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.

He has covered that part quite well too. What about the"are you in favour of librarians returning to life and regaining used warp charges because their enemy rolled successfully FNP"? Why don't you answer?

 DeathReaper wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
You "treat" - present tense-. Nem's has posted several times explaining the grammar of this.

And anyway, are you in favour of librarians returning to life and regaining used warp charges because their enemy rolled successfully FNP? I never got your feedback on this...

and Nem's posts fall short mostly because she hand waves the "Having been saved" language as not mattering.

You just refuse to acknowledge that it is a present action you are told to take that is limited in effect to the unsaved wound..

'treat it...'
This means right now you are going to treat the wound in some way. Not treating anything else, just the wound.

'...as having been saved'
That 'way' is an 'as if' scenario where the wound was previously saved.

Put together this means that right now (not before)you regard the wound (and only the wound) as if it had been saved.

so why are you regarding ES (and anything else that may apply) as if the wound had been saved?

copper.talos wrote:He has covered that part quite well too. What about the"are you in favour of librarians returning to life and regaining used warp charges because their enemy rolled successfully FNP"? Why don't you answer?

Errm... she, I believe you mean

 Abandon wrote:
'...as having been saved'
That 'way' is an 'as if' scenario where the wound was previously saved.

(Emphasis mine)
Exactly! now you understand.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
'...as having been saved'
That 'way' is an 'as if' scenario where the wound was previously saved.

(Emphasis mine)
Exactly! now you understand.

Sure, just ignore everything else. That will fix everything for you...

>>>context matters<<<

 Abandon wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
'...as having been saved'
That 'way' is an 'as if' scenario where the wound was previously saved.

(Emphasis mine)
Exactly! now you understand.

Sure, just ignore everything else. That will fix everything for you...

>>>context matters<<<

Well considering that is what FNP says by telling us that " the wound was previously saved"...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
'...as having been saved'
That 'way' is an 'as if' scenario where the wound was previously saved.

(Emphasis mine)
Exactly! now you understand.

Sure, just ignore everything else. That will fix everything for you...

>>>context matters<<<

Well considering that is what FNP says by telling us that " the wound was previously saved"...

Yup, complete permission to ignore context... (sarcasm)

That it's only in regards to the wound after FNP is successful doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter that the wound was unsaved until then and that ES was already triggered
...and it completely does not matter that ES does not care how the wound gets 'treated' after it is triggered.

Because we are ignoring context and can just take half a line and fabricate a rule out of it.... (much more sarcasm)

DR, your argument has been lost for many pages now. If you want to play it a certain way I won't nay-say you but if you're going to continue debating this here, please stop ignoring context. We have proven over and over that ES has permission to trigger and the wound changing from 'unsaved' to 'was saved' does nothing to 'turn it off'.

The wound is unsaved
then after FNP
The wound was saved

In this scenario the wound is both saved and unsaved at different times. You are focused on the 'was saved' part which does not effect ES at all. At the same time you are ignoring the 'unsaved' part that triggers ES.... saved and unsaved are both true, read ES and tell me which one effects it and which one does not.

The change to 'was saved' takes place in the present where ES has already been triggered. If you can find where the change in the state of the wound matters regarding ES you might have something we can debate. If you can find text stating the change in the state of the wound effects more than the wound itself you also have something...

...as of now, you have brought nothing to the table to negate anything we have said as all of your arguments have been smote upon the mountain side, which I might add, is hardly 'hand-waving' away your precious 'having been saved' line.

And you do not know if you have a saved wound or unsaved wound until after FNP is rolled...

DeathReaper does or does not your way of playing FNP ends up with librarians returning to life and regaining used warp charges because their enemy rolled successfully FNP? An answer please.

 DeathReaper wrote:
And you do not know if you have a saved wound or unsaved wound until after FNP is rolled...

... Leaving you unable to fulfil the the activation requirement for Feel No Pain and thus the entire game breaks as you are now stuck with Schrodinger's Wound and no way to open the metaphorical box.

Not only does that interpretation have no basis in the rules but it also conflicts with the very rule in question.

copper.talos wrote:
DeathReaper does or does not your way of playing FNP ends up with librarians returning to life and regaining used warp charges because their enemy rolled successfully FNP? An answer please.

What do you mean return to life?

You have to roll for FNP and see if the wound is actually saved before you reduce the model's wounds.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
And you do not know if you have a saved wound or unsaved wound until after FNP is rolled...

... Leaving you unable to fulfil the the activation requirement for Feel No Pain and thus the entire game breaks as you are now stuck with Schrodinger's Wound and no way to open the metaphorical box.

Not only does that interpretation have no basis in the rules but it also conflicts with the very rule in question.

Good thing FNP allows it...

DR, the question is as follows:
A psyker attacks bob in cc.
The psyker wounds and attempts to activate his force weapon.
The psyker spends a warp charge and rolls double 6's.
The resulting POTW, kills the psyker.
Bob passes his FNP roll.
Does the psyker come back? Why or why not?

 Happyjew wrote:
DR, the question is as follows:
A psyker attacks bob in cc.
The psyker wounds and attempts to activate his force weapon.
The psyker spends a warp charge and rolls double 6's.
The resulting POTW, kills the psyker.
Bob passes his FNP roll.
Does the psyker come back? Why or why not?

The rules do not seem to cover the timing of removing the psyker after he suffers a wound from perils, so it does not seem like the RAW covers it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
DR, the question is as follows:
A psyker attacks bob in cc.
The psyker wounds and attempts to activate his force weapon.
The psyker spends a warp charge and rolls double 6's.
The resulting POTW, kills the psyker.
Bob passes his FNP roll.
Does the psyker come back? Why or why not?

The rules do not seem to cover the timing of removing the psyker after he suffers a wound from perils, so it does not seem like the RAW covers it.

You treat the wound as having been saved. Therefore there could be no test to activate the Force weapon (since it did not deal an unsaved wound). Since the psyker could not activate his Force weapon, he could not have suffered Perils when activating. Therefore, he could not have lost his last wound.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
DR, the question is as follows:
A psyker attacks bob in cc.
The psyker wounds and attempts to activate his force weapon.
The psyker spends a warp charge and rolls double 6's.
The resulting POTW, kills the psyker.
Bob passes his FNP roll.
Does the psyker come back? Why or why not?

The rules do not seem to cover the timing of removing the psyker after he suffers a wound from perils, so it does not seem like the RAW covers it.

You treat the wound as having been saved. Therefore there could be no test to activate the Force weapon (since it did not deal an unsaved wound). Since the psyker could not activate his Force weapon, he could not have suffered Perils when activating. Therefore, he could not have lost his last wound.

Wait that doesn't work, if FNP requires an unsaved wound how could FNP take effect at the moment the wound happens?

MIND BLOWN!

 DeathReaper wrote:
And you do not know if you have a saved wound or unsaved wound until after FNP is rolled...

If you are going to put the wound into an unknown state and claim a resulting FNP roll you'd have to admit ES also takes effect. Not that this is correct but if you're going to do it wrong, do it wrong the right way. There is never point at which FNP will activate without ES also activating as they both have the same requirements to trigger. Since you are, entirely without a rules basis, turning this into Schrodinger Wound where you don't know if it's saved or not till you feel pain or don't, it must be admitted then that the wound is both saved and unsaved as all possible states must be accounted for. As neither ES nor FNP care if the wound is saved they then activate because it is also unsaved. In which case you still need to 'turn off' ES to make your theory work. Which is the exact same problem you already had.

Not that it matters as the wound is never in an unknown state.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
And you do not know if you have a saved wound or unsaved wound until after FNP is rolled...

If you are going to put the wound into an unknown state and claim a resulting FNP roll you'd have to admit ES also takes effect.

Not at all, ES does not produce Saved Wounds...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
And you do not know if you have a saved wound or unsaved wound until after FNP is rolled...

If you are going to put the wound into an unknown state and claim a resulting FNP roll you'd have to admit ES also takes effect.

Not at all, ES does not produce Saved Wounds...

No your not making any sense at all. When does ES ever produce a wound of any sort? It doesn't. For that matter neither does FNP.

Are you just making this up as you go along?

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
And you do not know if you have a saved wound or unsaved wound until after FNP is rolled...

If you are going to put the wound into an unknown state and claim a resulting FNP roll you'd have to admit ES also takes effect.

Not at all, ES does not produce Saved Wounds...

No your not making any sense at all. When does ES ever produce a wound of any sort? It doesn't. For that matter neither does FNP.

Are you just making this up as you go along?

You do not know if you have a saved wound or unsaved wound until after FNP is rolled.

This has nothing to do with ES taking effect because a successful FNP will treat the wound as having been saved. Therefore ES can not be in effect because we have to pretend the armor save was successful.

DeathReaper why do you avoid the question? Tell us, does or does not your way of playing FNP ends up with librarians returning to life and regaining used warp charges because their enemy rolled successfully FNP?

In regard to what do we pretend it was successful?
Hint: It's right before the 'having been saved' part.

When does it get to be regarded that way?
Hint: It's in the grammatical tense of that same part.

Don't distract him. I think he needs all the concentration he can get in order to answer my question

copper.talos wrote:
Don't distract him. I think he needs all the concentration he can get in order to answer my question

Have you seen my sig? I will pick at this to no end until at least a version of correct English on this part is acknowledged.

Edit:

 Abandon wrote:
In regard to what do we pretend it was successful?
Hint: It's right before the 'having been saved' part.

When does it get to be regarded that way?
Hint: It's in the grammatical tense of that same part.

We treat the unsaved Wound as having been saved.

A rule that is broken if a model no longer has an armor save.

But no matter how many times I explain this to you, for some reason, you are not understanding it.

We understand your position, we just know it's wrong and have proved it to be so. What we don't understand is why you continue to maintain your position without actually engaging in logical debate to defend it.

How long do you guys want to turn in circles before you accept that the rule isnt as clear cut and dry (for both sides) how you make it to be.

This 19 page thread proves only one thing. The rule is broken and needs a faq. Both sides made good points but no interpretation is going to 100% cut it.

That being said, deathreaper is far from being wrong ... just like you are far from being wrong princeraven so people on both sides should stop arguing like their interpretation is somehow the correct one.

I initially found the rule to be very clear in the direction of no ES - im now convinced that its not clear and needs clarification - im NOT convinced that the pro ES side is correct and the no ES side is wrong and vice versa.

I'm not saying I'm completely convinced of my own superiority and that I'm always right. I'm just saying that as long as DeathReaper keeps saying this:

 DeathReaper wrote:
We treat the unsaved Wound as having been saved.

A rule that is broken if a model no longer has an armor save.

without any of this:

evidence to support his position

i will continue to treat his position as being wrong based on the lack of a valid argument to support it or disprove the opposite side.

Using your stance, is an armor save removed on a model that has passed FNP?

Therefore you're advocating removing the armor save of a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound.

Evidence has been shown - you're simply ignoring it to further your own interpretation. Saying there is no evidence is flat out wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:
Using your stance, is an armor save removed on a model that has passed FNP?

Therefore you're advocating removing the armor save of a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound.

Evidence has been shown - you're simply ignoring it to further your own interpretation. Saying there is no evidence is flat out wrong.

100% this.

Do you guys remove models as casualties as well even though FNP has been passed, after all you are advocating that it actually suffered an unsaved wound (Which is incorrect because of what FNP tells us).

So is this 19 pages of deathreaper and abandon arguing?

As far as my local group is concerned, FNP ignores wounds instead of saving them. Stuff like the black mace will still go off, as the wound was unsaved, so you still take a toughness test. Then FNP kicks in and ignores the wound from the initial hit, and possibly the toughness test wounds.

In this case, the armor would be gone, but the wound was ignored.

Well sure - if you change the rules all sorts of things can happen.