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.

How is this not resolved under the traditional "specific beats general" rule?

- FNP is a special rule that triggers on an unsaved wound.

- Hex Rifle is a special rule that triggers on an unsaved wound.

- The operation of one of the above negates the operation of the other.

- Therefore, because the Hex Rifle is a more specific rule (Codex) than FNP (rulebook), Hex Rifle wins out.

Submitted for consideration.

lixulana wrote:model has suffered an unsaved wound.
model applies one wound to its profile
models with 0 wounds are removed.

Not to be pedantic, but this is only the procedure for single multi-wound models. It's slightly different (although mostly functionally identical) for units. However, it is irrelevant here.

lixulana wrote:hex rifle
model suffering an unsaved wound makes a T test or be removed from the table.

And if a model is removed from the table, it cannot take a FNP roll.

lixulana wrote:FNP
model suffering an unsaved wound rolls a die 1-3 as normal 4-6 the model [does not take a wound on its profile].

If it makes the save, it ignores the unsaved wound. If the unsaved wound is ignored, then the Hex Rifle can't trigger.

lixulana wrote:The special rule for the hex rifle is not dependant on the model to actually apply a wound to its profile, its only dependant on it suffering an "unsaved wound"

so it is completly reasonable for the model to make a FNP so it does not deduct a wound, but still fail the wounds test and be removed.

I don't think this is correct, for the reasons mentioned above. FNP means the model ignores the unsaved wound. If the unsaved wound is ignored, then you should treat the model as if it has never suffered an unsaved wound. Therefore, the operation of the Hex Rifle and FNP are independent and inconsistent.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nothing you have stated there alters the argument (that injury == wound, in this context) that ignoring the wound must mean entirely ignoring the wound.

In the case of FNP, I think it's pretty clear that "injury" refers to "unsaved wound" and not "wound."

Under the normal order of things, a hit may cause a wound, a wound may cause an unsaved wound, and an unsaved wound can cause a "wound" (that is, the model is removed from play or has it's wound characteristic reduced).

Under normal circumstances, an "unsaved wound" always directly corresponds to a "wound." FNP changes this, it makes the transition from "unsaved wound" to "wound" conditional on the FNP test. So, if you roll a 1-3 on a FNP test, the model suffers a "wound" as normal (is removed from play or reduces the model's wound characteristic). However, if you roll a 4-6, the rule tells us to "ignore the injury." This can't be a "wound" because the model hasn't suffered a "wound" yet, it still has an "unsaved wound" that the FNP test has not converted to a "wound."

Therefore, the only injury that can be ignored is the "unsaved wound."

deevil wrote:at no point does FNP change the condition to suffered unsaved wound = false. Nor does it ever pre-empt that condition, as ignore means the condition did in fact take place.

Assuming "ignore the injury" means "ignore the unsaved wound", does it matter whether the "unsaved wound" goes away or not? The rule tells us to "ignore the unsaved wound," not for FNP, but to ignore it altogether. For example, it would not count towards 25% casualties or combat resolution. Hex rifle would tell us to roll when there's an unsaved wound, but we're supposed to ignore that unsaved wound.

In short, the unsaved wound is still in existence, but it is ignored, and therefore is ignored for all purposes.

Dashofpepper wrote:

biccat wrote:In short, the unsaved wound is still in existence, but it is ignored, and therefore is ignored for all purposes.

DUDE! YOU AND TEN PEOPLE BEFORE YOU!!!! Feel No Pain does *NOT* tell you to ignore the unsaved wound. Stop misquoting the rules. It tells you to ignore the injury caused by the unsaved wound. The state still exists, the ramification is negated.

See my post here.

FNP is essentially a binary condition:
Receive unsaved wound, fail, take "a wound".
Receive unsaved wound, pass, ignore "the injury".

The injury referred to in the second result can't mean "a wound" because the wond only results if the FNP test is failed. Therefore, "injury" must refer to the unsaved wound.

As to your examples, mostly they revolve around vehicles ignoring results on glancing hits. However, there is a specific rule on point that addresses those circumstances, as has been pointed out before.

Dashofpepper wrote:If I cast poison on you, but your magical resist is so high that you take no damage...you are still poisoned. Taking no damage does not negate the status. Just like FnP. Being dealt an unsaved wound does not flipping care whether you were wounded, how many wounds you have, or what your hair color is, it only cares about whether you failed to make your cover/armour/invulnerable save against a wound-causing hit.

Right, but magical resistance doesn't tell you to "ignore the spell," if it did, then a secondary effect that triggers from poison wouldn't trigger, because the spell would be "ignored."

This whole discussion essentially turns on what "injury" is supposed to be ignored by FNP. I think that I have made a good case that it should be the "unsaved wound." I understand that you may disagree.

It also seems that there are 3 positions: 1) FNP triggers, you can't test for Hex Rifle. 2) Test for FNP then test for Hex Rifle. 3) Only test for Hex Rifle.

I think the 3rd one is correct because it is a more specific rule than FNP and the rules contradict.

Wildstorm wrote:I fall on the side that says if I'm ignoring it, then I'm ignoring it all the way and don't have to take the hex test.

Wrong conclusion there buddy

If FNP would negate Hex, then the rules are in contradiction and you apply the more specific rule. Since Hex Rifle is more specific than FNP, then you have to take the Hex test.

Jidmah wrote:The rules are not any more in conflict than feel no pain and power from pain or hex rifle and cover saves. To be in conflict, they would have to be directly contradicting each other.

FNP and Hex both trigger on the existence of an "unsaved wound." There is no indicatation as to which triggers first, therefore they must go simultaneously.

If FNP is saved, however, you are told to "ignore the unsaved wound." However, Hex, triggering simultaneously, may destroy the model based on the same "unsaved wound." Therefore, you must either prioritize FNP and conclude that Hex doesn't trigger (essentially "go back in time" or prioritize Hex and conclude that FNP doesn't trigger.

This is a case where specific > general.

AndrewC wrote:And does the term ignore injury refer to the alteration to the wounds profile or to the sucessfull wound at step 4 of the process?

The issue is whether "injury" refers to "unsaved wound" or "wound." A second issue is what GW means by "wound" in the FNP rule. To use Dash's terminology, type 1 or type 2?

Jidmah wrote:

biccat wrote:

AndrewC wrote:And does the term ignore injury refer to the alteration to the wounds profile or to the sucessfull wound at step 4 of the process?

The issue is whether "injury" refers to "unsaved wound" or "wound." A second issue is what GW means by "wound" in the FNP rule. To use Dash's terminology, type 1 or type 2?

As dash's type #2 is actually unsaved wound AND profile wound, neither, as such a wound doesn't exist. There are three kinds of wounds, not two, and FNP can never refer to profile wounds, as you can't take a profile wound. All this has been discussed above, please read it.

I have read it, thanks.

FNP basically takes all of the normal rules and throws them out the window. The first trigger, "when a model suffers an unsaved wound" never occurs in a unit of models. Models don't take unsaved wounds, units do. Then it says the "unsaved wound" only translates to a "wound" when you roll a 1-3 on a dice. But unsaved wounds are never translated to "wounds" under the normal rules. Instead, unsaved wounds either cause casualties or are saved up for units of multi-wound models. Only on independent characters do unsaved wounds actually reduce the number of Wounds a model has.

To answer Nos's question above: "Do you claim FNP doesnt work?" No, because we know that it does work. But it shouldn't, according to the rules.

Built-in wrote:

biccat wrote:FNP basically takes all of the normal rules and throws them out the window. The first trigger, "when a model suffers an unsaved wound" never occurs in a unit of models. Models don't take unsaved wounds, units do.

???? how do you figure? seeing as how you need to allocate wounds to models before you make armor save rolls. This has nothing to do with the topic, just struck me as off

Page 24.

"For each model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."

Dracos wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:That would be the case Roz if you were not told to ignore the wound with a passed FnP roll.

Cool, because the text DOES NOT TELL YOU TO IGNORE THE WOUND.

Please either post proof somewhere where injury = unsaved wound, or stop espousing it as gospel.

See here.

puma713 wrote:Injury versus unsaved wound doesn't even matter. See my above post and Dash's post in the thread you referenced.

It matters very much.

FNP says "on a 4, 6, or 6, the injury is ignored"

If the "unsaved wound" is ignored, then for all purposes, that model is treated as having not suffered an unsaved wound. It still has suffered the unsaved wound, but every rule that triggers from "unsaved wound" is ignored.

If it were otherwise, FNP would have no effect. "OK, you suffered an unsaved wound, we'll ignore it for purposes of FNP. Oh look, rule 24 says he dies anyway. GG."

puma713 wrote:Once again, to say otherwise is to commit the fallacy Denying the Antecedent, to somehow say that because you ignore the product of an action, the action never happened.

Or, you realize that FNP and Hex Rifle are inconsistent, and therefore default to the specific > general rule, and apply Hex Rifle.

It works.

DeathReaper wrote:Pass FNP on the roll of a four and Ignore the wound (This makes you ignore the wound that was caused at step 3 so the rest of the process becomes irrelevant as you are now ignoring that step 3 was actually a successful to wound roll).

I just don't understand how you're getting back to the wound in step 3.

I can see an argument where "injury" means "unsaved wound" or "wound resulting from an unsaved wound", but how do you get back to step 3?

The language "wound" in FNP can't refer to the step 3 wound because then you would get another chance to save...which would trigger FNP...until you fail FNP.