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.

Irrelevant to the point at hand. We are not discussing tervigons here, we are discussing FW and Bone Swords Vs FNP. Keep comments that have to do with other threads in other threads.

Currently the way I see it is you play by the rule of Break No rules everyone is happy.

Say a Multi-wound unit with FNP takes 4 wounds from a from a model with a force weapon.

1st wound - failed save but passes FNP turning the unsaved wound into a Saved wound. Force gets no chance to activate
2nd wound - failed save but fails FNP. Force activates successfully meaning all remaining wounds are now ID
3rd wound - failed save does not get FNP due to weapon having ID rule.
4th wound - failed save does not get FNP due to weapon having ID rule.

Yes it slows the game down but in this case it allows both players to benefit from their rules without having a dice roll off.

The multi wound model in the above example would snuff it immediately following activation of the force weapon after suffering the 2nd wound, right?

Not if it had EW

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The multi wound model in the above example would snuff it immediately following activation of the force weapon after suffering the 2nd wound, right?

It may, it was stated "multi wound unit" Say for example the weapon in question is ap3, and it's striking against Paladins w/ FNP.

ah now I see your mistake, multi wound unit, not model.

Most units are multi wound... Somewhat implicit in my opinion.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Most units are multi wound... Somewhat implicit in my opinion.

A multi-wound unit is a unit consisting of multi-wound models.

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

It is not incorrect and here is why:

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

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

Now 2 things happen:

1) FNP is triggered and needs to be resolved.

2) ES is triggered and needs to be resolved.

Lets assume both rolls are a 6.

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

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

One interpretation breaks the rules, one does not.

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

I don't think this is a good example in this argument as ES doesn't roll for taking away the armour save, only to strip armour value from a vehicle facing. The actual wording for that portion or the rule is: "any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses it's armour save for the remainder of the battle..."

EDIT: clarity.

It still applies, even if you do not roll to take away the armor save.

if FNP works in all situations by rolling for FNP then rolling/applying other effects, and the reverse is not true, then you roll FNP first because it does not break any rules and the other way does.

Sorry, but I'm still not seeing that it applies. I'm not sure what you mean by 'if the reverse is not true'.

In the FW example the owning player has to roll to get an effect to happen.

In the ES example, the owning player doesn't have to do anything. There is nothing but the regular saves, and then the FNP roll happening. If FNP fails, then the armour save is gone.

Does that make sense? It doesn't seem like an apples to apples comparison to me, but I may be wrong.


EDIT: Clarity

Right, and if you strip the armor save first (Because there was an unsaved Wound) then you have broken the rule of FNP creating Saved wounds.

That is what I mean by 'if the reverse is not true' (Basically if you apply effects off unsaved wounds before FNP you end up with a 1 wound model without an armor save, but still alive because the wound is treated as saved, which is not correct because if you are applying things on an unsaved wound that FNP saves why do you not reduce the models wounds by one as well?)

Gotcha!

Yes, I see what you mean now.

Thanks for the clarification.