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
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot





Sparta, Ohio

 Happyjew wrote:
I disagree. If Fury Unbound said immediately, then, you would be correct. Since it doesn't, you have two rules going off at the same time, and (using the old Eldar codex faq as precedent) the current player would choose the order.


It actually does say immediately. So, you would agree then?

Now, we like big books. (And we cannot lie. You other readers can’t deny, a book flops open with an itty-bitty font, and a map that’s in your face, you get—sorry! Sorry!)  
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

Except it does not say immediately upon suffering an unsaved wound.

Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia 
   
Made in us
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot





Sparta, Ohio

 Happyjew wrote:
Except it does not say immediately upon suffering an unsaved wound.


Fury Unbound: If Lemartes suffers an unsaved wound, but is not slain, his Strength and Attacks both immediately increase to 5

How can you read that any other way than this:

If he suffers an unsaved wound he immediately gets 5 str and 5 attacks if he is not removed as a casualty.

Now, we like big books. (And we cannot lie. You other readers can’t deny, a book flops open with an itty-bitty font, and a map that’s in your face, you get—sorry! Sorry!)  
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 PrinceRaven wrote:
Going back in time causes it to be dysfunctional by negating its own activation requirement, unless of course going back in time and retroactively discounting the unsaved wound wouldn't negate already resolved special rules that require an unsaved wound to activate, like Feel No Pain and Entropic Strike.

No, going back in time and changing the wound to saved does not cause it to be dysfunctional. The wound is now saved and FNP and ES fail to trigger, but since the wound is saved there's no issue.

You're under the impression that a paradox is a bad thing. There's no reason to assume so.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




Johnson City, NewYork

Arguing that ES can't continue because the trigger is gone but not applying the same logic to FNP is exactly what causes an issue with the no ES interpretation. You are stating that one thing can't happen because the trigger is gone but continuing to apply the affects of another SR even though the trigger is gone. You are applying a double standard. How can you apply one ability but not the other when the trigger is gone for both as you are stating?

ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.

You're not a Time Lord stick with linear time.
Specific Vs General 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





Gravmyr wrote:
Arguing that ES can't continue because the trigger is gone but not applying the same logic to FNP is exactly what causes an issue with the no ES interpretation. You are stating that one thing can't happen because the trigger is gone but continuing to apply the affects of another SR even though the trigger is gone. You are applying a double standard. How can you apply one ability but not the other when the trigger is gone for both as you are stating?

I'm not. FNP cannot be applied after the wound is saved.
But the wound is now saved so FNP is irrelevant.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/03 19:02:15


My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Happyjew wrote:
I disagree. If Fury Unbound said immediately, then, you would be correct. Since it doesn't, you have two rules going off at the same time, and (using the old Eldar codex faq as precedent) the current player would choose the order.

Except the " two rules going off at the same time" is not how page 9 is worded.

If to players have something to do at the same time the current player determines the order, but there is nothing to do with Fury Unbound, it just happens.

"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
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

 DeathReaper wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
I disagree. If Fury Unbound said immediately, then, you would be correct. Since it doesn't, you have two rules going off at the same time, and (using the old Eldar codex faq as precedent) the current player would choose the order.

Except the " two rules going off at the same time" is not how page 9 is worded.

If to players have something to do at the same time the current player determines the order, but there is nothing to do with Fury Unbound, it just happens.


It was due to mis-remembering this FAQ:

Q: If a model with lash whips is attacking a model with an Initiativeboosting
rule/piece of wargear (e.g. Furious Charge, an Eldar Banshee
Mask etc.), which order are the Initiatives modified? (p83)
A: As a ‘set value modifier’ the lash whip effect is applied after
all other modifiers. If the model is affected by another set value
modifier, roll off to see which is applied first at the start of each
Fight sub-phase.

Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia 
   
Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




Johnson City, NewYork

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm not. FNP cannot be applied after the wound is saved.
But the wound is now saved so FNP is irrelevant.


Which would mean that since you are carrying out the affects of one SR you should be carrying out the affects of the other. There is nothing in the wording of FNP that says go back to before all SR's are triggered or anything similar. You carried out the the rest of the SR, you can and should carry out the other. The point of contention is that you are implying that the trigger is gone for one so therefor cannot be applied which is interesting as the trigger which caused FNP is also gone so how do you have permission to apply it if there is no unsaved wound? As has been pointed out by the no ES side there is nothing that prioritizes either ability, like there is for two actions by different players on pg9. There is nothing in the wording of either ability the is reliant on the other either. Therefor they would be carried out at the same time not FNP then ES.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/03 22:24:40


ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.

You're not a Time Lord stick with linear time.
Specific Vs General 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

FNP says to treat the wound as saved (I.E. Pretend we made our save against the wound).

Ergo there is not any unsaved wound to apply other effects from...

"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
Infiltrating Broodlord





Eureka California

rigeld2 wrote:
 Abandon wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
No, it can't have ever happened. Unless, of course, you're advocating that FNP does nothing.


Why did you roll FNP? The rule says "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..."

And? FNP is irrelevant now - the wound is saved. I wonder if that's what the rules say or something...


...and you did not answer the question. Unless you are saying you believe rolling FNP is irrelevant.

rigeld2 wrote:
Because FNP says to discount the wound and that it has been saved. Actual rules ahoy!


...not until after the FNP roll is made. Until then it is indeed an unsaved wound. Actual rules. Huzzah!

And what do the FNP rules tell you to do after the roll is passed?

Except that FNP clearly is tested when there is an unsaved wound.

Correct. And?


...and so there is an unsaved wound so ES is activated. I'd have thought you could put that together.

rigeld2 wrote:

The question regarding FNP:
Can you treat 'the wound' as having been saved without treating everything else as if the wound had been saved?
Answer: Yes. The wound is all that matters to FNP and it does not permit you to change anything else.

That's laughable. How are you treating the wound as being saved if you are applying an effect that requires the wound to be unsaved?


It's like I'm treating the wound as though the wound had been saved - just like the rule says to do.
Does the rule say to teat anything else as though the wound had been saved? No. Read the rule again and note what it's telling you to treat instead of just how it is to be treated.

What you are attempting would go something like:

'treat everything as if it had been saved'
Of course that is not what you are told to do. You must -
'treat it as having been saved'
The 'it' can only refer to the wound in this context. Treating the wound as having been saved does not denote treating anything else differently.

You keep coming back to this self ending time loop as if that is what FNP tells you to do. It is not. It works completely linearly where at a certain point you must treat a certain thing (an unsaved wound) as if it was something else (a saved wound) and that is all. It does not say to treat anything else differently and so the state of everything else remains the same.

RAW is confusing enough without your time walking theories LoL

-It is not the strongest of the Tyranids that survive but the ones most adaptive to change. 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Abandon wrote:
...and so there is an unsaved wound so ES is activated. I'd have thought you could put that together.

Except FNP treats the wound as saved.

If you are activating ES, you have broken a rule.

"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
Infiltrating Broodlord





Eureka California

 DeathReaper wrote:
 Abandon wrote:
...and so there is an unsaved wound so ES is activated. I'd have thought you could put that together.

Except FNP treats the wound as saved.

If you are activating ES, you have broken a rule.


What was the state of the wound before FNP?

-It is not the strongest of the Tyranids that survive but the ones most adaptive to change. 
   
Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




Johnson City, NewYork

You would need to show that FNP would happen before ES. If they are triggered at the same time, as they are, what indicator do you have that FNP should be resolved first instead of simultaneously? If anything we have just as much proof, via the FNP / Force weapon FAQ, that the immediately actually means something and therefor FNP should be activated last.

ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.

You're not a Time Lord stick with linear time.
Specific Vs General 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Abandon wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 Abandon wrote:
...and so there is an unsaved wound so ES is activated. I'd have thought you could put that together.

Except FNP treats the wound as saved.

If you are activating ES, you have broken a rule.


What was the state of the wound before FNP?

It was a hit then a wound. a failed save makes an unsaved wound, but passing FNP Treats the wound as saved and therefore nothing can trigger off of the unsaved wound as it has been saved.

@Gravmyr, the fact that we do not know if the wound id unsaved if we have not rolled for FNP as FNP makes it a saved wound instead of an unsaved wound. FNP, if successful, treats the wound as saved, ergo no unsaved wound so nothing else can proc off of it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/04 02:26:00


"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 us
The Hive Mind





 Abandon wrote:

...and you did not answer the question. Unless you are saying you believe rolling FNP is irrelevant.

FNP was rolled because there was an unsaved wound. There is no longer an unsaved wound so you cannot roll FNP.

...and so there is an unsaved wound so ES is activated. I'd have thought you could put that together.

And after FNP there wasn't an unsaved wound so you're breaking a rule by applying ES. I'd have thought you could put that together.

It's like I'm treating the wound as though the wound had been saved - just like the rule says to do.

No, you're not. You're applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound to exist. In this case no unsaved wound exists. Therefore you are breaking a rule.

Does the rule say to teat anything else as though the wound had been saved? No. Read the rule again and note what it's telling you to treat instead of just how it is to be treated.

What you are attempting would go something like:

'treat everything as if it had been saved'
Of course that is not what you are told to do. You must -
'treat it as having been saved'
The 'it' can only refer to the wound in this context. Treating the wound as having been saved does not denote treating anything else differently.

I am treating just the wound as saved. Can you apply ES to a model that has saved the only wound allocated?

You keep coming back to this self ending time loop as if that is what FNP tells you to do. It is not. It works completely linearly where at a certain point you must treat a certain thing (an unsaved wound) as if it was something else (a saved wound) and that is all. It does not say to treat anything else differently and so the state of everything else remains the same.

RAW is confusing enough without your time walking theories LoL

Everything else cannot stay the same. If it did you would remove a single wound model even after passing FNP. If that's what you're advocating fine - you can win that argument.

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





Eureka California

rigeld2 wrote:

FNP was rolled because there was an unsaved wound. There is no longer an unsaved wound so you cannot roll FNP.


You already did roll FNP, why would you roll it again? 'Treat it as if it had been saved' does not mean go back in time. It means treat the wound now as if it had been saved previously. Set state of 'unsaved wound' to 'previously saved wound'. That does not set or reset the state of anything else nor is it going back in time.

rigeld2 wrote:

And after FNP there wasn't an unsaved wound so you're breaking a rule by applying ES. I'd have thought you could put that together.


You've already admitted there was an unsaved wound before there wasn't. You've already been told to apply ES because of that unsaved wound. At this point you need denial not to continue resolving it. ES does not care about any change in state of the wound.

rigeld2 wrote:

You're applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound to exist. In this case no unsaved wound exists. Therefore you are breaking a rule.


I'm applying it because there was an unsaved wound. You would be breaking a rule not to do so. After it is triggered ES does not require anything from a wound.

rigeld2 wrote:

Everything else cannot stay the same. If it did you would remove a single wound model even after passing FNP. If that's what you're advocating fine - you can win that argument.


Except that FNP explicitly tells you the model avoids being wounded if it passes the test and only takes it if it fails. IE, successful FNP roll, no wound is removed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/04 03:04:48


-It is not the strongest of the Tyranids that survive but the ones most adaptive to change. 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 Abandon wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

FNP was rolled because there was an unsaved wound. There is no longer an unsaved wound so you cannot roll FNP.


You already did roll FNP, why would you roll it again? 'Treat it as if it had been saved' does not mean go back in time. It means treat the wound now as if it had been saved previously. Set state of 'unsaved wound' to 'previously saved wound'. That does not set or reset the state of anything else nor is it going back in time.

So if you have a previously saved wound and no unsaved wound... Why are you applying ES?

rigeld2 wrote:

And after FNP there wasn't an unsaved wound so you're breaking a rule by applying ES. I'd have thought you could put that together.


You've already admitted there was an unsaved wound before there wasn't. You've already been told to apply ES because of that unsaved wound. At this point you need denial not to continue resolving it. ES does not care about any change in state of the wound.

So you are absolutely advocating applying ES to a model that never suffered an unsaved wound.

rigeld2 wrote:

You're applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound to exist. In this case no unsaved wound exists. Therefore you are breaking a rule.


I'm applying it because there was an unsaved wound. You would be breaking a rule not to do so. After it is triggered ES does not require anything from a wound.

No; there was no unsaved wound. There cannot have been or you'd remove a model.

rigeld2 wrote:

Everything else cannot stay the same. If it did you would remove a single wound model even after passing FNP. If that's what you're advocating fine - you can win that argument.


Except that FNP explicitly tells you the model avoids being wounded if it passes the test and only takes it if it fails. IE, successful FNP roll, no wound is removed.

That's not what FNP says. That's your incorrect interpretation, but that's not what the rule actually says.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in my
Tea-Kettle of Blood




Adelaide, South Australia

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
 PrinceRaven wrote:
The difference between Lemartes' Fury Unbound and Entropic Strike is that Fury Unbound can't activate until wound removal, by which point a passed Feel No Pain roll has already made it so that the wound counts as saved, therefore there wasn't an unsaved wound as far as Fury Unbound is concerned.

There is NO wording of wound removal ....

Fury Unbound: If Lemartes suffers an unsaved wound, but is not slain, his Strength and Attacks both immediately increase to 5.

That is the rule as written in the codex on pg. 43. It does not say that he must only have one wound remaining, only that he must not be slain, and that he suffer an unsaved wound.
As a BA player I would never say that it activates after failing a wound and passing FNP, just like I would not let him lose his armour after failing a wound and making his FNP, because you "TREAT THE WOUND AS SAVED" is how FNP is worded.

It is worded the same way as ES. If you are wanting one to go off then you MUST advocate for the other to go off.


Lemartes has taken a wound, when do you find out if he has not been slain by that wound?

 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!" 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Broodlord





Eureka California

rigeld2 wrote:

So if you have a previously saved wound and no unsaved wound... Why are you applying ES?


Before that state was set, the trigger conditions for ES were met and we are told what must happen after that.

rigeld2 wrote:

So you are absolutely advocating applying ES to a model that never suffered an unsaved wound.


By your own admission the model, at different times, has suffered the unsaved wound and has not. Which makes the above statement a misrepresentation as it is correct but incomplete even by your own expressed views.

rigeld2 wrote:

No; there was no unsaved wound. There cannot have been or you'd remove a model.


Again.

rigeld2 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

Everything else cannot stay the same. If it did you would remove a single wound model even after passing FNP. If that's what you're advocating fine - you can win that argument.


Except that FNP explicitly tells you the model avoids being wounded if it passes the test and only takes it if it fails. IE, successful FNP roll, no wound is removed.

That's not what FNP says. That's your incorrect interpretation, but that's not what the rule actually says.


"it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded ... On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved."

So it's a roll to avoid being wounded. The wound is taken as normal if you fail and discount if you succeed...
I'm curious. Which part in your opinion is inaccurate?

-It is not the strongest of the Tyranids that survive but the ones most adaptive to change. 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




If FNP is passed, there never was an unsaved wound - there cant have been, otherwise you would have removed a wound from a model.

You are absolutely breaking a rule by applying ES.

Stop bringing up FW. FW != ES, they are only even vaguely similar in they involve an unsavd wound. Given FW can deny FNP you had to have some way of knowing which comes first. Here, no matter what, FNP has to be rolled to let you know if you can apply ES or not.
   
Made in my
Tea-Kettle of Blood




Adelaide, South Australia

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If FNP is passed, there never was an unsaved wound - there cant have been, otherwise you would have removed a wound from a model.

You are absolutely breaking a rule by applying ES.


There was an unsaved wound when ES activated, why do we need one past that point?

 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!" 
   
Made in gb
Tough Tyrant Guard





SHE-FI-ELD

No reason we should have to remove the wound becuase it was unsaved. FNP tells you you don't have to remove the wound.

If I have the ability to reroll a Invun save; I roll, and then I reroll it... does

A-The first roll not exist.
B-The first roll exists, and is failed, so we have to take a wound even if the second roll is successful.
C-The first roll exists, and is failed. But we have permission to use result of the second roll.

The suggestion is the interpretation which treats as in the present means 'B' would happen, but a reroll actually works like 'C'.
In FNP, the unsaved wound happened, but we have persmission to not apply the -1 W.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/11/04 08:43:44


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

Tactical objectives are fantastic 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Nem - actually the previous roll never existed. Like reroll to hit and gets hot!. A "1" followed by a "2" would, under your interpretation of a reroll, still cause a gets hot!

The reroll erases the first roll from ever having existed. It has to, in order to function.

Here no unsaved wound ever existed, because it tells you that the unsaved was actually saved - meaning there never was an unsaved. Yes, this means FNP erases its own trigger, but thats OK, because there is no ability to roll FNP on a sved wound anyway.

What isnt OK is insisting that, for the purpose of ES, an unsaved wound ever happened - it cannot have done, otherwise we would have killed that one wound model.
   
Made in de
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon






 Nem wrote:
No reason we should have to remove the wound becuase it was unsaved. FNP tells you you don't have to remove the wound.


According to some people here FNP isnt able to retroactively change past events. If that was true ES would work. But if that was true how could feel no pain retroactively prevent the wound? Its either way ... retroactively changing everything including ES or not changing anything retroactively. Since part of suffering an unsaved wound is reducing the models wound count by 1 feel no pain has to either be able to retroactively change events that already occured (and that wound include ES) or it doesnt work at all.
   
Made in my
Tea-Kettle of Blood




Adelaide, South Australia

Nem - Feel No Pain is not a reroll, so I fail to see how your argument even approaches relevancy.

 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!" 
   
Made in gb
Tough Tyrant Guard





SHE-FI-ELD

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nem - actually the previous roll never existed. Like reroll to hit and gets hot!. A "1" followed by a "2" would, under your interpretation of a reroll, still cause a gets hot!

&
 Mywik wrote:
 Nem wrote:
No reason we should have to remove the wound becuase it was unsaved. FNP tells you you don't have to remove the wound.


According to some people here FNP isnt able to retroactively change past events. If that was true ES would work. But if that was true how could feel no pain retroactively prevent the wound? Its either way ... retroactively changing everything including ES or not changing anything retroactively. Since part of suffering an unsaved wound is reducing the models wound count by 1 feel no pain has to either be able to retroactively change events that already occured (and that wound include ES) or it doesnt work at all.


I think we have a fair difference in views there, I see having permission to use the result of '2' as 'ignoring' or using it as if it were the first result of '1' rather than removing it, this would include for the purposes of gets hot. Like - I'm not applying the results of the first roll becuase I have permission to roll again, and apply the results of the second roll (rather than the first). If the first roll didn't exist, then the second roll is not a re-roll, it is -the- roll.

I see this for all rule interactions and SR that also interact with each other, as examples;

- Skyfire doesn't stop 'hard to hit' from existing, just lets you ignore its existence (for the relevant rules purposes, the purposes are described in the SR)
- Relentless doesn't mean you didn't move, it just gives you permission to act like you didn't (for the relevant rules purposes, the purposes are described in the SR)
- Skilled rider doesn't mean the terrain doesn't exist, just they have permission not to test for it

At some point I'd get to the point 2 or 3 rules work in conjunction. Rule A imposes 1 and 2 restriction based on a event, while Rules B only gives permission to ignore part 1, but overrides restrictions 1 and 2 because the event which imposed the restrictions did not exist. What actually happens is we only override restriction 1, both rules still function without removing the event or restriction 2. One of these is Relentless and Jink. If to use relentless the movement must not have been, then any use of Jink prior is breaking the rules, becuase jink requires movement.
We can’t say for a rule, or SR to function the item or event it overrides never existed or is removed from existence. We can say we ignore it, or it didn’t exist within the boundaries of that rule only. But removing from the past or future outside what the rule allows is going to cause issues.

So how can FNP stop -1W if a unsaved wound was not removed? - The exact same way Skilled rider works without removing the terrain from the table, or the way Skyfire works without removing 'Hard to hit' from the model. They pretend the situation is different to what it is.


 PrinceRaven wrote:
Nem - Feel No Pain is not a reroll, so I fail to see how your argument even approaches relevancy.

We seem to be stuck at a point where we are basically debating how all rules work, so I thought I'd broaden the scope. Admittedly I chose re rolls specifically as a trap, if the first roll didn’t exist then it is not in fact a re-roll, which starts messing with the re rolling re roll rules. I'm sure theres better examples out there, that was just the one I thought of.

This message was edited 23 times. Last update was at 2013/11/04 12:15:24


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

Tactical objectives are fantastic 
   
Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




Johnson City, NewYork

@DeathReaper, if FNP would stop a model from suffering an unsaved wound then you would not be able to use FW before rolling for FNP. As FNP would stop the model from suffering an unsaved wound. If FNP stops all other abilities from functioning by changing the wound retroactively to saved then it would stop itself from happening as well as stopping Force Weapons from activating. As has been pointed out the wording of both Force and ES move themselves before you roll for FNP. You still have not shown any backing for a retroactive change of the statues of the wound. There is no rule that the status of a wound must be continuous either. Nem has already put fourth all the reasoning for it to be applied and the only backing anyone has put fourth against it is the belief that it should time travel.


Can you show that the change of status can stops things from activating in the past?
Can you show where FNP goes back in time instead of simply changing the status from that point forward?

I have yet to see proof that either is true.

ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.

You're not a Time Lord stick with linear time.
Specific Vs General 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





Gravmyr - prior to the FAQ you could not activate Force before FNP. Even then it's a different situation as Force causes ID.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Abandon wrote:
By your own admission the model, at different times, has suffered the unsaved wound and has not. Which makes the above statement a misrepresentation as it is correct but incomplete even by your own expressed views.

Post FNP the model has not suffered an unsaved wound. Therefore you're applying ES to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound. Completely correct statement.

Except that FNP explicitly tells you the model avoids being wounded if it passes the test and only takes it if it fails. IE, successful FNP roll, no wound is removed.

That's not what FNP says. That's your incorrect interpretation, but that's not what the rule actually says.


"it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded ... On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved."

So it's a roll to avoid being wounded. The wound is taken as normal if you fail and discount if you succeed...
I'm curious. Which part in your opinion is inaccurate?

You said that FNP explicitly says that. Your quote does not say that. That's your interpretation of what FNP says.
If you discount the unsaved wound (as you must - FNP explicitly tells you to) why are you applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound?
If the wound has been saved, why are you applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound?
As you said - it's a roll to avoid being wounded. Why are you processing an effect that requires an unsaved wound before you know if the wound is unsaved or not?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/11/04 15:51:33


My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in gr
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




rigeld2 wrote:
As you said - it's a roll to avoid being wounded. Why are you processing an effect that requires an unsaved wound before you know if the wound is unsaved or not?

Because the trigger of FNP and ES is exactly the same. If you have permission to activate FNP then you also have permission to activate ES.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you discount the unsaved wound (as you must - FNP explicitly tells you to) why are you applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound?
If the wound has been saved, why are you applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound?

Because the effects of ES have already been applied. When FNP takes effect there is no more ES in activation to deny its trigger. You only have a model with no save that just passed FNP and it avoided being wounded.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/11/04 15:52:48


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: