FNP and Entropic Strike

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.

**rigeld2**

copper.talos wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Does FNP allow you to avoid the wound or does it cause the wound to be saved?

It causes the wound to be saved after FNP is resolved.

Then stop saying FNP merely allows you to avoid the wound. That's misrepresenting the facts.
Now - explain why you're applying ES to a saved wound.

**Cryptek of Awesome**

Stormbreed wrote:
People are acting like it black and white, it obviously is not based on this thread, and the fact that DR argues his way was right before it was FAQ'd to be wrong about FW and FNP shows that we never know how GW will rule.

From a RAW, I think in this case treating the wound as being saved makes the effect not happen. However I can 100% see GW and many TO's saying otherwise, and if you look at it from a nice fluffy stand point it makes sense.

Hey - stop being so reasonable and polite! ;-)

I have to say I was very much convinced that it was one way - but after reading most all of the arguments here, I am not certain I am correct anymore. But the polite well laid-out arguments did more to convince me than all of the "cite x or concede..." nonsense that these threads turn into.

After reading both this and the "Can you DS On top of models" thread - I do find it funny that *some* of the same people point to the Mawlock FAQ answer and say it applies to all Deep Striking - but then point to the Force weapon FAQ and say, NO that only applies to Force Weapons... even though ES and FW share the same wording about timing.

**rigeld2**

It's almost like different words mean different things or something.

**Gravmyr**

rigeld2 wrote:
It's almost like different words mean different things or something.

Interesting. So what does the immediately part of a SR mean when in comparison to any SR that does not have it?

**Abandon**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

It existed. If later you pretend the wound did not exist that does not matter to ES.

Also FNP discounts the wound in addition to pretending it was saved

DeathReaper wrote:
Plus you need to roll FNP first to see if you have actually saved the wound before you can apply any other effects, because we do not want to break any rules.

Incorrect, the wound is actually unsaved pre-FNP. That is the only reason why FNP is activated at all. If successful, you at that point treat it as if it was saved but not before then.

The wound in not in an unknown state at any time.

rigeld2 wrote:
Does FNP allow you to avoid the wound or does it cause the wound to be saved?

Both.

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

That's a little better, TY. Your still not accounting for the per-FNP unsaved wound though that triggered ES at the same time as FNP.

rigeld2 wrote:

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?

There is never a time at which you do not know the state of the wound. You may not know what it's going to be or what it will have been but at any point in the present, it is clearly known.

**rigeld2**

Gravmyr wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
It's almost like different words mean different things or something.

Interesting. So what does the immediately part of a SR mean when in comparison to any SR that does not have it?

Context is important.
If I tell you to jump when I say 3 and I get to 7 before you jump, did you follow my instructions?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

That's a little better, TY. Your still not accounting for the per-FNP unsaved wound though that triggered ES at the same time as FNP.

I addressed it with the relevancy it deserves. You're breaking a rule by applying ES to a saved wound. Please cite some actual support for doing so.

**Gravmyr**

If you didn't include immediately, yes. If you did then no. There are a number of other things to ask about in that case.

**Abandon**

rigeld2 wrote:

I addressed it with the relevancy it deserves. You're breaking a rule by applying ES to a saved wound. Please cite some actual support for doing so.

An unsaved wound triggers both FNP and ES and RAW permits both to resolve. The relevant rules have been quoted many times and you've yet to cite any denial but hey, lets do the time warp again where you ignore logical conclusions of the actual rules and fabricate time travel theory while belittling the intellect of everyone who disagrees with you and disregard all sound reasoning that doesn't support your argument.

I see again you've not addressed the issue I brought forth... again... but hey, if you can't answer it, just ignore it right?

**Gravmyr**

ES is never applied to a wound it is applied to a model. It is triggered by an unsaved wound.

**rigeld2**

Gravmyr wrote:If you didn't include immediately, yes. If you did then no. There are a number of other things to ask about in that case.

Absolutely false. You did not jump when I said 3, you jumped after I said 3. Therefore you did not follow instructions.

Abandon wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

I addressed it with the relevancy it deserves. You're breaking a rule by applying ES to a saved wound. Please cite some actual support for doing so.

An unsaved wound triggers both FNP and ES and RAW permits both to resolve. The relevant rules have been quoted many times and you've yet to cite any denial but hey, lets do the time warp again where you ignore logical conclusions of the actual rules and fabricate time travel theory while belittling the intellect of everyone who disagrees with you and disregard all sound reasoning that doesn't support your argument.

I see again you've not addressed the issue I brought forth... again... but hey, if you can't answer it, just ignore it right?

Which irrelevant issue are you talking about?
And where have I belittled anyone? ES has permission to initially resolve, but loses that permission when the wounds becomes saved.
You've agreed you're applying ES to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound. You've failed to cite permission.

**Abandon**

Gravmyr wrote:
ES is never applied to a wound it is applied to a model. It is triggered by an unsaved wound.

It's an undeniable fact. Of course you know they'll say something to the effect of 'what unsaved wound?' To which, as we all know, the answer is of course the same unsaved wound that you rolled FNP for...

**Gravmyr**

Unless you include a time I most certainly did. You said 3 and I jumped. There was no specifics given as to when afterwards just that it happen afterwards. You still haven't covered as to why they included immediately with one but not the other and wording means something in some rules when they support you but not in others when it doesn't.

**rigeld2**

Abandon wrote:
Gravmyr wrote:
ES is never applied to a wound it is applied to a model. It is triggered by an unsaved wound.

It's an undeniable fact. Of course you know they'll say something to the effect of 'what unsaved wound?' To which, as we all know, the answer is of course the same unsaved wound that you rolled FNP for...

They who? I most certainly have never said (without being corrected) that ES applies to a wound. I've phrased everything (or have tried) to make it clear it applies to a model but is triggered by an unsaved wound.

Gravmyr wrote:Unless you include a time I most certainly did. You said 3 and I jumped. There was no specifics given as to when afterwards just that it happen afterwards. You still haven't covered as to why they included immediately with one but not the other and wording means something in some rules when they support you but not in others when it doesn't.

No. When X happens do Y does not mean "at some point in the future when you feel like it or after you have a banana." It means when.
They included immediately because some editor saw fit to include it. It means the same thing as "when" in this context - it's a superfluous word at best.

**Gravmyr**

If I tell you when I count to 3 immediately raise your hand and someone else tells you to jump when I say three, and you jump then raise your hand after you land did you follow instructions?

**rigeld2**

No, they're essentially simultaneous. That's fine.

It doesn't change the fact that you're applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound when there is no unsaved wound on the model.

**Gravmyr**

You may want to reread that, you completed one then performed the other which is not essentially simultaneous. It's linear. Your instructions for ES are the same, there is a trigger and an action there is not a check for status nor a continuing effect. The model suffered an unsaved wound and lost it's armor save. ES does not say as long as a model has suffered a wound it looses it's armor save, which is what you are saying if you look past an unsaved wound having been on the model.

**Abandon**

rigeld2 wrote:
No, they're essentially simultaneous. That's fine.

It doesn't change the fact that you're applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound when there is no unsaved wound on the model.

There was an unsaved wound.

**OIIIIIIO**

Abandon wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
No, they're essentially simultaneous. That's fine.

It doesn't change the fact that you're applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound when there is no unsaved wound on the model.

There was an unsaved wound.

That you discount- treat it as having been saved

**Abandon**

OIIIIIIO wrote:
Abandon wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
No, they're essentially simultaneous. That's fine.

It doesn't change the fact that you're applying an effect that requires an unsaved wound when there is no unsaved wound on the model.

There was an unsaved wound.

That you discount- treat it as having been saved

Not until after ES has been triggered.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

...ES has permission to initially resolve, but loses that permission when the wounds becomes saved...

This is a primary part of your argument for which there is no supporting text. Nothing in the BRB causes it to 'lose permission' once it is granted.

**OIIIIIIO**

Then you are not treating the wound as saved now are you. ES requires an unsaved wound to remove the armour. If you trigger that then FNP and are requiring that said armour is still removed, then you are not discounting it and treating it as having been saved. This is what we are trying to get across to you. If you do it your way the game mechanics really break down with so many other special rules.

I really could not care how you play it where you are but the group I play with have all agreed that removing the armour is not the proper interpretation, and unless it is FAQ'd otherwise, we will play it that you keep your armour.

**Gravmyr**

It comes down to you need to show somewhere, any where, that you loose permission once it is granted. The backers of applying ES only have to show they have permission to apply it. Does it state anywhere in the rules that all affects of the wound are removed? Does it say to treat the wound as it never happened? It says to treat it as saved without a time frame so it has to apply from that moment forward, which does not take away permission for things that have already triggered. It's not treated as saved until after FNP is resolved which means after ES has reasolved as there has been no evidence provided that you go back in time and change the wound nor that FNP is carried out prior to other SR's. The only evidence for one SR to be applied before another, is that a SR that has immediately in it's wording is carried out before FNP. At best that would mean that FNP and ES happen simultaneously which would mean that by the time FNP resolves so has ES and it doesn't matter at that point.

**Abandon**

OIIIIIIO wrote:
Then you are not treating the wound as saved now are you. ES requires an unsaved wound to remove the armour. If you trigger that then FNP and are requiring that said armour is still removed, then you are not discounting it and treating it as having been saved. This is what we are trying to get across to you. If you do it your way the game mechanics really break down with so many other special rules.

I really could not care how you play it where you are but the group I play with have all agreed that removing the armour is not the proper interpretation, and unless it is FAQ'd otherwise, we will play it that you keep your armour.

I am treating it as saved and unsaved at different times. It is unsaved and then you treat is as having been saved. ES does not care about the latter, only the former. Retrospectively changing the wounds status to 'was saved' does not change the fact that ES was triggered and is permitted to resolve just as FNP was.

Local group rules are respected of course and i'd be happy to play by them if I were to visit. RAW is nearly impossible to play by anyway so pretty much everyone IMO plays their own version of RAI/HYWPI. I certainly don't want to play RAW

**rigeld2**

Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

...ES has permission to initially resolve, but loses that permission when the wounds becomes saved...

This is a primary part of your argument for which there is no supporting text. Nothing in the BRB causes it to 'lose permission' once it is granted.

Is there an unsaved wound after FNP has resolved?
Does ES require an unsaved wound for it to be applied to a model?

It's been proven. You continue to ignore it, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.

**Abandon**

rigeld2 wrote:
Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

...ES has permission to initially resolve, but loses that permission when the wounds becomes saved...

This is a primary part of your argument for which there is no supporting text. Nothing in the BRB causes it to 'lose permission' once it is granted.

Is there an unsaved wound after FNP has resolved?
Does ES require an unsaved wound for it to be applied to a model?

It's been proven. You continue to ignore it, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.

"Is there an unsaved wound after FNP has resolved?"
No. However the unsaved wound did exist prior to FNP.

"Does ES require an unsaved wound for it to be applied to a model?"
Yes. Permission was granted to apply the effects of ES at the time the wound was unsaved and that permission is not contingent on the continued existence of the unsaved wound nor upon the ability to find proof that such a wound existed at one time.

Was the unsaved wound suffered by the model at any time?
Are you required to resolve ES if the model suffers the unsaved wound?

If at any time the model suffers the unsaved wound and you do not resolve ES, you have broken a rule.

**DeathReaper**

Abandon wrote:
If at any time the model suffers the unsaved wound and you do not resolve ES, you have broken a rule.

This is 100% false.

The wording on FNP tells you to treat the wound as saved.

Something you are not doing if the model no longer has an armor save because of ES...

**Abandon**

DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon wrote:
If at any time the model suffers the unsaved wound and you do not resolve ES, you have broken a rule.

This is 100% false.

The wording on FNP tells you to treat the wound as saved.

Something you are not doing if the model no longer has an armor save because of ES...

ES does not care if the wound was saved. It only cares if it is unsaved and before you roll FNP, it is indeed unsaved.

**DeathReaper**

Abandon wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon wrote:
If at any time the model suffers the unsaved wound and you do not resolve ES, you have broken a rule.

This is 100% false.

The wording on FNP tells you to treat the wound as saved.

Something you are not doing if the model no longer has an armor save because of ES...

ES does not care if the wound was saved. It only cares if it is unsaved and before you roll FNP, it is indeed unsaved.

ES can only be in effect off of an unsaved wound. we must roll FNP first to determine this because we should strive to break no rule and having a model that lost an armor save off of a wound we are treating as saved is breaking the rules.

Plain and simple.

Please answer this one question:

How are you treating the wound as saved if the model has no armor save because of ES?

**Nem**

DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon wrote:
If at any time the model suffers the unsaved wound and you do not resolve ES, you have broken a rule.

This is 100% false.

The wording on FNP tells you to treat the wound as saved.

Something you are not doing if the model no longer has an armor save because of ES...

ES does not care if the wound was saved. It only cares if it is unsaved and before you roll FNP, it is indeed unsaved.

ES can only be in effect off of an unsaved wound. we must roll FNP first to determine this because we should strive to break no rule and having a model that lost an armor save off of a wound we are treating as saved is breaking the rules.

Plain and simple.

Please answer this one question:

How are you treating the wound as saved if the model has no armor save because of ES?

Theres plently of posts on this thread already about how the unsaved wound exists, and is always there.

Even if I believed FNP creates a paradox then..

How are you rolling FNP if you’re treating the wound as saved? Why is it OK for one rule to be able to do this, but not the other? FNP creates a paradox. OK. ES exists within a paradox. Why is that NOT ok? I can't show you a rule where Paradox is disallowed. Can you show me a rule where existing in a paradox is not allowed?

Even holding this interpretation your allowing paradox's, which means you must also allow the paradox that a a model has no armor save even if the wound is saved.

It’s a complete double standard.

**Mywik**

Nem wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon wrote:
If at any time the model suffers the unsaved wound and you do not resolve ES, you have broken a rule.

This is 100% false.

The wording on FNP tells you to treat the wound as saved.

Something you are not doing if the model no longer has an armor save because of ES...

ES does not care if the wound was saved. It only cares if it is unsaved and before you roll FNP, it is indeed unsaved.

ES can only be in effect off of an unsaved wound. we must roll FNP first to determine this because we should strive to break no rule and having a model that lost an armor save off of a wound we are treating as saved is breaking the rules.

Plain and simple.

Please answer this one question:

How are you treating the wound as saved if the model has no armor save because of ES?

Theres plently of posts on this thread already about how the unsaved wound exists, and is always there.

Even if I believed FNP creates a paradox then..

How are you rolling FNP if you’re treating the wound as saved? Why is it OK for one rule to be able to do this, but not the other? FNP creates a paradox. OK. ES exists within a paradox. Why is that NOT ok? I can't show you a rule where Paradox is disallowed. Can you show me a rule where existing in a paradox is not allowed?

Even holding this interpretation your allowing paradox's, which means you must also allow the paradox that a a model has no armor save even if the wound is saved.

It’s a complete double standard.

You are simply always handwaving away that suffering an unsaved wound inevitably and indebatable involves reducing the models wound count by 1. Please show how a wound can be suffered if the model still has all wounds that it had prior to the shooting attack or which rule lets you ignore the fact that suffering a wound would involve that. Otherwise your argument about "there always being an unsaved wound" is null and void if it wasnt even for the fact that the FNP explicitly tells you to discount said wound.

Okay this argument is circular for a while now. So im out here from now

. Have fun for those that stay at the front

**Nem**

Mywik wrote:
Nem wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon wrote:
If at any time the model suffers the unsaved wound and you do not resolve ES, you have broken a rule.

This is 100% false.

The wording on FNP tells you to treat the wound as saved.

Something you are not doing if the model no longer has an armor save because of ES...

ES does not care if the wound was saved. It only cares if it is unsaved and before you roll FNP, it is indeed unsaved.

ES can only be in effect off of an unsaved wound. we must roll FNP first to determine this because we should strive to break no rule and having a model that lost an armor save off of a wound we are treating as saved is breaking the rules.

Plain and simple.

Please answer this one question:

How are you treating the wound as saved if the model has no armor save because of ES?

Theres plently of posts on this thread already about how the unsaved wound exists, and is always there.

Even if I believed FNP creates a paradox then..

How are you rolling FNP if you’re treating the wound as saved? Why is it OK for one rule to be able to do this, but not the other? FNP creates a paradox. OK. ES exists within a paradox. Why is that NOT ok? I can't show you a rule where Paradox is disallowed. Can you show me a rule where existing in a paradox is not allowed?

Even holding this interpretation your allowing paradox's, which means you must also allow the paradox that a a model has no armor save even if the wound is saved.

It’s a complete double standard.

You are simply always handwaving away that suffering an unsaved wound inevitably and indebatable involves reducing the models wound count by 1. Please show how a wound can be suffered if the model still has all wounds that it had prior to the shooting attack or which rule lets you ignore the fact that suffering a wound would involve that. Otherwise your argument about "there always being an unsaved wound" is null and void if it wasnt even for the fact that the FNP explicitly tells you to discount said wound.

Okay this argument is circular for a while now. So im out here from now . Have fun for those that stay at the front

Becuase FNP tells you you can avoid reducing the models wound count by 1. I've shown how we don't need to remove the unsaved wound for this to happen, by using other rules as examples. - All rules change something. We don't remove the items or rules which our change contradicts in any situation. Sorry if it seems like hand waving but this is very very basic rules talk, and to me it seems very weak to claim a special rule can't change something in a basic rule.

To reiterate the point of the post I've quoted with the logic;
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.

The rule tell you you can do something, even though you normally couldn't. Its the whole point of special rules. Yes the basic rules say you must remove a wound from the model, then FNP special rule tells you you don't have to. If people are insisting you must remove the wound then, that logic applied to all rules and special rules breaks the game down to the point none of them actually do anything. I don't think this can really be made clearer.

Best example below is Relentless with Jink. If you claim using ES breaks the rules of FNP, then you can also say moving to use Jink also breaks the rules of Relentless -Becuase the movement must have not existed for relentless to do anything.

Of course I've chosen a few rules as examples, I could go through every single one and say the same.

Nem wrote:
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.