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.

rigeld2 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:@rigeld I believe he is saying the following:
10 Bob suffers an unsaved wound.
20 Bob passes FNP.
30 FNP removes unsaved wound.
40 Since Bob no longer has an unsaved wound, FNP does not activate.
50 Since FNP does not activate, Bob cannot use it to remove the unsaved wound, thus receiving an unsaved wound.
60 Goto 10.

Yes that's what he's saying. Is there a rules basis behind 40?

edit: Because I don't see anything allowing you/telling you to go back and re-evaluate how you got to where you are.

Nothing backs 40 any more than 60.

Well yeah - if nothing backs 40, then 50 and 60 go away.

@rigeld, there is no rules basis. FNP says you ignore the injury. However as has been pointed out you do not 'save' against the wound. Therefore anything that triggers off an unsaved wound might trigger as well. This is turning into FNP and Hex Rifle all over again. As it is I feel that FNP could have been worded better.

So the paradox argument is gone.

The only argument left is if FNP and ES trigger at the same time. I don't think they do, but I don't have all the rules at my fingertips to discuss that issue. It will probably rely on an FAQ.

There are a number of things that happen off an unsaved wound. Hex rifle toughness test, FNP, Entropic strike, ID with a bonesword or diresword just to name a few. Unfortunately there is no FAQ/errata on the order of these. I would argue that in this case, you would get FNP (suffered an unsaved wound) and you would suffer the effects of entropic strike (suffered an unsaved wound). Had GW FAQ'd FNP so that it happens immediately and if passed, you were treated as if you did not suffer an unsaved wound, that would be different.

Right - that's my point. That's the only argument available for ES to happen at the same time as a successful FNP roll. I don't think it holds water, but I can understand the argument.

I had also pointed out earlier that thee are a number of more important things that trigger from suffering unsaved wounds that i am sure you all have ignored with Units of FNP in the past:

Combat resolution: you tally up the number of unsaved wounds you have suffered on your side; so you can lose 0 Wounds due to FNP, but still lose the combat: good job!

Pinning: triggered when any model suffers an unsaved wound; So you get hit with a pinning weapon, get wounded, fail the save, FNP, then LD or Go to Ground.

Vulnerable to blasts/templates: Triggers on an unsaved wound from the Blast/template; you get hit, wounded, fail your save, FNP, still take 2 wounds. FNP has done absolutely nothing here.

Would application: triggers on suffers an unsaved wound; you fail your save but make the FNP, well FNP be damned you still suffered an unsaved wound right? apply the wound to the model anyways.

If FNP does not ignore the whole of the unsaved wound it ignores none of it; after all ignoring the injury does not stop the wound application rules at all if the unsaved wound is still suffered.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Copper talos et Aldarionn: I am not ignoring the armor shattering; FNP ignores the wound(does not negate it retroactively, but it is then treated as though it did not happen, as in it is not suffered). If no Unsaved wound is suffered(as in the wound is applied to the model), then ES does not trigger.

That is EXACTLY what you are arguing. If other triggers of having suffered an unsaved wound are erased when FNP goes off then by definition you have retroactively removed the wound. If you agree that the wound is not retroactively removed then you MUST agree that further abilities that trigger from suffering an unsaved wound also trigger. You CANNOT have it both ways. Either the wound is retroactively removed, preventing other triggers and creating a paradox, or the wound is removed sequentially, which means the model has still suffered an unsaved wound and all abilities that trigger from the original wound still go off in sequence.

Also, how is the paradox argument gone? It still exists. If you remove the wound and all abilities that trigger from it then you have retroactively removed the trigger for the ability that allowed you to ignore it in the first place. This is a paradox, and it exists as long as you insist that multiple triggers from having suffered an unsaved wound do not happen when FNP removes the wound.

Abilities A, B and C all trigger from event Y. When event Y happens, abilities A, B and C all go off, but ability A removes the effects of event Y. Thus, abilities A, B and C cannot possibly go off, which means ability A could not have removed the effects of event Y, which means abilities A, B and C all go off, but ability A removes the effects of event Y.......

Do not pretend the paradox does not exist simply because it is convenient to do so. This needs FAQ, badly, because obviously it is not clear or we would not be having this argument.

Aldarionn wrote:Also, how is the paradox argument gone? It still exists. If you remove the wound and all abilities that trigger from it then you have retroactively removed the trigger for the ability that allowed you to ignore it in the first place. This is a paradox, and it exists as long as you insist that multiple triggers from having suffered an unsaved wound do not happen when FNP removes the wound.

Because there is no rules basis for it.

What rule is allowing you to go back and re-evaluate whether FNP is taken?
Also, according to your argument, as Kel said - Pinning, Combat Resolution, Vulnerable to Blasts/Templates... all of those would effectively ignore FNP. Are you saying that they do?

Kommissar Kel wrote:
Combat resolution: you tally up the number of unsaved wounds you have suffered on your side; so you can lose 0 Wounds due to FNP, but still lose the combat: good job!

Incorrect. FNP addresses this directly, stating that models that succeed on FNP rolls do not count toward combat resolution.

EDIT: Pardon me, this one is actually in the Combat Resolution section. Wounds that are negated by saving throws "or other special rules" are not counted when tallying up combat resolution. Page 39 of the Rulebook, last Paragraph under "Determine Assault Results" heading.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Pinning: triggered when any model suffers an unsaved wound; So you get hit with a pinning weapon, get wounded, fail the save, FNP, then LD or Go to Ground.

Exactly. The weapon still hit you and while you ignore the injury you don't ignore that you are being barraged and need to keep your head down. If FNP removes the wound retroactively then no pinning check would be made which is not the correct way to play it.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Vulnerable to blasts/templates: Triggers on an unsaved wound from the Blast/template; you get hit, wounded, fail your save, FNP, still take 2 wounds. FNP has done absolutely nothing here.

Actually each unsaved wound is doubled to two unsaved wounds, so FNP would be rolled for against both wounds. Additionally, name a single unit with FNP that is also vulnerable to blasts/templates. I cannot think of a single one.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Would application: triggers on suffers an unsaved wound; you fail your save but make the FNP, well FNP be damned you still suffered an unsaved wound right? apply the wound to the model anyways.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Wound allocation is done prior to any armor saves being rolled, and wounds are applied before rolling for FNP. FNP simply allows you to ignore the wound, but NOT retroactively thus all other abilities that trigger from suffering an unsaved wound trigger, beneficial or detrimental.

Kommissar Kel wrote:If FNP does not ignore the whole of the unsaved wound it ignores none of it; after all ignoring the injury does not stop the wound application rules at all if the unsaved wound is still suffered.

*Sigh* you are still arguing that the wound is removed retroactively, though you claim you are not. If you ignore the wound in its entirety and any abilities that trigger from having suffered the wound, then the model never suffered the wound in the first place. This is the definition of having removed a wound retroactively. If you argue that the wound is removed in this way, then FNP can never have triggered to begin with.

Again it is obvious that you will never agree with me on this, and that I will never agree with you, which means GW needs to fix it. Perhaps they are fixing it for 6th edition which is why they haven't bothered to release an FAQ for 5th edition that explains how it is handled.

Aldarionn wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Vulnerable to blasts/templates: Triggers on an unsaved wound from the Blast/template; you get hit, wounded, fail your save, FNP, still take 2 wounds. FNP has done absolutely nothing here.

Actually each unsaved wound is doubled to two unsaved wounds, so FNP would be rolled for against both wounds. Additionally, name a single unit with FNP that is also vulnerable to blasts/templates. I cannot think of a single one.

Ripper Swarms that are given Catalyst from a Tervigon.

And you seriously take pinning tests for FNP ignored wounds? I have literally never seen that.

Aldarionn wrote:That is EXACTLY what you are arguing. If other triggers of having suffered an unsaved wound are erased when FNP goes off then by definition you have retroactively removed the wound.

That is because FNP does retroactively remove wounds.

A model with one Wound on its profile, without FNP, suffers a wound and needs to make one save, he fails and takes an unsaved wound and is removed as a casualty.

The same model, but now he has FNP, he suffers a wound and needs to make one save, he fails and takes an unsaved wound. He then rolls for FNP to try and ignore that unsaved wound, makes his FNP roll and ignores the unsaved wound and is not removed as a casualty.

Proof that FNP has retroactively removed the wound.

Either you take an unsaved wound and are removed as a casualty and FNP does nothing. Or you Ignore the wound and pretend the unsaved wound was never in existence and FNP actually works.

But FNP DOESN'T work if you remove the wound retroactively. We have been over this. If the wound is removed retroactively then the original trigger for FNP never existed, thus a FNP roll wound never be made, so the model suffers an unsaved wound which triggers FNP. He passes his FNP roll which removes the unsaved wound and the original trigger for FNP, so no FNP roll is ever made and the model suffers an unsaved wound, which triggers FNP. He passes his FNP roll which removes the unsaved wound and the original trigger for FNP, so no FNP roll is ever made and the model suffers an unsaved wound, which triggers FNP. He passes his FNP roll which removes the unsaved wound and the original trigger for FNP, so no FNP roll is ever made and the model suffers an unsaved wound, which triggers FNP. He passes his FNP roll which removes the unsaved wound and the original trigger for FNP, so no FNP roll is ever made and the model suffers an unsaved wound, which triggers FNP. He passes his FNP roll which removes the unsaved wound and the original trigger for FNP, so no FNP roll is ever made and the model suffers an unsaved wound, which triggers FNP. He passes his FNP roll which removes the unsaved wound and the original trigger for FNP, so no FNP roll is ever made and the model suffers an unsaved wound, which triggers FNP. He passes his FNP roll which removes the unsaved wound and the original trigger for FNP, so no FNP roll is ever made and the model suffers an unsaved wound, which triggers FNP. He passes his FNP roll which removes the unsaved wound and the original trigger for FNP, so no FNP roll is ever made and the model suffers an unsaved wound, which triggers FNP. He passes his FNP roll which removes the unsaved wound and the original trigger for FNP, so no FNP roll is ever made and the model suffers an unsaved wound, which triggers FNP. He passes his FNP roll.......until he finally fails his FNP roll and is removed as a casualty.

IT CANNOT POSSIBLY REMOVE THE WOUND RETROACTIVELY OR A PARADOX IS CREATED, WHICH MEANS THAT LOGICALLY ALL OTHER EFFECTS MUST TRIGGER! Do you not see the paradox in assuming the wound is removed retroactively? It. Cannot. Work.

Anyway, I'm done with this, and I call for this thread to be locked. It is the same discussion we have had repeatedly in the past and the two sides will not agree and will continue to fight over it until GW tells us how it should be handled.

Aldarionn wrote:IT CANNOT POSSIBLY REMOVE THE WOUND RETROACTIVELY OR A PARADOX IS CREATED, WHICH MEANS THAT LOGICALLY ALL OTHER EFFECTS MUST TRIGGER! Do you not see the paradox in assuming the wound is removed retroactively? It. Cannot. Work.

You're assuming it matters if the wound is removed retroactively. Who cares if a paradox is created? There's no rule basis for saying "Paradoxes are unpossible."

Paradoxes are where Tzeentch divided by 0.

rigeld2 wrote:

Aldarionn wrote:IT CANNOT POSSIBLY REMOVE THE WOUND RETROACTIVELY OR A PARADOX IS CREATED, WHICH MEANS THAT LOGICALLY ALL OTHER EFFECTS MUST TRIGGER! Do you not see the paradox in assuming the wound is removed retroactively? It. Cannot. Work.

You're assuming it matters if the wound is removed retroactively. Who cares if a paradox is created? There's no rule basis for saying "Paradoxes are unpossible."

Paradoxes ARE impossible. If the wound is retroactively removed, then FNP never triggers which means the wound is then NOT removed. This cyles until eventually FNP is failed and the model dies. This means that FNP has done absolutely nothing but waste time on a chain of dice rolls that will only ever end one way. Paradoxes are impossible because if we allow them the game breaks and rules do not work as intended. You can play that way if you want, but it is clearly not the intent. The intent is for the model to roll a die to negate an unsaved wound, but the semantics of the system means this has to happen sequentially for it to work, which means other effects that trigger from unsaved wounds MUST still take effect even if FNP is passed. To claim otherwise is to ignore logic.

Let me use a real paradox as an example. If I am stabbed to death, but my friend goes back in time and kills my stabber before the stabbing occurs, then I am alive, however my friend now has no reason to have gone back in time to begin with, thus my stabber is alive and I am stabbed to death, so my friend goes back in time and kills my stabber. It's the exact same sequence of events, and it results in an infinite loop.

Claiming that the wound is removed retroactively is the same thing as going back in time and flipping the wound die from a 4 to a 1. At that point FNP never triggers, but you now have no reason to go back in time to flip the die, so the original die roll happens, so you go back in time and change it. The infinite loop occurs over and over and we are all stuck in a paradoxical loop until the universe explodes. In this case its a figurative paradox rather than an actual paradox, but the principle is the same. Retroactive Removal means "go back in time and remove so that it never actually occurred". It cannot possibly happen.

Aldarionn wrote:To claim otherwise is to ignore logic.

False.
To claim otherwise is to obey the rules as set forth in this game.
There is no rule in the book that requires, or even allows, you to go back and re-evaluate if you were able to take a FNP roll.

0: Wound is rolled.
1: Armor save is attempted (if you can).
2: Armor save is failed, FNP is rolled.
3: FNP is successful, wound is ignored, go on with life.

What's that you say? If you ignore the wound you could have never rolled FNP? Ah well - you're ignoring the wound, so who cares? You either ignore the wound, or FNP is useless.

Yes, you ignore the wound, but you do not ignore the fact that the wound HAPPENED, which means you MUST trigger the other effects that happen when a model suffers an unsaved wound. If you do not do this, then you have RETROACTIVELY ignored the wound, which means you go back in time and remove it such that it never happened, which means FNP never triggered. How is this not sinking in? It cannot be both ways. You cannot retroactively ignore a wound (such that other abilities triggered from suffering an unsaved wound never occur) and then claim that FNP is immune to the retroactive removal of the wound. It MUST be sequential or the whole thing falls apart. The wound is suffered, ALL effects from it trigger including FNP, Entropic Strike, Acid Blood, Pinning, Etc...and if FNP is passed, the model does not remove the wound from its profile. End of story. Everything else happens but the model is still alive.

Aldarionn wrote: you do not ignore the fact that the wound HAPPENED.

Why not?

Aldarionn wrote:Yes, you ignore the wound, but you do not ignore the fact that the wound HAPPENED, which means you MUST trigger the other effects that happen when a model suffers an unsaved wound. If you do not do this, then you have RETROACTIVELY ignored the wound, which means you go back in time and remove it such that it never happened, which means FNP never triggered. How is this not sinking in? It cannot be both ways. You cannot retroactively ignore a wound (such that other abilities triggered from suffering an unsaved wound never occur) and then claim that FNP is immune to the retroactive removal of the wound. It MUST be sequential or the whole thing falls apart. The wound is suffered, ALL effects from it trigger including FNP, Entropic Strike, Acid Blood, Pinning, Etc...and if FNP is passed, the model does not remove the wound from its profile. End of story. Everything else happens but the model is still alive.

Ignoring that the wound happened because you succeeded with FNP does not require you to disallow FNP.

Again, you really roll pinning if you make all your FNP rolls? And you allow Acid Blood to work? Holy crap I must play against you - Acid Blood would actually be worth it.

Editing out a post that was meant for elsewhere.

Aldarionn wrote: you do not ignore the fact that the wound HAPPENED.

You actually have to ignore that the wound happened, otherwise a model with 1 wound would be removed as a casualty even if FNP was passed.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Sir_Prometheus: You keep making this claim that terms are not used and kept fairly specific in 40k; this is an untrue claim. Many abilities and effects trigger when a model "suffers an unsaved wound" That is exactly a specific Terminology usage. So is a "hit", so is "melta", so is "power weapon"; terms are used in 40k stop saying they are not.

Yes, I do keep on saying it. GW does use key-words sometimes, but they use them inconsistently and erratically. Truth is, I think they've been feeling the bite of more well-organized systems like warmachine biting at their heels, and they're trying to ape that, but they're bad at it. Many times GW will use a synonym for "unsaved wound", for instance, without actually saying it, and this causes a lot of confusion among those whoe think you can apply their rules in so technical manner.

The (now) classic example is the recent "is a Greater Daemon a Daemon?" argument, of most import to GK. Daemons from the the Chaos Marine codex had no special rule declaring them a "Daemon".

People trying to apply the rules in technical, key-word based manner would point out that the eldar Avatar had a very clear "daemon" rule on it. Since the Daemons in the Chaos book didn't, well obviously they weren't daemons.

Most people would then reply that's stupid, it doesn't have a "daemon" rule because it is so clearly a daemon, and to state such would just be silly.

Now, if this were Magic the Gathering, the technical folks would clearly be right. If you have a "red ork" card, and Type:Ork doesn't appear on it, then well, it's clearly not an ork. Maybe some species that just gets called and ork, commonly, but isn't.

Truth is, GW either figured that labeling Daemons "Daemons" was silly and unnecessary, or maybe they were just being lax and forgot about it.



Anyway, as we all know, the FAQ came out, and literally labeled every unit for which it had even been hinted that they might come from the warp in some way, a daemon. (such as DE mandrakes)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aldarionn wrote:Yes, you ignore the wound, but you do not ignore the fact that the wound HAPPENED, which means you MUST trigger the other effects that happen when a model suffers an unsaved wound. If you do not do this, then you have RETROACTIVELY ignored the wound, which means you go back in time and remove it such that it never happened, which means FNP never triggered. How is this not sinking in? It cannot be both ways. You cannot retroactively ignore a wound (such that other abilities triggered from suffering an unsaved wound never occur) and then claim that FNP is immune to the retroactive removal of the wound. It MUST be sequential or the whole thing falls apart. The wound is suffered, ALL effects from it trigger including FNP, Entropic Strike, Acid Blood, Pinning, Etc...and if FNP is passed, the model does not remove the wound from its profile. End of story. Everything else happens but the model is still alive.

Look, Aldrionn, I agreed with you on the reanimation protocols, you had a legit point that it was the same model, and they clearly had no saved the wound.

However, there is a legitimate argument that FNP constitutes a "save". If you make the FNP, it didn't happen.

Your attempts to invoke some timewarp craziness are meaningless, rules are not physics, nor even programming. It is possible that model that makes FNP still has suffered "unsaved wound"...............it's also possible, even likely in my opinion, that it has not.

Well since GW decided to word FNP as ignore the injury and not
1. Negate the wound
2. Avoid the wound
3. Nullify the wound
4. Save the wound
...
n. Cancel the wound

then RAW the wound happened. The injury may get or may not get ignored. That is beside the point. The wound happened and anything that triggers of it applies normally.

copper.talos wrote:Well since GW decided to word FNP as ignore the injury . . .The injury may get or may not get ignored.

/boggle

copper.talos wrote:Well since GW decided to word FNP as ignore the injury and not
1. Negate the wound
2. Avoid the wound
3. Nullify the wound
4. Save the wound
...
n. Cancel the wound

then RAW the wound happened. The injury may get or may not get ignored. That is beside the point. The wound happened and anything that triggers of it applies normally.

You don't look very smart by isolating words...

The wound happened but is ignored. If you trigger anything off that ignored wound, you have nt ignored it and have broken a rule.

Good you agree that the wound happened because that is the only check you need to make for activating ES. Ignored injuries is entirely different from saved wounds under any context, or word stretching.

copper.talos wrote:Good you agree

I am starting to understand what the problem is.

You can make all the fun you want of my English, I can even give you some of my old exam sheets. I am sure they'll crack you up. But you can't dispute that RAW an unsaved wound is different from ignored injury.