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.

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:Which for all game purposes is a saved wound. With all the effects of a saved wound. Whenever a rule looks to see what the status of the Wound is, it will see a saved Wound.

But can we agree that the FNP roll is not taken before the ES effect is applied?

Nope, You cannot apply ES effects until we know the final status of the Wound.

Then why do we know to roll FNP? Same trigger remember, so you can't trigger one without the other.

Again, they are simply not mutually exclusive, roll the dice at the same time if you want, if they both pass then your model doesn't take a wound, but has still lost his armour save.

Because we need to finalize the wound status.

Rule cite please.

Common sense. You cannot apply triggered effects to a Wound if you don't know the Wound will stay the same and still ignore the Wound if it changes status.

"Common Sense" is not a defence. Are you kidding?

You'll claim "immediately" means dick all in the rules since we have no rules definition for it, but then you claim "common sense" to back your side up...

No. RAW please.

Cite where we are told the effects of 'immediately' are in the rules, please.

Cite where we are told how to "roll" a dice please.

Can't be done, it's not in there, so we need to go with the traditionally understood definition. Same with a strict RAW definition of "immediately".

But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

nohman wrote:Are you kidding? "Common Sense" is not a defence.

You'll claim "immediately" means dick all in the rules since we have no rules definition for it, but then you claim "common sense" to back your side up...

No. RAW please.

Why are we told to treat the wound as saved?
From what you're saying all FNP does is discount the wound. The rules tells us to discount it, but it also says treat it as saved.
Why not stop at "discounting the wound" if that's all it does?
So why add "treat it as saved"? The only reason I can think of is because other abilities (ES for example) work off an unsaved wound.

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Easy! You roll for ES, on a 4+ you lose your armour save. That is a change that has been made to your profile. You then roll for FNP, and on a 5+ you also don't die, therefore the wound has been ignored. Since ES had the same trigger as FNP, negating it entirely would be going back in time to retroactively stop it.

And the definition of "immediately" is pretty common sense as well. I even gave you the dictionary definition of it, but you didn't accept it.

rigeld2 wrote:

nohman wrote:Rule cite please.

I roll my save.
I fail.
Is the wound unsaved?
You cannot answer the question without resolving FnP.
Yes, FnP is triggered, but because it can alter the wound from unsaved to saved it must be processed.

FNP is not a save. Stop treating it like it is. An unsaved Wound is defined very clearly in the rulebook. FNP says nothing about when it is applied, nor does it give permission to have it jump to the front of the line. They are both triggered at the same time and unless you can show me a rule that says that FNP has the initiative then it falls under Exceptions on Page 9 and we rely on the rule to tell how when to do it. One says immediately, one just says it can happen.

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Easy! You roll for ES, on a 4+ you lose your armour save. That is a change that has been made to your profile. You then roll for FNP, and on a 5+ you also don't die, therefore the wound has been ignored. Since ES had the same trigger as FNP, negating it entirely would be going back in time to retroactively stop it.

And the definition of "immediately" is pretty common sense as well. I even gave you the dictionary definition of it, but you didn't accept it.

But you applied an effect of the Wound we are told is now saved and should be ignored.

grendel083 wrote:

nohman wrote:Are you kidding? "Common Sense" is not a defence.

You'll claim "immediately" means dick all in the rules since we have no rules definition for it, but then you claim "common sense" to back your side up...

No. RAW please.

Why are we told to treat the wound as saved?
From what you're saying all FNP does is discount the wound. The rules tells us to discount it, but it also says treat it as saved.
Why not stop at "discounting the wound" if that's all it does?
So why add "treat it as saved"? The only reason I can think of is because other abilities (ES for example) work off an unsaved wound.

Right off the top of my head, a saved wound doesn't count for combat resolution. There may be other reasons for it, but I'm not familiar enough with every codex to state for certain. Not to mention it may be significant in codices going forward

I also have a challenge. Grant me the assumption that ES does come before FNP for a moment. Assuming it is meant to, how would you write the ES rules to indicate that, but without ever referring to FNP by name so it can work through multiple editions, and apparently without ever using the word immediately? Also assume you're trying not to be overly verbose as well.

Captain Antivas wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

nohman wrote:Rule cite please.

I roll my save.
I fail.
Is the wound unsaved?
You cannot answer the question without resolving FnP.
Yes, FnP is triggered, but because it can alter the wound from unsaved to saved it must be processed.

FNP is not a save. Stop treating it like it is. An unsaved Wound is defined very clearly in the rulebook. FNP says nothing about when it is applied, nor does it give permission to have it jump to the front of the line. They are both triggered at the same time and unless you can show me a rule that says that FNP has the initiative then it falls under Exceptions on Page 9 and we rely on the rule to tell how when to do it. One says immediately, one just says it can happen.

And ES is not given permission to to just in front of FnP. For all purposes of the rules a FnP negated Wound is saved. Thus no effects triggered off of unsaved Wounds can be applied.

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Easy! You roll for ES, on a 4+ you lose your armour save. That is a change that has been made to your profile. You then roll for FNP, and on a 5+ you also don't die, therefore the wound has been ignored. Since ES had the same trigger as FNP, negating it entirely would be going back in time to retroactively stop it.

And the definition of "immediately" is pretty common sense as well. I even gave you the dictionary definition of it, but you didn't accept it.

But you applied an effect of the Wound we are told is now saved and should be ignored.

No I didn't. I applied the effect of a special rule. If I applied the effect of a wound, your single wound model is now dead.

nohman wrote:

grendel083 wrote:

nohman wrote:Are you kidding? "Common Sense" is not a defence.

You'll claim "immediately" means dick all in the rules since we have no rules definition for it, but then you claim "common sense" to back your side up...

No. RAW please.

Why are we told to treat the wound as saved?
From what you're saying all FNP does is discount the wound. The rules tells us to discount it, but it also says treat it as saved.
Why not stop at "discounting the wound" if that's all it does?
So why add "treat it as saved"? The only reason I can think of is because other abilities (ES for example) work off an unsaved wound.

Right off the top of my head, a saved wound doesn't count for combat resolution. There may be other reasons for it, but I'm not familiar enough with every codex to state for certain.

I also have a challenge. Grant me the assumption that ES does come before FNP for a moment. Assuming it is meant to, how would you write the ES rules to indicate that, but without ever referring to FNP by name so it can work through multiple editions, and apparently without ever using the word immediately? Also assume you're trying not to be overly verbose as well.

Simple, "before any other special rules are applied do X..."

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Common sense = no rules to back me up. This has never flown when I tried it, so it will not fly here.

How is immediately not obvious? Because it defies your point? Look at the definition and get back to me.

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Easy! You roll for ES, on a 4+ you lose your armour save. That is a change that has been made to your profile. You then roll for FNP, and on a 5+ you also don't die, therefore the wound has been ignored. Since ES had the same trigger as FNP, negating it entirely would be going back in time to retroactively stop it.

And the definition of "immediately" is pretty common sense as well. I even gave you the dictionary definition of it, but you didn't accept it.

But you applied an effect of the Wound we are told is now saved and should be ignored.

No I didn't. I applied the effect of a special rule. If I applied the effect of a wound, your single wound model is now dead.

ES is an additional effect of the Wound.

But surely that still leaves the whole "it retroactively becomes a saved wound thus ES never applied at all!" loophole open? Since you'd still need to resolve if it was an unsaved wound or not?

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Common sense = no rules to back me up. This has never flown when I tried it, so it will not fly here.

How is immediately not obvious? Because it defies your point? Look at the definition and get back to me.

ANd how is "treated as saved" and "ignored" not immediately not obvious?

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Easy! You roll for ES, on a 4+ you lose your armour save. That is a change that has been made to your profile. You then roll for FNP, and on a 5+ you also don't die, therefore the wound has been ignored. Since ES had the same trigger as FNP, negating it entirely would be going back in time to retroactively stop it.

And the definition of "immediately" is pretty common sense as well. I even gave you the dictionary definition of it, but you didn't accept it.

But you applied an effect of the Wound we are told is now saved and should be ignored.

No I didn't. I applied the effect of a special rule. If I applied the effect of a wound, your single wound model is now dead.

ES is an additional effect of the Wound.

No it isn't. Pretty sure my Tesla Carbines don't cause ES. Nor do my Deathspitters. Or my Bonesword...

ES is it's own rule that triggers off a wound. If the wound goes through and triggers the effect, then it still happened,. If the wound is retroactively removed it has no bearing on it, since it has since been resolved.

Captain Antivas wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

nohman wrote:Rule cite please.

I roll my save.
I fail.
Is the wound unsaved?
You cannot answer the question without resolving FnP.
Yes, FnP is triggered, but because it can alter the wound from unsaved to saved it must be processed.

FNP is not a save. Stop treating it like it is. An unsaved Wound is defined very clearly in the rulebook. FNP says nothing about when it is applied, nor does it give permission to have it jump to the front of the line. They are both triggered at the same time and unless you can show me a rule that says that FNP has the initiative then it falls under Exceptions on Page 9 and we rely on the rule to tell how when to do it. One says immediately, one just says it can happen.

It's not a save - that's correct.
What do the last few words of FnP say?

nohman wrote:But surely that still leaves the whole "it retroactively becomes a saved wound thus ES never applied at all!" loophole open? Since you'd still need to resolve if it was an unsaved wound or not?

Exactly!! You cannot apply triggered effects to a situtaion where you don't know the final status. Thus we need to finalize the status.

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Common sense = no rules to back me up. This has never flown when I tried it, so it will not fly here.

How is immediately not obvious? Because it defies your point? Look at the definition and get back to me.

ANd how is "treated as saved" and "ignored" not immediately not obvious?

RAW definition for "ignored" please.

Also the RAW difference between a "saved" wound, and a "treated as saved" wound.

Remember, Hive Tyrants are "treated as ICs" when with Guard, but are NOT ICs. So there is a difference.

rigeld2 wrote:It's not a save - that's correct.
What do the last few words of FnP say?

"treat it as having been saved" is what FNP says.

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:But surely that still leaves the whole "it retroactively becomes a saved wound thus ES never applied at all!" loophole open? Since you'd still need to resolve if it was an unsaved wound or not?

Exactly!! You cannot apply triggered effects to a situtaion where you don;t know the final status.

That's my point. You tried to rewrite the ES rule so it obviously comes before FNP, but failed. So how would you do it without using the word immediately or referring to FNP specifically?

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Common sense = no rules to back me up. This has never flown when I tried it, so it will not fly here.

How is immediately not obvious? Because it defies your point? Look at the definition and get back to me.

ANd how is "treated as saved" and "ignored" not immediately not obvious?

RAW definition for "ignored" please.

Also the RAW difference between a "saved" wound, and a "treated as saved" wound.

Remember, Hive Tyrants are "treated as ICs" when with Guard, but are NOT ICs. So there is a difference.

1) Common sense, ignored has no ambigous meanings.
2) There is no difference between the two in game terms.
3) The difference in your example is status is situational and has no bearing on the current issue.

nohman wrote:That's my point. You tried to rewrite the ES rule so it obviously comes before FNP, but failed. So how would you do it without using the word immediately or referring to FNP specifically?

"After reducing the wounds of the enemy model affected by Entropic Strike, reduce its armor save to -."

That is how I would have worded it.

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:But surely that still leaves the whole "it retroactively becomes a saved wound thus ES never applied at all!" loophole open? Since you'd still need to resolve if it was an unsaved wound or not?

Exactly!! You cannot apply triggered effects to a situtaion where you don;t know the final status.

That's my point. You tried to rewrite the ES rule so it obviously comes before FNP, but failed. So how would you do it without using the word immediately or referring to FNP specifically?

It was a trap. I wanted you to bring up the loop hole and uncertain status of the unsaved Wound.

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Common sense = no rules to back me up. This has never flown when I tried it, so it will not fly here.

How is immediately not obvious? Because it defies your point? Look at the definition and get back to me.

ANd how is "treated as saved" and "ignored" not immediately not obvious?

RAW definition for "ignored" please.

Also the RAW difference between a "saved" wound, and a "treated as saved" wound.

Remember, Hive Tyrants are "treated as ICs" when with Guard, but are NOT ICs. So there is a difference.

1) Common sence that has no ambigous meanings.
2) There is no difference between the two in game terms.
3) The difference in your example is status is situational and has no bearing on the current issue.

1) Common Sense is not a basis for a rules discussion. "Common sense" to myself and other is that ES and FNP both happen at once. "Common Sense" to you and others is that it doesn't. RAW only please.
2) Cite proof of this from the rulebook please.
3) It shows a precedent that things "treated as" something, are not necessarily the same as a normal version.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:But surely that still leaves the whole "it retroactively becomes a saved wound thus ES never applied at all!" loophole open? Since you'd still need to resolve if it was an unsaved wound or not?

Exactly!! You cannot apply triggered effects to a situtaion where you don;t know the final status.

That's my point. You tried to rewrite the ES rule so it obviously comes before FNP, but failed. So how would you do it without using the word immediately or referring to FNP specifically?

It was a trap. I wanted you to bring up the loop hole and uncertain status of the unsaved Wound.

So you actually can't do it without reference to immediately or FNP, thus meaning that even trying to convey intent, you still got it wrong.

1) Your example is not common sense, it is a interpretation of the effects of 'immediately'.

2) Cite proof that they are different.

3) Nope, that is situtational status. There is no question of situational status in ES v FnP debate, this is a question of final status. Once the HT is in the correct situation (with Guard) it is for all purposes of the rules an IC. WHen not with Guard, the HT is for all purposes not an IC. I'm not getting your point with this one.

hisdudeness wrote:1) Your example is not common sense, it is a interpretation of the effects of 'immediately'.

2) Cite proof that they are different.

3) Nope, that is situtational status. There is no question of situational status in ES v FnP debate. Once the HT is in the correct situation (with Guard) it is for all purposes of the rules an IC. WHen not with Guard, the HT is for all purposes not an IC. I'm not getting your point with this one.

1) RAW for "common sense" please!

2) Easy. One has 2 more two more words in it than the other.

3) Yes there is a question, hence why this post is here and the mods haven't shut it down yet. Also the fact that there have been more than one person on each side of the debate. Also you're wrong, if he is "for all intents and purposes" an IC, he could leave the unit. He may not. If he is "for all purposes" NOT an IC, then he may not join the unit.

EDIT: Sorry, originally quoted you before your edit.

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Common sense = no rules to back me up. This has never flown when I tried it, so it will not fly here.

How is immediately not obvious? Because it defies your point? Look at the definition and get back to me.

ANd how is "treated as saved" and "ignored" not immediately not obvious?

Because they don't mean that the wound never happened. If you ignore your little brother he still exists. If you ignore your bills they still stack up. If you ignore your rent it is still going to come back and bite you.

My "common sense" argument is that the scarab broke off its claw in your chest. The acid (or whatever it is that wrecks your armor) is still applied, it is still penetrating your armor and still melting your armor, but you are tough enough to fight on despite that. You have a giant gaping wound in your chest, but since the armor was still penetrated and still melted away it is gone despite your ability to fight on. The important thing to remember is that FNP has nothing to do with your armor/invo save's ability to protect you. It is all about your body's ability to fight on despite serious injury. This is a common sense argument that is not supported by rules, and is therefore invalid. If yours is valid then so is mine. Or neither of ours is valid and we go with what is written.

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:1) Your example is not common sense, it is a interpretation of the effects of 'immediately'.

2) Cite proof that they are different.

3) Nope, that is situtational status. There is no question of situational status in ES v FnP debate. Once the HT is in the correct situation (with Guard) it is for all porposes of the rules an IC. I'm not getting your point with this one.

1) RAW for "common sense" please!

2) Easy. One has 2 more two more words in it than the other.

3) Yes there is a question, hence why this post is here and the mods haven't shut it down yet. Also the fact that there have been more than one person on each side of the debate. Also you're wrong, if he is "for all intents and purposes" an IC, he could leave the unit. He may not.

3) Isn't that a special restiction placed on the HT in his rules and as the CPT has pointed out, p9 tells us "..., the expceptional rule will contain all the onformation you need to resolve it."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Common sense = no rules to back me up. This has never flown when I tried it, so it will not fly here.

How is immediately not obvious? Because it defies your point? Look at the definition and get back to me.

ANd how is "treated as saved" and "ignored" not immediately not obvious?

Because they don't mean that the wound never happened. If you ignore your little brother he still exists. If you ignore your bills they still stack up. If you ignore your rent it is still going to come back and bite you.

My "common sense" argument is that the scarab broke off its claw in your chest. The acid (or whatever it is that wrecks your armor) is still applied, it is still penetrating your armor and still melting your armor, but you are tough enough to fight on despite that. You have a giant gaping wound in your chest, but since the armor was still penetrated and still melted away it is gone despite your ability to fight on. The important thing to remember is that FNP has nothing to do with your armor/invo save's ability to protect you. It is all about your body's ability to fight on despite serious injury. This is a common sense argument that is not supported by rules, and is therefore invalid. If yours is valid then so is mine. Or neither of ours is valid and we go with what is written.

No one ever claimed the Wound never happened. It just did not finalize as an unsaved Wound. And thus cannot trigger effects that look for unsaved Wounds.

On this note, I am going to eat lunch and get some stuff done around the house. I will pick back up later.

hisdudeness wrote:

nohman wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:1) Your example is not common sense, it is a interpretation of the effects of 'immediately'.

2) Cite proof that they are different.

3) Nope, that is situtational status. There is no question of situational status in ES v FnP debate. Once the HT is in the correct situation (with Guard) it is for all porposes of the rules an IC. I'm not getting your point with this one.

1) RAW for "common sense" please!

2) Easy. One has 2 more two more words in it than the other.

3) Yes there is a question, hence why this post is here and the mods haven't shut it down yet. Also the fact that there have been more than one person on each side of the debate. Also you're wrong, if he is "for all intents and purposes" an IC, he could leave the unit. He may not.

3) Isn't that a special restiction placed on the HT in his rules and as the CPT has pointed out, p9 tells us "..., the expceptional rule will contain all the onformation you need to resolve it."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:But that is common sense. The timing of 'immediately' is not.

Tell me how we can simultaneously apply the effect of ES and still ignore the Wound?

Common sense = no rules to back me up. This has never flown when I tried it, so it will not fly here.

How is immediately not obvious? Because it defies your point? Look at the definition and get back to me.

ANd how is "treated as saved" and "ignored" not immediately not obvious?

Because they don't mean that the wound never happened. If you ignore your little brother he still exists. If you ignore your bills they still stack up. If you ignore your rent it is still going to come back and bite you.

My "common sense" argument is that the scarab broke off its claw in your chest. The acid (or whatever it is that wrecks your armor) is still applied, it is still penetrating your armor and still melting your armor, but you are tough enough to fight on despite that. You have a giant gaping wound in your chest, but since the armor was still penetrated and still melted away it is gone despite your ability to fight on. The important thing to remember is that FNP has nothing to do with your armor/invo save's ability to protect you. It is all about your body's ability to fight on despite serious injury. This is a common sense argument that is not supported by rules, and is therefore invalid. If yours is valid then so is mine. Or neither of ours is valid and we go with what is written.

No one ever claimed the Wound never happened. It just did not finalize as an unsaved Wound. And thus cannot trigger effects that look for unsaved Wounds.

Urr, don't know the acronym CPT. I presume it's the rulebook in some way. P9 refers to the turn, so if we're not allowing precedents to be used, then it doesn't mean anything either.

Also, once again, rule cite that a wound needs to be "finalized" to trigger stuff that procs off it.

Hell, Rule definition for "finalized" please?