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.

Here is a thought for you guys. What if they trigger at the same time but cannot resolve till both are applied?

Example

A marine fails it 3+ save from a scarab. The marine has FNP, and since both models have special rules, and the same trigger. You must resolve both before making any changes to the battlefield/models. Therefor, you must resolve both simultaniouly, and at the end check what the status is. Here we have a situation where both rules are applied, and resolved but the ultimate application is dependent on an unsaved wound. Since FNP says treat as a saved wound, the requirement for ES is no longer viable to be used.

If you want to argue that ES happens before FNP. Then the model would never in any circumstance get to roll a FNP save, because you have resolved the effects of an unsaved wound. Thus not allowing another special rule to possibly effect the situation. This unfortunately is not allowed in the rule book in any situation, and if you were to try that I am sure you would be treated as a WAAC.

And if you accused me of being a WAAC TFG, I'd point out that maaaybe the guy with 7K points of the main marine chapter with FNP perhaps isn't totally unbiased. So neither of us should do that, right?

"Resolving" (which I might add we don't have a RAW definition for, so could mean anything at all) ES doesn't resolve the wound. It just resolves the ES rule. You would then go on to resolve FNP, which might result in the wound being ignored, thus your model doesn't die. However the ES effect would remain, as it had been trigger and subsequently resolved. So whatever happens to its trigger is now irrelevant.

Except you do not know if you actually have an unsaved Wound if FNP has not yet been rolled.

DeathReaper wrote:Except you do not know if you actually have an unsaved Wound if FNP has not yet been rolled.

Yes you do, it's what let you roll FNP in the first place.

For the 1000th time...

Looks like everyone agrees about the process of the hits that put the wounds into the wound pool.
Then we go to page 15, and allocate wounds and remove casualties.
First step is saves, you get one save (cover, armor, invul) and are told to make a note of how many unsaved Wounds have been caused.

Next step is allocate unsaved Wounds and remove casualties.

So, where in that process does Feel No Pain come in?
A force weapon says that Unsaved Wounds cause instant death.
Entropic strike says unsaved destroy armor.
Instant Death says Unsaved wounds inflicted by an attack with this special rule automatically inflict instand Death, regardless ofthe victim's Toughness.
Feel No Pain says 5+ to ignore, and count as if passed, but not vs instant death.

The only way for the feel no pain clause of not vs instant death to work is if you have the feel no pain roll come AFTER effects that cause Unsaved Wounds.
It looks like to me, you roll to wound, roll your 1 save, apply special effects (ES, Force, Instant Death), and then roll FnP, if allowed.


Please all be polite, I'd like to see this topic resolved and not get locked.

-Matt

nohman wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Except you do not know if you actually have an unsaved Wound if FNP has not yet been rolled.

Yes you do, it's what let you roll FNP in the first place.

For the 1000th time...

But then FNP might cause that unsaved wound to become a saved wound.

If, after FNP, you have no unsaved wound; then you have no validation for Entropic strike to effect your model.

nohman wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Except you do not know if you actually have an unsaved Wound if FNP has not yet been rolled.

Yes you do, it's what let you roll FNP in the first place.

For the 1000th time...

And if you pass FNP there is no longer an unsaved wound.

That is why it resolves before anything else.

"Treated as saved" is there so rules that apply to saved wounds apply to successful FNP rolls. The wound doesn't happen because of the phrase "the unsaved wound is discounted".

The question in this case is one of timing. There is no rules support for FNP going first as both rules have nearly the exact same trigger "suffers an unsaved wound". You can however make the case that ES goes first because of the addition of the word immediately following the trigger. However if that is still too ambiguous for you the best you can say with rules support is that the rules are triggered simultaneously

Pg. 9 covers simultaneously triggered rules saying, "...the player whose turn it is decides the order in which the events occur."

Also the phrase "the unsaved wound is discounted" is not retroactive. The model suffered an unsaved wound at some point before FNP. Any effects resolved before FNP are already resolved and still apply. Effects resolved after FNP would not trigger if the wound was discounted.

DeathReaper wrote:

nohman wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Except you do not know if you actually have an unsaved Wound if FNP has not yet been rolled.

Yes you do, it's what let you roll FNP in the first place.

For the 1000th time...

And if you pass FNP there is no longer an unsaved wound.

That is why it resolves before anything else.

As HawaiiMatt pointed out you can't do that or ID would never get to negate FNP since it is also triggered by an unsaved wound.

I shoot a Conversion Beamer at a group of Marines w/Apothecary (T5 w/FNP)
I hit with my scatter.
I wound 4 times.
Marines fail 3 Jink saves.
I now have 3 unsaved wounds.
A weapon with 2x T that causes an unsaved wound causes ID
We then roll the FNP to make sure it is in fact a truly unsaved wound, which they pass. No wound, no ID. But this defies the rules. Since ES/BS/ID are all triggered by an unsaved wound if you consider one must wait until FNP is resolved you must apply the same standard to all.

nohman wrote:And if you accused me of being a WAAC TFG, I'd point out that maaaybe the guy with 7K points of the main marine chapter with FNP perhaps isn't totally unbiased. So neither of us should do that, right?

"Resolving" (which I might add we don't have a RAW definition for, so could mean anything at all) ES doesn't resolve the wound. It just resolves the ES rule. You would then go on to resolve FNP, which might result in the wound being ignored, thus your model doesn't die. However the ES effect would remain, as it had been trigger and subsequently resolved. So whatever happens to its trigger is now irrelevant.

How many points of an army I have has no bearing on the rules for me. I would argue it the same way regardless. To argue that I have a baised solely based on what army I play is something sad. See I could say that you only play Necrons now and that your opinion is biased, but unlike you I will not go that way.

Actually, if you were to resolve the ES special rule that means that any unsaved wound would remain an unsaved wound. Thus not allowing FNP to be rolled at all. Thus breaking the rules for FNP. See we have a situation here where your are refusing to look at the arguements of others and treat them at face value. I have no agenda other then to tell you how I read the rules, and interept them. At this point I would like you to state the full rules for both FNP and ES for everyone to see. Then explain what any of those words mean. You who are insisting that everyword must have a meaning is only detracting from an otherwise good debate. I feel you need to step back and relax just a little. Look at others arguements without looking for something wrong with them before you understand what they are saying then go back and see if there is a problem with something.

ES from what I remember occurs when there is an unsaved wound, so does FNP. The word immediatly stipulates if an unsaved wound occurs. FNP says that the wound counts as saved. Counts as means, treat like. For game purposes counts as is equal to what ever it is refering to. SO you must go by what the RB says in that situation. In this one that unsaved wound becomes a saved wound. Thus not allowing anything that needs an unsaved wound to effect the playing surface. See next your gonna say but then FNP doesn't work. To that I reply it is a specific instance in the rules that allows it to happen, aka a execption, thus allowing the rules to work in the proper fashion.

Captain Antivas wrote:As HawaiiMatt pointed out you can't do that or ID would never get to negate FNP since it is also triggered by an unsaved wound.

The fallacy here being that the ID triggering Unsaved wound is specifically stated in FNP.

"Note that Feel no Pain cannot be made against unsaved wounds that inflict Instant Death."

If the unsaved wound is from a weapon that inflicts the Instant Death Clause(be that from Double-T Strength; or from a weapon with the Instant Death rule); then the Feel no Pain rule specifically states in the above quote that Feel no pain rolls cannot be made.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:As HawaiiMatt pointed out you can't do that or ID would never get to negate FNP since it is also triggered by an unsaved wound.

The fallacy here being that the ID triggering Unsaved wound is specifically stated in FNP.

"Note that Feel no Pain cannot be made against unsaved wounds that inflict Instant Death."

If the unsaved wound is from a weapon that inflicts the Instant Death Clause(be that from Double-T Strength; or from a weapon with the Instant Death rule); then the Feel no Pain rule specifically states in the above quote that Feel no pain rolls cannot be made.

If you have to wait to resolve FNP to determine if a wound has been suffered to determine if it is a true unsaved wound before applying any other SR then this would include ID. This would also break both FNP and ID. That is the point.

No it is on triggering FNP(when the wound is still unsaved) that you see if the wound has the potential to cause ID.

The Wound does not cause ID until after you have found that you cannot FNP.

This is a specific Clause in FNP that only regards ID:
Take Wound
Does wound cause ID?
If no then FNP.

FNP interrupts the "Immediate" application of an unsaved wound(removal of the wound/destruction of the model); ID interrupts FNP.

Captain Antivas wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:As HawaiiMatt pointed out you can't do that or ID would never get to negate FNP since it is also triggered by an unsaved wound.

The fallacy here being that the ID triggering Unsaved wound is specifically stated in FNP.

"Note that Feel no Pain cannot be made against unsaved wounds that inflict Instant Death."

If the unsaved wound is from a weapon that inflicts the Instant Death Clause(be that from Double-T Strength; or from a weapon with the Instant Death rule); then the Feel no Pain rule specifically states in the above quote that Feel no pain rolls cannot be made.

If you have to wait to resolve FNP to determine if a wound has been suffered to determine if it is a true unsaved wound before applying any other SR then this would include ID. This would also break both FNP and ID. That is the point.

What I am saying is contrary to what you have ended up with. Here is an example to make more sense of this for you. If a GK hits one of my marines with a force weapon, which has not be activated yet. That causes a wound and if there is still a warp charge for the Gk to use. Then both SR would have to be resolved. At this point you check both for an unsaved wound. FNP is dependent on in the situation, that the wound does not cause instant death. The GK uses the force weapon thus making the wound cause instant death, thus not allowing a FNP roll to be made.

Like in the early example between FNP and ES, you must apply all modifiers to the situation before you can have an end result. Since the GK have a weapon that can cause instant death we have to see if they are instant death while checking the rules for FNP. Just like FNP and ES you check to see if an unsaved wound happens. FNP says no, there is no triggering effect for ES.

maybe in this situation we should look at both rules enteracting with each other, because they both have the same trigger. I think that is the only way that this would work. Since both are dependent on an unsaved wound we cannot apply any effects of an unsaved wound until both SR have been used. What I mean by this, FNP and ES both trigger on an unsaved wound. FNP stipulates that on a 5+ the unsaved wound counts as being a saved wound. ES stipulates that on an unsaved wound if an unsaved wound (happens? resolves? occurs?) I don't know but I assume its one of those 3. You check after applying both SRs. Since on effects the outcome of another you must give that one a chance to resolve before applying the effects of the other. Otherwise you break the game. This seems most logical to me.

Kommissar Kel wrote:No it is on triggering FNP(when the wound is still unsaved) that you see if the wound has the potential to cause ID.

The Wound does not cause ID until after you have found that you cannot FNP.

????? What page is that on?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:
If you have to wait to resolve FNP to determine if a wound has been suffered to determine if it is a true unsaved wound before applying any other SR then this would include ID. This would also break both FNP and ID. That is the point.

What I am saying is contrary to what you have ended up with. Here is an example to make more sense of this for you. If a GK hits one of my marines with a force weapon, which has not be activated yet. That causes a wound and if there is still a warp charge for the Gk to use. Then both SR would have to be resolved. At this point you check both for an unsaved wound. FNP is dependent on in the situation, that the wound does not cause instant death. The GK uses the force weapon thus making the wound cause instant death, thus not allowing a FNP roll to be made.

Like in the early example between FNP and ES, you must apply all modifiers to the situation before you can have an end result. Since the GK have a weapon that can cause instant death we have to see if they are instant death while checking the rules for FNP. Just like FNP and ES you check to see if an unsaved wound happens. FNP says no, there is no triggering effect for ES.

maybe in this situation we should look at both rules enteracting with each other, because they both have the same trigger. I think that is the only way that this would work. Since both are dependent on an unsaved wound we cannot apply any effects of an unsaved wound until both SR have been used. What I mean by this, FNP and ES both trigger on an unsaved wound. FNP stipulates that on a 5+ the unsaved wound counts as being a saved wound. ES stipulates that on an unsaved wound if an unsaved wound (happens? resolves? occurs?) I don't know but I assume its one of those 3. You check after applying both SRs. Since on effects the outcome of another you must give that one a chance to resolve before applying the effects of the other. Otherwise you break the game. This seems most logical to me.

Same question, where in the rules does it say that?

DeathReaper wrote:Is Entropic Strike resolved before FNP due to the wording of ES?

Entropic Strike (C:N p29) states "...suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses.."

FNP "On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved." P.35

No matter the timing or importance of what some of you think immediately means for ES, the specific tense used by FnP negates ES completely.

1. You trigger ES before FNP: FNP tells you to go back and treat the unsaved wound as having been saved, so ES is treated as never been trtrigger because the unsaved wound is treated as having been saved.

2. You trigger FnP before ES: You treat the unsaved wound as having been saved, so ES never has a chance to trigger.

The naysayers that say you cannot go back in time are countered by the FnP use of the past tense. You do not treat the unsaved wound as saved, you treat the unsaved wound as HAVING BEEN saved.

GW fixed the wording of FnP this edition just to avoid this confusion from 5th and some of you just can't accept the clear ruling on it.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Is Entropic Strike resolved before FNP due to the wording of ES?

Entropic Strike (C:N p29) states "...suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses.."

FNP "On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved." P.35

No matter the timing or importance of what some of you think immediately means for ES, the specific tense used by FnP negates ES completely.

1. You trigger ES before FNP: FNP tells you to go back and treat the unsaved wound as having been saved, so ES is treated as never been trtrigger because the unsaved wound is treated as having been saved.

2. You trigger FnP before ES: You treat the unsaved wound as having been saved, so ES never has a chance to trigger.

The naysayers that say you cannot go back in time are countered by the FnP use of the past tense. You do not treat the unsaved wound as saved, you treat the unsaved wound as HAVING BEEN saved.

GW fixed the wording of FnP this edition just to avoid this confusion from 5th and some of you just can't accept the clear ruling on it.

Edited by Manchu.

If ES is never triggered, neither was FNP. One cannot trigger without the other.

This is pointless though, Neither side is going to convince each other, you have to ignore the phrase "immediately" to come to your side. I have to ignore nothing on mine.

All this is going to do is bring the witches out of the woodwork, as is already starting to happen and get the topic locked, so let's just let it die.

The rules for FNP are illogical. It tells us that is is not a saving throw and later at the end of its paragraph that it is.

A FAQ needs to be done on this rule to clear up the mud on it as a lot of special rules hinge on the trigger 'Unsaved Wound(s)'.

Since this is RAI on my part, Id push my ES working as intended, and their FNP working as its intended at the same time. He/She loses their armor save, but keeps the model (which I think this is the direction *this* particular special rule will end up getting FAQed)


Until that time comes, Id talk with my opponent on how to handle the possible conflict in the upcoming battle. If an agreement couldnt be reached, then a roll off would be requested from my behalf when the time came. :3

I am ignoring nothing with mine. I can actually account for both situations and did so above.

You want to convienetly leave out the fact that FnP allows for you to go back and discount the unsaved wound and treat it as having been saved. You want to try and relate it to some Back to the Future time space continuam that suddenly experieces a earth shattering paradox. However, only one of the rules in question refers you to the past tense in resolution, which is FnP.

So when you want to try and retroactively apply ES to create the paradox that FnP can't happen if ES never happened, you can't ever refer to the past tense of ES as you do not have permission.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:I am ignoring nothing with mine. I can actually account for both situations and did so above.

You want to convienetly leave out the fact that FnP allows for you to go back and discount the unsaved wound and treat it as having been saved. You want to try and relate it to some Back to the Future time space continuam that suddenly experieces a earth shattering paradox. However, only one of the rules in question refers you to the past tense in resolution, which is FnP.

So when you want to try and retroactively apply ES to create the paradox that FnP can't happen if ES never happened, you can't ever refer to the past tense of ES as you do not have permission.

You are missing what he is saying. What he is saying is that since FNP and ES are both triggered at the same time you cannot apply one and not the other at the same time. Doing so would be breaking the rules. ID/ES/BS/FNP all trigger with an unsaved wound. You then look to the rules to determine which is applied and in what order. Since nothing in the FNP rules say it goes first, and has previously been brought up, doing so would break the rules.

I don't know if it's been said already but this is identical to the FNP/ID/EW fight, and as such since it is the same argument and the same possible results it leads to both camps being right.

Until it's FAQ'd to be clearer this (and the other) argument will never be amicably resolved because there is no clear concise answer that makes the other camp 100% incorrect.

Kevin949 wrote:I don't know if it's been said already but this is identical to the FNP/ID/EW fight, and as such since it is the same argument and the same possible results it leads to both camps being right.

Until it's FAQ'd to be clearer this (and the other) argument will never be amicably resolved because there is no clear concise answer that makes the other camp 100% incorrect.

But there is. This is a permissive ruleset, if you do not have permission to do something you cannot. Since you do not have permission to resolve FNP before anything else you cannot. Simple as that. ID negates FNP. EW does not allow you to override the FNP limitation rule so you cannot.

Captain Antivas wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:I don't know if it's been said already but this is identical to the FNP/ID/EW fight, and as such since it is the same argument and the same possible results it leads to both camps being right.

Until it's FAQ'd to be clearer this (and the other) argument will never be amicably resolved because there is no clear concise answer that makes the other camp 100% incorrect.

But there is. This is a permissive ruleset, if you do not have permission to do something you cannot. Since you do not have permission to resolve FNP before anything else you cannot. Simple as that. ID negates FNP. EW does not allow you to override the FNP limitation rule so you cannot.

I'm not going to turn this thread into that debate, but that is not the "only" answer. Permissive ruleset or not, if something is immune to something how it can it suffer "any" negatives of it?

But again, I simply brought it up because it's the same thing, almost an identical scenario (though slightly different rules), and basically the same two camps of "this is why you can" and "this is why you can't". And both are right and both are wrong.

My opinion of the matter? The wound is not resolved until FNP is passed or failed, it's not until the wound is 100% resolved that could emphatically say it was saved or unsaved. This is how I would play it. Am I saying it's the right way? No, it's just hiwpi.

The logic behind "the wound must be completely resolved before applying ES" is completely flawed.

ES: Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds, ...
FNP: When a model with this special rules suffers an unsaved wound, ...

The event that triggers both rules is exactly the same. EXACTLY. If the event is good enough to trigger one effect then it's clearly good enough to trigger the other. There is absolutely no indication that the wound must be fully resolved before applying any rules that trigger when a model "suffers" one or more unsaved wounds, because you wouldn't be able to resolve FNP itself!

Since the trigger event is the same then both rules apply. ES happens first because the model "immediately" loses the armor save. And immediately means immediately. Not when it pleases your opponent...

copper.talos wrote:The logic behind "the wound must be completely resolved before applying ES" is completely flawed.

ES: Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds, ...
FNP: When a model with this special rules suffers an unsaved Wound, ...

The event that triggers both rules is exactly the same. EXACTLY. If the event is good enough to trigger one effect then it's clearly good enough to trigger the other. There is absolutely no indication that the wound must be fully resolved before applying any rules that trigger when a model "suffers" one or more unsaved wounds, because you wouldn't be able to resolve FNP itself!

Since the trigger event is the same then both rules apply. ES happens first because the model "immediately" loses the armor save. And immediately means immediately. Not when it pleases your opponent...

Fixed that for you in red.

You also got it wrong then since it's:

The logic behind "the wound must be completely resolved before applying ES" is completely flawed.

ES: Any model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds, ...
FNP: When a model with this special rules suffers an unsaved Wound, ...

The event that triggers both rules is exactly the same. EXACTLY. If the event is good enough to trigger one effect then it's clearly good enough to trigger the other. There is absolutely no indication that the wound must be fully resolved before applying any rules that trigger when a model "suffers" one or more unsaved wounds, because you wouldn't be able to resolve FNP itself!

Since the trigger event is the same then both rules apply. ES happens first because the model "immediately" loses the armor save. And immediately means immediately. Not when it pleases your opponent...

I appreciate it. I do not own the Necron codex, and was unaware that ES also used Wounds (unlike, for example, Boneswords which says wounds).

Happyjew wrote:

copper.talos wrote:The logic behind "the wound must be completely resolved before applying ES" is completely flawed.

ES: Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds, ...
FNP: When a model with this special rules suffers an unsaved Wound, ...

The event that triggers both rules is exactly the same. EXACTLY. If the event is good enough to trigger one effect then it's clearly good enough to trigger the other. There is absolutely no indication that the wound must be fully resolved before applying any rules that trigger when a model "suffers" one or more unsaved wounds, because you wouldn't be able to resolve FNP itself!

Since the trigger event is the same then both rules apply. ES happens first because the model "immediately" loses the armor save. And immediately means immediately. Not when it pleases your opponent...

Fixed that for you in red.

And the capital W is relevant how? The point remains the same. Both are triggered by the same event so both are resolved at the same time. Nothing in the rule gives you permission to resolve FNP before anything else so you cannot do it. Plain and simple.

@happyjew I always forget to pay attention to that difference. It would really help if GW used something else than just a capital letter to differentiate such words...

@captain antivas if you missed my previous post, it's "Wounds" on ES too...

copper.talos wrote:@happyjew I always forget to pay attention to that difference. It would really help if GW used something else than just a capital letter to differentiate such words...

@captain antivas if you missed my previous post, it's "Wounds" on ES too...

I still don't see how it is relevant. Where in the rules does it say that a capital means it goes first? What rule dictates what a Wound means versus a wound? I know GW uses capitals to mean different things, but until they say specifically what one thing means over another I don't see how it can be argued that one means something else.