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.

 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?

Funny thing, The instant death rule(as per page 16 of the rule book)requires the knowledge as to whether or not the wound is saved, and you interpretation of the rule means you would have to check FnP before you could find out if the wound could cause instant death.

And why wouldn't you get pinned/take cover if you were grazed by a bullet?

Or get caught on fire when hit by a weapon that can catch you on fire, even if it doesn't initially hurt you?

 megatrons2nd wrote:
And why wouldn't you get pinned/take cover if you were grazed by a bullet?

Or get caught on fire when hit by a weapon that can catch you on fire, even if it doesn't initially hurt you?

Because Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. as said in the Tenets of the forum...

"3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it. "

Read them all here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

 DeathReaper wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
And why wouldn't you get pinned/take cover if you were grazed by a bullet?

Or get caught on fire when hit by a weapon that can catch you on fire, even if it doesn't initially hurt you?

Because Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. as said in the Tenets of the forum...

"3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it. "

Read them all here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

I was only giving a reason why it could work. If you want real world Example I would have said "how would FnP help when you are burning to death because you were set on fire?"

The Sniper one is both real world and rules. You take a sniper hit, you get pinned. As a believer in the FnP only removing the wound, not the effects, it doesn't stop the pinning effect.

What about the first half of my post? The part that treats the rule the same, for all effects, as the way you interpret it?

A wound that has the ID rule causes ID (Also Str 2xT) so I am not sure what you are getting at with the first part of your post.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
. As a believer in the FnP only removing the wound, not the effects

And this is where your argument is incorrect.

FNP treats the wound as saved.

Why would a unit take a pinning test if they only have saved wounds?


I am not saying that the rules are unclear, but in situations where the rules are unclear we must strive to take the least advantageous interpretation as the action taker (It is the Ethical and sporting way to play it). In the case of a unit that causes pinning this means no pin test, in the case of ES it means No ES applied Etc.

Why did you make a FNP roll if there was never an unsaved wound? You keep asking if your interpretation is correct how can anything happen. We agree how can anything happen? We have asked a number of times about a fairly simple situation using your interpretation what happens. You ignore it and say that we have to be wrong but fail to address what could easily happen with Force vs FNP. I have to assume you are intentionally ignoring this because you find no way to reconcile this out come with your view without accepting that you have to change large swathes of the past and possibly cause additional problems.

We have told you that yes you will end up with triggered effects happening without the triggering situation still existing by our reading. I find it strange that you have no qualms about FNP not having a trigger left but the others "need" to have one.

Also just noticed that Soul Blaze never works RAW.... but that's another thread all together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So those using FNP should not only get the most advantageous but we should also treat all the other rules to get the least advantageous reading..... interesting. In other words FNP should stop everything but everything else should be trimmed back.....

Gravmyr wrote:
Why did you make a FNP roll if there was never an unsaved wound?

Because FNP creates a Paradox.

DeathReaper wrote:

 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...

The underlined is not stated in the rule. It gives a past tense without a specified time in the past. The moment you do something you can then say I have done something. I'll use rigelds 'it has been saved' as an example. You take an unsaved wound but succeed on your FNP roll, 'it has been saved'. That is why I said 'presumably' in my above post. What you have stated is not communicated in the rule and is therefore, not RAW.

-see response to nos for more

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 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.

In any case onto the 'from that moment forward' part. That is exactly what you get when you are to take an action in the present. The tense on the wording 'treat it as' is present, meaning you do it now. It can only refer to the wound so you 'treat the wound now as if having been saved' this is not time travel. It is a present change effecting only to the wound placing it in a state that it would be in if it had been saved at some previous point and as 'treat as' equals 'is', it is now in that state for all rules purposes.

DeathReaper wrote:A wound that has the ID rule causes ID (Also Str 2xT) so I am not sure what you are getting at with the first part of your post.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
. As a believer in the FnP only removing the wound, not the effects

And this is where your argument is incorrect.

FNP treats the wound as saved.

Why would a unit take a pinning test if they only have saved wounds?


I am not saying that the rules are unclear, but in situations where the rules are unclear we must strive to take the least advantageous interpretation as the action taker (It is the Ethical and sporting way to play it). In the case of a unit that causes pinning this means no pin test, in the case of ES it means No ES applied Etc.

You've glazed over a very good point. ID only comes into play with an unsaved wound so your theory that we don't know if a wound is saved or not till FNP is rolled is quite debunked as it would not allow ID to function vs FNP.

DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Why did you make a FNP roll if there was never an unsaved wound?

Because FNP creates a Paradox.

Still need proof on that.

 Abandon wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

 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...

The underlined is not stated in the rule. It gives a past tense without a specified time in the past. The moment you do something you can then say I have done something. I'll use rigelds 'it has been saved' as an example. You take an unsaved wound but succeed on your FNP roll, 'it has been saved'. That is why I said 'presumably' in my above post. What you have stated is not communicated in the rule and is therefore, not RAW.

It does give a specified time when it says to treat it as having been saved. This part literally means we have to treat the wound as if we made the Armor/Cover/Invuln save.

 Abandon wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Why did you make a FNP roll if there was never an unsaved wound?

Because FNP creates a Paradox.

Still need proof on that.

Well FNP removes the trigger condition because if you treat the wound as having been saved there is no Unsaved wound for FNP to trigger off of.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It was not a clarification, because there was NO RAW stating it happened before, previously.

A significant amount of 40k players thought that the "immediately" in Force made it go first according to RAW. Just because you, personally, disagreed with that interpretation does not mean it wasn't a viable RAW interpretation of the rules. If we have two significant sides arguing that, per RAW, X rule interaction works a certain way, and an FAQ comes along siding with the one side, how is that not a clarification?

The point remains that you are ok with FNP negating itself and all other powers yet you are only negating the other powers and not FNP. By your own omission FNP creates a paradox that can never actually resolve. Don't you think that in and of itself tells you that you have to be reading the power incorrectly? I also noticed that you are ignoring the possible consequences of the interaction between Force and FNP with your reading. By the reading we have put forth yes you end up with SR's and abilities that are triggered and then have their trigger negated. By both GW's and the forums rules reality has no impact on the rules, as such I've yet to see a rule that negates a SR or power if the trigger is removed.

If you are using the rule of least advantageous rule of thumb then how do you get to FNP negating all other powers? Wouldn't the least advantageous be to simply negate the actual loss of a wound, leaving the model to be affected by SR's?

FNP says When you suffer an unsaved wound you roll FNP.

This goes off before something that happens immediately after suffering an unsaved wound.

 DeathReaper wrote:
FNP says When you suffer an unsaved wound you roll FNP.

This goes off before something that happens immediately after suffering an unsaved wound.

When X happens do Y
When X happens, immediately do Z
Why is Y occurring before Z?

The Force Weapon vs. FNP FAQ creates precedent for ignoring FNP for the purposes of any effect whose rule has that word 'immediately' in it, as the Force Weapon rule has.

So if Entropic Strike has the word 'immediately' after not making the armor save they lose their armor save for good, then the model loses its armor save. If it does not have immediately in the Entropic Strike rule, then it's player-turn choice which happens first.

But since it's not a Force Weapon, and apparently no FAQ exists to solve it, the model should still get to make the FNP roll if not an Instant Death situation besides a Force Weapon. And then we get to the paradox as FNP treats the wound as being saved.....dammit!

Okay so it treats the wound as being saved, but in this case failing the armor save, whether or not a wound was actually taken on the model, is the condition to meet for Entropic Strike to work. So I would say yes, FNP can save the wound, but since the armor failed, model loses the armor. Case dismissed! With prejudice...

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

 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...

The underlined is not stated in the rule. It gives a past tense without a specified time in the past. The moment you do something you can then say I have done something. I'll use rigelds 'it has been saved' as an example. You take an unsaved wound but succeed on your FNP roll, 'it has been saved'. That is why I said 'presumably' in my above post. What you have stated is not communicated in the rule and is therefore, not RAW.

It does give a specified time when it says to treat it as having been saved. This part literally means we have to treat the wound as if we made the Armor/Cover/Invuln save.

Really? "treat it as having been saved" is giving a specific time? I mean, it does... but that time is not in the past... it's right now at the present. nothing else about this denotes a specific point in time. It literally says to 'treat it as...' with present tense, referring to the wound so literal meaning 'Treat the wound now as...' '...having...' as in possessing something '....been saved' indicating a quality/state/attribute of the subject along with verbiage and denotation as from a previous point in time.

So 'Treat the wound now as prepossessing the state it would have if it was saved at a previous point in time'
...would be a verbose way of putting it without changing the meaning.

-or with 'treat as' = 'is'(removing the 'Treat as' and replacing with indications of actuality)

'The wound now has the state it would have if it was saved at a previous point in time'

Now you can presume all you want as to the 'previous point in time' but looking at the the words used and how they translate to meaning in the English language and into 40k terms you'll realize it does not matter.

It is not a time travel paradox, it is completely linear and indicates much less than you seem to think it does.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Why did you make a FNP roll if there was never an unsaved wound?

Because FNP creates a Paradox.

Still need proof on that.

Well FNP removes the trigger condition because if you treat the wound as having been saved there is no Unsaved wound for FNP to trigger off of.

This statement is itself incorrect as well as the Time Travel Theory it is based off of.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
FNP says When you suffer an unsaved wound you roll FNP.

This goes off before something that happens immediately after suffering an unsaved wound.

When X happens do Y
When X happens, immediately do Z
Why is Y occurring before Z?

Because Y happens when X happens, and Z happens Immediately after X happens. Y goes first as it is simultaneous with X because When X happens Y happens. (AKA X and Y happen at the same time, Z happens Immediately after X, and consequently Y).

I am glad we could work that out.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Because FNP creates a Paradox.

It creates a paradox the way you play it. A paradox that ends up restoring psykers back to life and giving them back warp chargers. A ridiculous situation that no one, even you, is going to agree to with it.

If you treat FNP like every other rule in the game, a non-paradox creating way, then you treat the wound as saved after FNP activates, which means both rules apply and no ridiculous situations happen.

And for the record, a paradox is a greek work which means a logical dead end, something unreasonable. So that's what you are proposing, something unreasonable, just like the librarian scenario I presented to you, and you still refuse to answer...

copper.talos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Because FNP creates a Paradox.

It creates a paradox the way you play it. A paradox that ends up restoring psykers back to life and giving them back warp chargers. A ridiculous situation that no one, even you, is going to agree to with it.

If you treat FNP like every other rule in the game, a non-paradox creating way, then you treat the wound as saved after FNP activates, which means both rules apply and no ridiculous situations happen.

And for the record, a paradox is a greek work which means a logical dead end, something unreasonable. So that's what you are proposing, something unreasonable, just like the librarian scenario I presented to you, and you still refuse to answer...

I was using this definition of Paradox: "A paradox is a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true."

in this case FNP contradicts itself as it removes its own trigger.

Also, looking more closely at the ES rules, it says (Any non-vehicle model that suffers an unsaved wound immediately looses its armour save for the rest of the game. [as noted in the OP]).

You do not suffer a unsaved wound unless you apply the effects of said unsaved wound,

After a failed save we get unsaved wounds that have been caused. After we apply the wound and reduce the models wounds by 1 is when the wound has been suffered.

"First of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw, if it has one (see page 16), for each Wound being resolved. Make a note of how many unsaved Wounds have been caused" (15, Emphasis mine)

failed saves = Unsaved wounds caused. When a model is subjected to the effects of the unsaved wound, only then has the unsaved wound been suffered.

You still fail to answer the question: does or does not your way of playing FNP results in psykers returning to life and gaining used warp charges because their enemy rolled FNP successfully...

 Lanna wrote:
Hello am Lanna,I am out here to spreed this good news to the entire world on how i got my ex love back.I was going crazy when my love left me for another woman 7 months ago,But when i meet a friend that introduce me to Dr Olokun the great messenger to the oracle that he serve,I narrated my problem to Him about how my ex love left me and also how i needed to get a job.He only said to me that i have come to the right place were i will be getting my heart desire without any side effect.He told me what i need to do,After it was been done,In the next 5 days,My lover called me on the phone and was pleading for forgiveness,I was called for interview in my desired company were i needed to work as a marketing manager.I am so happy and overwhelmed that i have to tell this to the entire world to contact Dr Olokun at the following email address and get all your problem solve..No problem is too big for him to solve..Contact him on: (drolokun23@gmail.com ) and get your problems solve like me.

Lanna you understand your ex is still out there porking other chicks daily, he just wants to hold on to a decent chick so he can keep up appearances to friends and family while slamming sluts all night while you sit at home wondering "when will his job end".

So copper, even if you pass FNP you still lose a wound? Given the only way to SUFFER an unsaved wound is to lose a wound, and you claim that es still happens even if you don't lose a wound, this has to be true.

So, do you play that FNP is functionally useless? Or are you just being inconsistent?

I notice that you, DR, are now saying that only when the model reduces it's wound total by one is it suffering a wound. I seem to remember you arguing the exact opposite to support your reading of Swarms and instant death wounds. Which is it when the model reduced it's wounds or when the wounds are put into a pool for a unit with the rule?
Edit: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/497144.page In case you forgot.

Secondly how does FNP even trigger then? If the only way for a model to suffer a wound is to reduce it's wound characteristic by one then the model is already removed from play by the time you would even make the roll. If that is the case do all special powers continue after the model is removed from play so long as the trigger has happened? If they are allowed to continue for how long, till the trigger is gone, till the end of the turn, indefinitely due to the controlling power which would end it is gone? How do we tell which can continue and which cannot? You are picking FNP and Force to activate but not the rest based off a belief that somehow removing a trigger removes everything that has already activated off of it and or it will affect the outcome of what happens later. There is no actual rules basis for this.

You don't remove a wound because special rules have the power to omit eventual outcomes- they change the rules, give permission to ignore restrictions, permission to change basic rules, skip basic rules, modify stats and create additional restrictions. Removal of the wound is done after suffering a unsaved wound, if not, FNP couldn't even activate in the first place, as Gram has pointed out.

Still, If FNP can function in a paradox, why can other special rules not? Or is it just selective rule application.

If ES is applied first and FNP passes, to treat the wound as saved, removing the trigger for ES but not FNP is selective rule application, which ever way you look at it.

If we remove the trigger, do it for both or none ( let's try to be consistent when applying rules ), naturally both ends you in a ground hog situation. None leaves you applying both rules and moving on. This 'breaking of rules' is created by playing inconsistently, which doesn't seem like it should be my problem to explain away. If you apply effects of special rules selectively, your going to break it.

As to the psyker question, the faq requires it to go before fnp. the test is made for all unsaved wounds to have the instant death rule, which is functionally different than es removing a single models armour save. the results of the psychic test are applicable for all potential unsaved wounds so one fnp will not alter its effect or result.

How can he have rolled if there was no unsaved wound? If you remove it from the past, you must remove everything that resulted from it (or ES isn't removed anyway) including the test for force, including everything that resulted from that.

Which is why we don't play 40k backwards.

FNP gives permission to change the status of the unsaved wound, not permission to change everything that might have already occurred from it, such as ES, Or psyker death

Force is triggered off of an unsaved wound, singular. Each wound can potentially trigger it. Each time ES triggers it can potentially remove the chance for every wound there after to even get a save for the rest of that combat and the rest of the game. If we are going for long reaching ES is far further reaching then Force in most cases.

I keep seeing that the only reason they could have told you to roll Force before FNP is that it keeps FNP from working. What are you basing this off of? What in the FAQ is telling you this?

Stormbreed wrote:

 Lanna wrote:
Hello am Lanna,I am out here to spreed this good news to the entire world on how i got my ex love back.I was going crazy when my love left me for another woman 7 months ago,But when i meet a friend that introduce me to Dr Olokun the great messenger to the oracle that he serve,I narrated my problem to Him about how my ex love left me and also how i needed to get a job.He only said to me that i have come to the right place were i will be getting my heart desire without any side effect.He told me what i need to do,After it was been done,In the next 5 days,My lover called me on the phone and was pleading for forgiveness,I was called for interview in my desired company were i needed to work as a marketing manager.I am so happy and overwhelmed that i have to tell this to the entire world to contact Dr Olokun at the following email address and get all your problem solve..No problem is too big for him to solve..Contact him on: (drolokun23@gmail.com ) and get your problems solve like me.

Lanna you understand your ex is still out there porking other chicks daily, he just wants to hold on to a decent chick so he can keep up appearances to friends and family while slamming sluts all night while you sit at home wondering "when will his job end".

That is quite the non sequitur there Storm...

Gravmyr wrote:
I notice that you, DR, are now saying that only when the model reduces it's wound total by one is it suffering a wound. I seem to remember you arguing the exact opposite to support your reading of Swarms and instant death wounds. Which is it when the model reduced it's wounds or when the wounds are put into a pool for a unit with the rule?
Edit: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/497144.page In case you forgot.

This clearly was not the case, as the FaQ says that they are not doubled.

Also the use of suffer in the rules is very inconsistent.

So you go from one extreme to the other? Interesting.

This means that before the faqs you were saying one thing to argue for the swarms/ID issue and you were saying the exact opposite to argue for the force/FNP issue. Which makes you inconsistent, not the rules...

Gravmyr wrote:
So you go from one extreme to the other? Interesting.

Not at all actually...

I said the use of suffer in the rules is very inconsistent.

copper.talos wrote:
This means that before the faqs you were saying one thing to argue for the swarms/ID issue and you were saying the exact opposite to argue for the force/FNP issue. Which makes you inconsistent, not the rules...

I was saying that because it appeared true, the FaQ came out and it seemed not true.

However the use of suffer in the rules is very inconsistent.

Both swarm/ID and force/FNP exist since the beginning of 6th, before any faq, so there was a point in time you were arguing for these 2 rules using contradictory arguments. That is what makes you inconsistent.

But this is apparently an exception, since I see you are very consistent on NOT answering if your way of playing FNP results in psykers returning to life and gaining used warp charges because their enemy rolled FNP successfully.