FNP vs Entropic Strike, Concussive, ect in 7th Edition

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.

**copper.talos**

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

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

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

**copper.talos**

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

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

**copper.talos**

Hmm nice try deflecting the obvious...

**copper.talos**

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

Better?

**copper.talos**

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

**copper.talos**

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

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

**copper.talos**

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

**copper.talos**

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

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

**copper.talos**

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

**copper.talos**

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

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

**copper.talos**

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

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

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

**copper.talos**

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

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

**copper.talos**

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

Nem can correct me of course...

**copper.talos**

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

**copper.talos**

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

**copper.talos**

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

**copper.talos**

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

**copper.talos**

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

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

**copper.talos**

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

DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

**copper.talos**

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

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

**copper.talos**

@DeathReaper

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

**copper.talos**

rigeld2 wrote:

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

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

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

So the immediate action would happen before the other one.

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

**copper.talos**

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

**copper.talos**

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

**copper.talos**

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

**copper.talos**

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

**copper.talos**

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

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

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

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

**copper.talos**

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

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

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

**copper.talos**

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

**copper.talos**

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