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.

@deathreaper: Where are they now? They haven't posted for quite some time. None have come to your rescue. Likely due to the fact that they have finally understood the "immediately" comes before "can" and that FNP IS NOT A SAVE! Therefore the boneswords special rule comes into play BEFORE FNP can be taken.

FNP can create a saved wound.

Therefore if you pass FNP there is no unsaved Wound.

Skulltaker86 wrote:@deathreaper: Where are they now? They haven't posted for quite some time.

Maybe they realized how silly your argument was and did not want to bother, that or they were instant deathed by a bonesword because they failed their feel no pain save...

DeathReaper wrote:

Skulltaker86 wrote:It means after you fail one of your three types of "save"

Read boneswords again it says

"IF you suffer an unsaved wound."

Passing a FNP does not make you suffer an unsaved wound.

Are you serious? No where in his post does he imply or even state that FNP causes an unsaved wound. Failing one of your three allowed saves (cover, armor, invulnerable) you suffer an unsaved wound, which is 100% true. I don't know what you are reading but the rest of us are reading words that are actually there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:FNP can create a saved wound.

Therefore if you pass FNP there is no unsaved Wound.

What part of "treated as" are you not comprehending? How can something that is not a save created a saved wound? You cannot. It is ignored not negated. Please stop trolling.

Skulltaker86 wrote: FNP IS NOT A SAVE...

to which i said but it can create a saved wound.

Captain Antivas wrote:How can something that is not a save created a saved wound? You cannot. It is ignored not negated.

1) re-read FNP and you will see how something that is not a save can created a saved wound.

2) FNP does not mention Ignored, but negated is essentially the same thing. So if we are ignoring the unsaved Wound why are you trying to trigger effects off of something we are ignoring. To trigger effects off of it is to not ignore it...


the unsaved Wound is "treated as" being saved. If you, in any way acknowledge an Unsaved Wound you have broken the rules.

I will not feed you troll.

Captain Antivas wrote:I will not feed you troll.

Do you actually have some rules to discuss or are you going to continue to break the tenets of the forum?

He has been quoting the rules, as have your other opponents. But since it hasn't convinced you of your error there is no point in continuing the discussion. And for the record, no rules have been broken. Yet.

broodstar wrote:This debate really has nothing to do with rules, it's order of operation.

Bonesword say you IMMEDIATELY take a ld test, it goes first.

I support this statement.

Its all about the timing.

I don't know if there's any card game players here but in card games the timing is crucial and you must adhere to the wording strictly.

This case is no different there's 2 rules that have the same trigger but one of them has superior timing. Thus it takes precedence

Even the rulebook addresses rules that share the same timing but in this case the FNP rule does not state that it occurs immediately thus ANY rule that says 'immediately, first, right after etc' would be resolved first. Otherwise the system just doesn't work and is not being followed.

Also I bring back the point I made earlier that Discounted =/= Negated.

FNP says you discount the wound. It still has occurred.

Grey Templar wrote:no rules have been broken. Yet.

And they won't be. Until a new point is made using actual rules and not regurgitated opinions without a rule to support it I will not be adding to the conversation. I am not conceding the point, I am just realizing that I will not change his mind and there is nothing more to discuss other than what I have already proven to be true.

Skulltaker86 wrote:@deathreaper: Where are they now? They haven't posted for quite some time. None have come to your rescue.

He doesn't need rescuing really.

Likely due to the fact that they have finally understood the "immediately" comes before "can" and that FNP IS NOT A SAVE! Therefore the boneswords special rule comes into play BEFORE FNP can be taken.

Man, if only FnP had a similar wording.

Oh, it says when you suffer an unsaved wound? Not after? Oh.


Seriously, this argument has been going on for how long? The slight change in wording didn't fix anything really.

Grey Templar wrote: And for the record, no rules have been broken. Yet.

Care to restate that, considering:

Captain Antivas wrote:I will not feed you troll.

Goes directly against the tenets of the forum.

rigeld2 wrote:

Likely due to the fact that they have finally understood the "immediately" comes before "can" and that FNP IS NOT A SAVE! Therefore the boneswords special rule comes into play BEFORE FNP can be taken.

Man, if only FnP had a similar wording.

Oh, it says when you suffer an unsaved wound? Not after? Oh.

And Boneswords says if, both are in the future tense so you use the one with the immediately modifier first.

one says when, the other says if.

When you suffer the unsaved Wound you roll FNP.

If you actually fail your saves (And FNP since FNP created a saved wound) you roll for boneswords.

As others have stated, Boneswords beat FNP in timing for two reasons:

- Both rules have the same trigger condition, but as the Boneswords rule states immediately, you have to take it first to avoid breaking the Boneswords rule. As they FNP rule doesn't state immediately, it has no prerequisite of going first. Even if it didn't state immediately, the worst case scenario would go to the player who's turn it is who decided the order of events, as stated on page 9.

- As the Boneswords inflict Instant Death unless a Leadership test is passed, you cannot take FNP against the unsaved wound unless the Leadership test is taken and passed, which pretty much rules out any timing issues.

So by reaper's logic, you take feel no pain tests for unsaved wounds, but because feel no pain changes it to an saved wound you can't take feel no pain.... which somehow means that you can never take a feel no pain roll without breaking the rules because there is was never an unsaved wound?

Circular logic hurts....

RatLord wrote:So by reaper's logic, you take feel no pain tests for unsaved wounds, but because feel no pain changes it to an saved wound you can't take feel no pain.... which somehow means that you can never take a feel no pain roll without breaking the rules because there is was never an unsaved wound?

Circular logic hurts....

Hi straw man, how are you?

Cite the rule that allows you to go back and re-evaluate if you can take FnP.
I'll wait.

Done? You can't find one?
There's no reason or permission to re-evaluate.

Captain Antivas wrote:As was pointed out before it doesn't say "immediately after suffering a wound", it says "if a model suffers one or more wounds". FNP doesn't use present tense, it uses future tense. Boneswords also use future tense. If and when both describe an action that has not yet happened but is expected to happen. That is future tense. Before you make an argument please make sure you know what you are talking about. "If a model takes a wound" and "when a model takes a wound" happen at the same time. "Must immediately pass a leadership test" happens before "can take a special Feel No Pain roll".

First of all, future tenses in the English language require "would", "will" or "going to". So no, that's not written in future tense, even if it's referring to the future.
Second, it says "if the psyker inflicts one or more wounds", your constant misquoting of the rule isn't helping anyone.
Third, boneswords never cause wounds that inflict instant death, so they don't interact with FNP at all. Boneswords simply have a rule that causes instant death in a different way after(or when) one or more wounds have been suffered.

Also, before accusing people of having no idea what they are talking about, how about picking up a dictionary? Immediately means "very close to a particular time". Very close is still after.

Since this thread seems to be wrapping up in mostly a stalemate, just a few things to clarify.

Captain Antivas wrote:
Where do the rules state that FNP goes first? Page number or it is simply deduced, and as I was told by many people "deduce=making up rules". Show me a rule or stop making the claim.

I think you meant inductive here. We use deductive reasoning on this sub-forum all the time (e.g. "the rulebook states that models move 6" in the movement phase, therefore, my infantry models can move 6" (barring all the special cases)).

Inductive would be what this thread is trying to do, which is figure out the likely logical course with incomplete evidence.


As for the Bonesword debate, I have to agree with core that they have a special leg up on the other arguments. Boneswords not only inflict ID, but have as their normal operation. The wording of the weapon (paraphrased since the rule, verbatim, has already been put on this forum) states that a model has to pass a leadership test, or suffer instant death. That means if for some reason a model cannot take a leadership test, it would automatically suffer instant death.

It boils down to since the rules of boneswords negate ID on a passed leadership test, rather than inflict it on a failed one, there can only be two possibilities regarding FnP:
1) model suffers an unsaved wound, you pass LD, you can take FnP because you negated the Bonesword's ID.
2) model suffers an unsaved wound, you fail LD, you can't take FnP because the wound inflicted ID.

Ok......

I can't believe people are going to this length to break rules.

First - FNP is vs Wounds.
Second - There is no timing issue. Keep Magic the Gathering where it is.

So if you have to take a test or be ID, this has NO bearing on FNP. The only ID that is covered for ignoring FNP is double toughness wounds. If you have a power that causes ID on unsaved wounds it doesn't beat FNP. If you have a power that makes you test vs anything, it doesn't beat FNP.

Wound - FNP - what ever sillyness you have.

Wound Double Toughness - FNP can't work.

So please stop trying to break FNP because YOU feel you have a tactic that works. It's a rule vs wounds. Not a rule vs powers/abilities.

Further more. Does a bonesword cause ID? No it does not. It makes you take a leadership test. If you fail that test then ID happens.

Jidmah wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:As was pointed out before it doesn't say "immediately after suffering a wound", it says "if a model suffers one or more wounds". FNP doesn't use present tense, it uses future tense. Boneswords also use future tense. If and when both describe an action that has not yet happened but is expected to happen. That is future tense. Before you make an argument please make sure you know what you are talking about. "If a model takes a wound" and "when a model takes a wound" happen at the same time. "Must immediately pass a leadership test" happens before "can take a special Feel No Pain roll".

First of all, future tenses in the English language require "would", "will" or "going to". So no, that's not written in future tense, even if it's referring to the future.

Are you serious? Future tense is defined as a description of an action that has not happened but is expected to happen. Check it out. dictionary.com or webster.com would work. I'll wait. If and when are both future tense. Even if they are not, then they are both present tense and you are still wrong.

Second, it says "if the psyker inflicts one or more wounds", your constant misquoting of the rule isn't helping anyone.

What does this have to do with psykers? Boneswords are Tyranid CC weapons. What topic are you responding to?

Third, boneswords never cause wounds that inflict instant death, so they don't interact with FNP at all. Boneswords simply have a rule that causes instant death in a different way after(or when) one or more wounds have been suffered.

Instant Death is caused by the wound caused by boneswords. The weapon inflicts ID if a LD test is failed. The weapon inflicts ID, it just gives the model a chance to resist it. It is still inflicted by the weapon.

Also, before accusing people of having no idea what they are talking about, how about picking up a dictionary? Immediately means "very close to a particular time". Very close is still after.

Both refer to after the unsaved wound is suffered by the model. The immediately refers to when you take the LD test, not in reference to when the model takes the wound. I maintain my original point.

Jidmah wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:As was pointed out before it doesn't say "immediately after suffering a wound", it says "if a model suffers one or more wounds". FNP doesn't use present tense, it uses future tense. Boneswords also use future tense. If and when both describe an action that has not yet happened but is expected to happen. That is future tense. Before you make an argument please make sure you know what you are talking about. "If a model takes a wound" and "when a model takes a wound" happen at the same time. "Must immediately pass a leadership test" happens before "can take a special Feel No Pain roll".

First of all, future tenses in the English language require "would", "will" or "going to". So no, that's not written in future tense, even if it's referring to the future.
Second, it says "if the psyker inflicts one or more wounds", your constant misquoting of the rule isn't helping anyone.
Third, boneswords never cause wounds that inflict instant death, so they don't interact with FNP at all. Boneswords simply have a rule that causes instant death in a different way after(or when) one or more wounds have been suffered.

Also, before accusing people of having no idea what they are talking about, how about picking up a dictionary? Immediately means "very close to a particular time". Very close is still after.

This is ironic, you first bitch at him for not knowing the rules, you then QUOTE them incorrectly. Good job. The word Psyker never once appears in the Bonesword rules for this edition.

Also, you then proceed to get the definition for "immediately" wrong... here, let me help you, since you've demonstrated that reading isn't your forte.

the Oxford English Dictionary wrote:
adverb
1 at once; instantly:
I rang immediately for an ambulance
2 without any intervening time or space:
she was sitting immediately behind me
3 in direct or very close relation:
they would be the states most immediately affected by any such action

Now since I can already feel you racing to get this wrong as well, note that definition 3 is in terms of physical location, as defined by the example. We need to use definition one in our case.

Now go ahead and tell me that you know definitions better than the Oxford English Dictionary.

MJThurston wrote:I can't believe people are going to this length to break rules.

I can't believe what people are saying to justify breaking the rules. Your post takes the cake for the ignoring/breaking rules competition.

First - FNP is vs Wounds.

No, FNP is against unsaved Wounds. Big difference there, and it is in the rule that it is unsaved Wounds not just Wounds.

Second - There is no timing issue. Keep Magic the Gathering where it is.

Both are triggered by the same thing, suffering an unsaved Wound. Since they technically take place at the same time you have to consider which one should be applied first. Don't oversimplify.

So if you have to take a test or be ID, this has NO bearing on FNP. The only ID that is covered for ignoring FNP is double toughness wounds. If you have a power that causes ID on unsaved wounds it doesn't beat FNP. If you have a power that makes you test vs anything, it doesn't beat FNP.

Where in the rules does it say that?

Weapons that inflict ID negate FNP. FNP is negated by double toughness and as explained in the Instant Death USR a weapon with the ID special rule inflict ID as described on page 16 despite the toughness of the model. So weapons with the ID USR are treated the same as wounds that are double the model's toughness. According to the rules.

So please stop trying to break FNP because YOU feel you have a tactic that works. It's a rule vs wounds. Not a rule vs powers/abilities.

Again, page number?

Further more. Does a bonesword cause ID? No it does not. It makes you take a leadership test. If you fail that test then ID happens.

What does inflict mean? (I wanted to use Webster.com but it won't let me unless I buy a membership, so I am stuck with dictionary.com)
1. to impose as something that must be borne or suffered: to inflict punishment.
2. to impose (anything unwelcome): The regime inflicted burdensome taxes on the people.
3. to deal or deliver, as a blow.
Bonewords inflict ID, but you have a chance to resist it by passing a LD test. It is still inflicted by the weapon.

Jidmah wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:As was pointed out before it doesn't say "immediately after suffering a wound", it says "if a model suffers one or more wounds". FNP doesn't use present tense, it uses future tense. Boneswords also use future tense. If and when both describe an action that has not yet happened but is expected to happen. That is future tense. Before you make an argument please make sure you know what you are talking about. "If a model takes a wound" and "when a model takes a wound" happen at the same time. "Must immediately pass a leadership test" happens before "can take a special Feel No Pain roll".

First of all, future tenses in the English language require "would", "will" or "going to". So no, that's not written in future tense, even if it's referring to the future.
Second, it says "if the psyker inflicts one or more wounds", your constant misquoting of the rule isn't helping anyone.
Third, boneswords never cause wounds that inflict instant death, so they don't interact with FNP at all. Boneswords simply have a rule that causes instant death in a different way after(or when) one or more wounds have been suffered.

Also, before accusing people of having no idea what they are talking about, how about picking up a dictionary? Immediately means "very close to a particular time". Very close is still after.

For someone that is correcting someone else, you failed to actually go look at the wording on Boneswords.

Boneswords don't have a rule that causes instant death in a different way.

As coredump stated earlier Boneswords CAUSE instant death by default. The rule on the bonesword is there to PREVENT it from causing instant death.

Basically it says "This weapon causes instant death, unless you pass a Ld test" or "This weapon causes instant death. A model wounded must take a Ld test to prevent this"

Boneswords are similar to Force Weapons but not identical.

A couple of things for the leadership test first group.
If my model suffers 5 wounds from a model with boneswords, how many leadership tests do I take?
If your answer is only 1 test (which it should be), what is to stop me from rolling an invulnerable save one at a time? Now, I have an unsaved wound, I can take FNP, then go on to the second wound.

Happyjew wrote:A couple of things for the leadership test first group.
If my model suffers 5 wounds from a model with boneswords, how many leadership tests do I take?
If your answer is only 1 test (which it should be), what is to stop me from rolling an invulnerable save one at a time? Now, I have an unsaved wound, I can take FNP, then go on to the second wound.

This has a very simple and obvious answer.

Wounds are applied on a model by model basis (the rule also works against models not units). So how is this conflicting at ALL with your logic that you can take ur invulnerable saves one at a time?

Go ahead. You take your invulnerable saves one at a time and waste everybody's time it doesn't stop the ability whatsoever.

You miss any of those invulnerable saves and you have now suffered an unsaved wound on that model. Take the test for THAT specific model.

The rule does not say 'a unit sufering an unsaved wound' it says 'any model suffering an unsaved wound'

Not quite sure what you're saying here I'm afraid. You roll your invuln saves before the LD test, obviously. As soon as any of them fail, then you check for ID. If the LD check fails, then you don't get FNP and you're dead no matter how many more saves you make. If it passes though, then you can take FNP for any and all of the wounds left.

Would be easier to just roll all the saves at once though.

I could have misunderstood what you're asking though.

Happyjew wrote:A couple of things for the leadership test first group.
If my model suffers 5 wounds from a model with boneswords, how many leadership tests do I take?
If your answer is only 1 test (which it should be), what is to stop me from rolling an invulnerable save one at a time? Now, I have an unsaved wound, I can take FNP, then go on to the second wound.

This is not relevant. You cannot have an unsaved wound until you fail your invo save. The rule says a model that suffers one or more unsaved wound must take a LD test. If you fail one Invo save then you take a LD test and if you fail you suffer ID. If you pass you get to try FNP. If you pass that you can then try your Invo save again. You fail another invo save and you don't take another LD test and you get your FNP. Its a waste of time, but it changes nothing.

This thread has gotten excessively rude and hostile in multiple places. Some folks might more profitably spend their time outdoors with a refreshing beverage.

I think the arguments have been expressed; anyone interested who hasn't already made up their mind has plenty of material to read so they can.

Please email GW your questions on this so hopefully it can go in the impending FAQ update.