Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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

Apparently you missed this the first time i posted it, so here you go again. You do understand quite a few things in the game occur at the same time as other things, yes? ES and RC are 2 things which both happen at exactly the same time.

Try giving over some actual rules and you may have an argument, until then not only have you no argument, you've failed to come close to even attempting to refute anything presented so far.

So far all you've done is decided that two events that both occur "immediately", and must therefore occur at the same time, otherwise one is not "immediately" happening, actually occur at different times. Which is a nonsense argumnt, based neither in rules (whcih you have consistently ignored) nor in the English language that the game is written in.

How about this: The trigger is the same as FNP, so there is absolutely no reason why one should delay its activation over the other.
The trigger of both abilities are mentioned time and time and again, and they are the same. In order for ES to have delayed effect over any other ability with the same trigger, then something must hint of this delay. And no "immediately" doesn't hint any kind of delay humanly conceivable...

edit: And as it seems more and more players agree that ignoring the injury is not the same as negating the unsaved wound...

nosferatu1001 wrote: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!

This only occurs because you choose to equate ES and RC and let them happen at the same time in the process.

Should you choose to equate ES and FNP and letting them both resolve before applying RC (if applicable) you get a different picture.

No rules are broken, all effects get to resolve and the game moves on.


The only hickup occurs when you insist that Injury refers to the act of taking an Unsaved Wound, instead of the act of removing a wound (followed by a check to see if it was the models last and removal of said model if applicable).
The former creates a dilemma requiring travel in time (ruleswise) erasing the trigger-condition of ES and a boatload of discussions concerning imaginary steps in the process and timing.
The latter simply lets both resolve.

I fail to understand the problem with letting several thing trigger at the same time off of the same trigger-event, especially when it is possible to do so.

I have to be honest this makes no since to me and it sounds like your trying to protect your precious FNP rolls. The first time I read entropic strike I thought great GW is trying to give the crons some help against FNP and horde amries.

My thoughts would be that he still losses his armor. If he doesnt what's the point of entropic strike then. Most models are single wounds anyway so if they suffer an unsaved wound hen they're dead right. Why give large portions of an army a rule that only works on multiple wound modules only. Makes no since to me. As far a the reanimation protocols I would think that when the get back up they would have there armor. My reasoning is that acording to the book they get back up because they have self repaired right. Or does that translate to fluff only?

"edit: And as it seems more and more players agree that ignoring the injury is not the same as negating the unsaved wound... "

That would be more and more players ignoring the rules then, as there is no way to come to that conclusion unless you entirely ignore the rules of the english language the game is written in.

Steel - no requirement to time travel, you just ignore the unsaved wound for all purposes. If you trigger ES, which is after FNP as it occurs at the same time as RC, then you have NOT ignored the unsaved wound and this have broken a rule.

*turns up his music really loud*

What's that?its too loud? Feel free to IGNORE it.

*is still playing his music*


Ignore =/= does not occur.

Just because your ignoring my music does not mean it is no longer playing.

FNP tells you to disregard the RESULTS of a very specific thing under specific circumstances. It does not state that the event never occured.


Also, removing casualties does NOT trigger off an unsaved wound. It is its own step in combat resolution that occurs last, regardless of any unsaved wounds present.

Step 5 (take saves) is where unsaved wounds are gained
Step 6 (remove casualties) is where models are removed based on unsaved wounds.

This is PLAINLY obvious if you actually go look at the rules.

Nos, my point is; it is a choice on your behalf to insist that FNP tells us to "ignore the unsaved wound for all purposes (even the fact that the unsaved wound occured in the first place)" when the rules tells us to "ignore the injury" which could equally well mean "don't subtract 1 from the wound characteristic of the model in question and check for ID while you are at it.".

That choice, and it is a choice, is the root of this entire discussion. Without that choice being made both rules (ES and FNP) could be resolved without a hitch.

I feel that the source of this discussion springs from a reluctance to accept the possibility that a model can fail its armour save, have its armour save reduced to "-" and still survive tanks to FNP.


..

well if ES says IMMEDIATELY loses it's armor save when it suffered an unsaved wound that means it happens in the split second you fail the armor save. you ignore the wound with FNP f you roll a 4+ but ES goes off before you even get FNP as ES is applied immediately. I don't have my codex or rule book so take that for what you will lol. maybe FNP says immediately too? but I am sure it says instead of removing the model roll a dice or w/e

Steelmage99 wrote:Nos, my point is; it is a choice on your behalf to insist that FNP tells us to "ignore the unsaved wound for all purposes (even the fact that the unsaved wound occured in the first place)" when the rules tells us to "ignore the injury" which could equally well mean "don't subtract 1 from the wound characteristic of the model in question and check for ID while you are at it.".

That choice, and it is a choice, is the root of this entire discussion. Without that choice being made both rules (ES and FNP) could be resolved without a hitch.

I feel that the source of this discussion springs from a reluctance to accept the possibility that a model can fail its armour save, have its armour save reduced to "-" and still survive tanks to FNP.


..

Yes I agree with yor last statement. I don't see a conflict with these two rules other than certain people don't want the ubber leet marines to not be able to curb stomp crons as easily. I don't play crons myself. I'm all ork at heart but I did by their new codex for the read. I though it balanced FNP very nicely when I first read it. At least for the crons anyway. I don't really feel that they took enough time play testing FNP myself. Every time I see a battle report it just seems to be a frustrating ability. Sort of giving the other player the finger as it were. I don't think it would be as bad if they made it 5+ or even 6+. Its still attainable but not broken. They are marines already hard enough to kill as it is.

No the discussion springs from people not willing to accept that if you ignore the unsaved wound, you have to ignore all products of the unsaved wound, or you are breaking rules.

ES says "any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses its armour save"

RC says "for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed..."

there is no difference when they happen. they happen at the exact same point in time.

FNP does not say Immediately, it says "if a model with FNP suffers an unsaved wound roll a dice..."

FNP HAS to go off before RC otherwise FNP is useless.

And since RC and ES have the exact same wording, they resolve together after FNP.

DeathReaper wrote:No the discussion springs from people not willing to accept that if you ignore the unsaved wound, you have to ignore all products of the unsaved wound, or you are breaking rules.

See, this is why I mentioned the wording earlier in the thread.

"Ignores the unsaved wound" has been erroneously said so many times that now it is used as a part of the argument. The wording is "ignores the injury" and that is what should be used onward.

On top of that I have no problem with ignoring products of the unsaved wound, like the removal of the model which is the product of suffering an unsaved wound. My problem stems from people insisting that because the product is ignored the unsaved wound didn't happen.....which it obviously did.

ES says "any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses its armour save"

RC says "for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed..."

there is no difference when they happen. they happen at the exact same point in time.

FNP does not say Immediately, it says "if a model with FNP suffers an unsaved wound roll a dice..."

FNP HAS to go off before RC otherwise FNP is useless.

And since RC and ES have the exact same wording, they resolve together after FNP.

DeathReaper wrote:No the discussion springs from people not willing to accept that if you ignore the unsaved wound, you have to ignore all products of the unsaved wound, or you are breaking rules.

ES says "any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses its armour save"

RC says "for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed..."

there is no difference when they happen. they happen at the exact same point in time.

FNP does not say Immediately, it says "if a model with FNP suffers an unsaved wound roll a dice..."

FNP HAS to go off before RC otherwise FNP is useless.

And since RC and ES have the exact same wording, they resolve together after FNP.

Then I guess FNP is useless. There is nothing that can be supported rules wise that says that it goes at a different time than ES, RC, Pinning checks, acid blood, and Hexrifles, in fact several of the rules say immediately which FNP does not have in its wording, which would mean that it goes after ES, RC, etc.

Rules as written, FNP is in fact useless on single wound models. It's a horribly written rule, by your argument, it functions as another save, which is disallowed by the rules on page 24, it also happens after the remove casualties since it does not have 'immediately' in the wording, or even 'before removing casualties'

Immediately after the armor save is failed the model's armor save changes to - for the remainder of the game. rules as written.
Immediately after an armor save is failed, the squad if hit with a pinning weapon must take a pinning test. rules as written
Immediately after an armor save is failed, if it's a single wound model, remove it as a casualty. rules as written
After a model takes an unsaved wound, against a weapon that does not negate feel no pain, on a 4-6 the model keeps fighting, rules as written.

Rules as written in this situation frankly stink. Think how kind we have been to all the players who have single wound models with feel no pain that we have let live over the years... those rule breakers.

Best work around to make it not useless is any ability that activates on an 'unsaved wound' should go off, and at the end, remove casualties that aren't saved or removed by some other rules at the end. Thus, Feel no Pain would be a modifier to the Remove Casualties stage giving the model 1 final chance before being slain. He is wounded, his armor has been breached, he's bleeding, but he's just too dang tough to lay down and die.

Fantasy solves this quite handily with a little box that says in effect 'if one or more rules go into effect at the same time, the player whose turn it is decides the order' I WISH we had that box in 40k.

Injury = unsaved wound, they refer to the same thing.

Look at FNP again, I will prove why Unsaved wound = wound = Injury.
"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.)

Injury refers to wound, which in turn refers to the aforementioned unsaved wound.

Once you pass FNP, you ignore the Unsaved wound, so from that point on it never happened. so any effects that are going to trigger off of it, you have to also ignore, because to do pay attention to them is to not ignore the unsaved wound.

Steel - so when it tells you that, when you get an unsaved wound on a 1 - 3 you lose the wound (so, that would be unsaved wound - context leaves no other choice at this point) and 4 - 6 you ignore the injury (meaning wound, meaning unsaved wound as we've already determined) - you can choose to pretend otherwise, but then we're left weith FNP not operating at all.

It never says "ignore the product of the unsaved wound", it says if you apply context correctly in the language the rules were written in to ignore the unsaved wound.

DeathReaper wrote:Injury = unsaved wound, they refer to the same thing.

Look at FNP again, I will prove why Unsaved wound = wound = Injury.
"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.)

Injury refers to wound, which in turn refers to the aforementioned unsaved wound.

Once you pass FNP, you ignore the Unsaved wound, so from that point on it never happened. so any effects that are going to trigger off of it, you have to also ignore, because to do pay attention to them is to not ignore the unsaved wound.

No, that just reinforces the concept that FNP is a check made before remove casualties. I functions by stopping the subtraction of 1 from the wounds profile on the model. It however does not ignore the 'unsaved wound' that still happened, the bell has been rung, it cannot be unrung. FNP just allows you to bypass the reduction of the model's wound profile by 1 for every unsaved wound the model suffered.

Norsehawk wrote:No, that just reinforces the concept that FNP is a check made before remove casualties. I functions by stopping the subtraction of 1 from the wounds profile on the model. It however does not ignore the 'unsaved wound' that still happened, the bell has been rung, it cannot be unrung. FNP just allows you to bypass the reduction of the model's wound profile by 1 for every unsaved wound the model suffered.

And as we have proven, ES and Remove casualties occur at the EXACT same time.

so FNP goes before RC, and due to ES having the exact same language as RC, FNP goes off before EC as well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Steel - so when it tells you that, when you get an unsaved wound on a 1 - 3 you lose the wound (so, that would be unsaved wound - context leaves no other choice at this point) and 4 - 6 you ignore the injury (meaning wound, meaning unsaved wound as we've already determined) - you can choose to pretend otherwise, but then we're left weith FNP not operating at all.

This has been addressed above.

The only thing we know for certain is that FNP happens after "suffering an unsaved wound" and before "remove casualties".
We invented a step to make FNP work. Why is there such an outcry when other abilities uses the same step? And why can't they be resolved simultaneously?

It never says "ignore the product of the unsaved wound", it says if you apply context correctly in the language the rules were written in to ignore the unsaved wound.

I KNOW! It is yet another invented wording, just like "FNP ignores unsaved wounds".....this one presented by DR.

Any argument so far presented that leans on the wording "FNP ignores unsaved wounds" has no value.


"FNP ignores unsaved wounds" is being used way too much here, and I dare say that any argument presented by any person other than yourself, based on such blatantly invented wording, would get hammered immediately....by you (with no chance of FNP ).
This is seriously not an attempt at making this personal. This is about using the correct wording and not inventing one that supports ones argument.

Just...stop....using....it. Construct arguments using the correct wording....or concede (I know what a fan you are of that ending).

DeathReaper wrote:

Norsehawk wrote:No, that just reinforces the concept that FNP is a check made before remove casualties. I functions by stopping the subtraction of 1 from the wounds profile on the model. It however does not ignore the 'unsaved wound' that still happened, the bell has been rung, it cannot be unrung. FNP just allows you to bypass the reduction of the model's wound profile by 1 for every unsaved wound the model suffered.

And as we have proven, ES and Remove casualties occur at the EXACT same time.

so FNP goes before RC, and due to ES having the exact same language as RC, FNP goes off before EC as well.

There is no rules justification that proves that. Please produce exact words as written in the rule book that says that Feel No Pain goes before other than a flimsy based on hope assumption that 'it must.' It's not there in the rules. Rules as written it's useless. Rules as played and as intended, it is done before removal of casualties, but as written, you remove the model first, then check to see if it keeps fighting.

Any effect that occurs upon a model suffering an unsaved wound (failing its one and only save) is triggered at the same time. The basic result from suffering an 'unsaved wound' is to reduce the model's wound(s) count by 1 per unsaved wound that it suffers. Feel No pain steps in between the unsaved wound and the reduction on the profile and gives the model a chance to negate the subtraction. they were still wounded, but they were able to shrug it off and keep fighting, thus the wounds statistic was not affected. However the model was still wounded.

If you fire a gun and miss the target, you still fired the gun.
If you crash your car into a tree, but there wasn't any significant damage, you still crashed your car (though you may not tell your dad that)
If a scarab swarm eats through your armor and doesn't kill you, it still ate through your armor.

Steel - Any argument so far presented that leans on the wording "FNP ignores unsaved wounds" has no value.

Wrong, as has been shown. The argument in this and the 1,000,000 other FNP threads has shown over and over again what Ignore the Injury means.

You can choose to pretend otherwise, but that will just lead to your argument being dismissed as it has no basis in rules.

So you concede the argument.

Shucks, you ARE funny, arent you.

No, for the reasons given above. Your false dichotomy is false.

Steelmage99 wrote:So you concede the argument.

Please define "injury" using the rules please.

There is no definition BUT there is a direct association with the number of wounds a model can lose before dying. BRB pg 6, Wounds Value

What, the bit yiuve been shown doesnt show what you claim it does? Shock, youre still ignoring the bits where youre wrong

BRB pg 6 Wounds:
"Hreoes and large monsters are often able to withstand several injuries that would slay a lesser creature, and so have a wounds value of 2, 3 or more".

There is a direct association between having multiple wounds and been able to withstand several injuries [more resistant to injuries-> higher wounds value] and that an injury can kill a model.

Wow, we get to do this argument again?

Since no opinions have changed since the FNP vs. Hexrifle debate, why not just skip to the agreeing to disagree part?

puma713 wrote:Wow, we get to do this argument again?

Since no opinions have changed since the FNP vs. Hexrifle debate, why not just skip to the agreeing to disagree part?

Some of us were already there, but others decided to try and continue the attack.

Maybe we should just have a mod lock this thread, since it is clearly going nowhere.