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.

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.