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.

There is no need for an FAQ that says the little pointy eared guy does not get points added to his STR and Att profile if you realize that a wound 'treated as being saved' means that you do not have an unsaved wound anymore. It is written in the past tense because it is affecting something that has happened that CAN be undone.

Think i may aswell click the ignore function for you since you seem to miss any points made to you.
"Because something does not say it wont work" is not a valid argument.
So you also think thats how feugans rules should work?
What a waste of time, good day

I just read Fuegan's rule and you "forgot" to mention that his rule activates at the end of the phase. Which of course means it is completely different from ES and therefore you cannot make any comparisons at all. And yes, you arguing without using the rule you want to give as an argument correctly is a waste of time for sure...

Hey guys, I haven't read through the 7 page thread but I say if the feel no pain roll is successful then the model never suffered an "unsaved wound" but did actually "save" the wound.

yukondal wrote:
Hey guys, I haven't read through the 7 page thread but I say if the feel no pain roll is successful then the model never suffered an "unsaved wound" but did actually "save" the wound.

Yeah, no simple following of straightforward rules today

Nem - again, the wound is now, and always was, saved. "having been" saved is literally referring to the fact it was never unsaved - if it werent, then the model would now be dead.

By treating it as saved, you cannot have ES apply - if you do, you break the FNP rule as you are ABSOLUTELY 100% treating the wound as nont saved for that purpose. Categorically so.

Copper - still ignoring the other arguments proving you wrong.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
There is no need for an FAQ that says the little pointy eared guy does not get points added to his STR and Att profile if you realize that a wound 'treated as being saved' means that you do not have an unsaved wound anymore. It is written in the past tense because it is affecting something that has happened that CAN be undone.

So what you're saying is this happens:
1. Model has Wound allocated to it
2. Model fails save
3. Entropic Strike removes armour save
4. Feel No Pain is passed
5. There is no longer an unsaved wound, retroactively denying permission and negating Entropic Strike
In that case I would argue that following that logic you then have:
5(b). There is no longer an unsaved wound, retroactively denying permission and negating Feel No Pain
6. Wound no longer counts as saved, model takes an unsaved wound.
Therefore Feel No Pain is a completely useless special rule, as it's supposed ability to go back in time and retroactively treat a wound as being saved the whole time negates its own activation requirements.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
There is no need for an FAQ that says the little pointy eared guy does not get points added to his STR and Att profile if you realize that a wound 'treated as being saved' means that you do not have an unsaved wound anymore. It is written in the past tense because it is affecting something that has happened that CAN be undone.

So what you're saying is this happens:
1. Model has Wound allocated to it
2. Model fails save
3. Entropic Strike removes armour save
4. Feel No Pain is passed
5. There is no longer an unsaved wound, retroactively denying permission and negating Entropic Strike
In that case I would argue that following that logic you then have:
5(b). There is no longer an unsaved wound, retroactively denying permission and negating Feel No Pain
6. Wound no longer counts as saved, model takes an unsaved wound.
Therefore Feel No Pain is a completely useless special rule, as it's supposed ability to go back in time and retroactively treat a wound as being saved the whole time negates its own activation requirements.

Wait ... you try to argue that fnp takes away fnp when passed and therefor the wound still counts? Sorry but thats what you'd call being desperate and it absolutely has no basis in the rules.

That makes no sense, the wound would be saved abd nothing that required an unsaved wound would trigger. Admittedly even fnp but that's the point, it would still be a saved wound. Essentially it negates its own need for use if successful, which would still result in a saved wound. This is fnps acceptable paradox, if done any other way the rules around it break down horribly as has been shown.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
There is no need for an FAQ that says the little pointy eared guy does not get points added to his STR and Att profile if you realize that a wound 'treated as being saved' means that you do not have an unsaved wound anymore. It is written in the past tense because it is affecting something that has happened that CAN be undone.

So what you're saying is this happens:
1. Model has Wound allocated to it
2. Model fails save
3. Entropic Strike removes armour save
4. Feel No Pain is passed
5. There is no longer an unsaved wound, retroactively denying permission and negating Entropic Strike
In that case I would argue that following that logic you then have:
5(b). There is no longer an unsaved wound, retroactively denying permission and negating Feel No Pain
6. Wound no longer counts as saved, model takes an unsaved wound.
Therefore Feel No Pain is a completely useless special rule, as it's supposed ability to go back in time and retroactively treat a wound as being saved the whole time negates its own activation requirements.

This is a funny argument I think you're applying a logical extension of what others are trying to say. if FNP goes back in time and negates an effect from triggering to a wound, then that does make sense that FNP would also negate its own trigger mechanism (the wound counts a saved, so FNP does not trigger), creating a paradox

 Mywik wrote:
Wait ... you try to argue that fnp takes away fnp when passed and therefor the wound still counts? Sorry but thats what you'd call being desperate and it absolutely has no basis in the rules.

Exactly my point, thank you.

Prince - FNP has permission to activate, resolving its own paradox. Already covered earlier in this thread. Nothing added that isnt already debunked as an argument.

ES still operating means you are NOT treating the wound as having been saved; no unsaved wound existed, yet you are still using effects that require an unsaved wound.

I find breaking no rules the better option.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
Wait ... you try to argue that fnp takes away fnp when passed and therefor the wound still counts? Sorry but thats what you'd call being desperate and it absolutely has no basis in the rules.

Exactly my point, thank you.

I dont think you've accomplished what you think you've accomplished. Its not even remotely the same as entropic strike being negated because the wound was never unsaved and fnp being negated because the wound was never unsaved. For FNP theres now no wound to be used on and entropic strike is never applied. Thanks for strengthening the arguments of your opposition!

I don't follow, if Entropic Strike is activated before Feel No Pian (which it seems both sides have accepted to be the case) either (a) Feel No Pain retroactively negates the unsaved wound and all effects relying on an unsaved wound or (b) Feel No Pain treats the wound as being saved from that point onwards. In the case of (a) Feel No Pain would negate the activation of Entropic Strike... and itself... in the case of (b) Entropic Strike has already activated and resolved and Feel No Pain won't affect it. So which is it? Time travelling self negation or letting it through?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I don't follow, if Entropic Strike is activated before Feel No Pian (which it seems both sides have accepted to be the case) either (a) Feel No Pain retroactively negates the unsaved wound and all effects relying on an unsaved wound or (b) Feel No Pain treats the wound as being saved from that point onwards. In the case of (a) Feel No Pain would negate the activation of Entropic Strike... and itself... in the case of (b) Entropic Strike has already activated and resolved and Feel No Pain won't affect it. So which is it? Time travelling self negation or letting it through?

If you dont count the wound as being saved after fnp was succesfully rolled you still have an unsaved wound (and broken the FNP rule btw) and fnp activates (to be broken again) and again and again. Welcome to eternity. I'll come back when eternity is over ... but be warned eternity is long - especially at the end.

Since i dont think anyone would be able to present you enough proof to alter your interpretation of the rule i think its unneeded to argument further. Everyone is able to read the thread and follow the interpretation he finds that fits. Both sides have repeated their arguments for a while and no one is convinving anyone anymore.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I don't follow, if Entropic Strike is activated before Feel No Pian (which it seems both sides have accepted to be the case) either (a) Feel No Pain retroactively negates the unsaved wound and all effects relying on an unsaved wound or (b) Feel No Pain treats the wound as being saved from that point onwards. In the case of (a) Feel No Pain would negate the activation of Entropic Strike... and itself... in the case of (b) Entropic Strike has already activated and resolved and Feel No Pain won't affect it. So which is it? Time travelling self negation or letting it through?

b) results in you breaking a rule - you are not treating it as "having been" saved, you are treating it as "saved from now on" - totally altering the rule

Passing FNP means there IS no unsaved wound, and there never WAS an unsaved wound. It is a closed loop.

Retaining the effects of ES mean you are *explicity* stating there WAS an unsaved wound, breaking the rules for FNP. Please find page and para where ES specifically overrides ES. If you cannot, you must concede the point.

But if there never was an unsaved wound to fulfil the activation requirements for Entropic Strike there never was an unsaved wound to fulfil the activation requirements for Feel No Pain. What allows you to arbitrarily decide that you can have activate one rule but not the other when they have the same activation requirements?

There was an unsaved wound, so FNP activated. It then removed that unsaved wound from existence, which is fine, because the rule tells you to do so - "having been saved" is fairly unambiguous. Closed loop, as I said.

ES has no allowance to break this rule, so it cannot do so . Page and paragrapgh allowing you to breaking the FNP rule, or concede the point

Also: I am saying you CAN activate ES; however it cannot have any effect unless FNP fails, otherwise you break the FNP rule. As you have no permission with ES to break the FNP rule, you cannto do so.

Why are you treating Entropic Strike's activation requirement as a maintenance requirement?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Why are you treating Entropic Strike's activation requirement as a maintenance requirement?

Because it can only have an effect in game if there is an unsaved wound. We know, with certainty, that there is no such unsaved wound if we pass FNP.

Why are you ignoring the FNP rule stating there is no unsaved wound? Do you have any rules, or just more questions that fail to answer the questions you have already been asked?

It's almost the bone sword argument again. I think in this case the wound is treated as saved and NOS is correct.

I will say I can see a fluffy TO and for sure a store owner going the other way however. FNP is akin to being Bruce Willis and shrugging off the wound, however the damage is still done ect ect ect.

Its also used for bionics where the wound would have been debilitating if it hit flesh abd blood but instead it a tougher bionic replacment doing minor danage. Its also used for immediate medical treatment in the case of medics.

its used for a multitude of things but the end result is the wound is saved.

 Bausk wrote:
Its also used for bionics where the wound would have been debilitating if it hit flesh abd blood but instead it a tougher bionic replacment doing minor danage. Its also used for immediate medical treatment in the case of medics.

its used for a multitude of things but the end result is the wound is saved.

Yes, from a fluff standpoint I could see the effect still happening and the model fighting onward. However RAW not as much

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nem - again, the wound is now, and always was, saved. "having been" saved is literally referring to the fact it was never unsaved - if it werent, then the model would now be dead.

By treating it as saved, you cannot have ES apply - if you do, you break the FNP rule as you are ABSOLUTELY 100% treating the wound as nont saved for that purpose. Categorically so.

Copper - still ignoring the other arguments proving you wrong.

Having - Present participle of
Been - Past participle of Be
Is - Present
Treat - Present


I dissagree, I think 'having been' (+ Past participle (saved)) is passive present participle, when coupled with 'treat it as' (use the whole sentance rather than just two verbs of it).

The object (Wound) has 2 states it is possible to be in; (Saved), (Unsaved) (Both past participle of Save).

We can throw around lots of sentances with different meaning and try and disect the hundreds of meanins for 'has/had/have/having', 'been, to be, being'

The object status, at the time of FNP is Unsaved.
The object status, at the time of completion of FNP is Saved.
The object status, at the time of completion is it has always been Saved.
But this isn't really the issue. The issue it to apply the effect in the past, 'Treat the wound as having been saved' must be synomonous with 'The wound was saved'




'Having been' without anything else itself is Past participle meaning. Its gramatically obscure to use 'having been' if it is also currently.

Past participle (was but is not)
<<<Past>>> <<<Present>>><<<Future>>>

Present Perfect Continuous (was and is).
<<<Past>>> <<<Present>>><<<Future>>>

And then theres Future Continuous (is and will be) and all storts of fun English awefulness.

So, the point of that was to show a flaw in the logic that 'Having been' must refer to when we apply the effect. If we apply using 'Having been' to stay gramatically correct the wound status changes to Saved from the first instance of 'unsaved' ('been' refering to the point in time the status came into effect) up until the point the condition is met to apply the rule (Condition of the rule being ''On a 5 +...'). This means you could go back and change the resolution, but when the condition is met the wound is no longer saved.

To treat the wound as saved in the past, and currently the application must be Present Perfect Continous statement.




You reading the rule;

Treat the wound as having been saved

To be synomnynous with 'The wound was saved'' 'the wound was never unsaved' To apply the effect retrospectivly.

And I don't read it like that,

If my object (Teapot) could be in 1 of 2 states (Full)(Empty)
Treat the teapot as having been full
Is that synomonous with The teapot was full? The teapot never was empty? -Simply no. The statement does not change what it was, only what it then is.


I don't believe those meaning to be a condition of the sentance. The action or when part of the sentance is 'Treat it as' which is Present progressive: From this point on.

It took some work to figure out. I am not saying this is the only way the sentance can be read, but it is cirtainly a common english use. I never read 'Treat as having been saved' synomounously with Was not saved/ was never saved.

Every listed instance I mentioned uses fnp. fnp treats the wound as saved... sorry I'm not understanding your disagreement RAW wise as they all use the same rule.

First, and this isn't English but the way the rules must be read, stop treating "treat as" any differently than "is".

Second, you've moved from an absolute to an opinion. I've never (that I can think of) seen it read in the way you're asserting. In your example, the teapot was not empty and, unless there's something to change its state, it still isn't. That's the issue - your reading requires a state change after the phrase.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Why are you treating Entropic Strike's activation requirement as a maintenance requirement?

Because it can only have an effect in game if there is an unsaved wound. We know, with certainty, that there is no such unsaved wound if we pass FNP.

Why are you ignoring the FNP rule stating there is no unsaved wound?

I'm not, I agree that there is no unsaved wound and from that point onwards no special rules should activate that require an unsaved wound to be suffered. However, when Entropic Strike activated there was an unsaved wound at that moment, and the only time you need an unsaved wound for Entropic Strike is to activate it, the presence of an unsaved wound past that point is irrelevant as far as Entropic Strike is concerned.

rigeld2 wrote:
First, and this isn't English but the way the rules must be read, stop treating "treat as" any differently than "is".

Second, you've moved from an absolute to an opinion. I've never (that I can think of) seen it read in the way you're asserting. In your example, the teapot was not empty and, unless there's something to change its state, it still isn't. That's the issue - your reading requires a state change after the phrase.

Im not treating 'treat' as any differently from the word 'treat' you must take the sentance in full context, without changing the words (because changing the words changes the rules, litterally changes the Rules as Written).


I used the practicle 'is' deffinition of treat - 1. behave towards or deal with in a certain way.
Using that deffinition of 'treat' does not break down other rules.

You have seen people reading the sentance as such - people who believe RAW stipulates you do not undo previous actions are reading it as such. While I am not in the majority, other people are coming to the same conclusion based on the words.

'''You treat the wound as having been saved', not '''the wound is treated as having been saved''. Both parts of that sentance produce very different effects when applied to the rules.

To go back and change things, the wound must be Treated as (Past progressing participle), not Treat as (Present continuous participle). So 'for further rule purposes' is there, its just contained within the meaning of 'Treat'.

As far as I know, 'Treat' can not be applied as a Past participle.

And yes it is an opinion of how I think the rule reads as, as opposed to your opinion of how you think the rule reads as.

The wound has been saved.

Treated as == is, becomes has
having been - just becomes been

So the wound has been saved. There is no unsaved wound at any point that we can consider. So there is no way ES can have an effect on the game, as ithere is never an unsaved wound.

Simply put: you are still breaking the FNP rule without permission to do so, and thus your argument fails.

RAW and HIWPI, I think FNP comes first, then if the wound is still unsaved, ES applies. I can't think of a reasonable RAW interpretation for any other possibilities.

However, I can't let this go:

 Nem wrote:
I used the practicle 'is' deffinition of treat - 1. behave towards or deal with in a certain way.

Please, check your spelling before giving everyone a lecture on the exact breakdown of the English language in the rule.