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.

Tychron wrote:
To me it is because FNP is a saving throw, which after you take it would negate the condition for acid blood.

This is completely flawed logic, because the trigger for FNP and the trigger for AB are identical. Both trigger off of an unsaved wound. If FNP removes the condition for AB, then it also removes the condition for FNP, which creates a paradox. Your argument makes no sense at all. The two trigger simultaneously and both are resolved based off the total number of unsaved wounds.

Aldarionn wrote:

Tychron wrote:
To me it is because FNP is a saving throw, which after you take it would negate the condition for acid blood.

This is completely flawed logic, because the trigger for FNP and the trigger for AB are identical. Both trigger off of an unsaved wound. If FNP removes the condition for AB, then it also removes the condition for FNP, which creates a paradox. Your argument makes no sense at all. The two trigger simultaneously and both are resolved based off the total number of unsaved wounds.

Isn't that being a little obtuse? The wound is unsaved... you take FNP... the wound is now saved. You don't test for FNP again to see if you should roll in the first place. But if you roll Acid blood first, then take the FNP roll and save you negate the acid blood roll and would have to backtrack.

Tychron wrote:

Aldarionn wrote:

Tychron wrote:
To me it is because FNP is a saving throw, which after you take it would negate the condition for acid blood.

This is completely flawed logic, because the trigger for FNP and the trigger for AB are identical. Both trigger off of an unsaved wound. If FNP removes the condition for AB, then it also removes the condition for FNP, which creates a paradox. Your argument makes no sense at all. The two trigger simultaneously and both are resolved based off the total number of unsaved wounds.

Isn't that being a little obtuse? The wound is unsaved... you take FNP... the wound is now saved. You don't test for FNP again to see if you should roll in the first place. But if you roll Acid blood first, then take the FNP roll and save you negate the acid blood roll and would have to backtrack.

Okay. Where are you getting your timing from? Why is Acid Blood triggered after FNP, when they have the exact same conditions?

Edit: Your logic should look like this: The wound is unsaved... you take FNP and the enemy takes Acid Blood... the wound is now saved and 1 enemy model is dead.

Tychron wrote:
Isn't that being a little obtuse? The wound is unsaved... you take FNP... the wound is now saved. You don't test for FNP again to see if you should roll in the first place. But if you roll Acid blood first, then take the FNP roll and save you negate the acid blood roll and would have to backtrack.

Why are you assuming that FNP is a save!? It's clearly not a save. It is a USR that allows the model to ignore an injury and continue fighting after taking an unsaved wound.

Consider the rules on page 24:

"Sometimes a model will have a normal armour save and a separate invulnerable save -- a good example is a Space marine Chaplain who is protected by both power armour and a Rosarius-generated force field. As if this wasn't enough, the model might be in cover as well. In these cases, the model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save."

If FNP were a saving throw, the model would get to make EITHER its armor save OR the FNP "saving throw". FNP is clearly NOT a save since it requires a model to have failed an armor save in order to trigger, and thus the wound is still unsaved after FNP is made. I do not understand why this is not clear. There are effects OTHER than saves that can negate wounds after the wound has already been suffered. FNP falls into this category, and does not remove the fact that the model suffered an unsaved wound.

Even if your argument were valid (and its not), both FNP and AB trigger from the model suffering an unsaved wound. By definition effects that have the same trigger occur simultaneously when that trigger occurs (in this case the unsaved wound). Simultaneous effects are resolved in an order determined by the controlling player, and he could choose to resolve AB prior to resolving FNP.

Your argument is incorrect on two levels.

puma713 wrote:

Okay. Where are you getting your timing from? Why is Acid Blood triggered after FNP, when they have the exact same conditions?

Edit: Your logic should look like this: The wound is unsaved... you take FNP and the enemy takes Acid Blood...

By that logic than any wounding roll could trigger acid blood. You roll to hit, then you roll and wound, now you have an unsaved wound and trigger acid blood, but you haven't taken an armor/invulnerable/cover save. I would play it that the armor/cover/invulnerable save and the FNP save happen in the same step of "Take Saving Throws". Then after that step you apply wounds and trigger acid blood. Like I mentioned, the FNP is never explicitly called a Saving Throw, but I think it would be less of a leap to group FNP rolls into the Taking Saving Throws than it is to allow acid blood to trigger more times than a model has wounds.

Can someone answer this:

How can you say a wound has been ignored if it has caused an effect?

Aldarionn wrote:Why are you assuming that FNP is a save!? It's clearly not a save. It is a USR that allows the model to ignore an injury and continue fighting after taking an unsaved wound.

Consider the rules on page 24:

"Sometimes a model will have a normal armour save and a separate invulnerable save -- a good example is a Space marine Chaplain who is protected by both power armour and a Rosarius-generated force field. As if this wasn't enough, the model might be in cover as well. In these cases, the model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save."

If FNP were a saving throw, the model would get to make EITHER its armor save OR the FNP "saving throw". FNP is clearly NOT a save since it requires a model to have failed an armor save in order to trigger, and thus the wound is still unsaved after FNP is made. I do not understand why this is not clear. There are effects OTHER than saves that can negate wounds after the wound has already been suffered. FNP falls into this category, and does not remove the fact that the model suffered an unsaved wound.

Even if your argument were valid (and its not), both FNP and AB trigger from the model suffering an unsaved wound. By definition effects that have the same trigger occur simultaneously when that trigger occurs (in this case the unsaved wound). Simultaneous effects are resolved in an order determined by the controlling player, and he could choose to resolve AB prior to resolving FNP.

Your argument is incorrect on two levels.

No, the passage in the BRB does not say that you only get to take one saving throw, it says out of armor, cover, and invulnerable saves you only get to take one. I emphasized the distinction I am referring to, FNP is not a cover, armor, or invulnerable save case, so you get to use it.

Tychron wrote:
No, the passage in the BRB does not say that you only get to take one saving throw, it says out of armor, cover, and invulnerable saves you only get to take one. I emphasized the distinction I am referring to, FNP is not a cover, armor, or invulnerable save case, so you get to use it.

No, the passage does not say that at all. The passage says that a model may have multiple types of saves available. It then goes on to list some examples of those, which include armor, cover and invulnerable. The last line then says the model only ever gets to make one saving throw, which is pretty clear cut. If FNP were a saving throw (which it is not), the model would get to make an armor save, or a cover save, or an invulnerable save, or a FNP "save". Since FNP is not a save, and requires that the model has ALREADY FAILED A SAVE, it is allowed to be taken in addition to whatever saving throw the model has already made.

Let me emphasize this again.

FNP triggers when a model has suffered an unsaved wound.
AB triggers when a model has suffered an unsaved wound.
The definition of unsaved wound is a wound which has been suffered and a saving throw was failed or denied.
FNP cannot be used on unsaved wounds from weapons that cause ID or are AP2 or better, or close combat attacks that ignore armor.
If the wound qualifies for FNP the roll can be made and the injury ignored, but the wound was still suffered. The model took a wound, but was not removed as a casualty and no wound was subtracted from its total number of wounds. The effects of that wound still occur, but the model ignores the whole dying portion of it.

By your logic, a FNP "save" would be taken PRIOR to the trigger that allowed FNP in the first place, which is an unsaved wound. You claim that FNP is taken at the same time as an armor save, which cannot possibly be true since the model has to fail an armor save for FNP to occur in the first place. The two are not simultaneous and FNP is not a save.

Read the passage you posted again.

Sometimes a model will have a normal armour save and a separate invulnerable save -- a good example is a Space marine Chaplain who is protected by both power armour and a Rosarius-generated force field. As if this wasn't enough, the model might be in cover as well. In these cases, the model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save.

What cases are they referring to? They explicitly state armor, cover, and invulnerable saves in the previous sentence as the cases where you only get one save. It doesn't say you get one saving throw ever. It says out of cover, armor and invulnerable saves, you use the best save and only get one.

Now after you take your armor saves, but are still in the Taking Saving Throws portion of resolving the rules you would have an unsaved wound... take FNP. If you fail that you have no saves left and then would apply acid blood.

Tychron wrote:Now after you take your armor saves, but are still in the Taking Saving Throws portion of resolving the rules you would have an unsaved wound... take FNP. If you fail that you have no saves left and then would apply acid blood.

People do play it that way (most often), but that has nothing to do with the text. There is nothing that requires the steps to be done in the order you state. And it causes a lot more issues than it resolves to call FNP a save.

Tychron wrote:
Now after you take your armor saves, but are still in the Taking Saving Throws portion of resolving the rules you would have an unsaved wound... take FNP. If you fail that you have no saves left and then would apply acid blood.

Again with the paradox. A model is wounded and it takes its save and fails, thus creating an unsaved wound and triggering effects that are caused by unsaved wounds. The model takes its FNP "save" and if you no longer have an unsaved wound, then you would not have gotten the FNP test to begin with, which means the model is wounded and it takes its save and fails, thus creating an unsaved wound and triggering effects that are caused by unsaved wounds. The model takes its FNP "save" and if you no longer have an unsaved wound, then you would not have gotten the FNP test to begin with, which means the model is wounded and it takes its save and fails, thus creating an unsaved wound and triggering effects that are caused by unsaved wounds. The model takes its FNP "save" and if you no longer have an unsaved wound, then you would not have gotten the FNP test to begin with, which means the model is wounded and it takes its save and fails, thus creating an unsaved wound and triggering effects that are caused by unsaved wounds. The model takes its FNP "save" and if you no longer have an unsaved wound, then you would not have gotten the FNP test to begin with, which means the model is wounded and it takes its save and fails, thus creating an unsaved wound and triggering effects that are caused by unsaved wounds. The model takes its FNP "save" and if you no longer have an unsaved wound, then you would not have gotten the FNP test to begin with, which means the model is wounded and it takes its save and fails, thus creating an unsaved wound and triggering effects that are caused by unsaved wounds. The model takes its FNP "save" and if you no longer have an unsaved wound, then you would not have gotten the FNP test to begin with, which means the model is wounded and it takes its save and fails, thus creating an unsaved wound and triggering effects that are caused by unsaved wounds. The model takes its FNP "save" and if you no longer have an unsaved wound, then you would not have gotten the FNP test to begin with, which means the model is wounded and it takes its save and fails, thus creating an unsaved wound and triggering effects that are caused by unsaved wounds. The model takes its FNP "save" and if you no longer have an unsaved wound, then you would not have gotten the FNP test to begin with, which means the model...........................AAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Im done arguing this with you. You are using flimsy arguments based on the false assumption that FNP is a save, when nowhere is it defined as a save, to back up an interpretation that creates a paradox within the rules where the other, more logical interpretation REMOVES that paradox. If nothing that has been said thus far will show you that your interpretation is incorrect then I doubt anything I say will.

Failing a save makes you suffer an unsaved wound. Whenever you suffer an unsaved wound FNP lets you roll to ignore the injury.

If you apply the logic that FNP is a saving throw, then a model with FNP will never die. Whenever he fails his FNP "save" he suffers an unsaved wound, that means you will get another FNP "save", because you suffered an unsaved wound.
This will result in a loop that will only end when the model passes his save.

Tylarion wrote:Failing a save makes you suffer an unsaved wound. Whenever you suffer an unsaved wound FNP lets you roll to ignore the injury.

If you apply the logic that FNP is a saving throw, then a model with FNP will never die. Whenever he fails his FNP "save" he suffers an unsaved wound, that means you will get another FNP "save", because you suffered an unsaved wound.
This will result in a loop that will only end when the model passes his save.

QFMFT

Ignoring all the effects is like trying to obey a rule that says "Ignore this rule". Doesn't work.

Besides, 'nid players should just do this:

Get hit
Get wounded
Fail (armor/cover/invuln) save
Roll AB
Wound
Roll FnP
Pass
Ignore the Wound (on themselves)

Can anyone explain why this is invalid?

honorguard wrote:Ignoring all the effects is like trying to obey a rule that says "Ignore this rule". Doesn't work.

Besides, 'nid players should just do this:

Get hit
Get wounded
Fail (armor/cover/invuln) save
Roll AB
Wound
Roll FnP
Pass
Ignore the Wound (on themselves)

Can anyone explain why this is invalid?

Nope. Seems good to me and it follows the RAW, though our interpretation does have broader implications. For instance, as I mentioned above, Lemartes has the ability "Fury unbound" which states "If Lemartes suffers an unsaved wound, but is not slain, his Strength and Attacks both immediately increase to 5". If Lemartes suffers an unsaved wound, then ignores the wound via FNP, he still gains the bonus from Fury Unbound because he has suffered an unsaved wound but was not slain. It is possible that there are other such occurrences.

Failing armour saves leads to unsaved wounds leads to simultaneous Acid Blood and Feel no Pain.

Every unsaved wound forces both an Acid Blood Initiative test and a Feel no Pain roll.

honorguard wrote:Ignoring all the effects is like trying to obey a rule that says "Ignore this rule". Doesn't work.

Besides, 'nid players should just do this:

Get hit
Get wounded
Fail (armor/cover/invuln) save
Roll AB
Wound
Roll FnP
Pass
Ignore the Wound (on themselves)

Can anyone explain why this is invalid?

Because you didn't ignore the wound. You used it to trigger AB.

I do actually have to agree that FNP is not a saving throw, it's a USR that grants an ability to ignore a wound. Now I just need to have my book handy so I can read the exact wording of FNP to see if it states anything in there about...well, anything really.

Grakmar wrote:
Because you didn't ignore the wound. You used it to trigger AB.

You are correct that he did not ignore the wound. What you are missing is the fact that FNP allows him to not remove a wound from his total number of wounds and/or be removed as a casualty. FNP allows a model to continue fighting while wounded.

The model suffered the unsaved wound. The model was indifferent.

Grakmar wrote:Can someone answer this:

How can you say a wound has been ignored if it has caused an effect?

Can you ignore a car wreck on the side of the road while it still causing an effect? Perhaps the traffic you're sitting in.

Your definition is skewed. You ignore the wound. You don't ignore something that has been triggered by the wound taking place. You suffer an unsaved wound. Your opponent takes AB. You put a wound counter on your Hive Tyrant for the unsaved wound you just suffered, then you roll your FNP. Now, you get to ignore that wound counter.

Imagine it like the wound counter never even gets removed from the table. It still sits there, next to your Hive Tyrant. But you get to ignore it. Normally, you'd remove it for clarity, but rules-wise, the wound is still there, you're just ignoring it.

Kevin949 wrote:I do actually have to agree that FNP is not a saving throw, it's a USR that grants an ability to ignore a wound. Now I just need to have my book handy so I can read the exact wording of FNP to see if it states anything in there about...well, anything really.

Here is the exact wording of FNP verbatim from the BRB

FEEL NO PAIN
Some warriors are so blood-frenzied or tough that they can ignore injuries that would incapacitate even a battle-hardened Space Marine. If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice. On a 1, 2, or 3, take the wound as normal (removing the model if it loses its final Wound). On a 4, 5, or 6, the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting. This ability cannot be used against wounds from weapons that inflict instant death (by having a high enough Strength or a special rule to that effect; even if the model is an eternal warrior). Neither can it be used against wounds from AP1 and AP2 weapons, power weapons and any other wound against which no armor save can ever be taken (like wounds from Power Fists, Dreadnought close combat weapons, rending weapons that roll a 6, Perils of the Warp, failed dangerous terrain tests, etc).

I see nothing in that wording that calls it a save.

And this should be:

honorguard wrote:
Get hit
Get wounded
Fail (armor/cover/invuln) save
Your opponent rolls AB/You roll FNP
Wounds are allocated/Your wound counters [see my post above] are ignored

A timetable need not be placed on it.

For everyone arguing about why AB can't go before FNP, It can. Say you successfully score acid blood hits on the enemy unit, you then roll FNP pass all of them, there are now no longer any acid blood hits on the enemy. As they have been ignored.

Doing FNP first just makes it easier as you don't have to roll as many dice.

What won't be able to be explained, I guess, is why it counts for AB and not combat resolution.

It has been decided that "saving", "redeeming", "reversing", "preventing" or "ignoring" a wound with FNP does not prevent AB from taking action thanks to that wound.

Conversely, FNP cannot prevent AB wounds from taking effect.

Thus the sequence is:

Roll for wounds.
Roll for saves.
Roll Initiative rolls for unsaved wounds, owing to Acid Blood.
Roll for FNP on unsaved wounds, except if caused by Acid Blood.
Tot up wounds to see who won the melee.

Alternatively;
Roll for wounds.
Roll for saves.
Roll for FNP on unsaved wounds. Make a note of how many were saved/ignored/reversed/etc, as these will still force Initiative rolls for Acid Blood.
Add the unsaved wounds and the wounds reversed/saved/ignored thanks to FNP.
Roll Initiative rolls for these wounds, to avoid wounds by Acid Blood.
Tot up wounds to see who won the melee.

Alternatively;
Roll for wounds.
Roll for saves.
Get two sets of different coloured dice. One set will represent the FNP save/ignore/reverse rolls for the wounds inflicted in step 2. The other set will represent the wounds not saved in step two, which now have a chance to inflict wounds by Acid Blood.
Roll both sets of dice simultaneously.
Remove the wounds saved/ignored/reversed by FNP.
Tot up wounds to see who won the melee.

Does that make sense?

Kilkrazy wrote:It has been decided that "saving", "redeeming", "reversing", "preventing" or "ignoring" a wound with FNP does not prevent AB from taking action thanks to that wound.

Conversely, FNP cannot prevent AB wounds from taking effect.

Thus the sequence is:

Roll for wounds.
Roll for saves.
Roll Initiative rolls for unsaved wounds, owing to Acid Blood.
Roll for FNP on unsaved wounds, except if caused by Acid Blood.
Tot up wounds to see who won the melee.

Alternatively;
Roll for wounds.
Roll for saves.
Roll for FNP on unsaved wounds. Make a note of how many were saved/ignored/reversed/etc, as these will still force Initiative rolls for Acid Blood.
Add the unsaved wounds and the wounds reversed/saved/ignored thanks to FNP.
Roll Initiative rolls for these wounds, to avoid wounds by Acid Blood.
Tot up wounds to see who won the melee.

Alternatively;
Roll for wounds.
Roll for saves.
Get two sets of different coloured dice. One set will represent the FNP save/ignore/reverse rolls for the wounds inflicted in step 2. The other set will represent the wounds not saved in step two, which now have a chance to inflict wounds by Acid Blood.
Roll both sets of dice simultaneously.
Remove the wounds saved/ignored/reversed by FNP.
Tot up wounds to see who won the melee.

Does that make sense?

Well it makes sense to me, but a lot of people still seem to disagree with your first statement, that "saving", "redeeming", "reversing", "preventing" or "ignoring" a wound with FNP does not prevent AB from taking action. Some people still seem to have the paradoxical belief that FNP prevents the wound from having happened in the first place, and THAT is what we are arguing here. Seems clear as day to me, but minds have yet to be changed on that one point.

Aldarionn wrote:Some people still seem to have the paradoxical belief that FNP prevents the wound from having happened in the first place, and THAT is what we are arguing here. Seems clear as day to me, but minds have yet to be changed on that one point.

The only Paradox is that FNP counts as an unsaved wound for some things and not for others.

That's where it all falls apart, at least to me.

Monster Rain wrote:

Aldarionn wrote:Some people still seem to have the paradoxical belief that FNP prevents the wound from having happened in the first place, and THAT is what we are arguing here. Seems clear as day to me, but minds have yet to be changed on that one point.

The only Paradox is that FNP counts as an unsaved wound for some things and not for others.

That's where it all falls apart, at least to me.

It's the same for me as well. It just seems completely ridiculous, that it would be the official rule that this rule makes this wound count as ignored only sometimes.

I just re-read page 39, and the same reasoning for AB counting for FNP also would seem to count for determining assault results.

It just says "unsaved wound".

Monster Rain wrote:I just re-read page 39, and the same reasoning for AB counting for FNP also would seem to count for determining assault results.

It just says "unsaved wound".

+1

You want to say the wound ignored by FNP still counts as an unsaved wound, fine. But, then you have to deal with all the consequences of that.

In fact, page 24 of the BGB says: "Most models have a single Wound in their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty." Note the use of the word immediately. FNP doesn't instruct you to place a model back on the board. So, if FNP isn't actually a type of saving throw and you have already suffered an unsaved wound, then your models would be removed after failing their armor/invul/cover save. They could keep fighting, as FNP tells you, but they have to do it from off the board.