If you succeed with a fnp-type roll have you ever taken a wound?

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.

**Aijec**

skchsan wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
The before if a models reduced to 0 or less is your opinion, the actual text of the ignoring wounds doesn't have any of that language or indicate it should come before or after that event. Both events are triggered by a model losing a wound.

Purposely opting for the worst possible reading of the RAW is on you and you only.

Take a model with 1W w/ FNP taking 6 damage. When do you stop rolling for FNP? The moment it fails the FNP and the damage is resolved as normal (which would result in W=0 and subsequently removed from play).

What if it was done after allocating all 6 damage and removing the model from play first? Then you are rolling for FNP once for all 6 damage, not to mention it violates the clause that tells you to roll each time it loses a wound.

So "normal" reading of the English text would indicate that FNP happens after "A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers", and before "If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0 or less, it is destroyed and removed from play." It's not a matter of opinion. It's basic reading comprehension.

If we follow your logic, then no 1W model can ever proc FNP, and it fails to proc for multi wound model if damage received in a single shooting/fight equals or is greater than the remaining wounds.

raw this is how it is worded. thats why the wording has changed. It's more of a stretch (in a purely RAW debating over rules way) to assume you roll fnp in between although that's how everyone plays it.

why do you think other abilities that happen after a model is removed from play have been worded specifically so they function once the model no longer exists? (gman, celestine, sob strat)

everyone has agreed since begining of 8th that, strictly speaking, fnp is broken.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:
Aijec wrote:
So I think deathreaper is a troll fyi.
I am not, and please do not be rude.

you don't get to decide that haha, intent alone doesn't contribute to these discussions and even that is heavily in question on your part

Automatically Appended Next Post:

some bloke wrote:
The order of ruling is ordinarily:

1: Models lose 1 wound for each damage inflicted
2: Models reduced to 0 wounds are slain and removed from play

We have abilities which are evoked "When a model loses a wound" and we have abilities which are evoked "before the model is removed from play"

So with FnP, we have this:

1: Models lose 1 wound for each damage inflicted
1.1: Models roll FnP for each wound lost and if they roll a 5+ then the wound is not lost.
2: Models reduced to 0 wounds are slain and removed from play

Then adding in extra rules which go off at the same time, via the rules for sequencing, we get:

1: Models lose 1 wound for each damage inflicted
1.1a: Models roll FnP for each wound lost and if they roll a 5+ then the wound is not lost.
1.1b: Roll a dice for each wound lost and on a 4+ inflict mortal wounds.
2: Models reduced to 0 wounds are slain and removed from play

With 1.1a and 1.1b going in whichever order the active player chooses due to sequencing, as they have the same triggers

It then gets more complex, but still in an easily understood order supported by the rules, by being broken down to accommodate things such as "explodes" or "only in death", where an event takes place between being slain and removed as a casualty:

1: Models lose 1 wound for each damage inflicted
1.1a: Models roll FnP for each wound lost and if they roll a 5+ then the wound is not lost.
1.1b: Roll a dice for each wound lost and on a 4+ inflict mortal wounds.
2: Models reduced to 0 wounds are slain...
2.1a: Roll a D6 and on a 6, all models within 6" suffer D3 mortal wounds
2.1b: Make a Shooting or Close Combat attack
2.2 ...and removed from play

It's really not a complex thing to understand - you have 2 abilities which must be resolved between "losing a wound" and "if wounds = 0, remove from play". The active player chooses the order. And one of those abilities can remove the trigger for the other - so player 1 will choose a then b, and player 2 will choose b then a.
In the same way as if you had 2 abilities, one of which stipulated "you can immediately shoot" and the other said "you can do this, but may not shoot until your next turn", and they both went off at the same time, then you would shoot first, then deny yourself further shooting. Doing it the other way around would be foolish.

I agree it would be foolish in the sense that the game wouldn't function but literally nothing in this post is supporting the rules. There isn't some sequencing map which you refer to. I can't believe people are defending broken FNP wording actual years later.

**DeathReaper**

Aijec wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Aijec wrote:
So I think deathreaper is a troll fyi.
I am not, and please do not be rude.

you don't get to decide that haha, intent alone doesn't contribute to these discussions and even that is heavily in question on your part

Yes I do. Surely I know if I am trolling or not.

I never troll, so your statement was false and clearly rude.

**Super Ready**

I've seen enough of Deathreaper around here to know they're not trolling.
A little stubborn in terms of accepting other interpretations, perhaps - but that's different. (Nothing personal, DR.)

In any case, I think we're all agreed on the RAI / HIWPI here. What some of us are saying is that it's the RAW that's broken - and while you do need to apply logic in order to make FNP useful at all, that logic doesn't gel with the timing of the Wound loss ruling in this instance. As has been pointed out, the removal of models should happen in the same step as inflicting damage from a timing perspective, and the old-style wording of FNP rules don't do anything to mitigate that.
Of course it's broken and horribly wrong, I haven't seen anyone say they'd actually try and pull this on the tabletop. What we're saying is, GW needed to get their writing s@!* together sooner. I'm not sure why the debate over that got so heated.

**some bloke**

blaktoof wrote:
You do realize the period separating those two statements does not make one happen at another time, it still happens during that step of inflict damage when the model loses a wound. It is possible for multiple events to happen at the same time and the writers of the game may use the English language in a manner to separate out the statements of things happening at the same time.

A model being removed as a casualty when it loses wounds and goes to 0 wounds is what happens during the inflict damage step, you and some other posters are creating some substeps during that step and arbitrarily assigning some events that happen when a model loses a wound to take precedence over others for some advantage, it is not actually how the rules are written.

So what you are saying is that the entire step is done in one part, IE:

1: Models lose 1 wound per damage, and if they are reduced to 0 or less wounds, they are destroyed and removed from play.

In which case, you are saying that you would never use FNP, as FNP takes place "when the model loses a wound" and that you do not have permission to stop at that point? Surely this is exactly what the FNP rule permits?

Rules are made up of 2 things (generally); Timing, and effect. "When X happens, perform Y". FNP is worded like this: "When a model with this rule loses a wound, roll a D6 and on a 5+ the model does not lose a wound". When do they lose a wound? It's not after determining whether they are reduced to 0 or less, it's before!

Aijec wrote:

I agree it would be foolish in the sense that the game wouldn't function but literally nothing in this post is supporting the rules. There isn't some sequencing map which you refer to. I can't believe people are defending broken FNP wording actual years later.

But it is supported by the rules - the rules clearly state that you lose a wound per damage - and stop right there! that's the trigger for Feel No Pain - "When the model loses a wound" - the model lost a wound, so time for FNP! It doesn't matter whether the rule continues with "models with 0 wounds are removed" or "if a model is reduced to -5 wounds then both players must form an impromptu mariachi band". FNP, and Ichor, both trigger when a model loses a wound. They do so part-way through "inflict damage". Nothing says "if a section of the rules is written in a single paragraph, then that paragraph must be completed before any other effects can take place", does it?

Please can someone explain to me where in the rules it prevents us from stopping at the phrase "A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers" to resolve effects which are triggered "When a model loses a wound"?

**skchsan**

Hit again with the "Because it doesn't say to do that. You are making up a new substep that doesn't exist".

Basic reading comprehension of the written text is RAW, just as an intentionally perverse reading of the written text is also RAW.

By continuing to insist that it must be written in the rulebook, step by step, in order for it to be legal, then none of the codex rules actually work because it only gives you the rules and doesn't tell you how to "insert a new subphase that didnt exist in the rulebook".

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

Asked and answered. flagging for lock.

**alextroy**

As others are noted, we know HIWPI or more exactly how just about everybody plays this. I will just refer everyone to the simple idea: given multiple ways to interpret how a rule works, always take one that allows the rule to work over one that doesn't.

**skchsan**

Yes. Language is inherently ambiguous. Rarely it'll have one and only one meaning.

**Super Ready**

Bumpity-bump! So, a bunch of new FAQs have just dropped to update supplements, and it looks like what some of us hoped is coming to pass. The standard wording seems to be changing to "when a model would lose a wound".
Example from Blood Angels' stratagem "Refusal To Die":
"Until the end of that phase, when a model in that unit would lose a wound, roll one D6; on a 5+ that wound is not lost." (Emphasis mine)

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

Super Ready wrote:
Bumpity-bump! So, a bunch of new FAQs have just dropped to update supplements, and it looks like what some of us hoped is coming to pass. The standard wording seems to be changing to "when a model would lose a wound".
Example from Blood Angels' stratagem "Refusal To Die":
"Until the end of that phase, when a model in that unit would lose a wound, roll one D6; on a 5+ that wound is not lost." (Emphasis mine)