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.

FNP
"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded...

...snip..

... On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved."

Entropic Strike
"Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds... (effects of the rule)"

Concussive
"A model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds....(effects of the rule)"

Some people are saying that FNP now saves against effects like concussive, entropic strike or rules that use unsaved wounds to trigger them. My problem with this rule has always been that it triggers with the same conditions as some effects like those I've listed. In such a case, it would appear that they should be resolved at the same time. Without a direct reference stating that it counteracts any effects that it would incur from having an unsaved wound and instead "treating it as being saved", I'm on the fence whether or not FNP in 7th edition can stop ES or Concussive.

As far as I can see, as soon as a model "suffers an unsaved wound" it should immediately resolve all effects that this condition triggers which could be FNP, ES and Concussive.

This was very lengthy in 5th I believe with one side stating you had to resolve FNP first, or reverse the effects of the other rules, or you are not treating it like the wound was saved and the other side stating exactly what you are and that the active player chooses. Needs a FAQ or rewording of FNP.

i don't see much of a problem here you pretty much posted all that needs to be said.

"On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved"

You treat the wound as if it was saved. What do you do with entropic strike and concussive if you save the wound vs it?




EDit: without the rules in front of me my personal how i would play it (currently). FNP says to treat it as saved and ES and concussive says only on unsaved wounds. My question I can see could be read as rhetorical but it was not meant to be.


Edit#2: and re-reading it from the other side of the fence i'm now at a loss for how it will work. Is there anything in the rules how to handle things that happen at the same time? In the mean time if this comes up I'll just go for the flip a coin and resolve it for that game way.

And it starts....

I dont feel strongly about it either way, but if you follow the logic that Force activates before FNP (which we know it does), then why shouldnt any of the other abilities that trigger on an unsaved wound not trigger?

We know it did... now it happens in a different phase.

i agree with you @sonicaucie all effects would resolve at same time. Also leave all effects even if FNP is successful since its not an ordinary save the rule even says that its isn't an ordinary save too so it wouldn't negate effects that's my opinion.

'always favour the attacking option' thats how we tend to play, if the defender don't like that then give them some grief! haha



Peace

The list of items that FnP doest this to is more than just these, theres a lot of items where if a model suffers an unsaved wound its removed from play or takes a test and is removed from play, etc.

If the model makes its FnP roll and it didn't lose a wound did it suffer an unsaved wound.

Ie a 3 wound model is hit, fails its Inv save, but makes FnP and still has 3 wounds. How many unsaved wounds did it suffer?

My math comes up to 0.

How can you apply the effects of entropic strike when your told to treat the wound as saved?

Entropic does nothing if the wound is saved...

Which would be fine if the wound have been saved before the ability is triggered. Since it's triggered at the same time as FNP even if the FNP roll is successful we still have to apply the affect.

 BarBoBot wrote:
How can you apply the effects of entropic strike when your told to treat the wound as saved?

Entropic does nothing if the wound is saved...

The point is that the conditions for FNP, ES, Concussive and many other abilities are the same. When FNP triggers, so has ES and such. This is when the argument of "order of abilities resolving" comes into effect. As all abilities are triggering at the exact same time and FNP specifies treat the wound as saved, then the order in which FNP is used would affect the outcome. The player whose turn it is gets to dictate the order in which things happen, so it would be possible for a player to simply state that concussive or ES takes place before the FNP roll and therefore any outcome which FNP has is immediately nullified since it happens too late in the order to do so since it does not specify specifically that it counteracts effects that happen from taking an unsaved wound.

I.E:

- Model A suffers an unsaved wound
- Player whose turn it is now chooses to resolve ES, Concussive, FNP in whatever order he chooses

This is ofcourse you believe that FNP is countering it. There are people who believe that ES, Concussive and such must be resolved even if FNP is made because the model still suffered an unsaved wound triggering the effect. I.E: it is simply too late altogether for FNP to have an effect as the effects have already been activated as soon as FNP is activated.

Gravmyr wrote:
Which would be fine if the wound have been saved before the ability is triggered. Since it's triggered at the same time as FNP even if the FNP roll is successful we still have to apply the affect.

Applying an effect off of a wound that is treated as saved, that is breaking a rule.

As is not fulfilling SR's that have been triggered already.

It should be noted that FNP is not a Save but a Special Roll that is taken after a unsaved wound is inflicted.

Thus a multi wound model that fails a save test against a wound, but passes a FNP test still suffered an unsaved wound, that is being ignored due to FNP.

A single Wound Model that suffers an unsaved wound but passes their FNP still had to suffer that unsaved wound to even be able to use FNP.

So if the trigger for Entropic Strike, Concussive, and similar affects is a unsaved wound, the question is did the model during the phase suffer an unsaved wound from a Weapon or attack with those rules? and if they did suffer an unsaved wound, did they ignore the loss of that wound due to FNP?

HIWPI is that while the wound is not lost due to FNP the effects such as Concussive and ES are applied as the model did suffer an unsaved wound.

I also feel that in the case of two things triggering at the same time that the player who's turn it is gets to decide the order at which things happen, much like how MMS are better for Necrons that charge than those that get charged.

If your treating the wound as saved, then you can't apply the effects of ES.

If you apply the effects your not treating the wound as saved, no matter if 2 things happen simultaneously or not. If the wound is discounted, it never happened.

This goes back to a very similar discussion involving the stacking of psychic powers. If you have managed to make your roll to activate the power, in this case has the model suffered an unsaved wound, then you have permission to apply the affect of the power or in this case a USR. If you are arguing it one way for psychic powers how can you are argue it another way when USR's are involved?

Eihnlazer wrote:
I dont feel strongly about it either way, but if you follow the logic that Force activates before FNP (which we know it does), then why shouldnt any of the other abilities that trigger on an unsaved wound not trigger?

They FAQ'd Force due to the fact that if one goes off the other cannot.

If Force goes first, then the weapon causes ID and cannot be FNP'd away.
If FNP goes first, then the weapon did not cause an unsaved Wound and cannot be activated.


Now with ES.
If ES goes first, the model loses his armour and then you are not treating the Wound as having been saved.
If FNP goes first, then there is no unsaved Wound for the effect to trigger.

Gravmyr wrote:
As is not fulfilling SR's that have been triggered already.

and that is okay because the wound is treated as having been saved, and not activating ES is just fine because we are treating the wound as a saved wound.

FNP must go first to find out if you have a saved wound or an unsaved wound.

 DeathReaper wrote:

and that is okay because the wound is treated as having been saved, and not activating ES is just fine because we are treating the wound as a saved wound.

FNP must go first to find out if you have a saved wound or an unsaved wound.

Which is in direction contradiction to your argument concerning the right to stack psychic powers is it not?
Activation has already happened before you roll for FNP and there is nothing in it that says to stop resolving other USR's is there?

Gravmyr wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

and that is okay because the wound is treated as having been saved, and not activating ES is just fine because we are treating the wound as a saved wound.

FNP must go first to find out if you have a saved wound or an unsaved wound.

Which is in direction contradiction to your argument concerning the right to stack psychic powers is it not?
Activation has already happened before you roll for FNP and there is nothing in it that says to stop resolving other USR's is there?

I think the difference is in the wording. Used to be that making your FNP save had the wound being ignored, discarded, or what have you. Now it specificalyl says that the wound counts as being saved, which is much more specific than just discarding or ignoring it. It really does loop back to "Has the model suffered an unsaved wound?", the answer to which will be no. It did not suffer an unsaved wound, because FNP made it a saved wound. The effects cannot be applied, because the wound was saved.

Gravmyr wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

and that is okay because the wound is treated as having been saved, and not activating ES is just fine because we are treating the wound as a saved wound.

FNP must go first to find out if you have a saved wound or an unsaved wound.

Which is in direction contradiction to your argument concerning the right to stack psychic powers is it not?
Activation has already happened before you roll for FNP and there is nothing in it that says to stop resolving other USR's is there?

There is. The fact that the wound has been saved.
It's not a contradictory stance at all - you're reaching (hard) to try and say that it is.

rigeld2 wrote:

There is. The fact that the wound has been saved.
It's not a contradictory stance at all - you're reaching (hard) to try and say that it is.

Saved from the moment you make the roll. Which does not change the fact that the USR has already been activated. I suppose you won't mind quoting a rule to support not resolving a USR that was activated.

@morganfreeman: Once activated it doesn't matter that what activated it has been changed, if it did when a wound from a Vindicare Assassin was Look out sir!'d then the first model that had the wound allocated would not loose the save yet it was FAQed to affect both the first model and the model the wound was transferred to.

Gravmyr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

There is. The fact that the wound has been saved.
It's not a contradictory stance at all - you're reaching (hard) to try and say that it is.

Saved from the moment you make the roll. Which does not change the fact that the USR has already been activated. I suppose you won't mind quoting a rule to support not resolving a USR that was activated.

@morganfreeman: Once activated it doesn't matter that what activated it has been changed, if it did when a wound from a Vindicare Assassin was Look out sir!'d then the first model that had the wound allocated would not loose the save yet it was FAQed to affect both the first model and the model the wound was transferred to.

Go ahead and resolve it. You've now applied an effect requiring an unsaved wound to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound.
That's what we call "Breaking a rule." Perhaps you've heard of it?

And the Vindicaire FAQ was a rules change - unless you can find some rules basis for his removing the save from *two* models considering he can only ever hit one.

Gravmyr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

There is. The fact that the wound has been saved.
It's not a contradictory stance at all - you're reaching (hard) to try and say that it is.

Saved from the moment you make the roll. Which does not change the fact that the USR has already been activated. I suppose you won't mind quoting a rule to support not resolving a USR that was activated.

@morganfreeman: Once activated it doesn't matter that what activated it has been changed, if it did when a wound from a Vindicare Assassin was Look out sir!'d then the first model that had the wound allocated would not loose the save yet it was FAQed to affect both the first model and the model the wound was transferred to.

Has the wound even been unsaved though? With how FNP is written now, it's basically a fantasy-esque double save. Fail your first save? Np, have this second save - nothing happens until after that one.

Again, FNP has been changed to save wounds, not simply ignore or discard them. It would seem that it's basically a back-up armor save with some special rules revolving around when you get it and when you don't.

BY choosing to apply FNP first you have broken the sequencing rule from pg 17, which states the active player chooses which order to resolve rule triggered at the same time. That's what we call "Breaking a rule." Perhaps you've heard of it? I assume you didn't quote a rule that allows your interpretation because one does not exist. The same way many rules are "rules changes" in the FAQ they are not per GW it's a clarification. If you are viewing it as anything else your vision of what is written is different from GW's and whether or not we like it is wrong.

@morganfreeman: FNP never tells us when it was saved just that is is treated as having been saved. Since I have no instructions about going back in time and unallocating the wound or not resolving other powers I fail to see how I can not apply the affects. It actually tells you to discount the wound first, which is to lessen the normal cost, then it tells us to treat it as having been saved.

There's 2 "reasonable" scenarios here.

Scenario 1.

Model fails its save, suffers ES/whatever

The model is still allowed a FnP roll (unless we are talking a 6 on a destroyer hit..)

If the model passes its FnP roll the unsaved wound is discounted and counts as being saved.

Scenario 2

The model fails its save

The model is allowed a FnP roll, succeeds and the wound is discounted and counts as saved.

In both scenarios there was no unsaved wound. The difference is in one of the scenarios something incorrect happened, there was application of an effect that only triggers if a model suffers an effect that the model never suffered.

If you apply the entropic strike under scenario 1 you are saying there was at some point an unsaved wound, this has impacts beyond ES, like for combat results in assault etc.

Obviously that is not the case.

additionally if a model is reduced to 0 wounds from 1 it is removed from play. Does this mean we take our models off the table then roll FnP for them if they fail their save on opponents turn?

Obviously none of that makes sense.

The FnP has to resolve before anything that triggers from unsaved wounds regardless of player turn, because the act of triggeting anything off an unsaved wound when none has occured due to FnP is incorrect.

I assume you have a rule to quote that states that we cannot apply the affects of a rule/power if the trigger no longer exists or that you stop activating rules if the trigger no longer exists.

I vote that the effect doesn't happen. It's the phrase "treat it as having been saved" that does it for me.

But it is ambiguous, I think I understand the opposing argument, and it's another thing that requires a FAQ.

Here, have a 23 page thread from 6th!
The rules have changed only a little and do not significantly impact this argument.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/560047.page

I'll sum up posts in there from me; If ES is activated first, then the effects should remain if the wound is treated as saved. You avoid being wounded (-1 W) you treat the -1 W as if it has been saved (IE, you don't apply the wound to the characteristic line), not discount any special rules that might have triggered from suffering the wound (Like FNP...), more importantly you only have permission to ignore the wound as a item from the time of a successful FNP, not any special rule which triggered from it.

Discounting special rules should be consistent in play, which means to discount ES, you should also discount the results of FNP as the trigger is the same. There is no unsaved wound for FNP to trigger off!

IF FNP is activated first, then ES does not get to take effect.

Many things *never* happened during the game, in several areas you are told to treat something as having moved when it didn't, the actuality of if it does or does not exist in the rules at that time is of little consequence. The game is linear - the trigger does not need to still be present after the rule is in use, nor does ES require it to be. Like in instances we treat as having moved, we do not go back in time and change everything before that event up til the movement phase and declare it illegal because a state has now changed to act as if it had moved, it just effects from the time, and things that happened before it are not changed or removed - the game moves forward.

Now while I find there is general agreement with the principle of not going back and declaring things illegal which have been done because we are now treating it as if something else had happened - very recently in two threads this concept has been used with things like Embarking is treated as having moved- people think FNP is somehow different - but not in my mind.

In the thread I also bring up the difference of English in - Treat as having been saved and Treated as having been saved.You treat it as having been saved, you don't go back in the 40k timeline to be treated as having been saved.

 Happyjew wrote:
They FAQ'd Force due to the fact that if one goes off the other cannot.

If Force goes first, then the weapon causes ID and cannot be FNP'd away.
If FNP goes first, then the weapon did not cause an unsaved Wound and cannot be activated.


Now with ES.
If ES goes first, the model loses his armour and then you are not treating the Wound as having been saved.
If FNP goes first, then there is no unsaved Wound for the effect to trigger.

I liked this one explanation. Made my choice on position.

All the IFs have to combine in the super-resolution of the conjunction world of clauses.