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.

FratHammer wrote:
Yeah... Wish Orcs did. We just point our smasha guns and zap guns at everything. I hate it. Hence why one is never fielded by anyone... Ever.

My necrons friend has an ork army that trys to run as many random chance guns as possible and the list is dangerous and hilarious at the same time.

Shock attack guns can be amazing or down right bad, entertaining for sure!

FratHammer wrote:Christoph, you made a real cluster of all the things already covered and you want Konrax to respond... Did you read all the posts leading up to this, because I feel like you didn't. If you did, did you not notice all the rules quotes he used? I'm really confused why you cherry picked his quotes then refuted them with no evidence and claimed HE needed to site rules... He's been doing so for the last couple days..

I asked for one thing recently, and no one has addressed it. You seem to think it as a real cluster, but you don't actually address it, and no one besides myself actually has. And you say I am making a real cluster? The cluster is already there to begin with, caused by GW, I'm just pointing it out.

What is an Unsaved Wound? What is the definition of it?
1) Literal: It is a Wound that is not Saved. This would apply to any Wound being Allocated to a model, since it has, in truth, not been Saved, yet.

2) Assumption #1: A Wound that a Save cannot or has failed to Save. This seems to be the presumption that most are operating under. In this case, if proven RAW, than the concept of the Black Mace's trigger having priority over FNP/RP is valid.

3) Assumption #2: A Wound that has not been Saved by any method available to the model. In this case, FNP/RP have primacy since there is a chance that they could Save the Wound and deny the Curse its Trigger.

Konrax wrote:No because RP requires a save to be failed first before the wound that caused it can be checked through RP.

Incorrect. RP, much like FNP and Curse, require an Unsaved Wound, and NOT a Failed Save. The Dark Eldar Wargear in question is what required a Failed Save, not an Unsaved Wound.

Konrax wrote:Charistof the volume of personal attacks you are using to support your argument shows how little substance you have with them.

What personal attacks? I ask for proof. I get no response. Someone presents an argument against something not said, such as "FNP is not a Save", when no one has stated as such, and I remind them of it is personal? Or are you referring that I suggest that they may not be paying attention to the other side's argument?

Konrax wrote:Various rule book quotes later and your only valid argument is that FNP causes a failed wound to be considered as saved. The only grounds that has is that it speaks in the past tense, which you could assume the save would be counted retroactively.

However with that being said just because it can travel back in time to change the events of the past, sadly the time machine used to save the wound was destroyed by the demonic energies of the black mace.

And yet, we see it done in this ruleset quite often. The model fails to make successful roll on its Save, and it is removed as a casualty when it suffers the Wound. FNP and RP turn back the clock and provide an opportunity of "nope, not quite".

Konrax wrote:...it is important that we try to get the rules right in both RAI and RAW.

I have no actual problem with this, so long as it is properly pointed out. But my point in bringing up the Unsaved Wound issue is simply this: It can mean several different things depending on the individual, and depending on how it is interpreted can mean different interpretations of how the Curse of the Black Mace interacts with FNP and RP.

Review what I posted above regarding the definition. Two of them are How People Play It listed as Assumptions, while one is as literally RAW as you can get. Unless you can find where in the rulebook it actually defines "unsaved Wound" as anything without making assumptions and roundabout interpretations, that's how it stands.

1. Is still irrelevant as even if that were the case, player turn or "codex > brb" would take effect as both rules would still be triggered at the same time.

2. Is hiwpi. When I've had a chance to have a look at my brb, I will get back to you on whether this is raw or rai.

3. Cannot be possible as it would break the fnp rule. Unsaved wound cannot be defined as something that can only happen after fnp has been taken because then you wouldn't have a trigger for fnp in the first place

Christoph, you're trying to imply an unsaved wound is any wound before it has been saved. That is incorrect.
On pgs 34+51 of my mini rule book what you're claiming are unsaved wound are merely wounds. It goes on to describe them as being placed into a pool then assigned to models who must immediately attempt to save vs those sounds assigned to it.

Unsaved wounds are later mentioned in FNP which states once you have suffered an "unsaved wound" you may use FNP.

So, we have a wound, which is clearly expressed as such and only as such which is assigned from a wound pool directly to a model who must IMMEDIATELY attempt to save. If this fails, you have gained an "unsaved wound" and can now attempt to FNP. Unfortunately IMMEDIATELY after failing an unsaved wound you had to take a toughness test, which you failed. Now, since a unit/model that is not in the game doesn't get to use its special rules, you can no longer FNP, which would trigger after the IMMEDIATE trigger of the black mace.

To short hand this: An unsaved wound, is a wound that failed to be saved after assigned to a model and failing its saves if it was allowed one.

Charistoph wrote:

FratHammer wrote:Christoph, you made a real cluster of all the things already covered and you want Konrax to respond... Did you read all the posts leading up to this, because I feel like you didn't. If you did, did you not notice all the rules quotes he used? I'm really confused why you cherry picked his quotes then refuted them with no evidence and claimed HE needed to site rules... He's been doing so for the last couple days..

I asked for one thing recently, and no one has addressed it. You seem to think it as a real cluster, but you don't actually address it, and no one besides myself actually has. And you say I am making a real cluster? The cluster is already there to begin with, caused by GW, I'm just pointing it out.

What is an Unsaved Wound? What is the definition of it?
1) Literal: It is a Wound that is not Saved. This would apply to any Wound being Allocated to a model, since it has, in truth, not been Saved, yet.

2) Assumption #1: A Wound that a Save cannot or has failed to Save. This seems to be the presumption that most are operating under. In this case, if proven RAW, than the concept of the Black Mace's trigger having priority over FNP/RP is valid.

3) Assumption #2: A Wound that has not been Saved by any method available to the model. In this case, FNP/RP have primacy since there is a chance that they could Save the Wound and deny the Curse its Trigger.

Konrax wrote:No because RP requires a save to be failed first before the wound that caused it can be checked through RP.

Incorrect. RP, much like FNP and Curse, require an Unsaved Wound, and NOT a Failed Save. The Dark Eldar Wargear in question is what required a Failed Save, not an Unsaved Wound.

Konrax wrote:Charistof the volume of personal attacks you are using to support your argument shows how little substance you have with them.

What personal attacks? I ask for proof. I get no response. Someone presents an argument against something not said, such as "FNP is not a Save", when no one has stated as such, and I remind them of it is personal? Or are you referring that I suggest that they may not be paying attention to the other side's argument?

Konrax wrote:Various rule book quotes later and your only valid argument is that FNP causes a failed wound to be considered as saved. The only grounds that has is that it speaks in the past tense, which you could assume the save would be counted retroactively.

However with that being said just because it can travel back in time to change the events of the past, sadly the time machine used to save the wound was destroyed by the demonic energies of the black mace.

And yet, we see it done in this ruleset quite often. The model fails to make successful roll on its Save, and it is removed as a casualty when it suffers the Wound. FNP and RP turn back the clock and provide an opportunity of "nope, not quite".

Konrax wrote:...it is important that we try to get the rules right in both RAI and RAW.

I have no actual problem with this, so long as it is properly pointed out. But my point in bringing up the Unsaved Wound issue is simply this: It can mean several different things depending on the individual, and depending on how it is interpreted can mean different interpretations of how the Curse of the Black Mace interacts with FNP and RP.

Review what I posted above regarding the definition. Two of them are How People Play It listed as Assumptions, while one is as literally RAW as you can get. Unless you can find where in the rulebook it actually defines "unsaved Wound" as anything without making assumptions and roundabout interpretations, that's how it stands.

Regardless of your interpretation of an unsaved wound, the trigger is identical for both rules, so either way you look at it both rules would trigger on the same event. The only difference is one says immediately after the trigger event, and the other one doesn't.

At least a dozen times you asked if I was paying attention and am I grasping simple language concepts while ignoring a very simple concept I keep presenting over and over again which I just said again.

It doesn't matter how you define an unsaved wound, both rules share the same trigger.

And failing a toughness test and getting a wound won't trigger another toughness test because FNP isn't a save.

Edit: rumours this morning say a new Chaos codex is coming very soon, so this entire exercise in rules lawyering might be for nothing..

For the record I still don't see an argument that invalidates FNP or RP going before the mace.

 Konrax wrote:

Edit: rumours this morning say a new Chaos codex is coming very soon, so this entire exercise in rules lawyering might be for nothing..

Curse is a really minor aspect of the FNP issue.

I'll try to pose the full question in an organized manner:

Does "saving" an unsaved wound with FNP/RP also cancel the fact that you did suffer an unsaved wound?
This is fundamental for the working of the concussive USR, pinning USR. There are also Frost and Stasis anomaly effects, THAT DO NOT PRESENT THE "IMMEDIATELY" WORD so we don't have an easy answer like in the case of Curse.
Powers like the mind worm also depend on this.

Now we actually have a GW answer on this that says that FNP does not cancel the fact that you suffered an unsaved wound.

In particular GW said:

Question: "If a unit with a night shield suffers an unsaved wound that is then discounted through a Feel No Pain roll, does it lose it's shield?"
Answer: "Yes"

The night shield rule says: "If at the end of a phase the model has suffered an unsaved wound then it loses the benefits of the shield for the reminder of the game"

So it is clear that in this case for GW the Feel no pain does not cancel the fact that you did suffer an unsaved wound, and there can be no discussions here, this is the RAW.
I'd like to hear arguments on why one should not consider this FAQ applicable to the all the aforementioned rules, please explain in what you think this situation differs from the other ones.

And for the last time Night shields deactivating on a failed save were a thing of last edition! 7E shields are lost on an unsaved wound.

Put simply, it shouldn't be considered because it applies to a single item in a single codex.

For example, back in 6th edition, GW said that Tyranids could not fire emplaced weapons/weapon emplacements. Should we have applied that ruling across all armies?

Another point maybe is that FNP says that the wound is discounted, and makes no mention about effects triggered by the wound that was caused.

Which would isolate its effect to only working on the wound taken itself on an implied basis.

Count the wound as if it was saved... Not count the wound and all other effects caused from the wound as saved.

This really needs and FAQ tbh.

jokerkd wrote:1. Is still irrelevant as even if that were the case, player turn or "codex > brb" would take effect as both rules would still be triggered at the same time.

Moderately relevant over all, but agreed not in the case of the relationship between FNP/RP and Curse. There is literally no difference in result between this and #2, because of the trigger timing. However, in this case things like Concussive, Instant Death, etc, would trigger before any Save rolls would be attempted.

jokerkd wrote:2. Is hiwpi. When I've had a chance to have a look at my brb, I will get back to you on whether this is raw or rai.

As far as I have found this is RAI. This is because the timing of an Unsaved Wound is not defined in the rulebook.

jokerkd wrote:3. Cannot be possible as it would break the fnp rule. Unsaved wound cannot be defined as something that can only happen after fnp has been taken because then you wouldn't have a trigger for fnp in the first place

Yes, and no. It would still trigger FNP, because it has not had a chance to Save the Wound, yet. And it is this perception of Unsaved Wound which has caused this discussion to last as long as it did before I asked for the definition of an Unsaved Wound. Many have been discounted of this definition since then, no doubt.

FratHammer wrote:Christoph, you're trying to imply an unsaved wound is any wound before it has been saved. That is incorrect.
On pgs 34+51 of my mini rule book what you're claiming are unsaved wound are merely wounds. It goes on to describe them as being placed into a pool then assigned to models who must immediately attempt to save vs those wounds assigned to it.

So, no actual definition reference to provide? The first instance of "unsaved wound" in the rulebook is in Instant Death right after making saves. There is an assumptive correlation that can be made which applies it to #2, but this is not RAW. Their is nothing written as to what qualifies as an Unsaved Wound. Anything put in this that is literally not "Not Saved Wound" is RAI and HYWPI. If I am wrong in this regard, please provide the reference.

And no, Allocated Wounds do not immediately attempt to save those Wounds assigned to it. If that was the case, than FNP and RP would be classed in that, since they can Save a Wound (even though they are not Saves).

FratHammer wrote:Unsaved wounds are later mentioned in FNP which states once you have suffered an "unsaved wound" you may use FNP.

They are mentioned all over the place, yet never actually defined. That is part of the issue. Just because it is never mentioned until after taking Saves, does not mean that it exclusively matches your definition.

FratHammer wrote:To short hand this: An unsaved wound, is a wound that failed to be saved after assigned to a model and failing its saves if it was allowed one.

No quotes and nothing but assumptions. Still have proved nothing. You have associations one can make assumptions from, and those are one of the assumptions I listed above. If you want to continue using it as such, that is fine, just preface it as such.

Konrax wrote:Regardless of your interpretation of an unsaved wound, the trigger is identical for both rules, so either way you look at it both rules would trigger on the same event. The only difference is one says immediately after the trigger event, and the other one doesn't.

I have demonstrated that interpretation is regardful. The only problem is there is nothing to support or really deny any interpretation but the first definition.

Konrax wrote:At least a dozen times you asked if I was paying attention and am I grasping simple language concepts while ignoring a very simple concept I keep presenting over and over again which I just said again.

Than why do you keep insisting that FNP and RP are not Saves when no one is arguing that they are? Or did you not associate that correlation?

Or was it regarding how someone else may define Unsaved Wound to match the #3 Definition I gave and just dismissing it without demonstrating how it is wrong?

It is to these I was addressing. I was not arguing against timing itself, save that the possibility that every attempt of Saving a Wound must be made before it can truly be called an Unsaved Wound. This is only an interpretation of the word phrase, but it as valid as defining Unsaved Wound as #2.

Konrax wrote:And failing a toughness test and getting a wound won't trigger another toughness test because FNP isn't a save.

And this is the point where I say you aren't listening. Pay attention:

Nowhere is Unsaved Wound defined as a Wound where the Save has failed. Dismissing FNP and RP as not being able to Save a Wound just because they are not Saves is counter to the Rules As Written. If FNP or RP fail, then the Wound is Unsaved, again!

Or are you just arguing that it just retains its Unsaved status? If so, it could have been clearer.

Yeah, to me it seems cut and dry
Roll to Hit
Roll to Wound
Roll to Save, did you fail your save? Yes - continue
FNP / RP trigger did you fail these? No? No wound was lost to trigger unsaved wound. Yes?
Effects triggered by unsaved wound.

Wait Christoph, you're asking me to not only provide page numbers and summation, which shows you I read the portion of the book, but you want me to quote while pages of text to you? This isn't a 2 sentence problem it's a multiple page problem, and I gave you the pages to read... You're insane or lazy if you're saying I need to post it all for you also.

You do agree that a model that has been removed from the game cannot "fnp a wound" though right? And that the toughness test is before FnP due to "immediately" being in its text yes?

Lastly, to support why you take your saves immediately after signing a wound, (had you read the pages I signed you) pg52 bullet point 1: " A wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking at that initiative step. If there is more than one eligible candidate, the player controlling the models being attacked chooses which model it is allocated to. ROLL THE MODELS SAVING THROW (IF IT HAS ONE) AND REMOVE THE CASUALTY(IF NECESSARY)

Now as we all know FNP is NOT a Saving Throw. And where in that bullet point do you see any time for any effect to take place? A model is assigned a wound then before anything else takes his "saving throws" of which FNP is not one. Then, if those fail FNP normally triggers because you now have a wound on a model that was not saved. We call those "unsaved wounds" again up until this point you cannot deny that the book references them as wounds coming from a wound pool. An unsaved wound must happen after a wound is failed to be saved, because before you fail to save it, it is just an assigned wound.

This is actually hilarious and like debating with a wall.

Of course necron players would come up in arms about this when it is really clear and I quoted every rule in play.

FNP is not a save. (Rule quote)

You can only make one save, armour, invuln, or cover. (Rule quote)

A failed FNP wouldn't trigger a second toughness test under my interpretation because...

FNP is not a save. ( Rule Quote)

If an unsaved wound is taken you may make a FNP roll. (Rule quote)

If an unsaved wound is taken, you must immediately take a toughness test or be removed as a casualty. (Rule quote)

Immediately > not defined timing after a triggered event (see definition of immediately)

FNP can only be taken against unsaved wounds (Rule quote)

Since removed as casualty FNP can not be used to save the previous triggered wound.

Subsequent failed or passed toughness tests aren't triggered because FNP isn't a save (ad defined by quoted rule before)

I don't get why this is so hard to grasp.

Edit: Concussive triggers on an unsaved wound, not before. FNP would ignore the effect because Concussive isn't a d weapon, instant death, or remove from play ability.

If you get struck with a weapon that on the wound roll has instant death on 6 it would ignore FNP. This is the same case but it is based on a toughness test and not rolling a 6 on the wound roll.

Edit 2: No one can call me TFG either because I've never even had a game using the Black Mace. I was looking at it in my codex and was curious about how it works with FNP and RP.

FratHammer wrote:
Wait Christoph, you're asking me to not only provide page numbers and summation, which shows you I read the portion of the book, but you want me to quote while pages of text to you? This isn't a 2 sentence problem it's a multiple page problem, and I gave you the pages to read... You're insane or lazy if you're saying I need to post it all for you also.

Did I ask for whole pages of text? No, I asked for where it defined Unsaved Wound. That's it. It should be a 2 sentence problem to define one thing. Most statuses in the game are listed in rather short paragraphs, or even one sentence. Are you saying that this concept of "Unsaved Wound representing a Wound whose Saves failed" takes that much to define when you take it so assuredly and I defined it so simply?

But instead, what we have in the rulebook is a concept called the Unsaved Wound. It is listed as a trigger for numerous things, but I could not find an actual definition. I even tried to find Saved Wound to see if that would help, and it brought back similar results. No actual definition.

FratHammer wrote:
You do agree that a model that has been removed from the game cannot "fnp a wound" though right?

That's part and parcel of this discussion, isn't it? FNP and RP both treat a Wound as being Saved, and turns back time to, at a minimum, to restore the Wound from being lost. If the Wound or Attack is listed as Instant Death, FNP cannot be used (FNP does not address Remove From Play, but RP does). In fact, If a model's Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty. So, obviously, FNP counters THAT form of remove from play.

FratHammer wrote:
And that the toughness test is before FnP due to "immediately" being in its text yes?

Yes, depending on your definition of Unsaved Wound (and to which, I had already answered), but as I have just pointed out, FNP can counter act situations that may cause a model to be Removed From Play if it can counteract that trigger. Remember, the Black Mace's Attacks, and Wounds caused by them, are not inherently Remove From Play nor Instant Death. Other factors have to come in to play in order for them to be caused as such.

FratHammer wrote:
Lastly, to support why you take your saves immediately after signing a wound, (had you read the pages I signed you) pg52 bullet point 1: " A wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking at that initiative step. If there is more than one eligible candidate, the player controlling the models being attacked chooses which model it is allocated to. ROLL THE MODELS SAVING THROW (IF IT HAS ONE) AND REMOVE THE CASUALTY(IF NECESSARY)

I did read them. Do you read "immediately" at any single point that you just quoted? Do you see anything that says if the Saving Throw fails, it generates an Unsaved Wound (that would qualify as a definition, btw)?

FratHammer wrote:
Now as we all know FNP is NOT a Saving Throw. And where in that bullet point do you see any time for any effect to take place? A model is assigned a wound then before anything else takes his "saving throws" of which FNP is not one. Then, if those fail FNP normally triggers because you now have a wound on a model that was not saved. We call those "unsaved wounds" again up until this point you cannot deny that the book references them as wounds coming from a wound pool. An unsaved wound must happen after a wound is failed to be saved, because before you fail to save it, it is just an assigned wound.

FNP is not a Save, true. Did I say otherwise? No, in fact I have repeatedly stated it is not. Ironically, do note that FNP actually still calls itself a save, or at least its results, "Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule." (FNP, 3rd Paragraph). All I have said, ad nauseum for all of us, is that it SAVES the Wound and converts it from being Unsaved to Saved if successful.

And again I ask, do you see anything that says if the Saving Throw fails, it generates an Unsaved Wound (that would qualify as a definition, btw)? It is implied that it is after a failed save, true, because it is never mentioned at any point before saves are instructed. That however, does not mean an assigned wound is not a "not saved Wound", either, because until a Save is attempted, it sure isn't saved, now is it?

Charistoph, i brought up the same point awhile back and completely see what you're saying, just so you know you're not alone. I just dont have the energy to see it through like you do.

My group will always play it as getting the FNP before the effects, because we won't see the wound as unsaved before the model has used it's chances to count the wound as saved.

It really is a confusing, twisted use of english and logic. It's sad we all have to question mechanics like this, and often get nowhere for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The immediately clause in cursed is the thing throwing a bit of a wrench in it for me. I'll play it the way my group decides to. If they want to fall back on codex>brb or controlling player's choice that's fine by me.

"FNP is not a Save, true. Did I say otherwise? No, in fact I have repeatedly stated it is not. Ironically, do note that FNP actually still calls itself a save, or at least its results, "Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule." (FNP, 3rd Paragraph). All I have said, ad nauseum for all of us, is that it SAVES the Wound and converts it from being Unsaved to Saved if successful.

And again I ask, do you see anything that says if the Saving Throw fails, it generates an Unsaved Wound (that would qualify as a definition, btw)? It is implied that it is after a failed save, true, because it is never mentioned at any point before saves are instructed. That however, does not mean an assigned wound is not a "not saved Wound", either, because until a Save is attempted, it sure isn't saved, now is it?" - Charistoph

I didn't say FNP is not a save. I said it is not a Saving Throw. You will find me arguing that point at length in other threads. Also I don't need help finding portions of the rule book, or reading them.

What you are asking for is a definition in the book that doesn't exist as a single line which I thought I made clear. Instead, stretched over several pages are how wounds are treated, applied, and the results of them.

In them is the portion I defined for you. Where it clearly states what happens when I wound is generated and what must happen as soon as it is applied to a model. I'm not going to quote myself, so just scroll back and read it again.

No the word immediately is not there. But as soon as it is applied you are to take the Saving Throw if it has one. That is as immediate as English gets without the word immediate or one of its synonyms.

Again, where do you see a pause of the rules that would make you think it wasn't immediate? Nothing has changed other than a wound had been assigned. If something triggers off the assigning of a wound it would happen now, since nothing does we proceed.

Also are you arguing that a model removed from the game can use its special rules? Because if that's what you're claiming I'm going to continue to shoot at your models with my dead ones so long as I place them in a box or on another table within range and line of sight if your removed models are using their special rules.

In GW's mind it goes probably like this (this is supported by the FAQ):

1) The unit receives a wound
2) A model in the unit rolls a save
3) The model suffers an unsaved wound
4) The model attempts a FNP roll
5) The models cancels the unsaved wound as if it had been saved

At the end of the day the question "Did the model suffer an unsaved wound?" finds the answer "Yes" since i can clearly see that at point 3 the model has suffered an unsaved wound. Nothing matters that the wound has subsequently been cancelled, the event 3 happened. It is also impossible to state that step 4 comes before step 3, since FNP rolls in response to an unsaved wound. Without step 3 you are not allowed to roll FNP.

Since that answer is "Yes" then rules like Concussive, pinning, mind worm and similar do apply their effects since the only thing they ask is "Did the model suffer an unsaved wound?"

This is how i think GW has intended this based on the Dark Eldar FAQ.

Spoletta wrote:
In GW's mind it goes probably like this (this is supported by the FAQ):

1) The unit receives a wound
2) A model in the unit rolls a save
3) The model suffers an unsaved wound
4) The model attempts a FNP roll
5) The models cancels the unsaved wound as if it had been saved

At the end of the day the question "Did the model suffer an unsaved wound?" finds the answer "Yes" since i can clearly see that at point 3 the model has suffered an unsaved wound. Nothing matters that the wound has subsequently been cancelled, the event 3 happened..

Actually if you are successful with your FNP roll Step 3 never happened.

The wording of FNP makes it clear that the save was never failed. you have to treat the wound as having been saved.

"Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered. On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved." (Feel No Pain rules).

So if you "treat it as having been saved." you can not trigger anything off of that wound as the wound is now saved just as if you had successfully made your Cover/Armor/Invuln save against this wound.

At yet, using Spolettas timeframe, step three has to happen or you never get FnP in the first place. If you cancel your own trigger, do you get to roll?

The wording of FnP is not clear, it never says that the wound was never failed, is says treat as saved which is different. If I was to accept your time travel theory then never failed would support it, but treat as saved does not.

The results of FnP are purely incidental at this point since this argument is over the sequencing of special rules that activate off the same trigger, and that lies within the judgement of the player whose turn it is.

Cheers

Andrew

 DeathReaper wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
In GW's mind it goes probably like this (this is supported by the FAQ):

1) The unit receives a wound
2) A model in the unit rolls a save
3) The model suffers an unsaved wound
4) The model attempts a FNP roll
5) The models cancels the unsaved wound as if it had been saved

At the end of the day the question "Did the model suffer an unsaved wound?" finds the answer "Yes" since i can clearly see that at point 3 the model has suffered an unsaved wound. Nothing matters that the wound has subsequently been cancelled, the event 3 happened..

Actually if you are successful with your FNP roll Step 3 never happened.

The wording of FNP makes it clear that the save was never failed. you have to treat the wound as having been saved.

"Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered. On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved." (Feel No Pain rules).

So if you "treat it as having been saved." you can not trigger anything off of that wound as the wound is now saved just as if you had successfully made your Cover/Armor/Invuln save against this wound.

Rule book states you can never have more then one save. Therefore you have to accept that at some point between an save and FNP you will have an unsaved wound otherwise FNP itself would be unable to trigger.

Curse and FNP have the same trigger.

Curse says immediately after a failed save.

FNP says after a failed save.

Because of the nature of Curse, being removed as a casualty can not be prevented from an FNP roll as it is not a wound.

A model that is a casualty no longer can use its abilities.

This horses head now looks like ground beef.

Regardless of wordplay in the English language, being verb or noun, or the lack of an exact definition of unsaved wound in a single sentence (a bit ridiculous and completely clear in my mind what an unsaved wound is, this is a &%$##%&++%$ dice game after all) the words that trigger both abilities is the exact same.

Unsaved wound.

Models that are no longer on the table can't use time travelling abilities to save themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
In GW's mind it goes probably like this (this is supported by the FAQ):

1) The unit receives a wound
2) A model in the unit rolls a save
3) The model suffers an unsaved wound
4) The model attempts a FNP roll
5) The models cancels the unsaved wound as if it had been saved

Completely right, now let me apply the context of this scenario.

3) The model suffers an unsaved wound.
<<<<<<<<<Immediately After
3b) Curse - Toughness test, remove on fail
4) FNP
5) Discards Wound if successful

Steps 4 and 5 aren't possible if the model doesn't exist anymore.

And no where in the rulebook does it say a model gets to attempt to use all of its abilities before being removed as a casualty.

When it happens it is removed immediately.>

 AndrewC wrote:
At yet, using Spolettas timeframe, step three has to happen or you never get FnP in the first place. If you cancel your own trigger, do you get to roll?

Yes FNP creates a Paradox. But this doesn't matter as we are treating the Initial wound as saved. To let things that happen off an unsaved wound effect the rest of the game is incorrect because we do not have an unsaved wound, we have a saved wound.

So FNP can not be rolled, not that it has to be as we have a saved wound.

Curse can not effect the game if we are discounting the wound and " treat it as having been saved."

If you remove the model from curse, if you even roll the curse test you break the FNP rule and that is not allowed.

 Konrax wrote:

Rule book states you can never have more then one save. Therefore you have to accept that at some point between an save and FNP you will have an unsaved wound otherwise FNP itself would be unable to trigger.

Curse and FNP have the same trigger.

Curse says immediately after a failed save.

FNP says after a failed save.

You need to roll FNP ""Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered." (AKA At the same exact time as the unsaved Wound is suffered. not immediately after a failed save.)

Because of the nature of Curse, being removed as a casualty can not be prevented from an FNP roll as it is not a wound.

This does not matter as you need to roll FNP first.

A model that is a casualty no longer can use its abilities.

this doesnt even come into play.

This horses head now looks like ground beef.

Regardless of wordplay in the English language, being verb or noun, or the lack of an exact definition of unsaved wound in a single sentence (a bit ridiculous and completely clear in my mind what an unsaved wound is, this is a &%$##%&++%$ dice game after all) the words that trigger both abilities is the exact same.

Unsaved wound.

Models that are no longer on the table can't use time travelling abilities to save themselves.

If you are letting curse trigger then you have to let the rule for wounds trigger. "The model gets to make a saving throw, if it has one. If it fails, reduce that model’s Wounds by 1." (Take Saves & Remove Casualties rules) You are advocating that there was still an unsaved wound, if so you need to reduce the models wounds by 1 even if oyu make your FNP roll, which is not correct.

Deathreaper what you say would invalidate the only officlally ruled case that GW gave us.

That is why i didn't ask how the interaction between unsaved wounds and FNP works, we already know that by GW source. I'm asking if you find relevant differences between the ruled case and the other rules.

Quote again for the 4 dozenth time.

FNP is not a save, it says that in the rule itself.

An saved wound is defined by what a save is, either armour, invuln, or cover save.

A model can only have one save.

If you treat FNP as a save, which is exactly what everyone keeps pushing for here, then you aren't taking one save, or treating FNP as a save then correct?

Which is incorrect because you only get one save, and FNP isn't a save, so it doesn't happen at the same time as a save. It happens exactly at the same time as other effects are caused off an unsaved wound.

The difference being, immediately after is an additional clause of Curse, failing a toughness test removes the model.

At the end of combat you may have to take another toughness test or suffer a wound with... Guess what no saves of any kind allowed except in this case guess what... You get a FNP roll because it caused a wound.

I bet this whole discussion will go at least for 10 pages.

 Konrax wrote:
Quote again for the 4 dozenth time.

FNP is not a save, it says that in the rule itself.

An saved wound is defined by what a save is, either armour, invuln, or cover save.

A model can only have one save.

If you treat FNP as a save, which is exactly what everyone keeps pushing for here, then you aren't taking one save, or treating FNP as a save then correct?

Which is incorrect because you only get one save, and FNP isn't a save, so it doesn't happen at the same time as a save. It happens exactly at the same time as other effects are caused off an unsaved wound.

The difference being, immediately after is an additional clause of Curse, failing a toughness test removes the model.

At the end of combat you may have to take another toughness test or suffer a wound with... Guess what no saves of any kind allowed except in this case guess what... You get a FNP roll because it caused a wound.

I bet this whole discussion will go at least for 10 pages.

No one said FNP was a saving throw, but it can, when talking about unsaved wounds, "treat it as having been saved." So you have to treat the wound as if you had made your save. this is indisputable in the FNP rules.

Curse goes off immediately after, while FNP happens when you suffer an unsaved wound. When you suffer the wound is before immediately after suffering the wound.

FNP is rolled for first.

Please read the rules posted on page 1 in the first post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Konrax wrote:
Quote again for the 4 dozenth time.

FNP is not a save, it says that in the rule itself.

An saved wound is defined by what a save is, either armour, invuln, or cover save.

A model can only have one save.

If you treat FNP as a save, which is exactly what everyone keeps pushing for here, then you aren't taking one save, or treating FNP as a save then correct?

Which is incorrect because you only get one save, and FNP isn't a save, so it doesn't happen at the same time as a save. It happens exactly at the same time as other effects are caused off an unsaved wound.

The difference being, immediately after is an additional clause of Curse, failing a toughness test removes the model.

At the end of combat you may have to take another toughness test or suffer a wound with... Guess what no saves of any kind allowed except in this case guess what... You get a FNP roll because it caused a wound.

I bet this whole discussion will go at least for 10 pages.

No one said FNP was a saving throw, but it can, when talking about unsaved wounds, "treat it as having been saved." So you have to treat the wound as if you had made your save. this is indisputable in the FNP rules.

Curse goes off immediately after, while FNP happens when you suffer an unsaved wound. When you suffer the wound is before immediately after suffering the wound.

FNP is rolled for first.

No one said it is a saving throw, but everyone keeps trying to treat it like one. Even if it was a saving throw you can only have one save. The only time you get to roll a second save is if the save gets a reroll of some kind.

Both Curse and FNP trigger off the same event, an unsaved wound... As quoted again in both rules...

Curse says immediately after when FNP does not.

 Konrax wrote:
Please read the rules posted on page 1 in the first post.

No one said it is a saving throw, but everyone keeps trying to treat it like one.

That is because FNP Literally says that you, when talking about unsaved wounds, "treat it as having been saved." So you have to treat the wound as if you had made your save.

Even if it was a saving throw you can only have one save. The only time you get to roll a second save is if the save gets a reroll of some kind.

It is not a save, it says so in the rules for FNP.

Both Curse and FNP trigger off the same event, an unsaved wound... As quoted again in both rules...

Curse says immediately after when FNP does not.

Curse goes off immediately after, while FNP happens when you suffer an unsaved wound. When you suffer the wound is before immediately after suffering the wound.

When you suffer the wound is BEFORE immediately after you suffer the wound.

My apologies that was my word error.

FNP when an unsaved wound...

Curse if an unsaved wound...

What comes first, if or when?

Let's examine the timing issue with a slightly different test case:

An Eldar Farseer is shot by a GK Dreadknight's Gatling Psilencer (with the Force blessing active) on the GK player's turn, which causes Instant Death. The Farseer has the Fortune power currently active on him, but fails his (initial) saving throw. Does the GK player get to choose to resolve Instant Death from his active Force blessing before the Eldar player resolves his own Fortune power and re-rolls his failed invulnerable save? Why or why not?

Immediately happened first, hence it being dubbed immediate. Unless we're arguing that adding a word that means "instantly" or "right when" makes it slower than one that doesn't... Maybe the reasoning is, it's a word longer, that means it takes longer to happen? Lol... Wow.

Your model takes the toughness test no matter what according to the DE FAQ imo, and it happens before the FNP according to its wording and the BRB advanced vs basic rules. I don't see where the other side even feels like they have an argument.

Creeperman wrote:
Let's examine the timing issue with a slightly different test case:

An Eldar Farseer is shot by a GK Dreadknight's Gatling Psilencer (with the Force blessing active) on the GK player's turn, which causes Instant Death. The Farseer has the Fortune power currently active on him, but fails his (initial) saving throw. Does the GK player get to choose to resolve Instant Death from his active Force blessing before the Eldar player resolves his own Fortune power and re-rolls his failed invulnerable save? Why or why not?

This doesn't really work because you are rerolling a save as defined by the BRB.

FNP is not a save or a reroll of a save so it doesn't happen at the same time.

 Konrax wrote:
This doesn't really work because you are rerolling a save as defined by the BRB.

FNP is not a save or a reroll of a save so it doesn't happen at the same time.

Sure it works. You have two psychic blessings which confer advanced rules. Which one resolves first?