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.

You GK players are quite fond of your Force Weapons as well.

It seems quite the fair compromise to treat the rule as I've summarized above. Not only is it as written, but it is only "dumb" to those who might fear losing a single wound to FnP... really?

I thought the point of this section of the forums was to debate how to interprate rules where there is some apparent conflict, not call the result dumb and throw the whole idea of debating rules out the window.

FnP is a 5+ save. It's not like a unit with FnP is going to be impervious to GK Force Weapons, you just have to get past it once before you can slaughter the rest... only against a unit with mixed saves. In all other cases it works exactly as you would like it to work.

Besides, for most cases, the model with the better save in a unit is probably not the model with FnP. So either the player needs to LoS the wounds to the FnP units (which is a worse save most likely) or take them himself and risk failing his armor\invuln save. Either way, someone is going to fail a save, and you get your instant death.

Hey, just be glad you can take it against PWs now. Taking it against an activated FW is just wrong from all angles. Clearly GW messed up here.

Frankly their "Player whose turn it is decides" rule is stupid and I've always thought so. No other game has such a dumb rule. Everything should have a clear order of operations.

The problem I have with the summary is that FW are only Instant death if the test is passed and not before so FNP would take precedence over FW until a failed FNP in conjunction with a successful FW test regardless of whose turn it is.

Grey Templar wrote:Hey, just be glad you can take it against PWs now. Taking it against an activated FW is just wrong from all angles. Clearly GW messed up here.

Frankly their "Player whose turn it is decides" rule is stupid and I've always thought so. No other game has such a dumb rule. Everything should have a clear order of operations.

An important distinction here, is that in the case of #2 above. If it's my turn. I am not getting a FnP roll against your activated FW. I am getting a FnP roll against an unsaved wound. If I succeed then the wound is treated as saved, and you don't get to even try to activate your FW. If I fail then you get to have fun killing me.

Say you do take the FnP against the wounds. Say there are 3 wounds.


You pass one of the FnP saves. then the FWs activate and cause ID. But the wound you took FnP against will also have caused ID(it was still an unsaved wound)

Now you have broken the rules by taking a FnP roll against an ID causing wound. You did not save the wound(FnP is not a save) so you can't say it wasn't suffered.

Re-read FNP, it specifically states that if passed the wound is treated as being saved and discounted.

You have still taken a roll to discount the wound against a wound that has a special rule that disallows that particular roll.

However when the wound was discounted it still allowed it. This came up multiple times during 5th edition.

Grey Templar wrote:Say you do take the FnP against the wounds. Say there are 3 wounds.


You pass one of the FnP saves. then the FWs activate and cause ID. But the wound you took FnP against will also have caused ID(it was still an unsaved wound)

Now you have broken the rules by taking a FnP roll against an ID causing wound. You did not save the wound(FnP is not a save) so you can't say it wasn't suffered.

There's no paradox.
Why are you going back and examining the wound that was resolved?
It's done, over, no takebacks... you're creating an issue where there isn't one.

djdarknoise wrote:

I do not have my rulebook on me. Can you please post, Verbatim, the rules under the heading of Mixed Saves (including the paragraphs that have bullet points on the bottom of the page)

When you get your rule book have a look at Page 15. The first thing you do is allocate wounds, before any saves are rolled for. But you do this on a model by model basis. My original point was you are allocating un-saved wounds. That will not work on models with mixed armor saves. Which is why I said your methodology was incorrect.

CanisLupus518 wrote:

Lets not snipe words out of a sentence here.

FnP uses the word "WHEN" this means currently, or at the same time as. "WHEN a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound"
The Force Weapon power says "IMMEDIATELY AFTER" the word immediately is used to modify the word AFTER. It is not on its own.

These means, that as long as a wound has been allocated before saves are taken (in the case of a unit with multiple saves), that FnP MUST happen before the attempt of activation on the force weapon is even allowed. At this point, if the FnP roll succeeds, it is "treated as having been saved" and no attempt to activate the force weapon may yet be made.

I am not snipping words out of a sentence, you are adding them. Re-read Force on PG 37. It states "If a Psyker inflicts one or more unsaved Wounds with a Force Weapon he can immediately choose to activate it...."

WhoopieMonster wrote:

I am not snipping words out of a sentence, you are adding them. Re-read Force on PG 37. It states "If a Psyker inflicts one or more unsaved Wounds with a Force Weapon he can immediately choose to activate it...."

If you would read the thread, you would have seen that I conceded the point on the wording because I was trusting the OP. However, I could still argue that the IF-THEN (causality) structure of the FW rule still imples that it occurs AFTER, where as the WHEN (concurrence) structure of the FnP rule implies that it occurs during.

It's also important to make sure we are reading the right rule. The OP here was referring to the Brotherhood of Psykers rule in the GK codex, which is a more specific rule than the Force Weapon rule in the BRB. I don't own the codex, which is why I was assuming the OP was correct.

Either way, based on the wording, at the very least, they occur at the same time against a mixed unit (if not FnP goes first). In which case, rules dictate that the controlling player may choose the order.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also want to point out that while the Force Weapon rule in the BRB does not use the word AFTER, the more specific Brotherhood of Psykers rule in the GK codex does!

Apologies, I obviously missed you conceeding that point.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:If two rules trigger at the same time, the active player gets to choose which one goes first, as mentioned. (page 9)

Hi!

I've seen this discussion come up a few times, but it appears that a lot of folks are missing one of the critical pieces of information here. Both abilities trigger at the same time, yes, but FNP very much has a caveat.

Pg 35 Feel No Pain: When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw). Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered. On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5+, the Unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved.
Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved Wounds that inflict Instant Death.

So whether or not you can take the test is predicated on whether or not the wound causes ID.

I've pasted below a response that attempts to flesh out the logic which I feel explains why FNP cannot be taken prior to activating a Force weapon. To elaborate, all of these rules are a series of "If... Then" statements.

True, it does say "treat it as having been saved" so I could see why you might think that. (this was in response to FNP stopping the Force ability)

The thing is though, "Force" would still go off. That is because it has the same criteria as Feel No Pain, if the model did not suffer "an unsaved wound" you wouldn't take the FNP test right? The same is true for the Force test.
It's sort of like,

If A then B

&

If A then C

With A representing "An saved wound has occurred", B representing "take a Feel No Pain test", and C representing "take a Force Weapon test". Wouldn't you agree that this... awful math equation... represents that logic?

The problem that I see with what you propose, that both happen at the same time and the controlling player chooses priority, the logic for Feel No Pain has another caveat. So it actually would look like,

If A, and A does not equal D, then B

To better elaborate, we both know that you can only take a Feel No Pain test if the unsaved wound does not cause instant death, right? So my point above is that you would not be able to take the FNP test because you do not know if A != D is True.

I'd be much more inclined to agree with you if there was some sort of phase or stack, but since there isn't, I still see that Boolean check that needs to be resolved first.
Does the wound cause instant death? Y or N

Which that would be represented like so...

If A then C
If C is True then A = D else A = E

Apologies for the convoluted explanation, but as a programmer, that's sort of how I see it.

At the point where the model suffers an unsaved wound and both abilities are triggered, the Boolean logic for whether the wound causes Instant Death or not, has not been established. Saying that the wound at that moment doesn't cause ID won't work because both tests still occur and the wound might actually cause instant death.

Hmmm interesting read.

Let me see if I understand this, because I may have been playing FNP wrong.

units with identical saves:

FNP is only taken after an unsaved wound is allocated. So the process is take saves from the wound pool, allocate, then roll FNP. Force weapons activate before allocation, so FNP is a non-issue if the force is activated successfully.

in units with different saves:

Since you are allocating wounds and not unsaved wounds, FNP triggers at the same time as Force weapons, so the controlling person decides which happens first (effectively only giving you FNP on your turn).

Is this correct?

edit: The part I was doing wrong was taking FNP before allocation in units with identical saves.

Dracos wrote:Hmmm interesting read.

Let me see if I understand this, because I may have been playing FNP wrong.

units with identical saves:

FNP is only taken after an unsaved wound is allocated. So the process is take saves from the wound pool, allocate, then roll FNP. Force weapons activate before allocation, so FNP is a non-issue if the force is activated successfully.

in units with different saves:

Since you are allocating wounds and not unsaved wounds, FNP triggers at the same time as Force weapons, so the controlling person decides which happens first (effectively only giving you FNP on your turn).

Is this correct?

I'm not quite sure I understand how you're differentiating the two. When you're allocating wounds, those wounds are "unsaved wounds" are they not? What save the model initially had would be irrelevant.

See the quote from pg 9 simply says that the active player chooses which one goes first, implying that the other ability still happens (second). My comment about the stack/phase is simply to point out that a player can't definitively say "No" the wound does not cause Instant Death because it might after the test is taken.

I hope that answered your question! ...as admittedly I'm not sure I understood what you were proposing.

No. When you allocated wounds in units with different armour/cover/invuln saves, you are allocating the wounds before taking saves. That is why the two cases are different.

Dracos wrote:No. When you allocated wounds in units with different armour/cover/invuln saves, you are allocating the wounds before taking saves. That is why the two cases are different.

Oh I got you.
Misunderstood.

I don't believe you need to change anything, as the process should be the same for all scenarios.

- Allocate a wound

Does the model receive an Armor / Cover / Invulnerable Save?
- IF Yes THEN Take the Saving Throw

Was that passed?
- IF No or it did not receive one THEN the model has suffered "an unsaved wound"

At this point both Feel No Pain and Force rules initial criteria is triggered.
So both abilities "activate at the same time", which is as soon as the model "suffered the unsaved wound"

The reason why the FNP test cannot be made prior to the Force test is it has the caveat,
"Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against unsaved Wounds that inflict Instant Death"
So, In order to know if the wound causes instant death or not, the Force test would have to be taken first.

It is also important to note that FNP is not a saving throw, as explicitly stated in the rule (this is not a saving throw)

paidinfull wrote:At the point where the model suffers an unsaved wound and both abilities are triggered, the Boolean logic for whether the wound causes Instant Death or not, has not been established. Saying that the wound at that moment doesn't cause ID won't work because both tests still occur and the wound might actually cause instant death.

It doesn't matter if the wound causes Instant Death after the FnP test. At the time FnP is taken, there is no ID wound. *After* FnP is taken, the wound might be ID - but at that point it doesn't matter.

rigeld2 wrote:

paidinfull wrote:At the point where the model suffers an unsaved wound and both abilities are triggered, the Boolean logic for whether the wound causes Instant Death or not, has not been established. Saying that the wound at that moment doesn't cause ID won't work because both tests still occur and the wound might actually cause instant death.

It doesn't matter if the wound causes Instant Death after the FnP test. At the time FnP is taken, there is no ID wound. *After* FnP is taken, the wound might be ID - but at that point it doesn't matter.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you've missed my whole point. By saying "I take the FNP first" you're in fact making an assumption. The assumption being that the unsaved wound does not cause Instant Death. From a logical standpoint it doesn't work like that.

As soon as the models suffers an unsaved wound the caveat "Does the wound cause instant death? T or F" has to be established. You're saying "No it doesn't", but the reality is it that it may.

That is why the Force test has to be taken first.

I don't think that is right. FNP requires that the wound have the additional attribute of "Instant Death" in order for it to be negated. If it could have instant death in the future is irrelevant. Its not asking if it could potentially cause instant death, its just asking if it does. At which point the answer is "no".

paidinfull wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

paidinfull wrote:At the point where the model suffers an unsaved wound and both abilities are triggered, the Boolean logic for whether the wound causes Instant Death or not, has not been established. Saying that the wound at that moment doesn't cause ID won't work because both tests still occur and the wound might actually cause instant death.

It doesn't matter if the wound causes Instant Death after the FnP test. At the time FnP is taken, there is no ID wound. *After* FnP is taken, the wound might be ID - but at that point it doesn't matter.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you've missed my whole point. By saying "I take the FNP first" you're in fact making an assumption. The assumption being that the unsaved wound does not cause Instant Death. From a logical standpoint it doesn't work like that.

As soon as the models suffers an unsaved wound the caveat "Does the wound cause instant death? T or F" has to be established. You're saying "No it doesn't", but the reality is it that it may.

But your "reality" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if at some indeterminate point in the future it will cause ID. The immediate state is that it does not.
It's not an assumption - as long as the STR of the psyker isn't double my T (or some other reason) its not an ID wound when I take my FnP test.
You're making the assumption that all other effects must be resolved before you can make your FnP test - the reality is that assumption doesn't have any basis in the rules.

The wound causes ID. T or F? If you test for FnP before Force, the answer is F - not maybe.

Lively discussion.

Dracos wrote:I don't think that is right. FNP requires that the wound have the additional attribute of "Instant Death" in order for it to be negated. If it could have instant death in the future is irrelevant. Its not asking if it could potentially cause instant death, its just asking if it does. At which point the answer is "no".

Hi! I'd like to add one more comment on the matter not only because I don't wish to argue over a game, but also because if I can't explain it to you so that it's clear, it's a failure on my part and I'm not really sure what else I could say.

So that we are on the same page, "your" (I say that loosely and including others who might disagree with my point) argument is simply that the FNP doesn't care if the wound "could have instant death in the future". As the active player "you" have priority and "you" choose to take "your" Feel No Pain test first.

By yours and rigeld2's comments I think I can assume that we can all agree that both abilities still happen though, right? That is, nothing says that the other test doesn't happen and the rule actually implies that it still does.

As such that seems straight forward that since the test does occur that the unsaved wound could have Instant Death. What I find confusing about your logic is that you would have me believe that a single, unsaved wound could be both inflicting Instant Death and not inflicting instant death. That doesn't make any sense to me.

There's really only two types of unsaved wounds. Those that inflict Instant Death and those that don't., By your logic, and in this scenario, an unsaved wound could be both. I'm not sure how you can suggest that, but I'll try to elaborate more on my point as to why that can't be the case.

I think what might have confused my point was that I used the phrase "the unsaved wound may cause instant death". A more accurate and perhaps more clear statement is that we do not know if the unsaved wound inflicts Instant Death or not if you choose to take the FNP test first. There isn't a stack or state of an unsaved wound, so again, to clarify all unsaved wounds either inflicts instant death or they don't. That seems very straight forward.

What you seem to be proposing is that there is a form of time/phase/stack when resolving an unsaved wound despite there being no rule that explains that.

What I'm curious about is when do you think the check occurs for Instant Death on unsaved wounds that are not inflicted by Force?

For example, a Carnifex of S10 inflicts an unsaved wound on a Blood Angel Captain with FNP.
When are you making the check that the unsaved wound inflicts Instant Death?

What I'm getting from your logic, is that I could choose to take my FNP test prior to checking to see if the unsaved wounds gain Instant Death, which doesn't make a lot of sense.

I hope that I've been able to express my thoughts clearly so that you can see why you can't assume the unsaved wound does not inflict Instant Death because a single, unsaved wounds can be one of two types and that there is no rules for "time/phase/stack" when resolving unsaved wounds.

Best of Luck!

All that matters in this is which takes priority.

In Boolean logic there is either a 1(True) or a 0(False) there are no maybes or "we don't know yet". The Boolean logic would work very differently depending on which ability got priority. But assuming FNP has priority we know that ID != True, there is nothing else to work out. Our Boolean logic tells us that.

FNP Priority

If ID != True Then

*Roll FNP save*

If FNP Save != True Then

Activate Force Weapon

End If
End If

As you can see if the FNP save is successful you no longer have the authority to trigger your Force Weapon, as "[...]you treat the wound as having been saved" BRB PG. 34 We all know that we cannot active our Force Weapons on a saved wound.

@ Paidinfull Your argument falls apart at two key points:

1) The rulebook tells us if things happen simultaneously, the controlling player sees which applies first.
2) Wounds normally do not inflict instant death.

With these two premises, the debate still continues, since the rulebook has solved our boolean problem. It has told us which order things apply, and then whether or not the wound inflicts Instant Death.

Edit: corrected a rule.

rigeld2 wrote:[
But your "reality" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if at some indeterminate point in the future it will cause ID. The immediate state is that it does not.
It's not an assumption - as long as the STR of the psyker isn't double my T (or some other reason) its not an ID wound when I take my FnP test.
You're making the assumption that all other effects must be resolved before you can make your FnP test - the reality is that assumption doesn't have any basis in the rules.

The wound causes ID. T or F? If you test for FnP before Force, the answer is F - not maybe.

Hi! Saw your response after I'd replied.

I hope that you realize that saying "the immediate state" is exactly what I'm referring to when I say that there are absolutely no rules regarding phase/stack/time et al when resolving unsaved wounds, nor rules that support your statement right?
I think we can all agree that there are no rules within 40k to handle time, state as you suggest. It might make sense in your head, but that is not what the rules say.

Best of Luck!

paidinfull wrote:
I hope that you realize that saying "the immediate state" is exactly what I'm referring to when I say that there are absolutely no rules regarding phase/stack/time et al when resolving unsaved wounds, nor rules that support your statement right?
I think we can all agree that there are no rules within 40k to handle time, state as you suggest. It might make sense in your head, but that is not what the rules say.

Best of Luck!

But this is not entirely correct though. The fact that there exists a rule specifically to prevent conflicting rules from occuring at the same time proves this. Rules do occur in a set order, and the lack of stack or whatever doesn't really change this. The rule on Pg. 9 states that if conflicting rules occur at the same time, the controlling player chooses the order in which they occur. This means that once the player has made a choice, they are no longer occuring at the same time.

Based on this, if FnP is chosen to occur first, then the roll may be taken, and , if successful, counts as a saved wound and in turn would prevent the other player from even trying to activate his Force Weapon. The fact that the wound MIGHT cause ID is irrelevant here.

The flaw in your Carnifex example is that you are implying a check step where none exists. The difference in this case as that the ability for a Force Weapon to cause instant death must first be activated by an action. The question is when this action occurs, not when we "check" for the ID rule. In the case of a Carnifex wound causing ID because of its strength, there is no action required to make that wound cause ID. The ID rule exists on the wound before FnP can be taken and therefore FnP is negated.

However, in the case of a Force Weapon, this is not the case. The wound very specifically does not inflict ID, until the weapon is activated. If I am able to prevent the weapon from activating by using my FnP roll, then the possiblity of it causing ID is zero.