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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
Special rules have permission to break or bend the main game rules. So ES/FNP/Concussive etc will apply before any events that are part of the basic rules.

...whenever they say they do. Do you have a rule stating that they interrupt? Page and para.

Or, you could concede. As twice now you have asserted a rule that doesn't actually exist, to avoid having to agree that happy is correct

Do you have rules page that describes when a wound is converted to be an "unsaved wound"? We have to assume when the save is failed, but before turning the wound back to a wound to remove a wound from the model. Because, you don't remove an unsaved wound from a model, you remove a wound from the model.

Under armor saves:
"If the result is lower than the armor save value, the armor fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a wound."

See, no unsaved wound.

Under take saves & Remove Casualties:
"The model gets to make a saving throw, if it has one. If it fails, reduce that models wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 wounds, remove it as a casualty."

See, again no unsaved wound.

Guess where the nomenclature for unsaved wounds first appears.

Under Fast Dice, when you mass role dice before allocating wounds, you allocate unsaved wounds starting with the closest enemy model. This solidifies my point that a wound is only unsaved between the point of failing the save and removing the model.

i consider fnp as being apart of your saving rolls, so it would be taken before effects of rules that happen after a wound has been inflicted
model takes wound makes fnp. would then negate rules that only effect wounded models, if fnp is failed then the effects of those rules would take place

forgotten ghosts wrote:
i consider fnp as being apart of your saving rolls, so it would be taken before effects of rules that happen after a wound has been inflicted
model takes wound makes fnp. would then negate rules that only effect wounded models, if fnp is failed then the effects of those rules would take place

It is specifically not a save. So it is not part of the Saving rolls. It is taken when a wound is unsaved.

Take Wound
Roll Save
Apply rules for unsaved wounds
Apply Wound

 megatrons2nd wrote:


Under armor saves:
"If the result is lower than the armor save value, the armor fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a wound."

See, no unsaved wound.

Under take saves & Remove Casualties:
"The model gets to make a saving throw, if it has one. If it fails, reduce that models wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 wounds, remove it as a casualty."

See, again no unsaved wound.

Guess where the nomenclature for unsaved wounds first appears.

Under Fast Dice, when you mass role dice before allocating wounds, you allocate unsaved wounds starting with the closest enemy model. This solidifies my point that a wound is only unsaved between the point of failing the save and removing the model.

is this what you are saying?

the side who won close combat is the one who dealt the most unsaved wounds... the side who caused the most wounds is the winner. (your reasoning) since your weapon cut straight through my armour and i didnt roll dice it is just a wound not an unsaved wound,


Automatically Appended Next Post:
when a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound it can make a special feel no pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw so can be taken against attacks that state that 'no saves of any kind are allowed' for example those inflicted by perils of the warp)
feel no pain saves may not be taken against destroyer attacks or against unsaved wounds that have the instant death special rule
quoted for the truth
i would say that it is specifically a type of save

Megatron2nd,
The Rule book fails to define a great deal of the terminology it likes to use, leaving us to use common sense descriptions for ourselves if we ever want to actually play.

Given that the Rules require something called 'unsaved Wound' and the Process we use to determine if a Wound is applied to the Model has a 'Saving Throw' section, it is plausible to define Unsaved Wound as a Wound which has gone through the Saving Throw step of the process. Given that nothing else in the book comes close to defining an 'Unsaved Wound' it is pretty safe to say this is what the Authors where referring to when they made a huge number of Special Rules trigger off the thing. Unless one wants to take the argument that the Authors made a whole bunch of Rules they never intended to be evoked during the game, but that would require a lot of quotes from the Author stating they designed a game system as decades long Trolling of their players and nothing more.

Again the joy of not having a dedicated "glossary of terms," which are usually nothing more then Rules defining what these terminologies mean for the Rules... you know the thing most Rulebooks are filled with instead of pretty pictures!

forgotten ghosts wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:


Under armor saves:
"If the result is lower than the armor save value, the armor fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a wound."

See, no unsaved wound.

Under take saves & Remove Casualties:
"The model gets to make a saving throw, if it has one. If it fails, reduce that models wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 wounds, remove it as a casualty."

See, again no unsaved wound.

Guess where the nomenclature for unsaved wounds first appears.

Under Fast Dice, when you mass role dice before allocating wounds, you allocate unsaved wounds starting with the closest enemy model. This solidifies my point that a wound is only unsaved between the point of failing the save and removing the model.

is this what you are saying?

the side who won close combat is the one who dealt the most unsaved wounds... the side who caused the most wounds is the winner. (your reasoning) since your weapon cut straight through my armour and i didnt roll dice it is just a wound not an unsaved wound,


Automatically Appended Next Post:
when a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound it can make a special feel no pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw so can be taken against attacks that state that 'no saves of any kind are allowed' for example those inflicted by perils of the warp)
feel no pain saves may not be taken against destroyer attacks or against unsaved wounds that have the instant death special rule
quoted for the truth
i would say that it is specifically a type of save

Not my Reasoning. The way it is written. Sadly GW has the rules writing skills of a monkey, if they could write better rules, we wouldn't have a 10+ page discussion on a rule 2 editions in a row. Especially when the arguments are the same, and the result is the same. Neither side will "win" the debate. Just look at what you replied with, I'll wait......Okay, see the part that says FnP is not a save, yep not a save, it is activated by an unsaved wound. Later it says save. Which is it? Obviously it is not a save. However the later sentence says save in it, so it is latched onto to make it be a save and go before every other rule.

it contradicts itself when saying it is not a save and then feel no pain save... i also would say that the unsaved wound is any wound as it was still not saved regardless of saving roll being allowed and that they need to add to the line that says this is not a saving throw... that this is not a saving throw that can be taken away by attacks that state no saving throw of any kind
it does all come to common sense

Problem with FNP is such things in this thread as people thinking it's a extra save, and as so should be rolled before determining anything else. FNP is a special rule and works like any other special rules, if it was meant to trigger before other rules with the same trigger it would say so, if we could time travel and apply conditions to the past someone would have come up with a rule or precedent by this point for applying a time loop rather than a normal ordered state, as time looping is indeed abnormal.

How I think it works- FNP first

- Model fails armor save
- (Fnp must interrupt before a wound is applied or one wound models are removed as a casualty, pending rules proof /precedent of rule looping as a actual permissable rule action)
- FNP checks for unsaved wound, rolled, success <treat as having been saved>
- 'Wound' is discounted
- ES checks for unsaved wound, none.
- Play on.

How I think it works- ES first

- Model fails armour save
- ES check for unsaved wound and is resolved
- FNP checks for unsaved wound, rolled, success <treat as having been saved>
- 'Wound' is discounted
- Play on

WHY

-I don't believe time looping rules is something that exists, no rules to support, never come across anything else that doesn't follow the normal forward order of rule resolution. A interpretation on (treat it as having been saved) to mean it should changed the result of resolved rules before it, my interpretation is that the word 'treat' is present forward tense, aka the structure of the sentence is to do it from present forward. In my time line above I am treating the wound as having been saved, from that point on. [edit] in the rules we resolve and move on, we don't unresolved.

- If special rules can not interrupt the order, when do you resolve them? End of the game when you've finished all the steps? End of the phase? End of the current action? ES especially says 'immediately' after suffering a unsaved wound, unsaved wound is a bit vague a time in the current rules, it can be either based on failing a save, or failing a save and removing a wound from the model. Without, again time looping rules the latter leaves these special rules none functional. Leaving unsaved to then be (also logically in name) directly connected to failed save (or no save), before wound is lost. This needs some interpretation as a unsaved wound isn't something that actually seems to be defined. It's just something writhing taking saves and losing wounds.

Why I like it;
Clean, easy, consistent, most fair approach allowing the possibility for both sides important special rules to be resolved. Mostly because it doesn't rely on a unproven concept.

Why am I so confident?
Because I've never ever met someone who thought or tried to take a wound off before rolling FNP.

Rig taking no rules quotes or precedent as a sign you can't change my mind on this, nor I yours.

Your "How I think it works- ES first" breaks rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your "How I think it works- ES first" breaks rules.

Nope I explain how it doesn't please supply rules to disprove based on the whole of my text.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DR simply because I don't believe rule looping or time traveling rules holds basis;

Treat it as having been saved

'Treat' is the doing word or Verb in this sentence, as in, that is telling you what you are doing. Treat is a present tense verb, so the action is taken in the present (not the past).

The proper form to apply the rule to past actions would be;
The wound is treated(past tense verb for treat) as having been saved.

The entirety of the argument is dependant on the interpretation of that sentence, and I have the English language on my side.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

forgotten ghosts wrote:
i consider fnp as being apart of your saving rolls, so it would be taken before effects of rules that happen after a wound has been inflicted
model takes wound makes fnp. would then negate rules that only effect wounded models, if fnp is failed then the effects of those rules would take place

It is specifically not a save. So it is not part of the Saving rolls. It is taken when a wound is unsaved.

Take Wound
Roll Save
Apply rules for unsaved wounds
Apply Wound

its taken to -avoid- an unsaved wound which means the model has not suffered an unsaved wound until FnP has been rolled.

if a model has 1 wound, gets hit by an attack that causes Concussive, is wounded, fails its armor save, and makes a FnP to avoid taking an unsaved wound (treating it as saved) how many wounds has it suffered?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your "How I think it works- ES first" breaks rules.

Nope I explain how it doesn't please supply rules to disprove based on the whole of my text.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DR simply because I don't believe rule looping or time traveling rules holds basis;

Treat it as having been saved

'Treat' is the doing word or Verb in this sentence, as in, that is telling you what you are doing. Treat is a present tense verb, so the action is taken in the present (not the past).

The proper form to apply the rule to past actions would be;
The wound is treated(past tense verb for treat) as having been saved.

The entirety of the argument is dependant on the interpretation of that sentence, and I have the English language on my side.

unfortunately

treat it as having been saved is also past tense, not present. Its the modification of the word by "been" instead of "being" which is of course past tense. You are correct that treat is the verb, but the modifier of when is the verb of "be" in this case "been" instead of "being". Regardless if we have to break down to grammar and syntax to make a rules justification we will get nowhere, as GW is highly inconsistent in both their grammar and syntax, for example scout versus infiltration both have different wording that means the same thing regarding models being able to assault their first turn.

blaktoof wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

forgotten ghosts wrote:
i consider fnp as being apart of your saving rolls, so it would be taken before effects of rules that happen after a wound has been inflicted
model takes wound makes fnp. would then negate rules that only effect wounded models, if fnp is failed then the effects of those rules would take place

It is specifically not a save. So it is not part of the Saving rolls. It is taken when a wound is unsaved.

Take Wound
Roll Save
Apply rules for unsaved wounds
Apply Wound

its taken to -avoid- an unsaved wound which means the model has not suffered an unsaved wound until FnP has been rolled.

if a model has 1 wound, gets hit by an attack that causes Concussive, is wounded, fails its armor save, and makes a FnP to avoid taking an unsaved wound (treating it as saved) how many wounds has it suffered?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your "How I think it works- ES first" breaks rules.

Nope I explain how it doesn't please supply rules to disprove based on the whole of my text.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DR simply because I don't believe rule looping or time traveling rules holds basis;

Treat it as having been saved

'Treat' is the doing word or Verb in this sentence, as in, that is telling you what you are doing. Treat is a present tense verb, so the action is taken in the present (not the past).

The proper form to apply the rule to past actions would be;
The wound is treated(past tense verb for treat) as having been saved.

The entirety of the argument is dependant on the interpretation of that sentence, and I have the English language on my side.

unfortunately

treat it as having been saved is also past tense, not present. Its the modification of the word by "been" instead of "being" which is of course past tense. You are correct that treat is the verb, but the modifier of when is the verb of "be" in this case "been" instead of "being". Regardless if we have to break down to grammar and syntax to make a rules justification we will get nowhere, as GW is highly inconsistent in both their grammar and syntax, for example scout versus infiltration both have different wording that means the same thing regarding models being able to assault their first turn.

It is taken to avoid being wounded. Not to avoid the unsaved wound.

Direct quote:
"When a model with this special rule takes an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel no Pain roll to avoid being wounded......."

Ah I see, the middle of the rule it says "unsaved wound is discounted" Then finally the last sentence is "To discount the wound" So yeah, just more crappy rules writing by GW. The "unsaved wound" really needs definition, and the rules really need to be tightened up the their wording. 2 Instances of wound, and 1 of unsaved wound. How do you determine which way it is meant to be played? Or do models with regular FnP get to use it to avoid unsaved wounds, and those with a modified version can't?

With the 2 instances of avoiding a wound vs the 1 instance of unsaved wound, I read it as it only prevents the wound.

blaktoof wrote:


its taken to -avoid- an unsaved wound which means the model has not suffered an unsaved wound until FnP has been rolled.

Are you that desperate to quote a rule that supports your argument that you post fake rules? A model takes a FNP roll to avoid BEING WOUNDED not to avoid an unsaved wound.

copper.talos wrote:

blaktoof wrote:


its taken to -avoid- an unsaved wound which means the model has not suffered an unsaved wound until FnP has been rolled.

Are you that desperate to quote a rule that supports your argument that you post fake rules? A model takes a FNP roll to avoid BEING WOUNDED not to avoid an unsaved wound.

Read the whole rule. It says both, but says avoid the wound twice, as compared to once for avoiding an unsaved wound.

Are you sure? I can't seem to find "avoid an unsaved wound" in FNP

Sounds simple to me, if you treat a successful FNP save as a saved wound, then that means Concussive and Entropic Strike wouldn't count it as an unsaved wound.

Here is what I feel some people are arguing...
"So if I suffer an unsaved wound and succeed in rolling a FNP, then the wound is saved and I didn't suffer an unsaved wound so that I didn't need to roll FNP in the first place?"
There is some sort of implied timing... the wound is unsaved after the cover or armor save roll is failed. Treating it as saved at some point later is a different matter... it doesn't change the fact that it was an unsaved wound at that point. At that point, the active player decides what simultaneous effects happen and in what order.

Just in general, I don't like special abilities negating special abilities... I played the Decipher Star Wars game, back in the day and they made a ton of 'Silver Bullet' cards that specifically countered other cards that were too powerful. The end result was 2 cards that people never played.

In short, FNP is plenty powerful without negating ES and concussive, etc...

copper.talos wrote:

blaktoof wrote:


its taken to -avoid- an unsaved wound which means the model has not suffered an unsaved wound until FnP has been rolled.

Are you that desperate to quote a rule that supports your argument that you post fake rules? A model takes a FNP roll to avoid BEING WOUNDED not to avoid an unsaved wound.

well considering you haven't posted any rules, and the rules I posted aren't fake maybe you should stop posting all together on this topic.

Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered. On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5 +, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved.

you have been asked multiple times to supply a rule that states this 'interrupt' effect and have not done so, no one on the somehow I want my ES to work so here is some made up nonsense that makes it okay to work under these situations that I like[ES goes off too], but I don't want it to work for anything else that happens at the same time [calculating unsaved wounds for Assault results, casualty removal, grounding tests..]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Here is what I feel some people are arguing...
"So if I suffer an unsaved wound and succeed in rolling a FNP, then the wound is saved and I didn't suffer an unsaved wound so that I didn't need to roll FNP in the first place?"
There is some sort of implied timing... the wound is unsaved after the cover or armor save roll is failed. Treating it as saved at some point later is a different matter... it doesn't change the fact that it was an unsaved wound at that point. At that point, the active player decides what simultaneous effects happen and in what order.

Just in general, I don't like special abilities negating special abilities... I played the Decipher Star Wars game, back in the day and they made a ton of 'Silver Bullet' cards that specifically countered other cards that were too powerful. The end result was 2 cards that people never played.

In short, FNP is plenty powerful without negating ES and concussive, etc...

I for one would like to thank you for sharing your thoughts on how you feel special rules shouldn't stop special rules because you would like for your special rule to go off and not some other persons special rule. I also really appreciate you sharing your thoughts that FnP is already powerful enough.


it doesn't matter if FnP cancels its own requirement to activate out. The rules for FnP tell you to do this in that you have an unsaved wound, you roll FnP you never had an unsvaed wound, it was avoided/discounted/treated as being saved.

Concussive/model removal/Assault results/ES/hexrifles/whatever are all satisfied because there is no unsaved wound. A model cannot have an affect from suffering something it never suffered/avoided suffering.

blaktoof wrote:

I for one would like to thank you for sharing your thoughts on how you feel special rules shouldn't stop special rules because you would like for your special rule to go off and not some other persons special rule. I also really appreciate you sharing your thoughts that FnP is already powerful enough.


it doesn't matter if FnP cancels its own requirement to activate out. The rules for FnP tell you to do this in that you have an unsaved wound, you roll FnP you never had an unsvaed wound, it was avoided/discounted/treated as being saved.

Concussive/model removal/Assault results/ES/hexrifles/whatever are all satisfied because there is no unsaved wound. A model cannot have an affect from suffering something it never suffered/avoided suffering.

Using that logic, FnP can never be used as there is literally no status of "Unsaved Wound" in the entire rules section for single model wounds. Only in the special rules, Instant Death, and Fast Rolling is "Unsaved Wound" referenced. Ergo: All Special Rules that require an Unsaved Wound to activate do absolutely nothing. By the rules as written.

There has been referenced the relevant rules of multiple abilities stacking, the active player choosing the order rules activate in, and even the wording of FnP stating it is not a save, and discounting wounds(though unsaved wound is used as a negation once in the rule, where wound is referenced twice), Not to mention the grammatical text of the present tense of the discounting off the wound.

Funny enough, this part made me laugh "I for one would like to thank you for sharing your thoughts on how you feel special rules shouldn't stop special rules because you would like for your special rule to go off and not some other persons special rule." Because that is the basis of your entire argument. You Want FnP to negate all other special rules. We are arguing that you negate the wound, and the other special rules go off.

No.

You are arguing that there is a made up rule that special rules interrupt other rules and stop them from working.

You are arguing that certain special rules, ie ES can bypass something that never happened. Ie if FnP goes off there was not an unsaved wound.

You are arguing that other rules that trigger from unsaved wounds [grounding tests, casualty removal] do not work because they are not special rules and special rules have precedent. without any RAW quotes or support to it.

RAW FNP would go off first, the phrasing of "when" making it happen as the wound becomes unsaved versus ES and "immediately after" meaning the event has already taken place. I see no argument for how ES goes off first, it requires the wound to have already been unsaved, while FNP happens as the wound becomes unsaved, making the two a parallel occurence. No going back in time, no McFly'ing the space time continuum, they are taking place together to determine the end outcome. Afterwords entropic strike would come into play, but at this point FNP has succeeded or failed, there's no ambiguity on it. Even agreeing we only count the wound as saved from the FNP roll on, ES wouldn't do anything as there was no unsaved wound.

There is absolutely no difference in the timing of the trigger event. Any time an unsaved wound happens both rules' activating event has occured.


@blaktoof first of all try to stick to actual rules and stop inventing new ones for your argument. Secondly stop claiming that I argued for rules such as grounding tests and casualty removal that I have explicitly said that my arguments aren't valid for them and explained why. It is rude and you manage to look even more desperate.

And start reading my posts more thoroughly. You'll find the rule that gives permission for special rules to bend basic rules.
Basic rule: unsaved wound -> do A
Special rule:unsaved wound -> immediately do X
So every time an unsaved wound happens it goes X then A.

ES and FNP aren't the only special rules you know that break basic rule progression. Every such rule says when it is activated and what happens. That timing is explicit and it is not up for discussion.

And finally the effects of special rules are cumulative (another rule for you to check out) which is the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

Copper - for the third time, provide proof that your "special rules interrupt" assertion exists.

Your entire argument , to avoid agreeing that Happy is correct , relies on it.

Or concede, as you have yet to provide rules basis, as per the rUles of this forum.

Also to others - copper only ever seems to post in necron threads, and only ever on the side of necron stuff working - even when it clearly doesn't, as here, now, I am not saying they are biased, but the evidence otherwise is slightly convincing.

Rules are right there in FNP.

Suffer unsaved wound you can roll to avoid being wounded.

So when do you roll FNP?

When you suffer a unsaved wound and have not yet been wounded.
To avoid being wounded
Echo echo avoid being wounded

As well as the rest of the words in FNP..

'Must take the wound as normal' oh but we already have... Er, how does this work? Do you take 2 wounds if you fail FNP?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Copper - for the third time, provide proof that your "special rules interrupt" assertion exists.

Your entire argument , to avoid agreeing that Happy is correct , relies on it.

Or concede, as you have yet to provide rules basis, as per the rUles of this forum.

Also to others - copper only ever seems to post in necron threads, and only ever on the side of necron stuff working - even when it clearly doesn't, as here, now, I am not saying they are biased, but the evidence otherwise is slightly convincing.

Please provide a quote in how special rules should work then. Where would you roll FnP if it doesn't interrupt the process of removing the model? If you can't then your assertion that it doesn't is invalid. If you say when you suffer an unsaved wound, apply it to all rules equally. This is where I have a problem with your assertion, you apply it to FnP, and not the other rules, that trigger at the unsaved wound point(which still doesn't exist so is placed there by us players). You could, of course, concede, do to the fact that we actually have given rules for our view point, and you just ignore them because they derail your case.

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your "How I think it works- ES first" breaks rules.

Nope I explain how it doesn't please supply rules to disprove based on the whole of my text.

Treated as having been saved means that we have to treat the wound as if the armor/cover/invuln was never failed.

You're saying it's okay to apply ES to a model that has never suffered an unsaved wound, the rules explicitly contradict that.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your "How I think it works- ES first" breaks rules.

Nope I explain how it doesn't please supply rules to disprove based on the whole of my text.

Treated as having been saved means that we have to treat the wound as if the armor/cover/invuln was never failed.

You're saying it's okay to apply ES to a model that has never suffered an unsaved wound, the rules explicitly contradict that.

Except it doesn't say "treated as being saved".

It Says"Treat it as having been saved" which "treat it as having" is a present tense wordage. It is changing the status "now" not "then".

blaktoof wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

forgotten ghosts wrote:
i consider fnp as being apart of your saving rolls, so it would be taken before effects of rules that happen after a wound has been inflicted
model takes wound makes fnp. would then negate rules that only effect wounded models, if fnp is failed then the effects of those rules would take place

It is specifically not a save. So it is not part of the Saving rolls. It is taken when a wound is unsaved.

Take Wound
Roll Save
Apply rules for unsaved wounds
Apply Wound

its taken to -avoid- an unsaved wound which means the model has not suffered an unsaved wound until FnP has been rolled.

if a model has 1 wound, gets hit by an attack that causes Concussive, is wounded, fails its armor save, and makes a FnP to avoid taking an unsaved wound (treating it as saved) how many wounds has it suffered?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your "How I think it works- ES first" breaks rules.

Nope I explain how it doesn't please supply rules to disprove based on the whole of my text.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DR simply because I don't believe rule looping or time traveling rules holds basis;

Treat it as having been saved

'Treat' is the doing word or Verb in this sentence, as in, that is telling you what you are doing. Treat is a present tense verb, so the action is taken in the present (not the past).

The proper form to apply the rule to past actions would be;
The wound is treated(past tense verb for treat) as having been saved.

The entirety of the argument is dependant on the interpretation of that sentence, and I have the English language on my side.

unfortunately

treat it as having been saved is also past tense, not present. Its the modification of the word by "been" instead of "being" which is of course past tense. You are correct that treat is the verb, but the modifier of when is the verb of "be" in this case "been" instead of "being". Regardless if we have to break down to grammar and syntax to make a rules justification we will get nowhere, as GW is highly inconsistent in both their grammar and syntax, for example scout versus infiltration both have different wording that means the same thing regarding models being able to assault their first turn.

Been in this sentence doesn't change it to past tense sorry, unfortunately Been to be doesn't always work like that, especially when coupled with other tenses... For example;

We will have been playing for a hour.

Is a future progressive sentence with past tense object, or all the offending words in another sentence..

I treat my plants as having been rained on.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thatguyhsagun wrote:
RAW FNP would go off first, the phrasing of "when" making it happen as the wound becomes unsaved versus ES and "immediately after" meaning the event has already taken place. I see no argument for how ES goes off first, it requires the wound to have already been unsaved, while FNP happens as the wound becomes unsaved, making the two a parallel occurence. No going back in time, no McFly'ing the space time continuum, they are taking place together to determine the end outcome. Afterwords entropic strike would come into play, but at this point FNP has succeeded or failed, there's no ambiguity on it. Even agreeing we only count the wound as saved from the FNP roll on, ES wouldn't do anything as there was no unsaved wound.

Do you roll FNP after suffering a unsaved wound or before then?

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your "How I think it works- ES first" breaks rules.

Nope I explain how it doesn't please supply rules to disprove based on the whole of my text.

Treated as having been saved means that we have to treat the wound as if the armor/cover/invuln was never failed.

You're saying it's okay to apply ES to a model that has never suffered an unsaved wound, the rules explicitly contradict that.

Except it doesn't say "treated as being saved".

It Says"Treat it as having been saved" which "treat it as having" is a present tense wordage. It is changing the status "now" not "then".

"Treat it as having been saved" Which "been" is the past tense. As in the past it has "been" saved. Not failed and now it is saved. It had "been" saved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

forgotten ghosts wrote:
i consider fnp as being apart of your saving rolls, so it would be taken before effects of rules that happen after a wound has been inflicted
model takes wound makes fnp. would then negate rules that only effect wounded models, if fnp is failed then the effects of those rules would take place

It is specifically not a save. So it is not part of the Saving rolls. It is taken when a wound is unsaved.

Take Wound
Roll Save
Apply rules for unsaved wounds
Apply Wound

its taken to -avoid- an unsaved wound which means the model has not suffered an unsaved wound until FnP has been rolled.

if a model has 1 wound, gets hit by an attack that causes Concussive, is wounded, fails its armor save, and makes a FnP to avoid taking an unsaved wound (treating it as saved) how many wounds has it suffered?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your "How I think it works- ES first" breaks rules.

Nope I explain how it doesn't please supply rules to disprove based on the whole of my text.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DR simply because I don't believe rule looping or time traveling rules holds basis;

Treat it as having been saved

'Treat' is the doing word or Verb in this sentence, as in, that is telling you what you are doing. Treat is a present tense verb, so the action is taken in the present (not the past).

The proper form to apply the rule to past actions would be;
The wound is treated(past tense verb for treat) as having been saved.

The entirety of the argument is dependant on the interpretation of that sentence, and I have the English language on my side.

unfortunately

treat it as having been saved is also past tense, not present. Its the modification of the word by "been" instead of "being" which is of course past tense. You are correct that treat is the verb, but the modifier of when is the verb of "be" in this case "been" instead of "being". Regardless if we have to break down to grammar and syntax to make a rules justification we will get nowhere, as GW is highly inconsistent in both their grammar and syntax, for example scout versus infiltration both have different wording that means the same thing regarding models being able to assault their first turn.

Been in this sentence doesn't change it to past tense sorry, unfortunately Been to be doesn't always work like that, especially when coupled with other tenses... For example;

We will have been playing for a hour.

Is a future progressive sentence with past tense object, or all the offending words in another sentence..

I treat my plants as having been rained on.



[/i]
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thatguyhsagun wrote:
RAW FNP would go off first, the phrasing of "when" making it happen as the wound becomes unsaved versus ES and "immediately after" meaning the event has already taken place. I see no argument for how ES goes off first, it requires the wound to have already been unsaved, while FNP happens as the wound becomes unsaved, making the two a parallel occurrence. No going back in time, no McFly'ing the space time continuum, they are taking place together to determine the end outcome. Afterwords entropic strike would come into play, but at this point FNP has succeeded or failed, there's no ambiguity on it. Even agreeing we only count the wound as saved from the FNP roll on, ES wouldn't do anything as there was no unsaved wound.

Do you roll FNP after suffering a unsaved wound or before then?

After, Do you roll to wound before or after being hit? After, because rolling to wound (an occurrence that happens when you hit) is a little dull without knowing how many times you've hit the target. They're parallel events that take place as one, but have to be resolved in two actions. Would you rather cover your eyes when you get pepper sprayed or immediately after you get pepper sprayed?

I don't think you know what parallel means. Certainly it cannot be used for events that are interdependent. You need a successful hit to roll to wound. You need an unsaved wound to roll for FNP.

And the game isn't real life. Only the rules dictate what to do so your "pepper spray" example is worthless. A nice example would have been:
Rule A. When you get pepper sprayed cover your eyes
Rule B. When you get pepper sprayed immediately turn away from the attacker.

So when you get pepper sprayed you should turn away from the attacker and then cover your eyes.