Hex rifle vs FNP?

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.

**Zyllos**

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...'

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.

I think what happens here is that when you get a FnP roll, people still assume that this is part of the "rolling a save" against a wound even though FnP is checked at the same time as the Hexrifle, when an unsaved wound happens.

As with what Junk stated, I forsee no other way to determine this unless GW FAQs this issue except for dicing off to see who gets the effect. Everytime I see this come up, it makes me wish they would sit down and streamline and fix holes in the rules like they do in MTG. Oh well...

**Steelmage99**

Tiri Rana wrote: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.

You just enjoyed writing the word "ignore" (or variations thereof) eighteen times waaaaay too much, didnt you....

**Jidmah**

To conclude the ignore-mega-combo: You claim that Hex rifles works because ignoring something is the same as paying attention to it. Which is wrong by definition. Neither FNP nor casualty removal nor hex rifle are triggered again after you resolved FNP, so it doesn't matter at all that you ignore the previous resolution of FNP.

Also I never argued that you can't define injury. I provided proof that injury can not be the process of losing a Wound/being removed as casualty. This has not been disproved.

For the trhird time: In order for FNP to prevent models from dying, it must make the unsaved wound go away, one way or another. If it doesn't, FNP would have no effect, which is obviously wrong. Injury might be much more than unsaved wound, but it can not be any less.

You are allowed to define injury as anything you want. If your definition can be proven wrong, it has no bearing on the argument. Thats how argumentation works.

**Dracos**

Again it doesn't matter if you are ignoring the injury, the hexrifle has already triggered. FNP tells you to ignore the injury sure, but you have already rolled your Characteristic test by the time the FNP tells you to ignore the injury. It doesn't tell you to ignore the characteristic test, so you don't.

**Galador**

Jidmah wrote:To conclude the ignore-mega-combo: You claim that Hex rifles works because ignoring something is the same as paying attention to it. Which is wrong by definition. Neither FNP nor casualty removal nor hex rifle are triggered again after you resolved FNP, so it doesn't matter at all that you ignore the previous resolution of FNP.

This is where your argument has consistently failed though, as you keep suggesting that FnP comes before Hexrifle, even though they trigger off the same thing at the same time, an unsaved wound. You must have an unsaved wound in order to trigger the Characteristic test for Hexrifle, and you must have an unsaved wound to trigger the roll for Feel No Pain. Neither of them comes before the other, hence, you cannot ignore the Hexrifle characteristic test after you roll Feel No Pain, because you are rolling them at the same time.

Now, if you can show me in the rules where Feel No Pain comes first, then I will gladly concede the point. But if you cannot, then you can't just not roll the characteristic test for Hexrifle because you think that FnP should go first.

**DeathReaper**

Dracos wrote:Again it doesn't matter if you are ignoring the injury, the hexrifle has already triggered. FNP tells you to ignore the injury sure, but you have already rolled your Characteristic test by the time the FNP tells you to ignore the injury. It doesn't tell you to ignore the characteristic test, so you don't.

The hexrifle triggering does not matter, since FNP tells you to ignore the trigger of the hexrifle, if you ignore the trigger you can not have any effects come from that trigger since you are ignoring it.

FNP and Hexrifle trigger at the same time. FNP does not come first, but neither does the Hexrifle.

However if you roll them at the same time and you roll a 4-6 on your FNP you have to Ignore the wound so it does not matter what you roll for the Hexrifle test.

if you ignore the wound you have to ignore any effects of the wound, yes that includes the previous FNP trigger as well as any other effects that triggered because of that unsaved wound, since we are now ignoring it.

FNP is a bit of a paradox since we ignore what triggered it in the first place, but you have to ignore everything or you are breaking FNP's rule of ignoring it.

Those that argue that to not test for the hexrifle is breaking that rule, you are told to ignore the event that triggers the hexrifle so no rules have been broken.

**Jidmah**

Galador wrote:
Jidmah wrote:To conclude the ignore-mega-combo: You claim that Hex rifles works because ignoring something is the same as paying attention to it. Which is wrong by definition. Neither FNP nor casualty removal nor hex rifle are triggered again after you resolved FNP, so it doesn't matter at all that you ignore the previous resolution of FNP.

This is where your argument has consistently failed though, as you keep suggesting that FnP comes before Hexrifle, even though they trigger off the same thing at the same time, an unsaved wound. You must have an unsaved wound in order to trigger the Characteristic test for Hexrifle, and you must have an unsaved wound to trigger the roll for Feel No Pain. Neither of them comes before the other, hence, you cannot ignore the Hexrifle characteristic test after you roll Feel No Pain, because you are rolling them at the same time.

Now, if you can show me in the rules where Feel No Pain comes first, then I will gladly concede the point. But if you cannot, then you can't just not roll the characteristic test for Hexrifle because you think that FnP should go first.

Are you referring to me? I never suggested that in one word. Please reread my argument.

**Dracos**

DeathReaper wrote:FNP is a bit of a paradox since we ignore what triggered it in the first place, but you have to ignore everything or you are breaking FNP's rule of ignoring it.

Those that argue that to not test for the hexrifle is breaking that rule, you are told to ignore the event that triggers the hexrifle so no rules have been broken.

Actually you bring up an important point about the paradox of how you read FNP. The term "injury" can't be refering to the unsaved wound. The reason is that if it did, and this retroactively cancelled the unsaved wound, then your FNP test would also be voided in the same way you describe the Hex rifle as being voided.

FNP voids unsaved wound -> unsaved wound disappearing voids your FNP test - > Unsaved wound is back.

This cycle repeats until FNP test is failed, making FNP not work at all.

However, if injury refers only to the removing a wound from the profile or removing the as casualty a model with a single wound, then it works perfectly, and hex rifle's test stands.

The only way to play it is that the model tests for both hex rifle and FNP. If hex rifle test is failed, remove as described. If FNP test is failed, you remove a wound from the profile or remove the model as casualty if it has a single wound.

**DeathReaper**

Dracos wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:FNP is a bit of a paradox since we ignore what triggered it in the first place, but you have to ignore everything or you are breaking FNP's rule of ignoring it.

Those that argue that to not test for the hexrifle is breaking that rule, you are told to ignore the event that triggers the hexrifle so no rules have been broken.

Actually you bring up an important point about the paradox of how you read FNP. The term "injury" can't be refering to the unsaved wound. The reason is that if it did, and this retroactively cancelled the unsaved wound, then your FNP test would also be voided in the same way you describe the Hex rifle as being voided.

FNP voids unsaved wound -> unsaved wound disappearing voids your FNP test - > Unsaved wound is back...

No, you are told to Ignore the Unsaved wound when you pass a FNP test. It is there but you have to ignore it and any effects that came from it.

**Dracos**

No you are not. You are told to ignore the injury.

As I demonstrated above, injury can't refer to the unsaved wound, because if you have to ignore it FNP doesn't work in the exact same way you are saying the Hexrifle doesn't work.

Therefore injury must refer to something else, which can then only be the removal of a wound from the model if multiwound, or the removal of the model as a casualty if it has a single wound.

**DeathReaper**

and Injury, in the context of FNP = wound, as noted in the FNP entry.

since on a 1-3 you take the wound as normal, and 4-6 ignore the injury.

Injury can only refer to the aforementioned wound.

**Dracos**

The wound in this case is the wound you would be removing from the profile of the model. It can't be the unsaved wound for reasons I just described.

**Jidmah**

Which would mean that FNP does not happen immediately, causing any model to die before you roll for FNP. Dying from wounds is triggered by the same thing as hex rifle or FNP, but is resolved without a roll. Your model would be "injured" and removed as casualty before FNP could ever interfere. FNP must ignore the unsaved wound to have any effect at all.

FNP works perfectly fine with ignoreing it's own trigger, unless you introduce a timing which is not written in the rules.

1. Model is wounded
2. Model fails save/can't save
3. Model suffers an unsaved wound.
4. Hex rifle, remove casualties and FNP all trigger and resolve at the exact same point in time.
5. Unsaved wound is ignored, and thus Hex rifle, remove casualties and FNP are also ignored.
6. Continue phase, no back to step 3.

Don't label anything "The only way to play it", if you can't prove that any other way is wrong. There even is a case for people saying they can decide whether they roll FNP or Hex rifle first, as nothing forces you to roll multiple dice at once other than saving throws.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dracos wrote:The wound in this case is the wound you would be removing from the profile of the model. It can't be the unsaved wound for reasons I just described.

No. Misuse of terms, you can't remove wounds from a profile any more than you can remove hits from a profile.

**DeathReaper**

Dracos wrote:The wound in this case is the wound you would be removing from the profile of the model. It can't be the unsaved wound for reasons I just described.

Only if you ignore the context of FNP can injury mean the wound you would be removing from the profile of the model.

If you take FNP in context Injury is referring to the wound, not removing a profile wound.

"Take the wound as normal"

the wound is the unsaved wound caused after you failed a save. FNP references this.

**Dracos**

Except if you ignore everything that triggers from the unsaved wound, you must also ignore your FNP result as it triggered from the unsaved wound. That is why it can't work as you describe it.

edit: More expressly, you end up ignoring the fact that you are ignoring the unsaved wound...

**Jidmah**

Which is
a) not the same as taking the wound
b) irrelevant as that unsaved wound no longer triggers a casualty removal/loss of Wounds

**Dracos**

If you ignore the ignoring of the unsaved wound, you now have to resolve it again... so yeah i'd say that is pretty relevant.

You can't have your cake and eat it to.

**Jidmah**

No, you don't. You don't suffer the unsaved wound again after you resolved feel no pain unsuccessfully either, otherwise you'd have to roll FNP again, and any multi-Wound model would instantly die, regardless of the amount of Wounds on their profile.

**Dracos**

I'm not saying you suffer the wound again, you simply just ignore the fact that you are ignoring it, meaning you are at a point where you have effectively done nothing with the unsaved wound, and therefore have to resolve it.

edit: Again this is the way your interpretation works, which is what makes ignoring other events that triggered from the unsaved wound incorrect.

**cgage00**

Is it's strength double the targets toughness?

Is it AP 1 or 2?

If either one of these questions is yes then it ignores fnp. If they are both no then you get fnp. It's that simple.

**Dracos**

cgage00 wrote:Is it's strength double the targets toughness?

Is it AP 1 or 2?

If either one of these questions is yes then it ignores fnp. If they are both no then you get fnp. It's that simple.

Your insight is incredible, certainly this has not been considered by any party entertaining the debate. Bravo!

**Macok**

Dracos wrote:I'm not saying you suffer the wound again, you simply just ignore the fact that you are ignoring it, meaning you are at a point where you have effectively done nothing with the unsaved wound, and therefore have to resolve it.

edit: Again this is the way your interpretation works, which is what makes ignoring other events that triggered from the unsaved wound incorrect.

Nope, this is not how his interpretation works. It's your interpretation that does some strange backward time walk. As soon as wound is ignored all effects are ignored too. You may say that that makes FNP kinda ignored but it doesn't change anything. Injury already is "flagged" as ignored so even ignoring FNP does not make it not ignored again.

It is your interpretation that actually makes FNP useless because unsaved wound may trigger removing of a model. If hex rifle "was already triggered" so is removal of the model. Ignoring injury may ignore loosing wound but FNP can't prevent model removal. It can only ignore injury that caused it. We must assume that all post injury effects are also ignored because otherwise it doesn't make any sense.

Once again, there is no "time travel paradox" that makes wound active again once the FNP has been ignored. There is no action that brings it back to not ignored. That logic makes any ignore / save / protection not usable.

**Dracos**

Macok wrote:Nope, this is not how his interpretation works. It's your interpretation that does some strange backward time walk. As soon as wound is ignored all effects are ignored too. You may say that that makes FNP kinda ignored but it doesn't change anything. Injury already is "flagged" as ignored so even ignoring FNP does not make it not ignored again.

It is your interpretation that actually makes FNP useless because unsaved wound may trigger removing of a model. If hex rifle "was already triggered" so is removal of the model.

Except the removing of the model is specifically what FNP prevents. That is what ignoring the injury means, which is why my interpetation (mine and those who support/espouse it) works and the opposing interpretation does not.

Ignoring injury may ignore loosing wound but FNP can't prevent model removal. It can only ignore injury that caused it. We must assume that all post injury effects are also ignored because otherwise it doesn't make any sense.

Once again, there is no "time travel paradox" that makes wound active again once the FNP has been ignored. There is no action that brings it back to not ignored. That logic makes any ignore / save / protection not usable.

So what you are saying, is that you get to choose which events trigger from the unsaved wound to ignore and which to keep?

As has been espoused by my opposition, if you ignore the event you ignore the results. The FNP roll is just as much a result of the unsaved wound as the Hex rifle roll. You can't discard one without discarding both.

**Macok**

Yes, so you ignore them both and you also ignore unsaved wound. You go ahead and everything is in perfect order.

**Dracos**

But if you ignore the unsaved wound you are not ignoring FNP (which told you to ignore the unsaved wound).

**Macok**

Again you are doing time travel paradox thing.
If I ignore it, I completely do not need to look at FNP at all. Everything is ignored. I do not check FNP again.

Btw. I am not sure which interpretation is correct. Just want to say that Jidmah's explanation is perfectly logical one.

And FNP does not prevent removing of the model. It allows you to ignore something else that MAY trigger model removal.

**Stormrider**

Wouldn't the effect of the Hexrifle make FNP irrelevant? The text for FNP states that it cannot be used against weapons that cause instant death via special rule. As I see it, FNP never comes into play as the model is wounded conventionally for the sake of making the process go along easier, but then immediately takes their Characteristic text, no saves of any kind. Now if they pass, it doesn't matter, the wound is then ignored. If they fail, they're a statue. No saves of any kind kind in the text for the Hexrifle of makes FNP go away too.

This could be a case of a rule (FNP) being older than one of the newest codexes. I would imagine with a new FAQ this argument will be irrelevant.

**bushido**

It's not technically instant death (like an activated Force Weapon would inflict). It's "removed from play." Same end result, different wording.

An FAQ would easily clear this up, but I doubt the situation comes up often enough for it to matter.

**junk**

We have to let this one die. No one is bringing anything new to the table, we're just nitpicking each other's semantics.

Guy 1: FNP works, because it tells you to ignore the source of the wound. Hexrifle test is retroactively un-triggered.
Guy 2: It doesn't ignore the source of the wound, it ignores the result of the wound. Wound doesn't stick, but hexrifle still does.

Say it as many different ways as you want, this argument has hit an iceberg and we're all just rearranging the deck chairs.

Is there a precedent ruling that can be applied to this debate? This is GW's fault, and we're beating each other up about it. Screw them and their vague rules and inconsistent language. Injury... seriously? Calling Profile Wounds and Model Damage the same freaking thing? Resolving it with a 'lets all be friends' most important rule cop out?

Seriously, for $33 a box, I don't expect my plastic toy to arrive warped and missing pieces... wait sorry, went off on a rant...

**ThatMG**

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)

if you argue that hexrifle effect does not go off then your fnp does not go off
simple