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.

It does not help, because to resolve effects off of a wound you are supposed to ignore is breaking the rules.

One more thing. The Entropic Strike resolves IMMEDIATELY after an unsaved wound, the FNP doesn't.

What I love about these arguments is the amount of repetition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What I love about these arguments is the amount of repetition.

It all comes down to order of operations. In other words since all effects kick in simultaneously, which do we resolve first? Unfortunately, GW has yet to tell us and it falls on us to determine the order. Since there is no precedent, nor an FAQ/Errata, we must make up some of the rules as we go along. Best course of option, is if you feel this is something that will come up in a friendly game, discuss it with your opponent. If at a tournament, ask the TO what his/her ruling is on the subject.

copper.talos wrote:One more thing. The Entropic Strike resolves IMMEDIATELY after an unsaved wound, the FNP doesn't.

Wrong, it kicks in immediately after one or MORE have been scored. Meaning you wait until ALL unsaved wounds have been caused. Which is after FNP.
Making up rules again....

Is this an accurate summation of the dispute?

Ignoring the unsaved wound is a blanket statement that says "Ignore the removal of a wound from the models profile (injury) as well as any conditions triggered by or associated with an unsaved wound (excluding the activation of feel no pain)"

vs.

"Ignoring the Injury" suggests that only the subtraction of a wound from the models profile is negated, and has no bearing on any other events triggered by an unsaved wound.

or - the hexrifle argument

The Unsaved wound triggers all events and conditions, Feel No Pain being one of them, but FNP (does/does not) take linear precedent on the timeline ahead of other triggered events.


Tournament officials, in my experience, tend to rule in favor of FNP; but I think this is exclusively because the defending player is the rabbit, and the shooting player is the hound.

Happyjew wrote:It all comes down to order of operations. In other words since all effects kick in simultaneously, which do we resolve first? Unfortunately, GW has yet to tell us and it falls on us to determine the order. Since there is no precedent, nor an FAQ/Errata, we must make up some of the rules as we go along. Best course of option, is if you feel this is something that will come up in a friendly game, discuss it with your opponent. If at a tournament, ask the TO what his/her ruling is on the subject.

You are correct it all comes down to the order of operations; which is what I have said form the beginning of this thread.

We really do not need GW to tell us via an FAQ in this case; they already have.

ES happens last; after all simultaneous ES attacks have been resolved, as that is the only way that you can resolve "1 or more unsaved wounds".

Per the ES rules each enemy model only loses it's armour once per phase, per model or weapon with ES.

Most models with ES have multiple attacks, so you cannot resolve the 1 ES off of the "or more" portion unless you wait until all attacks from any single Model or weapon with ES is resolved.

Now since all Shots in a shooting phase from a single unit is simultaneous, and all attacks at any given initiative step in the Assault phase are simultaneous; you must fully resolve all of the attacks before you can determine if any given model suffers one of more unsaved wounds, which is the trigger for ES.

Timing is given FNP goes first since it triggers off of every unsaved wound and would have to resolve immediately after the failed or denied save(since wound resolution has you apply the wound immediately after the Save fails or is denied).

It still tickles me that all of you think you actually have the answers on this. It is "clearly unclear".

Sir_Prometheus wrote:It still tickles me that all of you think you actually have the answers on this. It is "clearly unclear".

we are basically just ignoring you(like the injury).

You can go ahead and play it as FNP never does anything, have fun with that.

The rest of us are going to apply common sense that tells us "the Injury" must be the unsaved wound that gets ignored; and that that in no way retroactively does anything, it is simply that the Wound is ignored, and thus no longer of any consequence.

Stretched and manipulated words, would be common sense for only a few...

WOund == injury, due to context. Not stretched or manipulated at all.

copper.talos wrote:Stretched and manipulated words, would be common sense for only a few...

Please, do explain your meaning.

Which words are stretched and manipulated, and in what way?

I have tens of posts already in this thread. Pick a few...

Seriously? What does "Injury" mean in 40k terms then, if it does not mean "unsaved wound"?

You do realise you arent currently making an argument, yes? Also those tenets you are supposed to read? You're currently breaking 1, at least

Sir_Prometheus wrote:It still tickles me that all of you think you actually have the answers on this. It is "clearly unclear".

Here, hows this. Every post I've made go ahead and tack on "in my opinion". I don't normally feel the need to write that.
Mocking us for posting and having a decent discussion on the matter isn't very friendly.

copper.talos wrote:Good you agree that the wound happened because that is the only check you need to make for activating ES. Ignored injuries is entirely different from saved wounds under any context, or word stretching.

Okay, so this was your last discussion post in this thread - ignoring the trolling.

Can you define what the ignored injury is? Because one of your other posts:

copper.talos wrote:then RAW the wound happened. The injury may get or may not get ignored. That is beside the point. The wound happened and anything that triggers of it applies normally.

implies that since the wound happened, FNP has no effect - the wound stat is still reduced, which means that a model could still be removed.

rigeld2 wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:It still tickles me that all of you think you actually have the answers on this. It is "clearly unclear".

Here, hows this. Every post I've made go ahead and tack on "in my opinion". I don't normally feel the need to write that.
Mocking us for posting and having a decent discussion on the matter isn't very friendly.

I'm mocking you folks because everyone is like "it's this, there's no way it can be anything but this!" and there are quite a few people seem unable to admit that there are valid arguments in opposition. That's the funny, and mock-worthy, part.

Let's please leave the mockery and the like out of it.

It's not going to do anything other than annoy or infuriate people, which doesn't add anything worthwhile to the debate.

Ta.

copper.talos wrote:I have tens of posts already in this thread. Pick a few...

I would much rather have your exact intent with this statement than filter through the rest of the thread trying to discern which words you infer in this particular instance.

Edit in Mod-o-vision: red I will keep this line of inquiry civil, and I am leading this to relevance to the thread; please either bear with me, or inform me to end it(to which I will immediately acquiesce)

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:It still tickles me that all of you think you actually have the answers on this. It is "clearly unclear".

we are basically just ignoring you(like the injury).

You can go ahead and play it as FNP never does anything, have fun with that.

The rest of us are going to apply common sense that tells us "the Injury" must be the unsaved wound that gets ignored; and that that in no way retroactively does anything, it is simply that the Wound is ignored, and thus no longer of any consequence.

You're one of the worst offenders.

And btw, I believe we actually agree on how it should be ruled, though all the language about "common sense, blah blah" kinda obfuscates it a bit.

@kommisarkel

Kommissar Kel wrote: FNP triggers on every unsaved wound; ES triggers on 1 or more unsaved wounds, meaning you do not apply ES until after all wounds are fully resolved.

I see that the "one or more wounds" on the entropic strike is making you think that ES comes second to FNP because it has to wait for all the wounds to happen.

Doesn't the BRB clearly specify that wounds in CC in a specific initiative step happen simultaneously? Why would the ES need to wait then? After saves are rolled you are presented with a number of unsaved wounds. It may be 4, 7, 2 or 1. The rules doesn't mention a growing number wounds you need to save sequentially.

Furthermore let me present you with a paradox. What if only 1 wound with ES happened. Then using your logic ES would not need to wait for more wounds, so it would trigger simultaneously with FNP and resolve before it (ES resolves immediately, FNP doesn't). So if a model gets 1 unsaved wound with ES and rolls FNP, it would end up without an armour. But if it gets 2 or more unsaved wounds and rolls FNP on all, then his armour would be intact. That seems logical to you?

Even if it does resolve immediately, if you pass FNP you have to ignore that it happened because you have to ignore that the unsaved wound happened.

To have effects come from something you are ignoring is to not ignore it. and that is breaking a rule.

Since even you admit that ES resolves before FNP then then armor save is stripped off the model. Then FNP kicks in and says to ignore the injury. Does it also say to restore the armour save?

copper.talos wrote:I was talking about something specific kommisarkel said.
As for what the rule says you to ignore and what you wanted to say to ignore, there is a huge difference...

Now I think there's an English language barrier - I'm not intending to insult, but I have no idea what you just said, or what you're responding to.

The rule says to ignore the Injury , which means you must ignore the unsaved wound. Context dictates this, as otherwise the rule is meaningless as the model still is removed as a casualty.

If you are saying otherwise please, for once, provide a rule for what "injury" means. You have yet to do so, and continue to breakt the tenets of this forum.

You are right. It didn't make sense. I've edited the message to something completely different.

copper.talos wrote:Since even you admit that ES resolves before FNP then then armor save is stripped off the model. Then FNP kicks in and says to ignore the injury. Does it also say to restore the armour save?[/quote
DR never said that, at all. He said EVEN IF they happen at the same time, applying ES means you have not ignored the wound, meaning you have broken a rule.

Never mind that ES happens after FNP, as KK proved to you

My last message didn't make sense so I editted it to this "Since even you admit that ES resolves before FNP then then armor save is stripped off the model. Then FNP kicks in and says to ignore the injury. Does it also say to restore the armour save? " and was addreesed to deathreaper.

In the previous messages I proved that KK's reason for ES coming second to FNP was against rules and creates a paradox.

copper.talos wrote:My last message didn't make sense so I editted it to this "Since even you admit that ES resolves before FNP then then armor save is stripped off the model. Then FNP kicks in and says to ignore the injury. Does it also say to restore the armour save? " and was addreesed to deathreaper.

Thanks.

If you remove the armor save, are you ignoring the injury that allowed you to remove the armor save?

I hope and pray with every fiber of my being that they fix this with a different wording in 6th edition. I would agree with you 100% Nos, except that if you completely ignore the unsaved wound, you have ignored the event that allowed you to take your FNP roll in the first place. You either have or have not suffered an unsaved wound, and if you have not, then nothing (including FNP) triggers upon not suffering it, and if you have, then everything (including FNP and ES, etc...) triggers upon suffering it. That is my entire issue with the whole thing, and as long as a tournament judge consistently rules one way or the other I really don't care. For the record, in my circle of friends, we play it such that everything triggers. We take Pinning tests on units that suffer an unsaved wound from a barrage weapon that is ignored due to FNP. We allow Lemartes to gain his buff even if his unsaved wound is ignored due to FNP. We allow Acid Blood to trigger on an unsaved wound ignored by FNP. And we will allow Entropic Strike to strip the armor off of a model that makes it's FNP roll as well. We are consistent and there are no arguments, so it really makes no difference whether or not we do it this way. In a tournament if there is a disagreement we call a judge, and if they rule against us we go with it with no complaints.

This could easily be fixed by re-wording FNP to the following:

Feel No Pain
.....If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice. On a 1, 2 or 3 take the wound as normal (removing the model if it loses its final Wound). On a 4, 5 or 6, the unsaved wound and all contingient effects except for Feel No Pain are ignored and the model continues fighting.......

It cleanly removes the paradox by noting Feel No Pain as an exception, specifically states that all other contingent effects for suffering an Unsaved Wound do no trigger, and uses 'Unsaved Wound' consistently as the key wording instead of the synonym 'Injury'. If GW would write their rules with this kind of thing in mind (IE keyword based rules with consistent wording), then we would have about a billion fewer arguments for these kinds of issues.

Anyway, I am finished arguing this point. I have done so at length in multiple threads and I have yet to have my mind changed, or change any minds. It's going nowhere, and I would rather wait for 6th edition to see if they fix it (and be disappointed when they don't, of course). Have fun with your discussion.

pg 6 of the BRB "Heroes and large monsters are often able to withstand several injuries that would slay a lesser creature, and so have a Wounds value of 2,3 or more.

So injuries are directly associated with the wounds value and nothing more. You successfully ignore the injury by not reducing the wounds value. You don't get to negate/cancel/save etc anything else...