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.

From what I can gather, The reason it works with Force is because if the check is passed, the attacks become ID which negates any FNP tests.

ES doesn't have any ablility to negate the FNP test, and FNP specificly states to treat a wound as saved. If you saved the wound, (I.e. treating the wound as saved) ES doesn't trigger.

I'd like to see how Boneswords work with it now. Wouldn't they like Force trigger prior because they also cause ID if successful?

Yonush wrote:
From what I can gather, The reason it works with Force is because if the check is passed, the attacks become ID which negates any FNP tests.

But if you allow FNP to go first the wound is saved.
You only get into an "issue" if you allow FNP to "save" the wound but still roll for Force (which would negate FNP).

That's why this FAQ sets a precedent - they're not just saying that ID weapons roll first, they're saying that FNP only lets you keep the wound and other effects still apply - and in the case of Force (and Boneswords) you get to test for ID before FNP is rolled. For other abilities it doesn't matter as their effects can work with FNP just fine.

rigeld2 wrote:

Yonush wrote:
From what I can gather, The reason it works with Force is because if the check is passed, the attacks become ID which negates any FNP tests.

But if you allow FNP to go first the wound is saved.
You only get into an "issue" if you allow FNP to "save" the wound but still roll for Force (which would negate FNP).

That's why this FAQ sets a precedent - they're not just saying that ID weapons roll first, they're saying that FNP only lets you keep the wound and other effects still apply - and in the case of Force (and Boneswords) you get to test for ID before FNP is rolled. For other abilities it doesn't matter as their effects can work with FNP just fine.

So you are saying there is a gap between failing a save and FNP, wouldnt that mean 1 wound models are at zero wounds during that gap?

MarkyMark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Yonush wrote:
From what I can gather, The reason it works with Force is because if the check is passed, the attacks become ID which negates any FNP tests.

But if you allow FNP to go first the wound is saved.
You only get into an "issue" if you allow FNP to "save" the wound but still roll for Force (which would negate FNP).

That's why this FAQ sets a precedent - they're not just saying that ID weapons roll first, they're saying that FNP only lets you keep the wound and other effects still apply - and in the case of Force (and Boneswords) you get to test for ID before FNP is rolled. For other abilities it doesn't matter as their effects can work with FNP just fine.

So you are saying there is a gap between failing a save and FNP, wouldnt that mean 1 wound models are at zero wounds during that gap?

There's 2 schools of thought:

1) FNP is literally worthless and does nothing - by the time you roll for it you've already subtracted a wound and it doesn't say that it restores the wound.
2) There's a sequence of triggers that must be inserted in an order before the wound is subtracted. Fail save, then process unsaved wound abilities, then process FNP, then subtract wound (if still relevant) is the simplest form of that process, and FNP doesn't remove the effect of the abilities that were triggered before it.

edit: submitted before finishing my thought:

#1 is pointless to address. Similar to making Wraithlords (and indeed any model without eyes) it could possibly be RAW but there's absolutely zero reason to explore it.
#2 uses all rules as they're written and includes the FAQ precedent.

The FAQ precedent is only for things that cause ID, as you do not even get to roll a FNP if the Force Weapon check is successful.

The FAQ is not a precedent in the case of things that do not cause ID as the situations are not the same.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The FAQ precedent is only for things that cause ID, as you do not even get to roll a FNP if the Force Weapon check is successful.

And you don't even get to roll Force activation if the FNP roll is successful.

The FAQ is not a precedent in the case of things that do not cause ID as the situations are not the same.

For consistency's sake I disagree with you.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The FAQ precedent is only for things that cause ID, as you do not even get to roll a FNP if the Force Weapon check is successful.

And you don't even get to roll Force activation if the FNP roll is successful.

Except for the FaQ that specifically changed this rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The FAQ precedent is only for things that cause ID, as you do not even get to roll a FNP if the Force Weapon check is successful.

And you don't even get to roll Force activation if the FNP roll is successful.

Except for the FaQ that specifically changed this rule.

Thanks for missing my point completely.

Prior to FAQ - FNP had to be resolved first to determine if the wound was saved.
Post FAQ - FNP gets determined post effect.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The FAQ precedent is only for things that cause ID, as you do not even get to roll a FNP if the Force Weapon check is successful.

And you don't even get to roll Force activation if the FNP roll is successful.

The FAQ is not a precedent in the case of things that do not cause ID as the situations are not the same.

For consistency's sake I disagree with you.

FAQ =/= Errata

 NecronLord3 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The FAQ precedent is only for things that cause ID, as you do not even get to roll a FNP if the Force Weapon check is successful.

And you don't even get to roll Force activation if the FNP roll is successful.

The FAQ is not a precedent in the case of things that do not cause ID as the situations are not the same.

For consistency's sake I disagree with you.

FAQ =/= Errata

Only if you pretend that FAQs cannot change rules.
That's demonstrably false.

They only change rules that they specifically are addressing in an FAQ. You can infer from FAQ entries how GW intends for similar rules to work, but it is not errata and one FAQ entry does not change rules in all cases. Specific answer for a specific question.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
They only change rules that they specifically are addressing in an FAQ. You can infer from FAQ entries how GW intends for similar rules to work, but it is not errata and one FAQ entry does not change rules in all cases. Specific answer for a specific question.

Do you understand what "precedent" is?

@NecronLord3 a faq can create a precedent for every similar situation. If you don't remember we played through 5th using a faq about an eldar exarch's weapon to resolve the shooting of the manticore...

Except that ES VS FNP is not similar to Force USR Vs FNP.

The simple fact that the Force USR can cause ID changes the dynamics of the situation so much that they are no longer similar.

rigeld2 wrote:
Thanks for missing my point completely.

Prior to FAQ - FNP had to be resolved first to determine if the wound was saved.
Post FAQ - FNP gets determined post effect.

I get that, but it has no bearing on ES, as you can still take FNP even if you resolve ES first, however if you pass FNP you have saved the wound and the models armor can not be removed off of a saved wound.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that ES VS FNP is not similar to Force USR Vs FNP.

The simple fact that the Force USR can cause ID changes the dynamics of the situation so much that they are no longer similar..

There is absolutely no basis for your reasoning. The faq only states that force weapons activate before FNP. Force weapons and ES have identical triggers and are applied at the exact same time, so the faq can be used as a precedent for ES.

copper.talos wrote:
@NecronLord3 a faq can create a precedent for every similar situation. If you don't remember we played through 5th using a faq about an eldar exarch's weapon to resolve the shooting of the manticore...

For every similar situation? Really you are going to stick with that?

I have given you already the example of the precedent set by a faq about an eldar exarch's weapon that was used as for manticores throughout an entire edition. Different types of units, different codices and yet it was still used because it was a similar situation.

To bad ES and Force Weapons aren't similar at all. As FNP and ES are not mutually exclusive of one another, which Force Weapons and FNP were.

Sorry but FW and ES are identical rules regarding to their mechanics. And that's all that matters. All these "mutually exclusive" stuff is made up and have no basis in the rules.

So identically-worded stuff is always FAQ'd in the same direction huh? What about almost-identical?

Eldar Autarch: "While the Autarch is alive, you may choose to add 1 to your rolls for reserves, ..."

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3180054a_Eldar_v1.3_APRIL13.pdf
Q. If an army has two Autarchs, does it get +2 to its Reserve rolls? (p29)
A. The player may choose each turn whetherto add +1, +2 or no bonus to hisreserve rolls.

Hive Commander: "... In addition, whilst the Hive Tyrant is alive you add +1 to your reserve rolls."

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2940052a_Tyranids_v1.2_JANUARY13.pdf
Q: If I have more than one Hive Tyrant with the Hive Commander ability, do their bonuses to reserve rolls stack? Also, do I get to outflank with one Troops unit, or one Troops unit per Hive Tyrant with this upgrade? (p34)
A: No, the reserve roll bonuses do not stack. You can only choose to outflank with a single unit of Troops, regardless of how many Hive Tyrants you have with this ability.

If a new unit came out tomorrow with "Adds +1 to reserve rolls." which precedent would you use?

I do not have access to my BRB at the moment as I am at work, but can someone paste the FNP rule in here.

Does it say it saves the wound, or saves the attack? if it saves the attack, it then removes ES, if it saves the wound, ES carries on and removes the armour...

I cannot see any other way of this argument being resolved...

FNP Treats the wound as saved.

copper.talos wrote:
Sorry but FW and ES are identical rules regarding to their mechanics. And that's all that matters. All these "mutually exclusive" stuff is made up and have no basis in the rules.

You mean aside from actually being covered in the rules.

The rules never say "FNP and ES are mutually exclusive". It's made up. Likewise made up reasons came up when people argued that fnp should be used against wounds from force weapons despite the "immediately" in the FW rule (which FNP lacks) and GW had to faq it so "immediately" means immediately...

Hmm, this reminds me of the discussion about Lemartes.
His STR and A immediately go to 5 if he suffers an unsaved wound, but he also has FNP.

So the main question would be: Can FNP undo triggers that were activated due to an unsaved wound?

I think it doesn't.
The wound is restored, but the effect (negative or positive) will remain active.

copper.talos wrote:
The rules never say "FNP and ES are mutually exclusive". It's made up. Likewise made up reasons came up when people argued that fnp should be used against wounds from force weapons despite the "immediately" in the FW rule (which FNP lacks) and GW had to faq it so "immediately" means immediately...

Obviously you are having trouble with this concept. You are quoting something I have never said. FNP and ES are not mutually excliusive. FNP and the ID from force weapons are, thus necessitating the need for the FAQ entry. FNP and ES are not mutually exclusive thus the order is not even an issue. Both can occur in any order and the end result will still be the same, as FNP retroactively causes an unsaved wound to be treated as saved.

Ok back on track. I play neurons as well as a buddy of mine. The key question here that might have gotten lost in all the rumblings is does a multi wound model who suffers an unsaved wound from scarabs, roll each save one at a time.

I play it as they do. Because once he miss one of the saves, he would loose his armor saves for the rest of the game. Though he cannot loose the invuln save he would then be forced to roll on invuln table.

So tell your opponent to pass off all the wounds to save the argument and alls fair and done.

With FNP, yes you do per the FAQ. Without FNP you roll ES in one pool and all other attacks and the same initiative after that separately. Attacks from non ES wounds suffer the Armour penalty.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
FNP and the ID from force weapons are, thus necessitating the need for the FAQ entry. FNP and ES are not mutually exclusive thus the order is not even an issue. Both can occur in any order and the end result will still be the same, as FNP retroactively causes an unsaved wound to be treated as saved.

Can you provide a quote of the rules that says "FNP and ES are not mutually exclusive thus the order is not even an issue". You obviously cannot, so this is made up and the rest of the argument crumbles. Stick to the actual rules.

I remember earlier posts about FNP and force weapons. Similarly made up arguments and rationalisations came up in order to justify the FNP's priority over force weapons. The old "you first must know if the wound is actually unsaved in order to apply the force weapon's ability". GW had to faq immediately to be immediately because of those made up arguments. ES is exactly the same case. Made up arguments and rationalisations won't change the precedent set by the faq.

You are having issues with comprehension. That is clear from your previous post. So it will do me no good to explain the rules of the game which you obviously do not understand good day to you.