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.

Right, you treat the unsaved discounted wound as saved. It is still an unsaved wound and so the rules for helfrost still apply.

 NightHowler wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
This discussion kind of reminds me of the scenario in the Preferred Enemy/Blast debate, specifically the thought that PE grants a reroll without requiring the To Hit roll of 1 (lets not start that debate again please)

RP "cannot be used against hits from Destroyer weapons or any special rule or attack that states that the model is ‘removed from play"

Helfrost is an attack that states a model is "removed from play"...granted, it only procs on a Strength test roll of 6, but it still contains the key phrase that negates RP.

It is an interesting similarity. One could make a rather tenuous argument that if you get rerolls for blasts from PE, then RP doesn't save you from helfrost and vice versa. Tenuous in the sense that you would effectively be arguing that simply having the first rule (regardless of whether or not it was triggered) was enough for the second rule to be affected.

Tenuous, maybe, but it is effectively the same logic used to justify PE getting a blast scatter reroll. So if one is of the school of thought that PE does allow a reroll of a Blast scatter, then to be consistent, one would have to accept that Helfrost completely negates RP.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
for example, helfrost skips the part about reduce the model's wounds by 1 and therefore also skips the part about remove it as a casualty. With helfrost, if it fails a save, it makes a S test and if it fails that test it is removed from play. With FNP, if it fails a save, it makes a FNP test and if it passes that it acts as if it had saved. BOTH helfrost and FNP are triggered by exactly the same thing - an unsaved wound.

I do, however, disagree with this. Helfrost:
“When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from this weapon, it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered or be removed from play.”

The underlined above means that you do not skip the part about reducing by 1. Each Wound needs to be suffered: The model must have been reduced by -1W before he makes the Strength test.
The word "separate" also clearly cuts the line between having to take the Wound first, and then "separately" making a strength test.
But all of this happens "When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds", yes. Which is "at the same time" as FNP.

The trigger is the same, but my point was that "an unsaved wound" has 3 different time-steps itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:
Even the part you said I'm not correct on, its because your ignoring part of the sentence....

"it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"
VS
"it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"
...Which would be when it suffered the unsaved wound. Suffer a unsaved wound? STR test. Suffer a unsaved wound? STR test. Its only saying the same as FNP's clarification you can take it on every wound you suffer.

I'd point out the first part does agree with you: "When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds"
However: "for each Wound suffered" does not contain the word "unsaved" which is where i draw my conclusions from that it is "after step 2)"

 Nem wrote:
And your placing rules based on where you want them to be in the sequence. There's really no reason why the others would be placed after suffering a unsaved wound. 3 steps may be RAW, but still all of them happen RAW at step 1.

I think the best way to describe this specific point of view is this:

They all trigger before step 1), as soon as the model fails a Save roll.
However.
All of these rules (ID less accurate) contain wording which implies that the effect of the rules is separate.

IE: You fail an armour save.
You trigger:
Helfrost
Feel No Pain
Instant Death
Eternal Warrior
Reanimation protocol

Conflicts?
EW specifically modifies the ID rules (only loose 1, not all)
RP and FNP conflict, you must choose (IIRC)

Result:
. . . . . . . . . /--> Roll RP -->\
Fail Save --> Roll FNP --> reduce Wound by 1 (because ID said more, but EW modified) --> Roll Strength test --> Remove model.

Ok, so I have debated before against FNP based on a possible sequence in the 'Unsaved wound' area, it wasn't much different, but I dropped it quite quickly as it's impossible to prove based on it not being listed as a sequence, and dual terminology being used. This was based on the purpose of FNP and is much like the last post from Mordaem.

It does this within FNP rule, it uses the word 'unsaved wound' and 'the wound' as the same thing.

Roll a D6 every time a unsaved wound is suffered On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5+ the unsaved wound is discounted ..... ..... D6 result needed to discount the Wound

FNP also uses the word 'Wounded' which I have previously dubbed the -1W. But above, the difference can not be verified if there is any, the rules use both interchangeably through sloppy writing.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
More examples of suffers a wound being used to describe a wound before armor save...

Gets hot

For each To Hit roll of 1, the firing model immediately suffers a Wound (armour or invulnerable saves can be taken)

Repeated in Rending rule

For each To Wound roll of a 6, the target automatically suffers a Wound, regardless of its Toughness. These Wounds are resolved at AP2.

Little different, but if suffering a wound was after suffering a unsaved wound you wouldn't be able to use FNP against power 'Purge Soul' due to..

Suffers a Automatic Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed.

This pattern for Purge soul also continues through some other powers.

Cover saves:

Models do not get cover saves against any Wounds Suffered from CC attacks

Which is using wounds suffered terminology before saving throws.




I motion GW doesn't write in a specific difference against suffering/suffered a Wound / Unsaved Wound, at the least you can have suffered a wound before you take your armour saves, they are not consistent in this area at all, A 'wound' is something which more often that not happens before a 'unsaved wound', and FNP is also rolled when it is suffered. Meaning if 'suffered' made a difference (which I believe it doesn't) then Hellfire would be placed before FNP, as you have suffered a wound before you have suffered a unsaved wound.


If there was meant to be a difference though, in that way specifically, while It would effect Hellfire it would effect very few other rules which are generated by unsaved wound, things like concussive do not contain the roll when suffered a wound.

 Nem wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
for example, helfrost skips the part about reduce the model's wounds by 1 and therefore also skips the part about remove it as a casualty. With helfrost, if it fails a save, it makes a S test and if it fails that test it is removed from play. With FNP, if it fails a save, it makes a FNP test and if it passes that it acts as if it had saved. BOTH helfrost and FNP are triggered by exactly the same thing - an unsaved wound.

I do, however, disagree with this. Helfrost:
“When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from this weapon, it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered or be removed from play.”

The underlined above means that you do not skip the part about reducing by 1. Each Wound needs to be suffered: The model must have been reduced by -1W before he makes the Strength test.
The word "separate" also clearly cuts the line between having to take the Wound first, and then "separately" making a strength test.
But all of this happens "When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds", yes. Which is "at the same time" as FNP.

The trigger is the same, but my point was that "an unsaved wound" has 3 different time-steps itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:
Even the part you said I'm not correct on, its because your ignoring part of the sentence....

"it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"
VS
"it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"
...Which would be when it suffered the unsaved wound. Suffer a unsaved wound? STR test. Suffer a unsaved wound? STR test. Its only saying the same as FNP's clarification you can take it on every wound you suffer.

I'd point out the first part does agree with you: "When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds"
However: "for each Wound suffered" does not contain the word "unsaved" which is where i draw my conclusions from that it is "after step 2)"

 Nem wrote:
And your placing rules based on where you want them to be in the sequence. There's really no reason why the others would be placed after suffering a unsaved wound. 3 steps may be RAW, but still all of them happen RAW at step 1.

I think the best way to describe this specific point of view is this:

They all trigger before step 1), as soon as the model fails a Save roll.
However.
All of these rules (ID less accurate) contain wording which implies that the effect of the rules is separate.

IE: You fail an armour save.
You trigger:
Helfrost
Feel No Pain
Instant Death
Eternal Warrior
Reanimation protocol

Conflicts?
EW specifically modifies the ID rules (only loose 1, not all)
RP and FNP conflict, you must choose (IIRC)

Result:
. . . . . . . . . /--> Roll RP -->\
Fail Save --> Roll FNP --> reduce Wound by 1 (because ID said more, but EW modified) --> Roll Strength test --> Remove model.

Ok, so I have debated before against FNP based on a possible sequence in the 'Unsaved wound' area, it wasn't much different, but I dropped it quite quickly as it's impossible to prove based on it not being listed as a sequence, and dual terminology being used. This was based on the purpose of FNP and is much like the last post from Mordaem.

It does this within FNP rule, it uses the word 'unsaved wound' and 'the wound' as the same thing.

Roll a D6 every time a unsaved wound is suffered On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5+ the unsaved wound is discounted ..... ..... D6 result needed to discount the Wound

FNP also uses the word 'Wounded' which I have previously dubbed the -1W. But above, the difference can not be verified if there is any, the rules use both interchangeably through sloppy writing.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
More examples of suffers a wound being used to describe a wound before armor save...

Gets hot

For each To Hit roll of 1, the firing model immediately suffers a Wound (armour or invulnerable saves can be taken)

Repeated in Rending rule

For each To Wound roll of a 6, the target automatically suffers a Wound, regardless of its Toughness. These Wounds are resolved at AP2.

Little different, but if suffering a wound was after suffering a unsaved wound you wouldn't be able to use FNP against power 'Purge Soul' due to..

Suffers a Automatic Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed.

This pattern for Purge soul also continues through some other powers.

Cover saves:

Models do not get cover saves against any Wounds Suffered from CC attacks

Which is using wounds suffered terminology before saving throws.




I motion GW doesn't write in a specific difference against suffering/suffered a Wound / Unsaved Wound, at the least you can have suffered a wound before you take your armour saves, they are not consistent in this area at all, A 'wound' is something which more often that not happens before a 'unsaved wound', and FNP is also rolled when it is suffered. Meaning if 'suffered' made a difference (which I believe it doesn't) then Hellfire would be placed before FNP, as you have suffered a wound before you have suffered a unsaved wound.


If there was meant to be a difference though, in that way specifically, while It would effect Hellfire it would effect very few other rules which are generated by unsaved wound, things like concussive do not contain the roll when suffered a wound.

I think i understand where we are getting confused with the whole "suffers a Wound" here:

I am in no way saying that "suffers a Wound" must happen after FNP or saves. I was making a point as to how the two wordings are completely different:
suffers a Wound =/= suffers an unsaved Wound

"suffers a Wound" can indeed (Gets Hot, Rending, etc) happen at the To Wound stage. Because they mostly imply that saves are coming next (Rending is AP2: "you probably won't get a save". Gets hot:"you can save"... etc)

"suffers an unsaved Wound" however, is a clear point in time: the model has rolled a save, but failed. The special rules identified earlier have triggered. As soon as the Save is failed. FNP, by it's wording, seem to apply immediately (before you remove the -1W), while EW would clearly modify ID at the point when the Wound is "stricken off the sheet" (my step 2) above).

Helfrost however, has the wording for each Wound suffered. Now this could be, as you say, a wound Suffered during the To Wound step.
But i do not think that is possible:
First you need to trigger the rule with "When " - so it must be after the save has failed.
Secondly, "it must pass a separate Strength test", which can only be "separate" from suffering the unsaved (timing) Wound and will be taken "for each Wound suffered".
Which, at this point, can only be when the Wound is "stricken off the sheet" (my step 2) above).

TL: DR:
FNP / RP and Helfrost both trigger simultaneously, but the effects of "rule modification" or "when to apply the rule" are at different times after the Wound was failed to be saved.

Yes, I know what you mean but I was pointing out sometimes they use them interchangeably, through what I presume is laziness Each wound is suffered could be before saves, each unsaved wound, or upon each removal of a wound.

Due to the beginning of the rule, its probably each unsaved wound, and they omitted 'unsaved' through lazyness (Like in some sentences of the FNP rule one uses 'unsaved wound' the other uses 'wound' and they mean unsaved wound....)Rather than triggering the rule at two different times. 'Separate test' can be separate test for each unsaved wound...

Should there be a difference and FNP is resolved first though, at the moment I don't think we can be sure FNP stops anything other than the wound removal and other effects continue no matter the outcome of FNP (Despite the fact one of the sentences for resolution specifies 'unsaved wound' rather than 'wound'. If only the 'Wound' line existed then, IMO, that RAW would line up with the FAQ) , or the order of resolution. A clearer divide in time is a FMC's grounding test and what we do with that.

The FMC grounded test sort of supports what i was thinking for these rules:
The trigger is the unsaved Wound (upon failing a save), but the effects only happen at the end of the phase.

Note that i am also saying FNP comes first because it then discounts the unsaved Wound, and all the rules that had triggered, but happen later, no longer have their effects applied as the "Unsaved Wounds process" is interrupted and 'discounted'.

As for the Wound V unsaved, from FNP:

When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state that ‘no saves of any kind are allowed’, for example those inflicted by Perils of the Warp).
Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule.
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.

Only "wounded" above is a cause for concern, as you indeed describe it. I would simply hand-wave it away and say "to avoid being wounded" is the same as them saying: "to avoid being obliterated", that it has no strength by RaW, but as you say, possible confusion.

as for "the Wound" if you roll 4 or less: It is no longer describing the "unsaved Wound". That part is referring to when the Wound is "stricken off the sheet" (my step 2) above). It was also how i place the FNP roll before the "step 2"; because the result is then synonymous to step 2 (this "the Wound").

Mordaem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

"treat as if" must mean the same as "is" for 40k to work, so yes - the rule does say that the wound is saved.

Please state where it says "treat as if" must mean the same as "is" for 40k to work.

So it's not really a shooting attack so we have no idea how to allocate wounds.

But they're not differently named, so you roll to hit and wound with them all together. Meaning this rule does literally nothing.

But it's not the closest model therefore there's no model to allocate wounds to.

But it doesn't have a single CCW, so we treat it as having a CCW, but it doesn't have a CCW... (repeat)

But it's not dangerous terrain so you don't have to make dangerous terrain checks! Woohoo!

Hmmm... they have permission to end their move on impassable terrain, but no rules on how to handle that... if only there was a rule that said impassable terrain is dangerous terrain. Ah well.

But they're not really JPI so go ahead and use whatever Unit Type rules you want - I mean, obviously they're not *Infantry*.

There's more, should I go on? And would you agree that "treat as" is the same as "count as"? There's dozens more for that as well.
If "treat as" and "count as" don't mean "is" the 40k rules break spectacularly.

So what I am reading from you Rigeld, as long as a Jump Infantry or Bike model is in terrain, that terrain IS dangerous terrain? Awesome! Have fun assaulting my Reavers, with skilled rider they auto pass Dangerous terrain, and now every model you assault me with has to take a dangerous terrain test.


Yep treat as equals is.

rigeld2 wrote:

Mordaem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

"treat as if" must mean the same as "is" for 40k to work, so yes - the rule does say that the wound is saved.

Please state where it says "treat as if" must mean the same as "is" for 40k to work.

Spoiler:

Otherwise, a nova is treated like a shooting attack, and indeed will have a profile like a ranged weapon.

So it's not really a shooting attack so we have no idea how to allocate wounds.

Spoiler:

If a weapon can fire in more than one mode, or can fire more than one type of ammo, select a weapon mode/ammo type – treat weapons firing different modes/ammo types as differently named weapons.

But they're not differently named, so you roll to hit and wound with them all together. Meaning this rule does literally nothing.

Spoiler:

That model is treated as being the closest model and remains so until either the firing unit’s attack ends or the model is slain.

But it's not the closest model therefore there's no model to allocate wounds to.

Spoiler:

If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.

But it doesn't have a single CCW, so we treat it as having a CCW, but it doesn't have a CCW... (repeat)

Spoiler:

However, Bikes treat all difficult terrain as dangerous terrain instead.

But it's not dangerous terrain so you don't have to make dangerous terrain checks! Woohoo!

Spoiler:

If they do so, they treat the impassable terrain as dangerous terrain.

Hmmm... they have permission to end their move on impassable terrain, but no rules on how to handle that... if only there was a rule that said impassable terrain is dangerous terrain. Ah well.

Spoiler:

As with Jump units, ‘Jet Pack’ is not a classification in and of itself. Instead, you’ll find it occurs in addition to another – Jet Pack Infantry, for example. If no such distinction is made in a unit entry, treat the model as Jet Pack Infantry.

But they're not really JPI so go ahead and use whatever Unit Type rules you want - I mean, obviously they're not *Infantry*.

There's more, should I go on? And would you agree that "treat as" is the same as "count as"? There's dozens more for that as well.
If "treat as" and "count as" don't mean "is" the 40k rules break spectacularly.

You've made your point, but none of these examples talk about going back in time and reversing effects due to the "treat as" rule.
In all of these rules, "treat as" can be interpreted as "treat as from now on", without any of the effects you mention...

Can you give an example of a rule that breaks if you treat "treat as x" as "is x from now on, until other stated", but do not "is and has always been x" ?

Black I'd need some quotes from books I don't have on me atm, but


Mega; I would say treats as is, IS but only as far as the specified circumstances...

I mean, that's the definition and common use of 'treat as' anyway. It is, but with limitations. In this case only the bikes are treating the terrain as difficult, so the terrain is only difficult to bikes.

I can treat a pot like a kettle, but to everyone else it's still a pot, for treats as and counts as, it does very much matter who or what is treating what like... what.... Treats as is pretending something is which ultimately isn't, but in 40k terms that means ruling like it is.

jay_mo wrote:
You've made your point, but none of these examples talk about going back in time and reversing effects due to the "treat as" rule.
In all of these rules, "treat as" can be interpreted as "treat as from now on", without any of the effects you mention...

Can you give an example of a rule that breaks if you treat "treat as x" as "is x from now on, until other stated", but do not "is and has always been x" ?

If the wound is saved, how are you rolling to see if Helfrost removes the model?
Do you do that if the wound is saved?

The bikes treat the terrain as dangerous terrain. They do not make it dangerous terrain. What terrain are the bikes in? Difficult terrain. what is difficult terrain? Well, it is difficult terrain. What happens if the bike enters difficult terrain? They treat it as dangerous. Do they ever change the status of the terrain? Nope. Does "treat as" equal "is"? Nope. They are given the effect similar, but never change it's status, to dangerous terrain.

 Nem wrote:
Black I'd need some quotes from books I don't have on me atm, but

If you just go by what you know i can always go find them and then copy-paste from the Digital brb/dex?

 Nem wrote:
Mega; I would say treats as is, IS but only as far as the specified circumstances...

I mean, that's the definition and common use of 'treat as' anyway. It is, but with limitations. In this case only the bikes are treating the terrain as difficult, so the terrain is only difficult to bikes.

I can treat a pot like a kettle, but to everyone else it's still a pot, for treats as and counts as, it does very much matter who or what is treating what like... what.... Treats as is pretending something is which ultimately isn't, but in 40k terms that means ruling like it is.

I agree with this:

"treat as" means "IS" for those circumstances, not outside of.

When you are a bike, difficult terrain IS Dangerous terrain. But Tanks, Infantry and Flyers don't see that at all. I'm not sure where this is going / coming from, but it is also clear that the following is correct if you go by the logic i described earlier:

rigeld2 wrote:
If the wound is saved, how are you rolling to see if Helfrost removes the model?

Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).

 BlackTalos wrote:


Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).

The only problem I have with this argument is that you are using logic instead of RAW to decide that you resolve FNP first. The RAW say that when two events occur simultaneously you resolve them using the rule for sequencing which says that the player who's turn it is decides which occurs first.

rigeld2 wrote:

jay_mo wrote:
You've made your point, but none of these examples talk about going back in time and reversing effects due to the "treat as" rule.
In all of these rules, "treat as" can be interpreted as "treat as from now on", without any of the effects you mention...

Can you give an example of a rule that breaks if you treat "treat as x" as "is x from now on, until other stated", but do not "is and has always been x" ?

If the wound is saved, how are you rolling to see if Helfrost removes the model?
Do you do that if the wound is saved?

Is the wound saved? Not when the rules were activated. How do you know you are allowed to roll Fnp/RP until you know if the model suffered a Remove from play/instant death wound?

Game freeze. The rules Paradox themselves into never being able to resolve either one. Can't use FnP/RP against ID/RfP, but until Fnp/RP is resolved you don't know if the wound is unsaved, but you don't know if you are allowed to use FnP/RP until you know if the attack causes ID/RfP. Time to pack up and go home, as the game can not progress beyond this point.

Hence the Sequencing rule. My turn ID/RfP goes first, your turn FnP/RP goes first. You can't put the end before the beginning.

 NightHowler wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).

The only problem I have with this argument is that you are using logic instead of RAW to decide that you resolve FNP first. The RAW say that when two events occur simultaneously you resolve them using the rule for sequencing which says that the player who's turn it is decides which occurs first.

Very true, and i have always said my posts were a logical conclusion, not "pure RaW".

But is it not logic that stops you from Deploying on top of Rhinos, embarking the Relic on a Flyer or conclude that FNP must works (by "pure RaW" FNP is stuck in an unresolvable loop)
Amongst examples i cannot remember...

 BlackTalos wrote:

Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).

The problem with this logic, is that it works the other way around as well... if you resolve Helfrost first and fail, then both FNP and RP are invalidated because the model is now being removed from play instead of simply taking a wound. And a model that is being removed from play is not granted a FNP roll.


Thus, since the both rule are triggered, and the resolution of each negates the other, neither can be given logical priority. Therefor, you have to resolve them as per the rules for simultaneous actions... which as clearly spelled out in the book, say the choice goes to the person whose turn it is.

 NightHowler wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).

The only problem I have with this argument is that you are using logic instead of RAW to decide that you resolve FNP first. The RAW say that when two events occur simultaneously you resolve them using the rule for sequencing which says that the player who's turn it is decides which occurs first.

You fail your armor/invul save. Do you have an unsaved wound?
FNP/RP can still make a wound saved. You can't know the answer until you resolve them first.

chanceafs wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).

The problem with this logic, is that it works the other way around as well... if you resolve Helfrost first and fail, then both FNP and RP are invalidated because the model is now being removed from play instead of simply taking a wound. And a model that is being removed from play is not granted a FNP roll.


Thus, since the both rule are triggered, and the resolution of each negates the other, neither can be given logical priority. Therefor, you have to resolve them as per the rules for simultaneous actions... which as clearly spelled out in the book, say the choice goes to the person whose turn it is.

I agree, if they were resolved simultaneously.

This is not the case as i have shown above, but feel free to make your own choice as it does not seem that you read my explanation. If you did, you would know that:

chanceafs wrote:
if you resolve Helfrost first and fail

Is impossible, as FNP is resolved first. (Before the -1W - Whereas Helfrost must happen after -1W)

 BlackTalos wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).

The problem with this logic, is that it works the other way around as well... if you resolve Helfrost first and fail, then both FNP and RP are invalidated because the model is now being removed from play instead of simply taking a wound. And a model that is being removed from play is not granted a FNP roll.


Thus, since the both rule are triggered, and the resolution of each negates the other, neither can be given logical priority. Therefor, you have to resolve them as per the rules for simultaneous actions... which as clearly spelled out in the book, say the choice goes to the person whose turn it is.

I agree, if they were resolved simultaneously.

This is not the case as i have shown above, but feel free to make your own choice as it does not seem that you read my explanation. If you did, you would know that:

chanceafs wrote:
if you resolve Helfrost first and fail

Is impossible, as FNP is resolved first. (Before the -1W - Whereas Helfrost must happen after -1W)

Going back and reading your arguments, I disagree with that assertion. The phrase 'for each wound suffered' that your argument hinges on doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the timing of that roll. It is merely a reminder that no matter how many wounds are taken you have to make the test each time. However since wounds are still applied one at a time, each the Helfrost roll would be made each time 'the model suffers and unsaved wound' which is again at the same time as FNP. There for if FNP must happen before the wound is taken off, then so must Helfrost. And both of them would then prevent the other from resolving, as Helfrost no longer cares about the wound cause the model is now being removed, and FNP turns the unsaved wound into saved so from then on you treat the wound as saved negating Helfrost. No matter which comes first they both have to be FULLY resolved before the other one can start.

If it worked as you suggested, then you would have to wait to make Helfrost until all the wounds had been allocated, saved and removed, in which case there is no long a model to make a save against, and in the case of a multi-wound model you would have to apply several wounds to it, then make your str tests which would drastically change results, as 1 failure for the first wound would mean the other wounds are supposed to be allocated elsewhere.

 BlackTalos wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).

The problem with this logic, is that it works the other way around as well... if you resolve Helfrost first and fail, then both FNP and RP are invalidated because the model is now being removed from play instead of simply taking a wound. And a model that is being removed from play is not granted a FNP roll.


Thus, since the both rule are triggered, and the resolution of each negates the other, neither can be given logical priority. Therefor, you have to resolve them as per the rules for simultaneous actions... which as clearly spelled out in the book, say the choice goes to the person whose turn it is.

I agree, if they were resolved simultaneously.

This is not the case as i have shown above, but feel free to make your own choice as it does not seem that you read my explanation. If you did, you would know that:

chanceafs wrote:
if you resolve Helfrost first and fail

Is impossible, as FNP is resolved first. (Before the -1W - Whereas Helfrost must happen after -1W)

I don't know the Hellfrost rule, but what about the Direswords Soulrazor rule? It activates when a model Suffers and unsaved wound. Using the exact wording as FnP. How about the Dark Eldar's Parasite's kiss, which immediately replaces a wound when it inflicts an unsaved wound, unlike the animus Vitae which requires it to be inflicted.

 NightHowler wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).

The only problem I have with this argument is that you are using logic instead of RAW to decide that you resolve FNP first. The RAW say that when two events occur simultaneously you resolve them using the rule for sequencing which says that the player who's turn it is decides which occurs first.

RAW does not actually state the two events occur at the same time.

both mention unsaved wounds, however in the case of helfrost you do not know how many times to roll a S test to resolve helfrost until the model suffers wounds as the number of rolls is equal to the number of wounds the model suffered.

If the model was a 1 wound model and is still at 1 wound, it has suffered 0 wounds so far, if the model has an unsaved wound and has some special rule which allows it to check to see if the unsaved wound was saved or not before the wound is taken off, it is still at 1 wound. FnP in its rules actually lists that the roll is to discount the wound and treat it as saved, and that you do not actually lose the would until the roll is made and failed. If you go past this point and apply the basic rule of wound removal the RAW of FnP has not been followed as it is not a rule based on returning wounds to models (that would be regeneration or IWND) but a rule based on not losing unsaved wounds. Ie wounds are at 1 and failed a save, if you go to 0 you have passed the point you can do FnP. Until the model has its wounds reduced from the value it was at before the attack, it has not suffered any number of wounds to its wounds profile. At this point the amount of wounds suffered being 0 means you are rolling 0 dice for a S test for helfrost.

As such the roll for FnP has to come before the model is reduced by any wounds, so it is still at 1 wound but is at the point where it did not make any saves.

So until you roll FnP the amount of S tests the model would have to roll would be 0.

after you roll FnP the wound(s) is(are) actually removed (suffered) and you know how many times to roll a S test for helfrost.

blaktoof, since I did not see an answer to my question, perhaps you could answer it.

When does a model suffer an unsaved Wound, before or after reducing the models Wounds characteristic by 1?

blaktoof wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).

The only problem I have with this argument is that you are using logic instead of RAW to decide that you resolve FNP first. The RAW say that when two events occur simultaneously you resolve them using the rule for sequencing which says that the player who's turn it is decides which occurs first.

RAW does not actually state the two events occur at the same time.

both mention unsaved wounds, however in the case of helfrost you do not know how many times to roll a S test to resolve helfrost until the model suffers wounds as the number of rolls is equal to the number of wounds the model suffered.

If the model was a 1 wound model and is still at 1 wound, it has suffered 0 wounds so far, if the model has an unsaved wound and has some special rule which allows it to check to see if the unsaved wound was saved or not before the wound is taken off, it is still at 1 wound. FnP in its rules actually lists that the roll is to discount the wound and treat it as saved, and that you do not actually lose the would until the roll is made and failed. If you go past this point and apply the basic rule of wound removal the RAW of FnP has not been followed as it is not a rule based on returning wounds to models (that would be regeneration or IWND) but a rule based on not losing unsaved wounds. Ie wounds are at 1 and failed a save, if you go to 0 you have passed the point you can do FnP. Until the model has its wounds reduced from the value it was at before the attack, it has not suffered any number of wounds to its wounds profile. At this point the amount of wounds suffered being 0 means you are rolling 0 dice for a S test for helfrost.

As such the roll for FnP has to come before the model is reduced by any wounds, so it is still at 1 wound but is at the point where it did not make any saves.

So until you roll FnP the amount of S tests the model would have to roll would be 0.

after you roll FnP the wound(s) is(are) actually removed (suffered) and you know how many times to roll a S test for helfrost.

I'm sorry, but this is not in the rules. The rules say when a model suffers an unsaved wound is the trigger for RP, FNP, and Helfrost. It absolutely does not say to roll for helfrost after subtracting one wound from a model. The trigger for all three rules is the same and using each rule's mechanic (which happens AFTER the rule is triggered) to say one happens before another is not how the rules are written. You are never told that you have to subtract 1 wound before rolling helfrost, you are told to roll helfrost for each wound - this is ENTIRELY different.

You are saying that you roll your FNP before removing a wound and then if you pass no wound is lost. I agree with this.

You are also saying that you wait until after wounds are lost before rolling Helfrost. I disagree with this and the rules also disagree with this. The rules say when to roll helfrost is exactly the same as when you roll FNP. And if you fail that roll the model is removed from play. Removed from play means that you never get the chance to lose that wound. You don't get removed from play and also get a -1 wound stage because you never get that far. You fail your armor save - you make your strength test - and if you fail you are removed from play.

Because they happen at the same time you are required to use the rule which governs events that happen simultaneously. That rule says that whichever player's turn it is, that player decides which happens first.

This is how the rules are written, and until someone gives me an actual rule that says otherwise, anything else is simply a HIWPI.


ALSO, I'd be curious to see your response to Happyjew's question.

I think the intention is that removed from play effect from hell frost is made specifically to counteract things such as RP. Rp was not intended to ignore the remove from play effect of helkfrost. Furthermore I think the rules while not exactly clear on the subject does support the opinion that the rules happen simultaneously at best. Removed from play is the strongest effect in game if they wanted RP to work with hellfrost they would of gave hellfrost the similar but less restrictive instant death rule. I think the intention is pretty clear on this one and people are just looking for arguments to cheese RP through the intended rule.

if that is the case then why bother taking helfrost?

fnp and fething rp cheats it?

I appreciate you think it is a HYWPI argument but that is not the case.

It does not matter that they all state 'unsaved wounds' because how their rules actually work breaks them up at that point.

FnP is taken during the save step, not after the model has lost the wound.

Helfrost test is taken "it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered or be removed from play" so the trigger is not unsaved wounds, if it were then it would say "it must pass a strength test for each unsaved wound suffered or be removed from play" but it does not say that.

FnP is done before you remove any wounds from a model, which is the act of suffering wounds. How many wounds has a model suffered that has an unsaved wound but has not rolled FnP? the answer is 0, because the models wound value is unchanged. The model may have suffered 'unsaved wounds' but the RAW of helfrost does not say to roll for each unsaved wound suffered, but for each wound suffered. So at the time you can roll for FnP the model has suffered 0 wounds, so how can you roll helfrost?

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).

The only problem I have with this argument is that you are using logic instead of RAW to decide that you resolve FNP first. The RAW say that when two events occur simultaneously you resolve them using the rule for sequencing which says that the player who's turn it is decides which occurs first.

You fail your armor/invul save. Do you have an unsaved wound?
FNP/RP can still make a wound saved. You can't know the answer until you resolve them first.

You fail your armor/invul save. Do you have an unsaved wound?
If no then FNP/RP cant be rolled for in the first place. If yes, then all 3 trigger and its the player's whos turn it is to decide which one is done first RAW

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


Both Rules "triggered", but resolving FNP first (and suceeded) has invalidated the other rule(s).

The only problem I have with this argument is that you are using logic instead of RAW to decide that you resolve FNP first. The RAW say that when two events occur simultaneously you resolve them using the rule for sequencing which says that the player who's turn it is decides which occurs first.

You fail your armor/invul save. Do you have an unsaved wound?
FNP/RP can still make a wound saved. You can't know the answer until you resolve them first.

You fail your armor/invul save. Do you have an unsaved wound?
If no then FNP/RP cant be rolled for in the first place. If yes, then all 3 trigger and its the player's whos turn it is to decide which one is done first RAW

so the RAW for helfrost tells you to roll how many times per unsaved wound? I can see RAW for each wound suffered, but no RAW telling you to do anything until there is a suffered wound. The roll for S test being after the model is wounded and 1 roll per wound it lost is different than 1 roll per unsaved wound it has, and it clearly does not say 'unsaved' when it tells you to roll the S test.

blaktoof wrote:
I appreciate you think it is a HYWPI argument but that is not the case.

It does not matter that they all state 'unsaved wounds' because how their rules actually work breaks them up at that point.

FnP is taken during the save step, not after the model has lost the wound.

Helfrost test is taken "it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered or be removed from play"

FnP is done before you remove any wounds from a model, which is the act of suffering wounds. How many wounds has a model suffered that has an unsaved wound but has not rolled FnP? the answer is 0, because the models wound value is unchanged. The model may have suffered 'unsaved wounds' but the RAW of helfrost does not say to roll for each unsaved wound suffered, but for each wound suffered. So at the time you can roll for FnP the model has suffered 0 wounds, so how can you roll helfrost?

They all state "when a model suffers an unsaved wound" how is that not the same trigger? That is the very first thing each of these rules states before it tells you what to do. Stop looking at the middle and end of a rule to determine a trigger.