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.

Inigo Montoya wrote:
"Let me 'splain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up."

yakface wrote:
GW's Tyranid FAQ states that Acid Blood tests are taken at the END of each Initiative step, where as Feel No Pain (I hope) by everyone's standard would most certainly be resolved immediately when a model fails his save.

So by the end of the Initiative step, the unsaved wound has most certainly been ignored by Feel No Pain and therefore those wounds would not be resolved as 'Acid Blood' attacks IMHO.

you have to suffer a wound for acid blood to take effect.

Ignoring a wound due to FNP would not be suffering a wound.

Since P.15 says 'Remove casualties. The target unit suffers casualties for any wounds that have not been saved."

Therefore FNP HAS to 'save' wounds, and FNP is a extra 'save' that you can take after your armor/cover/or invuln As allowed by the FNP rules. After you pass a FNP 'save' you have to ignore the wounds, and Acid blood checks for unsaved wounds at the end of the Initiative phase, at which point you count up the wounds that have not been negated and make Initiative tests for each unsaved wound at that point.

If you look at determine assault results on P. 39 is clearly tells us to 'total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted..."

And later on in the same section "Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count..."

All of the rules for removing shooting casualties apply in close combat. (P.39 removing casualties section)

The shooting sequence says 'take saving throws, each wound suffered may be cancelled by making a saving throw. Saving throws usually derive from the armor worn by each model, from being in cover, or some other piece of wargear or ability.' Then remove casualties. (P.15)

after you take your saving throws, FNP included, then you determine if you have any unsaved wounds. Since FNP 'Saves' you from taking a wound and being removed as a casualty.

Read FNP P.75

'On a 1, 2, or 3, take the wound as normal (Removing the model if it loses its final wound). On a 4, 5, or 6, the injury is ignored...'

look at 'take the wound as normal.' The model will take a wound unless it rolls a 4+ In that case the wound(Injury) is Ignored.

It is a wound if you roll a 1, 2, or 3, and you ignore it on a 4, 5, or 6.

Unsaved wound = Casualty = injury

to find out what an unsaved wound is, look at: P39

"...total up the number of unsaved wounds...Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count..."

It says 'unsaved wound' and Acid Blood tests at the end of the initiative step. so at the after you do everything else that Initiative step, you check for any unsaved wounds and take any required Acid Blood tests.

Let's go even further and say 30 models, without FNP, with two attacks each, cause 60 wounds, after saves, to the model with Acid Blood. Acid Blood triggers 60 I tests at the end of the initiative step? I think that is a bit unfair considering the point cost of Acid Blood. Isn't there a limit on Acid Blood to only cause a number of wounds equal to the Acid Blood models Wound characteristic since anything over this value is not carried over and is "overkill"?

DeathReaper wrote:you have to suffer a wound for acid blood to take effect.

No, you have to suffer an unsaved wound.

DeathReaper wrote:Ignoring a wound due to FNP would not be suffering a wound.

If you're able to use FNP, you're able to use Acid Blood. Both have the same trigger- suffering an unsaved wound.

DeathReaper wrote:Since P.15 says 'Remove casualties. The target unit suffers casualties for any wounds that have not been saved."

You quoted the shooting summary in the last thread, too. Why not the full casualty rules on p24?

"For every model that fails it's save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course, this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with very high AP. Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound none model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

Save -> unsaved wounds -> remove casualties.

DeathReaper wrote:Therefore FNP HAS to 'save' wounds, and FNP is a extra 'save' that you can take after your armor/cover/or invuln As allowed by the FNP rules. After you pass a FNP 'save' you have to ignore the wounds, and Acid blood checks for unsaved wounds at the end of the Initiative phase, at which point you count up the wounds that have not been negated and make Initiative tests for each unsaved wound at that point.

FNP does not happen first. It is not a save, of any kind.
Saves are taken.
Unsaved wounds are calculated.
The number of Acid Blood tests are counted, and Feel No Pain rolls are taken.
Casualties are removed.
At the end of the initiative step, the Acid Blood rolls are made.

DeathReaper wrote:If you look at determine assault results on P. 39 is clearly tells us to 'total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted..."
And later on in the same section "Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count..."

That section is Determining Assault Results. Are you Determining Assault Results? No. You're checking for unsaved wounds.

DeathReaper wrote: after you take your saving throws, FNP included, then you determine if you have any unsaved wounds. Since FNP 'Saves' you from taking a wound and being removed as a casualty.

FNP is not a saving throw. If it was, you'd get either Armour, or Cover, or FNP.
You take an Armour or Cover save. Any you fail become unsaved wounds (p24). Suffering an unsaved wounds simultaneously triggers Feel No Pain and Acid Blood. Acid Blood rolls wait untilt he end of the initiative step, Feel No Pain is rolled immediately.

DeathReaper wrote:Read FNP P.75

'On a 1, 2, or 3, take the wound as normal (Removing the model if it loses its final wound). On a 4, 5, or 6, the injury is ignored...'

look at 'take the wound as normal.' The model will take a wound unless it rolls a 4+ In that case the wound(Injury) is Ignored.

Feel No Pain-
"Some warriors are so blood frenzied or tough that they can ignore injuries that would incapacitate evena battle-hardened Space MArine. If a model with this ability suffers an unssaved wound, roll a dice..."

Failed armour save -> unsaved wound -> Feel No Pain/Acid Blood happens now -> remove casualties

DeathReaper wrote:Unsaved wound = Casualty = injury

Unsaved wounds are a step leading to casualties. The two aren't identical.

DeathReaper wrote:to find out what an unsaved wound is, look at: P39

"...total up the number of unsaved wounds...Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count..."

Detemining Assault Results. You're not doing that.

Look at the Shooting Phase, Remove Casualties, p24 - those are the rules that are used in shooting and assault to remove casualties.
"For each model that fails it's save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."

DeathReaper wrote:It says 'unsaved wound' and Acid Blood tests at the end of the initiative step. so at the after you do everything else that Initiative step, you check for any unsaved wounds and take any required Acid Blood tests.

Acid Blood states it is triggered when a model suffers an unsaved wound.
The FAQ says-
Q: When attacking models with the Acid Blood biomorph, when are the Initiative tests taken?
A: Resolve any tests and remove any casualties at the end of each Initiative step.

It doesn't change the trigger for those tests, only tells you when to make the tests.

blacklegion40k wrote:Let's go even further and say 30 models, without FNP, with two attacks each, cause 60 wounds, after saves, to the model with Acid Blood. Acid Blood triggers 60 I tests at the end of the initiative step? I think that is a bit unfair considering the point cost of Acid Blood. Isn't there a limit on Acid Blood to only cause a number of wounds equal to the Acid Blood models Wound characteristic since anything over this value is not carried over and is "overkill"?

30 models with two attacks each attack Seth. Statistically, he hits 10 of them with S4 attacks for missing him. I think that's a bit unfair cionsidering the cost of Seth.

Acid Blood triggers on unsaved wounds, not wounds inflicted. They're different things.

Take a look at Leech Essence- that works using 'wounds inflicted'. Different wording, different effects.

So if Acid Blood read sorta like 'For every unsaved wound a model with this ability suffers, roll a dice at the end of the Initiative step...' because that's what one could take the FAQ to mean, sure they didn't issue errata, so by the same token, Gw didn't change the rule itself to say 'at the end of each the Initiative step roll a die for...

forkbanger wrote:Acid Blood triggers on unsaved wounds, not wounds inflicted.

GW can't be trusted to write up the declaration of contents in a bottle of water but they've been trying to simplify things. Having unsaved wounds trigger something even if the wounds go away by FNP isn't simplified, it's insanity. Well, at least BA players will get more value from Lemartes. His stats immediately increase on him suffering an unsaved wound and he does have FNP.

Spetulhu wrote:

forkbanger wrote:Acid Blood triggers on unsaved wounds, not wounds inflicted.

GW can't be trusted to write up the declaration of contents in a bottle of water but they've been trying to simplify things. Having unsaved wounds trigger something even if the wounds go away by FNP isn't simplified, it's insanity. Well, at least BA players will get more value from Lemartes. His stats immediately increase on him suffering an unsaved wound and he does have FNP.

Yeah but jump pack DC models are way overpriced.

Spetulhu wrote:Having unsaved wounds trigger something even if the wounds go away by FNP isn't simplified, it's insanity. Well, at least BA players will get more value from Lemartes. His stats immediately increase on him suffering an unsaved wound and he does have FNP.

Why does Feel No Pain happen first? Why not Acid Blood? If you want to put a priority on which effect happens first after meeting a common trigger, why is Feel No Pain taking priority?

Either both effects with the same trigger are simultaneous, or someone decides which effect is used first.

In the event that effects are resolved one at a time by their controlling player, both Acid Blood and Feel No Pain are Tyranid effects- so you'll eat Acid Blood and then he'll make Feel No Pain rolls. Similarly Lemartes will choose to flip out and then roll Feel No Pain.

The thing that would change the outcome it is if Feel No Pain happens before Acid Blood - which it doesn't, either by rule text (same trigger, suffering unsaved wound) or FAQ (states when the Acid Blood tests are made, not caused).

forkbanger wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:you have to suffer a wound for acid blood to take effect.

No, you have to suffer an unsaved wound.

Unsaved wound = casualties = wound
' The target unit suffers casualties for any wounds that have not been saved' P.15

forkbanger wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Ignoring a wound due to FNP would not be suffering a wound.

If you're able to use FNP, you're able to use Acid Blood. Both have the same trigger- suffering an unsaved wound.

No, since one you use FNP it is no longer an unsaved wound.

To find out what an unsaved wound is we have to look at P39

"...total up the number of unsaved wounds...Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count..."

Yes this details determining assault results, It tells us what unsaved wounds are since unsaved wounds are not outlined anywhere else.

forkbanger wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Since P.15 says 'Remove casualties. The target unit suffers casualties for any wounds that have not been saved."

You quoted the shooting summary in the last thread, too. Why not the full casualty rules on p24?

;For every model that fails it's save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course, this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with very high AP. Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound none model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty.

Wow, this is the exact post I replied to. Again.

DeathReaper wrote:
Unsaved wound = casualties = wound
' The target unit suffers casualties for any wounds that have not been saved' P.15

p15 is a summary, and not the full rules for casuaties and casualty removal. Those are on p24.

DeathReaper wrote:Ignoring a wound due to FNP would not be suffering a wound.

Acid Blood does not work on suffering a wound. It works on suffering an unsaved wound, which p24 tells you happens when you fail an armour save.

DeathReaper wrote:No, since one you use FNP it is no longer an unsaved wound.

Acid Blood has already been triggered- it happens at the same time as Feel No Pain. The initiative test is pending, and will be takena t the end of the initiative step, per the FAQ.

DeathReaper wrote:To find out what an unsaved wound is we have to look at P39

You are not detemining an assault result. Unsaved wounds are detailed in the rules for casuaties and casualty removal on p24.

DeathReaper wrote:Yes this details determining assault results, It tells us what unsaved wounds are since unsaved wounds are not outlined anywhere else.

p24, Remove Casualties. Already quoted. In fact, quoted in the post you replied to.

DeathReaper wrote:Right, 'for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty.' No casualty, no unsaved wound.

Suffer an unsaved wound.
Remove a casualty for each unsaved wound.

Seperate steps.

If they are a single step, Feel No Pain cannot work.

Unsaved wound != casualty.

DeathReaper wrote:FNP has to happen first because 'At the end of the initiative step, the Acid Blood rolls are made.' you determine something when you use it.

The FAQ says that Acid Blood Initiative tests are taken at the end of an Iniatiative step. That is very different from saying that Acid Blood is triggered at the end of an initiative step.

DeathReaper wrote:Right its for Determining Assault Results and to quote myself from earlier in the thread " It tells us what unsaved wounds are since unsaved wounds are not outlined anywhere else."

Still on p24. That's the first time in the rule book that an unsaved wound is defined, in the shooting section, which is directly referred to by the assault rules ("the procedure for taking saves is the same as the one described for shooting" -> "for every model that fails it's save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound".

DeathReaper wrote: 'take saving throws, each wound suffered may be cancelled by making a saving throw. Saving throws usually derive from the armor worn by each model, from being in cover, or some other piece of wargear or ability.' Then remove casualties. (P.15)

It is not a normal save, but it is an ability that saves a model from taking a wound and being removed as a casualty.

If Feel No Pain falls under that clause, a model may take Armour, cover or Feels No Pain as a saving throw (only one save per model, etc).
Feel No Pain cannot fall under that clause, because it happens when an unsaved wound is suffered, which p24 tells us happens after armour saves are attempted and failed.
Feel No Pain is not a saving throw.

DeathReaper wrote:P.39 "Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count..."

Still not determining the result of an assault. Unsaved wounds still defined on p24.

DeathReaper wrote:Right, Ignore unsaved wounds by using FNP. thus you do not use any ignored wounds in Acid blood tests since we look at Acid blood at the end of the initiative step.

Rolls are made at the end of an Initiative step. Number of checks is calculated earlier. Just after taking armour saves, in fact, when unsaved wounds are determined (that's on p24, by the way).

Other things that trigger a delayed effect-
Moving - triggers delayed shooting restrictions.
Shooting - triggers delayed assault restrictions.
Running - triggers delayed assault restrictions.
Assaulting - triggers delayed Morale checks.
Getting shot at - triggers delayed Morale checks.
Disembarking - triggers delayed assault restrictions.
Deep Striking - triggers delayed shooting and assaulting restrictions.

DeathReaper wrote:An unsaved wound is any inflicted unsaved wound that is not ignored. "Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count..." P.39

Stioll not determining the result of an assault.
An unsaved wound is an unsaved wound until it's ignored.
Feel No Pain won't ignore it until after both Feel No Pain and Acid Blood have triggered. Feel No Pain will not then negate Acid Blood, or it would negate itself, leading to an unsaved wound which would trigger Acid Blood and Feel No Pain. Again.

DeathReaper wrote:Exactly, For each model that fails it's save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound 'to find out what an unsaved wound is, look at: P39'

I'm going to stick with p24, which is where they're defined.
Unless I'm determining the results of an assault, in which case I'll look at the section on determining assault results.

DeathReaper wrote:Right and you determine unsaved wounds when you look at Acid blood, not before.

You look at Acid Blood when you suffer an unsaved wound. That's what it says, and the FAQ doesn't change that.

Just a suggestion for forkbanger to turn from page 24 to page 25 and read under the Multiple-wound modes section.

"When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one wound from its profile."

My emphasis!

So in order to trigger AB on a multiple wound model you must lose a wound from the wound profile.

Once you do this you will figure out that either FNP gives models more wounds or that it does not work the way you want it to.

Edit for spelling and grammitical errors!

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Just a suggestion for forkbanger to turn from page 24 to page 25 and read under the Multiple-wound modes section.

"When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one wound from its profile."

My emphasis!

So in order to trigger AB on a multiple wound model you must lose a wound from the wound profile.

Once you do this you will figure out that either FNP gives models more wounds or that it does not work the way you want it to.

Umm, no it doesn't. You're still confusing what FNP does. You still suffer a wound. But you get to ignore it. Once you get hit and fail your save, you suffer an unsaved wound and your wound counter is reduced (to 0, to 2, to whatever). Then, you take the next action. Guess what happens before you get to the Remove Casualties stage? FNP. That is what lets you "ignore" the wound. It never says anything about the wound never happening. And before you remove your model for it being at 0 wounds, you're allowed to ignore the counter.

Now, imagine you had a single trooper with 1 wound. And he has taken 20 shots over the course of the game. Each one has been a failed armor save, but a passed FNP save. He should have 20 wound counters on him, all of which you can ignore. You're somehow missing integral steps in the process. You must realize that for FNP to work, AB must work as well, or neither of them work, because they have the same trigger. It is what Forkbanger and others have been preaching ad nauseum for pages in two different threads.

Hopefully this one will be locked soon.

My bad I gave the wrong page number it should be 26.

With that being said, it does say exaclty what I posted before.

I think that you do not understand what ignore the wound means. FNP can, and if successful makes the wound null and void. Or in other words you get to ignore the unsaved wound. In the section that I gave you, page 26 Multiple-Wound Models, it details how an unsaved wound makes the model lose a one of its wounds from the profile. You cannot ignore that as it specifically states that an unsaved wound makes you lose a # in the characterisitc profile. If FNP prevents that loss of characterisitic profile, then it cancels EVERYTHING else that would be triggered.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:My bad I gave the wrong page number it should be 26.

With that being said, it does say exaclty what I posted before.

I think that you do not understand what ignore the wound means. FNP can, and if successful makes the wound null and void. Or in other words you get to ignore the unsaved wound. In the section that I gave you, page 26 Multiple-Wound Models, it details how an unsaved wound makes the model lose a one of its wounds from the profile. You cannot ignore that as it specifically states that an unsaved wound makes you lose a # in the characterisitc profile. If FNP prevents that loss of characterisitic profile, then it cancels EVERYTHING else that would be triggered.

There is the first flaw in your logic right there: If FNP prevents that loss of characterisitic profile, then it cancels EVERYTHING else that would be triggered.

FNP is triggered at the same time AB is. It's not something that "Would be triggered". It's something that was triggered. If you took FNP, then you took AB. One event - the taking an unsaved wound - set both rules into motion. You've lost the wound. When the model is sitting in limbo between just failing a save and being removed as a casualty, they are at 0 on their wound profile. They have effectively lost the wound. They've suffered an unsaved wound. They are at 0 wounds. Are we clear? Now, at the next step, AB is triggered at the same time FNP is triggered. Set aside the number of dice that AB affects and then roll your FNP. You pass your FNP. Guess what? Ignore that reduction in your wound characteristic. Okay, now move to Remove Casualties. You don't remove the casualty because you can effectively ignore the wound. You can't ignore the effects that the wound caused before you were allowed to ignore it.


Which leads to the second flaw in your logic: Where does it say that ignoring a wound means the wound never happened?

As I said in the other thread - you can ignore the vase that you just broke, but it doesn't put the vase back together again. It still happened, whether you choose to ignore it or not.

I am convinced that both Acid Blood and FNP are 'triggered' simultaneously on unsaved wounds. I am also convinced Acid Blood wounds happen at the end of each initiative step and that FNP can't be used to negate it's wound. I believe however, that it is too cheap of an ability for the potential damage it can do to 'large' close combat units especially considering you can only receive an Invulnerable save against it.

I am good with the Forkbangers explanation. It does make sense both logically and ruleswise; still a little too cheap (pointswise) for Acid Blood though.

Thank you.

puma713 wrote:
Which leads to the second flaw in your logic: Where does it say that ignoring a wound means the wound never happened?

As I said in the other thread - you can ignore the vase that you just broke, but it doesn't put the vase back together again. It still happened, whether you choose to ignore it or not.

Lets say there is this vase that, if it breaks, you have to put a dollar in the jar at the end of the day.

then lets say that there is another rule that states that if you roll a 4+ after breaking a vase you ignore the vase.

If you ignore the vase that just broke, you do not put a dollar in the jar at the end of the day. To put a dollar in the jar at the end of the day would be to not ignore the vase, since if you ignore the vase you pretend it does not exist and thus no dollar.

forkbanger wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:To find out what an unsaved wound is we have to look at P39

You are not detemining an assault result. Unsaved wounds are detailed in the rules for casuaties and casualty removal on p24.

DeathReaper wrote:Yes this [P.39] details determining assault results, It tells us what unsaved wounds are since unsaved wounds are not outlined anywhere else.

You have to look at P.39, since by your P.24 rules FNP does NOTHING.

We know FNP has a definite game effect.

We must determine what an unsaved wound is.

Since we know these two things we can go from there, there are a few questions

#1 What does Feel No Pain do?
(P.75 outlines this)

#2 What Is an unsaved wound?
(P.24 and P.39 outline this)

so FNP lets us ignore wounds that are otherwise unsaved.

Scenario:
at the beginning of the Initiative step for Initiative 5, 3 normal wounds generated by Space marine unit with furious charge on Tyranid Carnifex with Acid blood and a FNP ability.

Tyranid Carnifex takes saving thrown, fails 2, then takes 2 FNP rolls, passes 2.

at the end of the Initiative 5 step we check for Acid blood, how many unsaved wounds are there?

A: Zero, since armor saved one and 2 were IGNORED by FNP.

If you try to tally 2 'Unsaved wounds' you wound have to tally 2 wounds to combat resolution as well, and remove 2 casualties, or in the Carnifex's case mark 2 wounds off the profile.

Since we know, from P.39, that 'note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules with similar effects DO NOT COUNT.'

Then you cant tally these unsaved wounds for Combat resolution.

How are you ignoring the unsaved wounds if you use them to tally Acid blood?

DeathReaper wrote:

puma713 wrote:
Which leads to the second flaw in your logic: Where does it say that ignoring a wound means the wound never happened?

As I said in the other thread - you can ignore the vase that you just broke, but it doesn't put the vase back together again. It still happened, whether you choose to ignore it or not.

Lets say there is this vase that, if it breaks, you have to put a dollar in the jar at the end of the day.

then lets say that there is another rule that states that if you roll a 4+ after breaking a vase you ignore the vase.

If you ignore the vase that just broke, you do not put a dollar in the jar at the end of the day. To put a dollar in the jar at the end of the day would be to not ignore the vase, since if you ignore the vase you pretend it does not exist and thus no dollar.

This is an idiotic example which completely misses the point. But let's play along. You break a vase and you ignore it. You still put a dollar in the jar. Just because you ignore it, doesn't mean you don't owe the jar a dollar. Ignoring something doesn't make it disappear, like you seem to think it does.

Here, try a real world example. Ignore your credit card bills. Or your mortgage. Or your car payment. Or your kids. Or your wife. Do they simply vanish?

No. They do not. Ignoring something does not make it go away. It means you turn a blind eye toward it. It is still there, you're just ignoring it. Is this really that difficult to grasp?

puma713 wrote:

This is an idiotic example which completely misses the point. But let's play along. You break a vase and you ignore it. You still put a dollar in the jar. Just because you ignore it, doesn't mean you don't owe the jar a dollar. Ignoring something doesn't make it disappear, like you seem to think it does.

Here, try a real world example. Ignore your credit card bills. Or your mortgage. Or your car payment. Or your kids. Or your wife. Do they simply vanish?

No. They do not. Ignoring something does not make it go away. It means you turn a blind eye toward it. It is still there, you're just ignoring it. Is this really that difficult to grasp?

Erm, sorry. This doesn't work. If the world did in fact have a rule that said I was allowed to ignore my mortgage on a 4+, then, YES, I could ignore my mortgage payment with NO CONSEQUENCES. The world doesn't have said rule, so that doesn't work, unfortunately.

There is no "limbo" state like you're describing, Puma. A wound that is "ignored" by FNP is EXACTLY the same as a wound that was never taken. It does not exist. It causes no effects whatsoever. The game does not acknowledge its existence.

puma713 wrote:

This is an idiotic example which completely misses the point. But let's play along. You break a vase and you ignore it. You still put a dollar in the jar. Just because you ignore it, doesn't mean you don't owe the jar a dollar. Ignoring something doesn't make it disappear, like you seem to think it does.

Here, try a real world example. Ignore your credit card bills. Or your mortgage. Or your car payment. Or your kids. Or your wife. Do they simply vanish?

No. They do not. Ignoring something does not make it go away. It means you turn a blind eye toward it. It is still there, you're just ignoring it. Is this really that difficult to grasp?

If you put a dollar in the jar then you have not Ignored the vase have you?

Maybe this will help you understand:
I Have just given you 5 apples. I ask you to count the apples you have and tell me how many apples you have counted, but for each apple you count you roll a die, and on a 4+ you ignore that apple.

Apple #: 1 2 3 4 5
Die roll... 2 1 2 4 6

Now tell me, how many apples you have counted?
(Hint the answer is 3)

BeRzErKeR wrote:Erm, sorry. This doesn't work. If the world did in fact have a rule that said I was allowed to ignore my mortgage on a 4+, then, YES, I could ignore my mortgage payment with NO CONSEQUENCES. The world doesn't have said rule, so that doesn't work, unfortunately.

There is no "limbo" state like you're describing, Puma. A wound that is "ignored" by FNP is EXACTLY the same as a wound that was never taken. It does not exist. It causes no effects whatsoever. The game does not acknowledge its existence.

The underlined +1

AKA If you ignore it, you treat it as if it never happened in the first place.

BeRzErKeR wrote:There is no "limbo" state like you're describing, Puma.

After your model takes an unsaved wound, but before you roll FNP, how many wounds does your model have left?

BeRzErKeR wrote:Erm, sorry. This doesn't work. If the world did in fact have a rule that said I was allowed to ignore my mortgage on a 4+, then, YES, I could ignore my mortgage payment with NO CONSEQUENCES. The world doesn't have said rule, so that doesn't work, unfortunately.

A wound that is "ignored" by FNP is EXACTLY the same as a wound that was never taken. It does not exist. It causes no effects whatsoever. The game does not acknowledge its existence.

If you wouldn't mind, then, could you point out the page number that describes ignoring something as treating it as if it never happened. Or better yet, GW's definition of ignore that you keep referencing. Because the "ignore" that you're referring to doesn't mean what you think it does. In the English language, to ignore something is to disregard it. To brush it off. It never, ever means that it reverses what has happened. Man, if that were true, we could simply ignore lots of things in life, couldn't we? We could fix all the mistakes in the world if we just ignored them, huh? You're completely missing the point, much like DeathReaper. You don't need to roll a 4+ to ignore your mortgage. Just ignore it. Just stop paying attention to it tomorrow. I bet it doesn't go away.

I think what is getting twisted here is you're told to ignore the wound. You're not told to ignore the "wounding". Your model was wounded. But you get to ignore the product of it, not the act. The act is what triggers FNP and AB.

I'm floored that you are defending the fact that because you ignore the product of the action, means the action didn't happen.

DeathReaper wrote:

puma713 wrote:
*snip*

*snip*

Lol, I understand your examples. But they're defending a principle that doesn't make sense in the first place. To say that because you ignore the product of an event means the event never took place is false. I can prove that to ignore something does not mean that it didn't happen. So, the burden of proof is on you to show me that when you do ignore the product, that it means the action itself didn't ever take place. If you could give me a real-world example (since we don't have a GW definition to go off of, that I'm aware), I'd love to go try it.

DeathReaper wrote:
AKA If you ignore it, you treat it as if it never happened in the first place.

Page number?

So, to clarify - you're saying that to ignore the effect of an action, means the action itself never took place? Unbelievable.

I ignore my sunburn, it means I never got burned in the first place. I ignore my broken arm, it means my arm never was broken to begin with. I saved a wound in 40K, means I was never wounded in the first place. If you were never wounded in the first place, why did you ever need to take a save or FNP?

This is an example of a logical fallacy called Denying the Antecedent. It is a fallacy of Propositional Logic:

If I took a wound, then I was wounded.
I didn't take a wound.
Therefore I wasn't wounded.

This is false. You could have been wounded and saved. You could've been wounded and rolled FNP. You could've been wounded and used a bodyguard to take the wound for you.

DeathReaper wrote:
You have to look at P.39, since by your P.24 rules FNP does NOTHING.

We know FNP has a definite game effect.

We must determine what an unsaved wound is.

Feel No Pain has the effect of ignoring the injury. Suffer an unsaved wound -> Feel No Pain roll -> ignore injury OR suffer wound.

p24
"For every model that fails it's save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."

Suffering an unsaved wound? Time for Feel No Pain.

p75
"If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice. On a 1, 2 or 3 take the wound as normal. On a 4, 5 or 6, the injury is ignored."

So if you roll a 4+, you stop applying the usual procedure for that unsaved wound. That's what ignoring the injury means- it has no further effect.
On a 1-3, you carry on with the usual procedure-

p24
"Most models have a single wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed as a casualty."

p26
"When such a multiple wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one wound from it's profile."

p39, which is still how to determine assault results, doesn't tell you how unsaved wounds work or what they do, or how Feel No Pain interacts with them. All it tells you is how to determine who won an assault ("To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents... only the wounds actually suffered by enemy models".)

Okay, again, AB and FNP have the same trigger - the results of that trigger are different and happen at different times. But - both tirggers happen - you suffer an unsaved wound and as a result you take a FNP test, as a result you also do the sction for AB, just these happen at the end of the step, FNP doesn't say to ignore any effects from unsaved wounds - it simply tell you to ignore the wound itself. Different from "as if none of this ever happened, ignoring an unsaved wound means it's not 'removed from your profile' (not a quote) not that it never happened.

forkbanger wrote:
p75
"If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice. On a 1, 2 or 3 take the wound as normal. On a 4, 5 or 6, the injury is ignored."

So if you roll a 4+, you stop applying the usual procedure for that unsaved wound. That's what ignoring the injury means- it has no further effect.
On a 1-3, you carry on with the usual procedure-

Now you got it!

"Ignoring the injury means- it has no further effect."
Since you look at acid blood after this point, these wounds do not have any further effect on Acid blood.

ChrisCP wrote:Okay, again, AB and FNP have the same trigger...

Yes they have the same trigger, and you check for unsaved wounds at the end of the initiative phase which caused wounds to see what wounds are unsaved.

puma713 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
AKA If you ignore it, you treat it as if it never happened in the first place.

Page number?

So, to clarify - you're saying that to ignore the effect of an action, means the action itself never took place? Unbelievable.

And no, I am not saying that it never took place, I am saying the game ignores it.(p.75) having taken place or not has no bearing, since we are ignoring the wound.

"Ignoring the injury means- it has no further effect." said 'forkbanger', he was spot on with this one.

To total up Acid Blood from wounds saved by FNP is not IGNORING the wounds. I.E. pretending they never happened. I.E Disregarding them. I.E. no further effect.

forkbanger wrote:
p39, which is still how to determine assault results, doesn't tell you how unsaved wounds work or what they do, or how Feel No Pain interacts with them. All it tells you is how to determine who won an assault ("To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents... only the wounds actually suffered by enemy models".)

Right it is how to determine assault results.

Please read P. 39 carefully, It CLEARLY tells us what an unsaved wound is. and remember "Ignoring the injury means- it has no further effect." said 'forkbanger'

"...total up the number of unsaved wounds...Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count..."

I.E. an Unsaved wound is a wound that has not been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects.

FNP is a special rule that has a similar effect.

Its all right there on P39. (and P.75 for FNP)

If I inflict 10 Unsaved wounds that you use FNP to ignore, then by your logic, you should use those wounds for combat resolution. However, since you do not use them for combat resolution, since they have been ignored, you cant use them for anything else that triggers off of them. To do so would be not ignoring them.

DeathReaper wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Okay, again, AB and FNP have the same trigger...

Yes they have the same trigger, and you check for unsaved wounds at the end of the initiative phase which caused wounds to see what wounds are unsaved.

This is where I think your knowledge or understanding might be a bit shaky.

Removing Casualties tells us to look at shooting, shooting says
"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound" pg 24
"...identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch. Casualties can then be chosen by the owning player" pg 25
"Finally, the player rolls separately for each model that stands out in gaming terms. If one of these different models suffers an unsaved wound, then that" pg 25

The point being is unsaved wounds are somthing that 'happen' one doesn't check for them, AB checks for them, so does FNP.
Feel no pain says "the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting" which means they aren't removed as a casualty.

Now here's the crux, combat resolution is the only time one 'tallys' unsaved wounds and it tells us;
"Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count," pg 39
so the unsaved wound from which FNP prevented a casualty, is ignored by this rule.
Acid Blood cares about unsaved wounds, Feel No Pain cares about wounds. AB adds a roll at the end of each initive step, feel no pain stops a model form being removed as a casualty.

DeathReaper wrote:
having taken place or not has no bearing, since we are ignoring the wound.

To put it plainly, this is wrong. You can ignore the wound without ignoring the wounding. The wounding is what triggers FNP and AB, not the wound itself.

DeathReaper wrote:"Ignoring the injury means- it has no further effect." said 'forkbanger', he was spot on with this one.

You're right, he was. No FURTHER effect. At what point are you told that the injury has no FURTHER effect. Once you've rolled FNP. When do you roll FNP? After you've been wounded. If you weren't wounded, FNP wouldn't have been triggered. AB and FNP were triggered by the wounding. Now that you ignore the injury, it has no FURTHER effect (taking the wound). Where does it say in the FNP wording that the injury has no PREVIOUS effect? (Which is the wounding.)

DeathReaper wrote: pretending they never happened

Didn't we just go over this? Logical fallacy and all that? To say that to ignore something means that it never happened is false and doesn't work logically. You don't need the wound to trigger the AB and FNP. You just need the act of wounding.

We're going in circles here.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:
If I inflict 10 Unsaved wounds that you use FNP to ignore, then by your logic, you should use those wounds for combat resolution. However, since you do not use them for combat resolution, since they have been ignored, you cant use them for anything else that triggers off of them. To do so would be not ignoring them.

And combat resolution is covered under a different passage. You keep muddling all your examples together to try to make a point. Like taking examples from tanks, from shooting, from monstrous creatures and from assault to try to learn how to deploy.

puma713 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
having taken place or not has no bearing, since we are ignoring the wound.

To put it plainly, this is wrong. You can ignore the wound without ignoring the wounding. The wounding is what triggers FNP and AB, not the wound itself.

The wounding triggers FNP and AB but you don't check for AB until the end of the initiative step, so you do not tally unsaved wounds till this time.

Page number for where it says you check for AB before the end of the initiative phase?

puma713 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:"Ignoring the injury means- it has no further effect." said 'forkbanger', he was spot on with this one.

You're right, he was. No FURTHER effect. At what point are you told that the injury has no FURTHER effect. Once you've rolled FNP. When do you roll FNP? After you've been wounded. If you weren't wounded, FNP wouldn't have been triggered. AB and FNP were triggered by the wounding. Now that you ignore the injury, it has no FURTHER effect (taking the wound). Where does it say in the FNP wording that the injury has no PREVIOUS effect?

When do you make your AB rolls?

You check to see how many rolls you need to make at the END of the initiative step, not sooner.

"Ignoring the injury means- it has no further effect."

Per the FAQ, you take FNP first, then check for AB after, its really not that hard to understand.

puma713 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
If I inflict 10 Unsaved wounds that you use FNP to ignore, then by your logic, you should use those wounds for combat resolution. However, since you do not use them for combat resolution, since they have been ignored, you cant use them for anything else that triggers off of them. To do so would be not ignoring them.

And combat resolution is covered under a different passage. You keep muddling all your examples together to try to make a point. Like taking examples from tanks, from shooting, from monstrous creatures and from assault to try to learn how to deploy.

Different passage, yes, but it still clearly outlines what an unsaved wound is for combat resolution, why would an unsaved wound (note the use of the same exact wording) be any different for AB rolls???

Same wording, same effect, unless you have Page Numbers that say otherwise.

Thank you and goodnight.

DeathReaper wrote:

puma713 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
having taken place or not has no bearing, since we are ignoring the wound.

To put it plainly, this is wrong. You can ignore the wound without ignoring the wounding. The wounding is what triggers FNP and AB, not the wound itself.

The wounding triggers FNP and AB but you don't check for AB until the end of the initiative step

You mean, you don't resolve the AB tests until the end of the initiative step. Because that's what the FAQ says. You certainly do "check for AB" as soon as you're wounded. You set aside a die for each unsaved wound, every time you fail a save. Then at the end of the initiative step, you resolve AB by rolling these dice for the test. Then you remove casualties.

DeathReaper wrote:Page number for where it says you check for AB before the end of the initiative phase?

If you don't check for AB before the end of the initiative step, what tests do you have to resolve? Kinda like how you may be forced to take a morale check at the beginning of the shooting phase by losing 25% to shooting, so the morale check is pending, and it is resolved at the end of the shooting phase, when you roll the dice.

DeathReaper wrote:

puma713 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:"Ignoring the injury means- it has no further effect." said 'forkbanger', he was spot on with this one.

You're right, he was. No FURTHER effect. At what point are you told that the injury has no FURTHER effect. Once you've rolled FNP. When do you roll FNP? After you've been wounded. If you weren't wounded, FNP wouldn't have been triggered. AB and FNP were triggered by the wounding. Now that you ignore the injury, it has no FURTHER effect (taking the wound). Where does it say in the FNP wording that the injury has no PREVIOUS effect?

When do you make your AB rolls?

You check to see how many rolls you need to make at the END of the initiative step, not sooner.

Where does it say this? It says that you suffer AB for every unsaved wound. It says you resolve the tests at the end of the initiative step, not "check how many rolls you need to make".

DeathReaper wrote:
Per the FAQ, you take FNP first, then check for AB after, its really not that hard to understand.

We can't keep on a discussion (although this discussion is pretty one-sided anyway) if you keep making up pieces to your argument. You've already kept using an obvious logical fallacy in your argument, now you're making up what an FAQ says. Per the FAQ, it makes no mention of FNP at all. It states that AB tests are resolved at the end of the initiative step, something that was triggered by suffering an unsaved wound, the same trigger for FNP.

But, since I'm sick of repeating myself, let me just play along with you. You suffer an unsaved wound. You fail your save, then you roll your FNP. And you pass! Guess what? YOU STILL SUFFERED AN UNSAVED WOUND. That is the point. Who cares if you pass FNP or not? You ignore the "injury". You don't ignore the fact that the injury happened. Again, you're basing your argument on a logical fallacy. If you continue to do so, what is the point in arguing with you?

DeathReaper wrote:Same wording, same effect, unless you have Page Numbers that say otherwise.

You do realize that this is a permissive ruleset do you not? For something to tell you how Determining Assault Results works has no bearing on how FNP or AB works. It simply tells you how to manage your way through Determining Assault Results. Did you make sure you checked Vehicle Shooting rules for how to assault? Did you check squadron rules for how to take morale checks? How about the Index for how to use grenades?

puma713 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

puma713 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
having taken place or not has no bearing, since we are ignoring the wound.

To put it plainly, this is wrong. You can ignore the wound without ignoring the wounding. The wounding is what triggers FNP and AB, not the wound itself.

The wounding triggers FNP and AB but you don't check for AB until the end of the initiative step

You mean, you don't resolve the AB tests until the end of the initiative step. Because that's what the FAQ says. You certainly do "check for AB" as soon as you're wounded. You set aside a die for each unsaved wound, every time you fail a save. Then at the end of the initiative step, you resolve AB by rolling these dice for the test. Then you remove casualties.

Page Number? FAQ says otherwise.

puma713 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Page number for where it says you check for AB before the end of the initiative phase?

If you don't check for AB before the end of the initiative step, what tests do you have to resolve? Kinda like how you may be forced to take a morale check at the beginning of the shooting phase by losing 25% to shooting, so the morale check is pending, and it is resolved at the end of the shooting phase, when you roll the dice.

you resolve the unsaved wounds that you just counted at the end of the initiative step. not before, since you are surely not allowed to check for AB before the end of the step.

If you can check before Page Number?

DeathReaper wrote:

puma713 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:"Ignoring the injury means- it has no further effect." said 'forkbanger', he was spot on with this one.

You're right, he was. No FURTHER effect. At what point are you told that the injury has no FURTHER effect. Once you've rolled FNP. When do you roll FNP? After you've been wounded. If you weren't wounded, FNP wouldn't have been triggered. AB and FNP were triggered by the wounding. Now that you ignore the injury, it has no FURTHER effect (taking the wound). Where does it say in the FNP wording that the injury has no PREVIOUS effect?

When do you make your AB rolls?

You check to see how many rolls you need to make at the END of the initiative step, not sooner.

Where does it say this? It says that you suffer AB for every unsaved wound. It says you resolve the tests at the end of the initiative step, not "check how many rolls you need to make".

DeathReaper wrote:*snip*

So, to clarify, you're suggesting that when the product of an action is ignored, it means the action itself is ignored, even though I've shown to you that this is a fallacy of Propositional Logic.

I'm done with you. You keep repeating an argument that's based on fallacious statements and there's no discussion being had. Time to agree to disagree.

puma713 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:*snip*

So, to clarify, you're suggesting that when the product of an action is ignored, it means the action itself is ignored, even though I've shown to you that this is a fallacy of Propositional Logic.

I'm done with you. You keep repeating an argument that's based on fallacious statements and there's no discussion being had. Time to agree to disagree.

That is incorrect, it is not a fallacious statement. Since FNP tells you to Ignore the Unsaved wound. It makes no distinction to only ignore the product of said unsaved wound

take this scenario

A tyranid with acid blood and FNP is fighting some marines.

The tyranid attacks and misses all his attacks.

Marines roll to hit and hit 4 times

Then they roll to wound, and score 1 wound

The tyranid rolls 1 armor save and fails

off this unsaved wound FNP triggers and he rolls and saves the wound.

Acid Blood now checks for unsaved wounds, since we have no reduction of a wound characteristic we have no unsaved wounds. combat resolution agrees.

At the end of the Initiative step we now have 0 unsaved wounds for combat resolution, and how many unsaved wounds for Acid blood?

It is the same number of unsaved wounds.


Though I suspect it is time to lock the thread.

I think it is indeed time to agree to disagree. PM me if the arguments for this topic have not been fully vetted at this point.