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.

I think that this argument is now pointless. DeathReaper is adamant in his position. Most of the people agree that his position is the one they would use for playing. The major point is that the RAW are not explicitly written the way most people want to play them.

To DeathReaper- quoting yourself is not quoting the rules. There is nowhere in any of the rule books that states that FNP takes precedence over any other rule that is triggered by losing a wound. If you can find a rule in the rulebook that does so that would "seal the deal". You may feel that that is the only logical stance but it is not supported by the RAW.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I think that this argument is now pointless. DeathReaper is adamant in his position. Most of the people agree that his position is the one they would use for playing. The major point is that the RAW are not explicitly written the way most people want to play them.

It is supported by the RAW, just not explicitly spelled out. I have already said this though.

To DeathReaper- quoting yourself is not quoting the rules. There is nowhere in any of the rule books that states that FNP takes precedence over any other rule that is triggered by losing a wound. If you can find a rule in the rulebook that does so that would "seal the deal". You may feel that that is the only logical stance but it is not supported by the RAW.

The rules do say FNP takes precedence over any other rule that is triggered by losing a wound by virtue of the FNP wording. It is not explicitly spelled out, but it is a part of the FNP chain of events. but again we have been over this. I have proven why, using logic, FNP needs to be rolled for first.

I personally want FNP to apply first. As that benifits my army. But as written anyone I play against using that brings this up I would be forced to let it go in whatever order they want as nothing in these three pages has proof of what comes first. I’m sure this is about to get locked as we really haven’t added anything new. Hopefully one day in tenth or eleventh edition they will word it right or just faq it.

It's been mentioned that FnP works both RAW and it works if you follow the rules of the game. I think it's important to make the distinction that those are two different things and frankly FnP DOESN'T work RAW we have figured how to use it logically.


My biggest problem with someone trying to trigger both rules at the same time is that it really shows poor intent on their part.

We as a community know that FnP doesn't work mechanically RAW and we all make the concession to roll it before the wound's ticked down. Feels like taking the flexibility that is used to make FnP's work in general and applying it to a one off relic is in poor sport.

RAW if two abilities have the same trigger then sequencing comes into effect - these are the rules, as they are written.

Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound

The mistake is in thinking that "the model does not lose that wound" means "the model never lost the wound".

The original wound-loss isn't cancelled out or overwritten.

So the sequence could be:

Model loses a wound
model performs ability A which occurs when it loses a wound, causing damage
model performs ability B which occurs when it loses a wound, which means it doesn't lose a wound
model no longer loses a wound.
model wants to use ability C which occurs when it loses a wound, but cannot as it no longer has lost a wound.

There is nothing in the rules about abilities which trigger at the same time having to be resolved in a logical order. And there is nothing in the rules about abilities applying their effects retrospectively. You have lost the wound right up until you roll a FNP and instead don't lose it. If you have abilities which can occur in between, with the same trigger, then sequencing occurs.

 some bloke wrote:
RAW if two abilities have the same trigger then sequencing comes into effect - these are the rules, as they are written.

Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound

The mistake is in thinking that "the model does not lose that wound" means "the model never lost the wound".

The original wound-loss isn't cancelled out or overwritten.

So the sequence could be:

Model loses a wound
model performs ability A which occurs when it loses a wound, causing damage
model performs ability B which occurs when it loses a wound, which means it doesn't lose a wound
model no longer loses a wound.
model wants to use ability C which occurs when it loses a wound, but cannot as it no longer has lost a wound.

There is nothing in the rules about abilities which trigger at the same time having to be resolved in a logical order. And there is nothing in the rules about abilities applying their effects retrospectively. You have lost the wound right up until you roll a FNP and instead don't lose it. If you have abilities which can occur in between, with the same trigger, then sequencing occurs.

Thank you for having the strength to type that up. It's silly that we have to.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Thank you for having the strength to type that up. It's silly that we have to.

Except it is not correct.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Thank you for having the strength to type that up. It's silly that we have to.

Except it is not correct.

Quote the rules. Don’t just give unsupported and false info.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Thank you for having the strength to type that up. It's silly that we have to.

Except it is not correct.

Quote the rules. Don’t just give unsupported and false info.

I have, you guys do not follow the logic, so I do not know what more I can say to convince you that unless you actually lose a wound, you cant trigger other abilities.

FNP saves the wound from being lost, so you can not trigger something that triggers on a lost wound.

It is logically just that simple. You can not trigger things off of a wound that was not lost. FNP makes it so that the wound was not lost. I really do not understand how this is not clear to you.


P.S. because of the Disgustingly resilient wording, it shows it needs to happen "Each time a model with this ability loses a wound" If you do something before this, you have broken the rules for Disgustingly resilient.

Disgustingly resilient wording:
Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Thank you for having the strength to type that up. It's silly that we have to.

Except it is not correct.

Quote the rules. Don’t just give unsupported and false info.

I have, you guys do not follow the logic, so I do not know what more I can say to convince you that unless you actually lose a wound, you cant trigger other abilities.

FNP saves the wound from being lost, so you can not trigger something that triggers on a lost wound.

It is logically just that simple. You can not trigger things off of a wound that was not lost. FNP makes it so that the wound was not lost. I really do not understand how this is not clear to you.

With the UPDATED wording, that's true.

So if a Goff model gets some kind of acid blood ability, then Makari's FNP will prevent it from triggering if successful.

But DR isn't updated yet.

Tell me, which ability triggers first?

The one with this trigger:

Each time a model with this ability loses a wound...

Or the one with this trigger...

...each time your model loses a wound...

And what rules support your ruling?

The one that, if successful makes it so that the wound was not lost.

How do you trigger something on a wound that was not actually lost?

 DeathReaper wrote:
FNP saves the wound from being lost, so you can not trigger something that triggers on a lost wound.

False. FNP negates the wound lost - it does not save the wound from being lost. Sv characteristic saves model from being wounded. FNP undoes the wound lost.

Except it does save the wound from being lost. (it is not a save, but it does save wounds from being lost, since "on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.").

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except it does save the wound from being lost. (it is not a save, but it does save wounds from being lost, since "on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.").

Still doesn't change the fact that the model already lost wound at some point.

If a model that passes a FNP roll and therefore does not lose a wound, then was that model ever eligible to even take a FNP?

Your argument creates a causal loop.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except it does save the wound from being lost. (it is not a save, but it does save wounds from being lost, since "on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.").

You still had the the same "lost a wound" trigger for FNP that would be able to trigger any other effect that uses the "lost a wound" as a trigger, even if FNP makes it so that the wound wasn't lost (or else you wouldn't have triggered FNP in the first place).

GW probably not wanting it to work this way despite the RAW is most likely why they're starting to roll out alternate wordings to keep from triggering other effects if you prevent the wound loss, but they haven't (yet) just retroactively changed previous FNP wordings wholesale.

Guys, just leave it alone. It's clear he's not going to change his mind, and until GW clarifies this, or he get's told so by a TO who's not a casual player, he's not going to give up. He's wrong, we know it.

Let us imagine we are watching two people playing a game of 40k at their FLGS.

Player is A playing Deathguard.

Player B is playing Tau.

Turn 1 the tau player fires an unit of 10 firewarriors into a plague marine unit, the end result is that the plague marines fail 3 armor saves.

Those models do they then:

A: Roll their "FnP" rolls, any that fail go from 1 to 0 wounds and are removed as casualties.

B: Go from 1 to 0 wounds which triggers being removed as casualties due to the wound being lost which is required for FnP to happen, as it is the Tau players turn they invoke sequencing and pick that to go first. The plague marine player removes the models from the table. They then make 3 FnP rolls, passing 1 but the model has no permission from FnP or any other rule to be placed back on the table.

Which one do you think is the correct following of the RAW?

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except it does save the wound from being lost. (it is not a save, but it does save wounds from being lost, since "on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.").

Still doesn't change the fact that the model already lost wound at some point.

It does, because once you pass FNP there is no wound.

If a model that passes a FNP roll and therefore does not lose a wound, then was that model ever eligible to even take a FNP?

Your argument creates a causal loop.

FNP creates a paradox, but the FNP rule is written so that paradox happens.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Guys, just leave it alone. It's clear he's not going to change his mind, and until GW clarifies this, or he get's told so by a TO who's not a casual player, he's not going to give up. He's wrong, we know it.

I am not wrong. This is now it worked in 8th, and this is how it works now.

Just because you do not understand the rule does not make me wrong.
100% A is correct.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except it does save the wound from being lost. (it is not a save, but it does save wounds from being lost, since "on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.").

Still doesn't change the fact that the model already lost wound at some point.

It does, because once you pass FNP there is no wound.

But how can you "un-lose" something unless you lost it in the first place? Negating the effect of the previous (losing a wound) does not mean that it was never lost in the first place.

The given rules text does not support your claim of "if a model lost a wound and subsequently had it negated, the model is not considered to have lost a wound for the purpose of any other rule" in RAW. The latter portion is merely 'how I would interpret the text'.

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except it does save the wound from being lost. (it is not a save, but it does save wounds from being lost, since "on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.").

Still doesn't change the fact that the model already lost wound at some point.

It does, because once you pass FNP there is no wound.

But how can you "un-lose" something unless you lost it in the first place? Negating the effect of the previous (losing a wound) does not mean that it was never lost in the first place.

The given rules text does not support your claim of "if a model lost a wound and subsequently had it negated, the model is not considered to have lost a wound for the purpose of any other rule" in RAW. The latter portion is merely 'how I would interpret the text'.

Because if a 1 wound model lost the wound, they would be removed, which is not the case if FNP was successful. So they must not have lost the wound. Basically FNP negates the wound.

There is literally no FAQ or update, where the dev's support the idea that a successful FnP equates to the model never having been wounded in the first place. It was intended to prevent death of models, not prevent the activation of abilities. Show me one FAQ where the devs support the claim "If a model successfully rolls their FnP, treat the wound as if it never happened, for all intents and purposes."

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
There is literally no FAQ or update, where the dev's support the idea that a successful FnP equates to the model never having been wounded in the first place. It was intended to prevent death of models, not prevent the activation of abilities. Show me one FAQ where the devs support the claim "If a model successfully rolls their FnP, treat the wound as if it never happened, for all intents and purposes."

The FNP rule says that by saying "the model does not lose that wound."

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
There is literally no FAQ or update, where the dev's support the idea that a successful FnP equates to the model never having been wounded in the first place. It was intended to prevent death of models, not prevent the activation of abilities. Show me one FAQ where the devs support the claim "If a model successfully rolls their FnP, treat the wound as if it never happened, for all intents and purposes."

The FNP rule says that by saying "the model does not lose that wound."

That doesn't say that, as you've already had the same trigger that activates FNP as you do for other abilities that trigger on losing a wound. Given that they trigger at the same time, there would have to be a statement of the other abilities being "untriggered", or a rewording of FNP like Makkari has that avoids saying you lost the wound before you roll FNP.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except it does save the wound from being lost. (it is not a save, but it does save wounds from being lost, since "on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.").

Still doesn't change the fact that the model already lost wound at some point.

It does, because once you pass FNP there is no wound.

But how can you "un-lose" something unless you lost it in the first place? Negating the effect of the previous (losing a wound) does not mean that it was never lost in the first place.

The given rules text does not support your claim of "if a model lost a wound and subsequently had it negated, the model is not considered to have lost a wound for the purpose of any other rule" in RAW. The latter portion is merely 'how I would interpret the text'.

Because if a 1 wound model lost the wound, they would be removed, which is not the case if FNP was successful. So they must not have lost the wound. Basically FNP negates the wound.

FNP is merely a specific, non core mechanic that overrides the normal sequence for dealing with removing Wounds from models.

 skchsan wrote:
FNP is merely a specific, non core mechanic that overrides the normal sequence for dealing with removing Wounds from models.

This much, I agree with. And on that basis, I don't really agree with the RAW interpretation that causes dead models to not be able to apply FNP at all.
However, this thinking also dictates that Acidic Ichor (and their ilk) also interrupt the normal sequence for dealing with removing Wounds - because the alternative is that the ability cannot be followed if the model it belongs to isn't on the tabletop.

This leaves two positions you can take:
- either all rules which trigger on losing a Wound are taken simultaneously and are therefore subject to sequencing, as we have no other rules to dictate order of application, or
- any form of FNP (besides Ghazzy) is somehow considered different and must be applied first - this position I disagree with per RAW, because it has no wording to back it up.

That second position becomes extra precarious when you realise that we're using FNP to determine a bunch of similar rules that actually have completely different names - what's the argument that all those different rules with that wording, get to go first before all the other non-FNP rules with similar wording?

 DeathReaper wrote:

logic

 DeathReaper wrote:

logically

"Rules As Logical" isn't a thing. There's "Rules As Written" and "Rules As Intended". Logically, you don't drive intercontinental ballistic missiles to the front lines to fire them - in 40k, you do. Logic is irrelevant, so please, please stop trying to use it as RAW.

Here's the Sequencing section:


the image might not be working so here's the text:

Sequencing wrote:
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you'll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time - normally "at the start of the movement phase" or "before the battle begins". When this happens, the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a battle round, the players roll off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved.

So, sequencing happens when 2 rules would happen at the same time. For example:

Disgustingly Resilient wrote:
Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.

Ichor Warding wrote:
Roll a dice each time your Warlord loses a wound in the Fight phase. On a 4+ the unit that inflicted that wound is splashed by acidic ichor and suffers a mortal wound after all of its own attacks have been resolved.

So we have 2 rules, the effects of which are irrelevant, which take place between the model losing a wound and the model being removed as a casualty. There is no "only one event may take place between being wounded and removed" rule, so we can apply both, in an order chosen by the active player, as per sequencing.

Arguing that if you don't do FnP first the model dies is like saying that if a unit is hit by a weapon which has 2 effects on a hit (EG the unit being shot has an effect and the unit shooting has an effect) then you will lose the "roll to wound" stage if you perform both actions.

You don't progress from "The model loses a wound" to "remove the model" until every ability or effect which takes place "when the model loses a wound" has been resolved, in any order (as chosen by the active player).

 some bloke wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

logic

 DeathReaper wrote:

logically

"Rules As Logical" isn't a thing.

If you do not apply logic to the rules, well, they do not make sense at all...

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except it does save the wound from being lost. (it is not a save, but it does save wounds from being lost, since "on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.").

Still doesn't change the fact that the model already lost wound at some point.

It does, because once you pass FNP there is no wound.

But how can you "un-lose" something unless you lost it in the first place? Negating the effect of the previous (losing a wound) does not mean that it was never lost in the first place.

The given rules text does not support your claim of "if a model lost a wound and subsequently had it negated, the model is not considered to have lost a wound for the purpose of any other rule" in RAW. The latter portion is merely 'how I would interpret the text'.

Because if a 1 wound model lost the wound, they would be removed, which is not the case if FNP was successful. So they must not have lost the wound. Basically FNP negates the wound.

FNP is merely a specific, non core mechanic that overrides the normal sequence for dealing with removing Wounds from models.

The specific vs general, basic vs advanced, and BRB vs codex are no longer valid forms of determining when something takes precedence. A rule for something is always in effect unless another rule gives permission to specifically ignore something else. We cannot ignore that models being reduced to 0 wounds are removed from the rule for "ignoring wounds". The rules themselves do not give us a precedence for when you can ignore something or not as they had in previous editions, in fact the sequencing section does not give in precedence to when a rule can be ignored or sequenced based on how specific vs general it is or any other metric other than they occur at the same time in the game.

If you think the model is reduced in wounds before FnP types rules happen you have to accept that all rules that would occur at that time will occur and less a rule specifically calls out something happening or not happening, "ignoring wounds" does not specifically call out models can ignore being removed from the table when reduced to 0 wounds or less before making the "ignoring wounds roll" ergo that is a valid sequencing event that happens at the same time by the rules as written.

FNP doesnt ignore anything though. It just provides an extra step after "A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers", and before "If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0 or less, it is destroyed and removed from play," hence it overrides the normal sequence.

The before if a models reduced to 0 or less is your opinion, the actual text of the ignoring wounds doesn't have any of that language or indicate it should come before or after that event. Both events are triggered by a model losing a wound.