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.

Kind of a corner case but I was looking at GUO's and then thought of Ghaz as well. Couldn't find a faq for either and honestly the wording of FNP's is kind of weird.

If ghazkul has a FNP from makari and he save 4 or more wounds in a single phase can he take more wounds?

if a guo with acidic ichor takes a wound does acidic trigger AND his FNP?

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.

Ichor warding:
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.

Not trying to power game, both situations are at odds with each other. Coming from rules sets where triggers are more strict and defined the FNP (I know they aren't all the exact same) wording almost doen't make sense as a model makes the roll BEFORE it loses any wounds. Meaning a 1 wound plaguebearer will have the opportunity to save any amount of damage BEFORE the damage is even taken which seems at odds with the rules wording.

I would play it as ghaz can suffer any number of wounds and save with makari before hitting his cap and the GUO's acidic ichor ability wouldn't work unless you've actually ticked his wounds count down.
(acidic ichor is in engine wars btw for anyone looking it up)

For GUO, both rules you quote have the same trigger, “loses a wound”.

So for each wound lost, you get to do your Ichor rule AND try to ignore it via DR.


For Ghaz, if he ignores a wound then it isn’t truly lost, as the end result is he hasn’t lost up to his cap that phase, so you can keep trying to damage him.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
For GUO, both rules you quote have the same trigger, “loses a wound”.
So for each wound lost, you get to do your Ichor rule AND try to ignore it via DR.

Is this definitely the case? My thinking was that because the timing isn't clarified on either rule (neither one says "immediately" or anything to that effect), they would both be simultaneous - therefore whoever's turn it is gets to choose which order to apply.
If it's your opponent's turn and they choose to apply DR first, and the roll succeeds, you're told as a result that you have no longer lost that wound. Therefore you haven't got the criteria for Acidic after all.

Sequencing? Attack happens, roll for damage. If wound are inflicted, they are done BEFORE they are negated. Imagine they were "shrugged off". He still took the hit, it just didn't phase him. Acidic then rolls. Then the DR kicks in.

Do I have this all wrong? the GUO still got wounded, but ignored it.

That's a neat fluff explanation, but it isn't strictly backed up by RAW, which doesn't define the timing closely enough.
Really, the problem lies in this wording in the first place, because it creates a paradox:

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

But if it doesn't lose the wound... it doesn't satisfy its own trigger... which means it can't take the roll, meaning it DOES take the wound... then it CAN take the roll... but... aaaargh!! *brain asplodes*

I'm being facetious, of course, I do get how the rule works in a vacuum. It needs a little more careful wording, though. Really what we need is a different term - perhaps "ignores that Wound" or "immediately regains the lost Wound", or swinging the other way, "the Wound roll is treated as failed instead". Something to clarify that other effects do/don't occur.

You did LOSE a wound, hence the roll off. The roll off happened cus you lost the wound. The fact that you found it on the ground and picked it back up don't mean you didn't drop it in the first place. Roll for the acid.

I am going to say if you pass FnP you did not lose a wound.

for FnP type wounds it requires you to be losing wounds to make the roll, however we don't get to make the roll for wounds already lost. I.e. if a model has 6 wounds, suffers 2, fails both FnP rolls, gets shot some more suffers 2 more wounds it is going to make 2 FnP rolls not 4 FnP rolls.

Also if a 1W model suffers a wound, if the FnP roll is made after it loses the wound (going to 0) it would be removed from the table before the roll for FnP, which isn't the case.

Its basically a check of wounds the model is going to lose, unless they have a way to ignore losing the wound. This check happens before the models wounds are actually reduced from the attack. Otherwise it could be argued the FnP type rules do nothing for models that lose equal to or more than their current wounds on certain players turns, i.e. player A shoots player B model, player A does 6 wounds to the 4 wound character with FnP, this would reduce a models wounds to 0 triggering it being removed from the table as a casualty. Player B says I have FnP, player A says you lost the wounds and I pick this to happen first if they happen at the same time. Player Bs model is now a casualty with no FnP rolls, or alternatively it still gets FnP rolls but has no permission from rules to allow it to come back onto the table.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You did LOSE a wound, hence the roll off. The roll off happened cus you lost the wound. The fact that you found it on the ground and picked it back up don't mean you didn't drop it in the first place. Roll for the acid.

if plaguebearers actually lost a wound before their fnp went off the model would be removed, no?

 Aijec wrote:
Kind of a corner case but I was looking at GUO's and then thought of Ghaz as well. Couldn't find a faq for either and honestly the wording of FNP's is kind of weird.

If ghazkul has a FNP from makari and he save 4 or more wounds in a single phase can he take more wounds?

if a guo with acidic ichor takes a wound does acidic trigger AND his FNP?

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.

Ichor warding:
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.

Not trying to power game, both situations are at odds with each other. Coming from rules sets where triggers are more strict and defined the FNP (I know they aren't all the exact same) wording almost doen't make sense as a model makes the roll BEFORE it loses any wounds. Meaning a 1 wound plaguebearer will have the opportunity to save any amount of damage BEFORE the damage is even taken which seems at odds with the rules wording.

I would play it as ghaz can suffer any number of wounds and save with makari before hitting his cap and the GUO's acidic ichor ability wouldn't work unless you've actually ticked his wounds count down.
(acidic ichor is in engine wars btw for anyone looking it up)

If you are a sporting sort, you would go with the 'fair' ruling that if you didn't lose the wound due to Disgustingly Resilient then you can't trigger an effect that happens when you lose a wound, like Ichor Warding.

We can talk sequencing and decide on my Nurgle turn it happens but on yours it doesn't because the player who's turn it is decides on sequencing.

Or we can look at the rules and be sporting about it... and hope GW fixes that rule in the next version of the Codex.

 alextroy wrote:

 Aijec wrote:
Kind of a corner case but I was looking at GUO's and then thought of Ghaz as well. Couldn't find a faq for either and honestly the wording of FNP's is kind of weird.

If ghazkul has a FNP from makari and he save 4 or more wounds in a single phase can he take more wounds?

if a guo with acidic ichor takes a wound does acidic trigger AND his FNP?

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.

Ichor warding:
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.

Not trying to power game, both situations are at odds with each other. Coming from rules sets where triggers are more strict and defined the FNP (I know they aren't all the exact same) wording almost doen't make sense as a model makes the roll BEFORE it loses any wounds. Meaning a 1 wound plaguebearer will have the opportunity to save any amount of damage BEFORE the damage is even taken which seems at odds with the rules wording.

I would play it as ghaz can suffer any number of wounds and save with makari before hitting his cap and the GUO's acidic ichor ability wouldn't work unless you've actually ticked his wounds count down.
(acidic ichor is in engine wars btw for anyone looking it up)

If you are a sporting sort, you would go with the 'fair' ruling that if you didn't lose the wound due to Disgustingly Resilient then you can't trigger an effect that happens when you lose a wound, like Ichor Warding.

We can talk sequencing and decide on my Nurgle turn it happens but on yours it doesn't because the player who's turn it is decides on sequencing.

Or we can look at the rules and be sporting about it... and hope GW fixes that rule in the next version of the Codex.

but then the Ghaz player would be able to cap with wounds in a phase that have been saved by a fnp?

I would play it the way you are saying and I agree but not because I wanted to be sporting, (I mean I do but I just think it's how the rules operate)

With Ghaz it's negated by Makari's wording being different.

"Ghazghkull’s Waaagh! Banner: When a model in a friendly GOFF ORK unit within 6" of this model would lose a wound, and this model is within 3" of a friendly GHAZGHKULL THRAKA unit, roll one D6; on a 6+ that wound is not lost."

 cole1114 wrote:
With Ghaz it's negated by Makari's wording being different.

"Ghazghkull’s Waaagh! Banner: When a model in a friendly GOFF ORK unit within 6" of this model would lose a wound, and this model is within 3" of a friendly GHAZGHKULL THRAKA unit, roll one D6; on a 6+ that wound is not lost."

you're saying "WOULD lose a wound" is the difference maker?

Correct, the FNP is being taken instead of losing the wound.

I think this is less a case of a difference than a case of new, more precise language for the rule. GW has been evolving the language they use in many rules to make them less ambiguous and open to unintended results.

blaktoof wrote:
I am going to say if you pass FnP you did not lose a wound.

for FnP type wounds it requires you to be losing wounds to make the roll, however we don't get to make the roll for wounds already lost. I.e. if a model has 6 wounds, suffers 2, fails both FnP rolls, gets shot some more suffers 2 more wounds it is going to make 2 FnP rolls not 4 FnP rolls.

Also if a 1W model suffers a wound, if the FnP roll is made after it loses the wound (going to 0) it would be removed from the table before the roll for FnP, which isn't the case.

Agreed. If you pass the FnP you didnt lose that wound.

 alextroy wrote:
I think this is less a case of a difference than a case of new, more precise language for the rule. GW has been evolving the language they use in many rules to make them less ambiguous and open to unintended results.

I HOPE that's the case, and I guess we'll see as new Codexes come out. The Marine and Death Guard ones are bound to have some sort of FNP in there, at least.

You cannot take a FnP unless you lose a wound in the first place. If you have a 6 wound model, you go to five, make the FnP, and go back to 6. You still lost a wound. Otherwise you cannot roll a FnP

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You cannot take a FnP unless you lose a wound in the first place. If you have a 6 wound model, you go to five, make the FnP, and go back to 6. You still lost a wound. Otherwise you cannot roll a FnP

To take a page from MTGs book, replacement effects replace the entire event. The event that it replaced is never considered to have happened.

This is not MTG, and to use a FnP, you have to lose a wound.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
This is not MTG, and to use a FnP, you have to lose a wound.

Sure, but if you pass FNP you have not lost a wound, so nothing else can trigger off of that.

See, this is why I say it needs clarifying. Neither standpoint is refuted by anything that's actually in the rules.

 Super Ready wrote:
See, this is why I say it needs clarifying. Neither standpoint is refuted by anything that's actually in the rules.

What do you mean?

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

How is that unclear?

The model does not lose that wound, so nothing that triggers can be used.

Yes FNP creates a paradox, it has for several editions.

Ummmm - quite simply, the fact that it creates a paradox, makes it unclear.
The two counter-arguments in this thread hinge on the effect being either a reversal or an ignoring of that wound, but we're not told which it is.

The model does not lose that wound, so nothing that triggers can be used.

This is your interpretation (and for what it's worth, mine as well) but the rules don't actually back this up.

 Super Ready wrote:
Ummmm - quite simply, the fact that it creates a paradox, makes it unclear.
The two counter-arguments in this thread hinge on the effect being either a reversal or an ignoring of that wound, but we're not told which it is.

The model does not lose that wound, so nothing that triggers can be used.

This is your interpretation (and for what it's worth, mine as well) but the rules don't actually back this up.

False, it is what the RAW actually says.

This is because you can not trigger things off of a wound that was not lost.

If you trigger something other than FNP you are breaking the rules if the FNP roll is succeddful, since the model did not lose a wound.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:
Ummmm - quite simply, the fact that it creates a paradox, makes it unclear.
The two counter-arguments in this thread hinge on the effect being either a reversal or an ignoring of that wound, but we're not told which it is.

The model does not lose that wound, so nothing that triggers can be used.

This is your interpretation (and for what it's worth, mine as well) but the rules don't actually back this up.

False, it is what the RAW actually says.

This is because you can not trigger things off of a wound that was not lost.

If you trigger something other than FNP you are breaking the rules if the FNP roll is succeddful, since the model did not lose a wound.

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

That's the wording on Nurgle's FNP. it explicitly triggers when the wound is lost-which is where the confusion lies.

Ghazghkull’s Waaagh! Banner: When a model in a friendly GOFF ORK unit within 6" of this model would lose a wound, and this model is within 3" of a friendly GHAZGHKULL THRAKA unit, roll one D6; on a 6+ that wound is not lost.

This is Makari's FNP-granting aura's wording. Notice how they cleaned it up-you never lose the wound in this case.

Is a strict, RAW reading of the original FNP rules therefore pretty weird, janky, and ambiguous? Yes. Yes it is. Which is why reasonable people can disagree on whether or not something like Ichor Warding works with a successful FNP roll.

If/when all FNP is updated to Makari's wording, then it will be clear. And I think it's reasonable to take that as precedent, and therefore say that Ichor Warding cannot trigger on a successful FNP roll. But RAW is ambiguous.

RAW is not really ambiguous.

You can't trigger anything off a wound that is not a wound.

But when it gets changed there will be no more confusion.

except as it doesn't say which is triggered first things could be ordered like this:
1:Model loses a wound then
2:Losing wound triggers acidic icor then
3:Losing wound triggers FNP then
4:Model doesn't lose a wound

If it is resolved in that order does that now mean that mean we go backwords and ignore what was already triggered and hurt enemy models? Does FNP have a time machine?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You cannot take a FnP unless you lose a wound in the first place. If you have a 6 wound model, you go to five, make the FnP, and go back to 6. You still lost a wound. Otherwise you cannot roll a FnP

So, a plaguebearer would go to 0 wounds, then go back to 1 wound ? That doesnt work, because the model would be removed from play at 0 wounds.

Vrigor wrote:
except as it doesn't say which is triggered first things could be ordered like this:
1:Model loses a wound then
2:Losing wound triggers acidic icor then
3:Losing wound triggers FNP then
4:Model doesn't lose a wound

If it is resolved in that order does that now mean that mean we go backwords and ignore what was already triggered and hurt enemy models? Does FNP have a time machine?

It can not be resolved in that order. If the model did not lose a wound, why did acidic icor trigger?

After FNP the model did not lose a wound. Nothing can trigger off of it. since the model did not lose a wound.

you have to roll FNP first because if you try to trigger anything else, the model would be at 0 wounds and would be removed from play at 0 wounds.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Vrigor wrote:
except as it doesn't say which is triggered first things could be ordered like this:
1:Model loses a wound then
2:Losing wound triggers acidic icor then
3:Losing wound triggers FNP then
4:Model doesn't lose a wound

If it is resolved in that order does that now mean that mean we go backwords and ignore what was already triggered and hurt enemy models? Does FNP have a time machine?

It can not be resolved in that order. If the model did not lose a wound, why did acidic icor trigger?

After FNP the model did not lose a wound. Nothing can trigger off of it. since the model did not lose a wound.

you have to roll FNP first because if you try to trigger anything else, the model would be at 0 wounds and would be removed from play at 0 wounds.

Sequencing allows for that version, if the player who's turn it is chooses to do so.