Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 05:26:59
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
Is Entropic Strike resolved before FNP due to the wording of ES?
Entropic Strike (C:N p29) states "...suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses.."
FNP "On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved." P.35
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 07:23:20
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
I belive it would be counted after fnp. It will take affect i belive after the fnp is failed then the model will require to rely on fnp...and possily an invul.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/28 07:24:17
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 07:27:29
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Sneaky Lictor
|
I forget does ES cause ID?
|
Tyranids 3000 points
Dark Angels 500 points
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 07:27:52
Subject: Re:Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Chalice-Wielding Sanguinary High Priest
|
I see the conflict... "immediately" doesn't allow you to take the FNP roll first, which would "treat it as having been saved".
I read this as taking place in the following way:
1) Entropic Strike wounds and isn't saved normally.
2) Immediately lose your armour save as per Entropic Strike.
3) Roll for FNP.
Assuming you pass - you then treat "it" (the wound) as having been saved, and discount it. The loss of armour is a separate effect, not covered by FNP, and so you don't get it back, it's still lost.
If that argument isn't sufficient, the fact that Entropic Strike is in a Codex and therefore trumps the rulebook should do.
broodstar wrote:I forget does ES cause ID?
No, not by default.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/28 07:28:27
"Hard pressed on my right. My centre is yielding. Impossible to manoeuvre. Situation excellent. I am attacking." - General Ferdinand Foch |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 07:33:40
Subject: Re:Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Sneaky Lictor
|
Super Ready wrote:
broodstar wrote:I forget does ES cause ID?
No, not by default.
OK, then you would get your FNP before applying anyother affects.
|
Tyranids 3000 points
Dark Angels 500 points
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 08:40:32
Subject: Re:Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
broodstar wrote:Super Ready wrote:
broodstar wrote:I forget does ES cause ID?
No, not by default.
OK, then you would get your FNP before applying anyother affects.
Erm.
Why?
broodstar wrote:Can we finish this with a flowchart?
Did it wound?- No- End
l
Yes
l
Take LD test
l
Did you fail?-No-Take FNP test-Did you fail?-No-wound saved-End
l
Yes
l
Instant Death
l
End
Posting because you've provided contradictory viewpoints. It'd be great if you could clarify
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/28 08:45:18
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 09:04:54
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
It doesn't really matter.
ES goes first, and you have certain effects.
then FnP goes... and if passed tells you to act as if the wound was saved... so the effects from ES are nulified.
So for speed sake, you should take the FnP tests first
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 09:37:57
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Irked Necron Immortal
|
Depends how you interpret some things. FnP negates the wound, but does it negate special effects of the wound?
A similar instance comes to mind with the Quantum Shielding on Necron vehicles. A penetrating hit causes the loss of the shield, but a cover save was FAQ'ed as negating the hit.
I would probably let my opponent negate it with FnP.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 10:44:16
Subject: Re:Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
[ADMIN]
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
The FNP rules are now perfectly clear:
A successful FNP result means the wound no longer counts as being unsaved.
Entropic Strike only removes a model's armor if it inflicts an unsaved wound.
So FNP beats Entropic Strike.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 11:07:30
Subject: Re:Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Been Around the Block
|
yakface wrote: The FNP rules are now perfectly clear: A successful FNP result means the wound no longer counts as being unsaved. Entropic Strike only removes a model's armor if it inflicts an unsaved wound. So FNP beats Entropic Strike. I see this as related to the Bonesword question. That has the same wording as ES for a trigger, on an unsaved wound "immediately" take a LD test or suffer instant death. Question is again, does FNP come before or after the effect? If it really is before, then why do they both contain the qualifier immediately, if they apparently never come first? EDIT: In the case of ES though, I suppose I don't see them as mutually exclusive. ES triggers, you lose the armour save, but then FNP kicks in and the wound is negated, counting as saved. You don't take any damage, it doesn't count for combat resolution or anything, but next time around your armour is gone.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/28 11:09:16
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 13:31:12
Subject: Re:Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control
|
nohman wrote:yakface wrote:
The FNP rules are now perfectly clear:
A successful FNP result means the wound no longer counts as being unsaved.
Entropic Strike only removes a model's armor if it inflicts an unsaved wound.
So FNP beats Entropic Strike.
I see this as related to the Bonesword question. That has the same wording as ES for a trigger, on an unsaved wound "immediately" take a LD test or suffer instant death. Question is again, does FNP come before or after the effect?
If it really is before, then why do they both contain the qualifier immediately, if they apparently never come first?
EDIT: In the case of ES though, I suppose I don't see them as mutually exclusive. ES triggers, you lose the armour save, but then FNP kicks in and the wound is negated, counting as saved. You don't take any damage, it doesn't count for combat resolution or anything, but next time around your armour is gone.
This thread was created because we were having the Boneswords debate. It was a cry for help. You are right, the two are not mutually exclusive. As I have said in the other debate FNP is not a saving throw. Only a saving throw can create a saved wound. You can sprinkle fairy dust on it, baptize it, that unsaved wound will never be a saved wound. Putting something in the closet and ignoring it does not make something disappear or not exist, it simply means we do not refer to it, we don't talk about it at parties.
FNP does not negate the unsaved wound. It simply let's us ignore it. Since it still exists its effects still exist. The scarab's barbed claw is stuck in your chest, you just fight on. The barbed claw eats away your armor, but you fight on. Automatically Appended Next Post: Fafnir13 wrote:Depends how you interpret some things. FnP negates the wound, but does it negate special effects of the wound?
A similar instance comes to mind with the Quantum Shielding on Necron vehicles. A penetrating hit causes the loss of the shield, but a cover save was FAQ'ed as negating the hit.
I would probably let my opponent negate it with FnP.
FNP doesn't negate the wound, it ignores it. Big difference. In the case of the Quantum Shielding that makes sense because a cover save is a saving throw so it can negate a hit. FNP is specifically said to not be a saving throw so it cannot negate anything.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/28 13:33:41
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 13:43:55
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Troubled By Non-Compliant Worlds
Houston, TX
|
Then how do you account for "..., the unsaved Wound is discounted -- treat it as having been saved."
Two points in that one sentence tell us the unsaved wound is ignored and a saved wound.
I think you shot yourself in the foot with your last statement, if a wound is 'ignored' then don't you ignore any thing the wound does? If you apply ES then you are not ignoring it.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/28 13:44:36
DS:70S++G+MB+++I+Pw40k01#-D++++A++/mWD279R+T(D)DM+
>Three engineering students were gathered together discussing who must have designed the human body.
>One said, "It was a mechanical engineer. Just look at all the joints."
>Another said, "No, it was an electrical engineer. The nervous system has many thousands of electrical connections."
>The last one said, "No, actually it had to have been a civil engineer.
>Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 14:28:07
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control
|
hisdudeness wrote:Then how do you account for "..., the unsaved Wound is discounted -- treat it as having been saved."
Two points in that one sentence tell us the unsaved wound is ignored and a saved wound.
I think you shot yourself in the foot with your last statement, if a wound is 'ignored' then don't you ignore any thing the wound does? If you apply ES then you are not ignoring it.
You are ignoring it. A 1 Wound model would not be removed as a casualty. A 2 Wound model still has 2 wounds, and so on. Also, that wound is not counted for combat resolution. How is this not ignoring the wound? We are ignoring the wound, but nothing in the FNP rule says we ignore the effects of any wound which was unsaved. It is not a saved wound, it is an ignored unsaved wound. Only saving throws can make a wound saved. It is treated as an unsaved wound, meaning it is not a saved wound it is simply considered to be saved.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 14:33:19
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
No, it is "treated as" being saved. If you, in any way acknowledge an Unsaved Wound you have broken the rules.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 14:35:30
Subject: Re:Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
Captain Antivas wrote:FNP does not negate the unsaved wound. It simply let's us ignore it. Since it still exists its effects still exist. FNP doesn't negate the wound, it ignores it. It is treated as an unsaved wound, meaning it is not a saved wound it is simply considered to be saved.
These statements contradicts themselves. Captain Antivas wrote:Only a saving throw can create a saved wound. Only saving throws can make a wound saved. FNP rule says we ignore the effects of any wound which was unsaved. It is not a saved wound
These statements are incorrect. Re-read what FNP says.
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2012/07/28 14:46:18
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 14:56:47
Subject: Re:Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control
|
DeathReaper wrote:Captain Antivas wrote:FNP does not negate the unsaved wound. It simply let's us ignore it. Since it still exists its effects still exist.
FNP doesn't negate the wound, it ignores it.
It is treated as an unsaved wound, meaning it is not a saved wound it is simply considered to be saved.
These statements contradicts themselves.
Captain Antivas wrote:Only a saving throw can create a saved wound.
Only saving throws can make a wound saved.
FNP rule says we ignore the effects of any wound which was unsaved. It is not a saved wound
These statements are incorrect. Re-read what FNP says.
I used to think you were cool. Now I see you are a troll. I will not feed the trolls. You are wrong, and I will play the rules as they are written and not cheat and have a good time with my gaming group.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 14:59:12
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Troubled By Non-Compliant Worlds
Houston, TX
|
Captain Antivas wrote:hisdudeness wrote:Then how do you account for "..., the unsaved Wound is discounted -- treat it as having been saved."
Two points in that one sentence tell us the unsaved wound is ignored and a saved wound.
I think you shot yourself in the foot with your last statement, if a wound is 'ignored' then don't you ignore any thing the wound does? If you apply ES then you are not ignoring it.
You are ignoring it. A 1 Wound model would not be removed as a casualty. A 2 Wound model still has 2 wounds, and so on. Also, that wound is not counted for combat resolution. How is this not ignoring the wound? We are ignoring the wound, but nothing in the FNP rule says we ignore the effects of any wound which was unsaved. It is not a saved wound, it is an ignored unsaved wound. Only saving throws can make a wound saved. It is treated as an unsaved wound, meaning it is not a saved wound it is simply considered to be saved.
Isn't reduction of the models Wound stat by one an effect of taking an unsaved Wound? “…allocate an unsaved Wound to enemy model…” resulting in “Reduce that model’s Wounds by 1.”. This seems pretty cause/effect to me. So by your interpretation the model still suffers a reduction of 1 W even if the FnP roll is successful. I fully believe the “this is not a saving throw” is there so people cannot enforce the one save per wound rule on FnP and does not mean what you are claiming.
We are only told to discount and treat as saved, but never told what these mean. I feel cherry picking which effects to apply are just incorrect. You either discount all effects of the unsaved Wound negated by FnP or none.
|
DS:70S++G+MB+++I+Pw40k01#-D++++A++/mWD279R+T(D)DM+
>Three engineering students were gathered together discussing who must have designed the human body.
>One said, "It was a mechanical engineer. Just look at all the joints."
>Another said, "No, it was an electrical engineer. The nervous system has many thousands of electrical connections."
>The last one said, "No, actually it had to have been a civil engineer.
>Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 15:02:38
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
|
It doesn't matter what happens to the wound. Entropic strike triggers before the FNP roll.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 15:12:38
Subject: Re:Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw
|
Captain Antivas wrote:DeathReaper wrote:Captain Antivas wrote:FNP does not negate the unsaved wound. It simply let's us ignore it. Since it still exists its effects still exist.
FNP doesn't negate the wound, it ignores it.
It is treated as an unsaved wound, meaning it is not a saved wound it is simply considered to be saved.
These statements contradicts themselves.
Captain Antivas wrote:Only a saving throw can create a saved wound.
Only saving throws can make a wound saved.
FNP rule says we ignore the effects of any wound which was unsaved. It is not a saved wound
These statements are incorrect. Re-read what FNP says.
I used to think you were cool. Now I see you are a troll. I will not feed the trolls. You are wrong, and I will play the rules as they are written and not cheat and have a good time with my gaming group.
It's defiantly not cheating.
5th edition I would agree, the wound would be negated but the effect remains.
However in 6th the FNP rule has changed greatly. We are told to treat it as if the wound had been saved. It is no longer an unsaved wound, but a saved wound. And as such would not trigger ES.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 15:15:36
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control
|
hisdudeness wrote:Captain Antivas wrote:hisdudeness wrote:Then how do you account for "..., the unsaved Wound is discounted -- treat it as having been saved."
Two points in that one sentence tell us the unsaved wound is ignored and a saved wound.
I think you shot yourself in the foot with your last statement, if a wound is 'ignored' then don't you ignore any thing the wound does? If you apply ES then you are not ignoring it.
You are ignoring it. A 1 Wound model would not be removed as a casualty. A 2 Wound model still has 2 wounds, and so on. Also, that wound is not counted for combat resolution. How is this not ignoring the wound? We are ignoring the wound, but nothing in the FNP rule says we ignore the effects of any wound which was unsaved. It is not a saved wound, it is an ignored unsaved wound. Only saving throws can make a wound saved. It is treated as an unsaved wound, meaning it is not a saved wound it is simply considered to be saved.
Isn't reduction of the models Wound stat by one an effect of taking an unsaved Wound? “…allocate an unsaved Wound to enemy model…” resulting in “Reduce that model’s Wounds by 1.”. This seems pretty cause/effect to me. So by your interpretation the model still suffers a reduction of 1 W even if the FnP roll is successful. I fully believe the “this is not a saving throw” is there so people cannot enforce the one save per wound rule on FnP and does not mean what you are claiming.
We are only told to discount and treat as saved, but never told what these mean. I feel cherry picking which effects to apply are just incorrect. You either discount all effects of the unsaved Wound negated by FnP or none.
An effect of an unsaved wound is a special rule associated with the unsaved wound. Removing a wound from the model's Wound characteristic is a result. An unsaved Wound is a result, removing the armor save is an effect. Automatically Appended Next Post: grendel083 wrote:It's defiantly not cheating.
5th edition I would agree, the wound would be negated but the effect remains.
However in 6th the FNP rule has changed greatly. We are told to treat it as if the wound had been saved. It is no longer an unsaved wound, but a saved wound. And as such would not trigger ES.
ES is triggered before the FNP roll can be taken. So the result of FNP is irrelevant.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/28 15:17:10
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 15:17:54
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw
|
So where it says "treat it as having been saved" we are to ignore that part of the rule?
Edit:
And where does it say ES goes before FNP?
They both trigger on an unsaved wound, what makes one go before the other?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/28 15:20:03
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 15:27:04
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Troubled By Non-Compliant Worlds
Houston, TX
|
Captain Antivas wrote:
An effect of an unsaved wound is a special rule associated with the unsaved wound. Removing a wound from the model's Wound characteristic is a result. An unsaved Wound is a result, removing the armor save is an effect.
Got a rules quote to back that up?
|
DS:70S++G+MB+++I+Pw40k01#-D++++A++/mWD279R+T(D)DM+
>Three engineering students were gathered together discussing who must have designed the human body.
>One said, "It was a mechanical engineer. Just look at all the joints."
>Another said, "No, it was an electrical engineer. The nervous system has many thousands of electrical connections."
>The last one said, "No, actually it had to have been a civil engineer.
>Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 15:29:05
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
|
ES happens "immediately" when an unsaved wound occurs. FNP doesn't have immediately in its wording. Just triggers on an unsaved wound.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 15:30:50
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
copper.talos wrote:ES happens "immediately" when an unsaved wound occurs. FNP doesn't have immediately in its wording. Just triggers on an unsaved wound.
When you are shot, blood comes out of the wound.
When you are shot, blood immediately comes out of the wound.
I don't see a timing difference in those two sentences.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 15:31:06
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
ES says "suffers one or more unsaved Wounds" how can you suffer a wound if you treat it as saved with FNP?
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 15:36:57
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
|
rigeld2 wrote:
When you are shot, blood comes out of the wound.
When you are shot, blood immediately comes out of the wound.
I don't see a timing difference in those two sentences.
You are told when someone gives you a cookie to immediately say "thank you".
Also you are told when someone gives a cookie to eat it.
So yes there is a timing difference. You first say "thank you" and then you eat the cookie
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 15:37:18
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Haemonculi Flesh Apprentice
|
copper.talos wrote:ES happens "immediately" when an unsaved wound occurs. FNP doesn't have immediately in its wording. Just triggers on an unsaved wound.
40k is not magic the gathering, there is no stack so it doesn't matter if it says immediately because FnP tells us to treat it as if it were saved.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 15:38:29
Subject: Re:Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Rough Rider with Boomstick
Fond du Lac, Wi
|
Captain Antivas wrote:DeathReaper wrote:Captain Antivas wrote:FNP does not negate the unsaved wound. It simply let's us ignore it. Since it still exists its effects still exist.
FNP doesn't negate the wound, it ignores it.
It is treated as an unsaved wound, meaning it is not a saved wound it is simply considered to be saved.
These statements contradicts themselves.
Captain Antivas wrote:Only a saving throw can create a saved wound.
Only saving throws can make a wound saved.
FNP rule says we ignore the effects of any wound which was unsaved. It is not a saved wound
These statements are incorrect. Re-read what FNP says.
I used to think you were cool. Now I see you are a troll. I will not feed the trolls. You are wrong, and I will play the rules as they are written and not cheat and have a good time with my gaming group.
So because someone points out holes in your logic (granted he could have gone more in depth on how they are wrong or contradictory), and you call them a troll? Then call me a troll too because you're wrong, and here's why. First of all, read the new FnP rules, they HAVE changed in 6th. Feel No Pain grants a FnP roll that is not a saving throw, but a successful FnP roll counts as the wound having been saved. This means that the order of operations in this situation would not matter, as if the FnP roll is passed the end result is they have a saved wound. So if they decide to apply ES first, then a subsequent FnP roll kicks in, there is still no unsaved wound which means that Entropic strike does not kick in because even though FnP happened afterwards, the result is still a saved wound. If FnP goes first and passes, obviously ES doesn't kick in. With the current wording of FnP, the only time it matters when it kicks in is if the attack can inflict instant death on an unsaved wound.
|
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.”
-Einstein |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 15:40:50
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control
|
hisdudeness wrote:Captain Antivas wrote:
An effect of an unsaved wound is a special rule associated with the unsaved wound. Removing a wound from the model's Wound characteristic is a result. An unsaved Wound is a result, removing the armor save is an effect.
Got a rules quote to back that up?
No, but you don't have a rules quote that says your interpretation is right either. I never made a claim that it was in the rules either. It is an interpretation of the words in the book, this is not something that would be covered by the rules. What I am saying is that I do not consider removing a wound an effect based on the definition of the word effect.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/07/28 15:43:29
Subject: Entropic Strike Vs. FNP.
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Ahhhh.
You do realize that when Yakface makes a post, there is no reason to keep arguing about it.......
|
1850 1850+ 1850+ 1850+ 1850+ 1850+ 1850+ 1850+ 1850+ 1850+ 1850+ 1850+ 1000 and counting |
|
 |
 |
|