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.

Yes, FNP creates a paradox within itself.

But treating the wound as having been saved means that we treat the wound as if we had not failed the armor/cover/invuln save.

That is your opinion but it still doesn't cover why in your mind you have to roll FNP first. You have already stated that you agree your reading creates a paradox. What rule are you using to apply FNP first? I've asked about it three times now and you have not been able to provide a rule allowing that.

Nor have you addressed why you are treating FNP different than the rest of the SR's.

You have to roll FNP first because if you do not, you could wind up with breaking a rule.

Roll FNP first:

Pass, we treat the wound as if we made our armor/cover/invuln save, nothing that triggers off of an unsaved wound can be used as we have a saved wound.

Fail, anything that triggers off of an unsaved wound can be used as we have an unsaved wound.

Roll FNP second:

Pass: Roll for any effects off of the unsaved wound, then we pass FNP, now we break rules because we do not have an unsaved wound, we treat the wound as if we made our armor/cover/invuln save and ES or concussive can not be applied when we treat a wound as if we made our armor/cover/invuln save.

Fail: No change from rolling FNP first.

Again what rule are you using to do this. As we all know you need permission to do anything. What rule are you using to not use the sequencing rules on pg 17? Without one you are breaking a second rule using your interpretation.

I have the digital edition, can you be more specific as to what you are referring when you say page 17?

There is a section marked sequencing on that page in the BRB it tells you how to apply multiple rules that have been activated at the same time.

"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound, it can make a special FNP roll to avoid being wounded ... blah blah blah"

The wording of ES REQUIRES an unsaved wound, FNP allows you to AVOID being wounded .... I do not see what is so complicated about this.

Explain to me, if you can, if a wound has been avoided via the paradox that FNP creates, how it is ever justifiable to suffer any sort of damage from an attack that has been avoided. I would like you to quote rules that support the stance of enforcing damage in a situation where damage has been avoided.

Gravmyr wrote:
There is a section marked sequencing on that page in the BRB it tells you how to apply multiple rules that have been activated at the same time.

"you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time"

This does not apply as FNP is not resolved at the same time as Entropic Strike, Concussive, ect.

It has to go before them because of the way FNP is worded. Specifically the avoid being wounded part.

I am using the same justification that you are to apply the effects of FNP after the wound has been avoided. It is your stance that it goes back in time and changes the wound to never having been unsaved. If so how did you roll for FNP? If you did roll for FNP you can't apply it's effect because it's per your reading you need an unsaved wound to apply it. See where this is going?

I notice you still did not address any of my questions but it's fine I'll answer yours....

The section about sequencing pg 17 tells you to apply the effects of all activated abilities in the order the active player chooses. Not once in that that section does it mention what to do if one of them negates the trigger of others. Without a rule telling you not to apply them they have already been activated and must be resolved.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:


Explain to me, if you can, if a wound has been avoided via the paradox that FNP creates, how it is ever justifiable to suffer any sort of damage from an attack that has been avoided. I would like you to quote rules that support the stance of enforcing damage in a situation where damage has been avoided.

The very beginning of the special rules section, the very last sentence:

"However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative"



So in the rules, you save the wound, and lose the armor. No paradox, no time travel, no problems.

@DR: What in the wording of activation makes FNP go first? Stating that you need to in order to see if there is a wound didn't hold up against Force weapons in 6th and it doesn't here. The only wording in the rules that is different is that Entropic strike uses immediately, just like Force use to, and Force was FAQed to go first. Please post a rules quote or even a section that states that FNP must be rolled first. Not an interpretation or opinion. You need a specific exemption from the rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
There is a section marked sequencing on that page in the BRB it tells you how to apply multiple rules that have been activated at the same time.

"you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time"

This does not apply as FNP is not resolved at the same time as Entropic Strike, Concussive, ect.

It has to go before them because of the way FNP is worded. Specifically the avoid being wounded part.

How does this not apply? FnP is triggered on an unsaved wound, and so does ES, Concussive, Hex Rifle, and a few others to boot. Guess what that is the same time. The effect of the SR is an unsaved wound, but as pointed out earlier, the effects of multiple special rules stack. As such lose the armor, not the wound, get knocked down, and not lose a wound, get removed from play, yet not lose a wound.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:


Explain to me, if you can, if a wound has been avoided via the paradox that FNP creates, how it is ever justifiable to suffer any sort of damage from an attack that has been avoided. I would like you to quote rules that support the stance of enforcing damage in a situation where damage has been avoided.

The very beginning of the special rules section, the very last sentence:

"However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative"



So in the rules, you save the wound, and lose the armor. No paradox, no time travel, no problems.

Then you are not treating the wound as having been saved ... that, too, is a paradox. You are applying damage to something that it has been explicitly avoided ... you treat it as having been saved.

Is the wound linked to the armour save? No. By the time FNP applies, the model already lost its armour save. The wound is treated as having being saved to a model with no armour save. You end up with a model with no armour save and full wounds. The cumulative effect of both rules. Not applying ES immediately and therefore before FNP, is against the rules though and it goes against "However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative".

Gravmyr wrote:
@DR: What in the wording of activation makes FNP go first? Stating that you need to in order to see if there is a wound didn't hold up against Force weapons in 6th and it doesn't here. The only wording in the rules that is different is that Entropic strike uses immediately, just like Force use to, and Force was FAQed to go first. Please post a rules quote or even a section that states that FNP must be rolled first. Not an interpretation or opinion. You need a specific exemption from the rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
[FNP] has to go before them because of the way FNP is worded. Specifically the avoid being wounded part.

(Emphasis mine)

This, The underlined part, in the wording of activation makes FNP go first.

Does it avoid being wounded if ES goes off? Yes, being wounded is taking a wound off the characteristic, nothing to do with ES, ES is not wounding the model is it?

 Nem wrote:
Does it avoid being wounded if ES goes off? Yes, being wounded is taking a wound off the characteristic, nothing to do with ES, ES is not wounding the model is it?

But if you remove the armor save you are not treating the wound as having been saved.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Does it avoid being wounded if ES goes off? Yes, being wounded is taking a wound off the characteristic, nothing to do with ES, ES is not wounding the model is it?

But if you remove the armor save you are not treating the wound as having been saved.

And if you treat it as saved you can not make your feel no pain roll
since you didn't make your FNP roll you have a unsaved wound
so you roll for FNP If you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES

The only way to break the paradox is resolve both as you are told to resolve it under sequencing. They both were triggered, they both resolve. Or just keep rolling FNP til you fail and take the wound as well. It's a classic time traveling mistake, breaking the rules is bad enough, try not to break the laws of time as well.

You treat the wound as having being saved to a model with no armour save which is completely legal. Armour save and wounds are not linked. You can lose one and keep the other.

As a Necron player that uses a lot of Scarab Swarms I have to agree with FNP negating ES. Wound was saved, ES doesn't go through. I can understand the other side's reasoning behind it somewhat but to me this feels the logical interpretation.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Does it avoid being wounded if ES goes off? Yes, being wounded is taking a wound off the characteristic, nothing to do with ES, ES is not wounding the model is it?

But if you remove the armor save you are not treating the wound as having been saved.

And if you treat it as saved you can not make your feel no pain roll
since you didn't make your FNP roll you have a unsaved wound
so you roll for FNP If you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES

The only way to break the paradox is resolve both as you are told to resolve it under sequencing. They both were triggered, they both resolve. Or just keep rolling FNP til you fail and take the wound as well. It's a classic time traveling mistake, breaking the rules is bad enough, try not to break the laws of time as well.

Yes, FNP creates a paradox within itself, but that is how the rules are written, so we follow them.

There is no paradox in FNP. In 6th there was a FAQ that ruled FNP to apply after an effect that also triggered on unsaved wounds and applied immediately. FNP's wording hasn't changed. No paradox then, no paradox now...

copper.talos wrote:
There is no paradox in FNP. In 6th there was a FAQ that ruled FNP to apply after an effect that also triggered on unsaved wounds and applied immediately. FNP's wording hasn't changed. No paradox then, no paradox now...

This is not 100% correct.

In 6th there was a FAQ that ruled FNP to apply after Force weapon activation. This is the important distinction because an activated Force weapon negated the FNP roll altogether.

I am 100% correct. Force back then was a special rule that triggered from an unsaved wound and applied immediately. FNP was ruled to apply after it.

DeathReaper wrote:
This, The underlined part, in the wording of activation makes FNP go first.

It does not say that it goes first it tells you what it is. You do understand that it has to specifically say what rules it negates right? It's not something you can say under my interpretation it gets to do x. In order for it to negate a rule it must say it negates x or does not follow x or uses these rules instead of x. Like the Abyssal staff using leadership instead of Toughness. You can't provide that.

OIIIIIIO wrote:Then you are not treating the wound as having been saved ... that, too, is a paradox. You are applying damage to something that it has been explicitly avoided ... you treat it as having been saved.

Only if you use your interpretation of going back in time. If you use the whole sentence and say that the wound is discounted, as this is not defined they had to add to treat it as saved as that was spelled out, you reduce the cost of the wound which is the fact that the model does not have it's wounds reduced by one, then everything is fine. No rule is broken if you use the whole sentence.

Gravmyr wrote:
Anyone arguing that you can't apply ES to a model that has not suffered a wound please explain why you are applying one rule and not the rest then. If both abilities require an unsaved wound how are you applying the effects of one and not the other.

Because otherwise FNP is nonfunctional. As I've pointed out. Perhaps you missed my post?

Secondly if you think that changing the wound from unsaved to saved stops the resolution of an already triggered SR post a rule that states that you cannot apply it. As has been posted already we have multiple abilities triggered you need to show a rule that actually stops their resolution after they have been triggered. It is like the stacking of psychic powers, the trigger has been met I now have permission to resolve the effect.

No, false, proven incorrect, not sure how else to say this.
I'm not saying that the resolution of ES is stopped. I'm saying that to apply the ES effect to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound is breaking a rule.

There is a very good example question from 6th. If a model with force a weapon hit a model with FNP, attempts to activate the weapon but suffers a perils and dies, does that model come back and regain it's warp charge if the other model makes his FNP roll? Those are the kinds of things we are arguing against, history revision in which you may cause other problems such as model placement or changes in wound allocation.

In 6th it was FAQed and this argument can no longer apply, so you're bringing up irrelevant issues. Perhaps you could use relevant arguments when you post? That'd be great.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Does it avoid being wounded if ES goes off? Yes, being wounded is taking a wound off the characteristic, nothing to do with ES, ES is not wounding the model is it?

But if you remove the armor save you are not treating the wound as having been saved.

And if you treat it as saved you can not make your feel no pain roll
since you didn't make your FNP roll you have a unsaved wound
so you roll for FNP If you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES
If you pass you travel back in time and treat the wound as saved
but now you don't have the trigger to make your FNP roll so you never rolled it
so you never rolled your FNP and have a unsaved wound
so you need to roll again for FNP, if you fail, than ES

The only way to break the paradox is resolve both as you are told to resolve it under sequencing. They both were triggered, they both resolve. Or just keep rolling FNP til you fail and take the wound as well. It's a classic time traveling mistake, breaking the rules is bad enough, try not to break the laws of time as well.

Yes, FNP creates a paradox within itself, but that is how the rules are written, so we follow them.

I'm glad you agree, roll til you fail.

copper.talos wrote:
I am 100% correct. Force back then was a special rule that triggered from an unsaved wound and applied immediately. FNP was ruled to apply after it.

Yes the FAQ ruled that Force happens before FNP.

However, they did not say that Force happens first because it is resolved immediately.

If you really want to know why in that situation Force had to go first, let me know, I'll gladly explain it.

First you say that the FAQ didn't give an explanation and then you offer to give one. Well that would be your own explanation and I am not interested in that.

This FAQ made clear one thing. A special ability that triggered from an unsaved wound applied before FNP. Its ruling is compatible with the "However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative" and the timing provided by "immediately". The only thing that FAQ is not compatible to is FNP creating a time paradox. These are not explanations. These are facts.

Gravmyr wrote:
I have already posted the relent rules. Multiple times. When you are just joining in the conversation and your only response is to agree with another poster but not add anything then respond that part of a rule answers three questions.....

I made three statements, of which two had questions. Answering "I did ... see the post above yours where the rules say avoid? I even underlined it. If you AVOID being wounded how are you applying the effects of ES to something that has been avoided?" Which does this answer?

Using the logic that FNP has removed the unsaved wound and you cannot apply the effects of an SR that requires an unsaved wound how are you rolling for FNP? Whatever reason you can come up with reinforces that you can apply SR's that require an unsaved wound even after the initial trigger is removed.

I also asked about a scenario from 6th that was not answered and gives a good idea behind your logical process. The question about halting an already activated SR is valid and there is no rule in the book that stops it from happening. It is exactly like activating a power, once activated how do you stop the resolution?

If the trigger is removed then there is no rolling for FNP because there is no more unsaved wound. FNP pulls a marty mcfly. Think of FNP as reseting that wound from unsaved to saved. If it is saved you don't need to roll for FNP because there is no longer an unsaved wound.

For "Using the logic that FNP has removed the unsaved wound and you cannot apply the effects of an SR that requires an unsaved wound how are you rolling for FNP?" You aren't rolling FNP for a saved wound. FNP changes the outcome of the unsaved wound to a saved wound making it no longer needed to be rolled, because there is no longer an unsaved wound. If the trigger is removed there is no action for the SR to apply to.

For " If both abilities require an unsaved wound how are you applying the effects of one and not the other?" you are applying both it doesn't matter what order. ES says "oh hey an unsaved wound no more armor!" then FNP says "Oh hey an unsaved wound...(roll is made and saved) oh wait my mistake that is a saved wound." and goes away. ES blinks and looks at the "unsaved wound" and says "oh wait my mistake there wasn't an unsaved wound nvm i can't apply my effect" and goes away. Does this explain it better for you?