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.

Rigeld - My argument is simple. Fnp triggers from unsaved wounds, Entropic triggers from unsaved wounds. You cannot have one without the other.

Oh and to back up my opinion that to use the FNP rule you must have suffered a wound first (I'm using the verb wound, not the noun used by GW to describe the characteristic in the models profile)

(I'm paraphrasing) but I think the words "ignore the injury" are used and to ignore something it has to of happened, the phrase implies you have been injured/wounded but are 2 tough/high/angry (take ur pick) to notice.

Imo you stop trying to twist badly written rules into something illogical...

Clay Williams wrote:Rigeld - My argument is simple. Fnp triggers from unsaved wounds, Entropic triggers from unsaved wounds. You cannot have one without the other.

Awesome! Something to discuss!

FNP triggers on unsaved wounds, and if successful you ignore the unsaved wound.
ES triggers on unsaved wounds, but - wait for it - if you allow ES you're not ignoring the unsaved wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pob82 wrote:Oh and to back up my opinion that to use the FNP rule you must have suffered a wound first (I'm using the verb wound, not the noun used by GW to describe the characteristic in the models profile)

Correct - FNP is triggered on an unsaved wound. Unless you're arguing that you have to suffer the effects of the wound - that would be incorrect. Well, sorry - it could be correct, but FNP would literally do nothing.

(I'm paraphrasing) but I think the words "ignore the injury" are used and to ignore something it has to of happened, the phrase implies you have been injured/wounded but are 2 tough/high/angry (take he pick) to notice.

Arguments based on fluff are meaningless here, but yes - FNP creates a sort of paradox, similar to vehicle cover saves - you ignore that the unsaved wound happened.

Imo you stop trying to twist badly written rules into something illogical...

I don't see how it's illogical at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:@rigeld2
First of all, between simultaneous wounds there can be no priority over checks. It all happens at the same time.

Oh... kay? Yes, the wounds all happen at the same time. I'm not sure why that matters. You resolve all the wounds at the same time. That does not mean that everything *during the process of processing the wound* happens simultaneously. In fact, that's not possible.

This whole "1 or more thing" is mostly for my own amusement.

Oh, so you're trolling? Okay.

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...

Kel already replied to this.

Not sure if Copper saw this in my edit, so I figured I would delete it and repost in its own post.

Copper: it is not just that I am taking FNP as having priority over ES as a given, it is that I am taking FNP as having priority over wound application as a given.

I think there is a communication breakdown based on this Quote snippet:

copper.talos wrote:this concept that "ES needs to check all attacks & all wounds

That is not at all what I was saying(it is actually the opposite)

I will grant that your English skills are quite good; Assuming by your Flag, English is not your first language.

Now what I have been saying is that ES is not checked until after all attacks have been fully resolved and the wounds applied; 1 attack, or 1,000 attacks would not matter in this case.

The snippet I quoted would be the case for an "every unsaved wound" or an "each unsaved wound"; which would still fall behind FNP for reasons I have stated earlier(FNP has to resolve before the Immediate effect of Wound application, which would in turn occur simultanously with any and all other Immediate effects triggered via "each" or "every" unsaved wound).

That last paragraph touches on another of yours; there is nothing in the rules that tell you 1 "immediately" effect occurs before any other "Immediately" effects, they all happen "Immediately" off of a particular trigger therefore they all happen simultaneously.

Now the above here is broad-sweeping and based on the exact same trigger; again the Check for 1 or more does not occur with each and every, it must come at the end; after the immediately effects for the each and every have already resolved, which is in turn after FNP has resolved, you would then check for 1 or more effects, and first resolve Immediately effects, then unstated effects(effects that simply happen without any stated priority).

To me its the word "wound" that is being twisted.

Ignore the effect of the wound could mean:

Your wound count is not effected (noun)
The wound never happened (verb)

The latter version doesn't fit the statement feel no pain, I would call it impervious to harm if that was the case....

Also I'd like to state that I don't think anyon way is wrong but I like to read my rulebook with a little reality thrown in makes the game more fun for me....

Pob82 wrote:To me its the word "wound" that is being twisted.

Ignore the effect of the wound could mean:

Your wound count is not effected (noun)
The wound never happened (verb)

The latter version doesn't fit the statement feel no pain, I would call it impervious to harm if that was the case....

The word wound in this case is replacing the word injury(as injury has no rules and context dictates injury refers to wound), injury, and the use of Wound in this case is a noun.

Also the Injury being ignored in this case is the unsaved wound, also dictated by context.

And again back to the beginning of this thread ay reading of FNP ignoring the injury to mean that it does not ignore the unsaved wound means the Wound is still applied(so 1W models with FNP will still be removed from the table, and multiple wound models would still lose a wound).

Rigeld - I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. It is a simple argument and can be taken either way.

You think FNP ignores ES because the wound is ignored.

I think it does not because an unsaved wound applies an effect.

Clay Williams wrote:Rigeld - I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. It is a simple argument and can be taken either way.

You think FNP ignores ES because the wound is ignored.

I think it does not because an unsaved wound applies an effect.

So by ignoring the wound you apply effects that require the wound to not be ignored? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Just wanna say congratulations guys. This thread is (currently) 3x as long as Hexrifle vs FNP.

rigeld2 wrote:

Clay Williams wrote:Rigeld - I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. It is a simple argument and can be taken either way.

You think FNP ignores ES because the wound is ignored.

I think it does not because an unsaved wound applies an effect.

So by ignoring the wound you apply effects that require the wound to not be ignored? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Yes, good to know you can see my point of view as well.

I interpret the FNP rule to mean; The wound and all effects should be applied first, then if the FNP roll is successful the wound characteristic that dictates whether the model is removed from play is not effected ( wound ignored.) Im not trying to convince anyone I am right but trying to give my view on the rule.

My last thought on the matter is for the statement to feel no pain to be true an action that causes the feeling of pain must be applied and once this effect has applied it cannot be undone only ignored.

Kommissar Kel wrote:
That last paragraph touches on another of yours; there is nothing in the rules that tell you 1 "immediately" effect occurs before any other "Immediately" effects, they all happen "Immediately" off of a particular trigger therefore they all happen simultaneously.

Now the above here is broad-sweeping and based on the exact same trigger; again the Check for 1 or more does not occur with each and every, it must come at the end; after the immediately effects for the each and every have already resolved, which is in turn after FNP has resolved, you would then check for 1 or more effects, and first resolve Immediately effects, then unstated effects(effects that simply happen without any stated priority).

You started by saying that FNP gets priority over ES because of the "1 or more wounds" thing, then you said that it was because of the "immediately remove casualties" thing and now you are back to the "1 or more wounds"?

Firstly I'll have to repeat my self:
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. 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.

This "immediately remove casualties" isn't valid for the above reasons. You have two abilities that get the same priority over "immediately remove casualties", so the difference in timing (if any) should be checked in the wording of the rules. ES at that wins hands down...


And this "1 or more thing", I can't see this timing issue between FNP and ES at all.

If you look at them as part of a wound resolution program, the FNP would have an input of an integer, while the ES would have an input of a boolean variable.

BRB says in each initiative step anything that happens is simultaneous. So all hits are resolved simultaneous to wounds [nothing can come between resolving wound A and wound C], all saves are rolled simultaneously [nothing can come between resolving save A and save C], so at that point you end up with a number of unsaved wounds that happen simultaneously [nothing can come between suffering unsaved wound A and unsaved wound C]. At this step both FNP and ES would get their input at the same time, one would get a number the other would get a yes/no.

And again, even using this flawed "fully resolved" logic on 1 attack -> 1 unsaved wound, you can't argue convincingly that FNP triggers first, because the "fully" resolved wound for ES is exactly the same that activated FNP.

Anyway, I don't know if I can stress this enough. When things happens simultaneously, nothing can happen in between. Not FNP, ES, anything. There is no "fully resolved" as there can never be a "partially resolved". You get a result after rolling all saves. A number to see how many times FNP is activated and a yes/no to see if ES gets activated. Nothing says that FNP should get its result before ES, because there isn't even a hint for that. The trigger is simultaneous, ES resolves first because it is in its wording.


PS thanks for the comment on my English.

According to the BRB passing a fnp roll means there was never an unsaved wound. Otherwise you would have to include wounds saved by fnp in assault results, which you do not....

No you wouldn't, since in the assault results section it specifically mentions not counting wounds that have been discounted by special rules, the passage in it's entirety reads:

"To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner...Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count..."
(pg. 39 of the small rulebook)

So yeah, unsaved wounds negated by FNP do not count towards the Assault Result.

According to the BRB passing a fnp roll means there was never an unsaved wound

No it does not, all FNP allows the player to do is negate the direct negative effect that unsaved wound inflicts on the model's wound characteristic. There has to have been an unsaved wound, otherwise you would not need to roll for FNP in the first place.

Copper it is, and can be, both.

I have laid this out again and again;

FNP must resolve before the immediate application of the wound(remove casualties).

ES strike does not check until the attack(s) is/are fully resolved(1 or more wounds are applied).

Process goes:

1)Hit
2)wound
3)save
3a)FNP
4) apply the wound and any other Immediate effects based on Suffers an unsaved wound
5) Apply any effects based on suffering 1 or more unsaved wounds.

With passing FNP you stop having an unsaved wound before Step 4; no effects from that point on matter as they are ignored.

You don't answer any of my arguments. You are just reciting yours again and again.

The ES "fully resolving" thing is full of holes because it has no basis whatsoever. As I said there is no full resolving and no partial resolving between simultaneous wounds. It's from nothing to a result for ES and FNP both, with absolutely nothing in between.
And there is no evidence for your arbitrary decision that ES resolves at the time of casualties. As any other ability that triggers on unsaved it has the same priority to act in the step between getting an unsaved wound and removing the casualty. You have absolutely no proof why ES should be different than any other ability that trigger of unsaved wounds. Give proof and we will talk about it again.

Dr D has that reading of the rule spot on all other interpretations are wrong.

Copper - he has given proof over and over again, you just choose to ignore it.

Remove casualties and ES both occur at the exact same time. Exactly the same (immediately...). For FNP to work AT ALL it must occur before this step - meaning it must occur before ES.

I ignored nothing. Read this from a previous post and answer again:

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 needing even a hint in its wording. ES is no different. There is nothing that suggests otherwise. 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.

This "immediately remove casualties" isn't valid for the above reasons. You have two abilities that get the same priority over "immediately remove casualties", so the difference in timing (if any) should be checked in the wording of the rules. ES at that wins hands down...

Apparently you cant read the wording for ES either. ES happens immeiately on unsaved wounds, which is the EXACT SAME TIME as Remove casualties - as KKel has posted a number of times now.

Your wall of text shows nothing, has no rules, and just waffles on to a conclusion made up from nothing.

FNP happens before remove casualties, and ES happens at the same time as remove casualties. ES happens after FNP, QED

nosferatu1001 wrote:ES happens immeiately on unsaved wounds, which is the EXACT SAME TIME as Remove casualties

This is the most arbitrary conclusion I have ever seen. There is NO WAY this proves what you are saying. It makes no sense really. ES is no different than any other ability that is activated on unsaved wounds. All these abilities RESOLVE before the removal of casualties because that would make these abilities utterly useless eg FNP, pinning weapons. It falls on you to prove ES is different than all the these abilities and guess what... There is absolutely no proof whatsoever about it. You can think it works like that, you can believe it works like that, but until you give a quote out of BRB, a codex or a FAQ you can't prove it.

Dr. Delorean wrote:There has to have been an unsaved wound, otherwise you would not need to roll for FNP in the first place.

Why is that not possible?

Sorry, rule-less posting from you again.

It has been proven, using wording from the BRB and ES, that they are resolved at the exact same time. FNP occurs before Remove Casualties, and both ES and RC occur at the same time.

FNP occurs before ES AND RC, proven many many many many many times, withonly your inability to provide rules going against it. Falls on you to prove your bizarre scenario that some how ES and RC, which have the exact same wording as regards timing, occur at different times. Good luck with that.

I actually only see you going in circles on and on basing your arbitrary conclusions on more arbitrary conclusions.

Where is this famous proof using wording from BRB and ES you keep mentioning all the time?

This "ES happens immeiately on unsaved wounds, which is the EXACT SAME TIME as Remove casualties" is unacceptable since it has no basis anywhere. It just proves what I said in the beginning: This FNP priority over ES is based on arbitrary conclusion which are based on more arbitrary conclusions. Nothing more...

copper.talos wrote:I actually only see you going in circles on and on basing your arbitrary conclusions on more arbitrary conclusions.

Where is this famous proof using wording from BRB and ES you keep mentioning all the time?

This "ES happens immeiately on unsaved wounds, which is the EXACT SAME TIME as Remove casualties" is unacceptable since it has no basis anywhere. It just proves what I said in the beginning: This FNP priority over ES is based on arbitrary conclusion which are based on more arbitrary conclusions. Nothing more...

How is it arbitrary? The wording for ES and Remove Casualties is exactly the same. FNP must come before RC, which means it must come before ES as well.

Check all the abilities that trigger on unsaved wounds, I mean ALL, FNP, pinning weapons etc
ALL these abilities resolve BEFORE removing casualties, otherwise we would have this situation
-I killed 2 guys with sniper rifles. Roll a pinning check
-No, because they were killed before the pinning rule could apply.
-Erm... what?

Checking the wording on all these abilities, including FNP and ES, there is no written permission whatsoever that they resolve before the "immediately remove casualties". Yet since we know that this is how they work, that means that all abilities that trigger on unsaved wounds resolve before removing casualties without needing any specific permission. It is inherent to their purpose.
So saying that 2 abilities with the same trigger work differently must be based on their wording. ES doen't even hint this sort of "delay".

No, because with Pinning (your example) it happens if the *unit* takes unsaved wounds - page 31. So 2 guys died to unsaved wounds, you roll the pinning check.

ES And Hexrifle don't happen before RC because if you remove the casualty there's no reason to apply the special ability. You do not resolve the Hexrifle before removing a single wound model.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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.

The people advocating this are breaking rules in doing so. You are effectively trying to unring the bell of suffering an unsaved wound. To say that the rule "Feel no Pain" somehow changes an unsaved wound into a saved wound breaks the rule on page 24 under the rules heading "Models with more than one save" where it states that "A model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save" Thus, if Feel no Pain is some sort of saving throw to prevent unsaved wounds, you, by the rules as written would only either get your armor save, your cover save, your invulnerable save, or your feel no pain save. You would get one single saving throw, BUT, that is not how Feel No Pain works, it is not a saving roll, so it cannot save a wound. What it does instead is, you simply do not reduce the wounds of the model by 1 per feel no pain roll that is passed. Thus, unless the model as suffered any other wounds that were unsaved and got through feel no pain, that model would not be removed as a casualty as the removal of the wound is ignored. The model was still wounded, but it wasn't enough to kill them.

Feel no Pain, Entropic Strike, Hexrifles, Pinning all have the exact same trigger "when a model suffers (an) (one or more) unsaved wound(s)" There is no implied order stated here, these triggers are based off of failing the saving roll. Thus if a model with feel no pain is wounded and fails his saving roll against a Hexrifle with pinning and entropic strike, there need to be three additional rolls to determine what happens and one automatic effect applied if the model is still alive.

FNP is not a save and does not prevent unsaved wounds, it just ignores the unsaved wound.

@rigeld2
You are right. Pinning has unit in its wording so it is out of a strict comparison. Let's look at hexrifles and FNP wording.
Hex rifles: A model that suffers an unsaved wound...
FNP: If a models with this ability suffers an unsaved wound...

What is it in their wording that makes you think hex rifles work after FNP?

The way things work by default is this hits>wounds>saves>unsaved wounds>abilities that trigger on unsaved wounds>remove casualties.