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.

Maybe we should start a new thread, but is it the same then for maledictions which can cause wounds? Either you let a directional cover save to be able to allocate it, or can't use the shooting phase rules allocations method? I do see some flip flopping in when you should and should not abide by X rules, it all becomes a little fuzzy. Expecially with the recent thread around PSA and the lack of profile, bought up some strange points when thinking about it.

Saying that I allow directional cover saves anyway from SL

Stormbreed wrote:

 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 :(?

To which I generally respond "well then most of your models can't draw line of sight to shoot or charge because they don't have eyes". I think we can all agree there's a line between following the rules and being an idiot.

If anyone wants to discuss this further I'd be happy to discuss it on a different thread, we should stop before we derail this one.

 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.

Feel free to start another thread but that opinion leads to being unable to allocate wounds.

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

Feel free to start another thread but that opinion leads to being unable to allocate wounds.

As is the case with this thread, I always try and make it least advantageous to myself when talking about rules in a game.

1. Looking at it from a fluffy view I'd say ES goes off.
2. Weirdly enough I wouldn't give my Doom wounds saved by EW.
3. I give people cover just like any other shooting attack from Doom.


All of that is HIWPI, but I feel its also RAI. Its also how the local TO's have applied the rules.

That is a really good point about the Doom.

Do you/would you let the doom regain wounds that were saved with FNP? (Since you are advocating letting ES work Absorb Life should work as well).

Here is what absorb life says "The doom...Immediately gains +1 Wound, to a maximum of 10 Wounds, for every unsaved wound it inflicts" (Tyranid Codex, 58)

Judging by what your side is advocating where you make a model lose its armor save, the answer is yes.

But then how does one "treat it as having been saved" (35) if you are removing the armor save, or letting the doom gain wounds?

@DR : Really, posters have already explained how, each in their own words, many times over. If you have a issue with what they explained please quote and note them rather than asking the same question over and over and over.

For the issue I think are based on fairness, intent etc
I don't think suffering an effect for taking a unsaved wound when then a FNP also goes through can exactly be called OP. The attacker already had to hit, wound, and if you have a save also for you to fail it. Probability is already working against them.FNP to then come in and 'save' the wound is already powerful enough. FNP changes the probability greatly when also factoring everything else in. To then tell someone they can't even activate a special ability for getting as far as the special rule needs is a little overkill. FNP already gives a great benefit. I think some people however think they have a right to a FNP the same way an armour save(not anyone in this thread particular, more the none rule scourer type). While they might acknowledge it says it's not a save in the rules, they still will pick up the dice immediately after failing an armour save, to see if the wound is saved, which is a state of mind rather than the state if rules.

Nem - to clarify, you would allow Doom to gain wounds if you pass your FNP?

Is that a loaded question? Heh. The rules are as DR stated ' …immediately gains +1 wound … For every unsaved wound it (Doom) inflicts'.

It meets points within my interpretation -of immediately. It is a passive effect so isn't activated, it just happens. And the criteria is inflicting a unsaved wound. Inflict if used in 40k as per the usual definition 'cause' then yes.

As far as the rule is concerned; Did Doom inflict a unsaved wound - yes. Then the effect of the cause is applied immediately.

Absorb life is a pretty top notch ability, don't think anyone would disagree that. Don't see why it's suddenly considered more so because your enemy has FNP and didn't die

Thanks - at least you're consistent.

It's interesting that Doom breaks and makes so many rules arguments. Sadness.

 Nem wrote:
@DR : Really, posters have already explained how, each in their own words, many times over. If you have a issue with what they explained please quote and note them rather than asking the same question over and over and over.

Well they have explained it, but they are breaking rules to do so, therefore can not be the correct interpretation.

FNP in fact can "treat it as having been saved" (35) (It being the Unsaved Wound)

So if we are treating the Unsaved wound as "Having been saved" then there is no actual Unsaved wound for effects to trigger off of.

To do so is breaking the rules and the opposing sides argument can not be correct as rules have been broken if ES or Absorb Life activate.

Since the other side does not have any actual rules that specify that ES or Absorb Life can be triggered on a wound we are treating as saved, then your arguments are null and void.

FNP, one successful treats the wound as saved negating/discounting the unsaved wound. To trigger effects off said unsaved wound is to not discount said unsaved wound.

That is all there is to it.

 Nem wrote:
As far as the rule is concerned; Did Doom inflict a unsaved wound - yes. Then the effect of the cause is applied immediately.

Incorrect, we have to treat the wound as saved.

To let the doom gain life is not treating the wound as saved.

Do you also believe that FNP can help enemy models by regaining wounds and bringing them back from the dead?

copper.talos wrote:
Do you also believe that FNP can help enemy models by regaining wounds and bringing them back from the dead?

I not sure I understand, can you clarify the question please, as in its current incarnation it makes no sense.

hes talking about a force weapon test which perils and kills the user, but the model he struck pass's his fnp and negates the unsaved wound that caused the psycher to test for force.

 DeathReaper wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
Do you also believe that FNP can help enemy models by regaining wounds and bringing them back from the dead?

I not sure I understand, can you clarify the question please, as in its current incarnation it makes no sense.

It's not a clear cut case. Fluff supports him and GW supports fluff.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
As far as the rule is concerned; Did Doom inflict a unsaved wound - yes. Then the effect of the cause is applied immediately.

Incorrect, we have to treat the wound as saved.

To let the doom gain life is not treating the wound as saved.

It's nice that you think that, but until you have rules to support your statement no one's going to seriously consider it.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
As far as the rule is concerned; Did Doom inflict a unsaved wound - yes. Then the effect of the cause is applied immediately.

Incorrect, we have to treat the wound as saved.

To let the doom gain life is not treating the wound as saved.

It's nice that you think that, but until you have rules to support your statement no one's going to seriously consider it.

It's almost like those rules have been quoted in this thread.
I wonder if reading the thread would benefit....

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
As far as the rule is concerned; Did Doom inflict a unsaved wound - yes. Then the effect of the cause is applied immediately.

Incorrect, we have to treat the wound as saved.

To let the doom gain life is not treating the wound as saved.

It's nice that you think that, but until you have rules to support your statement no one's going to seriously consider it.

It's almost like those rules have been quoted in this thread.
I wonder if reading the thread would benefit....

If people actually read the thread...we wouldn't have 15+ pages of people bringing the same arguments.

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?

It is not illegal if you've already been told to apply it. Which you have. At that point, not applying it is breaking a rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

 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?

That is not the case. No on time travel I'm afraid.

There was an unsaved wound when it was activated. That is all that is required for permission to resolve ES.

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.

It says they were saved now. At the time ES was activated, that was not the case.

rigeld2 wrote:

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?

Actually it tells us to treat the wound as though it had been saved. That is not permission to treat ES as though the wound had been saved.

rigeld2 wrote:

 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?

Actually no. Once ES is activated it does not care about the wound. So when you go to resolve ES (which happens at the same time as FNP) you do not check for the wound at all.

rigeld2 wrote:

 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?

Undeniably we had permission to activate it when FNP was triggered.

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.

but it was activated and you continually ignore that. Nothing turns it 'off'. We are not told to rewrite a time line. There is no time loop. At a point we are told to treat the wound differently than we wound normally treat it.... like it had been saved... You are not permitted to do anything else by that line. You cannot treat anything else differently other than the Wound. Meaning ES still goes off. Psykers that perils their FW check do not get resurrected.... stop it with the time traveling already please or show some text that indicates you are actually to 'go back' and change things. Treating one thing 'as if' is not going to cut it.

rigeld2 wrote: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.

rigeld2 wrote: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.

This is funny because you place opposing arguments out of context quite often in obvious attempts to make them look absurd. That resurrected psyker staring at you does indeed make your time travel theory look absurd... but that you would complain about this tactic is lolz.

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.

And when do you start treating the wound as if it had been saved?
What was the state of the wound before then?
Does treating the wound differently somehow effect ES after it has been activated?

 Abandon wrote:
And when do you start treating the wound as if it had been saved?

Basically if FNP is successful, you have to treat the wound as if the armor save was successful. That is what 'Treat it as having been saved' means...

What was the state of the wound before then?

Irrelavent, we are treating it as if the save was successful, so it was a hit, a wound and a saved wound as per the FNP rules.

Does treating the wound differently somehow effect ES after it has been activated?

You can not even activate ES on a saved wound so why are you activating ES on a wound you are treating as saved?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
And when do you start treating the wound as if it had been saved?

Basically if FNP is successful, you have to treat the wound as if the armor save was successful. That is what 'Treat it as having been saved' means...

What was the state of the wound before then?

Irrelavent, we are treating it as if the save was successful, so it was a hit, a wound and a saved wound as per the FNP rules.

Does treating the wound differently somehow effect ES after it has been activated?

You can not even activate ES on a saved wound so why are you activating ES on a wound you are treating as saved?

Retrospectively treating the wound(now) as having been saved(then) is not stated to deactivate ES and as ES already has been activated it is permitted to do its thing.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
And when do you start treating the wound as if it had been saved?

Basically if FNP is successful, you have to treat the wound as if the armor save was successful. That is what 'Treat it as having been saved' means...

What was the state of the wound before then?

Irrelavent, we are treating it as if the save was successful, so it was a hit, a wound and a saved wound as per the FNP rules.

Does treating the wound differently somehow effect ES after it has been activated?

You can not even activate ES on a saved wound so why are you activating ES on a wound you are treating as saved?

Retrospectively treating the wound(now) as having been saved(then) is not stated to deactivate ES and as ES already has been activated it is permitted to do its thing.

Except FNP says to "treat it [the unsaved Wound] as having been saved" (35)

Therefore there was no Unsaved wound in the first place, because we are treating it as if we made our armor/cover/invuln save...

If it said treat the wound as saved, you might have a case, but FNP retroactively goes back to the take armor save step and pretends we passed that save, therefore there is no unsaved Wound.

@DeathReaper
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 and is removed from the game as a casualty. Then the model rolls successfully FNP.

What do you think happens to the librarian and why?

delete

In the recent thread of Heavy VS Skyfire the correct point was argued that just because Skyfire says you can 'fire using normal BS skill' doesn't mean it can overcome the restriction of Heavy. Rules say a lot of things that sometimes can't overcome - other actions or restrictions which are already there. He argued that if he had to shoot as snap shots, it's breaking the rules of Skyfire 'fire at normal BS skill' which it does literally say, what he was not considering is an existing restriction was in place that Skyfire could not overcome because Skyfire did not give explicit permission to do so.

In the vast majority of cases, with suffering a unsaved wound only 1 thing happens, a -1W (100% my terminology). FNP has permission to stop that happening and that is that.

In a smaller number of cases, 2 things happen on suffering a unsaved wound. An effect is applied, and -1W.
FNP has permission to avoid, discount and treat the Wound as having been saved. FNP includes no inherit permission to do the same to other effects, only by claiming the effects of FNP go back in time and remove the unsaved wound from existence (Note, FNP says it effects the wound not unsaved wound), thereby removing the trigger for the other abilities.

Permission to do something isn't always absolute. When I see 'If you don't treat is as saved your breaking the rules of FNP' I see it akin to 'If you don't fire at full BS then your breaking the rules of Skyfire' and the hundreds of questions we get here on Dakka. The whole situation past and current are accounted when applying rules, and sometimes permission given in a special rule can not change something that already is, without explicit permission to do so.

In case 2 I would say the effect continues, and the -1W is not suffered. The special rule removed 50% of what the player was doing, which I not uncommon for rules to do so. I don't see a special rule as broken if it's only stopping 1 of 2 events, because that happens all the time.


@DR I believe the 'IT' referred to in treat it..... is actually 'Wound' rather than 'Unsaved Wound', based on the fist part of the sentence. 'the wound is discounted' I spoke earlier how referring to is as the 'Wound' rather than the 'unsaved wound' is deliberate terminology, as a Wound and a Unsaved Wound is not the same thing, A wound is something that is removed from the stat line, and unsaved wound is the cause of a wound being removed from the stat line. This differential makes a difference to how the effect we, the players apply it.

copper.talos wrote:
@DeathReaper
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 and is removed from the game as a casualty. Then the model rolls successfully FNP.

What do you think happens to the librarian and why?

Well since the rules tell us to treat the wound as saved, we have to do just that. nothing that came from that unsaved wound can possibly take effect because we treat the wound as having made its armor save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:
@DR I believe the 'IT' referred to in treat it..... is actually 'Wound' rather than 'Unsaved Wound', based on the fist part of the sentence. 'the wound is discounted' I spoke earlier how referring to is as the 'Wound' rather than the 'unsaved wound' is deliberate terminology, as a Wound and a Unsaved Wound is not the same thing, A wound is something that is removed from the stat line, and unsaved wound is the cause of a wound being removed from the stat line. This differential makes a difference to how the effect we, the players apply it.

1) It never says 'the wound is discounted'

2) The wound refers to Unsaved wound from even earlier in the graph...

"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw). Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered. 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." (35)

The it refers to the unsaved wound as " you must take the Wound as normal" is a previous sentence...

Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered.

....

To me I'm getting swayed to other side of the argument. FNP specifically states it has an activation of an unsaved wound. So do the other effects we're talking about, I don't like it, but it seems Doom would gain wounds, man people are gonna hate me if I bring it up, and I don't plan too lol!

Stormbreed wrote:
Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered.

....

To me I'm getting swayed to other side of the argument. FNP specifically states it has an activation of an unsaved wound. So do the other effects we're talking about, I don't like it, but it seems Doom would gain wounds, man people are gonna hate me if I bring it up, and I don't plan too lol!

So "treat it [the unsaved Wound] as having been saved." (35) does not convince you that the wound is saved in the first place?

Interesting take on things, but that line should be all that is needed to treat the wound as if we made our Armor/Cover/Invulnerable save. Therefore no ES, no Doom absorb life Etc...

Yea I'm very much on the fence RAW. Less on the fence RAI, because I'd bet they FAQ ES to work but not Doom lol. Oh well new codex December.

@DeathReaper IReturning models into play unless specifically mentioned in a rule is a big No-No. What part of FNP's description allows you to bring enemy models back into play? Is it sort of an RP but for the enemies? But wait there is more, that librarian would regain his warp charge and use it for another ability. Is it part of the FNP rule for enemy models to regain used warp charges?

All these are too ridiculous side effects for some one to claim that FNP goes back in time to make the wound saved. Not to mention this situation goes 100% against the fluff. While using FNP as every other rule in the game, which means its effect applies after it is activated, the only thing that could happen is having a model with no armor save and full wounds, which is actually supported by the fluff of both rules...