Kind of a corner case but I was looking at GUO's and then thought of Ghaz as well. Couldn't find a faq for either and honestly the wording of FNP's is kind of weird.
If ghazkul has a FNP from makari and he save 4 or more wounds in a single phase can he take more wounds?
if a guo with acidic ichor takes a wound does acidic trigger AND his FNP?
Disgustingly resilient wording: Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.
Ichor warding: Roll a dice each time your Warlord loses a wound in the Fight phase. On a 4+ the unit that inflicted that wound is splashed by acidic ichor and suffers a mortal wound after all of its own attacks have been resolved.
Not trying to power game, both situations are at odds with each other. Coming from rules sets where triggers are more strict and defined the FNP (I know they aren't all the exact same) wording almost doen't make sense as a model makes the roll BEFORE it loses any wounds. Meaning a 1 wound plaguebearer will have the opportunity to save any amount of damage BEFORE the damage is even taken which seems at odds with the rules wording.
I would play it as ghaz can suffer any number of wounds and save with makari before hitting his cap and the GUO's acidic ichor ability wouldn't work unless you've actually ticked his wounds count down. (acidic ichor is in engine wars btw for anyone looking it up)
For GUO, both rules you quote have the same trigger, “loses a wound”.
So for each wound lost, you get to do your Ichor rule AND try to ignore it via DR.
For Ghaz, if he ignores a wound then it isn’t truly lost, as the end result is he hasn’t lost up to his cap that phase, so you can keep trying to damage him.
JohnnyHell wrote: For GUO, both rules you quote have the same trigger, “loses a wound”.
So for each wound lost, you get to do your Ichor rule AND try to ignore it via DR.
Is this definitely the case? My thinking was that because the timing isn't clarified on either rule (neither one says "immediately" or anything to that effect), they would both be simultaneous - therefore whoever's turn it is gets to choose which order to apply.
If it's your opponent's turn and they choose to apply DR first, and the roll succeeds, you're told as a result that you have no longer lost that wound. Therefore you haven't got the criteria for Acidic after all.
Sequencing? Attack happens, roll for damage. If wound are inflicted, they are done BEFORE they are negated. Imagine they were "shrugged off". He still took the hit, it just didn't phase him. Acidic then rolls. Then the DR kicks in.
Do I have this all wrong? the GUO still got wounded, but ignored it.
That's a neat fluff explanation, but it isn't strictly backed up by RAW, which doesn't define the timing closely enough.
Really, the problem lies in this wording in the first place, because it creates a paradox:
"Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound."
But if it doesn't lose the wound... it doesn't satisfy its own trigger... which means it can't take the roll, meaning it DOES take the wound... then it CAN take the roll... but... aaaargh!! *brain asplodes*
I'm being facetious, of course, I do get how the rule works in a vacuum. It needs a little more careful wording, though. Really what we need is a different term - perhaps "ignores that Wound" or "immediately regains the lost Wound", or swinging the other way, "the Wound roll is treated as failed instead". Something to clarify that other effects do/don't occur.
You did LOSE a wound, hence the roll off. The roll off happened cus you lost the wound. The fact that you found it on the ground and picked it back up don't mean you didn't drop it in the first place. Roll for the acid.
I am going to say if you pass FnP you did not lose a wound.
for FnP type wounds it requires you to be losing wounds to make the roll, however we don't get to make the roll for wounds already lost. I.e. if a model has 6 wounds, suffers 2, fails both FnP rolls, gets shot some more suffers 2 more wounds it is going to make 2 FnP rolls not 4 FnP rolls.
Also if a 1W model suffers a wound, if the FnP roll is made after it loses the wound (going to 0) it would be removed from the table before the roll for FnP, which isn't the case.
Its basically a check of wounds the model is going to lose, unless they have a way to ignore losing the wound. This check happens before the models wounds are actually reduced from the attack. Otherwise it could be argued the FnP type rules do nothing for models that lose equal to or more than their current wounds on certain players turns, i.e. player A shoots player B model, player A does 6 wounds to the 4 wound character with FnP, this would reduce a models wounds to 0 triggering it being removed from the table as a casualty. Player B says I have FnP, player A says you lost the wounds and I pick this to happen first if they happen at the same time. Player Bs model is now a casualty with no FnP rolls, or alternatively it still gets FnP rolls but has no permission from rules to allow it to come back onto the table.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You did LOSE a wound, hence the roll off. The roll off happened cus you lost the wound. The fact that you found it on the ground and picked it back up don't mean you didn't drop it in the first place. Roll for the acid.
if plaguebearers actually lost a wound before their fnp went off the model would be removed, no?
Aijec wrote: Kind of a corner case but I was looking at GUO's and then thought of Ghaz as well. Couldn't find a faq for either and honestly the wording of FNP's is kind of weird.
If ghazkul has a FNP from makari and he save 4 or more wounds in a single phase can he take more wounds?
if a guo with acidic ichor takes a wound does acidic trigger AND his FNP?
Disgustingly resilient wording:
Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.
Ichor warding:
Roll a dice each time your Warlord loses a wound in the Fight phase. On a 4+ the unit that inflicted that wound is splashed by acidic ichor and suffers a mortal wound after all of its own attacks have been resolved.
Not trying to power game, both situations are at odds with each other. Coming from rules sets where triggers are more strict and defined the FNP (I know they aren't all the exact same) wording almost doen't make sense as a model makes the roll BEFORE it loses any wounds. Meaning a 1 wound plaguebearer will have the opportunity to save any amount of damage BEFORE the damage is even taken which seems at odds with the rules wording.
I would play it as ghaz can suffer any number of wounds and save with makari before hitting his cap and the GUO's acidic ichor ability wouldn't work unless you've actually ticked his wounds count down.
(acidic ichor is in engine wars btw for anyone looking it up)
If you are a sporting sort, you would go with the 'fair' ruling that if you didn't lose the wound due to Disgustingly Resilient then you can't trigger an effect that happens when you lose a wound, like Ichor Warding.
We can talk sequencing and decide on my Nurgle turn it happens but on yours it doesn't because the player who's turn it is decides on sequencing.
Or we can look at the rules and be sporting about it... and hope GW fixes that rule in the next version of the Codex.
Aijec wrote: Kind of a corner case but I was looking at GUO's and then thought of Ghaz as well. Couldn't find a faq for either and honestly the wording of FNP's is kind of weird.
If ghazkul has a FNP from makari and he save 4 or more wounds in a single phase can he take more wounds?
if a guo with acidic ichor takes a wound does acidic trigger AND his FNP?
Disgustingly resilient wording:
Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.
Ichor warding:
Roll a dice each time your Warlord loses a wound in the Fight phase. On a 4+ the unit that inflicted that wound is splashed by acidic ichor and suffers a mortal wound after all of its own attacks have been resolved.
Not trying to power game, both situations are at odds with each other. Coming from rules sets where triggers are more strict and defined the FNP (I know they aren't all the exact same) wording almost doen't make sense as a model makes the roll BEFORE it loses any wounds. Meaning a 1 wound plaguebearer will have the opportunity to save any amount of damage BEFORE the damage is even taken which seems at odds with the rules wording.
I would play it as ghaz can suffer any number of wounds and save with makari before hitting his cap and the GUO's acidic ichor ability wouldn't work unless you've actually ticked his wounds count down.
(acidic ichor is in engine wars btw for anyone looking it up)
If you are a sporting sort, you would go with the 'fair' ruling that if you didn't lose the wound due to Disgustingly Resilient then you can't trigger an effect that happens when you lose a wound, like Ichor Warding.
We can talk sequencing and decide on my Nurgle turn it happens but on yours it doesn't because the player who's turn it is decides on sequencing.
Or we can look at the rules and be sporting about it... and hope GW fixes that rule in the next version of the Codex.
but then the Ghaz player would be able to cap with wounds in a phase that have been saved by a fnp?
I would play it the way you are saying and I agree but not because I wanted to be sporting, (I mean I do but I just think it's how the rules operate)
With Ghaz it's negated by Makari's wording being different.
"Ghazghkull’s Waaagh! Banner: When a model in a friendly GOFF ORK unit within 6" of this model would lose a wound, and this model is within 3" of a friendly GHAZGHKULL THRAKA unit, roll one D6; on a 6+ that wound is not lost."
cole1114 wrote: With Ghaz it's negated by Makari's wording being different.
"Ghazghkull’s Waaagh! Banner: When a model in a friendly GOFF ORK unit within 6" of this model would lose a wound, and this model is within 3" of a friendly GHAZGHKULL THRAKA unit, roll one D6; on a 6+ that wound is not lost."
you're saying "WOULD lose a wound" is the difference maker?
I think this is less a case of a difference than a case of new, more precise language for the rule. GW has been evolving the language they use in many rules to make them less ambiguous and open to unintended results.
blaktoof wrote: I am going to say if you pass FnP you did not lose a wound.
for FnP type wounds it requires you to be losing wounds to make the roll, however we don't get to make the roll for wounds already lost. I.e. if a model has 6 wounds, suffers 2, fails both FnP rolls, gets shot some more suffers 2 more wounds it is going to make 2 FnP rolls not 4 FnP rolls.
Also if a 1W model suffers a wound, if the FnP roll is made after it loses the wound (going to 0) it would be removed from the table before the roll for FnP, which isn't the case.
Agreed. If you pass the FnP you didnt lose that wound.
alextroy wrote: I think this is less a case of a difference than a case of new, more precise language for the rule. GW has been evolving the language they use in many rules to make them less ambiguous and open to unintended results.
I HOPE that's the case, and I guess we'll see as new Codexes come out. The Marine and Death Guard ones are bound to have some sort of FNP in there, at least.
You cannot take a FnP unless you lose a wound in the first place. If you have a 6 wound model, you go to five, make the FnP, and go back to 6. You still lost a wound. Otherwise you cannot roll a FnP
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You cannot take a FnP unless you lose a wound in the first place. If you have a 6 wound model, you go to five, make the FnP, and go back to 6. You still lost a wound. Otherwise you cannot roll a FnP
To take a page from MTGs book, replacement effects replace the entire event. The event that it replaced is never considered to have happened.
Ummmm - quite simply, the fact that it creates a paradox, makes it unclear. The two counter-arguments in this thread hinge on the effect being either a reversal or an ignoring of that wound, but we're not told which it is.
The model does not lose that wound, so nothing that triggers can be used.
This is your interpretation (and for what it's worth, mine as well) but the rules don't actually back this up.
Super Ready wrote: Ummmm - quite simply, the fact that it creates a paradox, makes it unclear. The two counter-arguments in this thread hinge on the effect being either a reversal or an ignoring of that wound, but we're not told which it is.
The model does not lose that wound, so nothing that triggers can be used.
This is your interpretation (and for what it's worth, mine as well) but the rules don't actually back this up.
False, it is what the RAW actually says.
This is because you can not trigger things off of a wound that was not lost.
If you trigger something other than FNP you are breaking the rules if the FNP roll is succeddful, since the model did not lose a wound.
Super Ready wrote: Ummmm - quite simply, the fact that it creates a paradox, makes it unclear. The two counter-arguments in this thread hinge on the effect being either a reversal or an ignoring of that wound, but we're not told which it is.
The model does not lose that wound, so nothing that triggers can be used.
This is your interpretation (and for what it's worth, mine as well) but the rules don't actually back this up.
False, it is what the RAW actually says.
This is because you can not trigger things off of a wound that was not lost.
If you trigger something other than FNP you are breaking the rules if the FNP roll is succeddful, since the model did not lose a wound.
Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.
That's the wording on Nurgle's FNP. it explicitly triggers when the wound is lost-which is where the confusion lies.
Ghazghkull’s Waaagh! Banner: When a model in a friendly GOFF ORK unit within 6" of this model would lose a wound, and this model is within 3" of a friendly GHAZGHKULL THRAKA unit, roll one D6; on a 6+ that wound is not lost.
This is Makari's FNP-granting aura's wording. Notice how they cleaned it up-you never lose the wound in this case.
Is a strict, RAW reading of the original FNP rules therefore pretty weird, janky, and ambiguous? Yes. Yes it is. Which is why reasonable people can disagree on whether or not something like Ichor Warding works with a successful FNP roll.
If/when all FNP is updated to Makari's wording, then it will be clear. And I think it's reasonable to take that as precedent, and therefore say that Ichor Warding cannot trigger on a successful FNP roll. But RAW is ambiguous.
except as it doesn't say which is triggered first things could be ordered like this:
1:Model loses a wound then
2:Losing wound triggers acidic icor then
3:Losing wound triggers FNP then
4:Model doesn't lose a wound
If it is resolved in that order does that now mean that mean we go backwords and ignore what was already triggered and hurt enemy models? Does FNP have a time machine?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You cannot take a FnP unless you lose a wound in the first place. If you have a 6 wound model, you go to five, make the FnP, and go back to 6. You still lost a wound. Otherwise you cannot roll a FnP
So, a plaguebearer would go to 0 wounds, then go back to 1 wound ? That doesnt work, because the model would be removed from play at 0 wounds.
Vrigor wrote: except as it doesn't say which is triggered first things could be ordered like this: 1:Model loses a wound then 2:Losing wound triggers acidic icor then 3:Losing wound triggers FNP then 4:Model doesn't lose a wound
If it is resolved in that order does that now mean that mean we go backwords and ignore what was already triggered and hurt enemy models? Does FNP have a time machine?
It can not be resolved in that order. If the model did not lose a wound, why did acidic icor trigger?
After FNP the model did not lose a wound. Nothing can trigger off of it. since the model did not lose a wound.
you have to roll FNP first because if you try to trigger anything else, the model would be at 0 wounds and would be removed from play at 0 wounds.
Vrigor wrote: except as it doesn't say which is triggered first things could be ordered like this:
1:Model loses a wound then
2:Losing wound triggers acidic icor then
3:Losing wound triggers FNP then
4:Model doesn't lose a wound
If it is resolved in that order does that now mean that mean we go backwords and ignore what was already triggered and hurt enemy models? Does FNP have a time machine?
It can not be resolved in that order. If the model did not lose a wound, why did acidic icor trigger?
After FNP the model did not lose a wound. Nothing can trigger off of it. since the model did not lose a wound.
you have to roll FNP first because if you try to trigger anything else, the model would be at 0 wounds and would be removed from play at 0 wounds.
Sequencing allows for that version, if the player who's turn it is chooses to do so.
Blndmage wrote: Sequencing allows for that version, if the player who's turn it is chooses to do so.
Unfortunately sequencing does not help.
You need to roll for FNP effects before anything else simply because if you pass the FNP roll nothing else can trigger off the wound as the model does not lose that wound.
If you trigger effects off a wound that a model did not lose, you are breaking the rules.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You cannot take a FnP unless you lose a wound in the first place. If you have a 6 wound model, you go to five, make the FnP, and go back to 6. You still lost a wound. Otherwise you cannot roll a FnP
So, a plaguebearer would go to 0 wounds, then go back to 1 wound ? That doesnt work, because the model would be removed from play at 0 wounds.
No. The model number goes to 0 wounds and back to 1 wound. The rules is "the model does not lose that wound". And yes, that is after the model lost the wound. Here's hoping the Makari wording replaces this more confusing wording.
DeathReaper wrote:
Blndmage wrote: Sequencing allows for that version, if the player who's turn it is chooses to do so.
Unfortunately sequencing does not help.
You need to roll for FNP effects before anything else simply because if you pass the FNP roll nothing else can trigger off the wound as the model does not lose that wound.
If you trigger effects off a wound that a model did not lose, you are breaking the rules.
As much as I wish this was true, the rules actually don't say that. Disgustingly Resilient and Ichor Warding have the same trigger of the model losing a wound. Sequencing does come into effect, which is a crappy way to resolve such a rules interaction (on my turn it works one way, but on your turn a different way because that the way we individually want it to work). I cross my fingers that the Makari wording of if "if this model would lose a wound... the model doesn't lose a wound" replaces the older wording in all future rules. It is even a good candidate for a Rare Rules Interaction.
You need to roll for FNP effects before anything else simply because if you pass the FNP roll nothing else can trigger off the wound as the model does not lose that wound.
You need to roll for FNP effects before anything else simply because if you pass the FNP roll nothing else can trigger off the wound as the model does not lose that wound.
Not sure if logically it should go first. As FNP is like someone that got stabbed in the gut but kept on going through the pain where as someone else could take the same hit and go down screaming in pain, as a model that is removed is not necessarily dead but out of the battle as they can no longer fight. A model in our games could be mortally wounded and will definitely die AFTER our 5 turn battles but was still struggling through the pain and continued to fight. In the instance with Ichor it could be in this way as he TOOK that wound, that pustule was broken and sprayed back at your unit, but it wasn't enough to truely effect him in battle.
But please quote where in the rules it says you do FNP before other effects that are triggered off losing a wound.
You need to roll for FNP effects before anything else simply because if you pass the FNP roll nothing else can trigger off the wound as the model does not lose that wound.
Not sure if logically it should go first. As FNP is like someone that got stabbed in the gut but kept on going through the pain where as someone else could take the same hit and go down screaming in pain, as a model that is removed is not necessarily dead but out of the battle as they can no longer fight.
I was talking about game logic, not real-world scenarios. What would happen in the real world has no bearing on the 40K rules.
A model in our games could be mortally wounded and will definitely die AFTER our 5 turn battles but was still struggling through the pain and continued to fight. In the instance with Ichor it could be in this way as he TOOK that wound, that pustule was broken and sprayed back at your unit, but it wasn't enough to truely effect him in battle.
Do not bring fluff into a rules discussion, it never ends well.
But please quote where in the rules it says you do FNP before other effects that are triggered off losing a wound.
I quoted it before, but here is your rules quote: "Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound." from the Disgustingly resilient rule.
If a model has this rule (or a similar one), then it must be rolled for before we can know if the model loses a wound or not.
DeathReaper wrote: If a model has this rule (or a similar one), then it must be rolled for before we can know if the model loses a wound or not.
This argument has no rules basis. The Acidic Ichor has the exact same trigger wording, you have no grounds for claiming that the FNP roll must go first as per rules.
If you roll for Acidic Ichor and then FNP and the FNP passes, then yes that means you haven't taken a wound and yes that creates a paradox. But as I previously demonstrated, that's no more of a paradox than FNP causes to itself.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You cannot take a FnP unless you lose a wound in the first place. If you have a 6 wound model, you go to five, make the FnP, and go back to 6. You still lost a wound. Otherwise you cannot roll a FnP
So, a plaguebearer would go to 0 wounds, then go back to 1 wound ? That doesnt work, because the model would be removed from play at 0 wounds.
No. The model number goes to 0 wounds and back to 1 wound. The rules is "the model does not lose that wound". And yes, that is after the model lost the wound. Here's hoping the Makari wording replaces this more confusing wording.
P. 221 says a model is removed when it goes to 0 wounds. Therefore it doesnt lose the wound when the FNP roll is successful.
DeathReaper wrote: If a model has this rule (or a similar one), then it must be rolled for before we can know if the model loses a wound or not.
This argument has no rules basis.
False. It follows logically that to know if the model actually loses a wound you need to roll all FNP type things first.
This is the way it worked in 8th and it is the way it works in 8.1. (I mean 9th, though 9th is just 8.1 edition since they did not make any real core changes).
The Acidic Ichor has the exact same trigger wording, you have no grounds for claiming that the FNP roll must go first as per rules.
False again. You do not know if the model has actually taken a wound until you roll for FNP.
If you roll for Acidic Ichor and then FNP and the FNP passes, then yes that means you haven't taken a wound and yes that creates a paradox. But as I previously demonstrated, that's no more of a paradox than FNP causes to itself.
It is not possible to roll for Acidic Ichor first, as at that point you do not know if the model has actually taken a wound until you roll for FNP.
if you pass FnP you did not lose a wound, and as such if you roll for anything triggering off that wound, you are breaking the rules.
As p5freak said, P. 221 says a model is removed when it goes to 0 wounds. if you pass FNP this does not happen, so you do not get removed and nothing else can trigger either.
This is how is was in 8th, and given the wording of Ghazghkull’s Waaagh! Banner, i do not expect it to change, no one should.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You cannot take a FnP unless you lose a wound in the first place. If you have a 6 wound model, you go to five, make the FnP, and go back to 6. You still lost a wound. Otherwise you cannot roll a FnP
So, a plaguebearer would go to 0 wounds, then go back to 1 wound ? That doesnt work, because the model would be removed from play at 0 wounds.
No. The model number goes to 0 wounds and back to 1 wound. The rules is "the model does not lose that wound". And yes, that is after the model lost the wound. Here's hoping the Makari wording replaces this more confusing wording.
P. 221 says a model is removed when it goes to 0 wounds. Therefore it doesnt lose the wound when the FNP roll is successful.
By that logic we shoudn't roll for FnP at all, as the Plaguebearer would have 0 wounds before rolling. Which is why (older) FnP is just such a paradoxical existence
False again. You do not know if the model has actually taken a wound until you roll for FNP.
This is what causes the paradox. If this is the case, you don't have permission to roll for FNP in the first place. Because you can't know whether the model has lost a wound, until you've taken a roll that you haven't yet met conditions for.
If you argue that the act of inflicting damage to a state where a model would take a wound is enough to trigger FNP and allow it happen, you have to also argue that it's enough to trigger Acidic Ichor because it uses the exact same wording that FNP does. You can't have it apply in one case and not the other.
DeathReaper wrote: Basically if the model has a FNP type of rule, once a wound is lost we need to see if the wound is actually lost before we can continue with the game.
Once FNP is rolled, we can trigger other rules if the model still lost a wound.
There is no rules basis for applying this order, though. A common sense one perhaps - but not strict RAW.
Show where the rules say you must/should apply FNP, before applying another rule that has the exact same trigger.
DeathReaper wrote: Basically if the model has a FNP type of rule, once a wound is lost we need to see if the wound is actually lost before we can continue with the game.
Once FNP is rolled, we can trigger other rules if the model still lost a wound.
There is no rules basis for applying this order, though. A common sense one perhaps - but not strict RAW.
Show where the rules say you must/should apply FNP, before applying another rule that has the exact same trigger.
There is logic for applying this order, though.
The rules rules say you must/should apply FNP, before applying another rule that has the exact same trigger by virtue of FNP negating the wound.
Your logic chain is not represented in the rules.
I will admit, it's HIWPI absolutely - but not RAW. And this is why I hope that new wording sticks around beyond just Ghazghkull and Makari.
Except it is. This is because, if the model has a FNP type of rule, once a wound is lost we need to see if the wound is actually lost before we can continue with the game.
I will admit, it's HIWPI absolutely - but not RAW. And this is why I hope that new wording sticks around beyond just Ghazghkull and Makari.
This is also how is was in 8th, and given the wording of Ghazghkull’s Waaagh! Banner, i do not expect it to change, no one should.
I have to say, this has to be one of the best BCB "Rules that break the game" thread links of all time for 9th. If your Great Unclean one fails their save and takes a wound, but then makes a 5+ FNP, the entire universe crosses the streams, and divides by zero, because you cannot simultaneously be "Wounded" and succeed on a FNP at the same time. Glorious.
Let me put this a different way. Here's the wording again:
Disgustingly Resilient: "Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice"
Acidic Ichor: "Roll a dice each time your Warlord loses a wound"
Where in the rules are we told that DR takes timing precedent over AI? Why is it not acceptable to complete the steps for AI, then resolve DR, before the wound is applied?
To accept your stance, I'll need a specific wording from the rules on timing, not a counterpoint about being able to continue the game or not.
Disgustingly Resilient and Ichor Warding have the exact same trigger-to determine which goes first, you'd use sequencing.
It's janky and not RAI, nor HIWPI, but it is RAW.
False.
You would not use sequencing, because Ichor Warding can not trigger if there is not a wound. Disgustingly Resilient makes it so that the model does not lose that wound.
How is Ichor warding being used if the model does not lose that wound?
It is rules interactions like this that make FNP supercede any other rule that triggers off when a "model with this ability loses a wound". Because if FNP is passed, the model does not actually lose the wound. This was the same way in 8th, and with the wording of Ghazghkull’s Waaagh! Banner, I would expect Disgustingly Resilient to be changed to have similar verbiage so there is less confusion.
DeathReaper wrote: It is rules interactions like this that make FNP supercede any other rule that triggers off when a "model with this ability loses a wound". Because if FNP is passed, the model does not actually lose the wound. This was the same way in 8th, and with the wording of Ghazghkull’s Waaagh! Banner, I would expect Disgustingly Resilient to be changed to have similar verbiage so there is less confusion.
If the wording has to be updated, wouldn't that mean that the RAW doesn't do what the RAI is?
If the wording was fine, it wouldn't need to be updated.
JNAProductions wrote: If the wording has to be updated, wouldn't that mean that the RAW doesn't do what the RAI is?
No, FAQ's are clarifications of what the RAW is 99% of the time, only rarely are they rule changes. This is not a situation where the RAW will be changed.
If the wording was fine, it wouldn't need to be updated.
That is of course false. They clarify things all the time without changing how the rule works. Sometimes the wording on the RAW can be confusing so a clarification FAQ can help in most situations.
For example the wording about the interaction between special characters and relics is clear, yet this FAQ exists.
"Q: Can the Honoured Sergeant Stratagem be used to give Sergeant
Chronus a Relic from the Special-issue Wargear Relics?
A: No."
From CODEX SUPPLEMENT: ULTRAMARINES Indomitus Version 1.1 in the FAQ's section. 1st entry.
Deathreaper as you are so adamant you are right, please show us to the location in our rules that when a model loses a wound FNP is the first thing that can be triggered by that. Been asked of you multiple times now in different ways and is the only thing we want to know. Answer that or concede that either or could be triggered first as it is written badly.
90% of the people who play the game have NEVER had this issue. This is rules lawyering at it's best. Convince yourself that you alone know the answer, and call anyone else who disagrees with it wrong.
You have to use sequencing. You cannot roll a FnP without first losing a wound. If you lose a wound you trigger the Acidic thing. Once the attacks are complete, you then roll FnPs. Seriously, this is such a non-issue.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: 90% of the people who play the game have NEVER had this issue. This is rules lawyering at it's best. Convince yourself that you alone know the answer, and call anyone else who disagrees with it wrong.
You have to use sequencing. You cannot roll a FnP without first losing a wound. If you lose a wound you trigger the Acidic thing. Once the attacks are complete, you then roll FnPs. Seriously, this is such a non-issue.
RAW, you can apply the Ichor before the FNP on your turn, since they have the exact same trigger.
Now, with Makari's updated wording as precedence, FNP should happen BEFORE the wound is lost and therefore solves this issue neatly, but most FNP in the game, as-written, is pretty well borked RAW. I agree that it's not an issue in actual play, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved to avoid issues like the sequencing with Ichor.
Vrigor wrote: Deathreaper as you are so adamant you are right, please show us to the location in our rules that when a model loses a wound FNP is the first thing that can be triggered by that. Been asked of you multiple times now in different ways and is the only thing we want to know. Answer that or concede that either or could be triggered first as it is written badly.
I have, several times.
Here it is again:
DeathReaper wrote: ...if the model has a FNP type of rule, once a wound is lost we need to see if the wound is actually lost before we can continue with the game.
I think that this argument is now pointless. DeathReaper is adamant in his position. Most of the people agree that his position is the one they would use for playing. The major point is that the RAW are not explicitly written the way most people want to play them.
To DeathReaper- quoting yourself is not quoting the rules. There is nowhere in any of the rule books that states that FNP takes precedence over any other rule that is triggered by losing a wound. If you can find a rule in the rulebook that does so that would "seal the deal". You may feel that that is the only logical stance but it is not supported by the RAW.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I think that this argument is now pointless. DeathReaper is adamant in his position. Most of the people agree that his position is the one they would use for playing. The major point is that the RAW are not explicitly written the way most people want to play them.
It is supported by the RAW, just not explicitly spelled out. I have already said this though.
To DeathReaper- quoting yourself is not quoting the rules. There is nowhere in any of the rule books that states that FNP takes precedence over any other rule that is triggered by losing a wound. If you can find a rule in the rulebook that does so that would "seal the deal". You may feel that that is the only logical stance but it is not supported by the RAW.
The rules do say FNP takes precedence over any other rule that is triggered by losing a wound by virtue of the FNP wording. It is not explicitly spelled out, but it is a part of the FNP chain of events. but again we have been over this. I have proven why, using logic, FNP needs to be rolled for first.
I personally want FNP to apply first. As that benifits my army. But as written anyone I play against using that brings this up I would be forced to let it go in whatever order they want as nothing in these three pages has proof of what comes first. I’m sure this is about to get locked as we really haven’t added anything new. Hopefully one day in tenth or eleventh edition they will word it right or just faq it.
It's been mentioned that FnP works both RAW and it works if you follow the rules of the game. I think it's important to make the distinction that those are two different things and frankly FnP DOESN'T work RAW we have figured how to use it logically.
My biggest problem with someone trying to trigger both rules at the same time is that it really shows poor intent on their part.
We as a community know that FnP doesn't work mechanically RAW and we all make the concession to roll it before the wound's ticked down. Feels like taking the flexibility that is used to make FnP's work in general and applying it to a one off relic is in poor sport.
RAW if two abilities have the same trigger then sequencing comes into effect - these are the rules, as they are written.
Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound
The mistake is in thinking that "the model does not lose that wound" means "the model never lost the wound".
The original wound-loss isn't cancelled out or overwritten.
So the sequence could be:
Model loses a wound
model performs ability A which occurs when it loses a wound, causing damage
model performs ability B which occurs when it loses a wound, which means it doesn't lose a wound
model no longer loses a wound.
model wants to use ability C which occurs when it loses a wound, but cannot as it no longer has lost a wound.
There is nothing in the rules about abilities which trigger at the same time having to be resolved in a logical order. And there is nothing in the rules about abilities applying their effects retrospectively. You have lost the wound right up until you roll a FNP and instead don't lose it. If you have abilities which can occur in between, with the same trigger, then sequencing occurs.
some bloke wrote: RAW if two abilities have the same trigger then sequencing comes into effect - these are the rules, as they are written.
Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound
The mistake is in thinking that "the model does not lose that wound" means "the model never lost the wound".
The original wound-loss isn't cancelled out or overwritten.
So the sequence could be:
Model loses a wound
model performs ability A which occurs when it loses a wound, causing damage
model performs ability B which occurs when it loses a wound, which means it doesn't lose a wound
model no longer loses a wound.
model wants to use ability C which occurs when it loses a wound, but cannot as it no longer has lost a wound.
There is nothing in the rules about abilities which trigger at the same time having to be resolved in a logical order. And there is nothing in the rules about abilities applying their effects retrospectively. You have lost the wound right up until you roll a FNP and instead don't lose it. If you have abilities which can occur in between, with the same trigger, then sequencing occurs.
Thank you for having the strength to type that up. It's silly that we have to.
Thank you for having the strength to type that up. It's silly that we have to.
Except it is not correct.
Quote the rules. Don’t just give unsupported and false info.
I have, you guys do not follow the logic, so I do not know what more I can say to convince you that unless you actually lose a wound, you cant trigger other abilities.
FNP saves the wound from being lost, so you can not trigger something that triggers on a lost wound.
It is logically just that simple. You can not trigger things off of a wound that was not lost. FNP makes it so that the wound was not lost. I really do not understand how this is not clear to you.
P.S. because of the Disgustingly resilient wording, it shows it needs to happen "Each time a model with this ability loses a wound" If you do something before this, you have broken the rules for Disgustingly resilient.
Disgustingly resilient wording: Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.
Thank you for having the strength to type that up. It's silly that we have to.
Except it is not correct.
Quote the rules. Don’t just give unsupported and false info.
I have, you guys do not follow the logic, so I do not know what more I can say to convince you that unless you actually lose a wound, you cant trigger other abilities.
FNP saves the wound from being lost, so you can not trigger something that triggers on a lost wound.
It is logically just that simple. You can not trigger things off of a wound that was not lost. FNP makes it so that the wound was not lost. I really do not understand how this is not clear to you.
With the UPDATED wording, that's true.
So if a Goff model gets some kind of acid blood ability, then Makari's FNP will prevent it from triggering if successful.
But DR isn't updated yet.
Tell me, which ability triggers first?
The one with this trigger:
Each time a model with this ability loses a wound...
DeathReaper wrote: FNP saves the wound from being lost, so you can not trigger something that triggers on a lost wound.
False. FNPnegates the wound lost - it does not save the wound from being lost. Sv characteristic saves model from being wounded. FNP undoes the wound lost.
Except it does save the wound from being lost. (it is not a save, but it does save wounds from being lost, since "on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.").
DeathReaper wrote: Except it does save the wound from being lost. (it is not a save, but it does save wounds from being lost, since "on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.").
Still doesn't change the fact that the model already lost wound at some point.
If a model that passes a FNP roll and therefore does not lose a wound, then was that model ever eligible to even take a FNP?
DeathReaper wrote: Except it does save the wound from being lost. (it is not a save, but it does save wounds from being lost, since "on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.").
You still had the the same "lost a wound" trigger for FNP that would be able to trigger any other effect that uses the "lost a wound" as a trigger, even if FNP makes it so that the wound wasn't lost (or else you wouldn't have triggered FNP in the first place).
GW probably not wanting it to work this way despite the RAW is most likely why they're starting to roll out alternate wordings to keep from triggering other effects if you prevent the wound loss, but they haven't (yet) just retroactively changed previous FNP wordings wholesale.
Guys, just leave it alone. It's clear he's not going to change his mind, and until GW clarifies this, or he get's told so by a TO who's not a casual player, he's not going to give up. He's wrong, we know it.
Let us imagine we are watching two people playing a game of 40k at their FLGS.
Player is A playing Deathguard.
Player B is playing Tau.
Turn 1 the tau player fires an unit of 10 firewarriors into a plague marine unit, the end result is that the plague marines fail 3 armor saves.
Those models do they then:
A: Roll their "FnP" rolls, any that fail go from 1 to 0 wounds and are removed as casualties.
B: Go from 1 to 0 wounds which triggers being removed as casualties due to the wound being lost which is required for FnP to happen, as it is the Tau players turn they invoke sequencing and pick that to go first. The plague marine player removes the models from the table. They then make 3 FnP rolls, passing 1 but the model has no permission from FnP or any other rule to be placed back on the table.
Which one do you think is the correct following of the RAW?
DeathReaper wrote: Except it does save the wound from being lost. (it is not a save, but it does save wounds from being lost, since "on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.").
Still doesn't change the fact that the model already lost wound at some point.
It does, because once you pass FNP there is no wound.
If a model that passes a FNP roll and therefore does not lose a wound, then was that model ever eligible to even take a FNP?
Your argument creates a causal loop.
FNP creates a paradox, but the FNP rule is written so that paradox happens.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Guys, just leave it alone. It's clear he's not going to change his mind, and until GW clarifies this, or he get's told so by a TO who's not a casual player, he's not going to give up. He's wrong, we know it.
I am not wrong. This is now it worked in 8th, and this is how it works now.
Just because you do not understand the rule does not make me wrong.
Spoiler:
blaktoof wrote: Let us imagine we are watching two people playing a game of 40k at their FLGS.
Player is A playing Deathguard.
Player B is playing Tau.
Turn 1 the tau player fires an unit of 10 firewarriors into a plague marine unit, the end result is that the plague marines fail 3 armor saves.
Those models do they then:
A: Roll their "FnP" rolls, any that fail go from 1 to 0 wounds and are removed as casualties.
B: Go from 1 to 0 wounds which triggers being removed as casualties due to the wound being lost which is required for FnP to happen, as it is the Tau players turn they invoke sequencing and pick that to go first. The plague marine player removes the models from the table. They then make 3 FnP rolls, passing 1 but the model has no permission from FnP or any other rule to be placed back on the table.
Which one do you think is the correct following of the RAW?
DeathReaper wrote: Except it does save the wound from being lost. (it is not a save, but it does save wounds from being lost, since "on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.").
Still doesn't change the fact that the model already lost wound at some point.
It does, because once you pass FNP there is no wound.
But how can you "un-lose" something unless you lost it in the first place? Negating the effect of the previous (losing a wound) does not mean that it was never lost in the first place.
The given rules text does not support your claim of "if a model lost a wound and subsequently had it negated, the model is not considered to have lost a wound for the purpose of any other rule" in RAW. The latter portion is merely 'how I would interpret the text'.
DeathReaper wrote: Except it does save the wound from being lost. (it is not a save, but it does save wounds from being lost, since "on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.").
Still doesn't change the fact that the model already lost wound at some point.
It does, because once you pass FNP there is no wound.
But how can you "un-lose" something unless you lost it in the first place? Negating the effect of the previous (losing a wound) does not mean that it was never lost in the first place.
The given rules text does not support your claim of "if a model lost a wound and subsequently had it negated, the model is not considered to have lost a wound for the purpose of any other rule" in RAW. The latter portion is merely 'how I would interpret the text'.
Because if a 1 wound model lost the wound, they would be removed, which is not the case if FNP was successful. So they must not have lost the wound. Basically FNP negates the wound.
There is literally no FAQ or update, where the dev's support the idea that a successful FnP equates to the model never having been wounded in the first place. It was intended to prevent death of models, not prevent the activation of abilities. Show me one FAQ where the devs support the claim "If a model successfully rolls their FnP, treat the wound as if it never happened, for all intents and purposes."
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: There is literally no FAQ or update, where the dev's support the idea that a successful FnP equates to the model never having been wounded in the first place. It was intended to prevent death of models, not prevent the activation of abilities. Show me one FAQ where the devs support the claim "If a model successfully rolls their FnP, treat the wound as if it never happened, for all intents and purposes."
The FNP rule says that by saying "the model does not lose that wound."
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: There is literally no FAQ or update, where the dev's support the idea that a successful FnP equates to the model never having been wounded in the first place. It was intended to prevent death of models, not prevent the activation of abilities. Show me one FAQ where the devs support the claim "If a model successfully rolls their FnP, treat the wound as if it never happened, for all intents and purposes."
The FNP rule says that by saying "the model does not lose that wound."
That doesn't say that, as you've already had the same trigger that activates FNP as you do for other abilities that trigger on losing a wound. Given that they trigger at the same time, there would have to be a statement of the other abilities being "untriggered", or a rewording of FNP like Makkari has that avoids saying you lost the wound before you roll FNP.
DeathReaper wrote: Except it does save the wound from being lost. (it is not a save, but it does save wounds from being lost, since "on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.").
Still doesn't change the fact that the model already lost wound at some point.
It does, because once you pass FNP there is no wound.
But how can you "un-lose" something unless you lost it in the first place? Negating the effect of the previous (losing a wound) does not mean that it was never lost in the first place.
The given rules text does not support your claim of "if a model lost a wound and subsequently had it negated, the model is not considered to have lost a wound for the purpose of any other rule" in RAW. The latter portion is merely 'how I would interpret the text'.
Because if a 1 wound model lost the wound, they would be removed, which is not the case if FNP was successful. So they must not have lost the wound. Basically FNP negates the wound.
FNP is merely a specific, non core mechanic that overrides the normal sequence for dealing with removing Wounds from models.
skchsan wrote: FNP is merely a specific, non core mechanic that overrides the normal sequence for dealing with removing Wounds from models.
This much, I agree with. And on that basis, I don't really agree with the RAW interpretation that causes dead models to not be able to apply FNP at all.
However, this thinking also dictates that Acidic Ichor (and their ilk) also interrupt the normal sequence for dealing with removing Wounds - because the alternative is that the ability cannot be followed if the model it belongs to isn't on the tabletop.
This leaves two positions you can take:
- either all rules which trigger on losing a Wound are taken simultaneously and are therefore subject to sequencing, as we have no other rules to dictate order of application, or
- any form of FNP (besides Ghazzy) is somehow considered different and must be applied first - this position I disagree with per RAW, because it has no wording to back it up.
That second position becomes extra precarious when you realise that we're using FNP to determine a bunch of similar rules that actually have completely different names - what's the argument that all those different rules with that wording, get to go first before all the other non-FNP rules with similar wording?
"Rules As Logical" isn't a thing. There's "Rules As Written" and "Rules As Intended". Logically, you don't drive intercontinental ballistic missiles to the front lines to fire them - in 40k, you do. Logic is irrelevant, so please, please stop trying to use it as RAW.
Here's the Sequencing section:
the image might not be working so here's the text:
Sequencing wrote:
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 "before the battle begins". When this happens, 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 battle round, the players roll off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved.
So, sequencing happens when 2 rules would happen at the same time. For example:
Disgustingly Resilient wrote:
Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.
Ichor Warding wrote:
Roll a dice each time your Warlord loses a wound in the Fight phase. On a 4+ the unit that inflicted that wound is splashed by acidic ichor and suffers a mortal wound after all of its own attacks have been resolved.
So we have 2 rules, the effects of which are irrelevant, which take place between the model losing a wound and the model being removed as a casualty. There is no "only one event may take place between being wounded and removed" rule, so we can apply both, in an order chosen by the active player, as per sequencing.
Arguing that if you don't do FnP first the model dies is like saying that if a unit is hit by a weapon which has 2 effects on a hit (EG the unit being shot has an effect and the unit shooting has an effect) then you will lose the "roll to wound" stage if you perform both actions.
You don't progress from "The model loses a wound" to "remove the model" until every ability or effect which takes place "when the model loses a wound" has been resolved, in any order (as chosen by the active player).
DeathReaper wrote: Except it does save the wound from being lost. (it is not a save, but it does save wounds from being lost, since "on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.").
Still doesn't change the fact that the model already lost wound at some point.
It does, because once you pass FNP there is no wound.
But how can you "un-lose" something unless you lost it in the first place? Negating the effect of the previous (losing a wound) does not mean that it was never lost in the first place.
The given rules text does not support your claim of "if a model lost a wound and subsequently had it negated, the model is not considered to have lost a wound for the purpose of any other rule" in RAW. The latter portion is merely 'how I would interpret the text'.
Because if a 1 wound model lost the wound, they would be removed, which is not the case if FNP was successful. So they must not have lost the wound. Basically FNP negates the wound.
FNP is merely a specific, non core mechanic that overrides the normal sequence for dealing with removing Wounds from models.
The specific vs general, basic vs advanced, and BRB vs codex are no longer valid forms of determining when something takes precedence. A rule for something is always in effect unless another rule gives permission to specifically ignore something else. We cannot ignore that models being reduced to 0 wounds are removed from the rule for "ignoring wounds". The rules themselves do not give us a precedence for when you can ignore something or not as they had in previous editions, in fact the sequencing section does not give in precedence to when a rule can be ignored or sequenced based on how specific vs general it is or any other metric other than they occur at the same time in the game.
If you think the model is reduced in wounds before FnP types rules happen you have to accept that all rules that would occur at that time will occur and less a rule specifically calls out something happening or not happening, "ignoring wounds" does not specifically call out models can ignore being removed from the table when reduced to 0 wounds or less before making the "ignoring wounds roll" ergo that is a valid sequencing event that happens at the same time by the rules as written.
FNP doesnt ignore anything though. It just provides an extra step after "A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers", and before "If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0 or less, it is destroyed and removed from play," hence it overrides the normal sequence.
The before if a models reduced to 0 or less is your opinion, the actual text of the ignoring wounds doesn't have any of that language or indicate it should come before or after that event. Both events are triggered by a model losing a wound.
So I think deathreaper is a troll fyi. Breaking news I know but even though I agree with his take on the fnp's I don't agree with his reasoning. We don't need common sense or logic to play 40k, RAW things work fine 99% of the time.
I think the biggest point that hasn't been addressed is that, RAW, FNP drops the wound before you roll for FNP and thus the model would be removed before the ability could do its magic. That's not RAI obviously or how anyone plays it but I don't think it's a useful debate to say it's anything but that.
To those that think ichor works alongside a saved FNP simply HAVE to concede that FNP's function not based on the RAW but by a gameplay contract among players. It's been worded like that for literal years and has already been discussed on this forum a ton. My point is that if a player claimed ichor triggers alongside the already broken FNP "sequencing" they are taking advantage of said contract.
On TOP of that it's pretty evident with Makari's wording (which is, I think, the most recent FNP type rule) they will be fixing the previous books.
NOBODY can argue that if a GUO had a Makari type FNP they would trigger ichor.
I did not realize what this is on had 18 wounds. with avg rolls(and all done in the fight phase) if both affected at the same time hes doing 12 mortal wounds before he dies. Personally never seen a GUO reach melee combat but that is a bit much. But maybe they wanted him to be a scary demon that no sane character would want to charge....
blaktoof wrote: The before if a models reduced to 0 or less is your opinion, the actual text of the ignoring wounds doesn't have any of that language or indicate it should come before or after that event. Both events are triggered by a model losing a wound.
Purposely opting for the worst possible reading of the RAW is on you and you only.
Take a model with 1W w/ FNP taking 6 damage. When do you stop rolling for FNP? The moment it fails the FNP and the damage is resolved as normal (which would result in W=0 and subsequently removed from play).
What if it was done after allocating all 6 damage and removing the model from play first? Then you are rolling for FNP once for all 6 damage, not to mention it violates the clause that tells you to roll each time it loses a wound.
So "normal" reading of the English text would indicate that FNP happens after "A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers", and before "If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0 or less, it is destroyed and removed from play." It's not a matter of opinion. It's basic reading comprehension.
If we follow your logic, then no 1W model can ever proc FNP, and it fails to proc for multi wound model if damage received in a single shooting/fight equals or is greater than the remaining wounds.
If we follow your logic that models have to actually lose the wound as in go from 1-0 this is the rules consequence not mine.
There is no way to read that a model being reduced to 0 wounds is not removed from at as part of that reduction, if you are implying there is some instance of game time between those two events it is surely not written anywhere, there cero is no permission within the rules for ignoring wounds to not remove models that would have 0 wounds left after losing wounds to save and then rolling for ignoring wounds somehow giving them wounds back, sorry that is just not written.
Either models lose all the wounds from "lose wounds" before FnP and are somehow gaining wounds back by passing them, or models are at risk of losing wounds and we are ignoring them if FnP is passed and only lose the ones failed.
Given the rules literally say "ignore wounds" my RAI is that the the wounds are never taken off the model until it fails the ignore wounds roll- and those failures are the actual wounds lost.
I would be more than happy to let someone get some extra damage from their unit traits and relics from wounds the models didn't actually lose if I can deny them FnP if they get taken to 0 wounds however
The first has lots of consequences one of which is models reduced to 0 wounds on their opponents turn have to be removed from play from those wounds being lost. If that opponents opts to sequence that first, the model would be removed as a casualty before FnP rolls.
The text gives you how damage is resolved once the save is failed - 'lose 1 wound per 1 damage'.
The FNP rule gives you additional provision on how to resolve the damage: damage causes wound loss, in case of any wound loss, then at each wound loss roll to see whether or not to actually subtract 1 wound for each 1 damage.
FNP text does not give you any provisions for proccing when a "model is at risk of losing wounds". It state "each time a model with this ability loses a wound." Hence, in order to invoke FNP the model HAS TO HAVE lost a wound.
skchsan wrote: The text gives you how damage is resolved once the save is failed - 'lose 1 wound per 1 damage'.
The FNP rule gives you additional provision on how to resolve the damage: damage causes wound loss, in case of any wound loss, then at each wound loss roll to see whether or not to subtract 1 wound for each 1 damage.
FNP text does not give you any provisions for proccing when a "model is at risk of losing wounds". It state "each time a model with this ability loses a wound." Hence, in order to invoke FNP the model HAS TO HAVE lost a wound.
FnP also doesn't say anything about giving models back wounds, it says ignore wounds.
A model going from 1 to 0 wounds has lost a wound. Rolling FnP happens when you lose a wound, but then allows you to ignore the wound lost. That doesn't read the same as gives you the wound back. So if the model with 1 wound goes to 0 wounds, where in ignore wounds does it say it gets the wound back? If the wound loss is ignored, did the model actually lose the wound ever?
RAW "Ignore wounds" doesn't actually ignore wounds. It is written that you have to lose a wound, which most people read as a model going from 1 to 0 wounds, but it then says you ignore the wound. That is not the same as getting a wound back for each FnP roll you pass.
If ignoring the wound means there is some paradox in that the model never lost the wound, i.e. it was ignore then the model never lost the wound. That text is not actually part of the rules.
A RAW following of Ignore wounds does nothing, you lose the wound, but it doesnt RAW give you wounds back.
Your reading of Ignore wounds is RAI, as is mine. I don't think your RAI is invalid, I just think if you play that way you have the consequence that if a model would be reduced to 0 wounds it is removed as a casualty, and there is no rule in ignore wounds dealing with that event which happens at the same time- so there is no permission to ignore that. Sequencing of that results in any model with FnP type rules that is reduced to 0 wounds during the opposing players turn can be denied making those rolls. I don't think that's how that should occur, but it is a rules as written sequencing consequence of those interactions which occur at the same event.
It doesn't say it ignores the wound. It simply states "that wound is not lost".
You're saying that the following is wrong: [Wound] - 1 (from being damaged) + 1 (wound 'retrieved' via FNP) because the rules don't give you permission to "add back" the wound. That's not what the argument is. I do agree this is wrong.
FNP interaction as I parse the rules is: [Wound] - {1 (from being damaged) x [if(FNP=PASS,0,1)]}
The main issue I have with your argument is that it asserts the model is not considered to have lost a wound for the purpose of all other rules interaction once the wound has been 'not lost' via FNP. There is nothing in the RAW that supports this assertion. RAW, lost wound can be un-lost via FNP. That's it. Any further 'understanding' (i.e. 'well, obviously if something was undone, that must've mean it didn't happen.') muddles the validity of any RAW based argument.
1: Models lose 1 wound for each damage inflicted
2: Models reduced to 0 wounds are slain and removed from play
We have abilities which are evoked "When a model loses a wound" and we have abilities which are evoked "before the model is removed from play"
So with FnP, we have this:
1: Models lose 1 wound for each damage inflicted
1.1: Models roll FnP for each wound lost and if they roll a 5+ then the wound is not lost.
2: Models reduced to 0 wounds are slain and removed from play
Then adding in extra rules which go off at the same time, via the rules for sequencing, we get:
1: Models lose 1 wound for each damage inflicted
1.1a: Models roll FnP for each wound lost and if they roll a 5+ then the wound is not lost.
1.1b: Roll a dice for each wound lost and on a 4+ inflict mortal wounds.
2: Models reduced to 0 wounds are slain and removed from play
With 1.1a and 1.1b going in whichever order the active player chooses due to sequencing, as they have the same triggers
It then gets more complex, but still in an easily understood order supported by the rules, by being broken down to accommodate things such as "explodes" or "only in death", where an event takes place between being slain and removed as a casualty:
1: Models lose 1 wound for each damage inflicted
1.1a: Models roll FnP for each wound lost and if they roll a 5+ then the wound is not lost.
1.1b: Roll a dice for each wound lost and on a 4+ inflict mortal wounds.
2: Models reduced to 0 wounds are slain...
2.1a: Roll a D6 and on a 6, all models within 6" suffer D3 mortal wounds
2.1b: Make a Shooting or Close Combat attack
2.2 ...and removed from play
It's really not a complex thing to understand - you have 2 abilities which must be resolved between "losing a wound" and "if wounds = 0, remove from play". The active player chooses the order. And one of those abilities can remove the trigger for the other - so player 1 will choose a then b, and player 2 will choose b then a.
In the same way as if you had 2 abilities, one of which stipulated "you can immediately shoot" and the other said "you can do this, but may not shoot until your next turn", and they both went off at the same time, then you would shoot first, then deny yourself further shooting. Doing it the other way around would be foolish.
Again there is no explicit wording to pause or put some time interval for a model being reduced to 0 wounds being removed- that is something you as players are reading as intended.
There are multiple rules that say something happens when a model loses a wound.
You personally have decided that SOME of these rules happen before the FnP roll and some after. Where did you read the rules that allow you to put some before and some after?
This isn't an obtuse reading of the rule. This is simply saying that if something happens when a model loses a wound it is occurring at the same time as something that happens when a model loses a wound. You somehow think that the event that happens when a model loses enough wounds to go to 0 wounds has some special timing that makes it a different point in the time of the game, as if the first four wounds a model with 5 wounds lose are somehow different than the last one that takes it to zero. We both know that last one is different because when that last wound happens the model is removed from the table- yet somehow you think that event from a wound loss happens at some other time then other events that happen when a model loses a wound without there being any written text to support that anywhere.
How is that a different stance than the FnP roll happens first before other events from losing a wound? Both have arbitrarily decided the RAI are that this particular event happens before or after other events that happen when a model loses a wound without any rules support.
There are multiple rules that say something happens when a model loses a wound.
You personally have decided that SOME of these rules happen before the FnP roll and some after. Where did you read the rules that allow you to put some before and some after?
Sequencing.
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – e.g. ‘at the start of the battle round’ or ‘at the end of the Fight phase’. When this happens during the battle, the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the battle, or at the start or end of a battle round, the players roll off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved.
You get to choose in which order the rules are resolved.
There are multiple rules that say something happens when a model loses a wound.
You personally have decided that SOME of these rules happen before the FnP roll and some after. Where did you read the rules that allow you to put some before and some after?
Sequencing.
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that
two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – e.g. ‘at the
start of the battle round’ or ‘at the end of the Fight phase’. When this
happens during the battle, the player whose turn it is chooses the
order. If these things occur before or after the battle, or at the start
or end of a battle round, the players roll off and the winner decides
in what order the rules are resolved.
You get to choose in which order the rules are resolved.
Exactly, so if FnP happens after a models wounds go from 1 to 0, then the active player can remove the model from the table before the FnP rolls.
FNP triggers upon 'loss of wound'. Removal from board triggers upon 'wound is equal to or less than 0'. They have different triggers so you may not sequence the two.
'Loss of wound' does not occur at the same instance of 'wound is equal to or less than 0'. The latter is subsequent step check after the former has been established.
skchsan wrote: FNP triggers upon 'loss of wound'. Removal from board triggers upon 'wound is equal to or less than 0'. They have different triggers so you may not sequence the two.
'Loss of wound' does not occur at the same instance of 'wound is equal to or less than 0'. The latter is subsequent step after the former has been established.
Actually being told to remove a model if it reaches 0 wounds is not a different step like it was in 8th edition. It is all in step 5. Inflict damage. The relevant part reads "A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers. If a model's wounds are reduced to 0 or less, it is destroyed and removed from play."
Just curious how long do models stay on the board for when they lose a wound taking them to 0 wounds? Is the line about them being removed tied to some other event than the loss of that wound?
There are multiple rules that say something happens when a model loses a wound.
You personally have decided that SOME of these rules happen before the FnP roll and some after. Where did you read the rules that allow you to put some before and some after?
Sequencing.
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – e.g. ‘at the start of the battle round’ or ‘at the end of the Fight phase’. When this happens during the battle, the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the battle, or at the start or end of a battle round, the players roll off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved.
You get to choose in which order the rules are resolved.
Exactly, so if FnP happens after a models wounds go from 1 to 0, then the active player can remove the model from the table before the FnP rolls.
No, because the model loses a wounds, and then models which have been reduced to 0 wounds are removed. FNP is resolved in the middle of this - thus it goes "Model loses wound, FNP is resolved, models reduced to 0 wounds are removed".
The last thing you do is to remove models with 0 wounds, as after this, there is no model with which to do things. So yes, there is a point in time where a model has both been reduced to 0 wounds and yet is still on the table.
Let's look at another "when a model is reduced to 0 wounds" thing: Transports:
1: Model loses wounds 1.1: Model attempts any FNP it might have 2: Model is "Destroyed" (I missed this step before!) 2.1: Model rolls to see if it explodes 2.2: Units disembark 2.3: Disembarked units roll to see if models die 3: Model is removed from play
So your normal steps, without special rules, are:
1: Model loses wounds 2: Models reduced to 0 wounds or less are destroyed 3: Models Destroyed are removed from play
So there's even an intermediate step between FnP and removing the model, in which the model becomes "destroyed", triggering effects which happen if it is destroyed, such as Crash & Burn, and explodes.
So now FNP slots in thus:
1: Model loses wounds 1.1: Roll FNP for each wound, 5+ it is does not take the wound 2: Models reduced to 0 wounds or less are destroyed 3: Models destroyed are removed from play
So if you have another rule, EG ichor, you can do it thus:
1: Model loses wounds 1.1a: Roll FNP for each wound, 5+ it is does not take the wound 1.1b: Roll a dice for each wound lost, on a 4+ cause mortal wounds 2: Models reduced to 0 wounds or less are destroyed 3: Models destroyed are removed from play
or you can do it thus:
1: Model loses wounds 1.1b: Roll a dice for each wound lost, on a 4+ cause mortal wounds 1.1a: Roll FNP for each wound, 5+ it is does not take the wound 2: Models reduced to 0 wounds or less are destroyed 3: Models destroyed are removed from play
Models being removed from 0 wounds is the same step as inflict damage, there is no actual rule that tells us it's the last step. All of those sequencing rules you have listed may be what you think the rules are intended to do but there is no actual wording that allows you to separate out removing them as casualties when they lose a wound going to 0 wounds as some different event than others from losing a wound.
As written Everytime a model loses a wound if it's wounds would go to 0 it is removed from play for losing that wound at that moment. There is no wording to say it is removed after all other events from losing that wound or at some other time in the combat sequence.
blaktoof wrote: Models being removed from 0 wounds is the same step as inflict damage, there is no actual rule that tells us it's the last step.
Yes, and GW doesn't tell me I can't use a dice numbered all 6's.
Again, most logical application of the RAW != RAI.
How can you possibly determine whether wound has gone to 0 if you didn't resolve whether or not the damage is actually resolved as normal?
The same way you are determining a model loses wounds, which could include losing wounds going to 0, wounds to trigger Ichor Blood or any similar rule that rule that happens when a model loses a wound.
blaktoof wrote: Models being removed from 0 wounds is the same step as inflict damage, there is no actual rule that tells us it's the last step. All of those sequencing rules you have listed may be what you think the rules are intended to do but there is no actual wording that allows you to separate out removing them as casualties when they lose a wound going to 0 wounds as some different event than others from losing a wound.
As written Everytime a model loses a wound if it's wounds would go to 0 it is removed from play for losing that wound at that moment. There is no wording to say it is removed after all other events from losing that wound or at some other time in the combat sequence.
yes, but technically there's nothing saying to stop at any point in the game for special rules. The rules aren't:
1: Pick a target
2: check for rules which are triggered by picking a target
3: Roll to hit
4: Check for rules which are triggered when rolling to hit
etc....
They make the assumption that the trigger point for the rule (In this case, "When a model with this rule loses a wound") is enough for us to know when to inject the rule.
So going into the "inflict damage" section of the rules:
The damage inflicted is equal to the Damage (D) characteristic of
the weapon making the attack. A model loses one wound for each
point of damage it suffers. If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0 or
less, it is destroyed and removed from play. If a model loses several
wounds from an attack and is destroyed, any excess damage inflicted
by that attack is lost and has no effect.
So we know to insert FnP "when the model loses a wound". Reading this text, we can see that the models first lose wounds for each point of damage suffered. Then there's a full stop, which further illustrates this as a separate step. Then, if they are reduced to 0 wounds or less, they are destroyed and removed from play. So, by injecting FnP's rules into the rules, where we know todo so:
Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.
added in gives us:
The damage inflicted is equal to the Damage (D) characteristic of
the weapon making the attack. A model loses one wound for each
point of damage it suffers. for each wound roll a dice; on a 5+,
the model does not lose that wound. If a model’s wounds are
reduced to 0 or less, it is destroyed and removed from play. If a model
loses several wounds from an attack and is destroyed, any excess
damage inflicted by that attack is lost and has no effect.
and adding ichor, in the order the GUO player would want:
Roll a dice each time your Warlord loses a wound in the Fight phase. On a 4+ the unit that inflicted that wound is splashed by acidic ichor and suffers a mortal wound after all of its own attacks have been resolved.
The damage inflicted is equal to the Damage (D) characteristic of
the weapon making the attack. A model loses one wound for each
point of damage it suffers.Roll a dice each time your Warlord
loses a wound in the Fight phase. On a 4+ the unit that inflicted that
wound is splashed by acidic ichor and suffers a mortal wound after
all of its own attacks have been resolved. for each wound roll a
dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound. If a model’s
wounds are reduced to 0 or less, it is destroyed and removed from
play. If a model loses several wounds from an attack and is destroyed,
any excess damage inflicted by that attack is lost and has no effect.
You don't roll FNP when a model is reduced to 0 wounds, or when a model suffers a wound and all other effects of having suffered a wound, including being removed from play, are resolved. You do so as soon as you lose a wound - stop everything, I just lost a wound and have to do this right now. Same with Ichor - thus sequencing comes into play. After everything which happens "when you lose a wound" has been resolved, continue through the rule to "models with 0 wounds are destroyed and removed".
When does FNP trigger? After "inflict Damage", or after "A model loses a wound"?
No, removing a model is done when a model is destroyed.
A model is destroyed when it is reduced to 0 wounds.
A model is reduced to 0 wounds when it suffers a wound (it's last one).
A model rolls FNP when it loses a wound; not when it's destroyed, or when it's removed. These things take place afterwards - FNP has either been resolved or been skipped when you get to "the model is destroyed".
some bloke wrote: No, removing a model is done when a model is destroyed.
A model is destroyed when it is reduced to 0 wounds.
A model is reduced to 0 wounds when it suffers a wound (it's last one).
A model rolls FNP when it loses a wound; not when it's destroyed, or when it's removed. These things take place afterwards - FNP has either been resolved or been skipped when you get to "the model is destroyed".
And then he's going to hit you with "WelL iT DoeSnT s4Y th4t AnywaRe in thE rUleBooK." rebuttal.
some bloke wrote: No, removing a model is done when a model is destroyed.
A model is destroyed when it is reduced to 0 wounds.
A model is reduced to 0 wounds when it suffers a wound (it's last one).
A model rolls FNP when it loses a wound; not when it's destroyed, or when it's removed. These things take place afterwards - FNP has either been resolved or been skipped when you get to "the model is destroyed".
And then he's going to hit you with "WelL iT DoeSnT s4Y th4t AnywaRe in thE rUleBooK." rebuttal.
ah, but then I have this ready to go:
thE rUleBooK wrote:
The damage inflicted is equal to the Damage (D) characteristic of
the weapon making the attack. A model loses one wound for each
point of damage it suffers. If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0 or
less, it is destroyed and removed from play. If a model loses several
wounds from an attack and is destroyed, any excess damage inflicted
by that attack is lost and has no effect.
In order (chant it with me, lads!):
1: The model loses one wound for each point of damage suffered
2: If a model's wounds are reduced to 0 or less, it is destroyed and removed from play
You do realize the period separating those two statements does not make one happen at another time, it still happens during that step of inflict damage when the model loses a wound. It is possible for multiple events to happen at the same time and the writers of the game may use the English language in a manner to separate out the statements of things happening at the same time.
A model being removed as a casualty when it loses wounds and goes to 0 wounds is what happens during the inflict damage step, you and some other posters are creating some substeps during that step and arbitrarily assigning some events that happen when a model loses a wound to take precedence over others for some advantage, it is not actually how the rules are written.
blaktoof wrote: The before if a models reduced to 0 or less is your opinion, the actual text of the ignoring wounds doesn't have any of that language or indicate it should come before or after that event. Both events are triggered by a model losing a wound.
Purposely opting for the worst possible reading of the RAW is on you and you only.
Take a model with 1W w/ FNP taking 6 damage. When do you stop rolling for FNP? The moment it fails the FNP and the damage is resolved as normal (which would result in W=0 and subsequently removed from play).
What if it was done after allocating all 6 damage and removing the model from play first? Then you are rolling for FNP once for all 6 damage, not to mention it violates the clause that tells you to roll each time it loses a wound.
So "normal" reading of the English text would indicate that FNP happens after "A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers", and before "If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0 or less, it is destroyed and removed from play." It's not a matter of opinion. It's basic reading comprehension.
If we follow your logic, then no 1W model can ever proc FNP, and it fails to proc for multi wound model if damage received in a single shooting/fight equals or is greater than the remaining wounds.
raw this is how it is worded. thats why the wording has changed. It's more of a stretch (in a purely RAW debating over rules way) to assume you roll fnp in between although that's how everyone plays it.
why do you think other abilities that happen after a model is removed from play have been worded specifically so they function once the model no longer exists? (gman, celestine, sob strat)
everyone has agreed since begining of 8th that, strictly speaking, fnp is broken.
1: Models lose 1 wound for each damage inflicted 2: Models reduced to 0 wounds are slain and removed from play
We have abilities which are evoked "When a model loses a wound" and we have abilities which are evoked "before the model is removed from play"
So with FnP, we have this:
1: Models lose 1 wound for each damage inflicted 1.1: Models roll FnP for each wound lost and if they roll a 5+ then the wound is not lost. 2: Models reduced to 0 wounds are slain and removed from play
Then adding in extra rules which go off at the same time, via the rules for sequencing, we get:
1: Models lose 1 wound for each damage inflicted 1.1a: Models roll FnP for each wound lost and if they roll a 5+ then the wound is not lost. 1.1b: Roll a dice for each wound lost and on a 4+ inflict mortal wounds. 2: Models reduced to 0 wounds are slain and removed from play
With 1.1a and 1.1b going in whichever order the active player chooses due to sequencing, as they have the same triggers
It then gets more complex, but still in an easily understood order supported by the rules, by being broken down to accommodate things such as "explodes" or "only in death", where an event takes place between being slain and removed as a casualty:
1: Models lose 1 wound for each damage inflicted 1.1a: Models roll FnP for each wound lost and if they roll a 5+ then the wound is not lost. 1.1b: Roll a dice for each wound lost and on a 4+ inflict mortal wounds. 2: Models reduced to 0 wounds are slain... 2.1a: Roll a D6 and on a 6, all models within 6" suffer D3 mortal wounds 2.1b: Make a Shooting or Close Combat attack 2.2 ...and removed from play
It's really not a complex thing to understand - you have 2 abilities which must be resolved between "losing a wound" and "if wounds = 0, remove from play". The active player chooses the order. And one of those abilities can remove the trigger for the other - so player 1 will choose a then b, and player 2 will choose b then a. In the same way as if you had 2 abilities, one of which stipulated "you can immediately shoot" and the other said "you can do this, but may not shoot until your next turn", and they both went off at the same time, then you would shoot first, then deny yourself further shooting. Doing it the other way around would be foolish.
I agree it would be foolish in the sense that the game wouldn't function but literally nothing in this post is supporting the rules. There isn't some sequencing map which you refer to. I can't believe people are defending broken FNP wording actual years later.
I've seen enough of Deathreaper around here to know they're not trolling.
A little stubborn in terms of accepting other interpretations, perhaps - but that's different. (Nothing personal, DR.)
In any case, I think we're all agreed on the RAI / HIWPI here. What some of us are saying is that it's the RAW that's broken - and while you do need to apply logic in order to make FNP useful at all, that logic doesn't gel with the timing of the Wound loss ruling in this instance. As has been pointed out, the removal of models should happen in the same step as inflicting damage from a timing perspective, and the old-style wording of FNP rules don't do anything to mitigate that.
Of course it's broken and horribly wrong, I haven't seen anyone say they'd actually try and pull this on the tabletop. What we're saying is, GW needed to get their writing s@!* together sooner. I'm not sure why the debate over that got so heated.
blaktoof wrote: You do realize the period separating those two statements does not make one happen at another time, it still happens during that step of inflict damage when the model loses a wound. It is possible for multiple events to happen at the same time and the writers of the game may use the English language in a manner to separate out the statements of things happening at the same time.
A model being removed as a casualty when it loses wounds and goes to 0 wounds is what happens during the inflict damage step, you and some other posters are creating some substeps during that step and arbitrarily assigning some events that happen when a model loses a wound to take precedence over others for some advantage, it is not actually how the rules are written.
So what you are saying is that the entire step is done in one part, IE:
1: Models lose 1 wound per damage, and if they are reduced to 0 or less wounds, they are destroyed and removed from play.
In which case, you are saying that you would never use FNP, as FNP takes place "when the model loses a wound" and that you do not have permission to stop at that point? Surely this is exactly what the FNP rule permits?
Rules are made up of 2 things (generally); Timing, and effect. "When X happens, perform Y". FNP is worded like this: "When a model with this rule loses a wound, roll a D6 and on a 5+ the model does not lose a wound". When do they lose a wound? It's not after determining whether they are reduced to 0 or less, it's before!
I agree it would be foolish in the sense that the game wouldn't function but literally nothing in this post is supporting the rules. There isn't some sequencing map which you refer to. I can't believe people are defending broken FNP wording actual years later.
But it is supported by the rules - the rules clearly state that you lose a wound per damage - and stop right there! that's the trigger for Feel No Pain - "When the model loses a wound" - the model lost a wound, so time for FNP! It doesn't matter whether the rule continues with "models with 0 wounds are removed" or "if a model is reduced to -5 wounds then both players must form an impromptu mariachi band". FNP, and Ichor, both trigger when a model loses a wound. They do so part-way through "inflict damage". Nothing says "if a section of the rules is written in a single paragraph, then that paragraph must be completed before any other effects can take place", does it?
Please can someone explain to me where in the rules it prevents us from stopping at the phrase "A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers" to resolve effects which are triggered "When a model loses a wound"?
Hit again with the "Because it doesn't say to do that. You are making up a new substep that doesn't exist".
Basic reading comprehension of the written text is RAW, just as an intentionally perverse reading of the written text is also RAW.
By continuing to insist that it must be written in the rulebook, step by step, in order for it to be legal, then none of the codex rules actually work because it only gives you the rules and doesn't tell you how to "insert a new subphase that didnt exist in the rulebook".
As others are noted, we know HIWPI or more exactly how just about everybody plays this. I will just refer everyone to the simple idea: given multiple ways to interpret how a rule works, always take one that allows the rule to work over one that doesn't.
Bumpity-bump! So, a bunch of new FAQs have just dropped to update supplements, and it looks like what some of us hoped is coming to pass. The standard wording seems to be changing to "when a model would lose a wound".
Example from Blood Angels' stratagem "Refusal To Die":
"Until the end of that phase, when a model in that unit would lose a wound, roll one D6; on a 5+ that wound is not lost." (Emphasis mine)
Super Ready wrote: Bumpity-bump! So, a bunch of new FAQs have just dropped to update supplements, and it looks like what some of us hoped is coming to pass. The standard wording seems to be changing to "when a model would lose a wound".
Example from Blood Angels' stratagem "Refusal To Die":
"Until the end of that phase, when a model in that unit would lose a wound, roll one D6; on a 5+ that wound is not lost." (Emphasis mine)
