hisdudeness wrote:Tarrasq wrote: captain wrote:
Yes, unless the special rule gives you other guidelines. Like using the word "immediately."
I understand that and happen to agree with you however the post was intended for those who disagree with that point. Just making the point that if
ES doesn't resolve first it must resolve at the same time as
FNP as the rules allow for such a situation.
Also
FNP does not remove wounds retroactively. It simply replaces an unsaved wound with a saved wound. That does not mean that the unsaved wound never happened, as it says right in the
FNP rules that it did.
'immediately' means nothing, this is not Magic where we have defined keywords on timing. Until someone shows me where this timing mechanic is, 'immediately' has no effect on the rules. No one has been able to tell me what goes before/after 'immediate' actions. Does that mean as soon as I point to a model and say "unsaved Wound here" even if I'm still thinking? That is immediately is it not? What if I'm using dice as unsaved Wound indicators and as I am thinking I place one next to a model, does
ES take effect then? We are told "immediately", and that is 'immediately'.
Again, if you apply the effect of
ES how are you ignoring the Wound? If you keep any effect of the Wound you are not ignoring it and thus breaking the rules for
FnP. I'm not understanding how this simple concept is just pushed asided.
I'm sorry but you cannot ignore a word used by
GW simply because it has no definition in the rules. Not all words used in the rules are going to have clearly defined meanings in game terms, and when one does not have a clearly defined definition in game terms you cannot simply ignore it because it is inconvenient to you.
And for the record, I have answered your question you just refuse to see it. But because I really think this is worth discussing, I will do it again in a different way to help you see our side of the coin.
1. Your question of timing is answered by page 9. It tells us there that timing is important as different things can effect how you and your models interact. So you can say that timing is irrelevant, but
GW disagrees. It further tells us two different things: the order in which simultaneous effects are applied is determined by the player whose turn if is, and the special rule will tell you when to resolve it. What this means is we look to the special rule and determine if there is any guidance about timing. In the absence of guidance we apply all effects triggered simultaneously and let the person whose turn it is decide in what order they are applied. In this case the
FNP rule tells us the trigger, when the model suffers an unsaved wound, but nothing further. Nothing says it must go first or can be done before we do anything else, so therefore it does not. It cannot go first, by the way a permissive ruleset works.
ES rule gives us the trigger, when a model suffers an unsaved wound, and further tells us that immediately after that something happens. The special rule provides us guidance about when to apply it so we turn to that first. The wording, in full context, says you apply it immediately after you have acknowledged the model suffers one or more unsaved wounds.
2. There is no such thing as an immediate action in
WH40k. We don't claim there is. That's not to say that the use of the word immediately is somehow ignored. Immediately means just that, immediately. Once a special rule is triggered by an event you immediately, before anything else, resolve the rule. You then continue to apply any other rules triggered by that event. The game doesn't stop because we went off track to do something that happens using words the rules don't clearly define.
3. "does that mean as soon as I point to a model and say "unsaved wound there" even if I'm still thinking?"
Not even a little bit. You don't get to think further about an unsaved wound, there is no concern. Look on page 16 (pretty sure, I don't have my book with me) under the Take Saving Throws paragraph. It says, in effect, that you take Wounds, take any saving throws allowed, then count the number of unsaved Wounds applied. So for an unsaved Wound to exists the decision about where to put it has been made, it is allocated to the closest model to the firing unit, and you have already failed the save it was allowed. Note: in the situation where more than one model is the same distance away it does say suffers an unsaved wound. When you are considering which model gets to die the model has not suffered the unsaved wound. So again, no conflict. It seems you are overcomplicating things and it is not required. The answer is really quite simple. Has the model suffered a wound. If you place a die next to it but are clearly still deciding then no the model has not clearly suffered a wound and thus
ES is not yet applied.
4. Someone else brought up a very good point:
ES is not an effect of suffering an unsaved wound, it is an effect of the
ES special rule being triggered by an unsaved wound. A
FNP roll is triggered by an unsaved wound but is not an effect of suffering a wound but an effect of the
FNP rule. Removing a wound from the model's wound characteristic is an effect of failing your save. This is evidenced by the fact that with mixed saves you allocate the wound, take the save if allowed, an remove the wound from the wound characteristic. (with a squad of the same save there is no allocation the unsaved wound is given to the closest model first.)
FNP modifies removing a wound from the model's wound characteristic not failing the save. Treat it as having been saved and don't remove the wound, but
FNP does not modify
ES.
5. "If you apply the effect of
ES how are you ignoring the wound?" A single wound model doesn't die. As I pointed out above
FNP modifies removing the wound not failing your save. You are ignoring the wound being removed.
1850 
1850+ 
1850+ 
1850+ 
1850+ 
1850+ 
1850+ 
1850+ 
1850+ 
1850+ 
1850+ 
1850+ 
1000 and counting