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.

Jidmah wrote:
Which is not part of the rules. As the example in the bar demonstrated, you don't need to go back in time to ignore something.

Yes, to ignore something is not going back in time, but to ignore things that alredy were resolved because you ignore the trigger afterwards is going back in time, even if the FNP rule tells you to ignore the fact of being wounded, it doesn't tell you to ignore all thing that were triggered by being wounded, otherwise you were forced to ignore the FNP roll, too.
The pinning rules, for example tell you to make a leadership roll _immediately_ after you suffer an unsaved wound and your models go to ground _immediately_ after you fail that test, so either you prioritise the FNP roll, which is not good, since the Pinning test says immediately and the FNP rule does not. Or you prioritise the Pinning roll, to ignore its result because of FNP then you are going back in time, since pinning was already resolved. If you roll both at the same time, you can't ignore the one roll, without ignoring the other, because both were triggered of the same incident.

Jidmah wrote:
puma: Being wounded and suffering an unsaved wound is not the same. Besides, exactly as infantry counting as jump infantry would never be infantry for the purpose of game rules, ignoring that a model sufferd an unsaved wound would never be considered having suffered an unsaved wound for the purpose of game rules.

So a harpy is no monstrous creature and can't shoot two weapons and don't use an additional D6 for AP? Despite the fact it is explicitly statet that it's a monstrous creature, because wings tell you to ignore that?

Jidmah wrote:
Galdor: FNP does not tell the model to ignore the wound, but the player. If the model ignored the wound, the player would still have to remove it a casualty. You also can't pretend rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You fail to prove that resolving hex rilfe is the same as ignoring the very trigger of hex rifle, thus your argument fails. FNP does not break itself, as the act of ignoring something is not paying attention to it. If it were, you could never ignore anything.

You can ignore the wound and nontheless pay atention to the hex rifle roll, because the FNP rule doesn't tell you to ignore this.
And if you had to ignore everything that triggered of being wounded you had to ignore that you ignore the wound, sounds impracticable.
If you ignored ignoring being wounded you had to roll for FNP, if you passed, you ignored that you ignored ignoring being wounded, but you had to ignore that, too, so again roll for FNP, and that wouldn't break the rule?

Tiri Rana wrote:Yes, to ignore something is not going back in time, but to ignore things that alredy were resolved because you ignore the trigger afterwards is going back in time, even if the FNP rule tells you to ignore the fact of being wounded, it doesn't tell you to ignore all thing that were triggered by being wounded, otherwise you were forced to ignore the FNP roll, too.
The pinning rules, for example tell you to make a leadership roll _immediately_ after you suffer an unsaved wound and your models go to ground _immediately_ after you fail that test, so either you prioritise the FNP roll, which is not good, since the Pinning test says immediately and the FNP rule does not. Or you prioritise the Pinning roll, to ignore its result because of FNP then you are going back in time, since pinning was already resolved. If you roll both at the same time, you can't ignore the one roll, without ignoring the other, because both were triggered of the same incident.

Remove casualties tells you to immediately remove the model, though FNP still works. If pinning would work the way you describe, FNP would never, ever work.

So a harpy is no monstrous creature and can't shoot two weapons and don't use an additional D6 for AP? Despite the fact it is explicitly statet that it's a monstrous creature, because wings tell you to ignore that?

Harpies don't count as jump infantry. Harpies move as if they were jump infantry, this is a huge difference.

You can ignore the wound and nontheless pay atention to the hex rifle roll, because the FNP rule doesn't tell you to ignore this.

You are not allowed to make a characteristic test if you ignored the unsaved wound.

And if you had to ignore everything that triggered of being wounded you had to ignore that you ignore the wound, sounds impracticable.

It's perfectly practical. You ignore being wounded, you ignore ever having taken a FNP roll and you ignore ever having taken a characteristic test. Then you continue your turn.

If you ignored ignoring being wounded you had to roll for FNP, if you passed, you ignored that you ignored ignoring being wounded, but you had to ignore that, too, so again roll for FNP, and that wouldn't break the rule?

You only ever suffer each unsaved wound once, thus only one trigger and only one FNP resolution. Otherwise you would roll for FNP again whenever you fail your FNP roll. Losing a Wound is just as much a trigger off suffering an unsaved wound as Feel No Pain or hex rifle. So, if it didn't work this way, FNP would never work. Also, ignoring to ignore something does not mean you pay attention to it. This is not a double negative thing.

Jidmah wrote:

Tiri Rana wrote:Yes, to ignore something is not going back in time, but to ignore things that alredy were resolved because you ignore the trigger afterwards is going back in time, even if the FNP rule tells you to ignore the fact of being wounded, it doesn't tell you to ignore all thing that were triggered by being wounded, otherwise you were forced to ignore the FNP roll, too.
The pinning rules, for example tell you to make a leadership roll _immediately_ after you suffer an unsaved wound and your models go to ground _immediately_ after you fail that test, so either you prioritise the FNP roll, which is not good, since the Pinning test says immediately and the FNP rule does not. Or you prioritise the Pinning roll, to ignore its result because of FNP then you are going back in time, since pinning was already resolved. If you roll both at the same time, you can't ignore the one roll, without ignoring the other, because both were triggered of the same incident.

Remove casualties tells you to immediately remove the model, though FNP still works. If pinning would work the way you describe, FNP would never, ever work.

True enough, so you would not immediately remove the model and you would not immediately take the pinning test.

But to take the pinning test, must a model be wounded and removed?

The rule for pinning, like the rule for FNP says if the unit suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, the unit takes a pinning test.

Now if you roll for FNP and pass it, you ignore the injury. So you have suffered an unsaved wound but did not actually take a 'wound'.
Or, number of unsaved wounds taken=1, number of 'actual wounds' taken=0.

Now from the latest rulebook FAQ:

Q: How many Pinning tests can a squad firing multiple
Pinning weapons cause on the enemy it is shooting?(p31)
A: Each unit can only cause a maximum of one Pinning
test on each enemy unit wounded, per turn, regardless
of the number of wounds caused, unless specifically
stated otherwise.

So, I shoot a unit with a sniper weapon. I inflict 1 wound. The model fails it's save.
The unit has now suffered an "unsaved wound". But the model has FNP and the roll is successful.
So the model ignores the injury.
So the number of wounds that were 'caused' is 0, none, but the unit was still wounded because it "suffered an unsaved wound", so it would still take the pinning test.

Same for the hexrifle. The FAQ backs up the fact that even though the actual number of sounds 'caused' might be zero, the model has in fact, been wounded.
If it fails its save, it has suffered an unsaved wound.
Regardless of the number of 'actual wounds' the attack caused, the hexrifle rule says the unit has to take the test.

If the hexrifle rule said "A model that suffers a wound from a hexrifle.." then the number of 'actual wounds caused' would have to be 1 or more.
But since the model doesn't have to suffer a 'wound', but simply an "unsaved wound", then the test must be taken.

If you read the FAQ that literal, it wouldn't matter as a unit still is wounded if all wounds were saved or ignored by FNP.

Jidmah wrote:If you read the FAQ that literal, it wouldn't matter as a unit still is wounded if all wounds were saved or ignored by FNP.

No, because as page 20 says in the first paragraph under Take Saving Throws, specifically Armour Saves that "If the dice result is equal to or highter than the model's Sv value, the sound is stopped."

So if the save is passed, no wound has been caused.

Fof FNP to trigger in the first place, an "unsaved wound" must have been suffered.

But if FNP is passed, the injury is ignored so no actual 'wound' is caused, even though an "unsaved wound" was, in fact, suffered.

Jidmah wrote:Remove casualties tells you to immediately remove the model, though FNP still works. If pinning would work the way you describe, FNP would never, ever work.

Yeah, but FNP tells us 'the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting" so it contradicts the rules for removing casualties and special > general. It does however not allow to not roll for pinning or to not roll toughness.

This is my view form reading first pages

Both effects go off when you suffer an unsaved wound at the same time

FNP activates when you take an "UNSAVED Wound"

Hexrifle activates when you take an "UNSAVED Wound"

FNP player needs to make a Wound test and roll a dice for fnp

You fail your FNP (your dead, 1 W models)
If you fail the wounds test (you removed from the game regardless of who you are)

The effect of hexrifle instructs you to remove the model; if the model is removed it cannot take an FNP test. Why are you inisisting that the FNP happens before the hexrifle?

I'm not, please read my posts. Your description of events would be wrong either way.

time wizard wrote:

Jidmah wrote:If you read the FAQ that literal, it wouldn't matter as a unit still is wounded if all wounds were saved or ignored by FNP.

No, because as page 20 says in the first paragraph under Take Saving Throws, specifically Armour Saves that "If the dice result is equal to or highter than the model's Sv value, the sound is stopped."

So if the save is passed, no wound has been caused.

Fof FNP to trigger in the first place, an "unsaved wound" must have been suffered.

But if FNP is passed, the injury is ignored so no actual 'wound' is caused, even though an "unsaved wound" was, in fact, suffered.

So you're saying that a model that has been wounded(successful to-wound roll) and succeeds its saves has never been wounded.
Why has a model that sufferd an unsaved wound still sufferd an unsaved wound, if you succeed your FNP roll? The mechanics are identical.

Tiri Rana wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Remove casualties tells you to immediately remove the model, though FNP still works. If pinning would work the way you describe, FNP would never, ever work.

Yeah, but FNP tells us 'the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting" so it contradicts the rules for removing casualties and special > general. It does however not allow to not roll for pinning or to not roll toughness.

Nope, you said an effect would happen immediately, so you remove the model as casualty before even picking up the dice to roll FNP. If something is supposedly true for hex rifle, it must be true for all mechanics working the same. Unless you can find a way to make hex rifle work the way you want, without breaking FNP or any other game mechanic, you don't have a case.

Jidmah wrote:Nope, you said an effect would happen immediately, so you remove the model as casualty before even picking up the dice to roll FNP. If something is supposedly true for hex rifle, it must be true for all mechanics working the same. Unless you can find a way to make hex rifle work the way you want, without breaking FNP or any other game mechanic, you don't have a case.

It does. Pick up two differently-colored dice and roll them. One representing FNP, the other representing the Hex Rifle. No matter what, if you fail the Hex Rifle, you are removed because either:

A) FNP goes off and you ignore the wound. It still does not matter, though, as you do not ignore the act of being wounded, which was the trigger for the Hex Rifle to being with.

or

B) FNP doesn't go off and it doesn't matter anyway.


However, we got an answer from GW today regarding this:

Games Workshop Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each
other how is this resolved? (p2)
A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!’.

It does. Pick up two differently-colored dice and roll them. One representing FNP, the other representing the Hex Rifle.

You know, I was the first person to write this exact process into this thread, everyone can stop "explaining" it to me now.

No matter what, if you fail the Hex Rifle, you are removed because either:

A) FNP goes off and you ignore the wound. It still does not matter, though, as you do not ignore the act of being wounded, which was the trigger for the Hex Rifle to being with.

Wrong. Hex rifle is not triggered by being wounded. Hex rifle is triggered by suffering an unsaved wound. FNP ignores that you suffered an unsaved wound.

or

B) FNP doesn't go off and it doesn't matter anyway.


However, we got an answer from GW today regarding this:

Games Workshop Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each
other how is this resolved? (p2)
A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!’.

The most important rule is still violating the tenets of YMDC. FAQs are allowed via tenets of YMDC. Now we got a worse problem than hex rifles

Jidmah wrote:FNP ignores that you suffered an unsaved wound.

And since I don't know where it is in this 9 page thread now, where have we determined that injury means unsaved wound and not just 'wound'?

In the spirit of preserving the entire reason for the 'you make the call' forum existing... and I hate to be the guy that says it, according to the 'most important rule' we're not technically in the middle of a game at the moment, so 'The Most Important Rule' doesn't really apply right now. This discussion falls into the caveat of 'happily continuing our discussion of the finer points of the rules...'

That being said, I think in the spirit of that ruling, I'd benefit of the doubt in favor of FNP ignoring the hexrifle, simply because the 'ignoring an injury' is vague. However, from a hard RAW standpoint, since the FNP rule doesn't explicitly state that it prevents the model from taking characteristic tests as a result of receiving an unsaved wound, I don't think that 'ignoring an injury' applies - based purely on the assumption that injury=wound not unsaved wound.

I think that, after 9 pages of discussion, it's become pretty clear that the FNP Wins argument is that you treat the 'unsaved wound' as if the wound had never happened at all, but the Hexrifle wins argument is that The Unsaved Wound is a trigger, and FNP prevents you from turning the unsaved wound into an actual wound. Since hexrifle doesn't say 'a model that has been wounded by a hexrifle ' but 'an unsaved wound', which undoubtedly happened, is presenting an indisputable condition.

Obviously, it's not actually indisputable, and in game would result in a roll-off in order to save time, which is fine with me. I don't think that either camp is going to convince the other, if it hasn't happened by now; unless someone can find precedent in a similar GW ruling, and make a convincing argument; and that may still lead to irresolvable disputes in actual game settings.

junk wrote:In the spirit of preserving the entire reason for the 'you make the call' forum existing... and I hate to be the guy that says it, according to the 'most important rule' we're not technically in the middle of a game at the moment, so 'The Most Important Rule' doesn't really apply right now. This discussion falls into the caveat of 'happily continuing our discussion of the finer points of the rules...'

I was kidding, that's what the was for.

@ Jidmah:

So, you're suggesting that since we ignore the "unsaved wound", we ignore the act of "taking an unsaved wound"?

Both of the rules have the same trigger. There's no two ways about it. But then, you're saying that since you're told to ignore the trigger, that the two processes never started in the first place. Which, once again, is a logical fallacy.

It's like lighting two fuses with one match. The fuses are lit. But one of the fireworks tells you to ignore the match. It doesn't matter, the left fuse was already lit.

I figured you were kidding, but it's actually a relevant point. In game, no matter how many analogies we use here, and how many different angles we approach it from; both arguments are based on an interpretation of FNP; since there's only one explanation of FNP and we're all intelligent enough to see each others viewpoints, it's safe to assume that this argument will come up in game, and without clear precedent, there is not happy resolution.

puma713 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:FNP ignores that you suffered an unsaved wound.

And since I don't know where it is in this 9 page thread now, where have we determined that injury means unsaved wound and not just 'wound'?

If FNP would ignore a wound, that would cause all sorts of problems(pointed out in the discussion about tau stuff) and would still result in hex rifle never triggering, as a wound is a perquisite to suffering an unsaved wound. While there is rule pointing out that "injury" is not wound, it would cause game rules to do unwanted things, which is a clear indication of "injury" being something more specific.

However, in order to prevent a model from losing Wounds or being removed as casualty the unsaved wound hat to be ignored. If it is not ignored, the model would still die to it, and FNP would be without effect. As we can safely assume that FNP is supposed to work, at the very least, the unsaved wound must be ignored. If you look at page 25, you'll see that the trigger for hex rifle and losing Wounds/dieing are identical, so if one works, the other will too. Even if you consider "continue fighting" as non-fluff, multi-Wound models would still lose Wounds after successful FNP rolls.

I'm still waiting for a quote of the shadowfield rules, as someone many pages back mentioned that it might give a clue to resolving the issue. I only have access to a German DE codex, which wouldn't help much.

Codex: Dark Eldar, page 62:-
A shadow field provides a 2+ invulnerable save, but if the save is ever failed, the shield is destroyed altogether.

That's the direct rule quote minus the preceeding fluff.

Thanks, but sadly it has nothing to do with it at all.

I am going to boldy post without having read the middle pages of this glorious debate. I base this on the assumption that since the first page and last page have different iterations of the same argument the middle must not be an exception.

Let me sum up what I understand the argument to be:

Either Feel No Pain negates the wound and all effects, thereby, rendering the Hexrifle's (look at that awesome and well placed apostrophy, that should make up for any other gramatical errors) ability null and void, or the Hexrifle's ability renders Feel No Pain null and void. Summed up, whichever one goes first ignores the other. Since we can't have it both ways (something about having cake and pots...or was it eating kettles, too?) one has to be ignored. Here is my elegant solution: Roll for it.

I just don't think it's fair for Feel No Pain to go first and ignore the Hexrifle; conversely, I don't think it's fair for the Hexrifle to go first and ignore Feel No Pain. Throw it to the winds and allow the vagaries of chance to take their course. The Emperor will see to it that whoever was meant to win will.

It's a shame you didn't read the middle pages, because 'roll for it' was suggested and ignored a number of times already. However, in practice, most people will roll for it, during a game, but if you and I rolled for it right now, and posted the results here, I doubt that anyone would accept that result as a binding decision.

I'm willing to try it though. I got a 4.

Hmmm... I got a three. Guess the call is ultimately up to you...but wait! What's that in the interwebz? Is a virtual bird? A virtual plane? No! It's GW with an update to the main rulebook FAQ!

Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each
other how is this resolved? (p2)
A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!’.

And now a link (if I got it to work right): http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1830600a_40k_Rulebook_version_1_4.pdf

lol
This is actually a really terrible thing to put in a FAQ because now in almost every long rules debate someone will suggest starting up Vassal and rolling it off.

I suppose you could say that both happen simultaneously - if they pass FNP and their W test, then they don't take a wound and stay in play...

Andilus Greatsword wrote:I suppose you could say that both happen simultaneously - if they pass FNP and their W test, then they don't take a wound and stay in play...

They do both happen simultaneously, but one of the effects makes you IGNORE the wound in the first place.

Step 1 check range and LoS, In range and LoS.
Step 2 Roll to hit, We rolled a five, so we hit!
Step 3 Roll to wound we rolled another five so we wound successfully.
Step 4 take a save and fail, we now have an unsaved wound to contend with.
FNP and hexrifle kicks in
Roll FNP and Hexrifle.
Pass FNP on the roll of a four and Ignore the wound (This makes you ignore the wound that was caused at step 3 so the rest of the process becomes irrelevant as you are now ignoring that step 3 was actually a successful to wound roll).

to take the hexrifle into account would not be ignoring the wound caused at step 3.\

To say otherwise is to not ignore the wound.

DeathReaper wrote:Pass FNP on the roll of a four and Ignore the wound (This makes you ignore the wound that was caused at step 3 so the rest of the process becomes irrelevant as you are now ignoring that step 3 was actually a successful to wound roll).

I just don't understand how you're getting back to the wound in step 3.

I can see an argument where "injury" means "unsaved wound" or "wound resulting from an unsaved wound", but how do you get back to step 3?

The language "wound" in FNP can't refer to the step 3 wound because then you would get another chance to save...which would trigger FNP...until you fail FNP.

In the context of FnP, where you take the wound as normal, or ignore it(The injury), from the context The injury=wound, seeing as you either take the wound or you do not take the wound. injury is clearly referring to wound as noted when you roll a 1-3.

Injury = wound, when is the wound created? Step 3. so we ignore the wound we ignore anything that happens after step 3

you do not "get another chance to save" because "the model only ever gets to make one saving throw" P.24, and if you have tried to save and failed you do not get to save again.

DeathReaper wrote:In the context of FnP, where you take the wound as normal, or ignore it(The injury), from the context The injury=wound, seeing as you either take the wound or you do not take the wound. injury is clearly referring to wound as noted when you roll a 1-3.

Injury = wound, when is the wound created? Step 3. so we ignore the wound we ignore anything that happens after step 3

you do not "get another chance to save" because "the model only ever gets to make one saving throw" P.24, and if you have tried to save and failed you do not get to save again.

First: FNP is no save so, nice but null and void.

Second if you ignore the wound and ignore anything that happens after step 3, then you have to ignore that you rolled FNP and ,although some say otherwise, if you ignore that you were allowed to ignore something you must pay attention to it again, since you aren't allowed to ignore it anymore. So as you aren't ignoring the wound, you have suffered an unsaved wound and should roll for FNP, again. And over, and over and over; until you fail for the first time and break the circle.

Great way to unbreak the rule

Repeating the exact argument from above, doesn't make it more right. Ignoring to ignore something is not the same as paying attention to it.

DeathReaper: You can't prove that injury actually means "wound". You can prove that it must at least include "unsaved wound", so you shouldn't assume it is any more if you want a solid argument.

To say it with your own words:

Jidmah wrote:If you ever do anything because of this wound you are not ignoring it, and thus violating the rules.

or

Jidmah wrote:
you ignore the injury just for some things, but not for others

So we are not allowed to define the term ignore the injury, to just mean the part of loosing a Wound, but not the fact one suffered a unsaved wound, because you say so, although the word 'injury' is never clearly defined, as you not only admit yourself, but use as argument, too.

But you are allowed to define the matter of ignore 'the ijury is ignored' as ignoring the fact the injury was ignored, without ignoring the rule, that allowed you to ignore the injury, at all.

Sounds hypocritical, doesn't it.


While you're right that ignoring the fact you ignored something doesn't mean you have to acknowledge it, you just 'forget' you ignored it.
But if you ignore a rule, that tells you 'the injury is ignored' you are not ignoring the fact, but the act, of ignoring the injury. You are no longer allowed to ignore the injury, as you just ignored the rule, that told you so.