Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 13:51:26
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon
Armageddon, Pry System, Armageddon Sector, Armageddon Sub-sector, Segmentum Solar.
|
Or maybe the faq was needed so force could make the attack id to nullify fnp precluding it from being used to remove the trigger for its specific effect. That's the meat of the issue for the force faq, it required the clarification that it may ne tested for to see if its effect negates fnp. It's less a matter of timing and more a matter of what nullifys what. Automatically Appended Next Post: All of the effects have the same trigger, including fnp. But fnp creates the paradox of the trigger never existing in the first place. You could say it even negates its own use, or rather its requirment. So this has to be an absolute conclusion either;
A: All effects take effect regardless of the application of the wound and removal of triggered condition.
or
B: All effects must have the wound applied and the triggered condition to apply their effects.
You cannot cherry pick effects so anything that requires an unsaved wound is included.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 14:01:51
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 14:16:26
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
Which works.... when you show FNP has permission for its effects to be applied to events which have already happened?
Yes having No armor on a model which did not lose a wound later is a bit odd. Not as odd though as playing the game backwards or saying this special rule will always be allowed to be tested first, even though saying that is a very spercific difference to the clear RAW for resolving order. Seems pretty important, you'd think they would have mentioned it in the FNP rules if they really had intended FNP to be the super power special rule were making it.
|
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2013/10/31 14:24:58
It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.
Tactical objectives are fantastic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 14:31:13
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration
|
The model is wounded. You attempt a save and fail. At this point we have two potential effects: ES's ability and FNP. Looking closely at the rules, FNP modifies the actual starting condition to begin with; potentially removing whether there is an unsaved wound at all ("treat as being saved"). From that perspective it must take precedence before we know what else may still be applied. The language on FNP itself even indicates this by saying "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special FNP roll to avoid being wounded." In other words, immediately after failing any save you take the FNP roll. Considering that the effects from ES do not negate the ability to take the FNP roll then we know the logical order to proceed with. FW was a special situation in that the mechanics of the rule could potentially nullify whether FNP could have been taken in the first place; which actually was a paradox; therefore it had to be FAQd. ES does not have this issue. Going back to ES, the wording around "immediately" seems pretty clear to indicate that the effects impact how you handle further wounds from the same wound pool ("for the remainder of the battle" ). As I stated before, this wording was necessary otherwise people would be arguing that the effects wouldn't kick in until either a later initiative step or a different player turn.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/31 14:33:23
------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 14:31:49
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon
Armageddon, Pry System, Armageddon Sector, Armageddon Sub-sector, Segmentum Solar.
|
Not like gw to make rules that realistically make no logical sense but have to be that way for the game to work. Again its not an order issue, as its the sum of these effects that is applied.
I'm also gathering by your reply that any and all effects that have the precursor "unsaved wound" take effect regardless of fnp. Correct?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 14:35:57
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration
|
Nem wrote:Which works.... when you show FNP has permission for its effects to be applied to events which have already happened? Yes having No armor on a model which did not lose a wound later is a bit odd. Not as odd though as playing the game backwards or saying this special rule will always be allowed to be tested first, even though saying that is a very spercific difference to the clear RAW for resolving order. Seems pretty important, you'd think they would have mentioned it in the FNP rules if they really had intended FNP to be the super power special rule were making it. I take the opposite position. If ES was meant to override FNP then you'd think they would have mentioned it in the ES rules. The only thing that overrides FNP is ID and the one special rule which was in conflict that *may* cause ID has been FAQ'd to explicitly go before FNP. That's a good indication of the importance of ID and FNP.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/31 14:38:20
------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 14:49:27
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
Bausk wrote:Not like gw to make rules that realistically make no logical sense but have to be that way for the game to work. Again its not an order issue, as its the sum of these effects that is applied.
I'm also gathering by your reply that any and all effects that have the precursor "unsaved wound" take effect regardless of fnp. Correct?
No, I don't believe that. I believe the rules are applied in an order (Ref: Page 9). All rules are applied in an order, sometimes these effects are applied simultaneously. You’ll note the face rules stipulate when effects are applied simultaneously, and the fact were told even though the trigger is at the same point, the events are then resolved in order (not simultaneous)
What I see:
Sequence A ( FNP first):
As Part of Phase Sequence – Action - Roll to Hit: PASS
As part of phase sequence – Action – >Check Roll to hit: PASS > Roll to wound: PASS
As part of sequence- Action – >Check Roll to Wound: PASS > Take save if available: FAILED
Special Rule – Action – >Check if unsaved wound: PASS > FNP : PASS
Special Rule – Action -> Check if Unsaved wound: FAIL
---No Further action required—
Sequence B ( ES first):
As Part of Phase Sequence – Action - Roll to Hit: PASS
As part of phase sequence – Action – >Check Roll to hit: PASS > Roll to wound: PASS
As part of sequence- Action – >Check Roll to Wound: PASS > Take save if available: FAILED
Special Rule – Action – >Check if unsaved wound: PASS > ES : PASS
Special Rule – Action -> Check if Unsaved wound: PASS > FNP : PASS
---No Further action required—
****
Sequence with assumption FNP changes the past.
Sequence B ( ES first):
As Part of Phase Sequence – Action - Roll to Hit: PASS
As part of phase sequence – Action – >Check Roll to hit: PASS > Roll to wound: PASS
As part of sequence- Action – >Check Roll to Wound: PASS > Take save if available: FAILED
Special Rule – Action – >Check if unsaved wound: PASS > ES : PASS
Special Rule – Action -> Check if Unsaved wound: PASS > FNP : PASS
Special Rule – Action -> Check if the previously successful ES is valid: FAILED
We don’t go back and check things again….. The check for ES is done during the event... FNP does not say go back and check other events... In the same way we don't check any ability which has been resolved by any special rules which later contradict it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
clively wrote: Nem wrote:Which works.... when you show FNP has permission for its effects to be applied to events which have already happened?
Yes having No armor on a model which did not lose a wound later is a bit odd. Not as odd though as playing the game backwards or saying this special rule will always be allowed to be tested first, even though saying that is a very spercific difference to the clear RAW for resolving order. Seems pretty important, you'd think they would have mentioned it in the FNP rules if they really had intended FNP to be the super power special rule were making it.
I take the opposite position. If ES was meant to override FNP then you'd think they would have mentioned it in the ES rules. The only thing that overrides FNP is ID and the one special rule which was in conflict that *may* cause ID has been FAQ'd to explicitly go before FNP. That's a good indication of the importance of ID and FNP.
But, thats the wrong way around in a permissive rule set. We have the rules for dealing with special abilities which are triggered off the same event,-. FNP is being raised as the exception to that rule, so FNP should contain that exception, not other abilties which conform to that rule.
|
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2013/10/31 14:58:19
It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.
Tactical objectives are fantastic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 14:57:00
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Nem wrote: 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.
The Force FAQ can't be used as precedent because Force stops FNP from being used.
And you're also ignoring that you're attempting to do something between suffering the wound and rolling FNP - something the wording of FNP doesn't allow.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 14:58:24
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon
Armageddon, Pry System, Armageddon Sector, Armageddon Sub-sector, Segmentum Solar.
|
I suppose that's why people generally roll fnp before anything else is considered, to see if the trigger condition is met for the rest. So I guess everyone has been doing it wrong for years in your eyes.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 15:03:14
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
rigeld2 wrote: Nem wrote: 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.
The Force FAQ can't be used as precedent because Force stops FNP from being used.
And you're also ignoring that you're attempting to do something between suffering the wound and rolling FNP - something the wording of FNP doesn't allow.
Which part of FNP says you must order FNP before any other ability which triggers off a unsaved wound?
|
It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.
Tactical objectives are fantastic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 15:04:31
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Nem wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Nem wrote: 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.
The Force FAQ can't be used as precedent because Force stops FNP from being used.
And you're also ignoring that you're attempting to do something between suffering the wound and rolling FNP - something the wording of FNP doesn't allow.
Which part of FNP says you must order FNP before any other ability which triggers off a unsaved wound?
The part that says when you suffer an unsaved wound, not "at some point after you suffer an unsaved wound".
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 15:05:32
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Tea-Kettle of Blood
Adelaide, South Australia
|
clively wrote:The model is wounded. You attempt a save and fail. At this point we have two potential effects: ES's ability and FNP.
Looking closely at the rules, FNP modifies the actual starting condition to begin with; potentially removing whether there is an unsaved wound at all ("treat as being saved"). From that perspective it must take precedence before we know what else may still be applied. The language on FNP itself even indicates this by saying "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special FNP roll to avoid being wounded." In other words, immediately after failing any save you take the FNP roll. Considering that the effects from ES do not negate the ability to take the FNP roll then we know the logical order to proceed with.
FW was a special situation in that the mechanics of the rule could potentially nullify whether FNP could have been taken in the first place; which actually was a paradox; therefore it had to be FAQd. ES does not have this issue.
Going back to ES, the wording around "immediately" seems pretty clear to indicate that the effects impact how you handle further wounds from the same wound pool ("for the remainder of the battle"
). As I stated before, this wording was necessary otherwise people would be arguing that the effects wouldn't kick in until either a later initiative step or a different player turn.
To paraphrase Madonna, "You know that we are writing in RAW thread, and you are a RAI ... head, I guess, something that rhymes with thread"
Your argument is basically "they wrote "immediately" in Entropic Stirke and not in Feel No Pain, but I think they meant for Feel No Pain to happen immediately and Entropic Strike to happen the wound is removed, so we should play it like that", that's hardly a convincing argument.
clively wrote:I take the opposite position. If ES was meant to override FNP then you'd think they would have mentioned it in the ES rules. The only thing that overrides FNP is ID and the one special rule which was in conflict that *may* cause ID has been FAQ'd to explicitly go before FNP. That's a good indication of the importance of ID and FNP.
Maybe they didn't mention it because Entropic Strike is completely unrelated to Feel No Pain and doesn't affect your ability to roll for FNP in the slightest? Also they did mention that it happens before Feel No Pain, it goes something along the lines of "immediately loses its armour save".
Guys, this isn't complicated, if I tell you that when someone is about to have a heart attack you should immediately call the emergency number and also tell you that you should give them aspirin, which do you do first?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 15:06:18
Ailaros wrote:You know what really bugs me? When my opponent, before they show up at the FLGS smears themselves in peanut butter and then makes blood sacrifices to Ashterai by slitting the throat of three male chickens and then smears the spatter pattern into the peanut butter to engrave sacred symbols into their chest and upper arms.
I have a peanut allergy. It's really inconsiderate.
"Long ago in a distant land, I, M'kar, the shape-shifting Master of Chaos, unleashed an unspeakable evil! But a foolish Grey Knight warrior wielding a magic sword stepped forth to oppose me. Before the final blow was struck, I tore open a portal in space and flung him into the Warp, where my evil is law! Now the fool seeks to return to real-space, and undo the evil that is Chaos!" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 15:07:11
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
rigeld2 wrote: Nem wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Nem wrote: 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.
The Force FAQ can't be used as precedent because Force stops FNP from being used.
And you're also ignoring that you're attempting to do something between suffering the wound and rolling FNP - something the wording of FNP doesn't allow.
Which part of FNP says you must order FNP before any other ability which triggers off a unsaved wound?
The part that says when you suffer an unsaved wound, not "at some point after you suffer an unsaved wound".
Which ES also says. So FNP needs something to take precidence, or refer to page 9.
~ I don't often get very involved in dakka rule arguments. But when I do, I nerd rage like a pro ~ < is me today.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/31 15:09:08
It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.
Tactical objectives are fantastic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 15:07:33
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
PrinceRaven wrote:Guys, this isn't complicated, if I tell you that when someone is about to have a heart attack you should immediately call the emergency number and also tell you that you should give them aspirin, which do you do first?
It's almost like that comparison is worded absolutely nothing like the actual rules at hand. Wow. Such skill. Automatically Appended Next Post: Nem wrote:Which ES also says. So FNP needs something to take precidence, or refer to page 9.
So you're advocating removing an armor save after a saved wound?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 15:08:44
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 15:10:07
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
rigeld2 wrote: PrinceRaven wrote:Guys, this isn't complicated, if I tell you that when someone is about to have a heart attack you should immediately call the emergency number and also tell you that you should give them aspirin, which do you do first?
It's almost like that comparison is worded absolutely nothing like the actual rules at hand. Wow. Such skill.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nem wrote:Which ES also says. So FNP needs something to take precidence, or refer to page 9.
So you're advocating removing an armor save after a saved wound?
No, im advocating you remove the armor save on a unsaved wound. And that if FNP is then successful, it has no permission to start checks on events which occured before it was resolved.
[Edit] I know the post count has gone up fast, but I have answered such questions before
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/31 15:12:49
It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.
Tactical objectives are fantastic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 15:16:45
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Nem wrote:rigeld2 wrote: PrinceRaven wrote:Guys, this isn't complicated, if I tell you that when someone is about to have a heart attack you should immediately call the emergency number and also tell you that you should give them aspirin, which do you do first?
It's almost like that comparison is worded absolutely nothing like the actual rules at hand. Wow. Such skill.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nem wrote:Which ES also says. So FNP needs something to take precidence, or refer to page 9.
So you're advocating removing an armor save after a saved wound?
No, im advocating you remove the armor save on a unsaved wound. And that if FNP is then successful, it has no permission to start checks on events which occured before it was resolved.
[Edit] I know the post count has gone up fast, but I have answered such questions before
Except there was no unsaved wound. I know that because the model was not removed as a casualty if it's got 1 wound.
The permission is inherent in the fact that it is a saved wound, not an unsaved wound that is ignored.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 15:25:23
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
rigeld2 wrote: Nem wrote:rigeld2 wrote: PrinceRaven wrote:Guys, this isn't complicated, if I tell you that when someone is about to have a heart attack you should immediately call the emergency number and also tell you that you should give them aspirin, which do you do first?
It's almost like that comparison is worded absolutely nothing like the actual rules at hand. Wow. Such skill.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nem wrote:Which ES also says. So FNP needs something to take precidence, or refer to page 9.
So you're advocating removing an armor save after a saved wound?
No, im advocating you remove the armor save on a unsaved wound. And that if FNP is then successful, it has no permission to start checks on events which occured before it was resolved.
[Edit] I know the post count has gone up fast, but I have answered such questions before
Except there was no unsaved wound. I know that because the model was not removed as a casualty if it's got 1 wound.
The permission is inherent in the fact that it is a saved wound, not an unsaved wound that is ignored.
Except FNP gives you permission to treat the wound as saved at the time it is applied - So you are in the situation where there is a unsaved wound, which by the order of events FNP gives you permission to treat it as saved. So when the next event (Removing as a casualty) the status is checked, it is not removed as a casualty (becuase the wound is treated as saved).
However, this does not = The unsaved wound never existed. There is no reason or need to do that to conform to the rules.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 15:27:31
It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.
Tactical objectives are fantastic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 15:28:51
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Nem wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
Except there was no unsaved wound. I know that because the model was not removed as a casualty if it's got 1 wound.
The permission is inherent in the fact that it is a saved wound, not an unsaved wound that is ignored.
Except FNP gives you permission to treat the wound as saved at the time it is applied - So you are in the situation where there is a unsaved wound, which by the order of events FNP gives you permission to treat it as saved. So when the next event (Removing as a casualty) the status is checked, it is not removed as a casualty (becuase the wound is treated as saved).
However, this does not = The unsaved wound never existed. There is no reason or need to do that to conform to the rules.
It must. Treat as must equal is. Therefore the wound is saved. If the wound was ever unsaved you'd remove the model if it was on its last wound.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 15:37:09
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
rigeld2 wrote: Nem wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
Except there was no unsaved wound. I know that because the model was not removed as a casualty if it's got 1 wound.
The permission is inherent in the fact that it is a saved wound, not an unsaved wound that is ignored.
Except FNP gives you permission to treat the wound as saved at the time it is applied - So you are in the situation where there is a unsaved wound, which by the order of events FNP gives you permission to treat it as saved. So when the next event (Removing as a casualty) the status is checked, it is not removed as a casualty (becuase the wound is treated as saved).
However, this does not = The unsaved wound never existed. There is no reason or need to do that to conform to the rules.
It must. Treat as must equal is. Therefore the wound is saved. If the wound was ever unsaved you'd remove the model if it was on its last wound.
Treat as must equal is is fine, its not a problem until you say; Treat as must equal, including for events which have happened in the past.
Not if when you come to check for Removing as a casualty the status of the wound is saved. If we HAD to remove as a casualty strait away,(without taking the effects of Special rules into account) there would be no FNP.
[edit]
For instance, extending sequence from earlier ( ES first)
Sequence B ( ES first):
As Part of Phase Sequence – Action - Roll to Hit: PASS
As part of phase sequence – Action – >Check Roll to hit: PASS > Roll to wound: PASS
As part of sequence- Action – >Check Roll to Wound: PASS > Take save if available: FAILED
Special Rule – Action – >Check if unsaved wound: PASS > ES : PASS
Special Rule – Action -> Check if Unsaved wound: PASS > FNP : PASS
As part of phase sequence - Action -> Check if wound is unsaved: FAIL > Can not remove as a casuallty.
Fits right in.
The sequence comes to checking if wound is unsaved for Removal of casuallty, and it fails due to FNP, this does not however, change the status at the time ES was passed.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/31 15:43:14
It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.
Tactical objectives are fantastic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 15:44:31
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Nem wrote:
For instance, extending sequence from earlier ( ES first)
Sequence B ( ES first):
As Part of Phase Sequence – Action - Roll to Hit: PASS
As part of phase sequence – Action – >Check Roll to hit: PASS > Roll to wound: PASS
As part of sequence- Action – >Check Roll to Wound: PASS > Take save if available: FAILED
Special Rule – Action – >Check if unsaved wound: PASS > ES : PASS
Special Rule – Action -> Check if Unsaved wound: PASS > FNP : PASS
As part of phase sequence - Action -> Check if wound is unsaved: FAIL > Can not remove as a casuallty.
Fits right in.
The sequence comes to checking if wound is unsaved for Removal of casuallty, and it fails due to FNP, this does not however, change the status at the time ES was passed.
So you are applying ES to a model that did not suffer an unsaved wound. But you just said you weren't. I'm confused.
The wound is demonstrably a saved wound.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 15:46:10
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
rigeld2 wrote: Nem wrote:
For instance, extending sequence from earlier ( ES first)
Sequence B ( ES first):
As Part of Phase Sequence – Action - Roll to Hit: PASS
As part of phase sequence – Action – >Check Roll to hit: PASS > Roll to wound: PASS
As part of sequence- Action – >Check Roll to Wound: PASS > Take save if available: FAILED
Special Rule – Action – >Check if unsaved wound: PASS > ES : PASS
Special Rule – Action -> Check if Unsaved wound: PASS > FNP : PASS
As part of phase sequence - Action -> Check if wound is unsaved: FAIL > Can not remove as a casuallty.
Fits right in.
The sequence comes to checking if wound is unsaved for Removal of casuallty, and it fails due to FNP, this does not however, change the status at the time ES was passed.
So you are applying ES to a model that did not suffer an unsaved wound. But you just said you weren't. I'm confused.
The wound is demonstrably a saved wound.
Im only applying ES to a model that suffered a unsaved wound IF your saying FNP 'treat as saved' can be applied to events which happened in the past. Is that what you are saying? Where is the rules justification for changing events that have passed.
The wound is treated as saved - when FNP is successful (not before that). Now, to make ES breaking the rules, you have to accept special rule effects can be applied to events which have already happened, you are litterally undoing rules and events becuase FNP says 'Treat as having been saved'.
|
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2013/10/31 15:51:50
It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.
Tactical objectives are fantastic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 15:51:49
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Nem wrote:The wound is treated as saved. When FNP is successful (not before that). Now, to make ES breaking the rules, you have to accept special rule effects can be applied to events which have already happened.
The wound is a saved wound. Factual. Undebateable.
You've applied an effect that requires an unsaved wound. Factual. Undebateable.
At best this is simultaneous and therefore the ES cannot have been applied "in the past".
In reality you're attempting to do something (resolve ES) before rolling for FNP - something which FNP doesn't allow. FNP must come first because you don't know if you have a saved wound or not before it's done resolving.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 15:53:08
Subject: Re:FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Slippery Scout Biker
|
I am so confused as to why this is even an issue.
"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)."
"Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses its armor save for the remainder of the battle"
In both cases, an unsaved wound must happen for the abilities to do anything... So I can't really see this working any other way except you get a FNP roll and lose your armor save.
Sure, you count the wound as being saved after the fact, but that's after you already suffered it. If you're implying FNP pretends the wound never happened that's not what the rule says.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 15:54:00
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
rigeld2 wrote: Nem wrote:The wound is treated as saved. When FNP is successful (not before that). Now, to make ES breaking the rules, you have to accept special rule effects can be applied to events which have already happened.
The wound is a saved wound. Factual. Undebateable.
You've applied an effect that requires an unsaved wound. Factual. Undebateable.
At best this is simultaneous and therefore the ES cannot have been applied "in the past".
In reality you're attempting to do something (resolve ES) before rolling for FNP - something which FNP doesn't allow. FNP must come first because you don't know if you have a saved wound or not before it's done resolving.
I've quoted page 9 twice in relevance to that statement on this thread already.
They are not simultaneos, as per the rules (Chooses the order of events.)
I've quoted so many rules proving my possition. All I've had back is obscurement of the event order without any supporting evidence.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/31 15:58:47
It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.
Tactical objectives are fantastic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 15:54:56
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Slippery Scout Biker
|
FNP must come first because you don't know if you have a saved wound or not before it's done resolving.
FNP strictly states that an unsaved wound must occur before you get a FNP roll, so this is false.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 15:55:29
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 15:57:24
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
DiabloSpawn33 wrote:FNP must come first because you don't know if you have a saved wound or not before it's done resolving.
FNP strictly states that an unsaved wound must occur before you get a FNP roll, so this is false.
Apparently thats only the case if it works in FNP's favor... ... ... ... (This is sarcasm, this has been a long day.). I suppose we all agree the unsaved wound never existed, and we go around in circles forever with no resolution.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/31 16:00:51
It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.
Tactical objectives are fantastic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 16:05:25
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Nem wrote:I've quoted page 9 twice in relevance to that statement on this thread already. They are not simultaneos, as per the rules (Chooses the order of events.)
Then the "at best" situation doesn't apply. I've quoted so many rules proving my possition. All I've had back is obscurement of the event order without any supporting evidence.
Do you know if a wound is saved prior to resolving FNP? No - it's literally impossible to know that. Therefore it cannot be considered an unsaved wound prior to resolving FNP. Nem wrote:DiabloSpawn33 wrote:FNP must come first because you don't know if you have a saved wound or not before it's done resolving. FNP strictly states that an unsaved wound must occur before you get a FNP roll, so this is false. Apparently thats only the case if it works in FNP's favor... ... ... ... (This is sarcasm, this has been a long day.)
Yes, FNP can create a paradox where FNP should not have resolved. As we have specific permission in this instance to do so, however, there's no reason for it to be an issue.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 16:05:38
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 16:15:18
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
rigeld2 wrote:Nem wrote:I've quoted page 9 twice in relevance to that statement on this thread already.
They are not simultaneos, as per the rules (Chooses the order of events.)
Then the "at best" situation doesn't apply.
I've quoted so many rules proving my possition. All I've had back is obscurement of the event order without any supporting evidence.
Do you know if a wound is saved prior to resolving FNP? No - it's literally impossible to know that. Therefore it cannot be considered an unsaved wound prior to resolving FNP.
Nem wrote:DiabloSpawn33 wrote:FNP must come first because you don't know if you have a saved wound or not before it's done resolving.
FNP strictly states that an unsaved wound must occur before you get a FNP roll, so this is false.
Apparently thats only the case if it works in FNP's favor... ... ... ... (This is sarcasm, this has been a long day.)
Yes, FNP can create a paradox where FNP should not have resolved. As we have specific permission in this instance to do so, however, there's no reason for it to be an issue.
Sorry - Not sure about ''Then the "at best" situation doesn't apply.'' And what your referencing there
Point 2, I've addressed this using rules earlier in the thread; FNP is not part of the process of determining if the wound is saved or unsaved (Page 15 shows the process of determining if the wound is saved or unsaved and FNP is not a part of this). A Special rule might change it in the future. Why must we take effects of special rules into account when decided order? (and where is the rules basis to override page 9?). We don't do checks for FNP might be successful!
Point 3, My interpretation works without the paradox situation. We don't have to bend anything to make it work.
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2013/10/31 16:19:32
It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.
Tactical objectives are fantastic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 16:19:06
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Nem wrote:Sorry - Not sure about ''Then the "at best" situation doesn't apply.'' And what your referencing there rigeld2 wrote:At best this is simultaneous and therefore the ES cannot have been applied "in the past". Point 2, I've addressed this using rules earlier in the thread; FNP is not part of the process of determining if the wound is saved or unsaved (Page 15 shows the process of determining if the wound is saved or unsaved and FNP is not a part of this) FNP is not part of the normal process of determining wounds. It inserts itself. It's almost like Special Rules can bend or break normal rules or something. Point 3, My interpretation works without the paradox situation. We don't have to bend anything to make it work.
Where am I bending a rule? The paradox situation isn't a problem.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 16:19:20
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 16:25:03
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration
|
Nem wrote:
Point 2, I've addressed this using rules earlier in the thread; FNP is not part of the process of determining if the wound is saved or unsaved (Page 15 shows the process of determining if the wound is saved or unsaved and FNP is not a part of this). A Special rule might change it in the future. Why must we take effects of special rules into account when decided order? (and where is the rules basis to override page 9?)
Point 3, My interpretation works without the paradox situation. We don't have to bend anything to make it work.
The rules of FNP absolutely alter whether the wound is unsaved or saved. Further, ES doesn't show up on Page 15, so should we ignore the effects of ES? (don't answer: rhetorical) Special Rules are those things "that breaks or bends one of the main game rules" - page 32, second paragraph, first sentence. That is the rule basis which allows FNP (or, indeed any other special rule) to override pg 9, 15, or whatever other page reference you have.
|
------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/31 16:59:21
Subject: FNP and Entropic Strike
|
 |
Stalwart Ultramarine Tactical Marine
|
I think 'treat as saved' means exactly that, not 'it is saved'. It is unsaved (therefore ES is valid), but you treat it as saved and therefore don't take a wound. That way there is no paradox where FNP shouldn't have been tested in the first place, and everything is right with the fictional world.
|
}{ºƒƒ $┴@®®
The last thing i want to do is hurt you. But it is on my list.
|
|
 |
 |
|