rigeld2 wrote:

 NakedSeamus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's not what FNP says.

From the BRB pg 35:

"Feel No Pain
When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw). Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered, On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal, On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved.

Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against Wounds that inflict Instant Death.

If a unit has the Feel No Pain special rule with a number in brackets afterwards - Feel No Pain (6+) for example - then the number in brackets is the D6 result needed to discount the Wound."

Its essentially an argument of what takes precedence. RAW the model must suffer an unsaved Wound to trigger either ability, therefore the armor save is gone. If you like at it from a common sense point of view, I just ate through your armor to wound you, however, you're so tough, zealous, furious, etc. to notice and you continue to soldier on, naked or not

If it weren't for the fact that the Entropic Strike Rules specifically state that the model "immediately" loses it's armor save for the remainder of the battle, I would say that people that oppose this would be in a better position to argue, but it couldn't hurt from an FAQ

The bold is what you missed. If you apply Entropic Strike, you're not treating the wound as having been saved.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, he can still score and no he cannot join another unit. He's still part of the warrior unit he joined.

 NakedSeamus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NakedSeamus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's not what FNP says.

From the BRB pg 35:

"Feel No Pain
When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw). Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered, On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal, On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved.

Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against Wounds that inflict Instant Death.

If a unit has the Feel No Pain special rule with a number in brackets afterwards - Feel No Pain (6+) for example - then the number in brackets is the D6 result needed to discount the Wound."

Its essentially an argument of what takes precedence. RAW the model must suffer an unsaved Wound to trigger either ability, therefore the armor save is gone. If you like at it from a common sense point of view, I just ate through your armor to wound you, however, you're so tough, zealous, furious, etc. to notice and you continue to soldier on, naked or not

If it weren't for the fact that the Entropic Strike Rules specifically state that the model "immediately" loses it's armor save for the remainder of the battle, I would say that people that oppose this would be in a better position to argue, but it couldn't hurt from an FAQ

The bold is what you missed. If you apply Entropic Strike, you're not treating the wound as having been saved.

Oh, it wasn't that it I missed it. It says now to treat as saved, however the model still has to suffer an unsaved Wound for the ability to trigger in the first place, which is all that has to happen for Entropic Strike as well. Later on the model can ignore the Wound, but it can't ignore the fact that it had suffered an unsaved Wound. Like I said, its a matter of what resolves first, if they're not resolved in parallel. It gets to ignore the wound (Stay Alive) but not ignore the affects of having taken the Wound in the first place.

 NakedSeamus wrote:

Oh, it wasn't that it I missed it. It says now to treat as saved, however the model still has to suffer an unsaved Wound for the ability to trigger in the first place, which is all that has to happen for Entropic Strike as well. Later on the model can ignore the Wound, but it can't ignore the fact that it had suffered an unsaved Wound. Like I said, its a matter of what resolves first, if they're not resolved in parallel. It gets to ignore the wound (Stay Alive) but not ignore the affects of having taken the Wound in the first place.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NakedSeamus wrote:

Oh, it wasn't that it I missed it. It says now to treat as saved, however the model still has to suffer an unsaved Wound for the ability to trigger in the first place, which is all that has to happen for Entropic Strike as well. Later on the model can ignore the Wound, but it can't ignore the fact that it had suffered an unsaved Wound. Like I said, its a matter of what resolves first, if they're not resolved in parallel. It gets to ignore the wound (Stay Alive) but not ignore the affects of having taken the Wound in the first place.

So you're not treating the wound as being saved then? If you were, you wouldn't apply the Entropic Strike rule.
And FNP says you must treat the wound as being saved.

 NakedSeamus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NakedSeamus wrote:

Oh, it wasn't that it I missed it. It says now to treat as saved, however the model still has to suffer an unsaved Wound for the ability to trigger in the first place, which is all that has to happen for Entropic Strike as well. Later on the model can ignore the Wound, but it can't ignore the fact that it had suffered an unsaved Wound. Like I said, its a matter of what resolves first, if they're not resolved in parallel. It gets to ignore the wound (Stay Alive) but not ignore the affects of having taken the Wound in the first place.

So you're not treating the wound as being saved then? If you were, you wouldn't apply the Entropic Strike rule.
And FNP says you must treat the wound as being saved.

Well, I'm not quite sure what you're saying, because if I wasn't treating the Wound as saved (i.e. unsaved Wound) then you would apply the entropic strike rule, as it only applies to unsaved wounds. The Rule for FNP itself contradicts itself numerous times in the few sentences that are written. One second it says it must suffer an unsaved wound to even trigger the ability (which would also trigger my ES ability). The Wound is not saved, its just being treated as though it were. If the Wound was saved the rule would say that the Wound is saved, but instead it specifically states that FNP is NOT a saving throw. Obviously until there's an FAQ we would just roll off, however, the argument can be made either way.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NakedSeamus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NakedSeamus wrote:

Oh, it wasn't that it I missed it. It says now to treat as saved, however the model still has to suffer an unsaved Wound for the ability to trigger in the first place, which is all that has to happen for Entropic Strike as well. Later on the model can ignore the Wound, but it can't ignore the fact that it had suffered an unsaved Wound. Like I said, its a matter of what resolves first, if they're not resolved in parallel. It gets to ignore the wound (Stay Alive) but not ignore the affects of having taken the Wound in the first place.

So you're not treating the wound as being saved then? If you were, you wouldn't apply the Entropic Strike rule.
And FNP says you must treat the wound as being saved.

Well, I'm not quite sure what you're saying, because if I wasn't treating the Wound as saved (i.e. unsaved Wound) then you would apply the entropic strike rule, as it only applies to unsaved wounds. The Rule for FNP itself contradicts itself numerous times in the few sentences that are written. One second it says it must suffer an unsaved wound to even trigger the ability (which would also trigger my ES ability). The Wound is not saved, its just being treated as though it were. If the Wound was saved the rule would say that the Wound is saved, but instead it specifically states that FNP is NOT a saving throw. Obviously until there's an FAQ we would just roll off, however, the argument can be made either way.

Right - if you treat the wound as saved, you cannot apply Entropic Strike.
If you apply Entropic Strike you are not treating the wound as unsaved and have therefore broken the FNP rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
As I have said: Yes FNP creates a paradox. If you make your FNP roll you treat the wound as saved, which disallows a FNP roll because there is no longer an Unsaved wound.

Good thing it does not matter as from this point on we treat the wound as having been saved and move on with the game.

It is not like the fabric of reality will rip just because the rules for FNP create a paradox.

 NakedSeamus wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
As I have said: Yes FNP creates a paradox. If you make your FNP roll you treat the wound as saved, which disallows a FNP roll because there is no longer an Unsaved wound.

Good thing it does not matter as from this point on we treat the wound as having been saved and move on with the game.

It is not like the fabric of reality will rip just because the rules for FNP create a paradox.

And my reasoning is that if you interpret the rule in the way where there is no paradox, i.e. the wound is still unsaved just ignored, then it makes more sense.

 NakedSeamus wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
As I have said: Yes FNP creates a paradox. If you make your FNP roll you treat the wound as saved, which disallows a FNP roll because there is no longer an Unsaved wound.

Good thing it does not matter as from this point on we treat the wound as having been saved and move on with the game.

It is not like the fabric of reality will rip just because the rules for FNP create a paradox.

And my reasoning is that if you interpret the rule in the way where there is no paradox, i.e. the wound is still unsaved just ignored, then it makes more sense.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 NakedSeamus wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
As I have said: Yes FNP creates a paradox. If you make your FNP roll you treat the wound as saved, which disallows a FNP roll because there is no longer an Unsaved wound.

Good thing it does not matter as from this point on we treat the wound as having been saved and move on with the game.

It is not like the fabric of reality will rip just because the rules for FNP create a paradox.

And my reasoning is that if you interpret the rule in the way where there is no paradox, i.e. the wound is still unsaved just ignored, then it makes more sense.

But that is not how the FNP rule is written.

It is written to turn unsaved wounds into saved wounds while not itself being a save. This is because you can only take one save if you have more than one save and they clearly wanted you to be able to take a save and roll for FNP.

As written it says treat the unsaved wound as saved, it does not say the unsaved wound becomes saved. Its semantics really that could be argued one way or the other. It does not become saved, its ignored.

Anything that triggers off of an unsaved wound will have no effect if the FNP roll is successful.

 NakedSeamus wrote:
As written it says treat the unsaved wound as saved, it does not say the unsaved wound becomes saved. Its semantics really that could be argued one way or the other. It does not become saved, its ignored.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NakedSeamus wrote:
As written it says treat the unsaved wound as saved, it does not say the unsaved wound becomes saved. Its semantics really that could be argued one way or the other. It does not become saved, its ignored.

"treat as" must mean the same thing as "becomes" or "is" or the rules break down in spectacular ways.
The easiest of which is to say that models without a CCW would have infinite CCWs.

 NakedSeamus wrote:
I think you're stretching the limits of reason here. Its not unreasonable to assume that just because someone is tough enough to shrug off a mortal wound, does not mean that i did not destroy his armor in the process of dealing him a wound. Afterall, its not as though the armor stopped the wound.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NakedSeamus wrote:
As written it says treat the unsaved wound as saved, it does not say the unsaved wound becomes saved. Its semantics really that could be argued one way or the other. It does not become saved, its ignored.

"treat as" must mean the same thing as "becomes" or "is" or the rules break down in spectacular ways.
The easiest of which is to say that models without a CCW would have infinite CCWs.

 NakedSeamus wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
To my knowledge, and I may be wrong, but stealth and shrouded, like all special rules, are redundant and not self-stacking. They stack with each other, but not with themselves.

That be correct.

You have stealth +1 cover, you have stealth, you still get +1 cover

So in other words no double dipping. I can get 3+ to my cover for having my own Stealth Rule plus the Shrouded due to night fighting, but I can't get 2+ to my save for already Having Stealth and then being given it again. Shucks, that stinks, but oh well.

Another Question (don't know why I have so many right now). How does Entropic Strike interact with Feel No Pain. They way I read it, as the model still suffers an "unsaved Wound" then it loses its Armor Save, whether or not it makes it's Feel No Pain roll. Reasoning:

BRB states that FNP "is not a saving throw."

Says the "unsaved wound is discounted."

So since the model has to "suffer an unsaved wound" for FNP to trigger in the first place, it still loses its armor save correct?

Eyjio wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NakedSeamus wrote:
As written it says treat the unsaved wound as saved, it does not say the unsaved wound becomes saved. Its semantics really that could be argued one way or the other. It does not become saved, its ignored.

"treat as" must mean the same thing as "becomes" or "is" or the rules break down in spectacular ways.
The easiest of which is to say that models without a CCW would have infinite CCWs.

Example? I can't think of a single place where this would actually happen.

As for FNP, we have 2 things that occur at the same time.

1) FNP roll
2) Entropic strike

Isn't it obvious? It's the same as MSS - the player who's turn it is chooses the order of operation. Feel no pain occurs when a wound is taken, so will act immediately, just as entropic strike does. This works as follows:

-The unit has a wound inflicted by scarabs/voidblade. They fail their save.
-The player picks whether FNP or ES goes first
-If they pick FNP first and it succeeds, the wound is treated as saved and ES does not take effect as there is no unsaved wound
-If they pick ES first, they lose their armour save, then make their FNP roll as there is still an unsaved wound

Neither of these create a paradox. One way there has been an unsaved wound, so you lose the save but still get FNP; the other way you roll FNP as there has been an unsaved wound, which then causes it to be treated as saved thus ES doesn't trigger.

Eyjio wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NakedSeamus wrote:
As written it says treat the unsaved wound as saved, it does not say the unsaved wound becomes saved. Its semantics really that could be argued one way or the other. It does not become saved, its ignored.

"treat as" must mean the same thing as "becomes" or "is" or the rules break down in spectacular ways.
The easiest of which is to say that models without a CCW would have infinite CCWs.

Example? I can't think of a single place where this would actually happen.

Page 51 wrote:No Specified Melee Weapon
If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.

Page 60, Force Weapons wrote:If a Force weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP3 Melee weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry.

Page 71 wrote:Vehicles are not slowed down by difficult terrain. However, they treat all difficult terrain as dangerous terrain instead.

As for FNP, we have 2 things that occur at the same time.

1) FNP roll
2) Entropic strike

Isn't it obvious? It's the same as MSS - the player who's turn it is chooses the order of operation. Feel no pain occurs when a wound is taken, so will act immediately, just as entropic strike does. This works as follows:

-The unit has a wound inflicted by scarabs/voidblade. They fail their save.
-The player picks whether FNP or ES goes first
-If they pick FNP first and it succeeds, the wound is treated as saved and ES does not take effect as there is no unsaved wound
-If they pick ES first, they lose their armour save, then make their FNP roll as there is still an unsaved wound

Neither of these create a paradox. One way there has been an unsaved wound, so you lose the save but still get FNP; the other way you roll FNP as there has been an unsaved wound, which then causes it to be treated as saved thus ES doesn't trigger.

rigeld2 wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NakedSeamus wrote:
As written it says treat the unsaved wound as saved, it does not say the unsaved wound becomes saved. Its semantics really that could be argued one way or the other. It does not become saved, its ignored.

"treat as" must mean the same thing as "becomes" or "is" or the rules break down in spectacular ways.
The easiest of which is to say that models without a CCW would have infinite CCWs.

Example? I can't think of a single place where this would actually happen.

I mentioned an example, but I guess you need it spelled out.

Page 51 wrote:No Specified Melee Weapon
If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.

If "treated as" is not the same thing as "is" then models with no CCW have no CCW.

Page 60, Force Weapons wrote:If a Force weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP3 Melee weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry.

Hmm... nope, it's not AP3 according to you. Must not have any AP at all then. Same wording for Unusual Power Weapons. Yay! My Carnifexes get armor saves against GK now!

Page 71 wrote:Vehicles are not slowed down by difficult terrain. However, they treat all difficult terrain as dangerous terrain instead.

Since it's not actually dangerous terrain, that means no test to immobilize. Yay!

Need more examples?

As for FNP, we have 2 things that occur at the same time.

1) FNP roll
2) Entropic strike

Isn't it obvious? It's the same as MSS - the player who's turn it is chooses the order of operation. Feel no pain occurs when a wound is taken, so will act immediately, just as entropic strike does. This works as follows:

-The unit has a wound inflicted by scarabs/voidblade. They fail their save.
-The player picks whether FNP or ES goes first
-If they pick FNP first and it succeeds, the wound is treated as saved and ES does not take effect as there is no unsaved wound
-If they pick ES first, they lose their armour save, then make their FNP roll as there is still an unsaved wound

Neither of these create a paradox. One way there has been an unsaved wound, so you lose the save but still get FNP; the other way you roll FNP as there has been an unsaved wound, which then causes it to be treated as saved thus ES doesn't trigger.

Even if you allow ES to trigger, if you make the FNP roll and still apply ES you are absolutely not treating the wound as saved - which is what FNP requires. So you're breaking a rule.

 NakedSeamus wrote:
I think that if you're going to be rude, and imply that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, that you shouldn't get involved in any debates.

That being said I never implied that you do not still "treat" the wound as saved, all I said was that "treating something as" is not the same as "it is," "it has" or "becomes."

Its not as though because we treat a model with no modeled CCW that it magically becomes so.

(I still fail to see how you can use this reason to make a model have infinite CCW btw.)

I tend to agree with Eyjio as far as using turn to determine the order of resolution, and I think that would be a good way of settling the arguement.

Eyjio wrote:
I should have been clearer in fairness - I actually agree with the main argument, I just didn't see the infinite CCW.

As for not treating it as saved, you have. The model has kept its wound, so must be treating it as saved. No rule stops ES from occurring as the only condition on it is there must have been an unsaved wound - the identical trigger for FNP to happen as well. Now, it's not HIWPI, it seems intended that FNP is an additional saving throw. As it stands RAW though, the trigger is the same and the time step is the same, so we should resolve it in the player's choice.