Entropic Strike help

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**

rigeld2 wrote:And as has been said - this will devolve into a heated argument. INAT has ruled that FNP stops ES, Hexrifle, et. al. and GW will likely never FAQ it.

Decide amongst your group.

Randall Turner wrote:When an innocent poster comes and asks a question, we've a bit more of an ethical obligation to give him a straight and complete answer.

Which is why I said what I said.

**Happyjew**

whembly wrote:

No really ya'll... I'm glad this discussion is remaining civil as other thread do devolve into mass hasteria and mayhem.... ahem...

Anyhoo... GAME ON!

"You're travelling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land where DR and nos agree, and everyone is civil. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, the Dakka Zone!" (cue Twilight Zone theme).

**DeathReaper**

Nos and I do agree on this point.

If you look at the context of FNP you will see that Injury = unsaved wound. since FNP says after a model suffers an unsaved wound roll a die 1-3 wound is taken as normal, 4-6 ignore the injury. It would read the same if it said 4-6 ignore it.

So injury is referencing wound, what wound? if you take an unsaved wound. So Injury = Wound = Unsaved wound.

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

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." (This quote provided by a grant from the nosferatu1001 foundation).

We have two things that happen Immediately. those being Remove Casualties, and Entropic Strike.

These two thing have to happen simultaneously, because they are worded the same.

ES, Necron Codex, page 29, second paragraph, first sentence: "any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses its armour save"

Remove casualties BRB P.24: "for every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound... for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

And finally FNP, BRB, Page 75, second sentence: "If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice."

So ES and Remove casualties have to happen simultaneously, since they both happen immediately upon failing an armor save thereby creating an unsaved wound.

FNP HAS to go before this otherwise you would be removed from the table as a casualty before you get to roll for FNP.

So before ES can be resolved we roll FNP, and on a 4-6 we have to Ignore that the Unsaved wound happened before anything else, and thus ES can not trigger, because if it does we have not ignored the Unsaved Wound.

For Further explanation Read this: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/412448.page

And this: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/401182.page

And this: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/380620.page

And this: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/331575.page

**Nemesor Dave**

DeathReaper wrote:Nos and I do agree on this point.

If you look at the context of FNP you will see that Injury = unsaved wound. since FNP says after a model suffers an unsaved wound roll a die 1-3 wound is taken as normal, 4-6 ignore the injury. It would read the same if it said 4-6 ignore it.

So injury is referencing wound, what wound? if you take an unsaved wound. So Injury = Wound = Unsaved wound.

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

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." (This quote provided by a grant from the nosferatu1001 foundation).

We have two things that happen Immediately. those being Remove Casualties, and Entropic Strike.

These two thing have to happen simultaneously, because they are worded the same.

ES, Necron Codex, page 29, second paragraph, first sentence: "any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses its armour save"

Remove casualties BRB P.24: "for every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound... for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

And finally FNP, BRB, Page 75, second sentence: "If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice."

So ES and Remove casualties have to happen simultaneously, since they both happen immediately upon failing an armor save thereby creating an unsaved wound.

FNP HAS to go before this otherwise you would be removed from the table as a casualty before you get to roll for FNP.

So before ES can be resolved we roll FNP, and on a 4-6 we have to Ignore that the Unsaved wound happened before anything else, and thus ES can not trigger, because if it does we have not ignored the Unsaved Wound.

For Further explanation Read this: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/412448.page

And this: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/401182.page

And this: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/380620.page

And this: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/331575.page

While creative, this does not solve the dilemma here.

Remove casualties BRB P.24: "for every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound... for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

This is action is prevented by FNP.
FNP - instead of removing the model immediately allows you to roll FNP for a model that has taken an unsaved wound.
Your entire argument falls down from there.

The chain of events goes like this:

1) model is allocated a wound.
2) save is rolled and failed leaving an unsaved wound that otherwise would remove the model
3) FNP and Entropic Strike simultaneously occur in response to the unsaved wound. Amour is lost and the model may or may not survive depending on the FNP roll.

I see Nos's point that FNP says the wound is ignored if the roll is successful. However - The wound is ignored, but it does not say all effects of the unsaved wound are ignored or reversed. Since FNP and Entropic Strike happen Simultaneously, the armour is already lost.

Side note: this actually came up last night with a cryptek Aeonstaff that has a similar wording - the effects happen when a model suffers an unsaved wound. I was playing against my friends Chaos army (plague marines) and simply asked others how they played it instead of trying to argue for what would be my advantage. As it turns out my gaming group plays it like the wound and all effects of the wound are ignored.

**DeathReaper**

Incorrect. The chain of events goes like this:

1) model is allocated a wound.
2) Save is rolled and failed creating an unsaved wound.
3) This unsaved wound would normally Immediately remove the model ES would normally Immediately remove the armor save. But we have FNP, so we must resolve FNP before Immediately removing the model, as FNP would do nothing if it came after this step.
4a) if FNP is made, we ignore the wound.
4b) If FNP is failed we immediately subtract 1 Wound from its profile (removing the model if that was its last wound) and Immediately remove the armor save.

As i have shown, ES and Remove Casualties occur simultaneously. FNP MUST be before this or FNP does nothing.

ES and Remove Casualties are worded the same way,

ES, Necron Codex, page 29, second paragraph, first sentence: "any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses its armour save"

Remove casualties BRB P.24: "for every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound... for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

So they both happen Immediately after suffering an unsaved wound, They both happen at the same time/Simultaneously.

This can not be disproved, as I have proof that they happen at the exact same time.

Dilemma Solved.

**Nemesor Dave**

DeathReaper wrote:Incorrect. The chain of events goes like this:

1) model is allocated a wound.
2) Save is rolled and failed creating an unsaved wound.
3) This unsaved wound would normally Immediately remove the model ES would normally Immediately remove the armor save. But we have FNP, so we must resolve FNP before Immediately removing the model, as FNP would do nothing if it came after this step.
4a) if FNP is made, we ignore the wound.
4b) If FNP is failed we immediately subtract 1 Wound from its profile (removing the model if that was its last wound) and Immediately remove the armor save.

As i have shown, ES and Remove Casualties occur simultaneously. FNP MUST be before this or FNP does nothing.

ES and Remove Casualties are worded the same way,

ES, Necron Codex, page 29, second paragraph, first sentence: "any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses its armour save"

Remove casualties BRB P.24: "for every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound... for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

You're missing the quote rule for FNP that says you roll if a model suffers an unsaved wound.

They are both caused by the same thing - the unsaved wound. ES and FNP happen simultaneously. They both occur before Remove Casualties.

In fact, often the events would be like this:

1) model failes it's save.
2) models armor is removed and FNP is rolled - lets say it is failed.
3) model is removed.

Against 1 wound models, many effects that occur against 1 wound models, still occur but are pointless because the model will usually be removed right after the effect.

Though I would agree FNP must occur before Remove Casualties, you fail to show FNP happens before ES. ES also happens before remove casualties though if the model is to be removed, the effect doesn't make any difference in the game.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
FnP (BRB p75) states "If a model suffers an unsaved wound, roll dice...." "On a 4, 5 or 6 the injury is ignored"

Removing the armor of a model is not an injury.

**Randall Turner**

I've always agreed with your assessment, Dave. (And remember, I did/do NOT necessarily agree with your assessment of other things Necron, I'm not going to advocate for a rule just because it benefits an army I play.) The more I read on this, and the more I browse the previous threads, the more I feel this INAT ruling may be a serious mistake: (well, for some value of "serious")

RB.75B.01 – Q: If ‘Feel No Pain’ successfully negates
a wound, does it still count as an ‘unsaved wound’
(for special rules that are triggered by unsaved
wounds)?
A: It does not as the wound is ignored (although remember
that ‘Feel No Pain’ cannot be used against wounds that
inflict ‘Instant Death’) [clarification].

It might be we need to start an equally serious, "this needs addressing" thread with strict definitions of terms and event flow. (And "infracts" for spamming/trolling to keep the thread clean.) Question though - how often does this come up in real play?

ps - After reading the 'nids "Acid Blood" special rule and FAQ's, imo it does not supply a relevant precedent. Other than further muddying the water vis a vis "unsaved wound" phrase usage. The INAT rulings clearly state that acid blood only applys to (W)ounds taken, ie...

TYR.84A.02 – Q: If a model with Acid Blood suffers
more unsaved wounds than it has Wounds left on its
profile, do these ‘extra’ wounds cause Acid Blood
attacks back on the enemy?
A: No, the Acid Blood rule only applies to Wounds the
creature actually suffers. Wounds in excess of what the
creature actually has, and those negated by ‘Feel No Pain’,
do not benefit from Acid Blood [clarification].

This is clearly an Acid Blood clarification, not an FNP general guideline (except inasmuch as it shows the use of "unsaved wound" in the AB special rule is ambiguous. Shock.)

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:ps - After reading the 'nids "Acid Blood" special rule and FAQ's, imo it does not supply a relevant precedent. Other than further muddying the water vis a vis "unsaved wound" phrase usage. The INAT rulings clearly state that acid blood only applys to (W)ounds taken, ie...

TYR.84A.02 – Q: If a model with Acid Blood suffers
more unsaved wounds than it has Wounds left on its
profile, do these ‘extra’ wounds cause Acid Blood
attacks back on the enemy?
A: No, the Acid Blood rule only applies to Wounds the
creature actually suffers. Wounds in excess of what the
creature actually has, and those negated by ‘Feel No Pain’,
do not benefit from Acid Blood [clarification].

This is clearly an Acid Blood clarification, not an FNP general guideline (except inasmuch as it shows the use of "unsaved wound" in the AB special rule is ambiguous. Shock.)

I moved your highlight to the area I was talking about when it was brought up. Since they've ruled on FNP in the RB section, bringing up AB is pointless. When I looked last, they hadn't, but had ruled on AB.

**Randall Turner**

What INAT is doing there, though, is saying that "unsaved wounds" in the 'nids codex special rule on Acid Blood actually means, (W)ounds taken by the model. Then, of course, FNP comes into play - it negates (W)ounds taken.

Again, this means "unsaved wounds" is interpreted differently for that special rule. (by INAT)

This is a good ruling. It doesn't apply to other usages of "unsaved wounds" though, only that particular special rule's usage of the phrase.

Again, any serious thread on this is going to have to be preceded by a "definition of terms" section. There's two or three definitions of "unsaved wound" floating around. And it's still going to be a furball even if we actively try to keep the noise level down.

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:What INAT is doing there, though, is saying that "unsaved wounds" in the 'nids codex special rule on Acid Blood actually means, (W)ounds taken by the model. Then, of course, FNP comes into play - it negates (W)ounds taken.

Your argument is that ES would still apply because of when it triggers, right?
edit: please just a yes or no, to keep it short

**DeathReaper**

Nemesor Dave wrote:They are both caused by the same thing - the unsaved wound. ES and FNP happen simultaneously. They both occur before Remove Casualties.

Though I would agree FNP must occur before Remove Casualties, you fail to show FNP happens before ES. ES also happens before remove casualties though if the model is to be removed, the effect doesn't make any difference in the game.

FnP (BRB p75) states "If a model suffers an unsaved wound, roll dice...." "On a 4, 5 or 6 the injury is ignored"

They are both caused by the same thing, but ES and FNP DO NOT happen simultaneously, as I have shown ES and Remove Casualties happen simultaneously. I have proven this, if you want to try and disprove it I will need page numbers.

You agree FNP Must occur before Remove Casualties, that is a step in the right direction. Remove Casualties happens immediately after suffering an unsaved wound, ES also happens immediately after suffering an unsaved wound. Proof that they occur at the same time, thus after FNP.

FnP (BRB p75) states "If a model suffers an unsaved wound, roll dice. On a 1-3 take the wound as normal (removing the model if it loses its final wound). On a 4, 5 or 6 the injury is ignored"

**whembly**

They are both caused by the same thing, but ES and FNP DO NOT happen simultaneously

Are they not triggered off the same event? You haven't disproved otherwise...

You agree FNP Must occur before Remove Casualties, that is a step in the right direction. Remove Casualties happens immediately after suffering an unsaved wound, ES also happens immediately after suffering an unsaved wound. Proof that they occur at the same time, thus after FNP.

I disagree with this... I don't see any rules supporting this statement.

The way I look at it is that "suffering an unsaved wound" is a distinct event. Thus, when this event occurs, any other rules comes into play... such as FNP, pinning, ES, characteristic test.

That event, and it's subsequent results still occurs and must be resolved. This is what the rules tell you what to do (permissive ruleset).

You then Remove Casualty as instructed by the rules (ie, failed FNP).

FnP (BRB p75) states "If a model suffers an unsaved wound, roll dice. On a 1-3 take the wound as normal (removing the model if it loses its final wound). On a 4, 5 or 6 the injury is ignored"

GW purposely chose the word "injury" here...and with that context, they did not mean injury is the same as "unsaved wound". Otherwise, they'd write the rule as following:

FnP (BRB p75 in alternate universe) states "If a model suffers an unsaved wound, roll dice. On a 1-3 take the wound as normal (removing the model if it loses its final wound). On a 4, 5 or 6 the unsaved wound is ignored"

Simply put, you are NOT told to ignore any spawned affects that are triggered off an "unsaved wound" event. Therefore, the rules tell you to resolve those secondary effect in the exact same manner when the FnP tests are taken.

That's why I've taken the position that FnP tests and all other effects triggered off of the "unsaved wound" test are NOT mutually exclusive. I.E., they all happens at the same time, regardless of the FnP outcome.

**rigeld2**

whembly wrote:The way I look at it is that "suffering an unsaved wound" is a distinct event. Thus, when this event occurs, any other rules comes into play... such as FNP, pinning, ES, characteristic test.

Including subtracting one from your Wound profile?
FNP must occur before Remove Casualties. If it doesn't, it does nothing. At all.

**Randall Turner**

rigeld2 wrote:
Randall Turner wrote:What INAT is doing there, though, is saying that "unsaved wounds" in the 'nids codex special rule on Acid Blood actually means, (W)ounds taken by the model. Then, of course, FNP comes into play - it negates (W)ounds taken.

Your argument is that ES would still apply because of when it triggers, right?
edit: please just a yes or no, to keep it short

Okay, I'll play the yes/no game.

No. It would still apply, but not just because of where it triggrs.(that's as short as I can get and be "correct"

DeathReaper wrote:They are both caused by the same thing, but ES and FNP DO NOT happen simultaneously, as I have shown ES and Remove Casualties happen simultaneously. I have proven this, if you want to try and disprove it I will need page numbers.

I don't think the word "prove" means what you think it means.

Fail logic. Fail point:

3) This unsaved wound would normally Immediately remove the model ES would normally Immediately remove the armor save. But we have FNP, so we must resolve FNP before Immediately removing the model, as FNP would do nothing if it came after this step.
ES and Remove Casualties are worded the same way,

your simplified premise/conclusion summary:
"unsaved wound" triggers ES, FNP, and (W)ounds.
FNP must precede (W)ounds.
ES rule worded as (W)ound rule.
FNP must precede ES <--- FAIL LOGIC

This is because you left out why FNP precedes (W)ounds, ie, FNP rule specifically states it precedes (W)ounds. There is no RAW making the same sequential requirement for ES, they're non-conflicting, hence they happen simultaneously.

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Randall Turner wrote:What INAT is doing there, though, is saying that "unsaved wounds" in the 'nids codex special rule on Acid Blood actually means, (W)ounds taken by the model. Then, of course, FNP comes into play - it negates (W)ounds taken.

Your argument is that ES would still apply because of when it triggers, right?
edit: please just a yes or no, to keep it short
Okay, I'll play the yes/no game. No. It would still apply, but not just because of where it triggrs.(that's as short as I can get and be "correct"

I wasn't trying to play a game - it's just that you can be pretty verbose sometimes

(no offense, just something I noticed)

This is because you left out why FNP precedes (W)ounds, ie, FNP rule specifically states it precedes (W)ounds. There is no RAW making the same sequential requirement for ES, they're non-conflicting, hence they happen simultaneously.

They don't happen simultaneously. ES only removes the armor save if the casualty wasn't removed, Hexrifle only prompts for a characteristic test if the model is still alive, etc (otherwise you'd be required to do a lot of bookkeeping for single wound models when they died). FNP must happen before Remove Casualties, the others happen simultaneously or after.

Also, in a permissive rules set, they need permission to happen in a different order - FNP has that implied (because it stops Remove Casualties) while none of the others do.

edit:

BA Assault Marine fails an armor save from an ES attack in range of a Priest.
Remove Casualties: For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. ... Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty.
Entropic Strike: Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses its armor save for the remainder of the battle

Both say immediately. Therefore they happen simultaneously. FNP absolutely must happen before Remove Casualties. Therefore FNP must happen before ES - since ES has no permission to act sooner than RC.

**Nemesor Dave**

rigeld2 wrote:
whembly wrote:The way I look at it is that "suffering an unsaved wound" is a distinct event. Thus, when this event occurs, any other rules comes into play... such as FNP, pinning, ES, characteristic test.

Including subtracting one from your Wound profile?
FNP must occur before Remove Casualties. If it doesn't, it does nothing. At all.

The rules break down at the point you are trying to make.

BRB p. 24 Remove Casualties "...for each unsaved wound a model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

Strictly speaking if it happens "immediately" then nothing may come before it and FNP doesn't actually work. To logically get past this we must all agree - Remove Casualties comes after all other "immediate" effects in response to unsaved wounds.

This is an allowance we must all make in order not to break FNP and many other rules.

**rigeld2**

Nemesor Dave wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
whembly wrote:The way I look at it is that "suffering an unsaved wound" is a distinct event. Thus, when this event occurs, any other rules comes into play... such as FNP, pinning, ES, characteristic test.

Including subtracting one from your Wound profile?
FNP must occur before Remove Casualties. If it doesn't, it does nothing. At all.

The rules break down at the point you are trying to make.

BRB p. 24 Remove Casualties "...for each unsaved wound a model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

Strictly speaking if it happens "immediately" then nothing may come before it and FNP doesn't actually work. To logically get past this we must all agree - Remove Casualties comes after all other "immediate" effects in response to unsaved wounds.

This is an allowance we must all make in order not to break FNP and many other rules.

Not true. You're moving all immediate occurrences before Remove Casualties - this changes rules that don't need to be changed for FNP to work.
Logically the only thing that needs to be changed is that FNP is moved to happen before RC.

**Randall Turner**

rigeld2 wrote:They don't happen simultaneously. ES only removes the armor save if the casualty wasn't removed, Hexrifle only prompts for a characteristic test if the model is still alive, etc (otherwise you'd be required to do a lot of bookkeeping for single wound models when they died).

Okay, you can't make a "takes less bookkeeping" argument.

In the grim future, there is only war - no bookkeeping!

Expand on the hexrifle example. The best argument you have is one for consistency. The problem there, though, is that the hexrifle's effect is to cause (W)ounds - therefore imposing a sequential dependency with FNP's "disregard (W)ounds" wording. None such exists for ES.

(more i look at this, more consistent allowing ES seems.)

Edit: hey guys, fun as this is, I can't spend any more time today on it, must... work... maybe this evening.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:Not true. You're moving all immediate occurrences before Remove Casualties - this changes rules that don't need to be changed for FNP to work.
Logically the only thing that needs to be changed is that FNP is moved to happen before RC.

Edit2: nope, merely placing FNP in the chain before "immediates" that cause (W)ounds, just like its rule requires. There is no rule placing FNP before the other "immediates" that don't cause (W)ounds.

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:They don't happen simultaneously. ES only removes the armor save if the casualty wasn't removed, Hexrifle only prompts for a characteristic test if the model is still alive, etc (otherwise you'd be required to do a lot of bookkeeping for single wound models when they died).

Okay, you can't make a "takes less bookkeeping" argument. In the grim future, there is only war - no bookkeeping!

In Soviet Imperium, books keep YUO!

Expand on the hexrifle example. The best argument you have is one for consistency. The problem there, though, is that the hexrifle's effect is to cause (W)ounds - therefore imposing a sequential dependency with FNP's "disregard (W)ounds" wording. None such exists for ES.

That's not it's effect - on an unsaved wound, take a (wound?) char test - if you fail, ID.
ES - on an unsaved wound, lose armor.

In both instances, the prerequisite is an unsaved wound. Just like Remove Casualties and Feel no Pain.
Moving just ES (and FnP obviously, as it doesn't work without moving) before RC isn't consistent.
Moving ES before RC at all doesn't make sense - you'd have to remove the armor on even a single wound model, and then you get into whether or not a Warrior that stands back up has lost his armor or not... different thread.

ES cannot trigger at the same time as FnP, it must trigger after.
If you allow the unsaved wound to trigger ES, you're not ignoring the wound as FnP requires (injury must mean wound, as otherwise FnP does nothing - because an unsaved wound triggers RC).

**DeathReaper**

whembly wrote:
Deathreaper wrote:They are both caused by the same thing, but ES and FNP DO NOT happen simultaneously

Are they not triggered off the same event? You haven't disproved otherwise...

They are triggered off the same event, but ES happens immediately after suffering an unsaved wound (Just like remove casualties) so FNP MUST go before both things that happen immediately after suffering an unsaved wound. If FNP does not go off before Remove Casualties then FNP does nothing.

whembly wrote:
Deathreaper wrote:
You agree FNP Must occur before Remove Casualties, that is a step in the right direction. Remove Casualties happens immediately after suffering an unsaved wound, ES also happens immediately after suffering an unsaved wound. Proof that they occur at the same time, thus after FNP.

I disagree with this... I don't see any rules supporting this statement.

So you do not agree that FNP Must occur before Remove Casualties? so you are saying that FNP does nothing? Interesting take on it. (Also Incorrect).

Randall Turner wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:They are both caused by the same thing, but ES and FNP DO NOT happen simultaneously, as I have shown ES and Remove Casualties happen simultaneously. I have proven this, if you want to try and disprove it I will need page numbers.
I don't think the word "prove" means what you think it means. Fail logic. Fail point:

your simplified premise/conclusion summary:
"unsaved wound" triggers ES, FNP, and (W)ounds.
FNP must precede (W)ounds.
ES rule worded as (W)ound rule.
FNP must precede ES <--- FAIL LOGIC

This is because you left out why FNP precedes (W)ounds, ie, FNP rule specifically states it precedes (W)ounds. There is no RAW making the same sequential requirement for ES, they're non-conflicting, hence they happen simultaneously.

You failing to understand the logic does not mean it is "FAIL LOGIC" as you put it.

Here is the logic, though I have said it before:

Remove Casualties happens immediately after suffering an unsaved wound.
ES happens immediately after suffering an unsaved wound.

Both of these MUST happen immediately after suffering an unsaved wound. This means these two events are simultaneous, as they both happen immediately after suffering an unsaved wound. (Is this an example of what proven means?)

FNP MUST happen before RC, because it would do nothing if it happened after RC.

ES and RC both happen immediately after suffering an unsaved wound, which happens after the FNP roll, as I have proven.

Let me ask you this, where does FNP go in the order of operations below? Is it before step 1, after step1/before step 2, after step 2, or somewhere else?

Step 1: Fail an armor save creating an Unsaved wound
Step 2: immediately after suffering an unsaved wound Remove Casualties and Trigger ES reducing the AV to -

**rigeld2**

DeathReaper wrote:Let me ask you this, where does FNP go in the order of operations below? Is it before step 1, after step1/before step 2, after step 2, or somewhere else?

Step 1: Fail an armor save creating an Unsaved wound
Step 2: immediately after suffering an unsaved wound Remove Casualties and Trigger ES reducing the AV to -

If I'm understanding correctly, his interpretation is:

Step 1: Fail an armor save creating an Unsaved wound
Step 2: immediately after suffering an unsaved wound roll for FnP and Trigger ES reducing the AV to -
Step 3: Remove Casualties

edit: meaning FnP pushed RC down the stack, instead of inserting itself before your step 2.

**Randall Turner**

rigeld2 wrote:
Randall Turner wrote:Expand on the hexrifle example. The best argument you have is one for consistency. The problem there, though, is that the hexrifle's effect is to cause (W)ounds - therefore imposing a sequential dependency with FNP's "disregard (W)ounds" wording. None such exists for ES.
That's not it's effect - on an unsaved wound, take a (wound?) char test - if you fail, ID.

Hexrifle causes a number of (W)ounds equal to the remaining (W)ounds on the model, partner.

ES doesn't.

Edit: causal chain above - "unsaved wounds" fires off multiple branches. FnP is inserted in the (W)ounds branch only.

**DeathReaper**

I believe that is what his interpretation is.

I just do not see any rules to back up his interpretation, and he has not cited any.

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Randall Turner wrote:Expand on the hexrifle example. The best argument you have is one for consistency. The problem there, though, is that the hexrifle's effect is to cause (W)ounds - therefore imposing a sequential dependency with FNP's "disregard (W)ounds" wording. None such exists for ES.
That's not it's effect - on an unsaved wound, take a (wound?) char test - if you fail, ID.

Hexrifle causes a number of (W)ounds equal to the remaining (W)ounds on the model, partner.

ES doesn't.

Apologies - I misremembered then. Partner.

And the effect is 100% irrelevant. The only thing that matters, in this case, is the trigger. Partner.

**Randall Turner**

Do not make me open up a can of rules whoop-ass on you.

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:Edit: causal chain above - "unsaved wounds" fires off multiple branches. FnP is inserted in the (W)ounds branch only.

Rules basis for this?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Randall Turner wrote:Do not make me open up a can of rules whoop-ass on you.

Um. Okay? Partner.

**Randall Turner**

rigeld2 wrote:And the effect is 100% irrelevant. The only thing that matters, in this case, is the trigger. Partner.

Seriously? We ignore rules that define sequential dependencies? While we're arguing sequence? SERIOUSLY?

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:And the effect is 100% irrelevant. The only thing that matters, in this case, is the trigger. Partner.
Seriously? We ignore rules that define sequential dependencies? While we're arguing sequence? SERIOUSLY?

Fine - I don't think it's that big a deal, but substitute Pinning for Hexrifle. There - done. Happy?
edit: So I just googled for the rules on Hexrifles - in case they had been posted anywhere...

http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2011/10/rulings-dark-eldar-hex-rifles-vs-feel-no-pain/

So ... what are the rules for Hexrifles again? I'd like an apology. There's no dependency if that citation is correct.

(if it's not correct, you can ignore that)

**Randall Turner**

rigeld2 wrote:
Randall Turner wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:And the effect is 100% irrelevant. The only thing that matters, in this case, is the trigger. Partner.
Seriously? We ignore rules that define sequential dependencies? While we're arguing sequence? SERIOUSLY?

Fine - I don't think it's that big a deal, but substitute Pinning for Hexrifle. There - done. Happy?
edit: So I just googled for the rules on Hexrifles - in case they had been posted anywhere...

http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2011/10/rulings-dark-eldar-hex-rifles-vs-feel-no-pain/

So ... what are the rules for Hexrifles again? I'd like an apology. There's no dependency if that citation is correct.

(if it's not correct, you can ignore that)

1) Hexrifle has an INAT ruling stating its effects don't take place if an FNP test is passed. You weren't aware of that? I assumed you were, and that's why you chose it as an example of an immediate effect that follows FNP.
2) Pinning has no such ruling. HUGE difference right there, clever boy.
3) The reason the Hexrifle has a sequential dependency FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INAT RULING is that its effect involves loss of wounds - ID, which is equivalent to losing the number of (W)ounds remaining on the model. OOPS!! Dependency time. Follow the bouncing ball here, "partner" - the INAT ruling justification is the Hexrifle's effect is ID for the model. ID is the loss of all remaining (W)ounds for the model. FNP test passage negates loss of (W)ounds, hence must be taken before any such effect.
4) Are you aware that the link you posted argues EXACTLY what we're (whembly, nemesor dave, and I) maintaining, and goes AGAINST what you're maintaining as well as the INAT ruling on hexrifles? Did you even read it? Jezzzus.. (see below)
5) I'm hardly going to apologize for your inability to follow a discussion thread, I'd be doing little more than posting "sorry, you misunderstood".

(extract from rigeld's link...)

"Next we note that FNP is also triggered when a model “suffers an unsaved wound”. So the same event triggers both the hexrifle’s ability and FNP’s ability. Now it has been argued, un-persuasively, that the hexrifle should “go first” because it is the shooting player’s turn and therefore his choice as to the order of operations. It has also been argued, equally un-persuasively that the FNP rule should “go first” because it is part of the wound resolution process. Each of these arguments is unpersuasive because neither has a basis in the language of the rules. There is simply no rule that we are aware of which establishes an order of operations in a situation like this one. We must assume that both effects happen at the same time because both are triggered by the same event."

Do you somehow not understand what that means? Again? Want another apology? Partner?

**rigeld2**

Randall Turner wrote:1) Hexrifle has an INAT ruling stating its effects don't take place if an FNP test is passed. You weren't aware of that? I assumed you were, and that's why you chose it as an example of an immediate effect that follows FNP.

Um. When was the last time I brought up INAT - the Acid Blood thing? That was over and done with.

2) Pinning has no such ruling. HUGE difference right there, clever boy.

Um. Okay.

3) The reason the Hexrifle has a sequential dependency FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INAT RULING is that its effect involves loss of wounds - ID, which is equivalent to losing the number of (W)ounds remaining on the model. OOPS!! Dependency time. Follow the bouncing ball here, "partner" - the INAT ruling justification is the Hexrifle's effect is ID for the model. ID is the loss of all remaining (W)ounds for the model. FNP test passage negates loss of (W)ounds, hence must be taken before any such effect.

O... kay. It's not a dependency, really - but feel free to think it is.

4) Are you aware that the link you posted argues EXACTLY what we're (whembly, nemesor dave, and I) maintaining, and goes AGAINST what you're maintaining as well as the INAT ruling on hexrifles? Did you even read it? Jezzzus.. (see below)

Yes, I am. I'm also aware that I disagree completely with him, was only using the link for citation of the Hexrifle rule, and that he doesn't address that his argument requires Remove Casualties to be processed at the same time as Feel no Pain.

5) I'm hardly going to apologize for your inability to follow a discussion thread, I'd be doing little more than posting "sorry, you misunderstood".

I'm pretty sure you're the one not following the thread - if you think I still care about the INAT decision, you're wrong. I haven't said anything about that in a while.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/437941.page#4061322
I should have edited the word INAT out of your quote there - because I wasn't addressing the INAT ruling at all. And that's where this whole discussion started.

Do you somehow not understand what that means? Again? Want another apology? Partner?

I understand exactly what it means. And if you're parsing it that way, then FnP does nothing for single wound models.

Also - you started the "partner" thing. Please stop. It's become annoying. Also, I haven't been talking down to you - or have been trying not to. Please stop doing so to me.