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.

For those that have yet to grasp how the faq about the force weapon applies to ES, I repeat:

Ability 1: When the enemy suffers an unsaved wound immediately do X.

Ability 2: When the enemy suffers an unsaved wound immediately do Y.

Since ability 1 got a FAQ that makes it apply before FNP, then ability 2 also applies before FNP.

And for those just clicking on page 3. Please read the entire context of the situation and exactly why it does not apply to ES.

The clarification to Force weapons is a unique and separate ruling with no contextual baring on the issue with ES.

copper.talos wrote:
For those that have yet to grasp how the faq about the force weapon applies to ES, I repeat:

Ability 1: When the enemy suffers an unsaved wound immediately do X.

Ability 2: When the enemy suffers an unsaved wound immediately do Y.

Since ability 1 got a FAQ that makes it apply before FNP, then ability 2 also applies before FNP.

I think this is known as a "logical fallacy"? Someone with better debating terminology please correct me if I'm wrong.

Ability 1 triggers on an unsaved wound (Force Weapon). Ability 2 ditto (ES). Ability 3 also ditto (FnP).
If 1 happens before 3 due to FAQ, that does not mean 2 happens before 3, the intended order could well be 1 - 3 - 2 which would not contradict the FAQ.
True, you can also say that 1 - 2 - 3 also does not break he FAQ, and I suppose at this point I'm unlikely to convince you. Are you going to point out that FnP doesn't use the word "immediately"?

A question in response then: if a model with Fortune on it (re-roll failed saves) fails a save against an attack with ES, do you immediately lose the armour before getting a re-roll?

 azazel the cat wrote:
FNP doesn't tell you to ignore the ES; it tells you to ignore the wound. But by the time you are told to ignore that, ES has already happened (hence, the "immediately" part of es)

EDIT: so you may get to ignore the wound, but ES has already happened, and sticks.

If you are treating the wound as saved, why are you taking the models armor save away? This breaks a rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:
For those that have yet to grasp how the faq about the force weapon applies to ES, I repeat:

Ability 1: When the enemy suffers an unsaved wound immediately do X.

Ability 2: When the enemy suffers an unsaved wound immediately do Y.

Since ability 1 got a FAQ that makes it apply before FNP, then ability 2 also applies before FNP.

Again timing does not matter at all, as once you pass FNP you have to treat the wound as saved.

If you remove the models armor save you have not treated the wound as saved.

NecronLord3 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
You are contradicting yourself. And anyway, can you just quote the part of the faq that supports all these "justifications"? Or are they all made up by you?

I dont need to site a non-existent FAQ entry for rules clearly defined in both the Codex and the BrB.

The Force Weapon FAQ you seem to be clinging to has no relevance to the situation, as I have explained in my previous reply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Unfortunately, no. That would require a time machine, as the ES effect has already been triggered by the time FNP steps up to the plate.

You don't get the benefit of an effect which a rule tells you to later ignore.

FNP doesn't tell you to ignore the ES; it tells you to ignore the wound. But by the time you are told to ignore that, ES has already happened (hence, the "immediately" part of es)

EDIT: so you may get to ignore the wound, but ES has already happened, and sticks.

No it doesn't. You treat it as if it had saved, so no ES.

Except ES says "immediately", which means it goes off before FNP ever gets to roll.

DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
FNP doesn't tell you to ignore the ES; it tells you to ignore the wound. But by the time you are told to ignore that, ES has already happened (hence, the "immediately" part of es)

EDIT: so you may get to ignore the wound, but ES has already happened, and sticks.

If you are treating the wound as saved, why are you taking the models armor save away? This breaks a rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:
For those that have yet to grasp how the faq about the force weapon applies to ES, I repeat:

Ability 1: When the enemy suffers an unsaved wound immediately do X.

Ability 2: When the enemy suffers an unsaved wound immediately do Y.

Since ability 1 got a FAQ that makes it apply before FNP, then ability 2 also applies before FNP.

Again timing does not matter at all, as once you pass FNP you have to treat the wound as saved.

If you remove the models armor save you have not treated the wound as saved.

because it is an event that happened in the past. You don't have a time machine, so you don't get to perform any revisionist history.

 azazel the cat wrote:
because it is an event that happened in the past. You don't have a time machine, so you don't get to perform any revisionist history.

You "perform revisionist history" every time you pass a FnP. You turn an unsaved wound into a saved wound which is contrary to all laws of space-time. Quickly! To the Delorien!

Azazel - then you have broken the FNP rule, as you have not treated the wound as saved.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Azazel - then you have broken the FNP rule, as you have not treated the wound as saved.

Not really.

You can still treat the wound as being saved -but that doesn't mean that the wound had always been saved. That is, you can easily let FNP treat the wound as being saved while still acknowledging that ES was triggered (remember, ES gets triggered immediately; before FNP ever even gets to roll)

Earlier on I listed numbered steps in the process that reconciles the two.

EDIT: because, Nos, if you do not do it as I listed, then you have broken the ES rule (immediately) by waiting for the result of the FNP rule. So either you use my method, which does not break any rules, or else you have to choose to break the rule of ES or FNP. Since I prefer to not break any rules, I simply allow FNP to remove the wound, after it triggers ES. That way both rules actually work.

You treat the wound as saved. If anything, that says it triggers off an unsaved wound, triggers of a saved wound you are breaking a rule.

Only by the time the FNP makes the wound to be treated as saved, the ES has already been applied and the armour save has been removed from the model. It is not still dependent on that unsaved wound since it has been fully resolved already.

Does this post require the full rule of ES being pasted in here, and then scrutinising it carefully. If you lose your armour and THEN take a wound, but FNP saves the wound, it doesnt save your armour does it? FNP cannot rematierialise armour from nothing. Stop arguing a point that logically is impossible. If ES removes the armour, then you save the wound afterwards, then you only save the wound, not the armour, and thus you have fulfilled both rules from ES and FNP. As Azazel has said multiple times, this is the only logical way of seeing this. As ES is not a wound, its an effect, how can you save that?

/thread

 Saltis wrote:
Does this post require the full rule of ES being pasted in here, and then scrutinising it carefully. If you lose your armour and THEN take a wound, but FNP saves the wound, it doesnt save your armour does it?

FNP saves the wound, If you lose your armor save to a wound that is treated as saved you have broken a rule as you are not treating the wound as saved.

FNP cannot rematierialise armour from nothing. Stop arguing a point that logically is impossible.

You do realize that the rules are an abstraction right?

They need to have a certain amount of abstractness to make the game playable.

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

"logically is impossible", and "rematierialise armour from nothing" means nothing. The model dir away you are not treating thed not actually have its armor melted, you are not creating armor out of air... The rules are an abstraction.

If ES removes the armour, then you save the wound afterwards, then you only save the wound, not the armour, and thus you have fulfilled both rules from ES and FNP. As Azazel has said multiple times, this is the only logical way of seeing this. As ES is not a wound, its an effect, how can you save that?

/thread

You do not make the armor go away because the rules tell you to treat the wound as saved.

If you take the armor away you are not treating the wound as saved, and breaking a rule.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Saltis wrote:
Does this post require the full rule of ES being pasted in here, and then scrutinising it carefully. If you lose your armour and THEN take a wound, but FNP saves the wound, it doesnt save your armour does it? FNP cannot rematierialise armour from nothing. Stop arguing a point that logically is impossible. If ES removes the armour, then you save the wound afterwards, then you only save the wound, not the armour, and thus you have fulfilled both rules from ES and FNP. As Azazel has said multiple times, this is the only logical way of seeing this. As ES is not a wound, its an effect, how can you save that?

/thread

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

You don't apply logic and real world mechanics to this game. It will never work.

FNP nullifies the effects of the failed save, as the failed save is IGNORED. RAW

Ok; in 5th Edition this argument was a good one because FNP made no goddamn sense.

In this edition they specifically say "treat the wound as saved" and people are still trying to do things that trigger off of unsaved wounds to a model that passes FNP?

Really guys?

Azazel - and FNP is also immediately.

If you treat the wound as saved, yet you have still lost your armour, the wound has NOT been saved - as you only lose your armour if the wound is not saved. You have broken the FNP rule.

If you treat the wound as saved, and dont lose your armour, you have broken neither rule.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ok; in 5th Edition this argument was a good one because FNP made no goddamn sense.

In this edition they specifically say "treat the wound as saved" and people are still trying to do things that trigger off of unsaved wounds to a model that passes FNP?

Really guys?

Since they ruled that way for Force...

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ok; in 5th Edition this argument was a good one because FNP made no goddamn sense.

In this edition they specifically say "treat the wound as saved" and people are still trying to do things that trigger off of unsaved wounds to a model that passes FNP?

Really guys?

Since they ruled that way for Force...

because the rules for FW and FNP were mutually exclusive. FNP specifically has one exception, weapons causing ID, FNP as written in 6th, would have always been allowed against FW or create a paradox. Thus, facilitating the need for an FAQ entry. ES vs FNP is not mutually exclusive, both can occur a the same time or in different orders, and the result will be the same as FNP retroactively ignores the unsaved wound.

Im going to laugh my ass off when the FAQ comes down that shows when entropic strike strips armor from a failed wound that FNP cannot stop the effect, only the wound. Alot of you guys are using the same mentality when the whole "Abaddon cant join squads because of the different mark issue"... save yourself the breath and admit that regardless of how you think it is, the model still loses armor... entropic strike is not an attack, its an effect caused by an attack... FNP is not a save, its an effect triggered by a failed save... rules as written, as you guys love to say so often does not stop the armor from being stripped as the rules for FNP do not state that it prevents other effects from occuring, only loss of wounds.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
entropic strike is not an attack, its an effect caused by an attack...

Which has as much relevance as the price of tea in China.

FNP is not a save, its an effect triggered by a failed save... rules as written, as you guys love to say so often does not stop the armor from being stripped as the rules for FNP do not state that it prevents other effects from occuring, only loss of wounds.

And pray tell - what's the trigger for the ES effect?

What was your stance on the FNP vs Force debate? Or should I go through your posts to find it?

rigeld2 wrote:

FNP is not a save, its an effect triggered by a failed save... rules as written, as you guys love to say so often does not stop the armor from being stripped as the rules for FNP do not state that it prevents other effects from occuring, only loss of wounds.

And pray tell - what's the trigger for the ES effect?

What was your stance on the FNP vs Force debate? Or should I go through your posts to find it?

The FW FAQ was made not just because FW cause ID, it was because the rules for FW have the word "immediately" in there....so IMMEDIATELY after suffering an unsaved wound the FW can be activated, and GW decided that should take precedence over FNP attempts no matter whose turn it is. The ID from a FW happens after the wound is unsaved, not as a direct result of the unsaved wound (which is why a psychic test must be taken for it to work, fail that and no ID from FW).

There is not a precedent set by the FW FAQ regarding ES, unless ES has the word 'immediately after suffering an unsaved wound' in the Necron rulebook.

I don't have a Necron rulebook, and I did not see anyone write out the ES rule verbatim. So if the ES rule does not have the same wording as FW, then FNP can negate the wound which would cause ES effects in the FNP player's turn because of the player's choice when 2 simultaneous effects occur.

So will someone just spell out the damn ES rule verbatim? Does it have the word immediately in there?

It does say immediately.

I can't copy the exact text from my iCodex but the second paragraph starts with "As these effects are immediate..."

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
When a model fails to save a wound, entropic strike immediately takes effect and the model loses it save. Since FNP is not a save you cannot use the arguement "treat the wound as saved" as you did not actually save the wound, you only had an effect triggered that negated the wound... the wound was still taken, it was just given back. This gives balance and allows the game to continue without breaking as you are not preventing affects that cannot be prevented.

So you're ignoring the fact that FNP says to treat the wound as saved? Meaning if you do something that triggers off an unsaved wound you are explicitly not treating the wound as saved.

I could just let you look through all my posts and try to find something that isnt there, but I'll be a good sport and save you the trouble... as the steps illustrate, when a model is wounded by a force weapon, the force weapon (provided it has a warp charge) immediately makes a leadership check... if the leadership check passes the wound causes instant death... the reason why this is important is because it prioritizes which saves a person wants to make... if the person fails his armor save he does not get FNP as the rules for FNP specifically state that they cannot be taken against attacks that cause ID... now we use this same logic to determine whether or not the effects of FNP prevent the loss of armor... does FNP say anything about preventing special rules, effects, or entropic strikes from occuring? since this is rhetorical, as I know that to not be the case, the only thing that FNP gives back is the wound, not the armor...

Force does not cause ID - you should re-read the rules.

I agree that ES would still remove the armor, but you're arguing (and mocking people) the wrong way.

If your only arguement to deny FNP stopping ES taking the armour is that ES is done immediately then FNP on 1 wound models is useless as soon as they fail their armour then surely by your logic the model has no wounds so must be removed from play. The FNP against force weapon is now a specific exception, there is no exception at the moment for ES.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
When a model fails to save a wound, entropic strike immediately takes effect and the model loses it save. Since FNP is not a save you cannot use the arguement "treat the wound as saved" as you did not actually save the wound, you only had an effect triggered that negated the wound... the wound was still taken, it was just given back. This gives balance and allows the game to continue without breaking as you are not preventing affects that cannot be prevented.

So you're ignoring the fact that FNP says to treat the wound as saved? Meaning if you do something that triggers off an unsaved wound you are explicitly not treating the wound as saved.

I could just let you look through all my posts and try to find something that isnt there, but I'll be a good sport and save you the trouble... as the steps illustrate, when a model is wounded by a force weapon, the force weapon (provided it has a warp charge) immediately makes a leadership check... if the leadership check passes the wound causes instant death... the reason why this is important is because it prioritizes which saves a person wants to make... if the person fails his armor save he does not get FNP as the rules for FNP specifically state that they cannot be taken against attacks that cause ID... now we use this same logic to determine whether or not the effects of FNP prevent the loss of armor... does FNP say anything about preventing special rules, effects, or entropic strikes from occuring? since this is rhetorical, as I know that to not be the case, the only thing that FNP gives back is the wound, not the armor...

Force does not cause ID - you should re-read the rules.

I agree that ES would still remove the armor, but you're arguing (and mocking people) the wrong way.

Did say I was ignoring it, I was saying that FNP says nothing about stopping special rules like entropic strike from occuring, and since this is a permission style rule set, FNP does not give permission to discount entropic strikes effects


Huwhat planet are you from? and do they use the same BRB for 40K there? tell me... what exactly do force weapons do then?

And good Sir or Ma'am, as there is no wrong way to eat a reeses? there is no wrong way to argue... take it to the bank...

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
Did say I was ignoring it, I was saying that FNP says nothing about stopping special rules like entropic strike from occuring, and since this is a permission style rule set, FNP does not give permission to discount entropic strikes effects

It says to treat the wound as saved.
Does a saved wound trigger ES?

Huwhat planet are you from? and do they use the same BRB for 40K there? tell me... what exactly do force weapons do then?

Force, when triggered, allows you to spend a WC and roll to have your attacks potentially cause ID - it does not cause ID by itself.
Important distinctions like that you keep trying to sweep under the rug.

And good Sir or Ma'am, as there is no wrong way to eat a reeses? there is no wrong way to argue... take it to the bank...

No, there are demonstrably wrong ways to argue. Me calling you an idiot would be the wrong way to argue. Me saying you're assertions are incorrect and citing rules is a right way to argue. Please try to do more of the latter and none of the former.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
Did say I was ignoring it, I was saying that FNP says nothing about stopping special rules like entropic strike from occuring, and since this is a permission style rule set, FNP does not give permission to discount entropic strikes effects

It says to treat the wound as saved.
Does a saved wound trigger ES?

Huwhat planet are you from? and do they use the same BRB for 40K there? tell me... what exactly do force weapons do then?

Force, when triggered, allows you to spend a WC and roll to have your attacks potentially cause ID - it does not cause ID by itself.
Important distinctions like that you keep trying to sweep under the rug.

And good Sir or Ma'am, as there is no wrong way to eat a reeses? there is no wrong way to argue... take it to the bank...

No, there are demonstrably wrong ways to argue. Me calling you an idiot would be the wrong way to argue. Me saying you're assertions are incorrect and citing rules is a right way to argue. Please try to do more of the latter and none of the former.

You didnt save the wound... thats why you have to take FNP... Ermegerd!!!


So I guess I have to dig for you? perhaps you should actually read my posts rather than try to disprove me because I turned off your "happy-feel good switch"

WarlordRob117 said: "as the steps illustrate, when a model is wounded by a force weapon, the force weapon (provided it has a warp charge) immediately makes a leadership check... if the leadership check passes the wound causes instant death... the reason why this is important is because it prioritizes which saves a person wants to make... if the person fails his armor save he does not get FNP as the rules for FNP specifically state that they cannot be taken against attacks that cause ID"


considering I had to go back to previous posts to show you something I wrote, which was rather lazy and disrespectful of you, Im not going to waste my time trying to prove to you that I didnt call you or any one else an idiot... these are just examples of your opinion, but if you wanna play that game, fine... You are wrong because the BRB says you are... you do not have permission to do something unless the rules give you permission... case closed

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
You didnt save the wound... thats why you have to take FNP... Ermegerd!!!

Of course, but FNP, if passed does treat the wound as saved. and treated as means is, or the rules break down in spectacular ways.

You are wrong because the BRB says you are...

Please follow the tenets of the forum.

Tenets of You Make Da Call wrote: 1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

Tenets listed Here

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
You didnt save the wound... thats why you have to take FNP... Ermegerd!!!

Except the wound must be treated as saved.

So I guess I have to dig for you? perhaps you should actually read my posts rather than try to disprove me because I turned off your "happy-feel good switch"

WarlordRob117 said: "as the steps illustrate, when a model is wounded by a force weapon, the force weapon (provided it has a warp charge) immediately makes a leadership check... if the leadership check passes the wound causes instant death... the reason why this is important is because it prioritizes which saves a person wants to make... if the person fails his armor save he does not get FNP as the rules for FNP specifically state that they cannot be taken against attacks that cause ID"

And again - Force does not cause ID. It has the potential to, but that's not what FNP says.
And there's no "prioritization" of saves - you must take the best available.

considering I had to go back to previous posts to show you something I wrote, which was rather lazy and disrespectful of you, Im not going to waste my time trying to prove to you that I didnt call you or any one else an idiot... these are just examples of your opinion, but if you wanna play that game, fine... You are wrong because the BRB says you are... you do not have permission to do something unless the rules give you permission... case closed

Amusing since, as I've stated, I agree with your conclusion, I just think you're going about it the wrong way. And I replied to that post, saying essentially the same thing, so I don't see how I was lazy or disrespectful.
I never said you did call someone an idiot - I was implying that your tone and behavior isn't conducive to a good discussion. Your original post was very patronizing and insulting, and not a single rules quote in it.

You still haven't cited a rule, just your interpretations of rules. That's not how you have a rules discussion.

Funny becuase people used the same argument when trying determine whether or not necron RP/EL rules applied lol


OHHHHH ya caught the tater... my apologies... (for the record, I never did like that touchy-feely tenet)