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.

 Nem wrote:

It only removes both the trigger and the application if your either


1. FNP goes first and is successful.

2. FNP goes second and your applying the effect out of sequence

Now there is a problem with the second one.

You check against the effects as and when they apply, if ES has gone first and is sucessful, you do not check a wound which is treated as saved against it, as ES has already happended and is resolved, we do not apply effects to previous sequence events.

The wound is treated as saved, and checked against events as they occur, for instance is a wound taken? (No, treated as saved). Does the wound count to resolution count? (No treated as saved)
ES would never trigger a check against FNP, unless FNP is applied retroactivly


<.....Wound.....> <...............Unsaved Wound.............> <............Treated as saved...........>


If FNP is sucessful, the status is changed to treated as saved. It does not go bavck and change the green section, in that sequence, the unsaved wound is always an unsaved wound.

FNP Creates a saved wound, and eliminates the green section from even existing in the first place, just like making the armor save of the model the green part does not exist after an armor save or FNP is successful...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

It only removes both the trigger and the application if your either


1. FNP goes first and is successful.

2. FNP goes second and your applying the effect out of sequence

Now there is a problem with the second one.

You check against the effects as and when they apply, if ES has gone first and is sucessful, you do not check a wound which is treated as saved against it, as ES has already happended and is resolved, we do not apply effects to previous sequence events.

The wound is treated as saved, and checked against events as they occur, for instance is a wound taken? (No, treated as saved). Does the wound count to resolution count? (No treated as saved)
ES would never trigger a check against FNP, unless FNP is applied retroactivly


<.....Wound.....> <...............Unsaved Wound.............> <............Treated as saved...........>


If FNP is sucessful, the status is changed to treated as saved. It does not go bavck and change the green section, in that sequence, the unsaved wound is always an unsaved wound.

FNP Creates a saved wound, and eliminates the green section from even existing in the first place, just like making the armor save of the model the green part does not exist after an armor save or FNP is successful...

And what part of FNP tells you to retroactivly apply the effect (effect being, 'unsaved wound is discounted - treat as having been saved')? Which part says the unsaved wound never existed? What make FNP different to all other special rules?

While 'Having been saved' is the cause of confusion, as it is being read as past tense, and only past tense. That is not correct however.

I can treat this thread as having been one page long, from this point forward.
That doesnt change the fact it is currently 4 pages.

Nem - please show permission, in the ES rules, to ignore the FNP rule stating the wound IS saved (treated as must equal IS, otherwise things break)

After all, currently you are breaking the FNP rule, by saying there is no armour left as the wound was unsaved, so you MUST have some permission to do so

Or, you dont have permission, and the only way to break no rule is to only roll ES after you know if there is an unsaved wound or not. Otherwise you absolutely can break the FNP rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nem - please show permission, in the ES rules, to ignore the FNP rule stating the wound IS saved (treated as must equal IS, otherwise things break)

After all, currently you are breaking the FNP rule, by saying there is no armour left as the wound was unsaved, so you MUST have some permission to do so

Or, you dont have permission, and the only way to break no rule is to only roll ES after you know if there is an unsaved wound or not. Otherwise you absolutely can break the FNP rule.

The wound is saved, sure; from the moment you roll a successful FNP. Even if your saying the wound IS SAVED, you need permission to apply it to the past to claim applying ES is 'breaking' the rules.

We don't go back and say 'Well this is illegal becuase my special rule changes the status of item 'X' ' The effect of special rules are applied, and checked for once they are successful, not before, and not in retrospect.

Without applying the effect of FNP to prior game sequeces, show me what breaks.

Too much focus on 'treat as having been saved', not enough focus on the rules which govern the special rule.

 Nem wrote:



The wound is saved, sure;

So theres no ES effect. Since it triggers on an unsaved wound.

Your interpretation breaks either feel no pain or ES.

Not applying the ES effect doesnt break any rules.

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:



The wound is saved, sure;

So theres no ES effect. Since it triggers on an unsaved wound. Otherwise you break both ... feel no pain and ES.

Only if your applying FNP retropectivly. Why would you?

 Nem wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:



The wound is saved, sure;

So theres no ES effect. Since it triggers on an unsaved wound. Otherwise you break both ... feel no pain and ES.

Only if your applying FNP retropectivly. Why would you?

Because the rule gives permission to.

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:



The wound is saved, sure;

So theres no ES effect. Since it triggers on an unsaved wound. Otherwise you break both ... feel no pain and ES.

Only if your applying FNP retropectivly. Why would you?

Because the rule gives permission to.

Where? A few posts back shows use of the English language in 'having been' which fits all the rules which govern special rules, the rules of FNP, and does not apply the effect in reverse.

 Nem wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:



The wound is saved, sure;

So theres no ES effect. Since it triggers on an unsaved wound. Otherwise you break both ... feel no pain and ES.

Only if your applying FNP retropectivly. Why would you?

Because the rule gives permission to.

Where? A few posts back shows use of the English language in 'having been' which fits all the rules which govern special rules, the rules of FNP, and does not apply the effect in reverse.

You make 1 wound with entropic strike. Your opponent fails his save but makes his feel no pain. The wound is now treated as saved. Treated must mean IS as established several times. So theres no unsaved wound. You applying ES is breaking the ES rule.

Show permission in the ES rule to apply to a saved wound or show permission to apply ES before FNP was rolled for so basically to ignore fnp.

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:



The wound is saved, sure;

So theres no ES effect. Since it triggers on an unsaved wound. Otherwise you break both ... feel no pain and ES.

Only if your applying FNP retropectivly. Why would you?

Because the rule gives permission to.

Where? A few posts back shows use of the English language in 'having been' which fits all the rules which govern special rules, the rules of FNP, and does not apply the effect in reverse.

You make 1 wound with entropic strike. Your opponent fails his save but makes his feel no pain. The wound is now treated as saved for further rule purposes. Treated must mean IS as established several times. So theres no unsaved wound. You applying ES is breaking the ES rule.

Show permission in the ES rule to apply to a saved wound or show permission to apply ES before FNP was rolled for so basically to ignore fnp.

I added the bolded. Again, nothing suggests FNP should un-do actions which happened before it. Applying effects of special rules do not work like that.

ES never applied to a saved wound. It is applied to a unsaved wound and FNP does not have permission to change the past.

If a fnp roll is made and you treat the wound as unsaved. Did you follow the FNP rule to treat the wound as saved?

 Mywik wrote:
If a fnp roll is made and you treat the wound as unsaved. Did you follow the FNP rule to treat the wound as saved?

Permission required to change past events.

The effects of special rules are applied from the time they are successful, onwards. These are basic order of event rules.

Without permission to go back and change that, you can't say the wound should be treated as saved at the time ES may have been rolled.

I absolutly treat the wound as saved, for all rule purposes, after the FNP has been successful, and for any checks thereafter

 Nem wrote:
If a fnp roll is made and you treat the wound as unsaved. Did you follow the FNP rule to treat the wound as saved?

Permission required to change past events.

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:
If a fnp roll is made and you treat the wound as unsaved. Did you follow the FNP rule to treat the wound as saved?

Permission required to change past events.
/quote]

On a 5+, the unsaved wound is discounted - freat it as having been saved

If you accounted for the unsaved wound did you discount it?

Does it say treat as been saved in the past?

You can discount the wound (for further rules purposes)
and you can treat as having been saved (for further rule purposes)
Without retro-applying

 Nem wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:
If a fnp roll is made and you treat the wound as unsaved. Did you follow the FNP rule to treat the wound as saved?

Permission required to change past events.
/quote]

On a 5+, the unsaved wound is discounted - freat it as having been saved

If you accounted for the unsaved wound did you discount it?

Does it say treat as been saved in the past?

If you apply effects that trigger from an unsaved wound did you treat said unsaved wound as saved?

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:
If a fnp roll is made and you treat the wound as unsaved. Did you follow the FNP rule to treat the wound as saved?

Permission required to change past events.
/quote]

On a 5+, the unsaved wound is discounted - freat it as having been saved

If you accounted for the unsaved wound did you discount it?

Does it say treat as been saved in the past?

If you apply effects that trigger from an unsaved wound did you treat said unsaved wound as saved?

Unsaved, treated as having been saved only applies from the time FNP is successful, there thereafter. Not before the effect was successful. To treat as being saved for past events, FNP needs permission.

 Nem wrote:


Unsaved, treated as having been saved only applies from the time FNP is successful, there thereafter. Not before the effect was successful. To treat as being saved for past events, FNP needs permission.

Show permission to apply ES before FNP rolls are made.

There doesnt need to be a permission for past events since theres no past event - the wound is saved. Feel no pain itself gives permission to make a roll to discount unsaved wounds that were suffered. This is permission to discount the wound. If you account for the wound you didnt follow the FNP rule to discount it. So applying ES breaks either FNP or ES. Not applying ES doesnt break anything.

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:


Unsaved, treated as having been saved only applies from the time FNP is successful, there thereafter. Not before the effect was successful. To treat as being saved for past events, FNP needs permission.

Show permission to apply ES before FNP rolls are made.

Ok.
(the following assumes 'Immediatly' is not relevant)

--Unsaved wound is caused
#FNP and Entropic strike are both triggered at the same time

BRB: Page 9, under EXCEPTIONS

... At other times, you'll find both players have to do something at the same time. When these things happen, the player whoes turn it is decides the order in which events occur

So say current player is necronny and he decides ES goes first (Still sticking with the rules)

#ES is successful and is resolved
#FNP is successful and is resolved. ES is done, over. It was legal at the time it was applied, It was ordered before FNP, and FNP can not go back and change the time that wound was unsaved to saved.


My interpretation;
#Is fair.
#Does not break the rules which govern special rules, or order of effect.
#With my interpretation of the FNP effect, does not break any rules.
#In line with current FAQ's


[edit] I'll point out at this point, I and debated soley based on what I see as RAW, and not what would give me an advantage. I am not a Necron player, and do not use any simular abilities. I play Nids and D.Eldar. In both armies I heavily use and rely on FNP.

 Nem wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

 Nem wrote:


Unsaved, treated as having been saved only applies from the time FNP is successful, there thereafter. Not before the effect was successful. To treat as being saved for past events, FNP needs permission.

Show permission to apply ES before FNP rolls are made.

Ok.
(the following assumes 'Immediatly' is not relevant)

--Unsaved wound is caused
#FNP and Entropic strike are both triggered at the same time

BRB: Page 9, under EXCEPTIONS

... At other times, you'll find both players have to do something at the same time. When these things happen, the player whoes turn it is decides the order in which events occur

So say current player is necronny and he decides ES goes first (Still sticking with the rules)

#ES is successful and is resolved
#FNP is successful and is resolved. ES is done, over. It was legal at the time it was applied, It was ordered before FNP, and FNP can not go back and change the time that wound was unsaved to saved.


My interpretation;
#Is fair.
#Does not break the rules which govern special rules, or order of effect.
#With my interpretation of the FNP effect, does not break any rules.
#In line with current FAQ's


[edit] I'll point out at this point, I and debated soley based on what I see as RAW, and not what would give me an advantage. I am not a Necron player, and do not use any simular abilities. I play Nids and D.Eldar. In both armies I heavily use and rely on FNP.

Okay ... i cant back that up either so its a HIWPI interpretation:
Feel no pain is a roll you make for each wound that your save didnt discount to see if you can discount it anyway. Until feel no pain is rolled there simply are no unsaved wounds because they still need to be checked if FNP discounts them. So i wouldnt apply ES before FNP rolls were made.
I play SW mainly so neither FNP nor ES .

The same thing applies to that DE wargear thingy with a 2++ until you fail a save ... so its kinda relevant for you too

Except Nem, you ADDED " for further rule purposes"

That rule does not state that. It says treat as (so IS) saved.

ES works from an unsaved wound. Attempting to use ES means you will break the FNP rule, with no permission to.
Not using ES once you pass FNP means you break neither rule.

I'll go with the option that breaks no rules.

Waiting to activate Entropic Strike after the Feel No Pain roll means you haven't activated it "immediately", breaking the Entropic Strike rule.
Since Entropic Strike has already been resolved before the FNP roll is made, and feel no pain has no permission to go back and retroactively unresolve it, no rule is broken.

I'll go with the option that breaks no rules.

I added 'for further rules purposes' because that is how everything works. No special rule, ability, wargear or powers stipulate this, the best you can hope for with a 'Counts as' or 'treat as' is a defining period the rule if effective for, but its pretty basic that you don't start undoing previous actions becuase now the rule will change something back there. All rules work > From this point forward
I don't feel every special rule or ability should have to point this out in the entry.

Resolving events in order is absolute in my mind.

No it doesn't change it. It treats the wound as saved before the wound is applied with any effects attached to the unsaved wound.

The area/time you are refering to is a simultaneous 'work out what's going to happen when this wound is applied" where you do just that. Fnp treats the wound as saved if successful making the application or even working that part out redundant as the wound is a saved wound rather than an unsaved wound.

The process more goes like thus:

wound::failed save::is the attack id?does the model have fnp?is the model an ew? Other effects as needed.:: apply unsaved wound

Lets say that fnp is all the way at the very end of that process of checking effects for argumenta sake, it again doesn't matter as the wound is reverted back to being saved rather than being unsaved and is not applied.

 Bausk wrote:
No it doesn't change it. It treats the wound as saved before the wound is applied with any effects attached to the unsaved wound.

The area/time you are refering to is a simultaneous 'work out what's going to happen when this wound is applied" where you do just that. Fnp treats the wound as saved if successful making the application or even working that part out redundant as the wound is a saved wound rather than an unsaved wound.

The process more goes like thus:

wound::failed save::is the attack id?does the model have fnp?is the model an ew? Other effects as needed.:: apply unsaved wound

Lets say that fnp is all the way at the very end of that process of checking effects for argumenta sake, it again doesn't matter as the wound is reverted back to being saved rather than being unsaved and is not applied.

the player whoes turn it is decides the order in which events occur

Even if they are triggered at the same time, the effects are worked out in order, one effect is applied definativly before another, one event now occurs before the other.

ES only needs a unsaved wound. At the time it is resolved, the wound is unsaved. Were not told to go back and check the legality of previos events becuase a newer event has changed the status of the wound. The rules just don't work when applied backwards.

That applies to abilities/wargear occuring at the same step (like at the start of the fight subphase, end of turn etc). It doesn't apply to referencing what an attack does or can potentially do. And even then it still doesn't matter as the wound is saved if fnp is successful no matter when you roll for it while working out the potential of a wound.

 Bausk wrote:
That applies to abilities/wargear occuring at the same step (like at the start of the fight subphase, end of turn etc). It doesn't apply to referencing what an attack does or can potentially do. And even then it still doesn't matter as the wound is saved if fnp is successful no matter when you roll for it while working out the potential of a wound.

I disagree,
based on;
there are no rules basis for working out the order of events based on the effects of the special rules (The rules are; the player whoes turn it is decides the order of events)
there are no rules basis for suggesting FNP is part of the process of determining if a wound is a saved wound, the process for this is found on page 15 (Note, FNP is NOT a part of this process).

FNP is a special rule, the effects just happens to affect parts of the process.

And fnp makes the process irrelevant as there is no unsaved wound if it successful. If we applied your interpretation a multitude of effects would still apply without the unsaved wound. Take soulblaze for instance, if we applied your interpretation the unit would have a Soulblaze marker even though the unit suffered no wounds.

Concussive, pinning, strike down and the list goes on into codexes. All of these would opperate without an unsaved wound. Of all these effects only Force has an faq as it needed to be exempted so you can test to make the attack id to nullify fnp.

 Bausk wrote:
And fnp makes the process irrelevant as there is no unsaved wound if it successful. If we applied your interpretation a multitude of effects would still apply without the unsaved wound. Take soulblaze for instance, if we applied your interpretation the unit would have a Soulblaze marker even though the unit suffered no wounds.

Concussive, pinning, strike down and the list goes on into codexes. All of these would opperate without an unsaved wound. Of all these effects only Force has an faq as it needed to be exempted so you can test to make the attack id to nullify fnp.

Why? Force works in the same way as ES. The only difference is the effect. If FNP means there was never a unsaved wound to activate Force against, why did the FAQ say it can? Maybe, FNP doesnt go back in time and make that unsaved wound saved. Maybe, FNP makes the wound saved from the time the effect takes place?

Treating as saved from the time the effect takes place, is far more logical that going back in time and saying the unsaved wound never existed.

hmm so I'm just going by what the OP posted here. to me it seems, that the wound is dealt, and the armour save failed, IMMEDIATLY entropic Strike comes into effect, then you take FNP. Again, I'm just going by what the OP first stated.

 painkiller66678 wrote:
hmm so I'm just going by what the OP posted here. to me it seems, that the wound is dealt, and the armour save failed, IMMEDIATLY entropic Strike comes into effect, then you take FNP. Again, I'm just going by what the OP first stated.

This is my interpretation of events as well. Since both trigger at the same time, one effect does not negate the other's.