Unsaved wound vs FNP

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.

**BlackSwanDelta**

DeathReaper wrote:
BlackSwanDelta wrote:

Deathreaper wrote:
What is it that gets allocated? The damage or the wound?

Sorry, bear with me; it's difficult to pinpoint exactly what point you're trying to make in such a non-substantial response.

The answer to your question is that a wound gets allocated in the Allocate Wound phase; I said as much in my original post. I'm not sure what your point is here, exactly, as I explained to that while this is true, the way FNP-type saves and Wound/Allocate/Save steps are worded cause them not to interact with each other. And that wounds and Wounds (W) are fundamentally different concepts, of which you seem to have already agreed with earlier in this thread.

Non-substantial? It was literally just a question

The point was refuting your comment when you stated "Weapons do not deal wounds, they deal Damage (D)." Which of course is is incorrect.

Yes, non-substantial; you didn't write much. I was unable to fully understand the context of your post. I wasn't sure if you were offering me some kind of terrible, cheeky rebuttal or a genuine question since those can be hard to distinguish over a forum sometimes. I said as much when apologized if I misunderstood you.

As for refuting my error in the Hit Roll terminology, I mean, I said thanks and wasn't sure if you were making some point about the actual thread subject.

**DeathReaper**

The full context was literally just asking you a question...

I did not need to write much. It had all the substance a single question needed.

**Wagguy80**

I think the error here is people assuming that the word "unsaved" only applies to the word "save" somehow.

It's plain english a unsaved wound is a wound the model has suffered. If it ignores said wound regardless of how it ignored said wound then the wound was saved.

**BaconCatBug**

Wagguy80 wrote:
I think the error here is people assuming that the word "unsaved" only applies to the word "save" somehow.

It's plain english a unsaved wound is a wound the model has suffered. If it ignores said wound regardless of how it ignored said wound then the wound was saved.

That's simply not true. "Save" has a very specific meaning in 40k.

**DeathReaper**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Wagguy80 wrote:
I think the error here is people assuming that the word "unsaved" only applies to the word "save" somehow.

It's plain english a unsaved wound is a wound the model has suffered. If it ignores said wound regardless of how it ignored said wound then the wound was saved.

That's simply not true. "Save" has a very specific meaning in 40k.

Good thing the wound is being "Ignored"

**BaconCatBug**

Ignoring a wound doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Anyway, this is a silly and pointless moot argument because GW made it so nothing uses the unsaved wound terminology anyway.

**DeathReaper**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Ignoring a wound doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I am just gonna point out that you literally just said that ROFL!!!

**Stux**

DeathReaper wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
Ignoring a wound doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I am just gonna point out that you literally just said that ROFL!!!

If I ignore a homeless guy in the street, did he not happen?

**DeathReaper**

Stux wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
Ignoring a wound doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I am just gonna point out that you literally just said that ROFL!!!

If I ignore a homeless guy in the street, did he not happen?

That is exactly correct. If we are ignoring something it does not exist in game terms for all intents and purposes.

**Stux**

DeathReaper wrote:
Stux wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
Ignoring a wound doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I am just gonna point out that you literally just said that ROFL!!!

If I ignore a homeless guy in the street, did he not happen?

That is exactly correct. If we are ignoring something it does not exist in game terms for all intents and purposes.

Citation please

I think this thread has gotten ridiculous and there really isn't anything more constructive to say here.

**DeathReaper**

Stux wrote:

Citation please

40K requires a basing understanding of the English language to play, so your citation of Ignored is in the dictionary.

**Stux**

DeathReaper wrote:
Stux wrote:

Citation please

40K requires a basing understanding of the English language to play, so your citation of Ignored is in the dictionary.

But you appealed specifically to "game terms". In English, ignored doesn't mean it never happened. In fact it explicitly means it DID happen.

**DeathReaper**

Stux wrote:

But you appealed specifically to "game terms". In English, ignored doesn't mean it never happened. In fact it explicitly means it DID happen.

Since the game uses English as a base. it is "game terms".

And if you are ignoring it, you cant trigger abilities off of it, so it effectively never happened.

**doctortom**

DeathReaper wrote:
Stux wrote:

But you appealed specifically to "game terms". In English, ignored doesn't mean it never happened. In fact it explicitly means it DID happen.
Since the game uses English as a base. it is "game terms".

And if you are ignoring it, you cant trigger abilities off of it, so it effectively never happened.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Definition of ignore
transitive verb

1 : to refuse to take notice of
2 : to reject (a bill of indictment) as ungrounded

Refuse to take notice of isn't the same as saying "it didn't happen",

**DeathReaper**

doctortom wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Stux wrote:

But you appealed specifically to "game terms". In English, ignored doesn't mean it never happened. In fact it explicitly means it DID happen.
Since the game uses English as a base. it is "game terms".

And if you are ignoring it, you cant trigger abilities off of it, so it effectively never happened.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Definition of ignore
transitive verb

1 : to refuse to take notice of
2 : to reject (a bill of indictment) as ungrounded

Refuse to take notice of isn't the same as saying "it didn't happen",

As far as the game is concerned it is...

**Stux**

I think we've descended far enough into madness in this thread already!

The fact is GW shouldn't have overloaded 'wound', and have used clearer and different terminology for different things in game.

But they didn't. So there's some greyness that's impossible to totally be sure about.

**insaniak**

Glad we sorted that out.

Moving on.