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.

 Jackal wrote:
FW and ES are nothing alike though.

Lascannons and mind war can both cause wounds, does not make them the same by any means.
Just means they have 1 thing in common (timing in the case of this thread)
Everything else about them is different though.

So, how is a wound unsaved if you have yet to take an available save?
Should all saves not be taken at the same time since its part of the same trigger?

Except FNP is specifically not a save. It even makes sure to say that in the rules for FNP.

It has the ability to count the save as passed though.
It is also triggered when an initial save is failed.

So people are now expecting GW to break rules down into sections that will end up 200 steps long to take every possible rule into account, and at what time they take place?

The wound is never a saved wound. Upon completion of a successful roll it is then treated as saved (for rules purposes). If something happened upon the condition of suffering an unsaved wound, there's no reason to believe it should be reversed, or considered illegal, when a different special rule comes into effect.
Really if they meant for FNP to have to come first, and nagate all other special rules which are triggered in the same condition, it would have some wording to suggest so.

The only rules that matter are the time they are triggered. Effects of the special rules have no consequence on the priority, not by any rules I've read anyway.

Except for one thing. FNP states to treat the wound as having been saved.

If you get hit and wounded by ES and make your armour save do you still lose your armour save?

Nem, in this case the effects of the rule do have a very important part to play, not just the timing of them.

Also, if a wound is treated as saved, im pretty sure its saved.
Not just says it is for rules purposes.

Even if you take the stand point that everything but removing the wound happens when a model suffers an unsaved wound and even say that fnp happens just before this it doesn't change the rules for fnp treating the wound as saved.

this would negate any effects of an unsaved wound as the wound is saved and not an unsaved wound thus any effects that require an unsaved wound could not be applied as the wound is saved.

Ok put it this way

- unsaved wound is suffered

#. FNP Special rule activates
#. ES Special rule activates

Show me the rule which allows FNP to be prioritized (something like the effect of a special rule determines order)

Without one there is no argument.

Rules allow you to resolve the special rule when the condition is met. To not would be breaking the rules also.

@bausk 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.

Ok, so lets say ES goes 1st.

Model takes a wound and fails its save.
ES takes effect and remove its armour.
FNP then kicks in and if passed, it counts the save as passed.


For ES to take effect the model MUST have failed its save.
FNP says in its wording that if passed, the wound is treated as saved.

You dont need wording to work out the way it works, because there is only 1 way it can work without the rules breaking.
By putting ES 1st, that then creates an issue as your having to break 1 rule or the other.
By putting FNP 1st it creates a smooth run for the rules to take effect.

ES strips the armour of the model in 1 point in time, immediately after it suffers an unsaved wound. From then on the model is effectively S-. What happens to that unsaved wound afterwards has nothing to do with ES. It got triggered applied its effect and then it's gone. FNP doesn't retroactively cancel ES or restores armour saves. It has no such wording. It just prevents models taking damage by treating the wound as saved.

Maybe you should read the book?
It says treat the save as passed.
Now treating the save as passed seems like you passed the save to me, which is pretty clear cut.

So how can ES trigger when the save has been passed?
If your stripping the armour when the model has passed its save your ignoring the wording of both saves and FNP.
And its ending up as all too common with GW, a huge bloody hole in the rules.

The save is not passed. Your arguing on logic that has no basis in the rules. Losing an armor save does not hinder the fact the wound is treated as saved. Even the wording for FNP tells you for which purposes the wound is treated as saved.

You treat the save as passed after the model lost its save. The only thing that links unsaved wounds and armour saves is ES, and by the time FNP kicks in, ES is gone. So in order for a model to regain its armour save it needs a rule to retroactively cancel ES or restore armour saves.

copper.talos wrote:
You treat the save as passed after the model lost its save. The only thing that links unsaved wounds and armour saves is ES, and by the time FNP kicks in, ES is gone. So in order for a model to regain its armour save it needs a rule to retroactively cancel ES or restore armour saves.

Exactly, why are you illegally prioritizing one special rule, then illegally trying to retroactively apply it


Treating a wound as saved on a successful FNP does not change the fact before FNP, the wound was unsaved. This is all ES needs.

So how would a model with no armour save, pass its save?

I do agree with the start of the topic that this needs a FAQ.
GW have FAQ'ed far more clear things in the past.


Nem, how is it illegally prioritizing?
Im doing the same as you have and put one of the rules 1st.
Your doing the same as i have

 Jackal wrote:
So how would a model with no armour save, pass its save?

I do agree with the start of the topic that this needs a FAQ.
GW have FAQ'ed far more clear things in the past.


Nem, how is it illegally prioritizing?
Im doing the same as you have and put one of the rules 1st.
Your doing the same as i have

My problem with this part of the argument is that the interpretation means all special abilities will be negated by FNP, which I am very against

On which one goes first, I do believe the wording 'immediately' makes a difference, or was intended to, however it is unclear and in a game I would be happy to utilise owning player or roll off on that basis

 Jackal wrote:
So how would a model with no armour save, pass its save?

The model doesn't use its armour save to save the wound at that time (even if it did have an armour save). It's FNP that treats the save as passed. Also by that logic, models with no armour save should not be able to use FNP. Which of course is wrong ie Sister Repentia

Fnp denys es its trigger, an unsaved wound, by treating the wound as saved. Without an unsaved wound being applied its effects woulf not be applied as they are bound to the wound being applied.

This is the issue really and it needs clearing badly.

Just a quick thought, but multiple wounds.

Model fails a save against something that causes multiple wounds.
Multiple wounds take effect (causing X amount of wounds)
FNP kicks in, now, you only failed 1 save, so do you save against 1 wound, all of them (one at a time or as a whole?)

Or would it work the other way?

Model fails save.
FNP kicks in and saves it.
No further action is taken as its been saved.

The issue with wording is that its not specific enough to give us the steps to take.
Saying immediately is nice, but what about when 2 rules both saying that come into contention?
Also, FNP is an instant trigger upon failing a save.
To do anything before applying that is also breaching the rules.

Needs something set in place to clear it up to be honest, because there are far too many arguments for both sides on this one.

Depends on the wording of what causes the multiple wounds. if it was "A model that suffers an unsaved wound from this attack takes X wounds instead" then only one fnp roll is needed as the inital wound is required for the additional wounds to apply.

But by the way people have classed ES as working, you have caused an unsaved wound already.
Edit: So the criteria for multiple wounds has been met by this logic.

Wound saved? Yes
ES applied? Either yes, but then taken away because we are told to treat it as saved, or No, and armor save is kept.

Either way, pass FNP, keep save.

copper.talos wrote:
You treat the save as passed after the model lost its save.

If this is true then you are not treating the wound as saved, you are treating it as unsaved as the model no longer has an armor save because of an unsaved wound...

For those quoting the force weapon FAQ, you have to consider why it was FAQ'd the way it was.

The force weapon special rule was in direct conflict with FNP because it had the possibility of causing ID which FNP rolls can't be taken for. So the only logical way to resolve it was to establish whether ID kicked in before deciding if a FNP roll was even possible. Timing was obviously a critical component.

With ES, it works solely on "unsaved wounds". Regardless of what anyone might think the word "immediately" means the only way to determine whether a wound is considered saved or not is to allow all of the rules which may modify the wound status to run first.

Now, why would "immediately" appear in the rule? Simple, they wanted people to understand how to resolve when a multi wound model is hit with multiple attacks when one or more is from ES. Essentially you lose the armor save before trying to resolve the next hit. If they didn't have the word "immediately" in there people would be arguing that the effects of ES didn't apply until after all the saves were taken.

So "immediately" in this case means "before you resolve the next wound". It's hard to phrase that when you have the option of fast rolling saves and all wounds from a unit are supposed to happen simultaneously.

clively wrote:
For those quoting the force weapon FAQ, you have to consider why it was FAQ'd the way it was.

The force weapon special rule was in direct conflict with FNP because it had the possibility of causing ID which FNP rolls can't be taken for. So the only logical way to resolve it was to establish whether ID kicked in before deciding if a FNP roll was even possible. Timing was obviously a critical component.

This is true but FWs are NOT ID until you spend a warp charge on them which is triggered by an unsaved wound. I don't think people are referring to FWs because of the ID but because of the fact that it's a triggered ability which is allowed to be used (or not) prior to FNP. Now, the confusion comes in because FW's ability causes ID which FNP is unable to address. To me, FNP still triggers in this manner; however, it checks to see if the wound was ID or not before applying the nullification effect.

Failed armour save>>>>>>>>>>>Passed Feel No Pain

For that duration of time between failing your armour save and passing your Feel No Pain the wound is considered unsaved, and therefore triggers Entropic Strike, it does not need to remain unsaved for Entropic Strike to remain in effect. This is not Magic: The Gathering, we work things out in chronological order.

And in this case the chronological order of both effects is essentially simultaneous. All effects are considered before the final result is applied with the wound. If one effect negates another the negated effect is not applied. As per if force applies id then fnp is not applied. If fnp is successful any effect that required an unsaved wound is not applied. It's really that simple.

 Bausk wrote:
And in this case the chronological order of both effects is essentially simultaneous. All effects are considered before the final result is applied with the wound. If one effect negates another the negated effect is not applied. As per if force applies id then fnp is not applied. If fnp is successful any effect that required an unsaved wound is not applied. It's really that simple.

Where does it say they are simultaneous? One is applied 'first' rules wise, they may trigger at the same time but the effects are sequential

Both occur in that time between failing a save and applying the wound, all effects in this time are considered and checked before application of the wound. I'd say that's as simultaneous as you're likely to get in 40k. Regardless as has been said numerous times as fnp removes both the trigger for the effect and the application with the unsaved wound it is discarded.

 Bausk wrote:
Both occur in that time between failing a save and applying the wound, all effects in this time are considered and checked before application of the wound. I'd say that's as simultaneous as you're likely to get in 40k. Regardless as has been said numerous times as fnp removes both the trigger for the effect and the application with the unsaved wound it is discarded.

It only removes both the trigger and the application if your either


1. FNP goes first and is successful.

2. FNP goes second and your applying the effect out of sequence

Now there is a problem with the second one.

You check against the effects as and when they apply, if ES has gone first and is sucessful, you do not check a wound which is treated as saved against it, as ES has already happended and is resolved, we do not apply effects to previous sequence events.

The wound is treated as saved, and checked against events as they occur, for instance is a wound taken? (No, treated as saved). Does the wound count to resolution count? (No treated as saved)
ES would never trigger a check against FNP, unless FNP is applied retroactivly


<.....Wound.....> <...............Unsaved Wound.............> <............Treated as saved...........>


If FNP is sucessful, the status is changed to treated as saved. It does not go bavck and change the green section, in that sequence, the unsaved wound is always an unsaved wound.