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.

IMO FNP has no effect on ES

1. Fluff wise it sould go off
2. There is precedent set with the Force Weapon ruling
3. Codex beats BRB

Great, then when I use Gabriel Seth and he gets attacked by anything that gets to re-roll ones still gets hit by Seth because his rule states any ones that are rolled not any ones that are rolled as a final result after all re-rolls.

x13rads wrote:
IMO FNP has no effect on ES

1. Fluff wise it sould go off
2. There is precedent set with the Force Weapon ruling
3. Codex beats BRB

1) Nids. Their armour is their body. Fluff conrtadicting your point, muddying it as ever
2) Which isnt precedent, as FW deny FNP if they activate. ES and FNP coexist happily
3) Only when there is a conflict. There isnt a conflict here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

x13rads wrote:
IMO FNP has no effect on ES

1. Fluff wise it sould go off
2. There is precedent set with the Force Weapon ruling
3. Codex beats BRB

1) Nids. Their armour is their body. Fluff conrtadicting your point, muddying it as ever
2) Which isnt precedent, as FW deny FNP if they activate. ES and FNP coexist happily
3) Only when there is a conflict. There isnt a conflict here.

Well, there is a conflict, but an indirect one. Its the same with any FNP vs special rule that triggers on a "unsaved wound"

FNP conflicts with the rulebook as well, as when you take an unsaved wound and have just 1 wound left, you should be removed as a casualty.

FNP by definition must cause some issues, as its trigger is after a normal process

nosferatu1001 wrote:

x13rads wrote:
IMO FNP has no effect on ES

1. Fluff wise it sould go off
2. There is precedent set with the Force Weapon ruling
3. Codex beats BRB

1) Nids. Their armour is their body. Fluff conrtadicting your point, muddying it as ever
2) Which isnt precedent, as FW deny FNP if they activate. ES and FNP coexist happily
3) Only when there is a conflict. There isnt a conflict here.

1. The scarabs could eat away the boney carapce that provides nids their armor save without killing them outright.

Come on now, be honest. If GW FAQed it tomorrow how do you think they would rule it?

ES is supposed to represents a weapon or attack eating a big hole away in some dudes armor enough that it becomes combat ineffective. FNP is suposed to represent a particulary tough dude of being able to shrug off a wound that a regular dude wouldn't.

Personally I prefer flavor over rules lawyering. I can count on 2 fingers the times I have seen this situation before and both times the FNP guy agreed that FNP wouldn't stop the Scarabs from eating away his armor.

How about this for fluff:

Scarabs attack some of my guys and they start taking damage (read as they successfully hit them and wounded them and fail their armour saves) thinking quickly the Sarge and several guys start flinging scarabs off of themselves to prevent serious damage (read as succeeding with the FNP rule).

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
How about this for fluff:

Scarabs attack some of my guys and they start taking damage (read as they successfully hit them and wounded them and fail their armour saves) thinking quickly the Sarge and several guys start flinging scarabs off of themselves to prevent serious damage (read as succeeding with the FNP rule).

That's not a fluffy FNP, that is a Fluffy Armour Save.

Also Scarabs are not the only think with ES. ES is more like the acid saliva of the Scarabs themselves.

And I see you dodged the bigger question.

*please note my attitude while typing is intended playfully and not trying to be a d!*k

x13rads wrote:
IMO FNP has no effect on ES

1. Fluff wise it sould go off
2. There is precedent set with the Force Weapon ruling
3. Codex beats BRB

1. Fluff is not rules
2. no there is not, as Force weapons are completely different
3. Only when there is a conflict, which there is not in this case.

I honestly do not know how GW are going to FAQ this, but then again ... I thought that DC Tyco not being in the DC but rather on his own was some sort of a misprint because at the bottom of Pg. 41 in the fluff explanation of the DC Tyco it says he was 'inducted' into the Death Company. WTF?!?

Why does everyone miss the bit in the rulebook that allows the effects of multiple special rules to affect a model?

The effect of FnP is treating the wound as saved.
The effect of ES is no more armor.

Both are triggered by the initial unsaved wound, and take effect.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Why does everyone miss the bit in the rulebook that allows the effects of multiple special rules to affect a model?

The effect of FnP is treating the wound as saved.
The effect of ES is no more armor.

Both are triggered by the initial unsaved wound, and take effect.

And if ES takes effect you have broken the rule in FNP that says to treat the wound as saved.

Why are there effects from a saved wound?

You have said

DeathReaper wrote:
That and you have to roll FNP first or you break things like the Hexrifle and Entropic Strike.

*regarding force weapons
and

DeathReaper wrote:2. no there is not, as Force weapons are completely different

So in one post you claim that ES and Force Weapons work similarly and yet in another post (which is after the "inconvenient" faq) you claim that they are completely different. Nice...

It's almost like the FAQ changed things...

rigeld2 wrote:
It's almost like the FAQ changed things...

Exactly this, The FaQ changed the rules.

The force weapon can negate FNP, something ES can not do, therefore they are vastly different.

I don't see the issue here, wound is taken, Entropic Strike is "immediately" activated and resolved, Feel No Pain roll is made. This isn't a card game, we don't have a "chain" system, we resolve things in 40k in chronological order.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I don't see the issue here, wound is taken, Entropic Strike is "immediately" activated and resolved, Feel No Pain roll is made. This isn't a card game, we don't have a "chain" system, we resolve things in 40k in chronological order.

FNP is rolled when you suffer an unsaved wound. Not "at some indeterminate point later" but right when it's suffered. It's the same as "immediately" but without using the word.

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I don't see the issue here, wound is taken, Entropic Strike is "immediately" activated and resolved, Feel No Pain roll is made. This isn't a card game, we don't have a "chain" system, we resolve things in 40k in chronological order.

FNP is rolled when you suffer an unsaved wound. Not "at some indeterminate point later" but right when it's suffered. It's the same as "immediately" but without using the word.

Quote and page number please.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I don't see the issue here, wound is taken, Entropic Strike is "immediately" activated and resolved, Feel No Pain roll is made. This isn't a card game, we don't have a "chain" system, we resolve things in 40k in chronological order.

FNP is rolled when you suffer an unsaved wound. Not "at some indeterminate point later" but right when it's suffered. It's the same as "immediately" but without using the word.

Quote and page number please.

p35 wrote:When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll ...

p15 wrote:Reduce that model's Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.

We know FNP must happen before removing the model as a casualty (otherwise the ability is literally useless).
Therefore, we know that FNP must happen before the model's wounds are reduced.

We also know that Entropic Strike occurs between suffering a wound and removing it as a casualty. Additionally, we also know that Entropic Strike has the "immediately" qualifier, while Feel No Pain does not. It is similar to how we know that both the shooting phase and assault phase occur between the movement phase and the end of the turn, and we know that the shooting phase occurs immediately after the movement phase.

If you are doing something between suffering a wound and FNP, you are not making a special FNP roll when you suffer a wound.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you are doing something between suffering a wound and FNP, you are not making a special FNP roll when you suffer a wound.

Exactly this

When do you make a FNP roll? (A: "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound" (35))

not sometime in the future, you do not wait to take your FNP roll.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you are doing something between suffering a wound and FNP, you are not making a special FNP roll when you suffer a wound.

Exactly this

When do you make a FNP roll? (A: "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound" (35))

not sometime in the future, you do not wait to take your FNP roll.

When does ES go, "When you suffer an unsaved wound"

When does Hexrifle go "When you suffer an unsaved wound"

I can go on.

These rules all activate upon the moment the model has suffered an unsaved wound. As all the rules use the same trigger, and the effects of multiple rules may stack, then you can have a model not take a wound, but still lose it's armor. The end effect of the rule does not negate the original trigger.

Further as many keep saying, this is a permissive rule set, as the FnP rule does not say ignore other special rules effects, than all special effects that occur from the same unsaved wound would still occur.

Then youre not treating the wound as saved, breaking the FNP rule.

Where is your explicit permission to break the FNP rule?

You treat the wound as saved upon a successful fnp roll, it is treated as saved for all further rule purposes. There is absolutely nothing in the fnp rules or otherwise to suggest you need to check if the effect of fnp takes place before other effects, and absolutely nothing to support the effects of FNP should be applied to negate other rules which may have taken effect before, infact we have a faq clarifying that is not the case.

Citation required to claim fnp must be checked first, which does not include 'treat as saved'.

When 2 abilities trigger at the same time doesn't the controlling player determine the order?

So my scarabs would trigger ES first and then my opponent's Painboy get's FNP and saves the wound. His turn, he chooses to do FNP first and then do ES. Still leaves the question of "would FNP first negate ES" though since it's two triggers happening at the same time regardless.

After reading through everything in the thread - I would say Megatron describes HIWPI. Since both trigger at the same time, both effects would happen even if FNP negates the wound that cause ES to trigger. Ironically though FNP would also negate the wound that triggers FNP so we might as well divide by 0 and call it a day.

 Nem wrote:
You treat the wound as saved upon a successful fnp roll, it is treated as saved for all further rule purposes. There is absolutely nothing in the fnp rules or otherwise to suggest you need to check if the effect of fnp takes place before other effects, and absolutely nothing to support the effects of FNP should be applied to negate other rules which may have taken effect before, infact we have a faq clarifying that is not the case.

For Force weapons that cause ID and thus Ignore the FNP roll altogether. That FAQ does not apply to this situation.

Citation required to claim fnp must be checked first, which does not include 'treat as saved'.

How do you know if you have an unsaved wound unless you roll FNP first and see if it is treated as saved or actually an Unsaved wound?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unholyllama wrote:
When 2 abilities trigger at the same time doesn't the controlling player determine the order?

you may be thinking of:

When two players have something to do then the players turn it is determines the order.

But that is not the case here as both players do not have something to do as there is no die roll with ES, it just happens on a unsaved wound, it does not happen on a saved wound or one we are treating as saved.

Wouldnt really be an unsaved wound though as FNP kicks in straight away.
If passed, its counted as saved.
So no ill effects should take place from ES.

Why are people trying to apply ES before FNP?
FNP kicks in if you fail your save.
If FNP is passed, it discounts the wound and is treated as saved.

Edit: How can a model have suffered an unsaved wound if it still has a save that is available to roll for?
Surely you should make all types of saves (+, ++ and special) etc all at the same time before you can say a wound is unsaved.

Because ES happens "immediately" after a model suffers an unsaved wound. FNP happens after a model suffers an unsaved wound. The wording of the rule itself gives priority to ES. And furthermore one other rule that has the same timing as ES, force weapon, got a faq that sets its timing before FNP.

FW and ES are nothing alike though.

Lascannons and mind war can both cause wounds, does not make them the same by any means.
Just means they have 1 thing in common (timing in the case of this thread)
Everything else about them is different though.

So, how is a wound unsaved if you have yet to take an available save?
Should all saves not be taken at the same time since its part of the same trigger?