Switch Theme:

FNP and Entropic Strike  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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.




Made in us
The Hive Mind





 Hoff Starr wrote:
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.

If you don't use "treat as" as "is" the rules will fail in some interesting ways.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration





 Hoff Starr wrote:
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.


That takes a bit of gymnastics. If you "treat as saved" then for all intents and purposes "it is saved".. It doesn't say "treat as saved unless it conflicts with your world view" or "treat as saved unless you find it inconvenient to do so".

If you treat something as "Saved" then it is de facto saved. However, that's not all that line says: the first part, "the unsaved wound is discounted", is equally important. It's saying to throw the unsaved wound completely out and goes on to tell you exactly what this means "treat is as having been saved".

Which essentially says "this wound should be treated as if it was saved all along". Which, for Nem, gives you explicit permission to go back and reprocess the ES rule and therefore ES no longer applies. Which, going further, is yet another reason why we process FNP before anything else that works off of unsaved wounds.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/31 17:16:49


------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect 
   
Made in us
Slippery Scout Biker




So... In order to fit this interpretation of the rules, we have to rearrange the order things happen(Instead of applying two "when an unsaved wound occurs" events at the same time as written in the rules, we do them in a specific order to support our interpretation) then pretend earlier events didn't happen to support what happened in the future... Eh... what?

When you are creating paradoxical situations to support an interpretation of the rules, when valid interpretations that fit perfectly within the rules are presented that don't produce paradoxical situations, then I think it's time to move on, lol.

   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Hoff Starr wrote:
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.

Treats as must mean is or the rules break down in spectacular ways.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





DiabloSpawn33 wrote:
So... In order to fit this interpretation of the rules, we have to rearrange the order things happen(Instead of applying two "when an unsaved wound occurs" events at the same time as written in the rules, we do them in a specific order to support our interpretation) then pretend earlier events didn't happen to support what happened in the future... Eh... what?

Or... maybe... You shouldn't misrepresent the opposing argument? That'd be great.

When you are creating paradoxical situations to support an interpretation of the rules, when valid interpretations that fit perfectly within the rules are presented that don't produce paradoxical situations, then I think it's time to move on, lol.

Your "valid" interpretation doesn't actually fit perfectly within the rules.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 17:14:33


My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration





DiabloSpawn33 wrote:
So... In order to fit this interpretation of the rules, we have to rearrange the order things happen(Instead of applying two "when an unsaved wound occurs" events at the same time as written in the rules, we do them in a specific order to support our interpretation) then pretend earlier events didn't happen to support what happened in the future... Eh... what?

When you are creating paradoxical situations to support an interpretation of the rules, when valid interpretations that fit perfectly within the rules are presented that don't produce paradoxical situations, then I think it's time to move on, lol.



No, in order to fit this interpretation we have to read the actual rules. What part of "treat it as having been saved" is a problem? There is no paradox, never has been. If you are treating it as having been saved then ES should never come into play.

------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

Even if you applied effects like ES first, the wording on FnP states that the prior wound counts as saved so it removes the effects of it being unsaved even if they were rolled for, or applied first.

Would you let Lemartes increase his Str and Attacks to 5 even if he did not reduce his wounds by 1 cause he failed his armor save but made his FNP roll?

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Slippery Scout Biker




clively wrote:
DiabloSpawn33 wrote:
So... In order to fit this interpretation of the rules, we have to rearrange the order things happen(Instead of applying two "when an unsaved wound occurs" events at the same time as written in the rules, we do them in a specific order to support our interpretation) then pretend earlier events didn't happen to support what happened in the future... Eh... what?

When you are creating paradoxical situations to support an interpretation of the rules, when valid interpretations that fit perfectly within the rules are presented that don't produce paradoxical situations, then I think it's time to move on, lol.



No, in order to fit this interpretation we have to read the actual rules. What part of "treat it as having been saved" is a problem? There is no paradox, never has been. If you are treating it as having been saved then ES should never come into play.


If you're treating it as saved, then by that line of thinking, FNP should never have happened either, no? That's the paradox. In my opinion, if you suffered an unsaved wound, ES happens and FNP happens, as per their written rules, then you treat it as saved as per FNP, but wouldn't rewind time to make ES not happen. But I do see merit in your line of thinking, so I guess we follow the most important rule if it comes up (if it ever does?) and get on with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DeathReaper wrote:
Even if you applied effects like ES first, the wording on FnP states that the prior wound counts as saved so it removes the effects of it being unsaved even if they were rolled for, or applied first.

Would you let Lemartes increase his Str and Attacks to 5 even if he did not reduce his wounds by 1 cause he failed his armor save but made his FNP roll?


That is also a fair point... Maybe for the first time in YMDC history I'm actually starting to doubt my position. Although I think that ability is more relevant to his wounds being dropped to 1 rather than suffering an unsaved wound which are separate incidents, but who knows.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/31 17:34:13


 
   
Made in us
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration





DiabloSpawn33 wrote:
[
If you're treating it as saved, then by that line of thinking, FNP should never have happened either, no? That's the paradox. In my opinion, if you suffered an unsaved wound, ES happens and FNP happens, as per their written rules, then you treat it as saved as per FNP, but wouldn't rewind time to make ES not happen. But I do see merit in your line of thinking, so I guess we follow the most important rule if it comes up (if it ever does?) and get on with it.


If it helps:
1. roll to hit
2. roll to wound
3. roll save (if any): assume fail
4. roll ES
5. roll FNP (and pass)

A space-time paradox occurs which causes the universe to implode and be replaced with one in which the following occurred.

1. roll to hit
2. roll to wound
3. roll save: assume pass.


------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect 
   
Made in gb
Tough Tyrant Guard





SHE-FI-ELD

rigeld2 wrote:
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".


Ok. So as per page 9, 2 events are triggered at the same time. Being the controlling player I decide the order that these events now occur. I decided ES happens first.
-Action -> Special Rule> ES > Check if wound is saved > Unsaved wound > Effect is applied
-Action -> Special Rule> FNP > Check if wound is saved > Unsaved wound > Effect is applied

I assert - 2 events. I applied ES first and FNP second. One event was resolved before the other. (Rules: Page 9)
You assert these are applied simultaneously.
Please provide a rule to support your assertion, or a rule which directly debunks my rule quote, or agree this is a interpretation within boundaries of RAW.



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.


Ok, So as per the Phase sequence I:

Roll to Hit - Passed
Roll to wound - Passed
Opponent rolls save if applicable: Failed
I assert: The rules say when you fail, the wound is Unsaved. (Rules: Page15) I know at this point the wound is unsaved. FNP can be activated, but can not change what happened in the past, FNP is not part of the rules which tell you when a unsaved wound occurs, it simply changes to status of the unsaved wound, upon resolution
Your assertion: The wound is not unsaved until FNP has had a chance to be tested. - Although your told the wound is unsaved (Page 15) your treating it as unknown before a special rule coming into effect.
Please provide a rule to support your assertion that we can ignore page 15, before a rule which might change that status comes into play, before FNP is resolved, or a rule which directly debunks my rule quote, or agree this is a interpretation within boundaries of RAW.


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 one is linked to the others so its harder to really discuss with rules if we don't see eye to eye on the previous.

-Saves are failed, the wound is now a unsaved wound
I can not apply ES because what might happen with FNP, and even if ES occurs before FNP, FNP changes the events which happened previous to the resolution as well as the events.

I assert that breaks the rules of ES, which tell me it is allowed to resolve upon a unsaved wound, and, by extension, Page 9 that tells me I can choose in which order these events (Special rules) occur.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/31 17:54:04


It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.

Tactical objectives are fantastic 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Again: treating the woudn as unsaved is the ONLY WAY you can continue to apply ES. This breaks the FNP rule.

So you find out if the wound is definitely, ultimately unsaved FIRST, then apply ES. If not ES will try to break the FNP rule.


Page 9 is irrelevant here.
   
Made in de
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon






 Hoff Starr wrote:
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.


"Treated as" must mean "IS". Otherwise a lot of rules break.



edit ... nevermind

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 17:55:01


 
   
Made in gb
Tough Tyrant Guard





SHE-FI-ELD

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again: treating the woudn as unsaved is the ONLY WAY you can continue to apply ES. This breaks the FNP rule.

So you find out if the wound is definitely, ultimately unsaved FIRST, then apply ES. If not ES will try to break the FNP rule.


Page 9 is irrelevant here.


What part of page 9 is irrelevant. Do these special rules NOT occur at the same time? Or does FNP have special permission to go first?

Citation required

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 17:56:37


It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.

Tactical objectives are fantastic 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Because resolving ES first breaks FNP, as you are not treating the wound as saved, S it is irrelevant, because no matter what happens, you need to know if FNP succeeds or not. This is indisputeable in the rules

What part of "the wound IS SAVED" means you think that ES can still apply?

You only get to your conclusion by placing a condition - "for future purposes" - that absolutely does not eixst in the actual rules.
   
Made in gb
Tough Tyrant Guard





SHE-FI-ELD

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because resolving ES first breaks FNP, as you are not treating the wound as saved, S it is irrelevant, because no matter what happens, you need to know if FNP succeeds or not. This is indisputeable in the rules

What part of "the wound IS SAVED" means you think that ES can still apply?

You only get to your conclusion by placing a condition - "for future purposes" - that absolutely does not eixst in the actual rules.


What part of the Allocation rules require FNP to be resolved first?
Citation required
Edit[I assert this is not the case, and we do not resolve special rules based on a order of events that might happen, I asset they follow the rules on page 9, as they happen at the same time, FNP needs permission to not follow those rules]

You only get to your conclusion by placing a condition - ''undoes events and wound status rules that happened before it'' which absolutely does not exist in the actual rules.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2013/10/31 18:07:14


It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.

Tactical objectives are fantastic 
   
Made in us
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration





I'm quoting, but changing the order of your statements for clarity.

 Nem wrote:
I assert: The rules say when you fail, the wound is Unsaved. (Rules: Page15) I know at this point the wound is unsaved.

Yes, but not the whole story.

 Nem wrote:
FNP is not part of the rules which tell you when a unsaved wound occurs, it simply changes to status of the unsaved wound, upon resolution

Wrong.

"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound" (pg 35). Tells us that the FNP rule is interjected into the flow of wound processing. It tells us exactly where to place it: at the point the model has suffered the wound (ie: "when"). This directly modifies the section under "take saving throws" on page 15 as that is the point where an unsaved wound has been suffered.

 Nem wrote:
FNP can be activated, but can not change what happened in the past,

Wrong.

"treat is as having been saved." (pg 35). If you are treating it as "having been" saved then you are changing the previous outcome.

Prior quote:
Nem wrote: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.

having been is past tense:
"Having" - To Be.
"Been" - past participle of be.
"be" - to take place or occur.

or to simplify it: "to occur in the past".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 18:10:10


------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Nem wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
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".


Ok. So as per page 9, 2 events are triggered at the same time. Being the controlling player I decide the order that these events now occur. I decided ES happens first.

You do realize that is not what page 9 says, like at all, right?

"At other times, you'll find that both players will have to do something at the same time. When these things happen..." (9)

Both players do not have something to do at the same time, as ES requires nothing from a player, it is just a simple effect that is applied. Therefore it does not have any baring on the situation at hand.
 Nem wrote:
What part of the Allocation rules require FNP to be resolved first?
Citation required

Because resolving ES first breaks FNP and we should strive to break no rule.

As a part of any ruleset we must strive to break no rule, it is how ruleset's work.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 18:12:00


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in gb
Tough Tyrant Guard





SHE-FI-ELD

clively wrote:
I'm quoting, but changing the order of your statements for clarity.

 Nem wrote:
I assert: The rules say when you fail, the wound is Unsaved. (Rules: Page15) I know at this point the wound is unsaved.

Yes, but not the whole story.

I agree. But that is a unsaved wound at that time, and at that time you need permission to ignore rules, not based on something that might happen in the future. I can not provide a rule to counter, as a rule was not brought forth.

 Nem wrote:
FNP is not part of the rules which tell you when a unsaved wound occurs, it simply changes to status of the unsaved wound, upon resolution

Wrong.

"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound" (pg 35). Tells us that the FNP rule is interjected into the flow of wound processing. It tells us exactly where to place it: at the point the model has suffered the wound (ie: "when"). This directly modifies the section under "take saving throws" on page 15 as that is the point where an unsaved wound has been suffered.


ES tells you when it activates also. It activates at the same time. (ES rules, sorry I don't actually know the page). So when two things are activated at the same time, we refer to rules on page 9 which tells us how to deal with this situation. Citation required from yourself at this point to point out FNP's permission to ignore this.

 Nem wrote:
FNP can be activated, but can not change what happened in the past,

Wrong.

"treat is as having been saved." (pg 35). If you are treating it as "having been" saved then you are changing the previous outcome.


I have posted previously how this sentence is not past tense only.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 Nem wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
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".


Ok. So as per page 9, 2 events are triggered at the same time. Being the controlling player I decide the order that these events now occur. I decided ES happens first.

You do realize that is not what page 9 says, like at all, right?

"At other times, you'll find that both players will have to do something at the same time. When these things happen..." (9)

Both players do not have something to do at the same time, as ES requires nothing from a player, it is just a simple effect that is applied. Therefore it does not have any baring on the situation at hand.
 Nem wrote:
What part of the Allocation rules require FNP to be resolved first?
Citation required

Because resolving ES first breaks FNP and we should strive to break no rule.

As a part of any ruleset we must strive to break no rule, it is how ruleset's work.


That's not a citation. My interpretation had rules quotes and did not break anything. If were saying that ES falls outside the remit of the player having to do something, then with a small re jig, my interpretation remains the same, with the exception that I can not argue the order with page 9(For ES specifically, there are other effects which require a test to be passed)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/31 18:46:07


It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.

Tactical objectives are fantastic 
   
Made in gb
Ambitious Acothyst With Agonizer




excuse the poor quick diagram,


however the way FNP works doesn't create a paradox if applied like a process flow. Its like drawing a go back 3 spaces card in Monopoly.

The fact is that regardless of where you put the FNP on the process flow it will always have the feedback loop into treating it as saved, and then you follow the process from there. so regardless of what has come before you follow it to the end of the process and apply that result. Anything else in-between is irrelevant.

The FAQ re-writes the process flow for FNP and includes the instant death part before, where if the answer is yes that is the end outcome.




[Thumb - FNP Process.png]
FNP Flow

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 18:33:16





 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Nem wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:

Because resolving ES first breaks FNP and we should strive to break no rule.

As a part of any ruleset we must strive to break no rule, it is how ruleset's work.


That's not a citation. My interpretation had rules quotes and did not break anything. If were saying that ES falls outside the remit of the player having to do something, then with a small re jig, my interpretation remains the same, with the exception that I can not argue the order with page 9(For ES specifically, there are other effects which require a test to be passed)

It is not a citation, it is a matter of understanding how rules systems function. We must know this or the words in the book are useless.

Your interpretation breaks the FNP rule, because we have to treat the wound as saved if FNP is successful. Something which we have not done if the model has lost its armor save.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 Nem wrote:
Yes, but not the whole story.

I agree. But that is a unsaved wound at that time, and at that time you need permission to ignore rules, not based on something that might happen in the future. I can not provide a rule to counter, as a rule was not brought forth.

FNP changes that to a saved wound, including in the past. That was cited, you're ignoring it with a handwave.

ES tells you when it activates also. It activates at the same time. (ES rules, sorry I don't actually know the page). So when two things are activated at the same time, we refer to rules on page 9 which tells us how to deal with this situation. Citation required from yourself at this point to point out FNP's permission to ignore this.

You're misquoting page 9. Please don't do so.

"treat is as having been saved." (pg 35). If you are treating it as "having been" saved then you are changing the previous outcome.

I have posted previously how this sentence is not past tense only.

You've asserted that repeatedly. You've never shown why you think so.

 Nem wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 Nem wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
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".


Ok. So as per page 9, 2 events are triggered at the same time. Being the controlling player I decide the order that these events now occur. I decided ES happens first.

You do realize that is not what page 9 says, like at all, right?

"At other times, you'll find that both players will have to do something at the same time. When these things happen..." (9)

Both players do not have something to do at the same time, as ES requires nothing from a player, it is just a simple effect that is applied. Therefore it does not have any baring on the situation at hand.
 Nem wrote:
What part of the Allocation rules require FNP to be resolved first?
Citation required

Because resolving ES first breaks FNP and we should strive to break no rule.

As a part of any ruleset we must strive to break no rule, it is how ruleset's work.


That's not a citation. My interpretation had rules quotes and did not break anything. If were saying that ES falls outside the remit of the player having to do something, then with a small re jig, my interpretation remains the same, with the exception that I can not argue the order with page 9(For ES specifically, there are other effects which require a test to be passed)

He did cite, and quoted, page 9. Perhaps you missed it - I've bolded it for you.
And you are breaking a rule - you're applying ES to a wound that has been saved. You keep saying you're not, but you are absolutely doing so.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 18:54:00


My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Sinewy Scourge




Crawfordsville Indiana

There is still no permission to ignore other special rules.

Treat as does not equal is. Not any more than bearing equals with. Or assumed equals is. All arguments used for other issues.

The old seeker missile/markerlight was ruled against the BS 5 assumption, for targeting flyers.

A model with a weapon gets the benefit of a bonus rule, but the model bearing a weapon does not.

Precedent in GW FAQs show that unless it says "is" it is not. Being "treated as saved" is not a saved wound.

Further multiple special rules may effect a single model, and as such both not taking the wound and losing the save are possible by the rules. There is no "breaking of rules" by applying ES in sequence with FnP.

All the worlds a joke and the people merely punchlines
 
   
Made in gb
Tough Tyrant Guard





SHE-FI-ELD

Rig; on phone now so quotes take allot of time to sort out. A few things on last points,

The response to DR - Apologies I did not make it clear which parts I was was referencing with which sentence, the citation comment was referencing 'ES first breaks FNP' section of the reply.

I'm working on English possibilities of 'treat it as having been' I did use it within it's context earlier as a quick example, but something more might take some time.

It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.

Tactical objectives are fantastic 
   
Made in gb
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





Fareham

Megatron - I think you may need to read what you wrote.
If a save has been treated as saved, it has been saved.

Its not still an unsaved wound otherwise the model would be dead anyway.

You take a wound and fail a save. (we all agree here)

Next logical step without creating a vortex would be to use the next ability to save the wound. (you know, since FNP states that when a model takes an unsaved wound, it rolls for FNP)

I dont get how people are jumping in with ES going 1st, since you have still not finished the process of saving the wound. (its not an armour save, but it is still a save)

Even if ES goes 1st, FNP states that you treat the unsaved wound as saved, thus going back a step (or 2, depending on order) to the point when taking the initial save.

I fail to see how a model can take a negative effect after passing the save.

   
Made in gr
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




The trigger for both FNP and Es is an unsaved wound. It's exactly the same. There is no excuse why one is triggered and the other is not. So both abilities trigger at the same instant. Now they must resolve. One ability resolves immediately after the trigger the other does not. So the first ability, ES, resolves before the other, FNP. By the time FNP resolves the model has already been stripped from his armour save and the only thing that links armour saves and unsaved wounds is gone. So from now on FNP can make the save to be treated as passed but it doesn't have the permission to restore armour saves or cancel retroactively ES. So the model remains S-.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 21:32:41


 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 megatrons2nd wrote:
There is still no permission to ignore other special rules.

Treat as does not equal is. Not any more than bearing equals with. Or assumed equals is. All arguments used for other issues.


This is not true, or the rules break down in spectacular ways...

Precedent in GW FAQs show that unless it says "is" it is not. Being "treated as saved" is not a saved wound.

FNP disagrees with this, if we treat something as saved then the wound is saved, otherwise you would still reduce the model's wounds by 1...

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





copper.talos wrote:
The trigger for both FNP and Es is an unsaved wound. It's exactly the same. There is no excuse why one is triggered and the other is not. So both abilities trigger at the same instant. Now they must resolve. One ability resolves immediately after the trigger the other does not. So the first ability, ES, resolves before the other, FNP. By the time FNP resolves the model has already been stripped from his armour save and the only thing that links armour saves and unsaved wounds is gone. So from now on FNP can make the save to be treated as passed but it doesn't have the permission to restore armour saves or cancel retroactively ES. So the model remains S-.

It's like you're ignoring anyone who disagrees or something.
Oh - wait. That's exactly what you're doing because you refuse to believe your stance is incorrect.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in au
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon




Armageddon, Pry System, Armageddon Sector, Armageddon Sub-sector, Segmentum Solar.

Lemates and his little ability, thankd that's one of those fun little examples of a special from a codex that would utterly become broken by the oppositions interpretation. I'm sure there's many more, DE has a lot of fnp available to it perhaps there's another fun example in there..
   
Made in gb
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





Fareham

Im not too up to date with the new eldar dex, but feugan has an ability in which he gains attacks (and str?) from any unsaved wounds he suffers.

So, by your example, every time FNP stops a wound going through, he gains an attack and str even though he still has the wound, correct?
I may have to play eldar because a model that has the potential of 10, S10 attacks at low AP and rolls 2D6 for armour pen sounds fun!



The best way to come out with an answer is simply to throw other rules with the same triggers into this and see how it works.
Because from what i can see, allowing ES to go through means you have just broke a ton of special rules for most armies.
However, doing it the other way (armour stays intact) leaves these rules working.

And before anyone says this is RaI, this is more of a thinking method of puting a logical way of it working forward.

   
Made in gr
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




Is there a faq that says Fuegan's ability won't work that way? I don't think so. If you are going to use it as an argument, there should be one. I am sure Eldar players play Fuegan the way you think is wrong but they think they are absolutely right.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: