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.

So what happens if there is only 1 attack that causes 1 unsaved wound then? Why would in this case FNP take priority over ES?

(Don't get your hopes up though. I still strongly disagree that this "1 or more" is a valid argument since all wounds happen simultaneously).

Because as I have shown time and time and time again FNP comes before Wound application.

Yes All wounds happen simultaneously, that has no effect whatsoever on ES having to wait until all those simultaneous wounds are resolved, aside of course for reinforcing it.

Kommissar Kel wrote:
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.

This assumes that you have more than 1 attacks with more than 1 unsaved wounds. But you can have 1 attack with 1 unsaved wound. So how could all this apply to this case?

Feel no pain ignores the injury. Wouldn't entropic strike be a type of injury? Seems like it would hurt to me. Therefore ignored by the FNP roll.

Copper - it seems like you still havent read the argument.

ES happens AFTER FNP, as it must do so - as it applies at the same time as remove casualties.

You have not addressed this, and cannot, as otherwise you will be claiming that FNP does nothing.

Big hole in your chest == injury
Big hole in your breastplate =/=imjury.
Plain english

But let's hear what KK has to say...

@nosferatu0001 I can't accept something just because. What you are saying has no basis in any written passage in BRB or codex. But again let's hear what KK has to say...

OK, as apparently quoting the BRB at you doesnt work - try this simple quesiton.
Answer with yes or no: is Injury equivalent to Unsaved Wound. If yes, no need to explain (as that is what the rule says, to say otherwise requires you to ignore what context means, and to have to come up with what Injury means without reference to any rule within 40k) If no, then please give rules page and quotes as to why.
Doing it step by step, as apparently Kel giving out an entire argument in one go isnt working.

I have addressed that in earlier messages. I am too bored now to repeat my self again. You can look it up yourself if you wish.
I just want to hear KKs response. Where is KK anyway?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Copper - it seems like you still havent read the argument.

ES happens AFTER FNP, as it must do so - as it applies at the same time as remove casualties.

You have not addressed this, and cannot, as otherwise you will be claiming that FNP does nothing.

ES does not happen at the same time as remove casualties either; since the remove casualties is the wound application step for models with more than 1 wound, and ES does not trigger until after you have resolved all attacks(after the model has already taken the wound).

Copper: You are correct, giant whole in your breastplate does not = injury, but it also does not occur until after you have taken an injury.

You have not suffered any unsaved wounds; so you have not triggered ES on the check.

Nos isn't asking you to accept it "just because", nos just has no reason to retype everything I have already typed, citing page and passage in the BRB.

The rules have been laid out before you several times with proper citations, I have tried to re-organize and simplify the explanations in a few different ways; your final rebuttal has returned to the strawman argument that has no basis on any rules and ignores the fact that the injury(the unsaved wound) has already been ignored before it could ever be applied.

I have shown you that application of the unsaved wound to the model happens immediately(a word you are clinging to for the application of ES, even though that is in error), and therefore even if you were correct that the unsaved wound immediately applies the loss of armor save; FNP would still resolve before it(as all the "immediately" effects would trigger simultaneously, and therefore the wound would be applied before FNP ever gets a chance to kick in).

In short; you cannot check to see if 1 or more(or any) unsaved wounds are caused until all of the Simultaneous attacks are fully resolved(this would not change for 1 attack either), and the attacks are not fully resolved until after the wound has been applied, the wound is not applied until after FNP has been attempted.

I had to take the Puppy out and bring the 2 older dogs inside.

Ah, so you dont believe they are equivalent, and are thus making up rules OR claiming FNP doesnt work at all.

Only reason you wouldnt answer such a simple question. Kel has also explained, VERY patiently, exactly wy you are wrong on a number of occasions now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah, so you dont believe they are equivalent, and are thus making up rules OR claiming FNP doesnt work at all.

Only reason you wouldnt answer such a simple question. Kel has also explained, VERY patiently, exactly wy you are wrong on a number of occasions now.

I have no choice, until I have hard evidence of trolling, I am compelled to answer direct questions.

KK please explain how this:

"Kommissar Kel wrote:
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. "

you written earlier can be used in the case of 1 attack with 1 unsaved wound. It should cover all cases, shouldn't it? So I don't get why you avoid this simple explanation...

copper.talos wrote:Big hole in your chest == injury
Big hole in your breastplate =/=imjury.
Plain english

For the record,

in·ju·ry
   [in-juh-ree] Show IPA
noun, plural -ju·ries.
1. harm or damage that is done or sustained: to escape without injury.
2. a particular form or instance of harm: an injury to one's shoulder; an injury to one's pride.
3. wrong or injustice done or suffered.

I would say a bunch of robot bugs chewing giant holes in your suit of armor while trying to eat your flesh counts as an injury by "Plain english"

Have you ever heard the expression "Damn, my breastplate is injured"?

Anyway don't you feel the suspense? Waiting how KK's theory applies to 1 attack that causes 1 unsaved wound is short of a thriller! It takes him a lot of time so it must be something big...

copper.talos wrote:KK please explain how this:
you written earlier can be used in the case of 1 attack with 1 unsaved wound. It should cover all cases, shouldn't it? So I don't get why you avoid this simple explanation...

I didn't avoid it, I addressed that in my last post.

I will do so again; since the last address wasn't as detailed.

Just because there is only 1 attack, does not change the check. In fact it reinforces the check even more so. you do not check until the attack is fully resolved, mainly because until the wound is applied(which is after FNP as I have shown), the model has not suffered any unsaved wounds.

You have to have suffered 1 unsaved wound in order for ES to trigger, failing the save would normally apply the wound and immediately move to the check, then applying ES.

But in this case we have a model with FNP, since FNP interrupts the application of the wound; the check would still not come until after the wound is applied and the wound is not applied until after the FNP roll is failed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:Have you ever heard the expression "Damn, my breastplate is injured"?

Anyway don't you feel the suspense? Waiting how KK's theory applies to 1 attack that causes 1 unsaved wound is short of a thriller! It takes him a lot of time so it must be something big...

Nah, I just multi-task the hell out of my time; also half the time I am double-checking verbiage/BRB+Codices, and in this case I am posting on other questions as well.

I haven't heard that expression. But we also don't have scarabs irl. Now if we did have such things, I imagine the situation would be like Cprl. Hicks in Aliens when the acid is eating through his breastplate. He seems rather unhappy and kind of damaged. Injured, one might even say.

Kommissar Kel wrote:...snip...

Right I see what you are saying.

So for example:
There are 3 Failed Saves (for say a 3 wound FNP model called Jim).

Due to Line 1 of Remove Casualties "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."
Step 1: The 3 failed saves become 3 Unsaved Wounds.

Line 2 is irrelevant, so we go to Line 3 of Remove Casualties "...for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."
Step 2: The 3 Unsaved Wounds become 3 removed Models (or wounds in the case of Jim and that means he is removed from the table).

FNP has to occur before this or it would be a useless rule, so it occurs at Step 1.5 (i.e. After the failed saves become unsaved wounds and before the models are removed from table).
Step 1.5: The model has 3 Unsaved Wounds -> trigger FNP.

I hope we agree thus far.

Then the question becomes when does ES occur. It has to occur after the failed saves become unsaved wounds we can agree.
When there is no FNP, ES can happen as Step 2 as we don't need a Step 1.5 (we could but it wouldn't be necessary as ES works at Step 2 just fine)
If Jim isn't removed from the table he loses his armour.

However, when we go to the trouble of creating Step 1.5 for FNP, we find that all the conditions for ES are met at this time as well,
we aren't locked into occurring at Step 2 which means ES could trigger at our new Step 1.5 just as easily.

Except it has exactly the same trigger time (immediately...) as Remove casualties. So you are now creating 2 effects which BOTH happen "immediately" but stating one "immeidately" (ES) happens BEFORE the other (Remove Casualties)

There is NO SUPPORT in any rule or language anywhere for you to decide that one "immediately" happens before the other.

Your argument is 100% refuted

Reinforce what check? I hope you are not meaning this one:
"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. "

This check is completely invalid from the beggining. "Since we cannot check that 1 or more unsaved wounds have been caused from a source until all attacks from that source". It's 1 attack -> 1 unsaved wound. No need to check for any more attacks and any more wounds. Your whole argument crumbles from there on...


And again this "one or more wounds" isn't ever going to convince any one who is impartial.

Yet again you apparently miss the argument.

ES happens after FNP. If you pass FNP, there is no Unsaved Wound you can pay attention to any longer. This is true for k and k + 1 wounds, thus is true for any number of wounds.

copper.talos wrote:Reinforce what check? I hope you are not meaning this one:
"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. "

This check is completely invalid from the beggining. "Since we cannot check that 1 or more unsaved wounds have been caused from a source until all attacks from that source". It's 1 attack -> 1 unsaved wound. No need to check for any more attacks and any more wounds. Your whole argument crumbles from there on...


And again this "one or more wounds" isn't ever going to convince any one who is impartial.

Did you read the rest of my post, it explains both how and why it reinforces the same check.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it has exactly the same trigger time (immediately...) as Remove casualties. So you are now creating 2 effects which BOTH happen "immediately" but stating one "immeidately" (ES) happens BEFORE the other (Remove Casualties)

There is NO SUPPORT in any rule or language anywhere for you to decide that one "immediately" happens before the other.

Hmmm, I think that works, but I'll have to look at it again when I've slept to be sure.

Thanks KK and Nos.

ASIDE:
Though of course it required us to rewrite the book to get FNP to work Silly GWs.
And also it wouldn't surprise me if GW FAQ it the other way.

Thought I would add a little comment. Criticism will so be ignored

Imo - feel no pain is in its self an answer. To use the FNP rule the bearer of such qualities must be able to feel pain or the test could never be failed. Since armour has no ability to feel anything this would imply the the entity encased within the armour is the bearer of this rule. To trigger the FNP rule the armour must some how be circumvented to allow the bearer to use the rule. Therefor the ES rule should affect the armour while the FNP protects the entity inside leave the victim without armour but still pumped up enough to fight on.

As for RP and ES what kind of self repair would not go as far as fixing the metal skeleton the necron is encased in seriously....

It's a game have fun xxx

Your argument as to why FNP resolves before ES started with this, the "process for how attacks are resolved"

Kommissar Kel wrote: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.

When prompted what happens when 1 attack and 1 unsaved wound happens you replied

Kommissar Kel wrote: But in this case we have a model with FNP, since FNP interrupts the application of the wound; the check would still not come until after the wound is applied and the wound is not applied until after the FNP roll is failed.

Why would you write all the stuff before since at the end, you take that FNP has priority over ES as a given? You are supposed to prove that, not take it for granted in order to prove that whole "1 or more wounds" thing is valid! You confused your own self.

Your whole "process for how attacks are resolved", this concept that "ES needs to check all attacks & all wounds, so until that happens FNP takes priority", is a mess, that crumbles on one simple case: 1 attack -> 1 unsaved wound. It can't cover all cases, so it is invalid.

And after all why would you take that FNP takes priority over ES a given? Is there something that tells so in its wording? No. Is there a hint? No. Something anything? I know, I know... That "immediately remove casualties" thing. What about it? You have even a hint in FNP wording that takes priority over that? No. Does it happen? Of course. Now let's look at another ability that triggers on unsaved wounds: pinning weapons. Do pinning weapons have a written priority, or even a hint at least, over "immediately remove casualties"? No. Does it happen? Of course. Hexrifles: Do they have a written priority, or even a hint at least, over "immediately remove casualties"? No. Does it happen? Of course. You see a pattern here? Every ability that triggers on unsaved wounds has inherently priority over "immediately remove casualties" without needed even a hint in its wording. ES is no different. There is nothing that suggests otherwise. Both ES, FNP, pinning weapons, hexrifles etc have priority over "immediately remove casualties" so they trigger together. ES interestingly has "immediately" in its wording. Which means that it resolves before any other effects.

I am going to throw my ball into the court of "you lose your armor" you took an unsaved wound triggering FnP and Triggering ES at the same time.

Clay Williams wrote:I am going to throw my ball into the court of "you lose your armor" you took an unsaved wound triggering FnP and Triggering ES at the same time.

As shown on page 1, and every page after that; if this were the truth, FNP does nothing at all since suffering an unsaved wound is the cause for Wound application(including the removal of your model as a casualty).

Further shown on the last few pages ES does not trigger on every, nor each unsaved wounds, so it does not trigger until well after FNP.

TL;DR-type posts are not helpful in this discussion.

Well Kommissar I do not think it is helpful to argue your point 500 different ways while all saying the same thing over and over again.

I have my point of view ... you have yours. From reading how often you respond in this thread and the nature of your words you are too passionate about a point of view to see another's logic. Have fun with that.

copper.talos wrote:Your whole "process for how attacks are resolved", this concept that "ES needs to check all attacks & all wounds, so until that happens FNP takes priority", is a mess, that crumbles on one simple case: 1 attack -> 1 unsaved wound. It can't cover all cases, so it is invalid.

How does it crumble/not work for a single attack/wound? Could you help me understand?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Clay Williams wrote:Well Kommissar I do not think it is helpful to argue your point 500 different ways while all saying the same thing over and over again.

I have my point of view ... you have yours. From reading how often you respond in this thread and the nature of your words you are too passionate about a point of view to see another's logic. Have fun with that.

It works better in an argument to actually present your logic, and not just your point of view. Just saying "cookies are better than cake" means nothing without proof or reasons to support your statement.

If you are going to use a random number to denote "A great many" might I suggest the old Hebrew number of "40"?

So yes, I have posted 40 times in this thread and re-arranged the same general statements 40 different ways; the reason for that is because I am stating and restating over and over again exactly what the rules say, I am not basing anything off of opinion; merely attempting to explain their meaning.

Now you have entered into a thread on it's eighth page and presented a point that was invalidated multiple times in the first 3 or 4 pages, you then declare that I am too passionate about the argument(it may seem that way to you but I just really enjoy a debate and the challenge to answer variations on the same question, because if there is a variation that pokes a whole in my point; I need to re-assess my point) when I point out to you that your point of view has already been shown as invalid(again multiple times, sometimes even by your side of the argument).

@rigeld2
First of all, between simultaneous wounds there can be no priority over checks. It all happens at the same time. This whole "1 or more thing" is mostly for my own amusement.

But if you didn't read my, I must admit, boring post, it came down to this. There is KK's "process" that proves FNP takes priority over ES. FNP triggers on the 1st wound. ES need to make a check. Then this happens "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." Very confusing actually. If we simplify the situation using the case of 1 attack -> 1 unsaved wound, ES triggers on the same wound that FNP triggers. So this "process" makes ES and FNP trigger together when the case is 1 attack -> 1 unsaved wound, and gives priority to FNP in all other cases. Different results with the same rules, makes this process invalid. And in response to that he basically said FNP takes priority over ES because FNP takes priority over ES...