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.

Coppers point is when you take RAW for Force and FNP coupled with the FAQ between them it refutes 3 major points brought up here (Note: You must read force to get to this point rather than just thinking of it as ID, Force Weapon activation and ID are not the same);

-We don't know if we have a unsaved wound until FNP is tested.
-'Immediately on an unsaved wound' and 'on a unsaved wound' mean the same thing.
-The resolution of FNP can negate effects which happened before it was tested.

What’s important to people putting weight into the Force FAQ is that all of the above are never explicitly stated in the FNP rules. They are assumptions to how to rule must work based on the language used in FNP, and the resulting effects of FNP.

Now, the counter to this is that GW designers intended Force Weapon activation to be able to by-pass FNP in the same way as normal 'ID' (Though normal ID and Force Weapon do not work the same way). That is a logical step, and could very well be true.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
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.

Does ES ignore FNP? If not they are not the same and the FAQ doesnt apply.

 Nem wrote:
Coppers point is when you take RAW for Force and FNP coupled with the FAQ between them it refutes 3 major points brought up here (Note: You must read force to get to this point rather than just thinking of it as ID, Force Weapon activation and ID are not the same);

Except the FaQ can not apply as the powers are not similar.

One can cause ID, the other will never cause ID (As it is currently written).

Therefore Including the FaQ into an argument does nothing as the FaQ just does not apply.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
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.

Really? You have to pass a psychic test for ES to work?

They're not comparable. If ES and FNP both trigger, FNP stops ES but not vice versa. Force and FNP stop each other from functioning and therefore needed an FAQ and is a different situation.

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
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.

Really? You have to pass a psychic test for ES to work?

They're not comparable. If ES and FNP both trigger, FNP stops ES but not vice versa. Force and FNP stop each other from functioning and therefore needed an FAQ and is a different situation.

A. The psychic test is not an activation requirement, it is part of resolving the force special rule, just like rolling the die for Feel No Pain

B. I agree that an FAQ was more needed for Force vs FNP than one for ES vs. FNP is, I do not agree that the urgency at which the FAQ was required is relevant to this discussion.

Pre-FAQ Force and Entropic Strike activated simultaneously, post-FAQ they still activate simultaneously, as no rules were changed, merely clarified.

And post FNP resolution ES being applied is illegal. You've literally broken a rule. Why are you breaking a rule without allowance?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Coppers point is when you take RAW for Force and FNP coupled with the FAQ between them it refutes 3 major points brought up here (Note: You must read force to get to this point rather than just thinking of it as ID, Force Weapon activation and ID are not the same);

Except the FaQ can not apply as the powers are not similar.

One can cause ID, the other will never cause ID (As it is currently written).

Therefore Including the FaQ into an argument does nothing as the FaQ just does not apply.

Indeed, I mentioned so in the last 2 sentences of that post what the counter argument is. Of course, I have a sneaky advantage of remembering how yourself, and other pro FNP debaters interpreted and argued the Force Weapon rule pre FAQ- The fact that Force might cause ID doesn't matter (because of the assumptions I listed).

[edit-]


The 'Why' of the FAQ must be one of the following;
- The assumptions (listed) to how FNP works are incorrect.
- They changed the rules - GW Intended Force to work like any other ID ('we' don't believe that it was ID = Force Weapon in its interaction with FNP RAW)

The first 'why' of the above directly impacts ES, and all abilties which trigger on a failed save, or unsaved wound.

Yes ES is different to Force, but Force is different to ID. The assumptions being used to say ES can not take effect are the exact same ones which were being used to say FNP will always negate Force weapon. All of these are 100% in relation to the FNP rules, and 0% about ID, Force, or ES. No, the FAQ is about Force, not about ES, but when we consider the why one of those can very much apply to this debate.

rigeld2 wrote:
And post FNP resolution ES being applied is illegal. You've literally broken a rule. Why are you breaking a rule without allowance?

Post-FNP activation of ES is breaking a rule, an unsaved wound is only required for activation, not application. You know what is breaking a rule without allowance? Going back in time to negate the activation of Entropic Strike.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And post FNP resolution ES being applied is illegal. You've literally broken a rule. Why are you breaking a rule without allowance?

Post-FNP activation of ES is breaking a rule, an unsaved wound is only required for activation, not application. You know what is breaking a rule without allowance? Going back in time to negate the activation of Entropic Strike.

Actually FNP explicitly "goes back in time" and changes the wound.
So you're advocating applying an ability that requires an unsaved wound for activation when there is no unsaved wound?

I'm advocating activating an ability that requires an unsaved wound when there is an unsaved wound, and not arbitrarily checking the status of said wound after the ability is already resolved.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm advocating activating an ability that requires an unsaved wound when there is an unsaved wound, and not arbitrarily checking the status of said wound after the ability is already resolved.

Why is it resolving before FNP? And there never was an unsaved wound - we know that because FNP says that it had been saved.

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm advocating activating an ability that requires an unsaved wound when there is an unsaved wound, and not arbitrarily checking the status of said wound after the ability is already resolved.

Why is it resolving before FNP? And there never was an unsaved wound - we know that because FNP says that it had been saved.

Because the 40k ruleset works chronologically, things resolve in the order they're activated. Actually we do know there was an unsaved wound at one point, because we activated Feel No Pain; not that it matters, as Entropic Strike does not rely on the presence of an unsaved wound to maintain its effect.

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm advocating activating an ability that requires an unsaved wound when there is an unsaved wound, and not arbitrarily checking the status of said wound after the ability is already resolved.

Why is it resolving before FNP? And there never was an unsaved wound - we know that because FNP says that it had been saved.

How can you treat what was never there ?

GW will probably rule in favour of fluff on this one, if they even address it.

I always argue FAQs are not blanket rules, so I don't think FW proves it one way or the other, however I agree with some people using it as a pillar for their discussion. Just bare in mind FAQs have been in the past ruled differently for the same rules on different models

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Because the 40k ruleset works chronologically, things resolve in the order they're activated.

At best they're simultaneous. I'd argue that FNP must be resolved first (I have in fact - in this thread)

Actually we do know there was an unsaved wound at one point, because we activated Feel No Pain; not that it matters, as Entropic Strike does not rely on the presence of an unsaved wound to maintain its effect.

The resolution of FNP changes that to a saved wound, so after it resolves there never was an unsaved wound.
And again, to clarify, you're advocating applying Entropic Strike's effect to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound. Is that correct?

Nearly correct, I'm advocating applying a wound to a model that suffers an unsaved wound and ignoring what happens to that unsaved wound afterwards.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Nearly correct, I'm advocating applying a wound to a model that suffers an unsaved wound and ignoring what happens to that unsaved wound afterwards.

So you're paying attention to the unsaved wound (that ceases to exist) despite being told to discount it and that it has been saved?

I was not told this when I activated Entropic Strike.

Which is, of course, irrelevant. Rules change things.

It is entirely relevant that Entropic Strike has already been activated, as Feel No Pain removes the activation requirement, not the activation.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
It is entirely relevant that Entropic Strike has already been activated, as Feel No Pain removes the activation requirement, not the activation.

If you have no permission to activate (because it's been removed) why are you still applying the effect?

Because Entropic Strike doesn't state "While a model has an unsaved wound caused by a model with this special rule its armour save is removed" or something to that effect that would indicate the continuation of the activation requirement is necessary to have Entropic Strike apply.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Because Entropic Strike doesn't state "While a model has an unsaved wound caused by a model with this special rule its armour save is removed" or something to that effect that would indicate the continuation of the activation requirement is necessary to have Entropic Strike apply.

So the ability cannot have been activated (because there was no unsaved wound) and yet you're applying the effect. That's interesting.

This is the scenario:
A librarian with a force weapon attacks an enemy model with FNP and manages to cause 1 wound. Faq says that force weapon rule resolves before FNP and the librarian rolls . The librarian then loses 1 wound because of perils of the warp. Then the model rolls successfully FNP.

All of you that argue that FNP goes back in time to make the unsaved wounds count as saved, thus denying the trigger of abillities such as ES, that would also mean that in this scenario you also deny the trigger for the force weapon rule. Which leads to the librarian never having perils so he must regain its lost wound. If the librarian died from perils he must be resurrected and regain 1 wound.

Is it logical when an enemy succesfully rolls FNP to help the librarian regain wounds or even bring him back from the dead? Of course not! So it is wrong for FNP to go back in time to make wounds counts as saved. FNP makes wounds count as saved only after it resolves which means abilities like ES have already applied their effect.

copper.talos wrote:
This is the scenario:
A librarian with a force weapon attacks an enemy model with FNP and manages to cause 1 wound. Faq says that force weapon rule resolves before FNP and the librarian rolls . The librarian then loses 1 wound because of perils of the warp. Then the model rolls successfully FNP.

All of you that argue that FNP goes back in time to make the unsaved wounds count as saved, thus denying the trigger of abillities such as ES, that would also mean that in this scenario you also deny the trigger for the force weapon rule. Which leads to the librarian never having perils so he must regain its lost wound. If the librarian died from perils he must be resurrected and regain 1 wound.

Is it logical when an enemy succesfully rolls FNP to help the librarian regain wounds or even bring him back from the dead? Of course not! So it is wrong for FNP to go back in time to make wounds counts as saved. FNP makes wounds count as saved only after it resolves which means abilities like ES have already applied their effect.

Why are you trying to bring logic into a 40k rules discussion?

So you claim in the above scenario that the enemy's model FNP roll should help the librarian regain wounds and even come back from the dead?

copper.talos wrote:
So you claim in the above scenario that the enemy's model FNP roll should help the librarian regain wounds and even come back from the dead?

Yes. Since the trigger never happened and all.

If you think so, would you mind actually posting something like "a model's FNP roll can help its enemy regain lost wounds and even bring it back from the dead"? I want to use it as a signature.

Yeah, allowing you to quote me out of context is really a great idea. Please try not to mock other people for no reason.

Why am I out of context or mocking you? Do you or do you not genuinely believe that one model's FNP roll potentially can make an enemy model regain a wound?

Quoting me without the entire thread for context would be inappropriate and your intent is obvious.
Reported. It'd be good for you to politely discuss actual rules.