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.

 Nem wrote:

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.

Right and since the model did not suffer an unsaved wound, because "They pretend the situation is different to what it is" there can be no armor removal.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

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.

Right and since the model did not suffer an unsaved wound, because "They pretend the situation is different to what it is" there can be no armor removal.

It did suffer a unsaved wound, the same way that terrain is still on the table and the model does still have hard to hit, it still exists but for the purpose of applying the special rule the special rule pretends it doesnt. Like -

FNP pretends the wound is saved to apply the rule - but the unsaved wound still happened. ES doesn't care about what FNP might be pretending to apply its rules.
Relentless pretends you didn't move to apply the rule - but the move still happened. For all other rule purposes outside relentless rule the move still happened. Jink doesn't care if relentless is pretending you didn't move.

They pretend something did or did not happen, or something is or is not happening, but within the remit of its own rules. We can't apply what relentless is pretending to any other rules (jink) or yes, everything breaks. Do you consider Jink to be breaking the rules if you also have and might utilise Relentless?

Except the unsaved wound cannot happen, as the wound was saved. Yes, this means FNP cant trigger, but given that is literally part of its own rules...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except the unsaved wound cannot happen, as the wound was saved. Yes, this means FNP cant trigger, but given that is literally part of its own rules...

Not to sound rude but that part is purly based on opinion of how your reading the rule. Entered earlier my reading with all signs pointing towards you treat the wound as having been saved from the point of passing FNP, rather than treating the wound as having been saved from the point you were allocated the wound before you took the save or at the time you took the save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The post was very long and wall of text like, but the difference I see can be summerised by the differences of these 2 sentances;

Treat it as having been saved
It is treated as having been saved.

Except I read it as the wound having never been unsaved - otherwise you are not correctly treating it as having been saved.

The alternate time line Grandfather paradox that fnp creates works within the rules. As numerous effects that require an unsaved wound to work cannot be left to work without an unsaved wound, while fnp 'killing its Grandfather' the unsaved wound allows the alternate timeline to playout as if fnp and any other effects never existed.

Alternatively we can play as only the wound is discounted with a plethora of effects operating without a trigger and Lemates rocking Fury Unbound with full wounds.

So either we've all been playing fnp wrong for the last few editions or the sudden interest in breaking fnp is just so ES can make it easier to kill something with fnp.

 Bausk wrote:
The alternate time line Grandfather paradox that fnp creates works within the rules. As numerous effects that require an unsaved wound to work cannot be left to work without an unsaved wound, while fnp 'killing its Grandfather' the unsaved wound allows the alternate timeline to playout as if fnp and any other effects never existed.

Alternatively we can play as only the wound is discounted with a plethora of effects operating without a trigger and Lemates rocking Fury Unbound with full wounds.

So either we've all been playing fnp wrong for the last few editions or the sudden interest in breaking fnp is just so ES can make it easier to kill something with fnp.

'All' is unfair, poll shows a considerable amount of people do not play it the same way as yourself.

The poll is subjective. Specifically to this Edition and its unknown how many of the voters (either side) have played anything but 6th or 5th.

Honestly, did you ever play Lemates as gaining fury unbound even if he made his fnp in 5th?

 Nem wrote:
Becuase FNP tells you you can avoid reducing the models wound count by 1.

Really? Those words seem to be missing from my BRB.

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.

They aren't the same situation at all. That's not "logic" that's hand waving. There's no pretending - the wound has been saved. Period. You're pretending it hasn't.

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.

You're the one insisting that an effect that requires an unsaved wound to trigger can trigger on a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound. No, it doesn't break anything.

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.

Did you just hope no one would read the rules involved? Since it's so off topic I'm going to just point out that Relentless only applies when shooting. Since you don't make cover saves while shooting... Your example has no merit or basis in actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Because FNP tells you you can avoid reducing the models wound count by 1.

Really? Those words seem to be missing from my BRB.

FNP-...avoid being wounded.....The wound is discounted; Treat it as having been saved

...Can avoid being wounded... Present action // Past action ...Could avoid being wounded...
...The wound is discounted... Present action // Past action ... The wound was discounted
Treat it as having been saved .... Present action // Past action ... It is treated as having been saved

How can I take action now to avoid being wounded, discount and treat the wound as having been saved? By not applying -1W, since that could not have happened yet. (Or a model which only has 1 wound would have been removed as a casualty already) The unsaved wound doesn't have to be removed for FNP function.... the next sections address this.

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.

You're the one insisting that an effect that requires an unsaved wound to trigger can trigger on a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound. No, it doesn't break anything.

Not fair, misquoting; I'm insisting the effect that requires a unsaved wound to trigger can trigger on a model that has suffered a unsaved wound, just FNP doesn't change the fact the unsaved wound existed.

Which is the point of these examples; I’m being told the unsaved wound MUST be removed for FNP to do anything, and that all rules work like that. I was showing how rules don't remove the item or rule which imposes the restriction they are overcoming.

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 -Because the movement must have not existed for relentless to do anything.

Did you just hope no one would read the rules involved? Since it's so off topic I'm going to just point out that Relentless only applies when shooting. Since you don't make cover saves while shooting... Your example has no merit or basis in actual rules.

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Because FNP tells you you can avoid reducing the models wound count by 1.

Really? Those words seem to be missing from my BRB.

FNP-...avoid being wounded.....The wound is discounted; Treat it as having been saved

...Can avoid being wounded... Present action // Past action ...Could avoid being wounded...
...The wound is discounted... Present action // Past action ... The wound was discounted
Treat it as having been saved .... Present action // Past action ... It is treated as having been saved

How can I take action now to avoid being wounded, discount and treat the wound as having been saved? By not applying -1W, since that could not have happened yet. (Or a model which only has 1 wound would have been removed as a casualty already) The unsaved wound doesn't have to be removed for FNP function.... the next sections address this.

I bolded the part you continuously ignore. The wound has been saved. Therefore the unsaved wound ceases to exist - it never did, according to FNP.

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.

You're the one insisting that an effect that requires an unsaved wound to trigger can trigger on a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound. No, it doesn't break anything.

Not fair, misquoting; I'm insisting the effect that requires a unsaved wound to trigger can trigger on a model that has suffered a unsaved wound, just FNP doesn't change the fact the unsaved wound existed.

But it does - absolutely.

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 -Because the movement must have not existed for relentless to do anything.

Did you just hope no one would read the rules involved? Since it's so off topic I'm going to just point out that Relentless only applies when shooting. Since you don't make cover saves while shooting... Your example has no merit or basis in actual rules.

This was a extension of the last point that rules can function without removing the restriction from existence, as in, FNP can function in the present without removing the fact there was a unsaved wound, same way other rules can function without removing something.

You said that was your best example. It's not a valid example at all because they're scoped differently. If that's your best example you've failed to show your point.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Because FNP tells you you can avoid reducing the models wound count by 1.

Really? Those words seem to be missing from my BRB.

FNP-...avoid being wounded.....The wound is discounted; Treat it as having been saved

...Can avoid being wounded... Present action // Past action ...Could avoid being wounded...
...The wound is discounted... Present action // Past action ... The wound was discounted
Treat it as having been saved .... Present action // Past action ... It is treated as having been saved

How can I take action now to avoid being wounded, discount and treat the wound as having been saved? By not applying -1W, since that could not have happened yet. (Or a model which only has 1 wound would have been removed as a casualty already) The unsaved wound doesn't have to be removed for FNP function.... the next sections address this.

I bolded the part you continuously ignore. The wound has been saved. Therefore the unsaved wound ceases to exist - it never did, according to FNP.

I don't know if you meant to do that, but you bolded the part which is not RAW

No, I meant to bold the first third of that line. Sorry.
Doesn't change my point though.

Bausk - Can not say until I have the relevant material here.

What I can say is a quick google search on 5ed FNP, theres articles where people didn't think FNP could stop other abilities that triggered off a unsaved wound then either. Would have to go looking for any repository which has the 5th ed FAQ's in to have the full picture tho (If anyone knows of a site which makes those avaliable).

Also is and was debated from the beginning of 6th, so still, its fair to say its never always been played one way.

[edit]
If a FAQ came out tomorrow addressing FNP vs Ability also triggered on a unsaved wound (ignoring the Force one), we could then take that as a definitive indication of intent of the FNP rule reading. As we know some people think it means one thing, and some people think it means another, only one of those can be what GW designers think,(Maybe, It is possible even different designers think differently, looking at some codex’s against the rule book sometimes I think they don’t understand their own rules either) inevitably this means some people will have been playing FNP incorrectly for a long time. Mainly becuase GW doesn't do a good job of writing rules. I hear a lot about how its no MTG for sure (I don't play MTG but guess they don't get issues like this). 40k rules leave too much room for interpretation.


If it were to be in favour if FNP, I’d be bummed to read so, but would suck it up and apply it to the rules, all of them.
If it were to be in favour of the ability, then I would hope we don’t have to go through one of these threads for all the abilities trigged on an unsaved wound, because GW isn’t going to FAQ all of them.


I understand about the majority has to apply its own weight. I don't usually like going against the majority. But on this im 100% sure of how I read it and what that means for the rules. I do understand where the oposing side is coming from, I just disagree with the interpretation.

FYI there were no 5th edition FAQs involving FNP.

rigeld2 wrote:
FYI there were no 5th edition FAQs involving FNP.

Ok thanks, thought I must have missed something

If they faq'd ES or a similar ability they tend to elaborate and say that it applied to all similar or similar worded (immediately) abilities. They tend to say when something is applicable for all when it is.

 Bausk wrote:
If they faq'd ES or a similar ability they tend to elaborate and say that it applied to all similar or similar worded (immediately) abilities. They tend to say when something is applicable for all when it is.

Mmm in some cases certainly, I had a long standing argument with my friends a while back about infiltrators being able to charge if you go second. I pointed them to the correct pages on the rules, and the faq. They blanket refused to use the faq because 'its about scouts not infiltrators'. With games coming up and myself wanting to use genestealers I wanted to push the issue, but my 'rules lawyering' was ignored. Eventually one friend asked his other meta, and it was resolved. I think the point of that story is sometimes we're left to fill in the blanks, and that's pants.

And let us not forget the horrible issue with JotWW and Necrons. Even when St Celestine got a faq that her ability was not cancelled by JotWW, most rules lawyers in this forum made posts equivalent to screaming at the top of their lungs that that faq was only for St Celestine and although Necrons RP rule was almost identical, that faq should not be used as a precedent. And of course when JotWW was faqed to not affect the RP of Necrons, the same rules lawyers made posts equivalent to crying their eyes out because "GW has changed the rules".

And they same people that argued endlessly that "removed from play is not the same as removed as a casualty" and "the St Celestine faq should not be used as a precedent for Necrons" are arguing in this thread that "FNP goes back in time and makes the wound saved before FNP activates" and "the force weapon faq should not be used as a precedent for ES". And I am sure when the faq comes they'll start crying again about GW and not admit their own mistake...

copper.talos wrote:
And let us not forget the horrible issue with JotWW and Necrons. Even when St Celestine got a faq that her ability was not cancelled by JotWW, most rules lawyers in this forum made posts equivalent to screaming at the top of their lungs that that faq was only for St Celestine and although Necrons RP rule was almost identical, that faq should not be applied to them. And of course when JotWW was faqed to not affect the RP of Necrons, the same rules lawyers made posts equivalent to crying their eyes out because "GW has changed the rules".

And they same people that argued endlessly that "removed from play is not the same as removed as a casualty" and "the St Celestine faq should not be used as a precedent for Necrons" are arguing in this thread that "FNP goes back in time and makes the wound saved before FNP activates" and "the force weapon faq should not be used as a precedent for ES". And I am sure when the faq comes they'll start crying again about GW and not admit their own mistake...

Sure, why not. Let's use every FAQ as a precedent. Guess I no longer have to worry about ICs in Drop Pods thanks to the Tyranid FAQ.

A rudimentary knowledge of how rules work in 40k is sufficient to discern which situations are almost identical and can be used as a precedent and which are not.

copper.talos wrote:
A rudimentary knowledge of how rules work in 40k is sufficient to discern which situations are almost identical and can be used as a precedent and which are not.

And an IC in a drop pod is almost identical to an IC in a Mycetic Spore.

The Mycetic Spore's transport spore rule makes it very different from the drop pod, which means the mycetic spore's faq cannot be used for drop pods. Do you have another test? I am about to go to sleep.

copper.talos wrote:
Yeah, but the Mycetic Spore's transport spore rule makes it very different from the drop pod, which means the mycetic spore's faq cannot be used for drop pods. Do you have another test? I am about to go to sleep.

How? The Transport Spore special rule gives it permission to carry a unit. While attached to a unit an IC is a normal member of the unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:
The Mycetic Spore's transport spore rule makes it very different from the drop pod, which means the mycetic spore's faq cannot be used for drop pods. Do you have another test? I am about to go to sleep.

And Miraculous Intervention is very different from RP/EL.

I love how I'm being accused of double standards by someone applying double standards.

I am sure you can read the transport spore rule and see the differences. But this is the details, the bottom line is that all IC's have explicit permission to ride transports along with their units they are attached to. The Spore faq then is to be applied as an exception to this explicit permission. I think yakface made a very good article about this.


And to get back to the thread, in the case of FNP and ES, we don't have an explicit permission for FNP to make the wound saved before all other abilities with the force weapon faq making an exception. We have 2 almost identical situations that at one point in time 1 of them got a faq.

copper.talos wrote:
I am sure you can read the transport spore rule and see the differences. But this is the details, the bottom line is that all IC's have explicit permission to ride transports along with their units they are attached to. The Spore faq then is to be applied as an exception to this explicit permission. I think yakface made a very good article about this.

So it's almost like some FAQs can be applied at all times and some can't.
Wow. Exactly what was said.

And to get back to the thread, in the case of FNP and ES, we don't have an explicit permission for FNP to make the wound saved before all other abilities with the force weapon faq making an exception. We have 2 almost identical situations that at one point in time 1 of them got a faq.

Do you understand the difference between an ability that causes ID and one that doesn't?

Do you understand the concept of explicit permission? FNP does not have one that allows it to be applied before other rules. ICs have explicit permission to ride transports with units. These are very diferrent cases and you can't use one to argue for another.

And do you understand that the Force Weapon rule is not equal to ID? If it was the case then it would not need a faq, nor would you and other people argued back then that FNP applies before it. You apply the force weapon rule before FNP and you can easily have wounds without ID.

The Force rule can cause ID, so comparing it to ES is disingenuous.

The Force rule has the same activation requirements as ES, so comparing them in the context of "when does Entropic Strike activate" is entirely ingenuous.