assigned to models who must immediately attempt to save vs those wounds assigned to it.
So, no actual definition reference to provide? The first instance of "unsaved wound" in the rulebook is in Instant Death right after making saves. There is an assumptive correlation that can be made which applies it to #2, but this is not RAW. Their is nothing written as to what qualifies as an Unsaved Wound. Anything put in this that is literally not "Not Saved Wound" is RAI and HYWPI. If I am wrong in this regard, please provide the reference.
And no, Allocated Wounds do not immediately attempt to save those Wounds assigned to it. If that was the case, than FNP and RP would be classed in that, since they can Save a Wound (even though they are not Saves).
FratHammer wrote:Unsaved wounds are later mentioned in FNP which states once you have suffered an "unsaved wound" you may use FNP.
They are mentioned all over the place, yet never actually defined. That is part of the issue. Just because it is never mentioned until after taking Saves, does not mean that it exclusively matches your definition.
FratHammer wrote:To short hand this: An unsaved wound, is a wound that failed to be saved after assigned to a model and failing its saves if it was allowed one.
No quotes and nothing but assumptions. Still have proved nothing. You have associations one can make assumptions from, and those are one of the assumptions I listed above. If you want to continue using it as such, that is fine, just preface it as such.
Konrax wrote:Regardless of your interpretation of an unsaved wound, the trigger is identical for both rules, so either way you look at it both rules would trigger on the same event. The only difference is one says immediately after the trigger event, and the other one doesn't.
I have demonstrated that interpretation is regardful. The only problem is there is nothing to support or really deny any interpretation but the first definition.
Konrax wrote:At least a dozen times you asked if I was paying attention and am I grasping simple language concepts while ignoring a very simple concept I keep presenting over and over again which I just said again.
Than why do you keep insisting that FNP and RP are not Saves when no one is arguing that they are? Or did you not associate that correlation?
Or was it regarding how someone else may define Unsaved Wound to match the #3 Definition I gave and just dismissing it without demonstrating how it is wrong?
It is to these I was addressing. I was not arguing against timing itself, save that the possibility that every attempt of Saving a Wound must be made before it can truly be called an Unsaved Wound. This is only an interpretation of the word phrase, but it as valid as defining Unsaved Wound as #2.
Konrax wrote:And failing a toughness test and getting a wound won't trigger another toughness test because FNP isn't a save.
And this is the point where I say you aren't listening. Pay attention:
Nowhere is Unsaved Wound defined as a Wound where the Save has failed. Dismissing FNP and RP as not being able to Save a Wound just because they are not Saves is counter to the Rules As Written. If FNP or RP fail, then the Wound is Unsaved, again!
Or are you just arguing that it just retains its Unsaved status? If so, it could have been clearer.
Yeah, to me it seems cut and dry
Roll to Hit
Roll to Wound
Roll to Save, did you fail your save? Yes - continue
FNP / RP trigger did you fail these? No? No wound was lost to trigger unsaved wound. Yes?
Effects triggered by unsaved wound.
Wait Christoph, you're asking me to not only provide page numbers and summation, which shows you I read the portion of the book, but you want me to quote while pages of text to you? This isn't a 2 sentence problem it's a multiple page problem, and I gave you the pages to read... You're insane or lazy if you're saying I need to post it all for you also.
You do agree that a model that has been removed from the game cannot "fnp a wound" though right? And that the toughness test is before FnP due to "immediately" being in its text yes?
Lastly, to support why you take your saves immediately after signing a wound, (had you read the pages I signed you) pg52 bullet point 1: " A wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking at that initiative step. If there is more than one eligible candidate, the player controlling the models being attacked chooses which model it is allocated to. ROLL THE MODELS SAVING THROW (IF IT HAS ONE) AND REMOVE THE CASUALTY(IF NECESSARY)
Now as we all know FNP is NOT a Saving Throw. And where in that bullet point do you see any time for any effect to take place? A model is assigned a wound then before anything else takes his "saving throws" of which FNP is not one. Then, if those fail FNP normally triggers because you now have a wound on a model that was not saved. We call those "unsaved wounds" again up until this point you cannot deny that the book references them as wounds coming from a wound pool. An unsaved wound must happen after a wound is failed to be saved, because before you fail to save it, it is just an assigned wound.
This is actually hilarious and like debating with a wall.
Of course necron players would come up in arms about this when it is really clear and I quoted every rule in play.
FNP is not a save. (Rule quote)
You can only make one save, armour, invuln, or cover. (Rule quote)
A failed FNP wouldn't trigger a second toughness test under my interpretation because...
FNP is not a save. ( Rule Quote)
If an unsaved wound is taken you may make a FNP roll. (Rule quote)
If an unsaved wound is taken, you must immediately take a toughness test or be removed as a casualty. (Rule quote)
Immediately > not defined timing after a triggered event (see definition of immediately)
FNP can only be taken against unsaved wounds (Rule quote)
Since removed as casualty FNP can not be used to save the previous triggered wound.
Subsequent failed or passed toughness tests aren't triggered because FNP isn't a save (ad defined by quoted rule before)
I don't get why this is so hard to grasp.
Edit: Concussive triggers on an unsaved wound, not before. FNP would ignore the effect because Concussive isn't a d weapon, instant death, or remove from play ability.
If you get struck with a weapon that on the wound roll has instant death on 6 it would ignore FNP. This is the same case but it is based on a toughness test and not rolling a 6 on the wound roll.
Edit 2: No one can call me TFG either because I've never even had a game using the Black Mace. I was looking at it in my codex and was curious about how it works with FNP and RP.
FratHammer wrote: Wait Christoph, you're asking me to not only provide page numbers and summation, which shows you I read the portion of the book, but you want me to quote while pages of text to you? This isn't a 2 sentence problem it's a multiple page problem, and I gave you the pages to read... You're insane or lazy if you're saying I need to post it all for you also.
Did I ask for whole pages of text? No, I asked for where it defined Unsaved Wound. That's it. It should be a 2 sentence problem to define one thing. Most statuses in the game are listed in rather short paragraphs, or even one sentence. Are you saying that this concept of "Unsaved Wound representing a Wound whose Saves failed" takes that much to define when you take it so assuredly and I defined it so simply?
But instead, what we have in the rulebook is a concept called the Unsaved Wound. It is listed as a trigger for numerous things, but I could not find an actual definition. I even tried to find Saved Wound to see if that would help, and it brought back similar results. No actual definition.
FratHammer wrote: You do agree that a model that has been removed from the game cannot "fnp a wound" though right?
That's part and parcel of this discussion, isn't it? FNP and RP both treat a Wound as being Saved, and turns back time to, at a minimum, to restore the Wound from being lost. If the Wound or Attack is listed as Instant Death, FNP cannot be used (FNP does not address Remove From Play, but RP does). In fact, If a model's Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty. So, obviously, FNP counters THAT form of remove from play.
FratHammer wrote: And that the toughness test is before FnP due to "immediately" being in its text yes?
Yes, depending on your definition of Unsaved Wound (and to which, I had already answered), but as I have just pointed out, FNP can counter act situations that may cause a model to be Removed From Play if it can counteract that trigger. Remember, the Black Mace's Attacks, and Wounds caused by them, are not inherently Remove From Play nor Instant Death. Other factors have to come in to play in order for them to be caused as such.
FratHammer wrote: Lastly, to support why you take your saves immediately after signing a wound, (had you read the pages I signed you) pg52 bullet point 1: " A wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking at that initiative step. If there is more than one eligible candidate, the player controlling the models being attacked chooses which model it is allocated to. ROLL THE MODELS SAVING THROW (IF IT HAS ONE) AND REMOVE THE CASUALTY(IF NECESSARY)
I did read them. Do you read "immediately" at any single point that you just quoted? Do you see anything that says if the Saving Throw fails, it generates an Unsaved Wound (that would qualify as a definition, btw)?
FratHammer wrote: Now as we all know FNP is NOT a Saving Throw. And where in that bullet point do you see any time for any effect to take place? A model is assigned a wound then before anything else takes his "saving throws" of which FNP is not one. Then, if those fail FNP normally triggers because you now have a wound on a model that was not saved. We call those "unsaved wounds" again up until this point you cannot deny that the book references them as wounds coming from a wound pool. An unsaved wound must happen after a wound is failed to be saved, because before you fail to save it, it is just an assigned wound.
FNP is not a Save, true. Did I say otherwise? No, in fact I have repeatedly stated it is not. Ironically, do note that FNP actually still calls itself a save, or at least its results, "Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule." (FNP, 3rd Paragraph). All I have said, ad nauseum for all of us, is that it SAVES the Wound and converts it from being Unsaved to Saved if successful.
And again I ask, do you see anything that says if the Saving Throw fails, it generates an Unsaved Wound (that would qualify as a definition, btw)? It is implied that it is after a failed save, true, because it is never mentioned at any point before saves are instructed. That however, does not mean an assigned wound is not a "not saved Wound", either, because until a Save is attempted, it sure isn't saved, now is it?
Charistoph, i brought up the same point awhile back and completely see what you're saying, just so you know you're not alone. I just dont have the energy to see it through like you do.
My group will always play it as getting the FNP before the effects, because we won't see the wound as unsaved before the model has used it's chances to count the wound as saved.
It really is a confusing, twisted use of english and logic. It's sad we all have to question mechanics like this, and often get nowhere for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The immediately clause in cursed is the thing throwing a bit of a wrench in it for me. I'll play it the way my group decides to. If they want to fall back on codex>brb or controlling player's choice that's fine by me.
"FNP is not a Save, true. Did I say otherwise? No, in fact I have repeatedly stated it is not. Ironically, do note that FNP actually still calls itself a save, or at least its results, "Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule." (FNP, 3rd Paragraph). All I have said, ad nauseum for all of us, is that it SAVES the Wound and converts it from being Unsaved to Saved if successful.
And again I ask, do you see anything that says if the Saving Throw fails, it generates an Unsaved Wound (that would qualify as a definition, btw)? It is implied that it is after a failed save, true, because it is never mentioned at any point before saves are instructed. That however, does not mean an assigned wound is not a "not saved Wound", either, because until a Save is attempted, it sure isn't saved, now is it?" - Charistoph
I didn't say FNP is not a save. I said it is not a Saving Throw. You will find me arguing that point at length in other threads. Also I don't need help finding portions of the rule book, or reading them.
What you are asking for is a definition in the book that doesn't exist as a single line which I thought I made clear. Instead, stretched over several pages are how wounds are treated, applied, and the results of them.
In them is the portion I defined for you. Where it clearly states what happens when I wound is generated and what must happen as soon as it is applied to a model. I'm not going to quote myself, so just scroll back and read it again.
No the word immediately is not there. But as soon as it is applied you are to take the Saving Throw if it has one. That is as immediate as English gets without the word immediate or one of its synonyms.
Again, where do you see a pause of the rules that would make you think it wasn't immediate? Nothing has changed other than a wound had been assigned. If something triggers off the assigning of a wound it would happen now, since nothing does we proceed.
Also are you arguing that a model removed from the game can use its special rules? Because if that's what you're claiming I'm going to continue to shoot at your models with my dead ones so long as I place them in a box or on another table within range and line of sight if your removed models are using their special rules.
In GW's mind it goes probably like this (this is supported by the FAQ):
1) The unit receives a wound
2) A model in the unit rolls a save
3) The model suffers an unsaved wound
4) The model attempts a FNP roll
5) The models cancels the unsaved wound as if it had been saved
At the end of the day the question "Did the model suffer an unsaved wound?" finds the answer "Yes" since i can clearly see that at point 3 the model has suffered an unsaved wound. Nothing matters that the wound has subsequently been cancelled, the event 3 happened. It is also impossible to state that step 4 comes before step 3, since FNP rolls in response to an unsaved wound. Without step 3 you are not allowed to roll FNP.
Since that answer is "Yes" then rules like Concussive, pinning, mind worm and similar do apply their effects since the only thing they ask is "Did the model suffer an unsaved wound?"
This is how i think GW has intended this based on the Dark Eldar FAQ.
Spoletta wrote: In GW's mind it goes probably like this (this is supported by the FAQ):
1) The unit receives a wound
2) A model in the unit rolls a save
3) The model suffers an unsaved wound
4) The model attempts a FNP roll
5) The models cancels the unsaved wound as if it had been saved
At the end of the day the question "Did the model suffer an unsaved wound?" finds the answer "Yes" since i can clearly see that at point 3 the model has suffered an unsaved wound. Nothing matters that the wound has subsequently been cancelled, the event 3 happened..
Actually if you are successful with your FNP roll Step 3 never happened.
The wording of FNP makes it clear that the save was never failed. you have to treat the wound as having been saved.
"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." (Feel No Pain rules).
So if you "treat it as having been saved." you can not trigger anything off of that wound as the wound is now saved just as if you had successfully made your Cover/Armor/Invuln save against this wound.
At yet, using Spolettas timeframe, step three has to happen or you never get FnP in the first place. If you cancel your own trigger, do you get to roll?
The wording of FnP is not clear, it never says that the wound was never failed, is says treat as saved which is different. If I was to accept your time travel theory then never failed would support it, but treat as saved does not.
The results of FnP are purely incidental at this point since this argument is over the sequencing of special rules that activate off the same trigger, and that lies within the judgement of the player whose turn it is.
Spoletta wrote: In GW's mind it goes probably like this (this is supported by the FAQ):
1) The unit receives a wound
2) A model in the unit rolls a save
3) The model suffers an unsaved wound
4) The model attempts a FNP roll
5) The models cancels the unsaved wound as if it had been saved
At the end of the day the question "Did the model suffer an unsaved wound?" finds the answer "Yes" since i can clearly see that at point 3 the model has suffered an unsaved wound. Nothing matters that the wound has subsequently been cancelled, the event 3 happened..
Actually if you are successful with your FNP roll Step 3 never happened.
The wording of FNP makes it clear that the save was never failed. you have to treat the wound as having been saved.
"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." (Feel No Pain rules).
So if you "treat it as having been saved." you can not trigger anything off of that wound as the wound is now saved just as if you had successfully made your Cover/Armor/Invuln save against this wound.
Rule book states you can never have more then one save. Therefore you have to accept that at some point between an save and FNP you will have an unsaved wound otherwise FNP itself would be unable to trigger.
Curse and FNP have the same trigger.
Curse says immediately after a failed save.
FNP says after a failed save.
Because of the nature of Curse, being removed as a casualty can not be prevented from an FNP roll as it is not a wound.
A model that is a casualty no longer can use its abilities.
This horses head now looks like ground beef.
Regardless of wordplay in the English language, being verb or noun, or the lack of an exact definition of unsaved wound in a single sentence (a bit ridiculous and completely clear in my mind what an unsaved wound is, this is a &%$##%&++%$ dice game after all) the words that trigger both abilities is the exact same.
Unsaved wound.
Models that are no longer on the table can't use time travelling abilities to save themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: In GW's mind it goes probably like this (this is supported by the FAQ):
1) The unit receives a wound
2) A model in the unit rolls a save
3) The model suffers an unsaved wound
4) The model attempts a FNP roll
5) The models cancels the unsaved wound as if it had been saved
Completely right, now let me apply the context of this scenario.
3) The model suffers an unsaved wound.
<<<<<<<<<Immediately After
3b) Curse - Toughness test, remove on fail
4) FNP 5) Discards Wound if successful
Steps 4 and 5 aren't possible if the model doesn't exist anymore.
And no where in the rulebook does it say a model gets to attempt to use all of its abilities before being removed as a casualty.
AndrewC wrote: At yet, using Spolettas timeframe, step three has to happen or you never get FnP in the first place. If you cancel your own trigger, do you get to roll?
Yes FNP creates a Paradox. But this doesn't matter as we are treating the Initial wound as saved. To let things that happen off an unsaved wound effect the rest of the game is incorrect because we do not have an unsaved wound, we have a saved wound.
So FNP can not be rolled, not that it has to be as we have a saved wound.
Curse can not effect the game if we are discounting the wound and " treat it as having been saved."
If you remove the model from curse, if you even roll the curse test you break the FNP rule and that is not allowed.
Rule book states you can never have more then one save. Therefore you have to accept that at some point between an save and FNP you will have an unsaved wound otherwise FNP itself would be unable to trigger.
Curse and FNP have the same trigger.
Curse says immediately after a failed save.
FNP says after a failed save.
You need to roll FNP ""Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered." (AKA At the same exact time as the unsaved Wound is suffered. not immediately after a failed save.)
Because of the nature of Curse, being removed as a casualty can not be prevented from an FNP roll as it is not a wound.
This does not matter as you need to roll FNP first.
A model that is a casualty no longer can use its abilities.
this doesnt even come into play.
This horses head now looks like ground beef.
Regardless of wordplay in the English language, being verb or noun, or the lack of an exact definition of unsaved wound in a single sentence (a bit ridiculous and completely clear in my mind what an unsaved wound is, this is a &%$##%&++%$ dice game after all) the words that trigger both abilities is the exact same.
Unsaved wound.
Models that are no longer on the table can't use time travelling abilities to save themselves.
If you are letting curse trigger then you have to let the rule for wounds trigger. "The model gets to make a saving throw, if it has one. If it fails, reduce that model’s Wounds by 1." (Take Saves & Remove Casualties rules) You are advocating that there was still an unsaved wound, if so you need to reduce the models wounds by 1 even if oyu make your FNP roll, which is not correct.
Deathreaper what you say would invalidate the only officlally ruled case that GW gave us.
That is why i didn't ask how the interaction between unsaved wounds and FNP works, we already know that by GW source. I'm asking if you find relevant differences between the ruled case and the other rules.
FNP is not a save, it says that in the rule itself.
An saved wound is defined by what a save is, either armour, invuln, or cover save.
A model can only have one save.
If you treat FNP as a save, which is exactly what everyone keeps pushing for here, then you aren't taking one save, or treating FNP as a save then correct?
Which is incorrect because you only get one save, and FNP isn't a save, so it doesn't happen at the same time as a save. It happens exactly at the same time as other effects are caused off an unsaved wound.
The difference being, immediately after is an additional clause of Curse, failing a toughness test removes the model.
At the end of combat you may have to take another toughness test or suffer a wound with... Guess what no saves of any kind allowed except in this case guess what... You get a FNP roll because it caused a wound.
I bet this whole discussion will go at least for 10 pages.
FNP is not a save, it says that in the rule itself.
An saved wound is defined by what a save is, either armour, invuln, or cover save.
A model can only have one save.
If you treat FNP as a save, which is exactly what everyone keeps pushing for here, then you aren't taking one save, or treating FNP as a save then correct?
Which is incorrect because you only get one save, and FNP isn't a save, so it doesn't happen at the same time as a save. It happens exactly at the same time as other effects are caused off an unsaved wound.
The difference being, immediately after is an additional clause of Curse, failing a toughness test removes the model.
At the end of combat you may have to take another toughness test or suffer a wound with... Guess what no saves of any kind allowed except in this case guess what... You get a FNP roll because it caused a wound.
I bet this whole discussion will go at least for 10 pages.
No one said FNP was a saving throw, but it can, when talking about unsaved wounds, "treat it as having been saved." So you have to treat the wound as if you had made your save. this is indisputable in the FNP rules.
Curse goes off immediately after, while FNP happens when you suffer an unsaved wound. When you suffer the wound is before immediately after suffering the wound.
FNP is not a save, it says that in the rule itself.
An saved wound is defined by what a save is, either armour, invuln, or cover save.
A model can only have one save.
If you treat FNP as a save, which is exactly what everyone keeps pushing for here, then you aren't taking one save, or treating FNP as a save then correct?
Which is incorrect because you only get one save, and FNP isn't a save, so it doesn't happen at the same time as a save. It happens exactly at the same time as other effects are caused off an unsaved wound.
The difference being, immediately after is an additional clause of Curse, failing a toughness test removes the model.
At the end of combat you may have to take another toughness test or suffer a wound with... Guess what no saves of any kind allowed except in this case guess what... You get a FNP roll because it caused a wound.
I bet this whole discussion will go at least for 10 pages.
No one said FNP was a saving throw, but it can, when talking about unsaved wounds, "treat it as having been saved." So you have to treat the wound as if you had made your save. this is indisputable in the FNP rules.
Curse goes off immediately after, while FNP happens when you suffer an unsaved wound. When you suffer the wound is before immediately after suffering the wound.
FNP is rolled for first.
No one said it is a saving throw, but everyone keeps trying to treat it like one. Even if it was a saving throw you can only have one save. The only time you get to roll a second save is if the save gets a reroll of some kind.
Both Curse and FNP trigger off the same event, an unsaved wound... As quoted again in both rules...
Konrax wrote: Please read the rules posted on page 1 in the first post.
No one said it is a saving throw, but everyone keeps trying to treat it like one.
That is because FNP Literally says that you, when talking about unsaved wounds, "treat it as having been saved." So you have to treat the wound as if you had made your save.
Even if it was a saving throw you can only have one save. The only time you get to roll a second save is if the save gets a reroll of some kind.
It is not a save, it says so in the rules for FNP.
Both Curse and FNP trigger off the same event, an unsaved wound... As quoted again in both rules...
Curse says immediately after when FNP does not.
Curse goes off immediately after, while FNP happens when you suffer an unsaved wound. When you suffer the wound is before immediately after suffering the wound.
When you suffer the wound is BEFORE immediately after you suffer the wound.
Let's examine the timing issue with a slightly different test case:
An Eldar Farseer is shot by a GK Dreadknight's Gatling Psilencer (with the Force blessing active) on the GK player's turn, which causes Instant Death. The Farseer has the Fortune power currently active on him, but fails his (initial) saving throw. Does the GK player get to choose to resolve Instant Death from his active Force blessing before the Eldar player resolves his own Fortune power and re-rolls his failed invulnerable save? Why or why not?
Immediately happened first, hence it being dubbed immediate. Unless we're arguing that adding a word that means "instantly" or "right when" makes it slower than one that doesn't... Maybe the reasoning is, it's a word longer, that means it takes longer to happen? Lol... Wow.
Your model takes the toughness test no matter what according to the DEFAQimo, and it happens before the FNP according to its wording and the BRB advanced vs basic rules. I don't see where the other side even feels like they have an argument.
Creeperman wrote: Let's examine the timing issue with a slightly different test case:
An Eldar Farseer is shot by a GK Dreadknight's Gatling Psilencer (with the Force blessing active) on the GK player's turn, which causes Instant Death. The Farseer has the Fortune power currently active on him, but fails his (initial) saving throw. Does the GK player get to choose to resolve Instant Death from his active Force blessing before the Eldar player resolves his own Fortune power and re-rolls his failed invulnerable save? Why or why not?
This doesn't really work because you are rerolling a save as defined by the BRB.
FNP is not a save or a reroll of a save so it doesn't happen at the same time.
FratHammer wrote: Your model takes the toughness test no matter what according to the DEFAQimo, and it happens before the FNP according to its wording and the BRB advanced vs basic rules. I don't see where the other side even feels like they have an argument.
So would you agree in 6th edition that when GW ruled (via FAQ) that Nids could not manually fire weapon emplacements/emplaced weapons, that it should apply to every army?
Q: Are Tyranid units inside buildings (i.e. the Bastion) subject to instinctive behaviour tests? Furthermore are they able to manual fire emplaced weapons or weapon emplacements? A: No to both questions.
This sounds like it applies specifically to Tyrannid units. Especially when referencing instinctive behaviors.
So your question is, does a specific factions FAQ change rules universally? The answer is, it depends on the rule.
So this rule is regarding all of the tyrannid faction. It answers a question about a special rule only found in their codex, then asks if their faction is allowed to fire weapon emplacements.
The example with the DEFAQ is a question of how a universal special rule interacts with an item.
They are very different. And straw man arguments are silly.
It's still a straw man argument. Which is a logical fallacy making your argument invalid...
It is an item, specific to a codex or not, that interacts with a universal special rule. That is vastly different from your above FAQ. No USR is in your example, only codex specific rules are gone over.
How one piece of gear interacts with a USR is important, and help us understand intent behind a USR that is poorly written. As we could expect all wargear to interact the same with the same USR.
In short, questions regarding the interaction of USRs are not the same as Codex specific questions.
FratHammer wrote: It's still a straw man argument. Which is a logical fallacy making your argument invalid...
It is an item, specific to a codex or not, that interacts with a universal special rule. That is vastly different from your above FAQ. No USR is in your example, only codex specific rules are gone over.
How one piece of gear interacts with a USR is important, and help us understand intent behind a USR that is poorly written. As we could expect all wargear to interact the same with the same USR.
In short, questions regarding the interaction of USRs are not the same as Codex specific questions.
So, how wargear interacts is important. Since the GW said that the Power Field (invulnerable save bubble) only applies to embarked models, should that not hold true to all AoE wargear?
Again, it's an interaction with a USR that is important. Especially a poorly written one that says it's not a saving throw, bit is a save... But sure lets continue down this rabbit hole.
How about you place all relevant FAQs here for me to read now and I'll point out all your collective straw man arguments.
Where is that stated in the rules? It is not a saving throw, it has the same trigger minus the word immediately, and is a basic rules vs an advanced rule...i understand you want it to be taken first, but what are you reading that makes you think that is RAW?
FratHammer wrote: Where is that stated in the rules? It is not a saving throw, it has the same trigger minus the word immediately, and is a basic rules vs an advanced rule...i understand you want it to be taken first, but what are you reading that makes you think that is RAW?
what defines it as a basic rule?
But it has to come first because if it doesn't you do not know if the wound was saved or not.
FratHammer wrote:Where is that stated in the rules? It is not a saving throw, it has the same trigger minus the word immediately, and is a basic rules vs an advanced rule...i understand you want it to be taken first, but what are you reading that makes you think that is RAW?
FNP calls itself a save while not being a Saving Throw. It also says that if it is successful, the Wound is Saved. Curse only states that other saves are not allowed, but as everyone on both sides of this discussion have pointed out, it is not a save to be ignored when no saves are allowed.
And, FNP is an Advanced Rule, not a Basic Rule, but I understand what you are addressing, and will address it next.
DeathReaper wrote:what defines it as a basic rule?
But it has to come first because if it doesn't you do not know if the wound was saved or not.
The rule is called Basic vs Advanced and states that Advanced Rules take primacy over Basic rules, and Codex Advanced Rules have primacy over Rulebook Advanced Rules.
Curse is not a Rulebook rule, but comes from a Codex, so it is a Codex Advanced Rule, which means it beats any Rulebook rule if there is a conflict.
However, there is no actual conflict between Curse and Feel No Pain any more than Curse conflicts with the Invulnerable Save, since Feel No Pain is set up to Save the Wounds, no matter when it happens.
Someone here keeps ignoring the fact that FNP triggers on an unsaved wound.
Saying that FNP comes first because we must first now if the wound was saved or not is a nonsense. If you roll FNP then that wound was unsaved.
If as you claim the wound was saved by FNP before becoming an unsaved wound, then FNP wouldn't trigger in the first place generating a paradox.
Exactly, and it's been said like 50 times they just keep ignoring it. Also I never got those FAQs to point out all those straw man arguments... Still waiting.
Again, FNP is not a saving throw, after saving throws are made you have an unsaved wound. Curse has the same trigger, an unsaved wound. If you do not have an unsaved wound you cannot use FNP, nor can Curse activate. But if you have an unsaved wound both curse and FNP can trigger.
Curse, as a rule with the same trigger but with that added word of IMMEDIATELY, obviously happens IMMEDIATELY, if the model survives the toughness test you're more than welcome to make a FNP test. If the model fails, it is removed. Of out was removed from play, it cannot use any of its rules, to include FNP.
Spoletta wrote: Someone here keeps ignoring the fact that FNP triggers on an unsaved wound.
Saying that FNP comes first because we must first now if the wound was saved or not is a nonsense. If you roll FNP then that wound was unsaved.
If as you claim the wound was saved by FNP before becoming an unsaved wound, then FNP wouldn't trigger in the first place generating a paradox.
And yet, that IS how it is written. You treat the Wound as being Saved. Both FNP and RP literally say that, and it keeps being dismissed.
FratHammer wrote: Again, FNP is not a saving throw, after saving throws are made you have an unsaved wound.
But FNP can still cause the Wound to be Saved, and you can technically have an Unsaved Wound before Saving Throws (if you really want to get literal).
FratHammer wrote: Curse has the same trigger, an unsaved wound. If you do not have an unsaved wound you cannot use FNP, nor can Curse activate. But if you have an unsaved wound both curse and FNP can trigger.
And yet, FNP deals with the fact that it Saves the Wound, and removes the Unsaved portion, even to itself, every single time.
Because, let's face it. If you fail the Save, you remove the Wound as immediately as you would roll the Save when you allocate it. And if the player's turn who chooses the order of cause, FNP would only be useful during the owning player's turn if it couldn't convert an Unsaved Wound to a Saved Wound. Since we know that FNP will work even when it isn't in the owning player's turn, FNP MUST be able to reconvert the results of an Unsaved Wound.
FratHammer wrote: Curse, as a rule with the same trigger but with that added word of IMMEDIATELY, obviously happens IMMEDIATELY, if the model survives the toughness test you're more than welcome to make a FNP test. If the model fails, it is removed. Of out was removed from play, it cannot use any of its rules, to include FNP.
You can still roll FNP. FNP is not nullified by RFP (at least until it fails), and FNP can nullify the affect of the Unsaved Wound triggers.
Yeah I'm done. He just keeps preaching the same HIWPI nonsense in a RAW argument. No sense waiting my time taking to a brick wall.
If you find a rule to super your theory I may check back, but your interpretations don't follow what the book says, so there is nothing more I can do than show up to your store and literally read it to you.
Simplest way I can phrase this one last time:
When does an unsaved wound happen?
What causes FNP to happen?
What takes place first, immediately, or not immediately?
Can a unit/model, removed from the game use its rules?
If you ever can answer all of those correctly, you'll come to the correct conclusion. If you continue to answer them with your gut, or feelings, you'll continue to have the wrong answer.
FratHammer wrote:Yeah I'm done. He just keeps preaching the same HIWPI nonsense in a RAW argument. No sense waiting my time taking to a brick wall.
Really? I've referenced more rules than you have..
FratHammer wrote:If you find a rule to super your theory I may check back, but your interpretations don't follow what the book says, so there is nothing more I can do than show up to your store and literally read it to you.
Translate to "quote it since I'm too busy to look it up", since I just addressed this.
FratHammer wrote:Simplest way I can phrase this one last time:
When does an unsaved wound happen?
It is first referenced for Instant Death, but otherwise, is never specifically defined. So, lacking a definition, it is when the To-Wound Roll is successful. You haven't countered this as yet. But as with many things, this isn't always important.
FratHammer wrote:What causes FNP to happen?
An Unsaved Wound. Why are you bothering to bring this up when no one has actually argued against it?
FratHammer wrote:What takes place first, immediately, or not immediately?
Have you noticed that no one has actually argued about the timing for quite some time except for you?
FratHammer wrote:Can a unit/model, removed from the game use its rules?
Yes. Can you demonstrate otherwise? I can demonstrate that they can, and in fact DID in the my last post. I will post the quotes for this after your next question.
FratHammer wrote:If you ever can answer all of those correctly, you'll come to the correct conclusion. If you continue to answer them with your gut, or feelings, you'll continue to have the wrong answer.
Howabout this quotefest:
BRB wrote:SEQUENCING 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 these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
BRB wrote:Take Saves & Remove Casualties The model gets to make a saving throw, if it has one. If it fails, reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.
BRB wrote:Feel No Pain 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).
...
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.
So, to reestablish the point from the previous one:
If you fail the Save, you remove the Wound as immediately as you would roll the Save when you allocate it. And if the player's turn who chooses the order of cause, FNP would only be useful during the owning player's turn if it couldn't convert an Unsaved Wound to a Saved Wound. Since we know that FNP will work even when it isn't in the owning player's turn, FNP MUST be able to reconvert the results of an Unsaved Wound.
Konrax wrote:And we know that a model that has been removed no longer can use its rules.
Quote for that please?
BRB wrote:REMOVED AS A CASUALTY AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED Models that are removed as casualties are removed from the table and placed to one side. When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’.
Models that are ‘removed from play’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties, as far as the game rules are concerned.
Okay, so it's not there, and we know that FNP can counter that, otherwise FNP on a single Wound model would be pointless. But that's all I can find.
the model does not suffer an unsaved wound until after fnp saves have been made.
if a model suffered an unsaved wound prior to fnp, then it would be reduced from 1 to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty, resulting in fnp never being allowed to be rolled for models at 1 wound.
as such until fnp or rp is rolled for black mace cannot trigger a toughness test.
Charistoph, your previous post did not probe you can use a rule I'd removed from the game, nor did it give an example. If so, as I previously stated, they can redeepstrike, they can fire from where the owning player placed them (if they have line of sight) maybe I don't know, if the stompa ain't to far off the table after being removed, I have some fearless models... No, you cannot. Exceptions might be certain warlord traits.
I've quoted page numbers and rules man, so have several other people. Your inferences aren't terrible sometimes, like this argument that you feel you immediately remove the unit as a causality if it fails it's save. Which you showed in your quote. The problem is there is plenty of time for the trigger to happen you're just not accepting it.
BRB wrote:
Take Saves & Remove Casualties
The model gets to make a saving throw, if it has one. If it fails, reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. (and right here we have an unsaved wound. We curse then FnP then carry the @#$% on) If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty. (because w know the FNP may discount this wound)
And so we're clear it is explicit. Immediately is immediately. Not pause and wait for the next sentence after a period. Or FnP wouldn't work. Obviously the period is there so the rule works. Without that period, we would have issues. With it, there are none.
Frat, are you a little drunk right now? This next paragraph is making little sense without some severe translating from literal words to contextual intent.
FratHammer wrote: Charistoph, your previous post did not probe you can use a rule I'd removed from the game, nor did it give an example. If so, as I previously stated, they can redeepstrike, they can fire from where the owning player placed them (if they have line of sight) maybe I don't know, if the stompa ain't to far off the table after being removed, I have some fearless models... No, you cannot. Exceptions might be certain warlord traits.
Why would I care what rule you removed from the game? If that was the case, then I would have argued about you removing rules...
As for my pre-previous post, I felt the pre-previous post did not need the Quotes since they had all been covered numerous times and so we were familiar with them without look up. A strange concept, I know.
I was simply demonstrating the fact that Feel No Pain can and does Save Wounds that Remove From Play and then cause that Remove From Play to be ignored. True, I did not use the Curse in the example, but then it doesn't really matter since 0 Wounds Removes From Play just as easily as the Curse.
FratHammer wrote: I've quoted page numbers and rules man, so have several other people. Your inferences aren't terrible sometimes, like this argument that you feel you immediately remove the unit as a causality if it fails it's save. Which you showed in your quote. The problem is there is plenty of time for the trigger to happen you're just not accepting it.
Note, that I only said that the "immediately" was only as "immediate" as rolling a Save against an Allocated Wound which someone kept insisting was a fact, which it isn't, there just isn't a whole lot listed between Allocating a Wound and Rolling a Save unless you believe in the literal definition of Unsaved Wound (which neither of us believe).
FratHammer wrote: (and right here we have an unsaved wound. We curse then FnP then carry the @#$% on)
Prove it. True, the phrase "unsaved Wounds" is never referenced until after making a Saving Roll, but it is never actually used in context when dealing actually SAVING the Wound. It is only ever used as a trigger for a Special Rule. In fact, "unsaved Wounds" is never used in your quoted section aside from your added parentheticals.
FratHammer wrote: And so we're clear it is explicit. Immediately is immediately. Not pause and wait for the next sentence after a period. Or FnP wouldn't work. Obviously the period is there so the rule works. Without that period, we would have issues. With it, there are none.
So, it is explicit that FNP can cause a Wound that would cause a model to be removed from play to no longer cause the model to Remove From Play, and to effectively turn back the time.
So, from a practical standpoint, having the receiving player make their FNP/RP roll before the Toughness Test of Curse is as practical as having them roll any Invulnerable or Armour (if possible) Saves before the Curse, as either one will cause a Wound to be classed as Saved, and not Unsaved.
I apologize, I was making dinner for some girls my daughter has having a sleepover. Didn't proof read swipe.
FratHammer wrote:
Can a unit/model, removed from the game use its rules?
Christoph wrote: Yes. Can you demonstrate otherwise? I can demonstrate that they can, and in fact DID in the my last post. I will post the quotes for this after your next question.
No. A removed model cannot use its abilities one it's removed. If so, then as I said, I can shoot you with removed models, give fearless with a removed stompa. It's not possible. Once a model is removed, it doesn't come back unless its St Celestine, or a few others that are specifically mentioned.
Why do you think a removed model gets to use its special rules, or that discounting the wound, which you can't do because you've been removed, meant you didn't suffer an unsaved wound? Especially after reading the only close example of this interaction with the DEFAQ.
