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.

That is an anecdote from the Wounds stat Definition; and by your terming/association with it in that context, it would mean that FNP has no effect on single-wound models(Sorry Plague marines, BA, Gunnery Sgt Harker, et al; but Copper.Talos says you don't get to benefit from FNP since you oly have 1W)

If you wanted to use another instance of Injury(or injured) in this case more relevant to this discussion, you could use the instance in "Remove Casualties" on page 24 of the BRB; but then that is also dealing with what happens when a model suffers an unsaved wound(Last paragraph): "Casualties are not necessarily dead - thy may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way."

"Multiple-Wound Models" on page 25 of the BRB never uses the word injury in any conjugation(putting yet another whole in your theory that "injury" deals only with the wound stat and then only with Multiple-wound models).

So if a wording in the BRB is inconvenient is characterised as an anecdote? Well you can stretch and streeetch words all you want, but in the end injuries are directly associated with the wounds value ONLY.
As for single wound models *sigh* if multiple wound models need several injuries to die, then even a 6 year old can extrapolate that a single wound model need only a single injury. Which actually is what happens.

What about the "1 or more wounds" paradox you created with you logic? No comments about that?

They are also DIRECTLY associated with unsaved wounds. So, youre wrong, again.

No when a wording has little to do with the rules it is an anecdote.

Note how on pages 6 and 7 they discuss the meanings of all the stats trumpeting the abilities of the various types that have higher than average stats?

I will give you a few examples:

On WS: "An average human soldier has a WS3, while a genetically-enhanced Space marine will have a WS4 or even WS5" So does that mean that Space marines only ever have a WS4 or WS5? No, Scouts have a WS3, and Chapter Masters have a WS6; thus this is anecdotal.

On Toughness: "A human is T3, while a Ork is T4." Not all humans are T3, Commisar Yarrick and Col Straken are both T4, does this mean that they are not human? How about Orks, are Warbosses with their T5 not Orks?; What about Nob Bikers do they cease to be Orks when you put them on a Bike?

The definitions of the characteristics on Pages 6&7 tell you what the characteristics mean and what they do, not how they work. And the little anecdotes to characterize them certainly do not dictate how they relate to any other rules.

There is no 1 or more wounds paradox; you do not check to see if your model has received 1 or more unsaved wounds until after all the wounds are fully resolved, you then immediately remove the armour save if the model has suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds.

It is simple and it is clear; if all the unsaved wounds are ignored, then the model has not suffered from any unsaved wounds. You do not "Suffer" from nothing at all.

Aldarionn wrote:I would agree with you 100% Nos, except that if you completely ignore the unsaved wound, you have ignored the event that allowed you to take your FNP roll in the first place.

You still haven't explained why this is a problem.

There is nothing that allows you to re-evaluate if you were allowed to take FNP.
There is precedent in the rules for vehicle cover saves - which tell you to discard the hit that allowed you to take the cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:You successfully ignore the injury by not reducing the wounds value. You don't get to negate/cancel/save etc anything else...

If I did not suffer a wound (because I did not reduce my wound stat), why is an effect that requires me suffering a wound allowed to work?

By not reducing your wound stat you have successfully resolved FNP. That's what FNP is all about. Anything else is wishful thinking.

You only ever reduce your current wounds when you have suffered an unsaved wound.

FNP causes you to ignore the Unsaved wound; therefore you ignore any other effects associated with the unsaved wound.

If you are told to ignore an email because it was sent in error, do you look at the attachment and send a reply complaining it is wrong?

kirsanth wrote:If you are told to ignore an email because it was sent in error, do you look at the attachment and send a reply complaining it is wrong?

I've got a better one; if you are told a weapon ignores your armor save; do you still take your armor save?



Or even better:

If you are told a weapon Ignores cover, do you still benefit from Stealth and going to ground against it?

kirsanth wrote:If you are told to ignore an email because it was sent in error, do you look at the attachment and send a reply complaining it is wrong?

If you are told to ignore an email because it was sent in error, and you do, have you or have you not received that email?

copper.talos wrote:

kirsanth wrote:If you are told to ignore an email because it was sent in error, do you look at the attachment and send a reply complaining it is wrong?

If you are told to ignore an email because it was sent in error, and you do, have you or have you not received that email?

It doesn't matter if you did - you ignore it.

The question is if you have received it. Well did you or did you not?

I don't know. I was told to ignore it. I can't go check because that would mean I wasn't ignoring it.

No, the question was "do you look at the attachment and send a reply complaining it is wrong?"

Then Kommisar Kel asked a few more relevant ones, then you asked something else entirely.


Editing to add:
However, just to . . . well anyway.
I would not have a way to check - my Ignored messages are not there.

I can assume it was received, and that is why it was ignored. But as it WAS ignored, it is no longer at all relevant to my mail or any discussion involving it.

So you won't ever check your inbox again? Then how are you going to know if a new email arrives... ever...

Ignored emails are not in my inbox. They are ignored.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If this is confusing, click the ignore button in the dakkadakka interface for a user.

Exactly what Kir said, My Ignored E-Mail do not go to my inbox either, I am not sure what happens to them, but that is because they are set up to be ignored so I am never bothered with them.

If you are told to ignore something, then you have to ignore every product of that thing. To do otherwise is to not ignore the thing you are told to ignore.

Here is an idea; lets Ignore the real world example of an erroneous email, and how about you address my real-game examples?

Maybe he clicked ignore.

hehe

I suggest you read this http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2011/10/rulings-dark-eldar-hex-rifles-vs-feel-no-pain/

The e-mail still happened even if you try to ignored it.
The sales guy is still knocking at your door even if you ignore it.

All this is still based on when you roll dice.

4 SM equipped the same and 2 Scarabs attacking

The Attacker
1. Roll to Hit - 10 attacks 4+to hit rolls 8 six's and 2 one's = 8 hits

2. Roll to wound - 8 hits 5+ to wound rolls 4 six's and 4 one's = 4 wounds

The Defender
3. You now have 4 wounds to try to save against your 3+Sv and "you roll all 4 die at the same time not roll one then try FNP then roll one" rolling 4 one's failing your save - ES happens here Immediately

4. Since you have FNP and having failing a save you can now roll your FNP save rolling 4 six's and get your Wound/Life/Injury back and you are now standing on the battlefield Butt Naked "ES" happened" with your ammo belt and your weapons.

Unless you roll dice different than that, I would like to know the order in which you roll the dice for the same event.

PS: You will never be able to take a FNP save again unless it against anything other than you Sv as you no longer have a Sv save to fail that lets you take FNP as you must fail a save to take it and the auto save does not happen here as the example in the BRB when the guy was shot with a AP3 he had a Sv to fail even if was an auto due to the AP3.

This is my bet as to how the FAQ will go.
Not flaming anyone here just my take on the question.

Zenxzen wrote:PS: You will never be able to take a FNP save again unless it against anything other than you Sv as you no longer have a Sv save to fail that lets you take FNP as you must fail a save to take it and the auto save does not happen here as the example in the BRB when the guy was shot with a AP3 he had a Sv to fail even if was an auto due to the AP3.

That was one horrible sentence.

And that's wrong - having no save means that you will take an unsaved wound, which is the trigger for FNP. The trigger is not failing a save.

Your right that was badly done.

copper.talos wrote:I suggest you read this http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2011/10/rulings-dark-eldar-hex-rifles-vs-feel-no-pain/

It's like the person who wrote that post didn't come into the thread and say essentially the exact same thing.

Oh wait - he did.

And the argument hinges on the idea that FNP ignoring the wound completely would create a paradox, and paradoxes are unacceptable. If that were the case, vehicles would not be able to take cover saves, as the cover save discards the penetrating/glancing hit and a vehicle is only allowed a cover save if it suffers a penetrating/glancing hit. There's also no rules allowing you to go back in time and re-examine if FNP is able to be taken after FNP is successful.

Feel free to provide rules that say paradox's are unacceptable.

I understand why there is confusion but for me, both effects are triggered and get to resolve.

FNP lets you ignore the injury but I don't see how it untriggers Entropic Strike as both are resolved simultaneously and their effects don't clash, so for all intents and purposes they can pretend the other effect doesn't exist while they go about their business.

Even if we pretend the unsaved wound that triggered Entropic Strike never existed because it is "ignored"; Entropic Strike doesn't care, it is already happening.

Zenxzen wrote:The e-mail still happened even if you try to ignored it.
The sales guy is still knocking at your door even if you ignore it.

So a Chaos vehicle with Daemonic possession is still stunned(and thus cannot move or shoot), even though Daemonc possession ignores it?

And the unsaved wound still gets removed/the model is removed as a casualty; even though FNP ignores it?

Brilliant, yet another proponent of FNP never does anything.

Zenxzen wrote:The Defender
3. You now have 4 wounds to try to save against your 3+Sv and "you roll all 4 die at the same time not roll one then try FNP then roll one" rolling 4 one's failing your save - ES happens here Immediately

4. Since you have FNP and having failing a save you can now roll your FNP save rolling 4 six's and get your Wound/Life/Injury back and you are now standing on the battlefield Butt Naked "ES" happened" with your ammo belt and your weapons.

Unless you roll dice different than that, I would like to know the order in which you roll the dice for the same event.

The Attacker part was all correct, so I ignored it(this is getting fun); this part however...

First off; the syntax is all out of sorts on #3, I seriously am havin a heck of a time making out what you are trying to say, but I will repeat what I think you were trying to say:

"3. You now have 4 wounds to try to save against your 3+Sv. You roll your 4 dice(you do not have to roll them all at the same time, and if the unit were not Identical and you have all identical dice; you cannot) to save, failing all of them. You then roll for FNP with 4 dice, failing all of them. ES happens(not that it matters because the models in this example are SMs which are 1W models as standard; and as such are all dead)."

This is correct and in the correct order.

#4 is all wrong, mainly because you have already taken your FNP rolls; so thee is no #4 unless the models in question had multiple wounds.

Now, let me explain why FNP does go off before anything else:

Remove Casualties, BRB Page 24, first paragraph third sentence: "Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

This is where the "but Rule X says for each unsaved wound Immediately do Y; and FNP lacks the 'Immediately'" falls short; True enough FNP lack the word Immediately, but that is fine, it would still have to go off before anything else that the unsaved wound might cause because if it waited for all other "immediately's to go first, then the model wound already be removed as a casualty. The only way for FNP to work is for it to come into effect before Remove casualties, ad the only way for it to coe into effect before remove casualties is if it happens before all other "Immediately" effects.

Zenxzen wrote:PS: You will never be able to take a FNP save again unless it against anything other than you Sv as you no longer have a Sv save to fail that lets you take FNP as you must fail a save to take it and the auto save does not happen here as the example in the BRB when the guy was shot with a AP3 he had a Sv to fail even if was an auto due to the AP3.

This is my bet as to how the FAQ will go.
Not flaming anyone here just my take on the question.

First Flaw: as rigeld2 already pointed out; the trigger is an unsaved wound not a failed save.
Second flaw: a Sv value of "-" is a Save value, and is denied by any AP of 6 or better.
Third Flaw: An AP with a lower numeric value than your save does not automatically fail your save anyways, it outright denies the ability of a save("the target gets no armour save at all." BRB page 20, Armour piercing weapons, first bullet point, end of first sentence).

Conveniently, we have two terms to reflect this scenario.

Failed Save: The model has been hit, wounded, and either did not roll sufficiently high on its save or was not allowed one in the first place.
Unsaved Wound: The model has taken a wound and (if its total wounds exceed the Wound value on its profile) is removed from play as a casualty.

Astonishingly, FNP prevents the first from becoming the second. Entropic Strike, Hexrifles, and the like all trigger on unsaved wounds, and so are ignored on a successful FNP roll.

Ok, I will agree to the fact that you are a better writer, but I will do my best.

First you can not have an unsaved wound unless you had tried to rolled a save. Pg.75 FNP

Page 7 BRB under Zero-Level Characteristics states that a "-" has no save at all.

Page 20 states that like models take their rolls in one go not one at a time.
Bullet Point says if you have a save it is ignored in this case you have no save to ignore.

Page 24 BRB under Removing Casualties "For every model that fails its save, the unit takes an "unsaved wound"

You equate FNP as goes back in time and wound never happened.

I equate FNP as someone hits me knocking me down adrenalin kicks in and I jump back up and keep fighting ignoring my fat lip and broken teeth more RAI I think.

Zenxzen wrote:You equate FNP as goes back in time and wound never happened.

I equate FNP as someone hits me knocking me down adrenalin kicks in and I jump back up and keep fighting ignoring my fat lip and broken teeth more RAI I think.

Its a good thing that RAI and fluff have little bearing in YMDC.

I like that.