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.

Just out of curiosity, did we ever get a consensus as to whether Necrons who pass RP/EL lose their armor?

copper.talos wrote:On these unsaved wounds both ES and FNP trigger.

No they do not.

I have proven this time and time again.

At this point you are simply trolling.

Happyjew wrote:Just out of curiosity, did we ever get a consensus as to whether Necrons who pass RP/EL lose their armor?

Yes they do, as they are the same models and most certainly have suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds; they lose their armor save.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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

You are ignoring the Injury by not applying the wound and removing the model (if it has no more wounds left).
No where does FNP say to ignore ES (how could it) or other triggered effects.

ignoring the injury can only mean ignoring the unsaved wound, anything else applies the wound to the model since it is applying unsaved wounds that applies the wound to the model and/or removes the model as a casualty.

If you are ignoring the wound you are completely ignoring it(since FNP tel you to ignore the wound and does not tell you to apply any effects other than the wound application)

Thanatos - so, you agree that you are not Ignoring the wound?

Ignoring the wound means ignore the wound. Not "ignore the wound for X, Y reasons, but not Z, A' and B" because the rules do not say anything close to what you are claiming

Kel - given copper has entirely ignored your explanations, creasted strawmen and continues to muddy their "argument" responding further to the poster seems like it will have little positive result.

I would say that you ARE ignoring the wound (e.g. You don't remove the model, etc);
you are not, however, ignoring the things that triggered off of the unsaved wound.

FNP doesn't say to ignore those other things.
They are already "on the stack" to use a MTG term.
When ES resolves, FNP hasn't ignored the injury yet.
(Note I don't advocate that ES resolves before FNP, I believe they resolve simultaneously)

ASIDE
I know fluff and RAI arguments aren't used here in YMDC;
I don't know why as GW seems to use fluff in their rules all the time (See FAQ about Daemons, etc.)
So if you will indulge me for a moment,
If I hit you, and your armour fails.
Your armour will suffer the effects of Entropic Strike.
The fact that adrenaline, or magic or whatever, allows you to ignore any injury you suffer from the strike, doesn't help you with your armour.

Which means you have not ignored the unsaved wound.
ALso, FNP happens before ES. It HAS to, because ES happens at the same time as Remove Casualties - if you;d read KKels argument this would have been clear.

Fluff works very badly in this game, a you roll to Armour Save after ive already wounded you. Entirely the wrong order of operations whenyou think about it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:... because ES happens at the same time as Remove Casualties...

you are either making things up or you can provide with a quote on this. So what will it be?

I've read Kels argument and I am unconvinced that ES and FNP don't occur at the same time given the exact same trigger (they both shove themselves infront of the Remove Casualties step).
I know you say the "1 or more" should push it to later but I don't agree with that either.
For me that line is only there to stop you getting multiple ES against a single model.



And yes I agree that the order of wounding should probably follow the order of the bullet/sword:
Hit -> Save -> Wound -> FNP.

It would at least mean that this argument would be moot, as ES would be resolved before the Wound roll.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I know you say the "1 or more" should push it to later but I don't agree with that either.
For me that line is only there to stop you getting multiple ES against a single model.

Multiple ES wounds against a single model don't do anything more than one ES wound against a single model. The armor save is removed. Why have a rule there stop something that explicitly doesn't matter?

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I've read Kels argument and I am unconvinced that ES and FNP don't occur at the same time given the exact same trigger (they both shove themselves infront of the Remove Casualties step).
I know you say the "1 or more" should push it to later but I don't agree with that either.
For me that line is only there to stop you getting multiple ES against a single model.



And yes I agree that the order of wounding should probably follow the order of the bullet/sword:
Hit -> Save -> Wound -> FNP.

It would at least mean that this argument would be moot, as ES would be resolved before the Wound roll.

How does something that happens at the same time as casualty removal shove itself in front of casualty removal/wound application?

Let alone the fact that you do not even check for ES until after all the wounds are resolved(since it is attacks causing 1 or more unsaved wounds, not for each unsaved wound), so ES does not even happen simultaneously with casualty removal/wound application


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:... because ES happens at the same time as Remove Casualties...

you are either making things up or you can provide with a quote on this. So what will it be?

You are correct; ES does not happen until after the wounds are all applied.

But for the Casualty removal happening Immediately:

I provided the quote on this several times; hell i told you where to look in the last post I made directed towards you.

or are you just Ignoring everything I type?

Wow, talk about getting hot under the collar. Reading through this thread has definitely ruffled some feathers.

I see how both sides are arguing their points. Which makes it easier to put in my 2 cents, wanted or not.

(Do not give me any lines about "find the paragraph bull****" as this is a demonstration in logic not reading skills or word hunting. So you English majors (as I'm sure there are actually very few in here) can keep those comments silent that'd be great, thanks.)

1. Their really isn't a "stacking" order for triggered effects in this game like there are in Magic: The Gathering. That alone would probably solve most of these issues, tbh.

2. The Hit > Save > Wound > USR(roll) does make more sense and would be the logical way to do it.

However, in regards to this topic, lets assume for ease of explanation that Hit > Save > Wound etc WAS how it was rolled for and not the other way around.

Necron ES hits LotD.
LotD fails his Save.
LotD takes an unsaved wound.
LotD's Armor Save is set to "-".
LotD rolls for FNP and succeeds.
LotD does not suffer a injury/wound and is not removed from play.

This is a logical way to look at this problem/equation. Hold off on the "injury isn't a wound". Yes I understand this, I am not an idiot. But to think of this in a logical manner and not resort to name calling or chiding is best. Leave your emotions at the door and this debate isn't as convoluted as it appears.

In this example, everything works. ES is applied because the unsaved wound happened. If there was no Unsaved Wound, FNP would not have needed to be rolled for and thusly, ES wouldn't have triggered either.

Now let us apply this to the rules as they currently are.

Hit > Wound > Save > USR(roll)

Necron ES hits LotD.
Necron ES Wounds LotD.
LotD rolls his Save and fails.
LotD's Save is set to '-'.
LotD rolls for FNP and succeeds.
LotD doesn't suffer an injury/wound and is not removed from play.

Now, with the switch of the priority in rolls. It becomes confusing. It's also confusing because of the way FNP is worded in connection with the dice roll scheme. FNP doesn't negate the event happening, it negates the killing blow or wound removal on multi-wound models. However, the unsaved wound still occurs therefor making ES (and other on unsaved wound effects) trigger. Now, whether you want to roll them one before the other is irrelevant.

FNP is not meant to erase the hit or wound or save. It simply allows you to stop the removal of the unsaved wound. That is all. Now yes, this IS NOT written in the rules verbatim. I know this, you know this.

But if this were not the intent for the rule, can we all not concede that it would make FNP grossly over-powered? I mean, you're not dying but you have a negative status effect?! Is that not enough for you? You need your little plastic men to be Gods to everyone else's army? Can they can not have an ability that your little men can be subjected to?

Also, one last note, lets think of the name for this USR. Feel No Pain, it's not Feel No Wound, or Wound Didn't Happen.

Again for the record. I know this is not stated in the BRB, I know this isn't worded word for word the way I've described it. But simply put, in a logical thought process, does this not make sense?

Another major problem with this issue, is I think/believe people are getting to attached to the word "Wound". What I mean is if you're ignoring the effects of wound removal, it doesn't mean the wound never happened. It just means you're ignoring the effect of the wound, not the wound itself actually occurring. Once again not in RAW I know, but logical thought has to prevail when things are unclear.

Not to mention, shouldn't games be fun and fair? What is fair about your men being completely unaffected by half the games effects with one simple USR? Do any of the other USR's carry that much power in them? As far as I can tell, no they don't.

And whats the most important rule of the BRB? (This is RAW.)
Pg.2 First Boxed in Text. Para. 3:
"The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choise is entirely yours."

Cheers~

Your second section is still not how the order of operations function.

it is : hit>wound>save>USR>Application of Wound/effects.

Without the USR it is simply: hit>wound>save>Application of Wound/effects.

In both cases ES does not resolve until all simultaneous attacks are fully resolved with the above(as, again you cannot check if 1 or more unsaved wound has been suffered at each attack); and the immediately portion of ES's save loss is after the Check, not after each unsaved wound.

So you would have:
Necron ES hits LotD.
Necron ES Wounds LotD.
LotD rolls his Save and fails.
LotD rolls for FNP and succeeds.
LotD doesn't suffer an injury/wound and is not removed from play.

Without FNP you would have:
Necron ES hits CM.
Necron ES Wounds CM.
CM rolls his Save and fails.
CM suffers an injury/wound.
CM's Save is set to '-'.

Fexor wrote:And whats the most important rule of the BRB? (This is RAW.)
Pg.2 First Boxed in Text. Para. 3:
"The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choise is entirely yours."
Cheers~

First off:
#7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.
found Here

Fexor wrote:In this example, everything works. ES is applied because the unsaved wound happened. If there was no Unsaved Wound, FNP would not have needed to be rolled for and thusly, ES wouldn't have triggered either.

Actually if you are ignoring the unsaved wound because you passed FNP we do not know if the unsaved wound happened or not because we are ignoring it. so no effects can trigger from an unsaved wound that we are ignoring.

Fexor wrote:Now, with the switch of the priority in rolls. It becomes confusing. It's also confusing because of the way FNP is worded in connection with the dice roll scheme. FNP doesn't negate the event happening, it negates the killing blow or wound removal on multi-wound models. However, the unsaved wound still occurs therefor making ES (and other on unsaved wound effects) trigger. Now, whether you want to roll them one before the other is irrelevant.

Yes it is a bit confusing, but FNP goes off first as Kel has shown.

Fexor wrote:FNP is not meant to erase the hit or wound or save. It simply allows you to stop the removal of the unsaved wound. That is all. Now yes, this IS NOT written in the rules verbatim. I know this, you know this.
Also, one last note, lets think of the name for this USR. Feel No Pain, it's not Feel No Wound, or Wound Didn't Happen.

Its meant to ignore the unsaved wound, because that is now the rule is written.

Right it is Feel No Pain, thus the part about it Ignoring the Unsaved wound. We are pretending it does not exist, to have effects to trigger off of something we are told to ignore is breaking the rules.

Fexor wrote:Again for the record. I know this is not stated in the BRB, I know this isn't worded word for word the way I've described it. But simply put, in a logical thought process, does this not make sense?

A lot of things in this rule set ignore logic, so trying to apply logic to the rules will utterly break the game and make it unplayable.

copper.talos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:... because ES happens at the same time as Remove Casualties...

you are either making things up or you can provide with a quote on this. So what will it be?

Apparently you ENTIRELY ignore absolutely every single thing KKel says.

He has given you the rules quote, 3 times now. He has demonstrated impeccable logic showing why FNP occurs before ES, and you have yet to address a single damn part of it.

You continually duck the point, dont. Or dont post. The latter would be easier.

@Kommissar:

I'm sorry but I think you are completely missing the point and arguing just to argue.

In order for FNP to be triggered the model MUST take an unsaved wound. Yes? I think we can all agree on that.

Because, if you saved against it, there's no reason to roll FNP. Correct? Again, I think we can all agree on this.

The part that (to me) is going over your head is FNP states that "the injury is ignored". And this what is tripping you up. Injury is the key word that GW is using to describe the wound removal. Not that the wound never happened or was saved.

Which, when using logic, would dictate that you did suffer an unsaved wound, but your FNP allows you to keep fighting and ignore the wound removal not the wound ever happening. Which, would also mean that ES and similar effects would still take effect on a successful FNP roll. Your dudes still alive! But there's a cost for living. ie. Pinning, or ES, etc.

FNP ignores wound removal, not the unsaved wound. That is why they say 'injury' not 'wound' is ignored and this is the part your not understanding. I'm trying to break this down as politely as possible.

FNP is not a saving throw, your wound is still unsaved, the wound removal is ignored. Wound Removal = Injury.

This is pretty simple, but because there's no "word legend" all you're going to come back at me with is "show me where that's stated." And I can't because there is no word legend in the book, it's something that is easily inferred by them not using the word 'wound' but 'injury' instead.

Is this a GW confusing goof, definitely. Is it something that I think we as players can't get around, absolutely not. FNP is not meant to be a godlike power, it's just meant to keep your model on the table, not to ignore every subsequent rule in the book due to poor explanation and lack of a word glossary.

"FNP ignores wound removal, not the unsaved wound"
This is the incorrect part. Injury and unsaved wound are equivalent terms, as defined in the rule that has been quoted a number of times now.

You are paying attention to the unsaved wound, therefore you have broken a rule. Dont break rules.

Fexor wrote:And whats the most important rule of the BRB? (This is RAW.)
Pg.2 First Boxed in Text. Para. 3:
"The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choise is entirely yours."

So the only actual rule you quoted is one the tenents of this forum tell you isn't valid?

Awesome. Remember, YMDC is about rules as written. Not as intended, not as logically thought out if you analyze a completely wrong way of playing, not as house rules, not as exaggerating strawmen make things seem...

But if this were not the intent for the rule, can we all not concede that it would make FNP grossly over-powered?

Remember, intent is irrelevant. And no, it doesn't make it overpowered - like I said, I've *never* seen it played that way in person.

What is fair about your men being completely unaffected by half the games effects with one simple USR? Do any of the other USR's carry that much power in them?

Half the games effects? The only ones that come to mind are Hex Rifle, Pinning, and ES. Regardless of how many more you can name, I seriously doubt it's anywhere near half. And you don't completely ignore them unless you make the FNP roll.

Another major problem with this issue, is I think/believe people are getting to attached to the word "Wound". What I mean is if you're ignoring the effects of wound removal, it doesn't mean the wound never happened. It just means you're ignoring the effect of the wound, not the wound itself actually occurring.

If the wound happens (which is what you're advocating) then FNP does nothing. There is no "effect" of the wound - suffering a wound means you subtract one from your wound stat. FNP doesn't ignore that - it ignores the wound completely. Saying that it just ignores the effect of the would means that the wound is still applied - so you have models walking around at 0 wounds (because the wound was applied and the "effect" of removing the model is ignored) or you have the wound still applied, and since the model is at 0 wounds it's removed - FNP or not.

FNP has to ignore the existence of the wound. Which means ES, et al. do not trigger.

DeathReaper wrote:

Fexor wrote:And whats the most important rule of the BRB? (This is RAW.)
Pg.2 First Boxed in Text. Para. 3:
"The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choise is entirely yours."
Cheers~

First off:
#7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.
found Here

Fexor wrote:In this example, everything works. ES is applied because the unsaved wound happened. If there was no Unsaved Wound, FNP would not have needed to be rolled for and thusly, ES wouldn't have triggered either.

Actually if you are ignoring the unsaved wound because you passed FNP we do not know if the unsaved wound happened or not because we are ignoring it. so no effects can trigger from an unsaved wound that we are ignoring.

Fexor wrote:Now, with the switch of the priority in rolls. It becomes confusing. It's also confusing because of the way FNP is worded in connection with the dice roll scheme. FNP doesn't negate the event happening, it negates the killing blow or wound removal on multi-wound models. However, the unsaved wound still occurs therefor making ES (and other on unsaved wound effects) trigger. Now, whether you want to roll them one before the other is irrelevant.

Yes it is a bit confusing, but FNP goes off first as Kel has shown.

Fexor wrote:FNP is not meant to erase the hit or wound or save. It simply allows you to stop the removal of the unsaved wound. That is all. Now yes, this IS NOT written in the rules verbatim. I know this, you know this.
Also, one last note, lets think of the name for this USR. Feel No Pain, it's not Feel No Wound, or Wound Didn't Happen.

Its meant to ignore the unsaved wound, because that is now the rule is written.

Right it is Feel No Pain, thus the part about it Ignoring the Unsaved wound. We are pretending it does not exist, to have effects to trigger off of something we are told to ignore is breaking the rules.

Fexor wrote:Again for the record. I know this is not stated in the BRB, I know this isn't worded word for word the way I've described it. But simply put, in a logical thought process, does this not make sense?

A lot of things in this rule set ignore logic, so trying to apply logic to the rules will utterly break the game and make it unplayable.

Alright, well your first point I can atest to. My bad.

However, FNP does not say "ignore the wound" you are interjecting that into your own interpretation, period.

The rule states it ignored the "injury". Injury in this case is referring to 'Wound Removal', not ignoring the unsaved wound. Therefor, Unsaved Wound effects would apply, saving FNP before or after ES doesn't matter. Again, no word bank, just logical thinking. Otherwise, I'm sure they would've said "unsaved wound is ignored".

Also, without logic how can you ever stand a chance in a debate? If you have no common ground, you have no leg to stand on. So yes, logic does play a part. And please keep the debate on topic, trying to slide in a jabbing comment about it being a "game" isn't helpful and proves nothing about the topic at hand. Thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:"FNP ignores wound removal, not the unsaved wound"
This is the incorrect part. Injury and unsaved wound are equivalent terms, as defined in the rule that has been quoted a number of times now.

You are paying attention to the unsaved wound, therefore you have broken a rule. Dont break rules.

Really? Should I print the entire rule for you? From the page? No where in FNP's rule description does it say 'Injury' and 'Unsaved Wound' are synonymous. Like I said, there is no word bank or definition. You're simply implying they're the same, which is your intended ruling.

Fexor wrote:And please keep the debate on topic, trying to slide in a jabbing comment about it being a "game" isn't helpful and proves nothing about the topic at hand. Thanks.

Fexor wrote:FNP is not meant to be a godlike power, it's just meant to keep your model on the table, not to ignore every subsequent rule in the book due to poor explanation and lack of a word glossary.

Fexor wrote:But if this were not the intent for the rule, can we all not concede that it would make FNP grossly over-powered? I mean, you're not dying but you have a negative status effect?! Is that not enough for you? You need your little plastic men to be Gods to everyone else's army? Can they can not have an ability that your little men can be subjected to?

Yeah, good idea. Lets leave snide remarks about it being a game out of it and keep with a rules debate, okay?

Fexor wrote:The rule states it ignored the "injury". Injury in this case is referring to 'Wound Removal', not ignoring the unsaved wound. Therefor, Unsaved Wound effects would apply, saving FNP before or after ES doesn't matter. Again, no word bank, just logical thinking. Otherwise, I'm sure they would've said "unsaved wound is ignored".

The rule says that on a 1, 2, or 3 you take the wound as normal. On a 4, 5, or 6 the injury is ignored. Context tells me that the injury being ignored means that I do not take the wound as normal. Since there are no rules surrounding what that means, it can only mean that I do not take the wound, which means ES can not be triggered.

Go back, reread the thread. Note how 1 -3 you take the Unsaved Wound as normal, 4 - 6 you ignore the Injury.

A simple understanding of context tells you the rest. Well, it should do.

Your argument fails at this point.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fexor wrote:And whats the most important rule of the BRB? (This is RAW.)
Pg.2 First Boxed in Text. Para. 3:
"The most important rule then is that the rules aren't all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines - the choise is entirely yours."

So the only actual rule you quoted is one the tenents of this forum tell you isn't valid?

Awesome. Remember, YMDC is about rules as written. Not as intended, not as logically thought out if you analyze a completely wrong way of playing, not as house rules, not as exaggerating strawmen make things seem...

But if this were not the intent for the rule, can we all not concede that it would make FNP grossly over-powered?

Remember, intent is irrelevant. And no, it doesn't make it overpowered - like I said, I've *never* seen it played that way in person.

What is fair about your men being completely unaffected by half the games effects with one simple USR? Do any of the other USR's carry that much power in them?

Half the games effects? The only ones that come to mind are Hex Rifle, Pinning, and ES. Regardless of how many more you can name, I seriously doubt it's anywhere near half. And you don't completely ignore them unless you make the FNP roll.

Another major problem with this issue, is I think/believe people are getting to attached to the word "Wound". What I mean is if you're ignoring the effects of wound removal, it doesn't mean the wound never happened. It just means you're ignoring the effect of the wound, not the wound itself actually occurring.

If the wound happens (which is what you're advocating) then FNP does nothing. There is no "effect" of the wound - suffering a wound means you subtract one from your wound stat. FNP doesn't ignore that - it ignores the wound completely. Saying that it just ignores the effect of the would means that the wound is still applied - so you have models walking around at 0 wounds (because the wound was applied and the "effect" of removing the model is ignored) or you have the wound still applied, and since the model is at 0 wounds it's removed - FNP or not.

FNP has to ignore the existence of the wound. Which means ES, et al. do not trigger.

Yeah I know, already apologized for it. Want to say it a 3rd time?

FNP does not have to ignore the existence of the wound, otherwise you wouldn't roll for it. The Unsaved Wound has to happen for FNP to trigger, period, that's the rule AS WRITTEN.

FNP's effect doesn't say "ignore the wound" it says "ignore the injury", doesn't say "ignore effects on Unsaved Wounds with Successful FNP rolls" either. The order of the FNP rule doesn't matter either. The triggering effect is an "UNSAVED WOUND". Without that you have no ES, you have no FNP, period.

Fexor wrote:Yeah I know, already apologized for it. Want to say it a 3rd time?

I was typing that post at the same time as others were. I'm not going to apologize for calling you out on it, but I don't require you to apologize again since I was ninjaed.

FNP does not have to ignore the existence of the wound, otherwise you wouldn't roll for it. The Unsaved Wound has to happen for FNP to trigger, period, that's the rule AS WRITTEN.

That means that for vehicles, the penetrating/glancing hit has to happen, even though a successful cover save says to discard that hit. Man, sucks for vehicles.

FNP's effect doesn't say "ignore the wound" it says "ignore the injury", doesn't say "ignore effects on Unsaved Wounds with Successful FNP rolls" either. The order of the FNP rule doesn't matter either. The triggering effect is an "UNSAVED WOUND". Without that you have no ES, you have no FNP, period.

So you're claiming that our method would cause a paradox, and paradoxes are bad?

Wow, I see. So your rulings are the only right ones when you can't back them up. Gotcha.

As you've said "intent" doesn't matter. Your supposed "context" is your intent. You've proven nothing except that you have no argument back, because neither side knows GW's intent for the rule.

As for what you're calling "snide remarks" they weren't directed at anyone and nor were they snide, they were merely observations, however yours was directed completely at me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fexor wrote:Yeah I know, already apologized for it. Want to say it a 3rd time?

I was typing that post at the same time as others were. I'm not going to apologize for calling you out on it, but I don't require you to apologize again since I was ninjaed.

FNP does not have to ignore the existence of the wound, otherwise you wouldn't roll for it. The Unsaved Wound has to happen for FNP to trigger, period, that's the rule AS WRITTEN.

That means that for vehicles, the penetrating/glancing hit has to happen, even though a successful cover save says to discard that hit. Man, sucks for vehicles.

FNP's effect doesn't say "ignore the wound" it says "ignore the injury", doesn't say "ignore effects on Unsaved Wounds with Successful FNP rolls" either. The order of the FNP rule doesn't matter either. The triggering effect is an "UNSAVED WOUND". Without that you have no ES, you have no FNP, period.

So you're claiming that our method would cause a paradox, and paradoxes are bad?

When did vehicles get FNP? Awesome way to sway the topic to your side with irrelevant material.

Fexor: as I have stated a number of times over several pages(as has Nos and many other posters); if "injury" in FNP is not synonymous with Unsaved wound, then the Wound is still applied/model is still removed as a casualty, as that is based on the model suffering an unsaved wound.

Furthermore as I have shown time and again FNP must trigger before the application of the unsaved wound because you immediately remove a model suffering an unsaved wound as a casualty per the remove casualties rules.

Fexor wrote:As you've said "intent" doesn't matter. Your supposed "context" is your intent. You've proven nothing except that you have no argument back, because neither side knows GW's intent for the rule.

No, context is 100% relevant. Without it, there is no definition for injury, so the FNP USR does nothing.

As for what you're calling "snide remarks" they weren't directed at anyone and nor were they snide, they were merely observations, however yours was directed completely at me.

Yes. I was trying to point out that you should leave the game related remarks out and focus on rules.

hen did vehicles get FNP? Awesome way to sway the topic to your side with irrelevant material.

It's completely relevant, and I never claimed vehicles got FNP.

Roll to wound is successful.
Armor save is failed.
FNP is rolled, ignoring wound.

Some claim that the 3rd step creates a paradox, and since paradoxes are bad, it cannot be allowed. I've countered with:

Weapon hits vehicle.
Penetrating hit is rolled.
Cover save discards Penetrating hit.

That explicitly discards the Penetrating hit, meaning that the cover save could not be taken, which reinstates the Penetrating hit, which allows a cover save... it's a paradox, but the rules allow it.

FNP says on a 1-3 take the wound as normal, 4-6 ignore the injury. the only thing injury can refer to is the wound.

If you make a FnP roll on a 1 wound model did the model ever not have 1 wound?

if the answer is no, then the model never suffered a wound.

If a model with FnP is hit by an attack that gives another model wounds back and it passes its FnP roll the model in question never loses a wound and the other model does not regain wounds.

If a model with FnP is hit by an attack that requires loss of a wound or suffering an unsaved wound, and it never loses a wound due to passing FnP then it never lost a wound, and it never suffered an unsaved wound. if it had suffered an unsaved wound its wounds would be 0 not 1.

Kommissar Kel wrote:How does something that happens at the same time as casualty removal shove itself in front of casualty removal/wound application?

Let alone the fact that you do not even check for ES until after all the wounds are resolved(since it is attacks causing 1 or more unsaved wounds, not for each unsaved wound), so ES does not even happen simultaneously with casualty removal/wound application

You say as early as the first page that ES doesn't occur until all the ES wounds have resolved.
I don't know what that means.
All the attacks, of say the scarabs, hit at the same time, wound at the same time and fail their saves at the same time.
There is no waiting period for wounds to resolve.

I keep reading your "1 or more" argument and I really don't understand how this translates to occurring after FNP.
I am genuinely trying to understand it, but it doesn't make sense to me.

a) The very first line of Remove Casualties is "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."
b) The very first line of FNP (after fluff) is "If a model [with FNP] suffers an unsaved wound."
c) The very first line of Entropic Strike is "Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds [from ES] immediately loses its armour save...."

For me both b and c are triggered at time a, no sooner and no later.

Ok, I can help with that.

You have a process for how attacks are resolved correct?(we do have that process a few posts ago).

Now if ES was applied anytime before the full series of simultaneous attacks, then you would be attempting that application for each unsaved wound correct?(We also have rules that use each unsaved wound either as a trigger or that factors into that rules resolution)

But ES specifies that it triggers on 1 or more unsaved wounds, so it can only trigger once correct?

Now since we know ES can only trigger once, and the rule does not specify that it triggers on the first unsaved wound(such as the case with NFWs), then it must not trigger until all unsaved wounds are applied from the Model/weapon's attacks.

Since we cannot check that 1 or more unsaved wounds have been caused from a source until all attacks from that source(which are simultaneous) have been resolved, then we do not check for ES's trigger until after the application of all unsaved wounds which itself does not occur until after FNP has triggered and been rolled.

now for remove casualties, you have to read beyond the very first line(see how there is quite a bit more paragraph there, and 2 more after it; those are all still part of the rule); the third line tells us of the timing of wound application:

"Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is Immediately removed from the table as a casualty.

So the problems with your understanding of your A, B, and C; is that you did not read far enough into the rule to see what the first line means(as it actually has little to do with the actual remove casualties other than to define "suffers an unsaved wound"), and then you were trying to apply "1 or more unsaved wounds" to every wound; which would lead to multiple applications of a rule that is to be applied once.

Now using your set, with the correct line in casualty removal we have:
a) Snippet of remove casualties: "for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."
b) The very first line of FNP (after fluff) is "If a model [with FNP] suffers an unsaved wound."
c) The very first line of Entropic Strike is "Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds [from ES] immediately loses its armour save...."

We find that the failed save causes the suffering of an unsaved wound, which should be the cause for immediate removal, In order for FNP to do anything in the game it must kick in before all "for each unsaved wound one/the model is immediately"-type effects. Then in order for ES to follow it's rules for only 1 application per Source, it must wait until all attacks have been completely resolved, so it would go last in any event(not even just FNP)