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.

 kirsanth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The answer must be: We do not know intill we go through the process as described for those rules.

And since that is not a "Yes" FNP can be taken.

The answer is known 'immediately' (as per both Force and Boneswords) after the wound is dealt, prior to FNP which is not dealt with 'immediately'.

As I read it.

I see no requirement for the ID to be determined prior to the wound for FnP to interact.

This.

 hisdudeness wrote:
There is no timing!

You cannot make a FNP roll until you know if it is allowed, i.e. if the wound will inflict ID. Thus we must complete the additional effects and determine the result. Then we can apply FNP if it is allowed.
.

Conversely you cannot activate the ID ability of the weapon, until you know you have an unsaved wound, which would be after FNP. So it most definitely a timing issue.

As I stated, I'm Pro-FNP, but that is mostly due to playing so much 5th ed, where FNP came before the removal of the Wound on the profile. If GW rules against, whatever. Until then if it comes up (warning breaking a tenet here) I'll either use TMIR and roll off, or in the case of something like Force weapons where both players have something to do, whoever's turn it is decides the order.

However most of this is moot, since nobody I play against uses GK or models with Force weapons, and I'm the only one who plays Nids.

According to the FAQ each wound is first saved against then the FNP roll before the model receives a wound. The FNP rule says the wound is treated as having been saved.

Psilence: "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound, it can make a special feel no pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw)."

How does a Force weapon inflict a wound if there is an ability that avoids it?

hisdudeness: "You cannot make a FNP roll until you know if it is allowed, i.e. if the wound will inflict ID. Thus we must complete the additional effects and determine the result. Then we can apply FNP if it is allowed. "

Since at the time when the save is failed both rules happen, it is equally arguable that FNP should happen first because at the time it has the potential to be ID but no wound has been inflicted till the model's wound characteristic is reduced by 1 that would allow you to roll for activating Force. FNP says you use the mixed save format for allocating wounds which means one at a time, therefor your statement that you roll saves is flawed.


The way I currently read it is:
1. wound pool fills
2. If models with FNP are involved a single wound is allocated
3. Save taken (assumed failed)
4. FNP roll happens
4a. Passed roll creates a saved wound and not inflicted (Restart from step 2)
4b. Failed roll inflicts wound allowing Force to be activated
5. Activated Force USR turns all remaining wounds to ID

Had to redact after rereading SR from necron codex.

SpaceRatCatcher wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but my understanding is that FNP is not a saving throw, it's a special rule that allows the model to ignore a wound it has suffered. Force weapons are activated once an unsaved wound is inflicted. So as soon as the target fails its invulnerable save (if it has one), the model with a force weapon makes a psychic test. If the the psychic test is passed, the model does not roll for FNP, as the wound/weapon inflicts ID; if the test is failed, then the target does benefit from FNP.

By RAW you have a trigger (unsaved wound) that activates more than 1 special power. The Force weapon can test to ID the model suffering the unsaved wound and the Model can also test FNP to discount the unsaved wound. So you can actually have a case where the Model makes its FNP check and does not suffer a wound and the Force weapon activates and kills the model without causing a wound. It is a paradox. The common sense approach has been that FNP should go first to avoid the kind of scenario as there are other ways to cause this same issue.

I am sorry but I don't buy that.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I am sorry but I don't buy that.

Dont buy what ?

FAQ p1. Special Rules FNP
'Add the following paragraph. If one or more models in a unit have the FNP special rule then the mixed saves method of wound allocation should always be used for allocating wounds and removing casualties from the unit; FNP rolls should be individually made after each failed save.

USR FNP p.35
'On a roll of 5+, the unsaved wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved.' You have to suffer the unsaved wound to even use FNP.

FAQ p4.
Q: Can FNP rolls be made against unsaved wounds inflicted by weapons with the instant death special rule?
A: No. This one is self explanatory.


MIxed saves. p15
Allocate, take saves, remove casualties. 'The model gets to make a saving throw, if it has one (see p.16). If it fails, reduce that models wounds by one.' Once the model fails its saving throw it has suffered an unsaved wound.

Saves p. 16 - 19.
Armor, Invuln, Cover. No mention of FNP. It is not a save.

Force p.37
'If the test is passed, all unsaved wounds inflicted by the force weapon that turn have the Instant death special rule (see p. 38)'. This goes back to the OP and the fact that force weapons do indeed have the ID special rule.


1. wound pool fills
2. If models with FNP are involved a single wound is allocated
3. Save taken (assumed failed). At this point the model has suffered an unsaved wound. Supported by the FNP USR itself.
4. Psyker passes ld test to activate force weapon. (test is passed).
5. All wounds inflicted by the force weapon that turn have the ID special rule applied to them.
6. FNP is disallowed per the new 40k rulebook FAQ.
7. Model with FNP suffers a wound. Weather or not it dies goes down to wounds remaining and the eternal warrior USR, but for this argument doesn't matter at all.

Anyone have unsaved wounds and that turn wording workaround yet?

You do not know if a wound is unsaved unless FNP is taken and failed. so FNP must go first.

look at the case of Entropic Strike and FNP. ES says immediately as well.

But if you roll for FNP after rolling for ES, you have to ignore the ES roll and treat the wound as saved. so rolling FNP first has to be the way to do it, as it does not break any rules.

 Gloomfang wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The wounds, by default, do not cause ID. You must fail a LD check for the wound to cause ID (for Boneswords).

Basically the question is: Does an Unsaved wound from a Bonesword, or force weapon inflict ID?

The answer must be: We do not know until we go through the process as described for those rules.

And since that is not a "Yes" FNP can be taken.

Lets take a slightly diffrent tactic.

The answer of "We do not know intill we go through the process as described for those rules." is correct.

However permissive rule set only gives you permission to take FNP against those wounds that do NOT cause ID. You have no permission to take FNP against those that MIGHT casue ID. Until you go thrugh the process you do not have permission to take FNP.

But that unsaved wound, pre-test, does not inflict FNP

People have asked a valid question many times that I have yet to see answered. Is FNP listed as a save in its rules? I dont have my rulebook on me so I can't check.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
People have asked a valid question many times that I have yet to see answered. Is FNP listed as a save in its rules? I dont have my rulebook on me so I can't check.

It's not a save but it says to treat the wound as saved if you pass.

Then at this point, timing is the only thing left to argue (which isint going to work out).

One of the biggest issues with the interaction between these two rules has always been timing based on when a wound is allocated. The new FAQ addressed this somewhat by forcing you to treat any unit with FnP as a mixed save unit.

The result of that is that the causing of the unsaved wound for the purpose of the FW, and the suffering of the unsaved wound for the purpose of FnP occur at exactly the same moment.

The only way to resolve this under the current rules as written is to have the player whose turn it is decide the order in which they happen. Or, if you prefer, randomize it each time.

CanisLupus518 wrote:
The only way to resolve this under the current rules as written is to have the player whose turn it is decide the order in which they happen. Or, if you prefer, randomize it each time.

Unfortunately this doesn't work all the time, only when both players have actions at the same time (i.e. Force/FNP). If the same player is taking both actions (such as with boneswords), you cannot apply the rule.

Happyjew wrote:

CanisLupus518 wrote:
The only way to resolve this under the current rules as written is to have the player whose turn it is decide the order in which they happen. Or, if you prefer, randomize it each time.

Unfortunately this doesn't work all the time, only when both players have actions at the same time (i.e. Force/FNP). If the same player is taking both actions (such as with boneswords), you cannot apply the rule.

As HJ said.

One person has two actions to perform, so the player turn decides does not apply.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

CanisLupus518 wrote:
The only way to resolve this under the current rules as written is to have the player whose turn it is decide the order in which they happen. Or, if you prefer, randomize it each time.

Unfortunately this doesn't work all the time, only when both players have actions at the same time (i.e. Force/FNP). If the same player is taking both actions (such as with boneswords), you cannot apply the rule.

As HJ said.

One person has two actions to perform, so the player turn decides does not apply.

I'm not familiar with the Bonesword issue... I was only talking about FW\FnP

Let me see if I understand the two factions of the argument. Please correct me if I am wrong.

"instant death"
Premise 1)
Force weapon says to test immediately after inflicting an unsaved wound.
Premise 2)
Feel no pain occurs after a model suffers an unsaved wound and if successful there is no wound. ID prevents the roll from happening.
Sub conclusion 1)
Since both rules trigger on an unsaved wound we should figure out the timing
Premise 3) force weapon rule says to roll immediately.
Premise 4) feel no pain does only indicates after unsaved wound.
Conclusion)
Roll for force weapon instant death before rolling for feel no pain. Successful check means do not roll feel no pain.

"Feel no pain"
Premise 1) we do not know if a wound is inflicted until after feel no pain is rolled for as a successful roll is treated as a passed save.
Premise 2) a force weapon requires an inflicted wound before the psychic test is rolled.
Conclusion) do not roll psychic test unless feel no pain is failed.

Do I understand the arguments? If not please correct me.

Yes that is basically the breakdown.

Which is incorrect, because you do not know if you actually have an unsaved wound until FNP is rolled.

Which is also incorrect. You absolutely have to know you have suffered an unsaved wound to use a FNP roll in the first place.

When exactly wound you roll for FNP then at the end of the phase? It would have to be immediate for both of them. If it wasn't immediate for FNP it wouldn't interrupt regular wound allocation now would it?

So both effects are triggered by an unsaved wound,

So the question really does become which is faster FNP or FW

Because from what I understand both happen instantly.

If that were the case simulations effects are sorted out at the active player’s discretion

There for if FNP triggers first and is assumed passed, FW checks to see if there is an unsaved wound which it doesn’t see and there for cannot be triggered

If FW triggers first and is assumed passed then FNP checks to see if ID is applied and would be disallowed

I would figure this is an accurate description of the event but it comes down to is FW faster than FNP

I think this argument will only be settled via a Gladiator battle to the death.

Or maybe an FAQ from GW. Gladiator battle sounds more likely, though.

Since it is down to a timing issue I would go for "player whose turn it is decides" or roll off at the beginning of the game, depending on what me and my opponent decide.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I think this argument will only be settled via a Gladiator battle to the death.

Or maybe an FAQ from GW. Gladiator battle sounds more likely, though.

+1

 Desubot wrote:
So both effects are triggered by an unsaved wound,

So the question really does become which is faster FNP or FW

Because from what I understand both happen instantly.

If that were the case simulations effects are sorted out at the active player’s discretion

There for if FNP triggers first and is assumed passed, FW checks to see if there is an unsaved wound which it doesn’t see and there for cannot be triggered

If FW triggers first and is assumed passed then FNP checks to see if ID is applied and would be disallowed

I would figure this is an accurate description of the event but it comes down to is FW faster than FNP

Well the wording for Force weapon has immediately while the wording for feel no pain does not.

 DeathReaper wrote:


One person has two actions to perform, so the player turn decides does not apply.

Coming out of lurk to say:

Which is wrong as it says "or may activate some special rule or occurrence" which does apply as it activates both special rules.


Back to lurk for me.

Psilence wrote:
Which is also incorrect. You absolutely have to know you have suffered an unsaved wound to use a FNP roll in the first place.

It is not incorrect and here is why:

Lets say two models are fighting, one has Entropic Strike, the other has FNP.

the model with ES hits and wounds, the armor save is failed.

Now 2 things happen:

1) FNP is triggered and needs to be resolved.

2) ES is triggered and needs to be resolved.

Lets assume both rolls are a 6.

If ES goes first, we have broken the FNP rule because you removed a models armor save when the wound is considered saved.

If FNP goes first, nothing else needs to be done.

One interpretation breaks the rules, one does not.

Play with the method that does not break any rules. (As we are not allowed to break rules).

I do not have the necron codex.

Can you post the rules for entropic strike?

I want to know if it uses the word immediately.

It does say immediately in the ES rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Psilence wrote:
Which is also incorrect. You absolutely have to know you have suffered an unsaved wound to use a FNP roll in the first place.

It is not incorrect and here is why:

Lets say two models are fighting, one has Entropic Strike, the other has FNP.

the model with ES hits and wounds, the armor save is failed.

Now 2 things happen:

1) FNP is triggered and needs to be resolved.

2) ES is triggered and needs to be resolved.

Lets assume both rolls are a 6.

If ES goes first, we have broken the FNP rule because you removed a models armor save when the wound is considered saved.

If FNP goes first, nothing else needs to be done.

One interpretation breaks the rules, one does not.

Play with the method that does not break any rules. (As we are not allowed to break rules).

For FNP to work there has to be an unsaved wound. The instant that happens we check for the instant death. Even if the wound is now counted as saved at some point it was an unsaved wound. It would break the rules to not immediatly check for instant death.

From a fluff stand point. It favors the instant death being checked first. 2 different TO and a call to games workshop backed that opinion as well. The game is a fluff filled nightmare! That's why we play?

I would like to point out that while DR was "fairly certain" he was correct on Smash, his method hurt him. think about a charging Tervigon with Crushing Claws and power that gives extra attacks:

DR method: (3+D3+D3+1)/2 = 3-5 attacks +1 HoW
GW method: (3/2)+D3+D3+1 = 6-9 attacks +1 HoW

Which one hurts the Tervigon more?