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.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Even if I concede that (which I don't, but it's tangential at best) you still haven't shown how Sequencing forces Advanced to be resolved first.

Sequencing doesn't force advanced to be resolved first.

Sequencing allows the player who's turn it is to choose which is resolved first when more than one event occur simultaneously.

Right. Now, using the sequencing argument (that sequencing allows Helfrost to be resolved before FNP/RP) on my turn I shoot some FNP dudes with Bolters. You fail your saves. I choose to sequence Remove Casualties before FNP.
Cite a rule preventing that.

FNP

Unless you're trying to be deliberately disingenuous. The normal order of rule occurrence applies because there are no conflicting rules that happen at the same time in your example

You are not grasping what he is trying to convey. If you force sequencing to allow the Hellfrost Cannon to not allowing FNP or RP to be rolled then by the same token, a person could force sequence of remove casualties prior to FNP, as they ALL proc off of the same basic rule.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Even if I concede that (which I don't, but it's tangential at best) you still haven't shown how Sequencing forces Advanced to be resolved first.

Sequencing doesn't force advanced to be resolved first.

Sequencing allows the player who's turn it is to choose which is resolved first when more than one event occur simultaneously.

Right. Now, using the sequencing argument (that sequencing allows Helfrost to be resolved before FNP/RP) on my turn I shoot some FNP dudes with Bolters. You fail your saves. I choose to sequence Remove Casualties before FNP.
Cite a rule preventing that.

FNP

Unless you're trying to be deliberately disingenuous. The normal order of rule occurrence applies because there are no conflicting rules that happen at the same time in your example

How does something that triggers off of suffering a wound not occur at the same time as something that triggers off of suffering a wound?

rigeld2 wrote:

How does something that triggers off of suffering a wound not occur at the same time as something that triggers off of suffering a wound?

I believe that it has been explained that the procedure for removing models with unsaved wounds is a basic rule, and that FNP, RP, and Helfrost are all advanced rules.

If you're really asking how it happens, it happens because whenever an advanced rule and a basic rule conflict you use the advanced rule. Removing models who lost their last wound after failing a save is basic and would conflict with FNP, RP, and Helfrost rules which are advanced and tell you to do something else when failing that save instead.

Does this answer your question?

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
You are not grasping what he is trying to convey. If you force sequencing to allow the Hellfrost Cannon to not allowing FNP or RP to be rolled then by the same token, a person could force sequence of remove casualties prior to FNP, as they ALL proc off of the same basic rule.

Well then its a basic vs advanced situation, Basic being remove models that lose all wounds from play vs advanced FNP rule.

Again its a disingenuous argument

Rigeld2 is constantly ignoring the already posted rules regarding Sequencing. In the case of his example the wording is explicit on which happens in what sequence, where as FNP vs Helfrost does not.

This discussion kind of reminds me of the scenario in the Preferred Enemy/Blast debate, specifically the thought that PE grants a reroll without requiring the To Hit roll of 1 (lets not start that debate again please)

RP "cannot be used against hits from Destroyer weapons or any special rule or attack that states that the model is ‘removed from play"

Helfrost is an attack that states a model is "removed from play"...granted, it only procs on a Strength test roll of 6, but it still contains the key phrase that negates RP.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
This discussion kind of reminds me of the scenario in the Preferred Enemy/Blast debate, specifically the thought that PE grants a reroll without requiring the To Hit roll of 1 (lets not start that debate again please)

RP "cannot be used against hits from Destroyer weapons or any special rule or attack that states that the model is ‘removed from play"

Helfrost is an attack that states a model is "removed from play"...granted, it only procs on a Strength test roll of 6, but it still contains the key phrase that negates RP.

It is an interesting similarity. One could make a rather tenuous argument that if you get rerolls for blasts from PE, then RP doesn't save you from helfrost and vice versa. Tenuous in the sense that you would effectively be arguing that simply having the first rule (regardless of whether or not it was triggered) was enough for the second rule to be affected.

NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

How does something that triggers off of suffering a wound not occur at the same time as something that triggers off of suffering a wound?

I believe that it has been explained that the procedure for removing models with unsaved wounds is a basic rule, and that FNP, RP, and Helfrost are all advanced rules.

Correct!
In the sequencing rules, please cite where that's relevant.

If you're really asking how it happens, it happens because whenever an advanced rule and a basic rule conflict you use the advanced rule. Removing models who lost their last wound after failing a save is basic and would conflict with FNP, RP, and Helfrost rules which are advanced and tell you to do something else when failing that save instead.

Does this answer your question?

No, because the argument at hand is discussing sequencing. Not basic vs advanced.

WrentheFaceless wrote:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
You are not grasping what he is trying to convey. If you force sequencing to allow the Hellfrost Cannon to not allowing FNP or RP to be rolled then by the same token, a person could force sequence of remove casualties prior to FNP, as they ALL proc off of the same basic rule.

Well then its a basic vs advanced situation, Basic being remove models that lose all wounds from play vs advanced FNP rule.

So Remove Casualties and FNP are not rules that, and I'll quote here, "two or more rules [that] are to be resolved at the same time"?
I've been assured that Helfrost and FNP are... and from what I can tell of the rules, FNP and RC are...

Again its a disingenuous argument

I assure you, this statement is incorrect.

Rigeld2 is constantly ignoring the already posted rules regarding Sequencing. In the case of his example the wording is explicit on which happens in what sequence, where as FNP vs Helfrost does not.

It's explicit? Please elaborate.

When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound,

- FNP

If it fails, reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.

- RC
So a model suffers an unsaved wound. You're going to tell me that reducing its wounds by one and suffering a wound aren't "rules ... to be resolved at the same time"?

Edited by Manchu. Rule Number One = Be Polite

Actually it wasn't at all incoherent. Reported.

 NightHowler wrote:
<snip insulting comment that in no way added to the thread, regardless of the fact that it was a movie quote>

So no actual rules debate from you? That's cool. In the future, it'd be better if you either not post, or post to say you can't find a rules fault to my argument.

Thanks!

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually it wasn't at all incoherent. Reported.

Failure to catch a Billy Madison quote. Reported.

To be perfectly clear, my point is this:

FNP/RP must come first because you don't know if the wound is unsaved yet or not.
To use the Sequencing argument you must concede that a model with a single wound could be removed as a casualty before FNP could ever be rolled.

rigeld2 wrote:
To be perfectly clear, my point is this:

FNP/RP must come first because you don't know if the wound is unsaved yet or not.
To use the Sequencing argument you must concede that a model with a single wound could be removed as a casualty before FNP could ever be rolled.

This is wrong because they happen at the same time. Therefore - sequencing.

Edited to remove snarkiness since you gave me a debate.

Also Edited to say that FNP, RP, and Helfrost are all triggered by an unsaved wound and therefore must happen at the same time. We are not told which to resolve first and so we MUST use sequencing. Saying that we don't know if a wound has been unsaved yet is not accurate - it's unsaved when you fail your save roll. The fact that you can later have a chance to get that save back if you roll a successful FNP or RP is irrelevant since you must first decide the sequence of which will happen first - FNP, RP, or Helfrost. The sequencing rule tells us what to do in that situation.

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
To be perfectly clear, my point is this:

FNP/RP must come first because you don't know if the wound is unsaved yet or not.
To use the Sequencing argument you must concede that a model with a single wound could be removed as a casualty before FNP could ever be rolled.

This is wrong because they happen at the same time. Therefore - sequencing.

So you agree that single wound models don't get FNP/RP? edit: on your opponents turn

Big complication. From the Dark Eldar FAQ released today:

Q. Is a shadow field lost if a model suffers an unsaved Wound that is subsequently discounted due to a successful Feel No Pain roll?
A. Yes.

I think that is a clear precedence. Feel No Pain does not stop you from "Suffering" an "Unsaved Wound"

rigeld2 wrote:

So you agree that single wound models don't get FNP/RP? edit: on your opponents turn

No. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if there are more than one special rules that are all triggered at the same time, and one of those special rules could prevent the others, that sequencing tells you very clearly how to proceed. If you do Helfrost first you don't get FNP or RP. If you do FNP or RP first you don't get Helfrost - and which comes first depends on sequencing.

tag8833 wrote:Big complication. From the Dark Eldar FAQ released today:

Q. Is a shadow field lost if a model suffers an unsaved Wound that is subsequently discounted due to a successful Feel No Pain roll?
A. Yes.

I think that is a clear precedence. Feel No Pain does not stop you from "Suffering" an "Unsaved Wound"

Addressed earlier in the thread. It doesn't really set a precedent as it's very specific on what is being asked and answered. The Shadow Field is a special thing, and the answer doesn't broaden the applicability of the question.

NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you agree that single wound models don't get FNP/RP? edit: on your opponents turn

No. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if there are more than one special rules that are all triggered at the same time, and one of those special rules could prevent the others, that sequencing tells you very clearly how to proceed. If you do Helfrost first you don't get FNP or RP. If you do FNP or RP first you don't get Helfrost - and which comes first depends on sequencing.

And why are you limiting this to only special rules? The sequencing rules don't limit themselves to special rules. So you're inserting an arbitrary limitation?

rigeld2 wrote:

And why are you limiting this to only special rules? The sequencing rules don't limit themselves to special rules. So you're inserting an arbitrary limitation?

Sequencing doesn't have to limit itself to special rules since we are already told that special rules override basic rules.

If you are told by a basic rule to remove the model after it fails a save, but told by an advanced rule that instead of removing it you roll a dice and do something else - you follow the advanced rule. The interaction between advanced and basic is not one of sequencing. The interaction between helfrost and FNP is.

Hellfrost always has precedence since it occurs in the SW shooting phase.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Hellfrost always has precedence since it occurs in the SW shooting phase.

Not always. You can also shoot overwatch in your opponent's assault phase.

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

And why are you limiting this to only special rules? The sequencing rules don't limit themselves to special rules. So you're inserting an arbitrary limitation?

Sequencing doesn't have to limit itself to special rules since we are already told that special rules override basic rules.

So BvA says that we don't actually have multiple rules to resolve at the same time?
I don't see that anywhere. Are you sure?

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

Sequencing doesn't have to limit itself to special rules since we are already told that special rules override basic rules.

So BvA says that we don't actually have multiple rules to resolve at the same time?
I don't see that anywhere. Are you sure?

I'm not sure I understand your question. When did I say that BvA says we don't have multiple rules to resolve? What I said was that BvA tells us that instead of removing the casualty after failing a save, we use one of 3 advanced rules and that if those 3 advanced rules happen simultaneously (as RP, FNP, and Helfrost do) then you use the sequencing rule on page 17 of the BRB to figure out which one is resolved first.

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

Sequencing doesn't have to limit itself to special rules since we are already told that special rules override basic rules.

So BvA says that we don't actually have multiple rules to resolve at the same time?
I don't see that anywhere. Are you sure?

I'm not sure I understand your question. When did I say that BvA says we don't have multiple rules to resolve? What I said was that BvA tells us that instead of removing the casualty after failing a save, we use one of 3 advanced rules and that if those 3 advanced rules happen simultaneously (as RP, FNP, and Helfrost do) then you use the sequencing rule on page 17 of the BRB to figure out which one is resolved first.

I'm boiling this down to its simplest form.

A single bolter wound on a Tactical Marine with FNP. Please, using rules, explain why Sequencing does not apply here.

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm boiling this down to its simplest form.

A single bolter wound on a Tactical Marine with FNP. Please, using rules, explain why Sequencing does not apply here.

Because sequencing only happens when two rules are supposed to occur simultaneously. But we are told by the advance vs basic that whenever an advanced rule (like FNP) would conflict with a basic rule, the advanced rule happens instead (paraphrasing here for the sake of expediency).

Basic rule says that when you suffer a wound and fail a save, you remove the model (if it has no additional wounds).

Advanced rule says that when you suffer a wound and fail a save, you roll a dice and get back up (with some caveats).

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm boiling this down to its simplest form.

A single bolter wound on a Tactical Marine with FNP. Please, using rules, explain why Sequencing does not apply here.

Because sequencing only happens when two rules are supposed to occur simultaneously. But we are told by the advance vs basic that whenever an advanced rule (like FNP) would conflict with a basic rule, the advanced rule happens instead (paraphrasing here for the sake of expediency).

Basic rule says that when you suffer a wound and fail a save, you remove the model (if it has no additional wounds).

Advanced rule says that when you suffer a wound and fail a save, you roll a dice and get back up (with some caveats).

I'm not sure how something that conflicts means that it doesn't happen simultaneously.
The wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first - it's implied, and BvA is pretty explicit, but not applying the Sequencing rules seems out of place in your argument.

Basic rules are, upon failing a save, the unsaved wound removes an appropriate amount of wounds from the models wound characteristic, until it reaches 0 and removed from play.

That is the basic flow of events from the rule book, not verbatim because I dont have it in front of me.

FNP triggers upon an unsaved wound. It is an Advanced Rule. The rulebook tells us that Advanced rules trump basic rules such as the normal order of resolving unsaved wounds.

Therefore its clear per RAW on how to resolve the situation you're arguing rigeld. The Sequencing rule doesnt take affect because there is no dispute, the rules explicitly tell us how to solve "X unit has FNP, is wounded by bolters and is unsaved". You dont get to pick they suffer wounds because FNP tells you that they have that rule.

Hellfrost/FNP/RP all trigger on 'when a unit takes unsaved wounds", therefore they all trigger 'at the same time' and enither has priority over the other. The rule book also states that in a situation like this the posted Sequencing quote on page 1. The player who's turn it it is decides the order.

And if Helfrost is failed the model is removed from play, there is no model left for RP to apply to, which is RAW

Unless you can provide rules which states they happen 'similtaneously' and dont apply to the "Sequencing" rules.

TLDR: Bolter wound on model with FNP doesnt apply sequencing, Basic Vs Advance explains sequence

Hellfrost/RP/FNP, Sequencing applies, because neither rule's wording implies it takes precendence over the other, they all hapen 'at the same time' so player who's turn it is decides. None of them 'imply' they go before the others

Feel free to post rules that contradict this, per RAW.

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm not sure how something that conflicts means that it doesn't happen simultaneously.
The wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first - it's implied, and BvA is pretty explicit, but not applying the Sequencing rules seems out of place in your argument.

Because advanced rules don't happen simultaneously with basic rules. You simply do what the advanced rule says to do instead of doing anything else.

In the case of Helfrost, RP, and FNP however, they are all advanced rules and they are all triggered by failing an armor save. Because they are all 3 advanced rules and are all triggered at the same time, sequencing directs you to let the player who's turn it is decide the order.

RP very clearly do not negate Helfrost. The statement that removed from play doesn't allow them to work covers that. And since the attacker determines what order things happen, Helfrost would always be first, thus not allowing RP. Models that are removed from play are just that, removed from play. You don't get to trigger any of their abilities since, for all intents and purposes, ceased to be.

 NightHowler wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Hellfrost always has precedence since it occurs in the SW shooting phase.

Not always. You can also shoot overwatch in your opponent's assault phase.

There is a relic bolter, right ?