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.

In my opinion 'Immediatly' is written for a reason and gives the ability a higher priority when triggering at the same time as other abilities.

FNP, and Force/ Boneswords are triggered at the same time.

If 2 are listed as 'Immediatly' then your stuck, and can roll it out.

Edit: Based on RAW, RAI is anyones guess.

'Unsaved' applies before FNP, FNP is not a save. FNP is activated by 'Unsaved' wounds, Your mixing your perception of 'Unsaved' wounds with 40K meaning of 'Unsaved' wounds.

 DeathReaper wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
Rigeld2 why don't you explain which and how non-ID rules are broken when FNP is used like Snappenthetwig suggests.

here is why:

Lets say two models are fighting, one has Entropic Strike, the other has FNP.

The model with ES hits and wounds, the armor save is failed.

Now 2 things happen:

1) FNP is triggered and needs to be resolved.

2) ES is triggered and needs to be resolved.

Lets assume both rolls for ES and FNP are a 6.

If ES goes first, we have broken the FNP rule because you removed a models armor save when the wound is considered saved.

If FNP goes first, nothing else needs to be done.

One interpretation breaks the rules, one does not.

Play with the method that does not break any rules. (As we are not allowed to break rules).

You do not remove a models armor save, becuase FNP is not a save. The would is then treated as saved after FNP, not considered a save.

Think we will have to agree to disagree =) hope it gets FAQ'd though

Just how I see it, Treated as saved from FNP applies only after a Sucessful FNP. If ES goes first, it never actually breaks the rules, as its never active during a saved wound fron FNP

Scenario:

ES Rolls first, Successful. Wounds and Smooshed,

^How has that broken the rules

 DeathReaper wrote:

Nem wrote:
Scenario:

ES Rolls first, Successful. Wounds and Smooshed,

^How has that broken the rules

Because after a successful FNP we have to treat the unsaved wound as saved.

Why are you removing an armor save off of a saved wound?

FNP was negated though in this scenario, it was never a unsaved wound

If you want to take it from a different angle you could argue you have not Suffered the wound until the weapon ability is complete, Force test is activated when the wound is allocated, and saves are failed not when suffered, ''Suffering'' a unsaved wound is needed to activate FNP..

I believed there was significance in the difference of Allocating, and Suffering wounds, but not sure.

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
the BRB says FNP cannot be taken against unsaved wounds that cause ID, the FAQ says FNP cannot be taken against weapons that cause ID... I said nothing about LL and it is irrelevant to the issue since LL does not have both a BRB and FAQ rule saying you do not get a FNP roll against it.

the real paradox is caused by people ignoring the two specific rules that gw put in print about no FNP rolls on ID from both unsaved wounds and weapons causing ID

It's not irrelevant to the issue so please stop saying that it is.
Your interpretation works with some of the "unsaved wound" abilities. When applied to all of them rules are broken meaning that at least in those cases your interpretation cannot be correct.

Since we have an interpretation that never breaks rules regardless of which "unsaved wound" ability is put in the equation that can be the only correct way.

ID doesnt apply until after Force is resolved in the same way the wound is not Saved until after FNP is resolved, you can't pick and chose which breaks the rules. Either both do or both do not.EDIT:

Either you :
1) Apply FW (and such) Special Rules first, which you then argue breaks the rules becuase IF FNP is applied after you were actually applying it to a 'saved' wound
or
1) Apply FNP first and cause the wound to be treated as Saved, which I then argue breaks the rules becuase IF ID is applied after you were actually applying it to a ID wound.


Both are the same, the cause of ID doesnt apply until roll, is the same as the wound is not treated as saved until after FNP roll.
The Scenario is incorrect, when used for FW


Edit #2: How I edit the scenario in question, But replacing for ID:
Lets say two models are fighting, one has FW (or equivilent), the other has FNP.

The model with FW hits and wounds, the armor save is failed.

Now 2 things happen:

1) FNP is triggered and needs to be resolved.

2) FW is triggered and needs to be resolved.

Lets assume both rolls for FW and FNP are a 6.

If FW goes first, we have broken the FNP rule because you Applied ID when the wound is considered saved.

If FNP goes first, we have broken the FNP rule because you used FNP when the wound is considered ID


Both interpretation break the rules



All of this considered, I put little credibility to the scenario as a whole. The premise is based on rolling off 2 abilities at one time, which is just now how 40K works. We could break lots of rules when applying to this scenario type. The order of things simple is you choose to do one or the other, One will nullify the second, and in reality niether are broken.

This leaves you with only 'Immediatly' being a factor. One RAW states immediatly, the other your assuming its urgency.

I would however be happy to roll on it if it came up.

Lungpickle wrote:

Its not a save because if it was a save the rules themselves would be broken since we are allowed only one saving throw per wound, sans rerolls. It however is still part of the save process as demonstrated by the wourding of FNP. Saves and FNP per wound are actions done in conjunction with each other not apart from each other. .

That is incorrect, FNP is a special ability, not a save, it is not related to Saves, the only relation is has to a save, is If it is successful you 'Treat the wound as saved'. They are not done in conjunction either, the ability is activated after a condition, the problem here is both special abilities are activated on the same condition.

The problem is your thinking of it as a Save, rather than a Special Ability

DevianID wrote:
While force weapons and Fnp both activate on unsaved wounds, Fnp must come first.
...
...

If we conclude that force can activate before Fnp, we must also conclude that wounds can be removed before Fnp, since both resolve upon unsaved wounds. Clearly that order is not intended as you could tell your opponent that on your turn their Fnp will resolve second to removing wounds, making it useless.

The point is, one will always make the other useless.

DevianID wrote:
Right, but while the raw on fnp is poorly worded, do you play that Fnp comes after models are removed from the table? No of course not. Therefore you play that Fnp comes before unsaved wound resolution for force weapons as well for consistency.

Its worded as worded, FNP is activated as by 'Suffering a Unsaved wound' it means what it says. The fact that FNP is 'treated as saved' if successful is the badly worded part.

DevianID wrote:
Nem, I don't understand your comment. It's worded as its worded?

Sorry, confusing take on 'It is what it is'

-

The problem I have with the arguements presented for FNP is the outcome means FNP would always get priority over other abilities which are triggered by the same condition ('Suffering a Unsaved wound'). I just can't accept its intended that FNP Special Rule always gets Proirity over other Special Rules triggered.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
That part I get. (your way/my way just used for example purposes)

The part I don't is how you justify it being(your way)

Hit
Wound
Fail Save
FnP
Any other rule

The way I read the rules(my way)

Hit
Wound
Fail Save
Special rules in the order the Active player decides

Both ways breaks exactly one rule. Your way breaks the exceptional rule(which does cover activating multiple special rules, not just making both players do something), my way breaks FNP, in as much that it may not be able to be used, and doesn't counter a previous rule.

Just like you won't go back and remove the other models at the same initiative step that gained Instant death, when all wounds by the squad at that step have it. Why should we have to go back and undo our rule where we gained a wound, removed your armor, or removed a model from play?

IMO, playing by Exceptions would be the fairest and most balanced option.