Shadowfield FNP Precedent?

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.

**vipoid**

Shadowfield:
"...The shadow field save is lost for the rest of the battle at the end of any phase in which the model suffers one or more unsaved wounds."

FAQ:
"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."

So, has GW just set a precedent for effects that trigger on unsaved wounds working regardless of FNP?

**megatrons2nd**

Some say yes, some say no. Best answer check with your opponent before playing.

**DeathReaper**

In short GW screwed up the FAQ.

FNP states "On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved."

If you lose the shadow field how is that treating the wound as having been saved exactly?

That FAQ changes the RAW.

**Gravmyr**

If you roll FNP how are you treating the wound as saved? This goes back to the argument that has raged for quite some time. We also never had an actual answer from them just a single answer about timing concerning FNP and Force. This could have been their original view on FNP yet was never vocalized.

**blaktoof**

The faq also changed how HoW interacts with Dreadnaughts in assault.

pre FAQ RAW

Dreadnaughts turn to face their opponent, a specific core rule.

HoW hits facing the unit assaults a specific advanced rule.

Errata was made to change this specific situation, either the errata covers only this specific situation since it is what is mentioned, or advanced rules no longer trump basic rules.

Given the Shadowfield and FnP example it is a specific ruling for the specific interaction of that item and that rule, and says nothing about the rule for unsaved wounds and FnP.

**copper.talos**

It definitely sets a precedent. FNP (and RP) clearly only stops a model from losing wounds without countering any other rules that trigger from unsaved wounds. A lot of people since 5E said that this was RAI. The FAQ just matched RAW with RAI.

**megatrons2nd**

blaktoof wrote:
The faq also changed how HoW interacts with Dreadnaughts in assault.

pre FAQ RAW

Dreadnaughts turn to face their opponent, a specific core rule.

HoW hits facing the unit assaults a specific advanced rule.

Errata was made to change this specific situation, either the errata covers only this specific situation since it is what is mentioned, or advanced rules no longer trump basic rules.

Given the Shadowfield and FnP example it is a specific ruling for the specific interaction of that item and that rule, and says nothing about the rule for unsaved wounds and FnP.

That one was far more muddled in it's interactions, as Dreadnoughts have special vehicle rules, and HoW is a special rule. Not to mention, the FAQ addresses a specific situation that could only apply to walkers.

FnP/RP have similar activation rules, that coincide with that of many other rules. There can be argued the point that it is a precedent setting ruling, but as with all GW rules, it is poorly thought out in its writing, which of course leaves to much to the interpretation of a very wide array of people. It does match what I have always believed the rules interaction would be, but others do not see it that way, though it appears there are more who see it my way in 7th than there were in 5th and 6th.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:
It definitely sets a precedent. FNP (and RP) clearly only stops a model from losing wounds without countering any other rules that trigger from unsaved wounds. A lot of people since 5E said that this was RAI. The FAQ just matched RAW with RAI.

I agree with you, but there is still enough wiggle in the wording to leave it open to interpretation. They need to learn to write rules in a clear manner.

**Fragile**

Its seems more like a sad attempt at game balance than any kind of rules question.

**DeathReaper**

Gravmyr wrote:
If you roll FNP how are you treating the wound as saved? This goes back to the argument that has raged for quite some time. We also never had an actual answer from them just a single answer about timing concerning FNP and Force. This could have been their original view on FNP yet was never vocalized.

You do not treat the wound as saved until after the FNP roll...

And Yes, FNP creates a paradox, luckily one that does not matter after you are treating the wound as having been saved since you only get one FNP roll...

**Whacked**

vipoid wrote:
Shadowfield:
"...The shadow field save is lost for the rest of the battle at the end of any phase in which the model suffers one or more unsaved wounds."

FAQ:
"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."

So, has GW just set a precedent for effects that trigger on unsaved wounds working regardless of FNP?

There is a entire thread on this discussion here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/635145.page#7591695

**Gravmyr**

Only in your opinion does it create a paradox. You can also read it the way many of us were doing before and read it as from the end of the FNP forward it is treated as saved. This reading is also backed up by the FAQ at this point.

**Dra'al Nacht**

I wouldn't see the Shadowfield FAQ as a precedent for anything. It was a bandaid solution to a poorly written rule that RAW, didn't quite work as intended.

As a DE player, I had always treated a failed save of the Shadowfield as the trigger, not an unsaved wound.

**vipoid**

Fragile wrote:
Its seems more like a sad attempt at game balance than any kind of rules question.

Well, quite. Those Archons were just dominating the meta - with entire armies being comprised entirely of Archons. Thank goodness GW has finally toned them down.

**Bugs_N_Orks**

Gravmyr wrote:
You can also read it the way many of us were doing before and read it as from the end of the FNP forward it is treated as saved. This reading is also backed up by the FAQ at this point.

Except this isn't what the FAQ is saying. Shadow fields cut out "at the end of any phase in which the model suffers one or more unsaved wounds", so FAQ clearly isn't saying that it's only treated as saved from the point of the FNP roll forward. In fact it's creating a situation where you first treat the wound as saved, and then later in the game (potentially after resolving several other unit's shooting/assaults/morale checks/etc.) it tells you to now treat it as unsaved. As I see it, this ruling has to do with making rules match fluff more than anything (ie: if your field overloads and shorts-out, the fact that you didn't feel anything won't un-overload it), and because of how strange it is from a RAW perspective I'd be hesitant to use it as a precedent for anything.
,

**rigeld2**

Gravmyr wrote:
Only in your opinion does it create a paradox. You can also read it the way many of us were doing before and read it as from the end of the FNP forward it is treated as saved. This reading is also backed up by the FAQ at this point.

Incorrect. At the end of the phase, a wound isn't unsaved. Neither interpretation of FNP changes that.
The Shadowfield doesn't care. It's almost like its unique wargear with unique rules.

**vipoid**

rigeld2 wrote:
Gravmyr wrote:
Only in your opinion does it create a paradox. You can also read it the way many of us were doing before and read it as from the end of the FNP forward it is treated as saved. This reading is also backed up by the FAQ at this point.

Incorrect. At the end of the phase, a wound isn't unsaved. Neither interpretation of FNP changes that.
The Shadowfield doesn't care. It's almost like its unique wargear with unique rules.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

**rigeld2**

vipoid wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Gravmyr wrote:
Only in your opinion does it create a paradox. You can also read it the way many of us were doing before and read it as from the end of the FNP forward it is treated as saved. This reading is also backed up by the FAQ at this point.

Incorrect. At the end of the phase, a wound isn't unsaved. Neither interpretation of FNP changes that.
The Shadowfield doesn't care. It's almost like its unique wargear with unique rules.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Shadowfield goes away at the end of any phase where you suffer a wound.
Regardless of how you think FNP is resolved, at the end of a phase where you pass it there is no unsaved wound.

Meaning that the FAQ demonstrably changed a rule.

**vipoid**

rigeld2 wrote:

Shadowfield goes away at the end of any phase where you suffer a wound.
Regardless of how you think FNP is resolved, at the end of a phase where you pass it there is no unsaved wound.

Well, no, if you suffer an unsaved wound during a phase and still count as taking an unsaved wound regardless of whether FNP is successful, then you took an unsaved wound during that phase.

Whether it applies at the end of the phase or the instant the unsaved wound is taken is irrelevant.

**rigeld2**

vipoid wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

Shadowfield goes away at the end of any phase where you suffer a wound.
Regardless of how you think FNP is resolved, at the end of a phase where you pass it there is no unsaved wound.

Well, no, if you suffer an unsaved wound during a phase and still count as taking an unsaved wound regardless of whether FNP is successful, then you took an unsaved wound during that phase.

Whether it applies at the end of the phase or the instant the unsaved wound is taken is irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant? The rule checks at the end of any phase to see if you've suffered an unsaved wound.
In neither case has an unsaved wound been suffered when you reach the end of the phase.

**Fragile**

vipoid wrote:
Fragile wrote:
Its seems more like a sad attempt at game balance than any kind of rules question.

Well, quite. Those Archons were just dominating the meta - with entire armies being comprised entirely of Archons. Thank goodness GW has finally toned them down.

And in 6th edition Tyranid primes were so dominating that GW made an FAQ that they could not drop in spore pods with units. Despite the fact that every other army with independent characters could. GW often makes FAQ s that make no sense.

**vipoid**

rigeld2 wrote:

How is it irrelevant? The rule checks at the end of any phase to see if you've suffered an unsaved wound.
In neither case has an unsaved wound been suffered when you reach the end of the phase.

Except that an unsaved wound *was* suffered during the phase. Please read the rule again. It doesn't check for unsaved wounds at the end of the phase - that's just when the Shadowfield is actually lost.

**rigeld2**

Bugs_N_Orks wrote:
Shadow fields cut out "at the end of any phase in which the model suffers one or more unsaved wounds"

So this isn't a factual quote?

**vipoid**

I don't follow your logic.

Are you saying that the shadowfield only fails if a model literally takes a wound right during the end of the phase? As it, the unsaved wound has to literally be taken as the phase is ending.

**copper.talos**

megatrons2nd wrote:

I agree with you, but there is still enough wiggle in the wording to leave it open to interpretation. They need to learn to write rules in a clear manner.

I understand what you are saying, but GW always had a wobbly rule syndrome and we used faqs as precedents to help us with grey areas in the rules. This faq is the only faq that addresses what happens between FNP and another rule that triggers from unsaved wounds. As such it's sort of a safe bet to follow this faq for all similar cases, at least until a contradicting faq comes along and we are back on square 1.

**DeathReaper**

vipoid wrote:
I don't follow your logic.

Are you saying that the shadowfield only fails if a model literally takes a wound right during the end of the phase? As it, the unsaved wound has to literally be taken as the phase is ending.

"at the end of any phase in which the model suffers one or more unsaved wounds"

You check at "the end of any phase" to see if a model with a Shadowfield has suffered "one or more unsaved wounds"

and if you pass FNP the model has demonstrably not suffered "one or more unsaved wounds" at the end of the phase when the check is done.

This FAQ is a rules change...

**Gravmyr**

How did you roll FNP if it did not suffer an unsaved wound?

**blaktoof**

megatrons2nd wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
The faq also changed how HoW interacts with Dreadnaughts in assault.

pre FAQ RAW

Dreadnaughts turn to face their opponent, a specific core rule.

HoW hits facing the unit assaults a specific advanced rule.

Errata was made to change this specific situation, either the errata covers only this specific situation since it is what is mentioned, or advanced rules no longer trump basic rules.

Given the Shadowfield and FnP example it is a specific ruling for the specific interaction of that item and that rule, and says nothing about the rule for unsaved wounds and FnP.

That one was far more muddled in it's interactions, as Dreadnoughts have special vehicle rules, and HoW is a special rule. Not to mention, the FAQ addresses a specific situation that could only apply to walkers.

FnP/RP have similar activation rules, that coincide with that of many other rules. There can be argued the point that it is a precedent setting ruling, but as with all GW rules, it is poorly thought out in its writing, which of course leaves to much to the interpretation of a very wide array of people. It does match what I have always believed the rules interaction would be, but others do not see it that way, though it appears there are more who see it my way in 7th than there were in 5th and 6th.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:
It definitely sets a precedent. FNP (and RP) clearly only stops a model from losing wounds without countering any other rules that trigger from unsaved wounds. A lot of people since 5E said that this was RAI. The FAQ just matched RAW with RAI.

I agree with you, but there is still enough wiggle in the wording to leave it open to interpretation. They need to learn to write rules in a clear manner.

No.

vehicle rules are not special rules, they are part of the 'core rules' making them basic rules.

**Gravmyr**

Uh you may want to reread the beginning part of the book. BRB Basic vs Advanced "Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models."

Edit: Basically if it's not on that list it's advanced, including type such as a vehicle type like tank or skimmer.

**vipoid**

DeathReaper wrote:
vipoid wrote:
I don't follow your logic.

Are you saying that the shadowfield only fails if a model literally takes a wound right during the end of the phase? As it, the unsaved wound has to literally be taken as the phase is ending.

"at the end of any phase in which the model suffers one or more unsaved wounds"

You check at "the end of any phase" to see if a model with a Shadowfield has suffered "one or more unsaved wounds"

and if you pass FNP the model has demonstrably not suffered "one or more unsaved wounds" at the end of the phase when the check is done.

Except that he did - otherwise he wouldn't have had to roll FNP.

**AnomanderRake**

FNP IS NOT A SAVE. This is the critical point. If you suffer an unsaved Wound you can then roll FNP to negate it but you still suffered an unsaved Wound.