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.

It was not English I was commenting on.

I was commenting on the fact that you read explicit disagreement with your point as agreement.

RAW an ignored injury is equivalent to an ignored wound. Disagree all you wish, but the two are equivalent terms.

Youre now triggering an ability that requires you to acknowledge the wound you are ignoring, breaking a rule.

Like I said earlier, FNP vs Hexrifle all over again. And just like before, I seriously doubt that this will be resolved (even if it goes to 7 or 8 pages, maybe more. I forget how long that thread was).

copper.talos wrote:But you can't dispute that RAW an unsaved wound is different from ignored injury.

Point of fact, we can. Are, even.

copper.talos wrote:then RAW the wound happened. The injury may get or may not get ignored. That is beside the point. The wound happened and anything that triggers of it applies normally.

So your argument is, RAW, FNP does nothing?

If the wound happened and is not ignored, the wound stat is reduced and, when the stat hits zero, the model is removed. Essentially, your argument is that FNP does literally nothing.
For FNP to work, injury must be synonymous with wound, which means that ES doesn't work, you don't have to take a pinning test, etc.

Well I would believe that it does take away the armor save because of the wording. ES say when the model suffers an unsaved wound it's ability takes place. FNP is activated when a model suffers a unsaved wound. It's the wording that makes it possible. Blame games workshop for the wording. Like how you have to check the rule book in two different places to get the rule down.

Rigeld, it sounds like you're arguing that you can go back and "un-trigger" things like Entropic Strike, Hexrifle's effect, etc. which are triggered by an unsaved wound, but you cannot go back and "un-trigger" FNP, which is triggered by the same unsaved wound. Is this a correct summary of your argument? And, if so, is it based on any rule in particular?

-GK

FNP within itself tells us to ignore the very condition that triggered FNP.

The unsaved wound must be ignored. and we then proceed with the game. (Ignored means to pretend it does not exist)

If you look at the context of FNP you will see that Injury = unsaved wound. since FNP says after a model suffers an unsaved wound roll a die 1-3 wound is taken as normal, 4-6 ignore the injury.

It would read the same if it said 4-6 ignore it.

GiantKiller wrote:Rigeld, it sounds like you're arguing that you can go back and "un-trigger" things like Entropic Strike, Hexrifle's effect, etc. which are triggered by an unsaved wound, but you cannot go back and "un-trigger" FNP, which is triggered by the same unsaved wound. Is this a correct summary of your argument? And, if so, is it based on any rule in particular?

Allowing ES, Hex Rifle, Pinning, etc. means that you are not ignoring the wound as FNP tells you to do. You cannot apply ES, Hex Rifle, Pinning, etc. unless you acknowledge the wound - which FNP explicitly tells you not to (as long as the roll is successful).

I'd love to hear the rules argument for not ignoring the wound.

"(Ignored means to pretend it does not exist)"

"If you look at the context of FNP you will see that Injury = unsaved wound."
-DeathReaper

I disagree with both of these statements.

If we're going back and pretending the wound never happened to ignore any other effects it might have triggered, then FNP never could have triggered, either. Thus FNP wouldn't work, and I wouldn't advocate for an interpretation which left a rule completely ineffectual. I suppose that puts me in the "just say no to irreconcilable time paradoxes" camp. Either way, by the time we've decided whether the model has passed FNP or not, the Entropic Strike ability has also already triggered and needs to be resolved. As I argued in the FNP vs. Hexrifle debate, once they're both triggered, they're completely separate effects and neither has any impact on the other.

And in this context, I believe "ignore the injury" doesn't mean "ignore the unsaved wound." It means "do not subtract a wound or remove a model as you would when resolving the wound normally."

EDIT:

"You cannot apply ES, Hex Rifle, Pinning, etc. unless you acknowledge the wound - which FNP explicitly tells you not to (as long as the roll is successful). "
-Rigeld

Ok, so according to your argument, triggering an effect means you're "acknowledging the wound" that triggered it. By that logic, then, you also cannot apply FNP unless you "acknowledge the wound", right? They're triggered by the same event, right? An unsaved wound?

Hope this helps!
-GK

GiantKiller wrote:

"(Ignored means to pretend it does not exist)"

"If you look at the context of FNP you will see that Injury = unsaved wound."
-DeathReaper

I disagree with both of these statements.
If we're going back and pretending the wound never happened to ignore any other effects it might have triggered, then FNP never could have triggered, either. Thus FNP wouldn't work

FNP would work, since we do not check for an unsaved wound after we roll for FNP, we are well beyond that point by that time.

It helps, it shows why your argument is incorrect.

Ignore definitely means to pretend something does not exist, that can not be disputed.

and Injury = Unsaved wound, not sure how you can take injury to mean anything else, given the context of the sentence?

GiantKiller wrote:If we're going back and pretending the wound never happened to ignore any other effects it might have triggered, then FNP never could have triggered, either.

There's no rules basis for this argument. Why are you going back and re-evaluating what has already happened?

And in this context, I believe "ignore the injury" doesn't mean "ignore the unsaved wound." It means "do not subtract a wound or remove a model as you would when resolving the wound normally."

The FNP USR says on a 1, 2 or 3 you take the wound "as normal". On a 4, 5 or 6 you ignore the injury. I don't see how that can be taken as "only ignore for the purposes of the wound stat". On a 1, 2, or 3 everything happens as normal. On a 4, 5, or 6 it does not.

we do not check for an unsaved wound after we roll for FNP, we are well beyond that point by that time.
-DeathReaper

Why are you going back and re-evaluating what has already happened?
-Rigeld

Exactly my point. We also just so happen to be beyond the point where Hexrifles, Entropic Strike, etc. have already checked for an unsaved wound. If we can't go back and re-check for FNP (which we shouldn't!) we also can't go back and re-check for Entropic Strike. There is no rule creating an order of operations here. FNP doesn't have any language granting it permission to "go first". All of these effects trigger at the same time: when the unsaved wound occurs. They must all be resolved, and none has any effect on the others.

Hope this helps!
-GK

Right we are past that point, however, when told to Ignore the unsaved wound, we have to do just that.

you can let them trigger, but after we pass FNP they will have no effect since we are ignoring the condition that triggered them.

It is not a matter of FNP "Going first" its just that no matter what order you perform the rolls, once you resolve FNP and ignore the unsaved wound, you may as well stop since you now have to ignore the unsaved wound.

Except FNP establishes an order. Since, if successful, you are required to ignore the wound, you cannot resolve ES, Pinning, Hex Rifle, etc. until after FNP is resolved.

after we pass FNP they will have no effect since we are ignoring the condition that triggered them.
-DeathReaper

I disagree. There is no rule which allows you to do this. Once an effect is triggered it is triggered. FNP has no power over the effects of other rules once they are triggered. You're trying to make FNP into some magical, all-encompassing, all-powerful, all-denying rule. It isn't. It isn't a time machine. It isn't even a save. It is a chance to not have to subtract a wound or remove a model as part of wound resolution. That's it.

Hope this helps!
-GK

Are any of you capable of admitting that this is an ambiguous rule, and it's not clear?

Personally, i think FNP de facto saves the wound, but I'm happy to admit there are questions both ways.

But what I'm seeing is one group saying "yes it is, without question", and the other saying, "no it's not, without question.

That's just slowed.

GiantKiller wrote:I disagree. There is no rule which allows you to do this. Once an effect is triggered it is triggered.

1) A vehicle is hit.
2) Pen is rolled
3) Cover save is allowed.
4) Cover save is passed.
5) The hit is discarded, which negates the possibility of the cover save being rolled.

Note that this also applies to flickerfield and Bjorn's saves.

By your argument the flickerfield, et al. saves are useless - the Pen was triggered, and must be resolved. We know that isn't the case, so your argument fails on it's face.

Reading the rules I did notice one thing - cover saves will save a vehicle from ES.
"If the save is passed, the hit is discarded" page 62, 3rd paragraph from the bottom on the left, last sentence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Are any of you capable of admitting that this is an ambiguous rule, and it's not clear?

Personally, i think FNP de facto saves the wound, but I'm happy to admit there are questions both ways.

But what I'm seeing is one group saying "yes it is, without question", and the other saying, "no it's not, without question.

That's just slowed.

No, I agree it's ambiguous if you interpret the rules in a way I don't think is correct. Hence the discussion, which we're keeping relatively civil by YMDC standards.

Rigeld, re-read the first sentence of the paragraph you mentioned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And we're still getting nowhere...

Right. I see what you're saying - "hit" is referring to the Pen. hit or glancing hit. That makes sense - ignore that.

That still works with step 5 above - the Pen. hit is discarded, which is what allowed the Cover save.

edit: in other words, there is already a "paradox" in the rules. Therefore it is not impossible. So now that the paradox argument is void, FNP ignores the wound completely.

"By your argument the flickerfield, et al. saves are useless - the Pen was triggered, and must be resolved. We know that isn't the case, so your argument fails on it's face. "
-Rigeld

Congratulations! You have utterly destroyed a straw man. Your argument "fails on its face" because it is a common fallacy.

My argument, in contrast to the argument you have falsely attributed to me, is that we cannot go back in time to "unmake" the triggering event. We can only do what a rule specifically allows us to do. In the case of a flickerfield save, it is clear that a passed save means we do not finish resolving that hit - that's what the rule allows. It doesn't mean that we un-do any other effects triggered by the hit. We just don't roll on the damage table. FNP is similar. We cannot go back and un-do the wound. We cannot un-do or nullify any other effects triggered by the unsaved wound. The language of the FNP rule simply doesn't let us. But it does tell us not to resolve the wound itself, i.e. we do not subtract a wound from multi-wound models or remove a single wound model. That's what FNP allows. That's all FNP allows.

Hope this helps!
-GK

GiantKiller wrote:My argument, in contrast to the argument you have falsely attributed to me, is that we cannot go back in time to "unmake" the triggering event. We can only do what a rule specifically allows us to do. In the case of a flickerfield save, it is clear that a passed save means we do not finish resolving that hit - that's what the rule allows. It doesn't mean that we un-do any other effects triggered by the hit.

The triggering event, with respect to Flickerfield, Bjorn, etc. is the penetrating hit. Passing those saves ignores the penetrating hit. If you ignore the hit, you could not have made the Cover, Flickerfield, etc. saves. Therefore there's a penetrating hit to be resolved. And so on.

Cover saves explicitly allow you to "unmake" the penetrating hit. Therefore there's precedent to allow it. There's no reason to assume FNP works different when it says to ignore the wound.

edit: I apologize for the strawman. I was reading your response, my wife distracted me, and I replied to a half formed understanding.

Happyjew wrote:Rigeld, re-read the first sentence of the paragraph you mentioned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And we're still getting nowhere...

I feel that this is the FNP vs Hexrifle debate again...

*sigh* how many pages will this get before mods lock it? \snark

I'm in the camp that ES still kicks in even after FNP... it's the same trigger when hit by pinning weapon. I still take pinning even after taking successful FNP rolls because that's what the rule tells you.

Interestingly enough, I think the INAT says that you ignore additional effect on successful FNP rolls... wish GW would take that idea, then we wouldn't be in this mess... and it seems they had ample opportunity to FAQ this... and yet they haven't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

GiantKiller wrote:My argument, in contrast to the argument you have falsely attributed to me, is that we cannot go back in time to "unmake" the triggering event. We can only do what a rule specifically allows us to do. In the case of a flickerfield save, it is clear that a passed save means we do not finish resolving that hit - that's what the rule allows. It doesn't mean that we un-do any other effects triggered by the hit.

The triggering event, with respect to Flickerfield, Bjorn, etc. is the penetrating hit. Passing those saves ignores the penetrating hit. If you ignore the hit, you could not have made the Cover, Flickerfield, etc. saves. Therefore there's a penetrating hit to be resolved. And so on.

Cover saves explicitly allow you to "unmake" the penetrating hit. Therefore there's precedent to allow it. There's no reason to assume FNP works different when it says to ignore the wound.

edit: I apologize for the strawman. I was reading your response, my wife distracted me, and I replied to a half formed understanding.

@rigeld2 if FNP were a "save", then you'd have a valid argument. However... FNP is a special rule and is NOT a "save".

Wow.


Anyway, cover saves for vehicles don't undo the hit just the damage. Case in point the new harp thingie will still trigger entropic strike, even if you make the cover save. Or invo, for that matter.

GiantKiller wrote:

I disagree. There is no rule which allows you to do this. Once an effect is triggered it is triggered. FNP has no power over the effects of other rules once they are triggered. You're trying to make FNP into some magical, all-encompassing, all-powerful, all-denying rule. It isn't. It isn't a time machine. It isn't even a save. It is a chance to not have to subtract a wound or remove a model as part of wound resolution. That's it.

Hope this helps!
-GK

This is where your argument is incorrect, FNP is not "a chance to not have to subtract a wound or remove a model as part of wound resolution."

It simply Ignores the Unsaved wound. so once an effect is triggered and you roll to ignore the trigger, you can not take any events that happened because of that trigger because to pay attention to effects from that trigger is not ignoring the trigger...

I apologize for the strawman. I was reading your response, my wife distracted me, and I replied to a half formed understanding.
-rigeld

No apology is necessary, but it's quite gentlemanly of you, and readily accepted.

Cover saves explicitly allow you to "unmake" the penetrating hit. Therefore there's precedent to allow it. There's no reason to assume FNP works different when it says to ignore the wound.
-Rigeld

I disagree with your interpretation of the vehicle cover save rule. You seem to be suggesting that based on the language you quoted:
"if the save is passed, the hit is discarded" that we should pretend the hit never happened if the save is passed. But there's more to that sentence. The full line reads:

"If the save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage table." BGB p. 62

I believe this language suggests that the result of a passed cover save is we simply stop resolving the hit at that point. This means, just as the rule says, that if the save is made we do not roll on the vehicle damage table and accordingly do not apply any damage results.

Hope this helps!
-GK

whembly wrote:I feel that this is the FNP vs Hexrifle debate again...

Because it's the exact same rule, just a different power. Why would it be different?

I'm in the camp that ES still kicks in even after FNP... it's the same trigger when hit by pinning weapon. I still take pinning even after taking successful FNP rolls because that's what the rule tells you.

Which rule? The one that says to ignore the wound?

@rigeld2 if FNP were a "save", then you'd have a valid argument. However... FNP is a special rule and is NOT a "save".

Only saves are allowed to "unmake" the triggering event?

GiantKiller wrote:it is clear that a passed save means we do not finish resolving that hit - that's what the rule allows.

It is clear that FNP works in the same way, so once FNP is passed we "do not finish resolving that hit" thus no other effects can trigger.

GiantKiller wrote:I believe this language suggests that the result of a passed cover save is we simply stop resolving the hit at that point. This means, just as the rule says, that if the save is made we do not roll on the vehicle damage table and accordingly do not apply any damage results.

If you discard the hit, as the rule requires, of course you're not going to continue to roll on the chart. But if the hit is discarded, there was nothing to allow a cover save.

discard == ignore == pretend it never happened. I understand that you disagree with that interpretation, and can respect your opinion. We can just drop it until an FAQ.

"once FNP is passed we "do not finish resolving that hit" thus no other effects can trigger."
-DeathReaper

The other effects already triggered independently, at the same time as FNP triggered, and must be resolved independently.

Hope this helps!
-GK