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.

Gravmyr wrote:
rigeld2: Everyone's point is quite simple, did you roll FNP? If you did there clearly was an unsaved wound and as so you are not treating it as a saved wound. How do you address this? You keep saying that if the model has lost it's Armour save you are not treating it as having been saved. The same has to be said if you have made a FNP roll. ES and FNP are one time effects that have a lasting affect on the model. How can you advocate going back and negating only select parts of the effects but not the rest? As soon as you say you have to go back and change everything that has happened due to there being an unsaved wound you would have to do the same for the use of FNP. The reverse is just as true, did you roll FNP? Then you are not treating the wound as saved.

Perhaps you aren't reading all of my posts.
If you go back and evaluate ES it cannot apply. If you go back and evaluate FNP it cannot be rolled for.
Since the wound is now saved that doesn't matter. I'm not being selective - indeed I'm applying the exact same thought process to every rule.
If you think otherwise you're failing to read and understand my posts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:

'It is as if it had been saved'
Or since 'saved' already carries the past tense:
'It is saved'

No, that's not how it changes. It changes to "it has been saved". Removing relevant words changes the meaning of the sentence.

The effect of ES is that the armour is gone the effect of FNP is the wound is changed. If you are allowing the wound to be changed but not the armour to be gone then you are inherently being selective.

Gravmyr wrote:
The effect of ES is that the armour is gone the effect of FNP is the wound is changed. If you are allowing the wound to be changed but not the armour to be gone then you are inherently being selective.

Then you're obviously not understanding what I'm typing. I don't know how to make it any simpler. I'll end with: "That's not what I'm saying." and won't bother responding to you any more.

In the end it comes to this:
A. Make FNP apply after it is activated and the worst thing it could happen is having an unharmed model lose its save, which was (as many people think) intended in the first place.

B. Make FNP go back in time to make the wound saved before FNP activated and you can have psykers returning from the dead and getting back used warp charges because their enemy rolled FNP successfully, which was never -ever- intended.

A) is your opinion on what is intended. Please rephrase to make it clear this is what you believe, not a fact.

Yet again, force weapons have specific permission to.go before fnp to see if you can cancel fnp. Your postition it not valid, because force weapons can cancel fnp. You postitiom insists that the wouns from perils is a direct link to fnp. Which in fact it is not it is from a sr. You are going to say but id the wound is saved then the librarian could neber have rolled for force. Problem is we are tild by the faq that if the librarians owner wishes to cause id wounds he gets to do so following the force weapons rules ans requirements. Once the test is taken and failed it matters not what the outxome of fnp is because we
have rules that directly effect the funcriom of the orher.

In this case fnp makes a failed save, armor invulnerable count as passed. In this case giving us a situation in which the acrivation of es could be affected. I am in the belief that following the precedent of force and fnp that fnp can and does affect es. Thus my nelief you wait to see if fnp is passed to activate es.


Posted un haste from my phone

It is an opinion that Force is made before FNP due to it counter acting FNP. There is nothing in the FAQ that gives a reason as to why it is that way. All it states is there is an outcome to the Force roll. If there is no reason given we have to make a comparison between the rules. The only difference is the inclusion of immediately in Force.

The FAQ did not grant specific permission for Force Weapons to activate before Feel No Pain, it clarified that they always could activate before Feel No Pain.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you are saying you can have a saved wound that was once unsaved.

The rules do not allow for that.

Oh, really? That's exactly what they say to do.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

'It is as if it had been saved'
Or since 'saved' already carries the past tense:
'It is saved'

No, that's not how it changes. It changes to "it has been saved". Removing relevant words changes the meaning of the sentence.

Ok, that works to, though you left out the 'is' you said was important. Lets go with that replacement anyways.

'On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - it has been saved'.

Still not telling you to go back in time... Still the same meaning we've been telling you... the wound changes from 'unsaved' to 'has been saved'

Which means it was previously saved. Prior to now it was saved.

Whatever, I'm done. You go ahead and break a rule.

rigeld2 wrote:
Which means it was previously saved. Prior to now it was saved.

Whatever, I'm done. You go ahead and break a rule.

Right. At the point you successfully roll FNP, from that moment forward, it was saved at some unspecified point in the past(presumably when a save would have been appropriate)... ES does not care about this change.

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Which means it was previously saved. Prior to now it was saved.

Whatever, I'm done. You go ahead and break a rule.

Right. At the point you successfully roll FNP, from that moment forward, it was saved at some unspecified point in the past(presumably when a save would have been appropriate)... ES does not care about this change.

Not only from that moment forward, we have to treat it as if the Armor/Cover/Invuln save was made in the first place...

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Which means it was previously saved. Prior to now it was saved.

Whatever, I'm done. You go ahead and break a rule.

Right. At the point you successfully roll FNP, from that moment forward, it was saved at some unspecified point in the past(presumably when a save would have been appropriate)... ES does not care about this change.

No, it always WAS saved. It cannot be unsaved, as the rules only allow saved / unsaved, not unsaved -> saved.

Break a rule all you like, just be aware youre doing so.

DR / Nos: You still haven't addressed the return of models from failed Psychic tests as has been brought up. If there was never a wound how was Force activated, Warp charge spent and test failed? Does the model come back and get it's warp charge back? Per your reading it could have never tried to activate it in the first place.

Those of us that are pointing out the FAQ are doing so because per GW those are [u]only[user] clarifications. If it is anything else people have to have been reading it completely incorrectly in the first place. When Force vs FNP came up the same basic argument came up that FNP would deny Force. That is not the case. The FAQ simply stated Force happens first. You cannot continue arguing that FNP can negate the past past without it negating the situation above.

Yet any argument which relies on "this is a FAQ so it is only a clarification" is immediately debunked. SitW and vehicles, plus Out of Range are sufficient prove of the opposite.

Are you saying that because sometimes GW forgets that FAQs are supposed to be clarifications we should assume every FAQ is not a clarification?

No, just that any argument that is based around "this cannot be a change because it was a FAQ" is immediately thrown out as being a valid argument.

It is an unsound position to base an argument on, as a single counter example (and I gave 2, to be sure) proves it to be a false position.

Again: read exactly what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. I never stated "we should assume every FAQ is not a clarification"; I was very precise with what I DID say

I'd say it's reasonably sound if not a valid argument, as the majority of FAQs are not rule changes, and are not intended to be rule changes.

Yet this was in response to someone stating " people have to have been reading it completely incorrectly in the first place"

Was Out of Range " people have to have been reading it completely incorrectly in the first place"? No, it was a complete new rule, totally replacing the one in the rulebook.

I was diagreeing with that level of "its a FAQ,, therefore automatically it is not a rules change" wrongness

The Errata corrects any
mistakes in the codex, while the Amendments bring the
rulebook up to date with the latest version of the rules. The
Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers
commonly asked questions about the rules.

Its pretty clear what each area is, and that FAQ's don't blanket rule changes about anything other then what the question is in regards too.

Some FAQ's have even used Fluff to make rulings!

How both sides on this argument don't see that either can possibly be correct is beyond me. Again I don't play Doom gains his wounds when FNP works, however I wouldn't be surprised if GW faq'd ES to work.

I agree it's not automatically a clarification, but when we have 2 interpretations, one of which is a clarification and one of which is a rules-change, shouldn't we give more weight to the one in which the FAQ is a clarfication?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I agree it's not automatically a clarification, but when we have 2 interpretations, one of which is a clarification and one of which is a rules-change, shouldn't we give more weight to the one in which the FAQ is a clarfication?

I wouldn't because GW has demonstrated they will go in completely different directions from one FAQ to the next, hell they might even ERRATA complete rule changes.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I agree it's not automatically a clarification, but when we have 2 interpretations, one of which is a clarification and one of which is a rules-change, shouldn't we give more weight to the one in which the FAQ is a clarfication?

No, because you have no evidence as to which one is the preferred one. GW themselves seemingly do not know when they make rules changes or not, so why are you assuming they must have meant one way, and not the other?

Because FAQs are supposed to be clarifications, it is stated that their purpose is to clarify, the majority of them are clarifications, and it is entirely reasonable to believe that the Force vs FNP FAQ is a clarification, as the rules supported that interpretation pre-FAQ.

Stating it has to go first is not a clarification, but a change to the rules. One could negate the other, so the only other way would have been a roll off to see which took precedence.

They instead changed the rules so that the immediately in Force was more immediate than that of FNP

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Stating it has to go first is not a clarification, but a change to the rules. One could negate the other, so the only other way would have been a roll off to see which took precedence.

They instead changed the rules so that the immediately in Force was more immediate than that of FNP

Or they wrote immediately into the rule to mean just that, There would be no need to write immediately into those rules which have them. they can function perfectly well without it- unless they intended for them to activate before other non immediately worded rules. RAW FNP has no immediately - this is a idea which is made up to defend FNP's placement, and is not RAW.

RAW wise I think Immediately places Force (etc) before FNP etc - otherwise immediately is a totally redundant and unneeded word which appears in some rules, but not others- I believe the rules which contain this do so for a reason.... Interestingly enough all the ones I can think of at the moment are on suffering a unsaved wound.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Stating it has to go first is not a clarification, but a change to the rules. One could negate the other, so the only other way would have been a roll off to see which took precedence.

They instead changed the rules so that the immediately in Force was more immediate than that of FNP

Pre-FAQ there were obviously large groups of people on both sides of whether or not Force activated before FNP, FAQ comes along and clarifies this ambiguity, saying that Force does in fact activate before FNP, which half the player-base thought was RAW anyway. I don't see how that could seen as anything but a clarification.

It was not a clarification, because there was NO RAW stating it happened before, previously. T he closest was the "roll off every time" FAQ answer when you have two genuinely competing actions like lash whips and banshee masks (old)

Changing from roll off (based on lash whips ruling) to force always happens first isnt a clarification.

Otherwise you can argue out of range is a "clarification" - a number of people already played it the way the FAQ changed the rules to. Does not make this any less a rules change.,

Would you guys also say that concussive takes effect?

"A model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon with this special rule is reduced to Initiative 1 until the end of the following Assault phase" (35)

Or Instant Death, or Pinning, or Soul Blaze?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Would you guys also say that concussive takes effect?

"A model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon with this special rule is reduced to Initiative 1 until the end of the following Assault phase" (35)

Or Instant Death, or Pinning, or Soul Blaze?

I would have to look at the rules in the book, but if the rule is written as you have quoted, then I could see an argument that FNP negates the concussive effect, because it does not have an "immediate" effect.