FNP vs Entropic Strike, Concussive, ect in 7th Edition

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.

**Nem**

Well, suffering a unsaved wound is not something actually defined, according to the wording in FNP it's before the model loses a wound from the statline, as the whole thing is written talking about it in the context of not yet being wounded etc, making suffering a unsaved wound more likely to be the allocation of a unsaved wound, but before the model is wounded/ loses a wound.

Again not working is based on the assumption we know how we suffer a unsaved wound- I motion it's the allocation of, but not yet the application of a unsaved wound.

**Zimko**

I motion that GW doesn't know how to express what they want, and that 'suffering an unsaved wound' will be inconsistently used throughout the book. We've been over every facet of the arguments in this thread and the chase for a solid answer has run it's course. Can we lock it now?

**Uriels_Flame**

Agreed. GW step up and give us a ruling please!

**BLADERIKER**

Melevolence wrote:

But with the rules as they are currently written: These effects need unsaved wounds to trigger properly. FNP comes immediately after Armor/Invul saves, and despite not being a technical save, will treat the wounds taken as saved. If the FNP passes, Concussive/ES will fail to trigger. If FNP fails, these effects will then trigger and resolve.

Please cite where in the FNP USR that FNP is Given permission to be immediately rolled after a Failed Saving throw.

I have already cited in my previous post that the More Explicit rule is given permission to go before less explicit rules when two the trigger off the same activation.

**DeathReaper**

BLADERIKER wrote:
Melevolence wrote:

But with the rules as they are currently written: These effects need unsaved wounds to trigger properly. FNP comes immediately after Armor/Invul saves, and despite not being a technical save, will treat the wounds taken as saved. If the FNP passes, Concussive/ES will fail to trigger. If FNP fails, these effects will then trigger and resolve.

Please cite where in the FNP USR that FNP is Given permission to be immediately rolled after a Failed Saving throw.

I have already cited in my previous post that the More Explicit rule is given permission to go before less explicit rules when two the trigger off the same activation.

The FNP rules itself give permission to be immediately rolled after a Failed Saving throw.

FNP happens when you suffer an unsaved wound. Everything else happens immediately after suffering an unsaved wound.

FNP is first.

**copper.talos**

If the rules said so we wouldn't be having another 10+ page thread.

BLADERIKER wrote:

There are some rules Such as (Ground test: BRB, Pg 69) Which require that a FMC that suffers an unsaved wound during a phase must at the end of said phase take a test or be grounded. (However if said FMC passes all of its FNP's then there is no Grounding test, this is because the unsaved wound is counted as having been saved long before the grounding test ever happens) Yes the grounding test did trigger off the unsaved wounds when they happened but it also checks to see at the end of the phase if there are any unsaved wounds not the instant the unsaved wound happens.

Now (Feel no Pain: BRB pg 164.) "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw...) On a 5+ The unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved".

Then there are...

(Entropic Strike: Necron Codex, pg 29) "Any model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon of Model with this Special rule immediately loses its armour save for the remainder of the battle".

(Concussive: BrB pg 62) " A model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon with this special rule is reduced to Initiative 1 until the end of the following Assault phase."

(Soul Blaze: BrB pg 172) " If a unit suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from an attack with this special rule, it is set ablaze and continues to burn".

(Strikedown: BrB pg172) "Any non-vehicle model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds or passes one or more saving throws against an attack with the Strikedown special rule moves as if it is in difficult terrain until the end of its next turn."

There are more rules that trigger off an unsaved Wound from Codex's I do not own.

At this point in this argument when the effects of ES are applied should be a moot point as the word Immediately is part of the ES SR. Meaning that as soon as the model (fails its save/suffers an unsaved Wound) it loses its armour save for the rest of the battle.

Strikedown's effects work off both saved Wounds and unsaved Wounds so again moot point.

Soul Blaze and Concussive both trigger off of unsaved Wounds at the exact same time that FNP does. Note: No where in the FNP SR does it state that FNP must be, should be, or is rolled immediately before other SR to determine if the effects of those other SR may take effect.

Thus leading me to cite these gems.

(Pg 156 BRB: A Compendium of Special Rules) "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once, However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."

(Sequencing: BrB pg 17) "you'll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time... When this happens, and the wording if not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order."

So RAW FNP is not given explicit permission to resolve before any other USR/SR. ES is given Explicit permission to resolve before FNP due to happening Immediately after an unsaved Wound is suffered, the same unsaved Wound that is triggering FNP. Soul Blaze and Concussive are not given explicit permission to resolve before any other USR/SR thus the player whose turn it is can decide the order, and Strikdown does not care one way or the other.

These are the Rules as Written, why is this still going on?

This is the full summary of rules courtesy of BLADERIKER. Along with Nem's excellent posts there is nothing left to be added.

**DeathReaper**

FNP is first because of the reasons I gave, refusing to accept that does not mean your arguments are correct.

**blaktoof**

FnP specifically calls out that the wound isnt taken until you make the FnP roll.

Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered. On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5 +, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved.

as such the model has suffered 0 unsaved wounds until the time as the roll is made. If the roll fails the wound is taken as normal, at this point the model has suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds. Until then the model has suffered 0 unsaved wounds, even if it has an unsaved wound as it still has a save in the Form of FnP. And yes FnP says its not a saving throw, but it does say it is a save.

poorly written rule but obvious in what it says RAW and the intent.

if the model suffered the unsaved wound before rolling FnP it would be wounded already and FnP would be giving it back the wound, which it doesn't.

FnP avoids/saves/discounts the wound so there never was a unsaved wound that progressed to removing a wound from the models statline.

ES specifically calls out the model suffering 1 or more unsaved wounds, the model has suffered 0 unsaved wounds until FnP is rolled.

at this point there is no counter argument to this from any of the people who feel ES should go first, because there is a failure from certain players to quote any rules which are relavent to the discussion other than insisiting they go at the same time but es goes first because it says immediately while going on about the rules for cumulative effects which has to do with applying stat modifiers but they ignore that, and then they ignore the part of ES that calls out that the model has to actually suffer 1 or more unsaved wounds not just have unsaved wounds. They also ignore the part that the model would be reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty if it had suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds prior to rolling FnP as any model reduced to 0 wounds is removed as a casualty.

The model has suffered 0 unsaved wounds until FnP is rolled.

is there anyone who isnt a necron player at this point who is still saying ES goes before FnP?

**copper.talos**

I prefer RAW where "each time an unsaved wound is suffered" means an unsaved wound is suffered. Not the opposite. OK?

I don't see a reason why we should change RAW to match your opinion when RAW can give a perfectly legal outcome, even more when your opinion conflicts with the "all special rules are cumulative" and the old FAQ.

**blaktoof**

copper.talos wrote:
I prefer RAW where "each time an unsaved wound is suffered" means an unsaved wound is suffered. Not the opposite. OK?

I don't see a reason why we should change RAW to match your opinion when RAW can give a perfectly legal outcome, even more when your opinion conflicts with the "all special rules are cumulative" and the old FAQ.

So you believe that FnP has no function as if an unsaved wound is suffered ie the model goes from 1-0 wounds it is removed from play. Despite that FnP specifically says the wound only happens if the roll is failed, "the model is wounded as normal" if the roll isn't failed the model isn't wounded, there is no unsaved wound. Obviously resolution of whether a model has 1 or more unsaved wounds has not happened until it rolls FnP, as per the RAW for FnP save, it is discounted and treated as having been saved.

This rule doesn't say the model suffered a wound, it says the model gets a save to avoid suffering the wound, if the save is failed its wounded as normal. If it is passed the wound is saved. Until the roll has happened the model has not been wounded, and has not gone from 1wound to 0 wounds, so has not suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds.

I don't see why we should change RAW to match your opinion when RAW can give a perfectly legal outcome, even more when your opinion conflicts with the RAW, and in some cases your statements are outright false.

for example the old codex FAQ on ES was in regards to vehicles and whether armor value was reduced before rolling for penetration and has nothing to do with this topic despite the fact you have falsely claimed it does.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99204455/m2420315a-Necron-6th-Ed-V1

here is the v1.4 faq

http://www.teambelgium.eu/FAQ/Necrons_v1.4.pdf

also nothing about this topic, they did however state ES can remove armor value from buildings.

regardless last edition faq =/= this editions faq.

all special rules being cumulative has to do with if they modify the same thing, ie stealth/shrouded both modifer cover saves, they are cumulative.

your insistence that it is relevant in this topic is 100% misguided.

**copper.talos**

BLADERIKER's summary has all the answers. No need to repeat it again. ES can apply first and FNP second without any problems RAW. On the contrary your opinions is in conflict with RAW since it depends on "each time an unsaved wound is suffered" to actually mean an unsaved wound is not suffered. The exact OPPOSITE!

Regarding cumulative part, the actual rule is "However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative." Do you see any restrictions such as the need to modify the same thing? Do you? I said it the last time you invented rules to match your opinion: you look desperate. Stick to RAW and stop making yourself look bad.

And finally regarding the old faq, you seem not to follow the thread from the begininng. The old FAQ i refer to of course isn't about ES. It was about another rule that acivated on an unsaved wound and applied immediately. That rule was faqed to apply before FNP. Although tha FAQ doesn't exist anymore it meant among other 3 things:
1. The time paradox FNP theory is out of the question
2. That unsaved wounds were actually suffered before FNP
3. That special rules can be applied before FNP.
FNP's wording hasn't changed so it is still relevant.

To summarize your opinion is against RAW, and since RAW can give a legal outcome we can follow it without needing to change it as you suggest.

**blaktoof**

ES requires that a model suffers 1 or more unsaved wounds.

How many Unsaved wounds has a Model suffered that has not made its FnP rolls yet?

If it was a 1 wound model is the model still at 1 Wound before rolling FnP or is at 0 wounds if it has failed its armor saving throw and not yet made its FnP save.

Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered. On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5 +, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved.

and yes FnP is a save.

Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule.

bladdrikers post was fradualent as it left out parts of rules which were relevant to the topic to falsely put forward an incorrect claim.

**DeathReaper**

copper.talos wrote:
BLADERIKER's summary has all the answers. No need to repeat it again. ES can apply first and FNP second without any problems RAW.

No it cant, because it leaves you with a situation where a model has not lost a wound but somehow has lost his armor on a wound that had been saved.

**copper.talos**

@blaktoof

You "forget" that FNP specifically mentions that it is not a saving throw and the fast dice section clearly says that unsaved wounds happen after saving throws and not after "feel no pain saves".

So BLADERIKER summary is full. And it's nice you acknoweledge the rule that an unsaved wound is suffered in order to activate FNP. An unsaved wound suffered for one rule is an unsaved wound suffered for every rule. Next you should try acknoweledging the rule that all special rules are cumulative and ES and FNP must be applied cumulatively leading to models with full wounds but no armour saves

**blaktoof**

please insert your head into the sand more.

FnP is a save. FnP is not a saving throw. Both are RAW.

There is no wound until the FnP roll is made, you keep avoiding the question because you and I both know the answer. it is 0 wounds are suffered until the FnP roll is made becase the models Wound characterstic has not gone from 1 to 0, which means the model has suffered 0 unsaved wounds until FnP is made.

ES requires that a model suffers 1 or more unsaved wounds.

How many Unsaved wounds has a Model suffered that has not made its FnP rolls yet?

If it was a 1 wound model is the model still at 1 Wound before rolling FnP or is at 0 wounds if it has failed its armor saving throw and not yet made its FnP save.

which you and the few necron players in this thread will continue to fail to address.

**copper.talos**

Your opinion reverts back to unsaved wounds don't exist before FNP but since RAW it activates when "an unsaved Wound is suffered", your opinion is deeply flawed.

As I said I prefer RAW where "an unsaved Wound is suffered" actually means an unsaved wound is suffered. Of course you can continue to pretend that it says something else...

**Zimko**

We know that what GW means to say is that FNP prevents an unsaved wound from actually being suffered. But RAW is that it doesn't trigger until after it is suffered, thereby killing the model if it has 1 wound.

So RAW FNP does nothing for 1 wound models.

RAI is like a bad word in this forum but in this case it is pretty clear what they meant. They just sucked as conveying it correctly.

**blaktoof**

copper.talos wrote:
Your opinion reverts back to unsaved wounds don't exist before FNP but since RAW it activates when "an unsaved Wound is suffered", your opinion is deeply flawed.

As I said I prefer RAW where "an unsaved Wound is suffered" actually means an unsaved wound is suffered. Of course you can continue to pretend that it says something else...

and yet you still can't answer the question, I would say this is fascinating but considering I and others proposed it many many pages ago in this thread and no one from the pro ES going at same/first camp has been willing to answer it we can just assume we all know the answer.

**sirlynchmob**

blaktoof wrote:
please insert your head into the sand more.

FnP is a save. FnP is not a saving throw. Both are RAW.

There is no wound until the FnP roll is made, you keep avoiding the question because you and I both know the answer. it is 0 wounds are suffered until the FnP roll is made becase the models Wound characterstic has not gone from 1 to 0, which means the model has suffered 0 unsaved wounds until FnP is made.

ES requires that a model suffers 1 or more unsaved wounds.

How many Unsaved wounds has a Model suffered that has not made its FnP rolls yet?

If it was a 1 wound model is the model still at 1 Wound before rolling FnP or is at 0 wounds if it has failed its armor saving throw and not yet made its FnP save.

which you and the few necron players in this thread will continue to fail to address.

That line of logic means you can never make a FNP roll. If you don't first suffer a unsaved wound you can not make a FNP roll.

Also we know your argument is demonstrable false as we do have unsaved wounds before the FNP roll. How else would you get a unsaved wound with the instant death specil rule? You're argument would lead to being able to take a FNP roll on wounds that cause instant death.

**blaktoof**

except that FnP specifically calls out that you cannot take FnP rolls on ID, which then begs the question why would they need to do this unless the argument put forth is correct.

and yet you still wont answer the question.

**sirlynchmob**

blaktoof wrote:
except that FnP specifically calls out that you cannot take FnP rolls on ID, which then begs the question why would they need to do this unless the argument put forth is correct.

and yet you still wont answer the question.

It clearly shows how your argument is wrong.

You take a wound
you fail your save
you now have 'suffers an unsaved wound' state.
And you suffer the wound before FNP is rolled, that is how you know you can roll FNP.

As we now have a unsaved wound, it will trigger all special rules looking for a unsaved wound, and we can also see if the unsaved wound causes instant death. Then the active player can decide the order as the rules state he is allowed to do.

**blaktoof**

so You have models going from 1-0 wounds before FnP is rolled.

If at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.

You just made FnP do nothing for 1 wound models, grats.

**sirlynchmob**

blaktoof wrote:
so You have models going from 1-0 wounds before FnP is rolled.

If at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.

You just made FnP do nothing for 1 wound models, grats.

And you have FNP never being able to trigger so the 1 wound model dies anyways. Grats. Clearly your logic on this is flawed.

**blaktoof**

No, i like many others in this thread propose that FnP resolves before unsaved wounds are applied, as it is a save and calls out the wound is only taken if you fail the roll showing that it happens during the unsaved wound being suffered but before the model finally has an unsaved wound to apply to its profile and reduce the models wounds from 1 - 0.

clearly your logic on this is flawed.

the end result is a few outcomes.

Outcome 1:

your wounded
you fail your saving throw
you have an unsaved wound and your model is removed from play if it was at 1 wounds as a suffered unsaved wound reduces a model from 1-0 wounds.
nothing triggers

Outcome 2:

Your wounded
you fail your saving throw
You apply everything at once that triggers off unsaved wounds and end up breaking the rules for both FnP and ES as the wound is saved, and treated as never being unsaved therefore you have 0 unsaved wounds (you need 1 or more to apply ES) and by applying ES you ignore that none of the wounds were unsaved. This breaks the RAW that FnP treats the wound as having been saved/avoided, and breaks the RAW that ES requires the model to have suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds, which it did not.

Outcome 3:
your wounded
you fail your saving throw
you get a FnP save to see if were really wounded.
you pass- you were not wounded (you have suffered no unsaved wounds)
you fail- you were wounded, you suffer 1 unsaved wound per FnP save fail

Outcome 1 is silly.

Outcome 2 breaks rules

Outcome 3 follows all the rules and allows for application of all special rules/non special rules should the FnP save allow for the model to actually be wounded.

**sirlynchmob**

blaktoof wrote:
No, i like many others in this thread propose that FnP resolves before unsaved wounds are applied, as it is a save and calls out the wound is only taken if you fail the roll showing that it happens during the unsaved wound being suffered but before the model finally has an unsaved wound to apply to its profile and reduce the models wounds from 1 - 0.

clearly your logic on this is flawed.

Your whole statement is demonstrably wrong. Just like the others making that claim, that claim is wrong.

You should read what FNP needs to even be used. Than see how your argument would mean you could take a FNP roll against wounds with instant death. Take your time, go read the rules and you should see why your statement is wrong. and why outcome 3 is also wrong.

**blaktoof**

FnP specifically says you cannot use it against ID or Destroyer, so your statement is invalid.

**sirlynchmob**

blaktoof wrote:
FnP specifically says you cannot use it against ID or Destroyer, so your statement is invalid.

Not quite, you can not take a FNP roll against "unsaved wounds with the ID rule" so clearly we have unsaved wounds before the FNP roll is made.

you pass- you were not wounded (you have suffered no unsaved wounds)
you fail- you were wounded, you suffer 1 unsaved wound per FnP save fail

Can you see why this is wrong now. you claim if you pass FNP you've suffered no unsaved wounds, so if you suffered no unsaved wounds, than when do you have a "unsaved wound with the ID rule"?

**blaktoof**

If you pass you did not suffer an unsaved wound, FnP specifically says the wound is avoided/treated as having been saved.

FnP also would do nothing if the unsaved wound was applied to the model before rolling FnP, not only that but the wording does not state anything along the lines of the wound being returned, given back, regained. it specifically tells us the wound was saved/avoided which means there was no unsaved wound if FnP is passed.

You do not get to roll to prevent the wound if it has ID due to FnP saying that you cannot. Rules are our friends.

**megatrons2nd**

blaktoof wrote:
please insert your head into the sand more.

FnP is a save. FnP is not a saving throw. Both are RAW.

There is no wound until the FnP roll is made, you keep avoiding the question because you and I both know the answer. it is 0 wounds are suffered until the FnP roll is made becase the models Wound characterstic has not gone from 1 to 0, which means the model has suffered 0 unsaved wounds until FnP is made.

ES requires that a model suffers 1 or more unsaved wounds.

How many Unsaved wounds has a Model suffered that has not made its FnP rolls yet?

If it was a 1 wound model is the model still at 1 Wound before rolling FnP or is at 0 wounds if it has failed its armor saving throw and not yet made its FnP save.

which you and the few necron players in this thread will continue to fail to address.

It has suffered 1 unsaved wound. Reason,,,You failed a save. FnP is a special rule that is activated upon an unsaved wound. Unsaved wounds is not defined in the rules, but by inserting it between failing the save and removing a wound(as done in the fast rolling section where the only place the Terminology for Unsaved wounds is used in dealing wounds) we can come up with the assumption that this is the location it belongs in the process. You also are fixating on a single line in the FnP rule, the rule only uses the discounting of an unsaved wound once. If your FnP uses a different number than the standard 5+ than you discount the wound, not the unsaved wound. The beginning of the rule also specifies that it is used to avoid the wound, not an unsaved wound. So using RAI, we can surmise that it is a special rule that negates a wound, not other special rules.

I am not a Necron player. I play, Tau Empire, Eldar, and Dark Eldar.

**blaktoof**

of course passing FnP discounts/avoids/saves the unsaved wound. It never happened.

otherwise you would have inflated Assault results and challenge results based on unsaved wounds that were saved and never happened. It would also mean you had unsaved wounds that were saved and the wounds were discounted, but you would have to take grounding tests at the end of the phase, etc.