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.

Here is the thread to discuss this rules call. Please don't discuss it here.

Here are the pertinent rules in case you have not and will not read the pertinent thread.

Feel no Pain, BRB p35 wrote:On a 5+, the unsaved wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved.

Entropic Strike, Necron Codex p29 wrote:Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses its armour save for the remainder of the battle.

FAQ wrote:Q: In assault, what comes first – Feel No Pain rolls or the roll to activate a Force weapon? (p37)
A: The roll to activate a Force Weapon is made before determining whether or not the victim is permitted a Feel No Pain roll.

Based on these rules and the arguments already presented, do you think that a model that suffers a wound which is then negated by Feel no Pain should or should not lose their armor save?

HIWPI or RAW?

Is this a RAW poll or a HYWPI poll?

This is how you think it should work. If you think that HIWPI should matter, then answer that way. If you only play by the strictest of RAW, then by all means answer it that way. How do you think it should work?

So a HWYPI poll. Gotcha.

Only if you want it to be.

I left that particular phrase out, because too many people confuse HIWPI with 'How It Would Be If I Wrote The Game.' And I'd rather people didn't answer that way. If I just ask 'how should it work?' people give an answer much closer to the one they would give in a real-world situation.

The way you initially worded it seems to point more towards what you're trying to avoid.

In the first post? How so?

"How should it work?"
Means, to me, "How would it work if we were changing the rules?"

Regardless, you've edited the OP to make it much more clear.

The precedent is set to me by how FNP and force weapon wounds are done.

The attacker using a force weapon, would roll to use it once an unsaved wound is taken before FNP. After that successful roll all wounds created are now instant death.

That's the precedent that I would use in the case of entropic strike vs FNP. since entropic strike says when you fail a save you loose your armor save for the rest of the game. However you can't loose a invulnerable save nor your FNP power.

Lungpickle wrote:
The precedent is set to me by how FNP and force weapon wounds are done.

The attacker using a force weapon, would roll to use it once an unsaved wound is taken before FNP. After that successful roll all wounds created are now instant death.

That's the precedent that I would use in the case of entropic strike vs FNP. since entropic strike says when you fail a save you loose your armor save for the rest of the game. However you can't loose a invulnerable save nor your FNP power.

Except that force weapons cause ID which negates FNP. ES does not so there is no precedent as the two powers are not similar.

Only the faq says nothing of this. This reasoning exists only in your imagination. The faq sets the timing of the force weapon roll before the FNP roll and that's it. And the timing of the ES is exactly the same as the force weapon's

And for those that claim that the faq changed the rule, actually the faq changed nothing. It clarified a rule which some people played one way and some people played another. So some people were right in the first place, and some people were wrong. Big deal... If the next faq allows FNP against force weapons then that faq would have changed the rules.

The faq leans more to negating fnp than implying an otder or operations. Strict RAW the wound counts as saved in all situations, the faq being an exception ratherthan the rule as ID from force weapons negate fnp.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So unless the proarmour loss side can produce a similar exception for engropic strike I'm discounting the faq entry as it has nothing to do with entropic strike.

The "BEFORE determining whether or not the victim is permitted a Feel No Pain roll" sets timing. If the faq was worded similar to "FNP is not allowed if the force weapon roll is successfull" or "a successfull force weapon roll does not permit a FNP roll" then I would agree that the faq was made to just negate FNP.

Set timing all you want, fnp can happen last just before the wound is removed and it won't change how fnp works. As it treats the wound as saved any effect that requires an unsaved wound would not take effect as the wound no longer is an unsaved wound.

effectively its like the card game war, where the ace beats everythin excpet for a two and the two is beaten by everything except for an ace.

By the time the wound is treated as saved, the armour has already been stripped. In order for FNP to restore armour saves, it would need an appropriate wording.

Incorrect. the wound no longer is an unsaved wound, any effects that require an unsaved wound no longer count as applicable as the wound was saved.

It doesn't matter what happens to the wound after the model loses its armour save. They are are not linked any more. ES, the only thing that connects unsaved wounds and armour saves, applied its effect and it's gone. In order to change the already applied effect, a rule should retroactively cancel ES or restore armour saves. FNP does nothing of these

Wow I am having a hard time seeing how more than half the people voting on this thread think you would get to keep your armour save... "treated as" does not mean it did not happen. I . Would swear that there was another thread on the wording of treated as here on dakka not too long ago. At the same time I don't know why half these rules questions are even an issue. Every time I have e-mailed games workshop about a rules question they always provide me an answer. Why not just ask them?

Fnp takes away the required trigger, an unsaved wound, for every thing. as id negates fnp it has no chance to negate the trigger for force. this is not the case with anything that requires the trigger but doesn't. negate fnp.

Point of interest no effect takes effect until the wound is taken/suffered. Just because the effect of the force wrapin is id doesn't mean the model suffers id before the wound is applied. eternal warror would in fact check after id effects but before the wound is applied, treating the id effect as a single wound.

This is the point, the effects are there but not applied unless the wound is. as fnp treats the wound as saved no trigger is made and no wound is applied.

Do we really need two of these?

HIWPI and how I feel RAW work in this situation.

The target suffers an unsaved wound.
The Entropic Strike immedatly removes the armor save.
The target then makes a Feel No Pain Check.
The unsaved wound is retroactively converted to a saved wound.
All the effects of suffering an unsaved wound are undone.

 Neorealist wrote:
Do we really need two of these?

true, we should not debate in the poll thread. I will stop going back and forth here.

I don't believe the force weapon FAQ applies. That is dealing with whether or not it's an ID attack and therefore ignores FNP. So the order of operations was critical to the attack working as intended.

The ES rule is specific about the wound being unsaved and FNP, although not a save itself, if successful converts a wound to being saved. Order isn't important only whether the wound was saved or not.

The "immediately" part to me is just saying that when it is unsaved then additional wounds caused by the shooting attack don't get armor saves for the model. Intent here seems pretty clear.

As to emailing GW, I've now sent 30 emails on rule questions to them and I've only had 1 response.

With regards to whether we need multiple threads or not, I honestly think each of these rules queries ought to be poll based in order to get a better feel of what the community as a whole thinks.

Let's try not to debate the rules here. There is already a thread for that, linked in the original post. This thread is just to gather numbers. (And attach a name to our opinions, if you feel the need.)

 Jimsolo wrote:
Let's try not to debate the rules here. There is already a thread for that, linked in the original post. This thread is just to gather numbers. (And attach a name to our opinions, if you feel the need.)

If no one posts, your poll disappears awful fast.

As the debate continues on the other thread we can always come back here to state new points that are raised.

For instance there are several effects that have the unsaved wound trigger, if es was applied regargless of the wound not being applied and it's triggered condition being removed. Then all of these other effects would have the same application without a wound or triggered condition.

concussive, soulblaze, pinning, strike down... the list goes on and is likely to get longer with new codexes. These would also apply their effects if fnp is successful. by the oppositions interpretation.

I voted with 'Does not lose its armor save' because even if the ES hits FIRST, the wording on FnP states that the prior wound counds as saved so it removes the effects of it being unsaved even if they were applied. Just my two cents.

 Bausk wrote:
As the debate continues on the other thread we can always come back here to state new points that are raised.

For instance there are several effects that have the unsaved wound trigger, if es was applied regargless of the wound not being applied and it's triggered condition being removed. Then all of these other effects would have the same application without a wound or triggered condition.

concussive, soulblaze, pinning, strike down... the list goes on and is likely to get longer with new codexes. These would also apply their effects if fnp is successful. by the oppositions interpretation.

Not all of the above abilities happen "immediately" after an unsaved wound. ES does happen "immediately" after an unsaved wound and that's why it gets priority over FNP.

So you have permission to break the FNP rule?

Page and para please.