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.

What makes the FAQ ruling on FNP vs Force a change in the rules as opposed to a clarification?

I read the ruling and I see it as clarification that the use of immediately should be taken into account when completing SR's. What evidence of it changing the rules is there?

there isnt any, it was a clarification,

people who disagree because they didnt read it as such, will disagree

My take is that it's intented that way because if one of the rules takes place, the other can't anymore .Oh wait, that'd be so the other way as well... Sigh

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:
My take is that it's intented that way because if one of the rules takes place, the other can't anymore .Oh wait, that'd be so the other way as well... Sigh

Take it to it's logical: If you had a multi-wound model with FNP that takes a wound from a Force weapon(failing or denied his save), then take and fail your FNP, which your opponent then activates the force weapon; you have then broken the FNP rule via attempting the roll.

Sure a passed FNP would prevent the FW to activate at all, but the first unsaved wound(assuming multiple attacks on the FW wielder) that sticks and then gets successfully activates makes all wounds caused by the FW ID retroactively causing the first FNP to again have become illegal.

Really it is the new Force Weapon activation rules that sets this more in the realm of clarification than it does a rules change; everyone just seems to forget that.

Oh I agree it should be this way , but I'm getting tired of GW rulewriting ...

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:
Oh I agree it should be this way , but I'm getting tired of GW rulewriting ...

Try reading GW rules as plain-language.

GW doesn't write rules for Pre-law or English major Students; they write rules in 7th grade English. It is the community that wants to read more into what the rules say than what they say when you just read them.

The game is easy, quick and fun when played in Plain language; where you are not looking for the most over the top rules interactions an loop-holes.


On Topic-ish; I really do like the Clarification on Force Weapons and FNP, It sets precedent/Clarifies that all rules interaction where the possibility of a denial to one rule based on the success of another rule errs on the side of the restrictive rule.

Agreed. Which means that FNP can (and does) stop ES, etc. from applying.

The Force vs FNP was a clarification on the timing of both rules. Force activates "immediately" after an unsaved wound, while FNP does not. This was clarified to Force activating "before" FNP. Plain-language reading of the rule, as Kommisar Kel suggests, agrees with the result. Rules that activate immediately after the trigger event resolve before other rules that activate with the same trigger event, but don't resolve immediately. So actually the faq sets a precedent on the timing of rules that activate on the same event but one resolves immediately, and the other does not.

A you're triggering two events and only resolving one?
Why does Force have the ability to go back in time and stop FNP but FNP cannot possibly go back in time to stop, for example, ES?

I normally would agree with you copper.talos, as intimidate is a the terminology they use to say 'stop the process at this point, complete action X, then continue the process once more.' The other thread no longer has me so sure on that matter because of one simple thing: There are many other rules that contain the word 'immediately' that also trigger off a unsaved wound. It wouldn't be so bad if that was just the case, but in these situations strange things start to happen if you begin to apply the results of an unsaved wound to a model which saved it's Feel No Pain. The leading contender, though not the only case, was good old Mr. Doom representing the ability for a 'vampire' based special rule to regenerate wounds even if the target model isn't wounded.

That isn't to say that the opposite isn't true either. If you take the conclusion that Feel No Pain removes all effects that trigger on an unsaved wound you end up with strange situations as well. The leading contender for the most ridiculous outcome in that thread was the case of the psyker whom suffered from a Perils of the Warp result. As the test would only trigger on an unsaved wound, and Feel No Pain would undo the unsaved wound part, then the results of the test could no longer be applied. This effectively meant the psyker would regain a wound point and could even be brought back after being removed from a casualty.

As both mentalities lead to unusual outcomes, I could only conclude each individual case has to be reviewed separately to see which outcome causes the most 'strangeness' until they supply a more concrete answer.

I disagree, the faq only sets the precedent for negation or mutually negating effects not timing. All effects are the unsaved wound is the sume of these effects applied at the same time the unsaved wound is applied. If the unsaved wound is negated, treated as saved, any effects that would be applied with the unsaved wound cannot be applied.

Yet there is nothing in the FAQ about that being the reasoning. When you look at the FAQ it states Force happens first that is it. Assuming that Force can negate FNP is the reason it goes first and therefor you should extend that logic to all SR's instead of the wording of the ability makes multiple assumptions. Assuming Force goes first due to the use of immediately only has one assumption. Occum's razor tells us that immediately is what this ruling has come down to.

@rigeld2: Force is not going back in time, by the time FNP is checked to make the roll to discount the wound it is ID. Wounds that are ID activate FNP but FNP itself denies you the ability to make the roll. You are not actually being denied the activation of FNP you are denied the ability to make the roll.

If we stop with the going back in time complicated view we can actually get a good look at how the rules interact. I can see all abilities with immediately activating, including Doom, and then the model fighting off the affects of the loss of a wound. Someone asked why you would allow that and it's simple there are affects and side-affects to almost everything. The wound is the affect and the SR's are side-affects, just because the affects are negated does not mean that side-affects are. I spray a unit with a flame thrower just because I don't burn a soldier does not mean his eq is not on fire. I also find it funny that people will argue that psychic powers stack because you have permission to activate them but SR's can't apply if the wound is discounted, even though they have permission to activate.

It's a clarification, there were some people who thought the "immediately" in Force doesn't make it activate immediately, the FAQ clarified for them that it does.

rigeld2 wrote:A you're triggering two events and only resolving one?
Why does Force have the ability to go back in time and stop FNP but FNP cannot possibly go back in time to stop, for example, ES?

FNP does not say to cast Timewalk.

Again, "Treat it as having been saved"

This does not mean go back in time, save the wound, and proceed again from there.

It says "Treat it.." as in now, the present tense. This is an action or change at the current point in time and the 'it' can only refer to the wound so you are going to 'treat the wound now...'
'...as having been saved' As if the wound was saved at some previous point.

So 'Treat the wound now as having been saved'
-Since 'Treat as' = 'is'
'The wound has been saved.'

That is of course the same thing you could say right after making an armor save. At that time you 'treat it as having been saved'. Does that mean that the wound was saved before you made the armor save roll? No.
Likewise the wound having been saved after a successful FNP roll does not mean it was saved prior to that roll.

Gravmyr wrote:
@rigeld2: Force is not going back in time, by the time FNP is checked to make the roll to discount the wound it is ID. Wounds that are ID activate FNP but FNP itself denies you the ability to make the roll. You are not actually being denied the activation of FNP you are denied the ability to make the roll.

Yet at the time FNP is triggered it is not an ID wound.
You're going to need to cite the bolded sentence - as far as I can tell you've made it up because it suits your viewpoint.
FNP checks when it makes the roll - which must be when you suffer the wound. Delaying the roll is literally breaking a rule - but you're aware of that and refuse to accept it.

I also find it funny that people will argue that psychic powers stack because you have permission to activate them but SR's can't apply if the wound is discounted, even though they have permission to activate.

It's almost like the two situations aren't similar at all and you're just trying to goad a response out of someone...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:
FNP does not say to cast Timewalk.

But Force does? Perhaps you could cite that for me?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
FNP does not say to cast Timewalk.

But Force does? Perhaps you could cite that for me?

No, Force does not do that either.

I do not currently feel the 'why?' of the FWvsFNP FAQ can truly be determined at this point and therefore, as you had stated in the ESvsFNP thread, the two topics have little to do with each other. I was simply expressing my views on the mechanics of FNP and the issues I take with your opinions on it.

Looking back now, I may have expressed them a a bit to strongly. If that is the case I meant no offense. I had intended to summarize things fairly concisely and conclusively so as to avoid reiterating myself in the future but in doing so, fear I may have come across as a bit rude.

Force isn't what negates FnP, ID is. The faq just tells you to make the Force psychic test before FnP, as it has the potential to make all unsaved wounds ID. Essentially it's a clarification of tests/rolls happen before effects are tallied. Or rather any effect that may come into play due to chance must be tested before applying anything as not all effects have been determined.

Gee all this stuff sounds like order of operation stuff to me...

Anyways, faqs do sometimes change rules and the way we play. As far as i can remember youmakedacall tenets says they are raw, so the whole thread is moot!

It is a clarification not a rules change simply because it is an FAQ not an errata. FAQs can not change the rules they simply clarify them.

 FlingitNow wrote:
It is a clarification not a rules change simply because it is an FAQ not an errata. FAQs can not change the rules they simply clarify them.

This is manifestly untrue. Note the Tyranid FAQ question with regards to Shadow in the Warp affecting units in transports. This was answered both yes and no in subsequent FAQ updates. One of them must have been a rules change. So FAQ's do occasionally change the rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
It is a clarification not a rules change simply because it is an FAQ not an errata. FAQs can not change the rules they simply clarify them.

Someone hasn't been reading the FAQs. Or is there a line in the rulebook about Flying Monstrous Creatures being able to choose to Skyfire that I'm missing?

Jangustus wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
It is a clarification not a rules change simply because it is an FAQ not an errata. FAQs can not change the rules they simply clarify them.

This is manifestly untrue. Note the Tyranid FAQ question with regards to Shadow in the Warp affecting units in transports. This was answered both yes and no in subsequent FAQ updates. One of them must have been a rules change. So FAQ's do occasionally change the rules.

Not true it is impossible for an FAQ to change the rules. When an FAQ changes all that means is the first FAQ was a mistake and the second is an errata to the first as they literally change the text of the FAQ (which is what errata do).

Chrysis wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
It is a clarification not a rules change simply because it is an FAQ not an errata. FAQs can not change the rules they simply clarify them.

Someone hasn't been reading the FAQs. Or is there a line in the rulebook about Flying Monstrous Creatures being able to choose to Skyfire that I'm missing?

Well, according to GW that's how you should have been playing it the whole time.

Perhaps looking for other rules which may negate each other, or one negating another, looking how we currently handle those. Can't think of any off the top of my head. But there are more knowledgeable people here on different armies, surly FNP and Force are not the only ones.



In the SITW case one designer might have answered the question, and upon another seeing it decided the need to intervene. I don't believe all the designers truly understand the intent of every single rule written, especially if they did not write it.

@rigeld2: FNP: "Note that FNP rolls cannot be made against unsaved Wounds that inflict ID." pg 35. Notice how the SR itself does not tell you that it is not activated, it states that you cannot make the roll. By the definition of permissive rules you have to activate the SR to even get to that point in the SR. Think of it like a program you have to have met the activation criteria before you can even consider what it will do for the current process. If ID had it in it's rules that FNP could not activate then it would be too late as they both activate at the same time.
:activation
:check for ID
:make roll
:result

If it were the case that immediately didn't mean anything and you would have to do everything at the same time as soon as the unsaved wound is allocated then you still cannot stop everything from happening as it would all have happened at the same time and the discounting of the wound would happen at the same time as the results of every other SR.

Since you are asking for proof please quote a line stating that FNP stops all activation of other SR's or that it must go first. Now I'm asking for an actual quote not your reading of what a FAQ implies or a timewalking theory you would have to use to get it to work like that.

Gravmyr wrote:
If it were the case that immediately didn't mean anything and you would have to do everything at the same time as soon as the unsaved wound is allocated then you still cannot stop everything from happening as it would all have happened at the same time and the discounting of the wound would happen at the same time as the results of every other SR.

At best they happen at the same time. Exactly like, I dunno, Force and FNP. And yet you're asserting that Force can changes the past and FNP can't.

Since you are asking for proof please quote a line stating that FNP stops all activation of other SR's or that it must go first. Now I'm asking for an actual quote not your reading of what a FAQ implies or a timewalking theory you would have to use to get it to work like that.

That's cute - you're asking me to quote a rule but not allowing me to quote a rule. Pro debate style right there man.

If you can't tell the difference between a quote and an interpretation I finally understand why you are having an issue telling the difference between your time travel theory and other options.

Force is completed first per the FAQ. If you are doing them at the same time you are breaking rules. If you can't see that FNP is activated at the same time Force but Force is completed first, therefor keeping FNP from being able top roll per FNP, I'm not sure how anyone can discuss any part of this game with you. You are the only one asserting that anything is changing the past. Again, if you can't provide an actual line that states at least something you are paraphrasing, note that is different then interpreting, that says to go back in time or that it stops all other SR's from occurring then you are making up virtually every part of your stance. Can you at least show somewhere in the BRB where it states that anything that can stop other things have to go first?

Again, Force is a test to grant a USR it is not in direct competition with FnP. The psychic test is stated to be required to go first, not the application of its potential effect ID. FnP is a test also, it tests to treat the wound as saved so it to is a potential effect that needs to be resolved before its potential effect can be applied. They both need to be tested before resolving what effects take place, the FaQ illustrates that random chance effects need to be tested for before any effects apply.

Problem with that is its making a big statement about the rules, that was completely missed out of the rule book and contradicts the rules we already have, I would be reluctant to play it that way without other examples, or other possible examples.

A simple explanation is 'immediatly' means Force and FNP are not in fact triggered at the same time. We know timing of special rules affect the outcome.

Interesting, you've managed to decide that FNP and force happen before anything else based off a FAQ that does not include any mention of other SR's. How are you getting that they happen before other SR's without any mention of such?