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.

Reported? Because I am out of context? This can easily be fixed. How about this:

A successful FNP roll made by a model that suffers an unsaved wound by a force weapon, can help the enemy psyker by regaining a wound that was lost due to perils of the warp when activating that force weapon.

This should not be ridiculous at all and not to be mocked.

Because I'm discussing actual rules. You can go ahead and quote this one:

Models without actual eyes cannot draw Line of Sight.

And it would be exactly as relevant. What you're trying to do is take a sentence and put it in your sig without the corresponding rest of the thread and make it appear that I'm an idiot. Out of context that sentence is unreasonable. In context - IE, in a rules discussion, it's a perfectly reasonable stance.

Regardless - because all you're doing is trying to get something to insult me and not actually participating in a rules discussion, you're on ignore now.

Copper, took me a couple of re reads to understand that scenario, but I think your scenario is:
-A unit with a librarian rolls hits and wounds on let's say a unit of orks
-librarian rolls force and gets a double 6 and suffers perils
-Ork rolls Fnp and passes.
-librarian is resurrected as a result of the ork passing Fnp




Yeah that's a good pick up of an oddity

Oddities don't disprove rules however. I don't think that's intended at all, but it's how the rules currently work.

OK... I didn't think you'd actually take seriously me asking you for a quote. I hereby formally retract my request for your quote.

Anyway I think I proved my point already that if you treat FNP to be able to go back in time it leads to absurd results such as one model's FNP roll helping an enemy model regain wounds or get resurrected.


@Nem you got the scenario 100% right. And getting FNP to work in favour of enemy models makes it more than an oddity. It's "reductio ad absurdum" which proves that FNP cannot go back in time to make the wound saved but it can only make the wound saved after it is resolved.

Also the case of Epidimius rule, where your told to count all unsaved wounds, even those that are 'negated' by rules such as FNP, this rule believes that unsaved wound is not removed from existence. Of course, it needs to poke at FNP specifically as the tally count is continuous check after the time if FNP, if it did not you would have to remove the count from the tally.
page52 Codex Chaos Deamons

And it explicitly calls out to count the ones negated by FNP.
Almost like an exception....

How could it possibly apply its effects (which happen AFTER FNP) if it did not? I agree that once Fnp is resolved for all rule purposes after it is a saved wound. It defiantly would need an exception to be able to use the unsaved wound if it's being treated as saved at the time the model makes its counts

Avoid being wounded... Treat is as having been saved... Discounted.... Negated.... All of these are used to describe the effects, and one thing they have in common is non of them mean never existed

 Nem wrote:
How could it possibly apply its effects (which happen AFTER FNP) if it did not? I agree that once Fnp is resolved for all rule purposes after it is a saved wound. It defiantly would need an exception to be able to use the unsaved wound if it's now being treated as saved

Avoid being wounded... Treat is as having been saved... Discounted.... Negated.... All of these are used to describe the effects, and one thing they have in common is non of them mean never existed

(Emphasis mine)
The underlined does. Since we treat it as saved there can not possible be an unsaved wound.

When was it to be treated as saved from?

 Nem wrote:
How could it possibly apply its effects (which happen AFTER FNP) if it did not? I agree that once Fnp is resolved for all rule purposes after it is a saved wound. It defiantly would need an exception to be able to use the unsaved wound if it's being treated as saved at the time the model makes its counts

My point was that you can draw no conclusions from that rule because it has a specific exemption.

Avoid being wounded... Treat is as having been saved... Discounted.... Negated.... All of these are used to describe the effects, and one thing they have in common is non of them mean never existed

They really do...

Gravmyr wrote:
When was it to be treated as saved from?

Once FNP is successful, At all times it needs to be treated just as if it was saved.

Then how did you make a FNP roll?
Why are you resolving FNP before resolving the rest of the SR's?

There is nothing in the wording that indicates that the change in status from unsaved to saved goes back in time nor starts from any point then at the point that you made the FNP roll.

Why can it not be a linear?
Hit.
Wound.
Fail Save.
Activate Special Rules.
Resolve Special Rules.
Remove Model.

Can anyone in favor of no ES tell me why Force is taken before FNP?

If FAQs simply clarify the rules, per GW, then we have to look at the difference in the wording of the two rules. The only difference in the wording is the inclusion of immediately in Force. That being the case, then all rules with immediately should be resolved before those without it.

Gravmyr wrote:
Then how did you make a FNP roll?

Does not matter the wound was saved.

Why are you resolving FNP before resolving the rest of the SR's?

It does not matter if we resolve FNP First or last, once you succed FNP you have to treat the wound as saved. If anything that triggers off of an unsaved wound is in effect, you have broken a rule. Ergo it is only logical to roll FNP first.

There is nothing in the wording that indicates that the change in status from unsaved to saved goes back in time nor starts from any point then at the point that you made the FNP roll.

You must not have read the part in FNP that tells you to treat the wound as saved.

What happens when a model is wounded and makes his save does ES trigger then? No? then why are you trying to trigger it on a wound we are treating as saved?

Why can it not be a linear?
Hit.
Wound.
Fail Save.
Activate Special Rules.
Resolve Special Rules.
Remove Model.

That is all well and good, you can do it that way.

However if we treat the wound as saved it looks like this:
Hit.
Wound.
make Save.
Nothing else can be in effect because we are treating the wound as saved...

Can anyone in favor of no ES tell me why Force is taken before FNP?

Simple, the FaQ tells us this is the way it works for dealing with the Force USR.

If FAQs simply clarify the rules, per GW, then we have to look at the difference in the wording of the two rules. The only difference in the wording is the inclusion of immediately in Force. That being the case, then all rules with immediately should be resolved before those without it.

Not always, sometimes FAQ's change rules (Like in the case of the Force USR).

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

You're claiming I can't activate something even though it is already activated. That's interesting.

So, how would you recommend we resolve this?
1. Model takes unsaved wound
2. Consult an oracle to divine the outcome of Feel No Pain
3. Either activate or negate the activation of Entropic Strike based on the result of step 2
4. Roll for Feel No Pain
OR
1. Model takes unsaved wound
2. Activate Entropic Strike
3. Roll for Feel No Pain
4. If FNP is successful, build time machine
5. Go back in time to stop activation of Entropic Strike

Instead of "build time machine " it should say Treat the wound as saved.

This way, on a saved wound, ES can not take effect.

Or you could just roll FNP first instead of " Consult an oracle to divine the outcome of Feel No Pain "

Simple and you do not break any rules that way.

Treat is still not treated ( the past tense of treat). You treat it, it is not treated. As saved.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Instead of "build time machine " it should say Treat the wound as saved.

I agree.

This way, on a saved wound, ES can not take effect.

I disagree, for numerous reasons that have already been explained in detail in this thread.

Or you could just roll FNP first instead of " Consult an oracle to divine the outcome of Feel No Pain

Simple and you do not break any rules that way.

Apart from not having permission to resolve rules in whatever order you feel like instead of chronological order.

 Nem wrote:
Treat is still not treated ( the past tense of treat). You treat it, it is not treated. As saved.

? "treat it as having been saved" The wound is not being saved, it has been saved. That's past tense. For it is clear. You retroactively alter the game-state on a successful FNP role.

Let’s recap.

Claiming that FNP goes back in time and can potentionally undo other rules is a big claim. The game works in sequential application of rule, or effects of rule. No other special rule does what you claim FNP does, you may be given permission to do something as if you had not, but I have gone through every single special rule in the Rule book, and what Codex's I have and none even comes close to being able to do what your claiming FNP does. It would be a one of a kind. If anyone has a special rule which removes events, items or other from the past, which causes other resulting effects to be undone from time please put it forward. It falls very much outside convention of how all rules work. (Reference, all rules, special rules, events, occurrences, abilities, wargear and psychic powers Nem knows of). All normal circumstances it’s a ‘what’s done is done’ if you will.

The order rules applied does have an effect on the outcome – Mind Shackle Scarabs and Refusing Challenges, Force and FNP etc. So, If ES happens before FNP, then to be able to say ‘Breaking the rules of FNP’ it means FNP effect must be applied to either the time the roll to save was made, it goes back to the time of a failed save. When rules impose a restriction, we don’t normally look at what has happened before re play that part of the game based on those restrictions. (Orders and sequences are on page 9).

Now to the actual claim that the effects of FNP are applied from the moment you fail your save, resulting in the unsaved wound never existing.
...Can avoid being wounded... Present application// Past application ...Could (have) avoided being wounded...
...The wound is discounted... Present application// Past application ... The wound was discounted
Treat it as having been saved.... Present application // Past application ... It is treated as having been saved

No one has tried to claim that the 2 listed structures for each of those sentences mean the same thing - although only the past application sentences are applying the effect of FNP to the past. Each of the present application sentences are applying the effect currently (and beyond, as far as the rules are concerned ‘What’s done is done’). By weird coincidence, this is how we said all special rules work, by applying their exceptions to basic rules without removing the basic rule from existence and causing re plays.

Now, as none of those sentences tell you to apply the effects to an event which happened in the past (Requires the Past application sentence and words), I’m saying you have no evidence on which to claim FNP applies its effects to what has already been. The closest we have got is ‘having been’ which when used in the full sentence still isn’t telling you to apply it to the past. For such an important exception to the way all rules work to contain no actual permission to re write gaming history, I do not see why it is so hard to believe FNP simply works the same way every other special rule does. Why is it so hard to believe FNP simply gives permission to not be wounded from the unsaved wound? Applying all Present applications of FNP is exactly what it does, the wound is discounted (you don’t have to take that wound off your stat line) Treat is as having been saved (You know, like, when you take one off your stat line, when you have a unsaved wound? Well treat is as having been saved – don’t take it off, with an extra bonus of not counting towards combat results, yay).

Really-
-Nothing broken.
-All Special rules are allowed to resolve. (Except in those cases rules have explicit permission to stop another rule (ID))
-Keeps to the format of all other special rules.
-Doesn’t make FNP useless (Avoiding being wounded on a 5+ is not bad at all)
-Doesn’t resurrect your opponents (Rig, you said you didn’t think it was intended, but maybe it’s that they didn’t intend FNP to go back in time and cause that?)
-Utilizing all RAW and nothing but the RAW to come to the conclusion.


Now if anyone can show me which part tells you to go back in time (Past tense sentance needed)....



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Treat is still not treated ( the past tense of treat). You treat it, it is not treated. As saved.

? "treat it as having been saved" The wound is not being saved, it has been saved. That's past tense. For it is clear. You retroactively alter the game-state on a successful FNP role.

Use the tense of the whole sentace. Step back, stop concentrating on the words having been, use the whole sentance.
If you tell me that the Past and Present sentance for Having been saved (above) mean the same thing. Then i'll look again.

having been does not = has been.

I can treat the sky as having been blue
It does not mean yesterday I treated the sky as having been blue.

The treat and treated make the difference to when I am treating the sky as having been blue from which is the issue at hand, when am I treating the wound as having been saved from?. The first sentance I am treating the sky as having been blue now, the second sentance I am treating the sky as having been blue from a point in the past.

The English language allows me to use past tense words in a structure with a present tense. The point here is when are we treating the wound as having been saved. 'Having been' does nothing to tell you when you should be treating it from.

As a counter point the change from 4+ to 5+ may account for the scope of fnps, "time altering", effect.

Granted it's speculation on my part.

I was under the impression FNP was easier to obtain (or more commonly found) since the changes, as in, in earlier editions it was pretty rare, as it became easier to obtain, the effects were lessened.

DeathReaper wrote:
Not always, sometimes FAQ's change rules (Like in the case of the Force USR).

A FAQ would most likely side with ES still effecting the model, as fluff matters to GW. Fluff also matters RAW based on some FAQs, but that's even harder to anticipate.

However, for those that argue for ES , do you also count Doom as still gaining wounds if FNP makes them count as saved ? I never have, but wonder if that leads us down any other paths?

It does matter as ES has already been triggered. That is the part you are skipping. You are choosing, based off the desire that FNP stop everything as far as I can tell, to activate and resolve FNP first with no rule backing.

If it doesn't matter when FNP is triggered then it also wouldn't matter when Force was activated except we are being told that it does. It is not logical to roll FNP when we have already been told that other abilities activate first which means there are clearly things that are activated at the same time and resolved first.

Again ES wound have been triggered when the wound was unsaved. The only way you end up with ES activating off a saved wound is if you decide to use a blanket statement that FNP goes back in time instead of becoming saved from the roll of FNP forward.

Still not right on the order unless you can back that FNP goes back to change the roll instead of changing the status from the point of the FNP roll.

The wording of neither FNP nor Force wasa changed. They clarified that Force happens first, to wit we have to look at the wording of the rules and see the differences. The only difference is the use of immediately therefor it must be what makes the difference in this case. If it makes a difference in one rule ignoring it in others is willfully ignoring the rules. If we follow the directions set by GW, ES along with all other rules including immediately, are resolved before the roll for FNP happens. It really doesn't matter at that point the results of the FNP roll as the SR's have already completed.

Going back in time like you are advocating would in theory allow me to go back during a combat and negate wounds dealt via (SW) Selective Preferred Enemy if it was used against a model that has changed type due to say Demons morphing into Demon Princes..... I doubt that they want time travel in the game as has been pointed out can cause a number of different problems with rules. It's not just people wanting ES to function "better" it people wanting to follow the rules as set fourth and not having to track the whole game like it was chess to make sure all the changes made can be changed back in the future.

What does it break to change the status at the point of the FNP roll instead of time traveling?

Before you say applying a SR to a wound that has been saved, I would like to point out that it was never activated nor applied to a model that had a saved wound it would be unsaved the entire time till FNP would be resolved.

Stormbreed wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Not always, sometimes FAQ's change rules (Like in the case of the Force USR).

A FAQ would most likely side with ES still effecting the model, as fluff matters to GW. Fluff also matters RAW based on some FAQs, but that's even harder to anticipate.

However, for those that argue for ES , do you also count Doom as still gaining wounds if FNP makes them count as saved ? I never have, but wonder if that leads us down any other paths?

I would argue that it does according to RAW, but I've never actually played it that way because it doesn't fit the fluff at all, and if GW actually bothered to FAQ it they'd side with the fluff. Besides, I get enough trouble explaining to my opponent why they can't take directional cover saves against Spirit Leech.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Besides, I get enough trouble explaining to my opponent why they can't take directional cover saves against Spirit Leech.

Off topic, but why not? Do you have a rules reason?

I think, after 16 pages, it is pretty clear:
If you use the terminology of 'treat as having been' to mean 'from the moment of the original save test' you end up with rules that function strangely.
If you use the terminology of 'treat as having been' to mean 'from this point forward' you end up with completely different rules that function strangely.

No matter what interpretation you take something is going to go wonky at some point. That is a very good indicator that the rule, as it currently is written, is broken. There needs to be a wide spread errata to the rule itself, explaining at what point in the time line do you treat the wound as being saved, at the very least. Any rule designed to work outside of this explanation would also need to be errata to include a line giving it permission to be applied even in cases where Feel No Pain is successful. Only then would we be able to know exactly which rules where meant to come before Feel No Pain and which are meant to come after.

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Besides, I get enough trouble explaining to my opponent why they can't take directional cover saves against Spirit Leech.

Off topic, but why not? Do you have a rules reason?

Basically because you can only get directional cover from shooting attacks, and Spirit Leech isn't a shooting attack.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Besides, I get enough trouble explaining to my opponent why they can't take directional cover saves against Spirit Leech.

Off topic, but why not? Do you have a rules reason?

Basically because you can only get directional cover from shooting attacks, and Spirit Leech isn't a shooting attack.

Yuck, do ever get people telling you, if your gonna be so hard core RAW then you don't have permission to allocate the wounds :(?

 PrinceRaven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Besides, I get enough trouble explaining to my opponent why they can't take directional cover saves against Spirit Leech.

Off topic, but why not? Do you have a rules reason?

Basically because you can only get directional cover from shooting attacks, and Spirit Leech isn't a shooting attack.

In that case I don't have to worry, as there is no way to allocate wounds.