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.

It seems that a lot of people are following KK in the ruling. But KK really didn't prove anything, beside printing rules and explaining how they work, I have yet to see a rule from him that would tell us that FNP must be done before the rest of the thing that are trigger at an unsaved wound.

All his arguments are base on the fact that if fnp is happening at the same time as everything else, and that one odf those thing is to remove the model, that fnp must happens before otherwise you would remove the model anyway and fnp would be useless, right?

I'm sorry but this is an opinion and is in no case base on a rule.

You know why this reasoning does not make any sense? Because if it were true that an unsaved wound automatically trigger remove a model, then a good part of the rule book would then be useless, and every game of wh40k ever played, this rule have been broken.

I mean, Eternal warrior is now useless, instant death doesn't do anything anymore and all the wound allocations is now pretty useless too. And what about all those models with more that 1 wounds, they are pretty useless too.

If n unsaved wounds automatically triggers the remove a model, then why care if a model has 3 wounds. It will be dead at the first one, everytime.

So you see, you cannot base anything on the fact that it is written in the first page of the book the basic sequence on a turn. SO why did they wrote those lines in the book? You see, when you have a game that is complex and have all those exceptions and rules that bypass others and everything, you don't have the choice of starting with the basis of the game so people will easily understand, and then add layers of stuff on that basis as you o deeper in the brb. This is logic as it's simplest form.

So what this means is that the remove as casualty is irrelevant in this case. And it also means that ES, pinning, fnp and all those rules that are triggered y an unsaved wound are test at the same time. So yes, even if you pass your fnp roll, you can still be pinned or lose your save.

Unless someone comes up with a rule somewhere saying fnp is roll separately, it is not roll before the rest, but roll like the brb tell us, which is at the same time of the other effect of an unsaved wound.

Copper - sigh, rather than restate the arguments for what, the 7th time? now, I'll just ask you to go back and actually read and understand them, and perhaps actually use rules to refutet hem

You havent refuted, as in made a rules based argument, against a single argument yet. Not a damn thing.

Regardless of the fair assumption that the Entropically struck RP model returns with no armour , the practicalities on the tabletop are cumbersome , as especially in a large unit those models with no armour would need to be marked somehow , and keeping track would be most awkward .

Dr. Delorean wrote:

The problem with saying that injury != unsaved wound is that now you have an unsaved wound to apply. Injury must mean unsaved wound for FNP to do anything. So a successful FNP ignores the unsaved wound.

I guess the simplest way I can explain where I stand on this issue is to explain it like this: An unsaved wound -becomes- an injury, if you will, and Feel No Pain stops that process of Unsaved Wound -> Injury. So an unsaved wound is suffered, but the model is not injured by it. So yeah, you apply the unsaved wound but then ignore the fact it's supposed to reduce your Wounds, because Feel No Pain says that you should.

The issue with this sequence is that even if an injury were not an unsaved wound, you remove a casualty for each unsaved wound the unit suffers. If an unsaved wound becomes an injury that you ignore, you still remove a casualty because you have suffered an unsaved wound. Kommisar Kel and Nosferatu have pretty well shown their case that an Injury and an Unsaved Wound are the same thing, and thus FNP tells you to ignore the Unsaved Wound, but the argument should be that if you have rolled for FNP, you have not ignored the Unsaved Wound any more than you would have if you rolled for Entropic Strike, Acid Blood, Pinning, or any other ability that is caused by having suffered an Unsaved Wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

virtualsniper wrote:It seems that a lot of people are following KK in the ruling. But KK really didn't prove anything, beside printing rules and explaining how they work, I have yet to see a rule from him that would tell us that FNP must be done before the rest of the thing that are trigger at an unsaved wound.

All his arguments are base on the fact that if fnp is happening at the same time as everything else, and that one odf those thing is to remove the model, that fnp must happens before otherwise you would remove the model anyway and fnp would be useless, right?

I'm sorry but this is an opinion and is in no case base on a rule.

You know why this reasoning does not make any sense? Because if it were true that an unsaved wound automatically trigger remove a model, then a good part of the rule book would then be useless, and every game of wh40k ever played, this rule have been broken.

I mean, Eternal warrior is now useless, instant death doesn't do anything anymore and all the wound allocations is now pretty useless too. And what about all those models with more that 1 wounds, they are pretty useless too.

If n unsaved wounds automatically triggers the remove a model, then why care if a model has 3 wounds. It will be dead at the first one, everytime.

So you see, you cannot base anything on the fact that it is written in the first page of the book the basic sequence on a turn. SO why did they wrote those lines in the book? You see, when you have a game that is complex and have all those exceptions and rules that bypass others and everything, you don't have the choice of starting with the basis of the game so people will easily understand, and then add layers of stuff on that basis as you o deeper in the brb. This is logic as it's simplest form.

So what this means is that the remove as casualty is irrelevant in this case. And it also means that ES, pinning, fnp and all those rules that are triggered y an unsaved wound are test at the same time. So yes, even if you pass your fnp roll, you can still be pinned or lose your save.

Unless someone comes up with a rule somewhere saying fnp is roll separately, it is not roll before the rest, but roll like the brb tell us, which is at the same time of the other effect of an unsaved wound.

Your argument here doesn't add anything. You have failed to read the section on Casualties which clearly separates one Wound models from multi-Wound models. If a model with one Wound suffers an Unsaved Wound it is removed as a casualty. If you read further it details that if a model with multiple Wounds suffers an Unsaved Wound, it removes one wound from its Wounds profile. If it removes its last Wound it is removed as a casualty.

That is because yo do not ignore the unsaved wound until you pass FNP, which is after you are told to roll for FNP, so once you pass FNP, from that point on, you ignore the unsaved wound.

So you are allowed to roll for FNP, then if you pass you ignore the unsaved wound and continue with your game, there is no reason to check if you were now allowed to roll for FNP, since that unsaved wound is now being ignored.

to check for or trigger any abilities off of a wound you are ignoring is breaking the rules.

Your argument here doesn't add anything. You have failed to read the section on Casualties which clearly separates one Wound models from multi-Wound models. If a model with one Wound suffers an Unsaved Wound it is removed as a casualty. If you read further it details that if a model with multiple Wounds suffers an Unsaved Wound, it removes one wound from its Wounds profile. If it removes its last Wound it is removed as a casualty.


Thank you for proving my point. There is nothing that tell us in the step that it only applied to single wound model. They don't even say to remove a model, they just say that it takes a casualty.

So the basic step is actually override later in the book by multi wounds model. Same as fnp, it is overriding those same step, for another reason. Who say they can do it for one thing and not another?

Anyway, I won't post anymore in this topic since it is going nowhere. If you want to play the game by inventing new rules, sequences, or don't follow the one in the brb, that is your choice.

virtualsniper wrote:Your argument here doesn't add anything. You have failed to read the section on Casualties which clearly separates one Wound models from multi-Wound models. If a model with one Wound suffers an Unsaved Wound it is removed as a casualty. If you read further it details that if a model with multiple Wounds suffers an Unsaved Wound, it removes one wound from its Wounds profile. If it removes its last Wound it is removed as a casualty.


Thank you for proving my point. There is nothing that tell us in the step that it only applied to single wound model. They don't even say to remove a model, they just say that it takes a casualty.

So the basic step is actually override later in the book by multi wounds model. Same as fnp, it is overriding those same step, for another reason. Who say they can do it for one thing and not another?

Anyway, I won't post anymore in this topic since it is going nowhere. If you want to play the game by inventing new rules, sequences, or don't follow the one in the brb, that is your choice.

Actually I misread your argument, so my apologies. I was under the impression that your original post was citing that taking an Unsaved Wound triggers Removing Casualties, which is what KK has been saying. Clearly that is not the case except for single wound models. The second half of your post sounded as though you were applying RC to multi-wound models suffering an unsaved wound, and because it was early and I hadn't had my coffee, your point didn't register properly.

To be clear, an Unsaved Wound only triggers Remove Casualties on one-wound models. An Unsaved Wound on a multi-wound model removes a Wound from its profile and, when it loses its last wound, then Remove Casualties is triggered.

That said, I think you might be mis-interpreting KK's argument. An Unsaved Wound DOES in fact trigger Remove Casualties, even if it is treated differently for single-wound and multi-wound models, and KK is stating that because of this, FNP must happen before RC. Personally I think his interpretation is reading too much into a poorly written passage. There is no evidence, as you say, that any effect caused by an unsaved wound actually happens before or after any other effect caused by an unsaved wound. Logic would give us intent, but RAW does not care about intent. RAW, all effects that happen upon suffering an unsaved wound happen at exactly the same time, so the model would be removed and FNP would do nothing. Clearly this is wrong, and as I have been saying all along, it needs an FAQ or a rewrite. If you apply an order and play it so that FNP happens before all other effects, you still have the issue of FNP telling you to ignore the cause of FNP.

It doesn't matter that FNP is taken after the unsaved wound is suffered. FNP itself tells you to ignore the injury (IE the unsaved wound), which means it never happened, and if you perform ANY action caused by suffering an unsaved wound, you have not ignored the wound, and FNP is no exception. If the Unsaved Wound never happened, then FNP could not have been rolled for, and if you roll for FNP, the unsaved wound clearly happened (which means other effects caused by it will trigger). This is the second reason that this needs FAQ, the first being that a one-wound model with FNP (or a multi-wound model with only one wound remaining) never actually gets to roll for FNP since Remove Casualties happens at the same time, unless you invent some kind of order based on intent (which is not RAW).

There will almost certainly be no fix for this until 6th edition. Enough people play it based on intent and are willing to dice off over differing opinions that GW likely doesn't see the need to re-write their rules with only about 6-7 months left before the new release. If this had been pointed out a month or two after 5th ed released they might have dealt with it, but so far as I can tell it only came up after the release of the Dark Eldar codex.

Aldarionn wrote:you still have the issue of FNP telling you to ignore the cause of FNP.

It doesn't matter that FNP is taken after the unsaved wound is suffered. FNP itself tells you to ignore the injury (IE the unsaved wound), which means it never happened, and if you perform ANY action caused by suffering an unsaved wound, you have not ignored the wound, and FNP is no exception. If the Unsaved Wound never happened, then FNP could not have been rolled for, and if you roll for FNP, the unsaved wound clearly happened (which means other effects caused by it will trigger). This is the second reason that this needs FAQ, the first being that a one-wound model with FNP (or a multi-wound model with only one wound remaining) never actually gets to roll for FNP since Remove Casualties happens at the same time, unless you invent some kind of order based on intent (which is not RAW).

It is not an issue at all.

you check for FNP upon an Unsaved wound, make your FNP roll and after the roll you Ignore that the Unsaved wound happened.

you do not check to see if you could have taken a FNP roll, now that you made your FNP roll, because you are Ignoring the Unsaved wound.

The Unsaved wound happened until you are told to ignore it. Then you ignore it and it does not matter if you could have rolled for FNP or not, because we are ignoring the Unsaved wound.

The unsaved wound either happened or it did not. If it happened, then everything associated with it happens. If it did not happen, then nothing associated with it happens. If you ignore it, then it should be treated as if it did not happen, and if it did not happen, then FNP could not have been rolled for in the first place. There is a continuity error there, and it seems as if you and I will forever disagree on this point. You seem to believe that FNP is exempt from the requirement that you ignore the wound. I don't see it this way and I think it needs fixed. It literally comes down to being that simple.

So I propose we drop it and wait for 6th edition and if GW screws the pooch with this ability again we can continue arguing over it.

Aldarionn wrote:The unsaved wound either happened or it did not. If it happened, then everything associated with it happens. If it did not happen, then nothing associated with it happens. If you ignore it, then it should be treated as if it did not happen, and if it did not happen, then FNP could not have been rolled for in the first place. There is a continuity error there, and it seems as if you and I will forever disagree on this point. You seem to believe that FNP is exempt from the requirement that you ignore the wound. I don't see it this way and I think it needs fixed. It literally comes down to being that simple.

So I propose we drop it and wait for 6th edition and if GW screws the pooch with this ability again we can continue arguing over it.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a "continuity error" or "paradox" isn't allowed by the rules. It is. It even exists in the rules - check out vehicle cover saves. It literally is that simple.

This is stupidly easy to argue...

FNP is not a save, therefore it cannot ever reverse the 'unsaved wound' result. It simply prevents the wound from actually doing anything. It did not erase the 'unsaved wound' event.

Firstly, lets prove that FNP is not a save. It triggers off an unsaved wound. I think we can all agree that this is true. Therefore, if the wound was unsaved, FNP cannot possibly be a save since the wound could not be 'unsaved' if there was a FNP roll was still being taken.

No where in FNP does it state that it is a save. It is always mentioned as "this ability"

Given that it is not a save, you can then state that both abilities would go off whenever an unsaved wound is taken. Regardless of the fact that FNP prevents the wound, an unsaved wound was still taken and ES still goes off.

In short, the trigger is failing your saving throw so the order of operations goes like this:

Fail saving throw
ES and FNP both go off
Armor is now AP-. Make an FNP roll.


Let's illustrate this with an example. You and your friend are watching a light. Each of you has a specific instruction. When the light turns off, you're told to stand up. Your friend is told that when the light turns off he should turn it back on.

The light turns off. What happens? Obviously your friend will turn it back on, but the light DID turn off, so you stand up. The act of your friend turning the light back on does not prevent your action of standing up.

So too does this apply for FNP and ES. An unsaved wound occurs, ES goes off AND you get an FNP roll.

Yes FNP says you ignore the wound, but the triggering action for FNP is taking an unsaved wound. It does not state that the unsaved wound does not occur. It states, and I quote, "On a 4, 5 or 6, the injury is
ignored and the model continues fighting" Ignoring something is very different than it never occurring.

Arguing otherwise would involve time-travel as you have an event in the now effecting another event in the now that is based off a trigger in the past. In order for this to be possible FNP would need to occur BEFORE the triggering action of ES. This is obviously not true as they have exactly the same triggering condition. Therefore, the triggering condition happens and then both abilities go off.

WanderingFox wrote:Given that it is not a save, you can then state that both abilities would go off whenever an unsaved wound is taken. Regardless of the fact that FNP prevents the wound, an unsaved wound was still taken and ES still goes off.

And the trigger for Remove Casualties is an unsaved wound. Are you saying that RC will trigger at the same time?

No. If you look at the shooting phase ordering, You suffer an unsaved wound in Step 5 (take saving throws), but you do not remove the model until step 6 (remove casualties).

Therefore, anything that actually triggers off an unsaved wound would happen at the end of step 5, not in step 6.

If the BRB stated that these happened in the same step then you would be entirely correct. It, however, does not.

Take saves -> Unsaved wounds occur -> Abilities triggered of taking an unsaved wound occur -> Wounds are caused based on the number of unsaved wounds.

As you can see FNP clearly happens BEFORE remove casualties does, and in this case functions exactly as how I stated it would have to in order for ES to not function. Since FNP triggers and resolves fully before remove casualties, there is no longer a wound to remove a model with.

By contrast, FNP and ES occur simultaneously and FNP does not outright revert the condition of the unsaved wound, but rather negates its effects. Therefore both ES and FNP go off.

Note that FNP says that the "injury" ie. wound is ignored. It does not, and never has, stated that the triggering condition of gaining an unsaved wound ceases to have occurred. The second you gain an unsaved wound it triggers two completely independent events.

Aldarionn wrote:The unsaved wound either happened or it did not. If it happened, then everything associated with it happens. If it did not happen, then nothing associated with it happens. If you ignore it, then it should be treated as if it did not happen, and if it did not happen, then FNP could not have been rolled for in the first place. There is a continuity error there, and it seems as if you and I will forever disagree on this point. You seem to believe that FNP is exempt from the requirement that you ignore the wound. I don't see it this way and I think it needs fixed. It literally comes down to being that simple.

So I propose we drop it and wait for 6th edition and if GW screws the pooch with this ability again we can continue arguing over it.

FNP is not exempt, but by the time you pass FNP and ignore the wound, your FNP roll is over. It does not matter if FNP creates a paradox.

once a save is failed you roll for FNP, if you pass your FNP roll, from that point on you ignore the unsaved wound.

To let ES remove the armor save is not ignoring the unsaved wound, since you are triggering effects off of the unsaved wound we are supposed to ignore.

Injury = unsaved wound.

FNP is not a save. FNP does not prevent an unsaved wound. It mitigates the effects of it in the remove casualties step of combat.

The unsaved wound STILL OCCURS. FNP just says "ignore the wound on a 4+" It does not state that the unsaved wound never occurred. See my previous example of simultaneous occurrences.

I never said FNP was a save.

The unsaved wound still occurs until we pass our FNP then we ignore it.

If we ignore the unsaved wound, we pretend it never happened.

To take effects into account off of something we are pretending never happened is breaking the rules.

Unless you are using an incorrect definition of ignore, then I could see how you would be confused by that part.

umm you are ignoring the part about taking a model off the board... not ignoring the unsaved wound...

"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 and the model continues fighting."

Lets look at phrase. The second sentence mentions something is ignored. This is obviously mutually exclusive to it not being ignored (no die result causes it to be both not ignored and ignored at the same time). That means that rolling a 4,5,6 is the opposite of rolling a 1,2,3. I think we can all agree there.

Well rolling a 1,2,3 states that you take the wound as normal. This is a clear implication that fnp deals, not with the 'unsaved wound' but rather with the impending result of gaining said unsaved wound. Ergo, on a 4,5,6 you do not apply the effect of reducing the models wound count by 1.

No where in the FNP rules does it say that the event of gaining an unsaved wound is negated. In fact it only mentions the phrase 'unsaved wound' once, and that is in the part detailing the triggering of FNP.

If FNP ignored an unsaved wound in the manner you suggest it would never work as it would 'ignore' (ie. negate in your usage) it's own triggering condition.


I present to you Schrodinger's model. It is both suffering and not suffering a wound until you observe it


The FAR more logical interpretation of the game rules is that when an unsaved wound is gained ES goes off (as per its wording of 'immediately') and also triggers FNP.

Once again, an unsaved wound must first be suffered in order for FNP to go off. Your logic is flawed since you state that FNP, which by explicit wording in the BRB requires an unsaved wound to be taken, can prevent another ability that triggers off the same wording.

Look at FNP again, and quote the whole rule, and you will see why Unsaved wound = wound = Injury. I added the orange from what you missed.

"If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice. 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 and the model continues fighting."

Upon an unsaved wound we roll a die, 1-3 we take the wound (Which is referring to the aforementioned unsaved wound) and on a 4-6 we ignore the injury (Which is referring to either the aforementioned wound, or the aforementioned unsaved wound, either way it all goes back to the unsaved wound being ignored.)

It has been proven previously in this thread, using wording from the BRB and ES, that they are resolved at the exact same time. FNP occurs before Remove Casualties, and both ES and RC occur at the same time.

Answer with yes or no: is Injury equivalent to Unsaved Wound. If yes, no need to explain (as that is what the rule says, to say otherwise requires you to ignore what context means, and to have to come up with what Injury means without reference to any rule within 40k) If no, then please give rules page and quotes as to why.

WanderingFox wrote:If FNP ignored an unsaved wound in the manner you suggest it would never work as it would 'ignore' (ie. negate in your usage) it's own triggering condition.

This is not true at all. as I have said before we pay attention to the unsaved wound until we roll for FNP, once we pass FNP we ignore the unsaved wound.
There is no reason to check to see if we were now allowed to take our FNP roll, because we are ignoring the unsaved wound.

FNP DOES make us ignore its own triggering condition, but because we are ignoring the unsaved wound it does not matter anymore.

DeathReaper wrote:

It has been proven previously in this thread, using wording from the BRB and ES, that they are resolved at the exact same time. FNP occurs before Remove Casualties, and both ES and RC occur at the same time.

The only thing that was proved is the exact opposite. Both FNP and ES trigger together. RC is the next step after these resolve.

RC is resolved Immediately after an Unsaved wound.

ES is resolved Immediately after an Unsaved wound.

FNP HAS to come before RC otherwise FNP does nothing.

Since EC and RC resolve Immediately after an Unsaved wound, they are simultaneous.

Even if FNP and ES were to be resolved at the same time, when we Ignore the unsaved wound, we have to Ignore ES because it was triggered off that unsaved wound we are ignoring.

To Ignore the unsaved wound means to ignore any and all effects of that unsaved wound.

You forget the most important thing, when FNP and ES activate. The wording of both rules is nearly IDENTICAL. So since they activate together there is no way that they resolve in different steps.

It does not matter, because once we pass FNP we have to ignore the unsaved wound.

and by extension we have to ignore everything that was caused by that unsaved wound.

To pay attention to ES which is a direct result of an unsaved wound is to not ignore that unsaved wound.

The same goes for pinning tests.

if you suffer an unsaved wound, take a pinning test etc.

If you pass FNP you ignore the unsaved wound and you have to ignore the direct results of that unsaved wound like pinning and ES.

If you pay attention to ES and Pinning you have not ignored the unsaved wound as you were told when you passed FNP and you have now broken a rule.

It is that simple.

By going back to the ignore injury = negate unsaved wound theory (which I disagree but I won't elaborate now because it does not matter) I guess you admit that they activate together.
By activating together and ES has immediately in its wording AT LEAST they resolve together too, although one could convincingly argue that it resolves first.
Since they resolve together by the time the FNP ignores the injury ES will have caused its effect and reduced the armour save to -. At that point, even if FNP worked as you think it should, ignoring the wound doesn't matter any more. FNP should have included something like "ignores the injury and restores armour saves" or something like it to negate ES effect.

So, you're back to making up rules now?

Sigh.

To requote DR, as you apparently like to ignore the argumebnt and claim the exact opposite, with absolutely no basis in the rules:

DeathReaper trying to explain this simple concept for the 30th time wrote:
RC is resolved Immediately after an Unsaved wound.

ES is resolved Immediately after an Unsaved wound.

FNP HAS to come before RC otherwise FNP does nothing.

Do you agree with any of the above? Stop dissembling, stop making up rules that have no relation to the rulebooks actual rules - just simply answer this: do you agree with the timing and LOGICAL CONCLUSION listed above? It's been repeated to you over and over, but you keep ducking it and / or pretending it doesnt say exactly that.

RC and ES have the EXACT same trigger in terms of when they resolve - therefore they MUST occur at EXACTLY the same point in time. This is basic logic here. If you disagree you are now simply trolling, or have a very different understanding of the term "immediately" to everyone else.

No I don't agree with any of this because that means that an ability may trigger on unsaved wounds and resolve at remove casualties. Absolutely wrong...

As for making up rules, it's you who constantly denies that the trigger event for FNP and ES is the same, although the wording of the trigger has been repeated here over and over again...

So you are ignoring the clear written rules that state EXACTLY when you resolve ES and RC?

Good to know, means you can now be safely ignored as you are simply making up rules, ignoring the tenets of this forum

Read these words: An ability cannot trigger on unsaved wounds and resolve in remove casualties. It can't be. An ability resolves right after the event that triggers and before anything else that comes next.

Read these words: you have just made that "rule" up entirely out of whole cloth, it doesnt exist as a rule in te rulebook.

Entropic Strike and Remove Casualties both have exactly the same time that they occur, and this is after Feel No Pain

If you disagree, which you do, then you have just made FNP do absolutely NOTHING, well done!

Sorry but all abilities that trigger on events do resolve before anything that happens next. You just need to read the BRB better...

Someone tells me to do a series of math problems, with the stipulation that if I ever add the number 2 to determine a result, I must immediately ignore the number 2 in that problem and recalculate my result.

I get the following problem:

1 + 2 + 3 = ?

While it may be intuitive to immediately ignore the two and determine a result of four, that would be to ignore part of the rule I was given, namely the "determine a result" part. So, following the rule, I do the following:

1 + 2 + 3 = 6

I then recalculate, ignoring the 2:

1 + 3 = 4

The answers are different, indeed. But if someone later that day asked me the following question:

"Did you add the number 2 in any of those problems you did earlier today?"

I would say yes, as I had most assuredly done so. I might even say my answer in the following way:

"Yes, once. But I had to recalculate the same problem and ignore the number 2 when doing so."

Recalculating the problem did not somehow negate the fact that I had done the problem itself. It merely changed the final result of the problem.

If you went to prison for murder, then were pardoned because DNA proved your innocence, said pardoning would cause your stay there to be ignored for the purposes of public records. Does that mean you didn't go to prison? That someone wasn't murdered?

I know it would be nice to think that when we free innocents from the prison system, all the crimes they were accused of went away, but I'm afraid that's not how it works.