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.

Well FNP ignores the wound. It doesn't say anything about additional effects of the attack, so unfortunately I think it's valid to be interpreted either way. Hopefully the FAQ comes out soon.

Also, the email example is hilarious.

Well, since FNP only ignores the injury (not the wound), then I can have a 'uge mob of ork boyz with a Wound characteristic of 0, and thus cannot be killed! HAHA! Zombie Orks!!

Happyjew wrote:Well, since FNP only ignores the injury (not the wound), then I can have a 'uge mob of ork boyz with a Wound characteristic of 0, and thus cannot be killed! HAHA! Zombie Orks!!

LoL, not really as Injury/Wound/Life have the same meaning and passing a FNP gives you back your life/wound/injury and sets it back from 0 to 1.

I can certainly see both sides of the argument here, but I come down on the side of any effect that triggers on 'an unsaved wound' as triggering simultaneously unless stated otherwise, (and in the case of an unsaved wound vs 1 or more unsaved wounds, I don't find that to be a valid difference, except to be more clear, thus if you take 10 unsaved wounds with pinning weapons, you don't need to then pass 10 leadership tests not to be pinned)

You only get to attempt to save a wound once. (see page 24) "the model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save" Which is why when a model is being shot at, he does not take his cover save, then his armor save, and then his invulnerable save. The model gets one, and only one attempt to save the wound. If this attempt to save the wound is failed, then the model will take a wound and have it subtracted from its wounds total potentially causing it to die. Again on page 24 "for every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."

Feel no pain, gives a model under certain circumstances a method of potentially not being removed from the table from losing his last wound, however it was still hit and wounded, it just was not enough to cripple/kill the figure. I.e. a flesh wound. It does not however go back in time and let you take another bite at the apple and break the only 1 save can be attempted per wound rule.

Passing your feel no pain does not mean that you were never hit in the first place, and as such, you are still liable to suffer any effects that come with failing your save, from having to pass a pinning check, having to pass a statistic test, or even having your armor removed. (or all three potentially in the future)

*edit* fixed typo

Norsehawk wrote:Feel no pain, gives a model under certain circumstances a method of potentially not being removed from the table from losing his last wound, however it was still hit and wounded, it just was not enough to cripple/kill the figure. I.e. a flesh wound. It does not however go back in time and let you take another bite at the apple and break the only 1 save can be attempted per wound rule.

No one is arguing that it does. The one allowed save was failed, which is (essentially) what kicks in FNP. And FNP works for more than just the last wound - you could have a 3W model making every FNP test and never dip below 3W.

Passing your feel no pain does not mean that you were never hit in the first place, and as such, you are still liable to suffer any effects that come with failing your save, from having to pass a pinning check, having to pass a statistic test, or even having your armor removed. (or all three potentially in the future)

You're right - FNP does not ignore the hit. It ignores the unsaved wound. If you apply any of the "after affects" you're not ignoring the unsaved wound.

"It's like the person who wrote that post didn't come into the thread and say essentially the exact same thing. Oh wait - he did."
-Rigeld

...and he sounds awfully handsome, too.

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

Actually the argument hinges on the premise that both effects are triggered by the same event, and neither has the power to affect the other once they are triggered, so they must both be resolved. The argument regarding the paradox is simply to rule out the possibility of going back and un-triggering the effects. Do you really need a rule to tell you that the creation of an irreconcilable time paradox is unacceptable? Really?

Anyhow, I was probably more eloquent in the article, so I agree with copper.talos (an unpaid endorser, I assure you!) that you should take a look at the article itself for a fuller, clearer picture of my argument. And if (when?) this thread gets locked, feel free to come and argue with me some more over there if you'd care to.

Hope this helps!
-GK

See, I've never understood the whole "creates a paradox" argument. If feel no pain makes it so that you never took the wound, why would you go back in time to try to take it?

If you have problems with that, shouldn't you have problems with twin-linked? A twin linked weapon may reroll a failed roll to hit. But if you reroll and successfully hit, then by the paradox argument you never actually missed, since the twin link retconned that. So then you shouldn't have gotten a reroll. Which means you would have missed, thereby saying you do get a reroll again....

This is not complex new rules, or wonky interactions between two rulebooks written without cross checking. It's all from the same rule in the BGB. If you think that everything that lets you negate something happening should check the past again after it's already taken back, you would never finish a game of 40k.

I can definitely see strong arguments for both sides, and it is (for some time) been an issue with Feel No Pain and how other effects that trigger on an "unsaved wound" are affected or not affected by it. I find it odd that GW haven't yet FAQ'd this, seeing as FNP and things that trigger on unsaved wounds aren't exactly a rarity, and are quite likely to come up in the average game. Nor is the answer immediately obvious, as can be seen by the arguments back and forth, both compelling.

I find myself leaning towards the train of thought that Feel No Pain allows you to ignore the wound, but no other effects. This is because, as others have said before, Feel No Pain is not, and cannot be, a "Save", therefore if indeed you are forced to roll a FNP check you have suffered an "Unsaved Wound" already.

FNP does allow you to retroactively ignore a wound, it does not allow you to retroactively ignore the fact that a wound did in fact occur. These two things may seem identical, but there is an important distinction between them.
Basically, Feel No Pain = ignoring a wound's direct negative affect on the model's wound characteristic, not: ignoring a wound and all the attendant effects that said unsaved wound may or may not entail.

Dr. Delorean wrote:
I find myself leaning towards the train of thought that Feel No Pain allows you to ignore the wound, but no other effects. This is because, as others have said before, Feel No Pain is not, and cannot be, a "Save", therefore if indeed you are forced to roll a FNP check you have suffered an "Unsaved Wound" already.

FNP does allow you to retroactively ignore a wound, it does not allow you to retroactively ignore the fact that a wound did in fact occur. These two things may seem identical, but there is an important distinction between them.
Basically, Feel No Pain = ignoring a wound's direct negative affect on the model's wound characteristic, not: ignoring a wound and all the attendant effects that said unsaved wound may or may not entail.

That's my view as well. Since you only get one chance to save a wound, cover save, armor save, or invulnerable save, you only get one. Thus, Feel no Pain is not a save since you would not be allowed by the rules to use it if you rolled one of the other saves. You only get one chance to save the wound, then if that save is failed, it is an unsaved wound. Feel no pain, pinning, entropic strike and other abilities activate on an unsaved wound. Thus if a model takes an unsaved wound by failing one of the saves, all the effects that are applicable are applied to the model. It cannot go back in time and change an unsaved wound into a saved wound since that is taking a second chance at saving a wound, which is not allowed in the rules. All it protects you from is the actual subtraction of the wound from the profile of the model. The model still suffered an unsaved wound, but it wasn't enough to kill/cripple their fighting ability, so any effects that rely on an unsaved wound would trigger.

So yes, you get shot with a pinning weapon, wounded, your armor does not protected and you shrug off the fire, you still need to take a pinning test.
You get munched on by a scarab, it goes through your armor but you are not killed, you still don't have armor anymore.
You get shot with a hex rifle, you get your feel no pain roll, but you must also take a toughness test.

And if you get wounded by a pinning hexrifle with entropic strike, you get your feel no pain, lose your armor save, take a pinning check, and take a toughness test in whatever order you wish to do with your opponent, but all the tests must be done.

Norsehawk wrote:

Dr. Delorean wrote:
I find myself leaning towards the train of thought that Feel No Pain allows you to ignore the wound, but no other effects. This is because, as others have said before, Feel No Pain is not, and cannot be, a "Save", therefore if indeed you are forced to roll a FNP check you have suffered an "Unsaved Wound" already.

FNP does allow you to retroactively ignore a wound, it does not allow you to retroactively ignore the fact that a wound did in fact occur. These two things may seem identical, but there is an important distinction between them.
Basically, Feel No Pain = ignoring a wound's direct negative affect on the model's wound characteristic, not: ignoring a wound and all the attendant effects that said unsaved wound may or may not entail.

That's my view as well. Since you only get one chance to save a wound, cover save, armor save, or invulnerable save, you only get one. Thus, Feel no Pain is not a save since you would not be allowed by the rules to use it if you rolled one of the other saves. You only get one chance to save the wound, then if that save is failed, it is an unsaved wound. Feel no pain, pinning, entropic strike and other abilities activate on an unsaved wound. Thus if a model takes an unsaved wound by failing one of the saves, all the effects that are applicable are applied to the model. It cannot go back in time and change an unsaved wound into a saved wound since that is taking a second chance at saving a wound, which is not allowed in the rules. All it protects you from is the actual subtraction of the wound from the profile of the model. The model still suffered an unsaved wound, but it wasn't enough to kill/cripple their fighting ability, so any effects that rely on an unsaved wound would trigger.

So yes, you get shot with a pinning weapon, wounded, your armor does not protected and you shrug off the fire, you still need to take a pinning test.
You get munched on by a scarab, it goes through your armor but you are not killed, you still don't have armor anymore.
You get shot with a hex rifle, you get your feel no pain roll, but you must also take a toughness test.

And if you get wounded by a pinning hexrifle with entropic strike, you get your feel no pain, lose your armor save, take a pinning check, and take a toughness test in whatever order you wish to do with your opponent, but all the tests must be done.

As I said a few pages back:

Pinning.

Assault Results.

Vulnerable to Blast/templates.

Remove casualties.

All of these things(and a great many others) are triggered via "Suffers an unsaved wound". If FNP does not ignore the Unsaved wound in total(which would be how you ignore something, like Cover saves or armour saves get totally ignored no matter what other benefits or penalties could be applied to them); then all of these still take place, including the removal of your model as a casualty(because FNP ignores the injury from the unsaved wound, which must be the wound itself; and if that is not the whole of the unsaved wound, then the model still dies because the remove casualties is based on the unsaved wound).

FNP Ignores the unsaved wound; that does not "retroactively remove" the unsaved wound, it creates no temporal paradox, it occurs before the Immediate removal of the model as a casualty, and if successful the unsaved wound is ignored(or discarded) in total.

Now the Reason I have said nothing on the Hexrifle discussion is that the Hexrifle cold possibly be a weapon that causes ID, thus negating FNP; but that does not get determined until after the wound has been unsaved.

"Pinning. Assault Results. Vulnerable to Blast/templates. Remove casualties. All of these things(and a great many others) are triggered via "Suffers an unsaved wound". If FNP does not ignore the Unsaved wound in total(which would be how you ignore something, like Cover saves or armour saves get totally ignored no matter what other benefits or penalties could be applied to them); then all of these still take place, including the removal of your model as a casualty(because FNP ignores the injury from the unsaved wound, which must be the wound itself; and if that is not the whole of the unsaved wound, then the model still dies because the remove casualties is based on the unsaved wound). "
-Komissar Kel

I disagree. Not all of these things occur despite a successful FNP roll.

Yes, you still have to take the pinning test if you pass FNP. See BGB p. 31 Like hexrifles, entropic strikes, etc. both effects are triggered by the unsaved wound, and neither has any impact on the other.
No, wounds ignored by FNP are not counted toward assault results. The assault result rules tell us that "wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count" (BGB p. 39). FNP would certainly qualify as a special rule with a similar effect to a saving throw. So FNP'ed wounds don't count.
Yes, vulnerable to blast/templates would cause two wounds, but nothing would prevent you from getting a FNP roll against both of 'em. See BGB p. 76
No, you would not remove a casualty (or subtract a wound) if you pass FNP, because by using context clues, you can see that's exactly what the FNP rule is telling you not to do when it says "ignore the injury". See BGB p. 75

FNP Ignores the unsaved wound; that does not "retroactively remove" the unsaved wound, it creates no temporal paradox, it occurs before the Immediate removal of the model as a casualty, and if successful the unsaved wound is ignored(or discarded) in total.
-Komissar Kel

I completely agree, but ignoring the wound means 'ignore it from this point on in the wound resolution process'. It does not mean going back and un-triggering or un-doing other completely separate effects which have also been triggered. As has been argued by many, including me, we absolutely cannot go back in time and un-trigger effects which have already been triggered. Nothing in the rules allows for that.

Now the Reason I have said nothing on the Hexrifle discussion is that the Hexrifle cold possibly be a weapon that causes ID, thus negating FNP; but that does not get determined until after the wound has been unsaved.
-Komissar Kel

I addressed that issue in my article on hexrifles vs. fnp. Since this isn't a hexrifle thread, I won't go into the details here.

Hope this helps!
-GK

GiantKiller wrote:

FNP Ignores the unsaved wound; that does not "retroactively remove" the unsaved wound, it creates no temporal paradox, it occurs before the Immediate removal of the model as a casualty, and if successful the unsaved wound is ignored(or discarded) in total.
-Komissar Kel

I completely agree, but ignoring the wound means 'ignore it from this point on in the wound resolution process'. It does not mean going back and un-triggering or un-doing other completely separate effects which have also been triggered. As has been argued by many, including me, we absolutely cannot go back in time and un-trigger effects which have already been triggered. Nothing in the rules allows for that.

Couldn't agree more; and when does FNP stop the wound from being applied?

Just prior to the Immediate application of the wound, which would be at the same time as all other "Immediately" effects.

Also you do not determine if a model has suffered "1 or more unsaved wounds" until after all wounds have been fully applied, so again the FNP ignores the unsaved wounds before ES ever gets a chance to kick in.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Couldn't agree more; and when does FNP stop the wound from being applied?

Just prior to the Immediate application of the wound, which would be at the same time as all other "Immediately" effects.

Also you do not determine if a model has suffered "1 or more unsaved wounds" until after all wounds have been fully applied, so again the FNP ignores the unsaved wounds before ES ever gets a chance to kick in.

I don't understand this logic.

If a swarm of Scarabs attacks a unit and causes 10 Wounds, and say the defender rolls 6 Saves, there are now 4 Unsaved Wounds.
All these Unsaved Wounds occur simultaneously, and they all trigger ES and FNP at the same time.

The "1 or more unsaved wounds" is to let you know that Entropic Strike only triggers once per model regardless of whether they suffer 1 or a million unsaved wounds (and giving a million chances to lose their armour).

No, there are no longer 4 unsaved wounds once you pass FNP - if there were then the unit would be down 4 models. As has been explained.

Are you ignoring the unsaved wound if you continue to pay attention to it? (ES) then you ahve broken a rule that explicitly tells you to IGNORE The unsaved wound

Even if magically the FNP transforms an unsaved wound to a saved wound, by the time FNP resolves ES has already stripped the model of its armour (ES resolves immediately, FNP doesn't). So at that time you need to cancel the effect itself not it's cause. And I don't see anywhere that says FNP restores armour saves.

The wording for FNP is "...the injury is ignored..".

One could equal Injury to Effect equally well as Injury to Unsaved Wound.

just looking for clarity, really.

copper.talos wrote:Even if magically the FNP transforms an unsaved wound to a saved wound, by the time FNP resolves ES has already stripped the model of its armour (ES resolves immediately, FNP doesn't). So at that time you need to cancel the effect itself not it's cause. And I don't see anywhere that says FNP restores armour saves.

Utter lack of rules again, joy.

You're also changing others arguments in order to create a strawman. Yet another logical fallacy.

And yet you fail again to explain why FNP resolves before ES...

And yet again you ignore your lack of rules.

"1 or more unsaved wound" is why. Its been explained to you a number of times by KK and others, and you keep ignoring it, fingers in ears style.

Read the tenets. Start using actual rules to back up your position, as you have failed to do so thus far.

"1 or more unsaved wounds" does not have to imply any kind of order, but rather a condition that explains the effect of ES.

That illlogical paradox?

First of all you "forget" that all wounds at a certain initative step happen simultaneously? It is in BRB you know. Now if you have a quote out of BRB or a FAQ that say wounds in a certain initiative step happen sequentially I'll give up. Since all wounds happen simultaneously why would ES delay it activation? No basis for ES delayed activation whatsoever then.

And now time for the paradox. What if you only get 1 unsaved wound. Then what? Using your "logic", ES will not need to wait for more wounds. So even if you roll successfully FNP your armour gets stripped. But if you get 2 or more unsaved wounds then your armour will be safe?! One would think more is better...

Do you see your logical fallacy now?

edit: @steelmage99 I totally agree with you. This has been pointed out before, but got ignored as it is "inconvenient" for some people...

Apparnetly you dont understand either logic or paradox. It is neither. Try again.

Sto putting words in my mouth. Stop constructing 2 different strawman arguments (the same logical fallacy twice in as many posts, a record?) and stop ignoring the arguments.

You are using words you dont know the meaning of. An incorrect argument (which KKels isnt, btw, just helping you out here) is not de facto a logical fallacy. Your arguments, however, are ENTIRELY based on logical fallacies.

So, you know that unsaved wound you are supposed to be ignoring, because you passed FNP? Guess what youre NOT doing - ignoring it.

Find a rule that addresses how you are allowed to pay attention to, and ignore something, at the same time. At the very least stop creating strawman arguments

I guess by your last post you admit that ES resolves before FNP then...

What part of "putting words in others mouths" are you struggling with?

copper.talos wrote:And yet you fail again to explain why FNP resolves before ES...

nosferatu1001 wrote:And yet again you ignore your lack of rules.

"1 or more unsaved wound" is why. Its been explained to you a number of times by KK and others, and you keep ignoring it, fingers in ears style.

Read the tenets. Start using actual rules to back up your position, as you have failed to do so thus far.

copper.talos wrote:That illlogical paradox?

First of all you "forget" that all wounds at a certain initative step happen simultaneously? It is in BRB you know. Now if you have a quote out of BRB or a FAQ that say wounds in a certain initiative step happen sequentially I'll give up. Since all wounds happen simultaneously why would ES delay it activation? No basis for ES delayed activation whatsoever then.

And now time for the paradox. What if you only get 1 unsaved wound. Then what? Using your "logic", ES will not need to wait for more wounds. So even if you roll successfully FNP your armour gets stripped. But if you get 2 or more unsaved wounds then your armour will be safe?! One would think more is better...

Do you see your logical fallacy now?

edit: @steelmage99 I totally agree with you. This has been pointed out before, but got ignored as it is "inconvenient" for some people...

Steelmage99 wrote:"1 or more unsaved wounds" does not have to imply any kind of order, but rather a condition that explains the effect of ES.

copper.talos wrote:And yet you fail again to explain why FNP resolves before ES...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Apparnetly you dont understand either logic or paradox. It is neither. Try again.

Sto putting words in my mouth. Stop constructing 2 different strawman arguments (the same logical fallacy twice in as many posts, a record?) and stop ignoring the arguments.

You are using words you dont know the meaning of. An incorrect argument (which KKels isnt, btw, just helping you out here) is not de facto a logical fallacy. Your arguments, however, are ENTIRELY based on logical fallacies.

So, you know that unsaved wound you are supposed to be ignoring, because you passed FNP? Guess what youre NOT doing - ignoring it.

Find a rule that addresses how you are allowed to pay attention to, and ignore something, at the same time. At the very least stop creating strawman arguments

The discussion at that point started with me saying ES resolves before FNP, you said that is not valid because of the "1 or more wounds" thing. I have proven that "logic" is against the rules and it creates a paradox (logic and paradox are greek words by the way, so don't think you know their meaning better than me).

So is there anything else to suggest that ES resolves after FNP?

copper.talos wrote:And yet you fail again to explain why FNP resolves before ES...

I have already explained it twice.

Lets see if you can understand explanation #3:

Go to remove Casualties, page 24 of the BRB; you will see there in the very first paragraph that you Immediately Apply the Unsaved wound(which means removal of the model or application of the wound to multiple-Wound models). This puts the Application of the unsaved wound at the Same timing as any other "Immediately" effects that trigger on an unsaved wound.

Now FNP would absolutely have to go off before the "Immediately" of the Wound application, because to go off any time later would be too late, the wound would already be applied.

Once FNP resolved the Unsaved wound is ignored(it is not technically changed into a Saved Wound, it is simply ignored altogether) from that point on; and remember FNP is resolved before "Immediately" effects.

That is the Basics on why FNP goes before anything else that is triggered on an unsaved wound.



Now for the part that I have explained 6 or 7 times in this thread:

ES does not resolve until all simultaneous attacks(All shooting from 1 unit, all CC attacks from 1 Initiative step) are fully resolved; this definitely means that even without the above, FNP resolves first because you do not determine if a model has suffered "1 or more unsaved wounds" until every simultaneous attack is resolved.

edit: On your "logic and Paradox" fallacy, and the Simultaneous nature of the attacks; You have your argument backwards, you are arguing from an illogical standpoint. this is purely for education.

Since all attacks(from a single unit shooting or single initiative step in close combat) are simultaneous and not sequential(which is 100% accurate, btw); then all of those simultaneous attacks must be fully resolved before you can determine if 1 or more unsaved wounds have been suffered, it also would certainly not resolve against any of those attacks.

I will illustrate this with a pair of examples using Triarchs against a Hive Tyrant:

5 Triarchs with voidblades assault a Hive Tyrant; they manage to not lose any models to the tyrants attacks. The Triarchs make their 15 attacks, hitting 8 times and wounding 5. One of those wounds was rending. The Tyrant would take 1 wound from the unsaveable rending wound, and then roll 4 3+ Armor saves. As you see he takes a wound, but all the simultaneous wounds would resolve at the same time before the ES kicks in, thus getting their Armour saves. After all of this the Hive tyrant will have lost its 3+ Armour save as it has taken 1 or more unsaved wounds.

5 Triarchs with voidblades assault a Hive Tyrant that somehow has FNP; they manage to not lose any models to the tyrants attacks. The Triarchs make their 15 attacks, hitting 8 times and wounding 5. The Tyrant would then roll 5 3+ Armor saves, failing 2 of them but then making his FNP. Since we are still resolving all of those Simultaneous wounds ES wold not Kick in unitl they are all fully resolved, and since FNP is an interupt on the Wound application, t is part of the Attack resolution process. In the End the Hive tyrant keeps its 3+ Armour save, because after the Simultaneous attacks have been resolved the HT hasn't suffered any unsaved wounds(the 2 that were FNP'd are ignored).

The rules disagree with you. You have 2 different abilities that trigger on the same cause, in this case an unsaved wound. So which of the 2 abilities takes priority is only depended upon the wording of these two abilities. And reading both rules, the word "immediately" gives priority to ES.

Kommissar Kel wrote:ES does not resolve until all simultaneous attacks(All shooting from 1 unit, all CC attacks from 1 Initiative step) are fully resolved; this definitely means that even without the above, FNP resolves first because you do not determine if a model has suffered "1 or more unsaved wounds" until every simultaneous attack is resolved.

I think you have a different concept of "simultaneous" than the rest of the world. To help you, if 15 unsaved wounds from 6 models happen simultaneously, then there is no time gap between them, it's from rolling saves to 15 unsaved wounds with nothing in between. So no delays whatsoever.

copper.talos wrote:I think you have a different concept of "simultaneous" than the rest of the world. To help you, if 15 unsaved wounds from 6 models happen simultaneously, then there is no time gap between them, it's from rolling saves to 15 unsaved wounds with nothing in between. So no delays whatsoever.

That's not what simultaneous means. It means that they all happen at the same time. So all 15 wounds happen at the same time. In this context, "happen" means "resolved". So you roll 15 FNPs and figure out unsaved wounds from there. You are not allowed to roll 12 FNPs, see what happens, then roll the other 3.

Wow, just Wow.

The word Immediately shows up in remove casualties; so you are trying to say that FNP happens after remove casualties right?


So again FNP does nothing according to you; your model is already Gone or has lost a wound well before FNP can resolve.


FNP resolves before wound application, therefore it resolves before all the "Immediately" effects, that is the only possible way that FNP can work and any of this nonsense about FNP lacking the Word "immediately" means it resolves after effects that do have the word "Immediately" means that it does not resolve until the odel in question loses the wound/is destroyed.



I think you have a different concept of what my quote says than the rest of the world. To help you all simultaneous attacks resolving before Es kicks in, maintains all simultaneous attacks as being... well Simultaneous.

I had never said there was any delays in any of the attacks, I said they were simultaneous, you go from all the attacks, to the attacks that hit rolling to wound, to the attacks that wound attempting to save to the failed saves attempting to FNP, to the application of any remaining unsaved wounds. After this point, if the model is still on the table, you can go straight into the check: Did the model suffer 1 or more unsaved wounds?

@rigeld 2 Timeline is hits->wounds->saves->unsaved wounds. On these unsaved wounds both ES and FNP trigger.
And I do say that all the simultaneous unsaved wounds happen at the same time. I don't get why you think I am telling otherwise.


@ΚΚ To get things straight. FNP doesn't have in its wording anything that would even hint of it having a priority. But yes it has a priority over the "immediately remove casualties", but that is the same for all effects that trigger on unsaved wounds. For example pinning weapons that cause 1 unsaved wound and kill 1 model, do cause a pinning check. And nowhere in the pinning weapon rules is any hint of a priority either. So effects that trigger on unsaved wounds, all have inherently a priority over "immediately remove casualties". So when it comes down to comparing ES and FNP, ES gets priority because of the "immediately" in its wording.