Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Me and my Friend have kinda been arguing about entropic strike. I asked if i take a unsaved wound from a scarab and then save it with my wyches feel no pain does she get to keep her armor. I say yes since the rules say that on a 4+ the wound is ingored. He tries to do fluff over rules so he says no. So were kinda at a stand point and i want to get it over but GW wont faq this question.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/437471.page

Search is your friend. RAW if you pay attention to the wound in ANY way, you are breaking the rules for FNP.

This has been argued back and forth a lot of times without reaching a conclusion.
The most fair way to handle this is to look at how your gaming community handles pining weapons and FNP. If after rolling succesfully FNP for an unsaved wound from a pining weapon the unit still rolls a pining check then ES applies too. If not then accordingly ES doesn't apply. So all similar cases are handled the same way and no one can complain.

copper.talos wrote:This has been argued back and forth a lot of times without reaching a conclusion.
The most fair way to handle this is to look at how your gaming community handles pining weapons and FNP. If after rolling succesfully FNP for an unsaved wound from a pining weapon the unit still rolls a pining check then ES applies too. If not then accordingly ES doesn't apply. So all similar cases are handled the same way and no one can complain.

Im trying to do that but since my friend is kinda a sore losser when it comes to stuff people tend to side with him unless its really over the top. For example he raged when we told him he can move trazyan into a squad with a cypteck with viel and then go on to deep strike that squad the same turn.

nosferatu1001 wrote:http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/437471.page

Search is your friend. RAW if you pay attention to the wound in ANY way, you are breaking the rules for FNP.

Im looking at it and it gives great points to my side of this debate.

There are arguments and counter arguments. If there was any firm RAW argument there wouldn't be any debate all this time. I believe that ES applies and my gaming group agrees with it. But this was in relation with how pining weapon were handled up until today - a decision was already made. If my gaming group handled it differently, despite what I believe to be true I would have to oblige with that decision.

copper.talos wrote:There are arguments and counter arguments. If there was any firm RAW argument there wouldn't be any debate all this time. I believe that ES applies and my gaming group agrees with it. But this was in relation with how pining weapon were handled up until today - a decision was already made. If my gaming group handled it differently, despite what I believe to be true I would have to oblige with that decision.

I think the unit doesn't have to take a pinning test and so does he. Its more that he doesn't like it that if he agrees and links the two together, he will have to ingore the ES which he doesn't like.

If you are arguing then no one of you 2 can give an impartial opinion. Ask an experienced player nearby. I have made even telephone calls in similar cases. Ask anyone that isn't involved in your argument and take his answer as final.

Roll off.

BTW, his argument is not just fluff. FNP only works only if you take an unsaved wound. So, take an unsaved wound, lose armor and FNP.

copper.talos wrote:If you are arguing then no one of you 2 can give an impartial opinion. Ask an experienced player nearby. I have made even telephone calls in similar cases. Ask anyone that isn't involved in your argument and take his answer as final.

Im unsure with asking the experienced players near us since they tend to get things wrong. I did ask my Brother who played when 40k started and his is on my side though and we asked a another experienced player he is split and kinda agrees that the rule is poorly written though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Roll off.

BTW, his argument is not just fluff. FNP only works only if you take an unsaved wound. So, take an unsaved wound, lose armor and FNP.

How would I lose FNP and armor? I just loose armor not FNP. Plus im going by what people are saying that the effect is part of the wound those if i pass FNP i ingore the wound and its ability since if we include the ability we dont ingore it.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Roll off.

BTW, his argument is not just fluff. FNP only works only if you take an unsaved wound. So, take an unsaved wound, lose armor and FNP.

No, pass FNP and ignore the wound. Meaning the wound never happened - meaning that paying attention to the wound (seeing ES work) is breaking a rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/437471.page

Search is your friend. RAW if you pay attention to the wound in ANY way, you are breaking the rules for FNP.

pass FNP and ignore the wound. Meaning the wound never happened - meaning that paying attention to the wound (seeing ES work) is breaking a rule.

Nos has it 100% correct. Pass FNP and you must Ignore the wound.

FNP creates a paradox since we are told to ignore the trigger for FNP resulting in not being able to have rolled for FNP once FNP is passed, but that does not matter as we are ignoring the wound.

Your ignoring it like the Black Knight from Holy grail ignored his "Fleah-wounds". You can ignore that your arm was chopped off, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

As far as the rules are concerned, it didn't happen, as we are told to ignore it.

Would you say this is an accurate statement:

Triggering something off a wound we are supposed to ignore is to not ignore that wound.

NecronLord3 wrote:Your ignoring it like the Black Knight from Holy grail ignored his "Fleah-wounds". You can ignore that your arm was chopped off, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Irrelevant, as you are ignoring it. If you pay attention to it - using it as the trigger for another rule, for example - then you have broken a rule.

@DeathReaper

I think the counter-argument is that the effect of the unsaved wound is indeed ignored after a successful FnP, but the occurence of the unsaved wound isn't.

Something might also be said for the timing as Entropic Strike has triggered and occurred with the equal speed and validity of FnP.

@nosferatu1001

As Entropic Strike isn't allowed to trigger of off it's trigger-occurence we are also breaking that rule by not allowing it to happen.



@general

I do not understand the reluctance to allow both rules to trigger of off the same occurrence and at the same time. We are not required to parse out which event happens first. While it is a rather new concept in 40K it was bound to happen at some point.



...

And as has been said - this will devolve into a heated argument. INAT has ruled that FNP stops ES, Hexrifle, et. al. and GW will likely never FAQ it.

Decide amongst your group.

Steelamge - no, the unsaved wound never happened, because it has been ignored. No rules broken

nosferatu1001 wrote:Steelamge - no, the unsaved wound never happened, because it has been ignored. No rules broken

This is the crux of the argument... Nos, it never says to ignore the unsaved wound, it ignores the injury. It seems that GW went out of their way to semantically say it this way. My gaming group has always tried to stick with the "break no rules" mentality. So, FNP tells you to "ignore" the injury... great, so nothing happens to that model's wound profile since it's implied by the "ignore injury" statement. But the secondary effect (ie, pinning, characteristic test, ES, etc...) still kicks in purely because those rules and FNP are triggered off the same event. There's no paradox here...

To me this interpretation is scrutinized the same way as determining if a skimmer moves flat out vs. what do I need to hit this skimmer in CC (displacement distance vs actual distance). Same level of scrutiny and RAW-ish interpretation.

However, I get the other view... I really do... but, this is truly one of those situations where you could "argue" both sides to infinity.

I REALLY wish GW straightens this out. Hell... I'd be happy if GW says "after successfull FNP roll, you ignore the unsaved wound and its effect" (ie, like INAT says).

For what's worth... in a casual game... if my opponent wants to play it as FNP ignores unsaved wounds, then thats what I'll play, it's no big deal nor it s a deal breaker. In a Tournatment, I make damn sure I clarify this with the TO (and it's about 50/50 interpretation).

So.. .to the OP, this is really something you'd want to clarify with your opponent prior to the games. That way, there's no suprises and I usually find that taking that 5 minute conversation to clarify certain rules, really make gaming that much more engjoyable.

whembly wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Steelamge - no, the unsaved wound never happened, because it has been ignored. No rules broken

This is the crux of the argument... Nos, it never says to ignore the unsaved wound, it ignores the injury. It seems that GW went out of their way to semantically say it this way. My gaming group has always tried to stick with the "break no rules" mentality. So, FNP tells you to "ignore" the injury... great, so nothing happens to that model's wound profile since it's implied by the "ignore injury" statement.

And if nothing happens to the model's wound profile...

"injury" must mean "wound" or FNP does nothing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:Your ignoring it like the Black Knight from Holy grail ignored his "Fleah-wounds". You can ignore that your arm was chopped off, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Irrelevant, as you are ignoring it. If you pay attention to it - using it as the trigger for another rule, for example - then you have broken a rule.

Actually RAW per the BrB FAQ, tells you exactly what to do when two special rules occur at the same time:

Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each other how is this resolved? (p2) A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!'.

rigeld2 wrote:

whembly wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Steelamge - no, the unsaved wound never happened, because it has been ignored. No rules broken

This is the crux of the argument... Nos, it never says to ignore the unsaved wound, it ignores the injury. It seems that GW went out of their way to semantically say it this way. My gaming group has always tried to stick with the "break no rules" mentality. So, FNP tells you to "ignore" the injury... great, so nothing happens to that model's wound profile since it's implied by the "ignore injury" statement.

And if nothing happens to the model's wound profile...

"injury" must mean "wound" or FNP does nothing.

LOL... see what I mean?

Okay... I'll bite... just this once... I'll enter the YMDC THUNDERDOME!!! (two man enters! one man leaves!!!!)

"injury" must mean "wound"

Okay... I'll give you that. FNP tells you to ignore the "wound" (aka, injury).

What does NOT tell you is to ignore the unsaved "wound".... remember, 40k is a permissive ruleset.

This is where my hang up is...

In addition, how do you reconcile the fact that both FNP and ES are triggered off the same event? That is, an unsaved wound... I truly believe that there's a distinct difference in the sequence of events in 40k gameplay between models suffering "an unsaved wound" vs "suffering a wound".

Lemme reiterate those game events...
#1) "suffering an unsaved wound" occurs when that model fails its armour save.
#2) "suffering a wound" is the act of removing a wound from the model's WOUND profile.

Events #1 and #2 are not the same thing... they're a distinct sequence in 40k gameplay.

Let's go back to FNP and ES.

BOTH rule tells you that it applies when suffering an unsaved would (event #1)...you then, independently apply both those rules at the same time. THEN, you process event #2, that is, remove any wounds where applicable (ie, failed FNP results).

Okay, I've now taken up the CHAIN SAW! Whose left standing?!?!?!

*whembly exits the thunderdome with his head up high*





Automatically Appended Next Post:

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:Your ignoring it like the Black Knight from Holy grail ignored his "Fleah-wounds". You can ignore that your arm was chopped off, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Irrelevant, as you are ignoring it. If you pay attention to it - using it as the trigger for another rule, for example - then you have broken a rule.

Actually RAW per the BrB FAQ, tells you exactly what to do when two special rules occur at the same time:

Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each other how is this resolved? (p2) A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!'.

*peeking back in the thunderdome*
I don't believe this applies as there is no contradiction... both specials rules occurs at the same time as they're NOT mutually exclusive.

Okay... I'll bite... just this once... I'll enter the YMDC THUNDERDOME!!! (two men or women enters! one man leaves!!!!)

Thats not true Nos never leaves.

I don't believe this applies as there is no contradiction... both specials rules occurs at the same time as they're NOT mutually exclusive

I agree, but if you can at least concede that they occur at the same time, IMO, that is a contradiction. FNP only occurring in the event of a paradox, seems pretty contradictory. Similar FAQ entries have handled such situations with roll offs or cancelations.

Clearly its all the winning! that I'm doing....

If you dont ignore the unsaved wound, then the model is still removed. Ignoring the wound does nothing by itself.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Roll off.

BTW, his argument is not just fluff. FNP only works only if you take an unsaved wound. So, take an unsaved wound, lose armor and FNP.

I decided not to argue this point, but the above interpretation is correct. It's not even gray.

Whembly (who evidently has some affinity to finite state machines) is correct in that the qualifying event is satisfied for both an FNP check and the ES armor loss. They both happen.

ps - Whembly, I originally thought through this exactly how you stated it, but decided I didn't want to get into another furball. I'm wondering if furball-ness isn't a normal condition on this sub-forum. it's odd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:INAT has ruled that FNP stops ES

Indeed, albeit indirectly. And that's the main reason not to argue this. I like INAT. But that does not mean the OP's friend is wrong.

Agreed, we use the INAT too, so the point is moot and not worth arguing on my end. Except for possibly changing the minds of those on the FAQ council or GW staff pursuing forums(like they do right?).

NecronLord3 wrote:

Okay... I'll bite... just this once... I'll enter the YMDC THUNDERDOME!!! (two men or women enters! one man leaves!!!!)

Thats not true Nos never leaves.

That's right... that's AFTER Nos steals my chainsaw and lops off one of my legs... now, I'm hopping all over the place like a one-legged squig!

NecronLord3 wrote:

I don't believe this applies as there is no contradiction... both specials rules occurs at the same time as they're NOT mutually exclusive

I agree, but if you can at least concede that they occur at the same time, IMO, that is a contradiction. FNP only occurring in the event of a paradox, seems pretty contradictory. Similar FAQ entries have handled such situations with roll offs or cancelations.

There's numerous cases that special rules occurs at the same time, so that in itself doesn't entail contradictions...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Clearly its all the winning! that I'm doing....

Yup... now gimmie back my leg ya git!

nosferatu1001 wrote:

If you dont ignore the unsaved wound, then the model is still removed. Ignoring the wound does nothing by itself.

whembly wrote:Hey... this is the YMDC!!!! This is where "furball-ness" are hashed out!

There's two things in play here, also. First, there's the pure rule debates. I actually have a hard time getting to where I care on those except if it's an interesting logical conundrum. Like I said, I'm willing to take an INAT ruling as my guideline even if I think they might not have fully thought through the issue. (This one is an example, I'd like to read their debate notes.) No big deal. Minor concession for the sake of consistency and a common reference.

But the flip side is this sub-forum is one of the go-to places for rules clarifications. When an innocent poster comes and asks a question, we've a bit more of an ethical obligation to give him a straight and complete answer. Or to ensure that the answer someone else gives him is balanced. He hasn't agreed to abide by an INAT ruling, and if he's asking "what's the correct interpretation" on something, he deserves the full story.

stick around though, i like your logic.

@Randall Turner: Yup, I get what you're saying... that's why I prefaced my reasonings with "Discuss it with your TO or opponent prior to starting the game".... it's what I do!

That's right... that's AFTER Nos steals my chainsaw and lops off one of my legs... now, I'm hopping all over the place like a one-legged squig!

But you rolled a 4 on your FNP, so your legs magically reappear and so does your chainsaw!

NecronLord3 wrote:

That's right... that's AFTER Nos steals my chainsaw and lops off one of my legs... now, I'm hopping all over the place like a one-legged squig!

But you rolled a 4 on your FNP, so your legs magically reappear and so does your chainsaw!

LOL!!
erm... touche...