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.

Aramoro wrote:Let me get this right people in this thread are asserting that

10 Marines with FnP get shot with 1000 shots,

They fail 500 armour saves

you fail 200 armour saves on the unit

You take 10 FnP rolls and pass 5 so 5 Marine survive.

That seems to be what people are saying. DeathReaper and liam0404 is that what you're saying?

no that is not what I was saying. (I am really not sure what your example means)

I was saying:
10 Marines with FnP get shot with 1000 shots
They fail 500 armour saves
they roll 500 FNP rolls and fail 200
you then remove 10 models as casualties because P.24 says for each unsaved wound you remove a one wound model as a casualty, so in this case the unit suffered 10 unsaved wounds, since 10 models were removed as casualties.

But that is not what FNP rule says.

you then remove 10 models as casualties because P.24 says for each unsaved wound you remove a one wound model as a casualty, so in this case the unit suffered 10 unsaved wounds, since 10 models were removed as casualties.

Number of unsaved wounds caused = number of FnP tests taken as that is the trigger for FnP. If you're saying you calculate unsaved wounds AFTER FnP then you get to take another FnP test creating an infinite loop until you pass all saves...

Not true, FNP triggers off unsaved wounds, not Unsaved wounds caused, there is a subtle but really important difference.

Not true, FNP triggers off unsaved wounds, not Unsaved wounds caused, there is a subtle but really important difference.

No unsaved wounds inflicted not caused.

My misread, FNP says unsaved wounds suffered.

So FNP disrupts the Remove casualties step, since that is where it tells you to calculate unsaved wounds.

So you calculate unsaved wounds and immediately remove one model per wound (tallying how many unsaved wounds were suffered) but FNP has to kick in to put this process on hold, and figure out how many wounds are ignored.

But again that is not what FNP says. It says when it takes an unsaved wound. Meaning the model has to already take unsaved wounds (limited by the number of wounds) before it sees if the wound is ignored.

But again that is not what FNP says. It says when it takes an unsaved wound. Meaning the model has to already take unsaved wounds (limited by the number of wounds) before it sees if the wound is ignored.

Why is it limited to the number of wounds the model has? Where are you getting that from?

Here

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/353828.page

That is the basis of the argument in that thread.

DeathReaper wrote:Not true, FNP triggers off unsaved wounds, not Unsaved wounds caused, there is a subtle but really important difference.

No, there isn't.

I really wish people would stop trying to lawyer on the words "inflict", "cause", "suffer" etc. because GW simply hasn't written the BRB to consistently differentiate between them. There is no difference - subtle or otherwise.
Maybe once upon a time, someone at GW might have tried using subtle linguistic differences to differentiate rules, but have you seen the rules lately??
Current GW design philosophy is all about simplifying and streamlining and appealing to the widest possible market - and those philosophies are TOTALY incongruent with the concept that rules might hang in the balance of a subtly different word scattered about.

If you want to work out a ruling in modern warhammer, it's about sequences and orders of operation. A then B then C etc.

Determine Attacks
Roll to Hit
Roll to Wound
Roll to Save
-> Insert Blood Talon and FNP special rules --> ^ Repeat
Remove Casualties
Determine Assault Results
Check Morale

FlingitNow wrote:

But again that is not what FNP says. It says when it takes an unsaved wound. Meaning the model has to already take unsaved wounds (limited by the number of wounds) before it sees if the wound is ignored.

Why is it limited to the number of wounds the model has? Where are you getting that from?

Nowhere - He's making it up because that's the way logic seems to process in his mind.

DeathReaper wrote:My misread, FNP says unsaved wounds suffered.

So FNP disrupts the Remove casualties step, since that is where it tells you to calculate unsaved wounds.

So you calculate unsaved wounds and immediately remove one model per wound (tallying how many unsaved wounds were suffered) but FNP has to kick in to put this process on hold, and figure out how many wounds are ignored.

So then you ARE saying that the 10 Marines only need to pass 10 FnP rolls to shrug off the 200 wounds then?

karlosovic wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Not true, FNP triggers off unsaved wounds, not Unsaved wounds caused, there is a subtle but really important difference.

No, there isn't.

I really wish people would stop trying to lawyer on the words "inflict", "cause", "suffer" etc. because GW simply hasn't written the BRB to consistently differentiate between them. There is no difference - subtle or otherwise.
Maybe once upon a time, someone at GW might have tried using subtle linguistic differences to differentiate rules, but have you seen the rules lately??
Current GW design philosophy is all about simplifying and streamlining and appealing to the widest possible market - and those philosophies are TOTALY incongruent with the concept that rules might hang in the balance of a subtly different word scattered about.

If you want to work out a ruling in modern warhammer, it's about sequences and orders of operation. A then B then C etc.

Determine Attacks
Roll to Hit
Roll to Wound
Roll to Save
-> Insert Blood Talon and FNP special rules --> ^ Repeat
Remove Casualties
Determine Assault Results
Check Morale

FlingitNow wrote:

But again that is not what FNP says. It says when it takes an unsaved wound. Meaning the model has to already take unsaved wounds (limited by the number of wounds) before it sees if the wound is ignored.

Why is it limited to the number of wounds the model has? Where are you getting that from?

Nowhere - He's making it up because that's the way logic seems to process in his mind.

Actually I am not making this up. Others are claiming this as a fact. I simply started this thread to prove them wrong since none of them would debate this point in the original thread about blood talons. I completely agree that FNP forces you to make unlimited number of failed saves. But only if the Blood Talons can generate more attacks that wounds in the unit. After all the reasons for either argument is 100% the same.

jbunny wrote:Actually I am not making this up.

I was referring to deathreaper.

jbunny wrote:Others are claiming this as a fact. I simply started this thread to prove them wrong since none of them would debate this point in the original thread about blood talons.

Yeh I get that

where i play we roll all rules... heck everywhere i've hear of you roll all wounds but its an interesting

if somebody did try to pull a "well there are only 3 wounds max that can be alocated of 5 hits i'd argue that as they are seperate wounds one roll can't negate both

5 wounds 5 saves..

to liken to a scenario with rp elements a group of 3 orks with feel no pain they alll 3 get stabbed in the neck and two stabbed in the hearts... even if thy pass 3 feel no pain rolls (3/5 dices rolled passed) they ignore the stabs to the necks... but 2 still got stabbed in the heart and have to roll to see if that got felt

just my $0.02

clarified

Wow, ther's missing the point of the rule then there's this thread.