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.

Why, what's wrong with treating wounds as saved to models without an armour save? It's not against the rules you know...

copper.talos wrote:
Why, what's wrong with treating wounds as saved to models without an armour save? It's not against the rules you know...

It is, because if a wound was saved then ES would not have any affect.

if you strip a models armor save you are not treating the wound "as having been saved" (FNP rules in the BRB).

Immediately:
1. without lapse of time; at once.
2. with no object or space intervening.
3. closely: immediately in the vicinity.
4. without intervening medium or agent.
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/immediately)

If you apply FNP before ES then ES doesn't happen immediately. And FNP can fail you know. If you apply ES before FNP then FNP treats the wound as saved to a model that has no armour save. No problem with that.

ES does happen immediately, but only upon an unsaved wound, which we only have if the FNP is failed. then strip all the armor save you want.

Pass the FNP, then we have to treat the wound as saved. ergo no unsaved wound created if FNP is passed. This is why you resolve FNP first.

@rigeld2: Which changes the past how? It does not in fact tell you to treat the model as if it had never received an unsaved wound nor does it say to negate or remove and auxiliary effects triggered by the unsaved wound.

I never said anything even close to that. If nothing that triggers off an unsaved wound can apply to the model how can you apply FNP? How can FNP activate if there was never an unsaved wound per the time traveling removal of the unsaved period? If you claim that FNP can activate then remove any effects that have happened that to the model due to treating the wound as having been saved how do you continue to apply the effects of FNP, is it not an effect that requires there to be a unsaved wound for FNP to effect the model?

Looking at the rules strictly as they are written there are three possible outcomes to an FNP model suffering from an Entropic Strike, etc., wound:
1: You can negate everything that requires an unsaved wound to have it trigger. Which causes FNP to conflict with itself as well as there not being any rules backup for halting resolution nor negating the effects of SR's if the trigger is removed.
2: You can halt the further resolution of SR's that happen after the resolution of FNP. Following the sequencing rules for order of resolution but does not have a rule basis that has been posted for halting resolution.
3: You can apply all SR's that have been activated. Follows the rules for order of resolution and all work due to the fact that there is no rule to halt resolution once activation has occurred nor negation clause in FNP.

Looking back to 6th Force was FAQed to happen before FNP. The only difference in the wording of the rules was the inclusion of immediately in Force. To say immediately means nothing ignores the fact that a rule with that worded was already faqed to occur before this self same rule.

Please find a quote that gives me permission to halt resolution of anything once triggered or something in FNP that tells you at what point you start treating the wound as saved or permission to remove the effects of other SR's based off FNP. This needs to be spelled out as there is no way to continue this discussion unless you can quote something that actually conflicts with the Sequencing section or that gives you permission to negate/change other effects.

 DeathReaper wrote:
ES does happen immediately, but only upon an unsaved wound, which we only have if the FNP is failed. then strip all the armor save you want.

Pass the FNP, then we have to treat the wound as saved. ergo no unsaved wound created if FNP is passed. This is why you resolve FNP first.

If you only have a unsaved wound if FNP is failed, than how do you ever take a FNP roll? It needs an unsaved wound to happen.

It's a nice opinion you have, it's a shame you have no rules support to go with it.

@deathreaper All you think about is that the wound is treated as saved so it never existed. What if you fail the FNP roll?

There is an unsaved wound, you roll FNP you fail and then you apply ES? Still wrong, the unsaved would is the same wound that triggered ES in the first place and you applied FNP before ES, so ES didn't happen immediately.

Except of course if you think that FNP treats the wound as saved beforehand, you roll and if you fail then you create another unsaved wound...

looking at it a little closer i feel this is Schrödinger's wound. It is saved and unsaved at the same time. My view point of the matter goes like this.

Model takes a wound and fails it's armor/invul save.
order of effects ES sees its trigger happen of an unsaved wound and takes effect.
FNP sees its trigger happen of an unsaved wound and takes effect.
FNP roll is passed and we are told to treat that unsaved wound as saved.
ES's trigger of the unsaved wound is now treated as saved because of FNP.
We don't wanna break any rules so ES isn't applied because it's trigger is no longer in effect of an unwaved wound.
ES pulls a marty Mcfly if he fails to bring his parents togeather.
FNP in a sense does the same because that unsaved wound is now treated as a saved wound so FNP wouldn't be needed either so it fades away.

Bit of a scratch on a record player and going back in time sillyness. And on the flip side.

Model takes a wound and fails it's armor/invul save.
order of effects ES sees its trigger happen of an unsaved wound and takes effect.
FNP sees its trigger happen of an unsaved wound and takes effect.
FNP roll is passed and we are told to treat that unsaved wound as saved.
We aren't told to remove ES if the unsaved wound becomes saved.but it's trigger has still been met before FNP so it stays.
We don't wanna break any rules so ES stays because it's conditions have been met and we aren't told to remove it.
ES pulls a marty Mcfly and saves his parents so he doesn't fade meaning he didn't need to go back in time in the first place.
FNP in a sense does the same because that unsaved wound is now treated as a saved wound so FNP wouldn't be needed either so it fades away.


Thats what i gather from both sides of the fence. I'm in the option one group but only loosely because FNP tells us to do something weird and to re-write events on what happened (by discounting an unsaved wound and counting it as saved).


Best way to solve this is to update the necron codex next.

As far as I know the only time you treat a Wound cancelled by FNP as unsaved is for Epidemius, however, his special rule specifically calls out FNP.

Read FNP's rule page 164 third paragraph after the fluff note. It says treat it as having been saved.

Do you treat it as saved from the time you succeed in FNP or in the past?
Does ES require an ongoing unsaved wound to continue to be in effect?

If you shoot a heavy weapon at full effect and then later do something which is means the model is now treated as having moved (in the movement phase), do you go back and undo those shooting actions because the model moved? - Because that is what is being advocated.


You apply rules as they happen, not to other rules that have happened. If ES goes first, there is no reason why it would not stay. It doesn't need a unsaved wound after it is applied. FNP does not need to check for its trigger after the results are applied. The checks are done as you trigger. If you needed the trigger to still be present, then FNP would itself collapse the game, as it would check for a unsaved wound, there wouldn't be one, rolling FNP must be undone, then your in a circular motion.


So you treat the wound as saved from all actions from that point. The next action would be to remove the wound characteristic. FNP says nope, and you move on. There is not another check on ES To interfere with FNP.


Treat as having done something, is without a doubt for checks from that point on, if not the rules break down in all sorts of areas. ES does not check again for a unsaved wound if applied before FNP.

 Nem wrote:
Do you treat it as saved from the time you succeed in FNP or in the past?

Since the rules for FNP says to treat the Wound "as having been saved" it is going back in time and changing the Wound from Unsaved to Saved.

Yes, this creates a paradox with FNP. It has done so for a few editions now.

In 6th there was a FAQ that ruled FNP happens AFTER an effect which triggers on unsaved wounds and resolves immediately. No paradoxes back then. And in 5th it was a grey area.

Also creating paradoxes leads to absurdity. There is a way to resolve these rules without paradoxes and not disregard important parts of a rule such as "immediately". ES goes first and FNP after.

 Nem wrote:
Do you treat it as saved from the time you succeed in FNP or in the past?
Does ES require an ongoing unsaved wound to continue to be in effect?

If you shoot a heavy weapon at full effect and then later do something which is means the model is now treated as having moved (in the movement phase), do you go back and undo those shooting actions because the model moved? - Because that is what is being advocated.


You apply rules as they happen, not to other rules that have happened. If ES goes first, there is no reason why it would not stay. It doesn't need a unsaved wound after it is applied. FNP does not need to check for its trigger after the results are applied. The checks are done as you trigger. If you needed the trigger to still be present, then FNP would itself collapse the game, as it would check for a unsaved wound, there wouldn't be one, rolling FNP must be undone, then your in a circular motion.


So you treat the wound as saved from all actions from that point. The next action would be to remove the wound characteristic. FNP says nope, and you move on. There is not another check on ES To interfere with FNP.


Treat as having done something, is without a doubt for checks from that point on, if not the rules break down in all sorts of areas. ES does not check again for a unsaved wound if applied before FNP.

Well stated, and I agree that FNP dose not negate effects that trigger on an unsaved wound. All FNP negates is the loss of a wound that was unsaved, (By treating it like it had been saved)

So thanks to FNP the model did not lose a wound, but it still under the effects of Concussive, ES, etc... Due to being almost killed.

Remember the rules are written to "Forge a Narrative" as such the FnP rule is written to make the Space Marine keep walking as his armor falls off of him, and he keeps on fighting. Or the warrior looks at the scratch caused by the hex rifle, goes to keep on fighting, and is shocked/horrified that he is turning into a glass statue. The warrior who just plowed a guy with his concussive hammer, is sure of his victory, but the guy he hammered into the ground staggers to his feet.

I have always read the rule as effecting the wound, and not special rules. I'm not sure about the new rules, but the old rules allowed for multiple special rules affecting the same model, and being true. So under the old rules you could not take a wound, yet still lose the armor. But prevailing opinion was that FnP was the best special rule ever, and goes before every other rule in the game.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
ES does happen immediately, but only upon an unsaved wound, which we only have if the FNP is failed. then strip all the armor save you want.

Pass the FNP, then we have to treat the wound as saved. ergo no unsaved wound created if FNP is passed. This is why you resolve FNP first.

If you only have a unsaved wound if FNP is failed, than how do you ever take a FNP roll? It needs an unsaved wound to happen.

It's a nice opinion you have, it's a shame you have no rules support to go with it.

FNP creates a paradox within itself that, if successful, negates its need to be rolled.

Either way creates a saved wound and if you apply effects off of a saved wound that require an unsaved wound, you are breaking the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:
@deathreaper All you think about is that the wound is treated as saved so it never existed. What if you fail the FNP roll?

There is an unsaved wound, you roll FNP you fail and then you apply ES? Still wrong, the unsaved would is the same wound that triggered ES in the first place and you applied FNP before ES, so ES didn't happen immediately.

Except of course if you think that FNP treats the wound as saved beforehand, you roll and if you fail then you create another unsaved wound...

FNP says to treat the wound "as having been saved" This means we treat the original armor or cover or invuln as successful if the FNP roll was successful.

You still have not posted a rule that allows you to choose which Sr's you are going to process and which you have not. You are choosing to process FNP but nothing else. Please post a rule allowing you to choose which rules to follow and which not. A rule mind you not your opinion as to you have to process FNP first because it can stop the others. That is a real world logic being applied to this game which it is clear you are loathed to do as you posted numerous times should not be done. The same can be said for using the least advantageous reading of FNP which would be to allow all rules to be applied but not reduce the models wounds by one.

You process everything if applicable.

ES is not applicable until you see if the wound has been saved.

FNP is applicable as soon as the armor/cover/invuln save is failed, and if successful we treat that wound as if they passed the armor/cover/invuln save ergo FNP has to come first because we have to treat the wound as having been saved.

applying ES to a wound that we are treating as having been saved is breaking a rule.

So breaking at least two is better? How can you apply FNP if you go back in time and negate the wound which allows you to roll for FNP? That's one which you have admitted and you are breaking the one for Sequencing. So yeah let's break a bunch of rules instead...... Stop trying to claim it goes back in time and does anything other stop from reducing the model's wounds by one. Back it up with a rule or I will have to assume you are trolling and ignore you.

You are not breaking any rules when you roll FNP first.

How are you rolling FNP first without using the rules for sequencing on pg 17? I want a rule quote here otherwise you will be violating tenet 1 or 4 of YMDC.

Gravmyr wrote:
So breaking at least two is better? How can you apply FNP if you go back in time and negate the wound which allows you to roll for FNP? That's one which you have admitted and you are breaking the one for Sequencing. So yeah let's break a bunch of rules instead...... Stop trying to claim it goes back in time and does anything other stop from reducing the model's wounds by one. Back it up with a rule or I will have to assume you are trolling and ignore you.

it does go back in time it pulls a marty Mcfly and saves the day(wound). it turns the unsaved wound into a saved wound making its need to roll moot. Another way of looking at it is it creatures an alternate timeline which is the new main timeline. You want a rule here it is "On a +5, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved.'(FNP rule in BRB) Saved is in its past tense same with been. it is telling you to ignore that the wound was ever unsaved.

It was Nem I think, back in 6th edition, that wrote a good post about FNP's timing. The bottom line was treat is present tense, so you treat the wound from then on as having being saved.

Nem can correct me of course...

In my opinion, it is giving you a clue that you have to go back and re-write things. 'Treat it as having BEEN saved." Also for those that missed it the rule also states '... it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to AVOID being wounded ...'

This, to me, says that it does, in fact, go back and change the past so that said wound does not occur. To apply ES to a model that has not suffered a wound is breaking rules.

Anyone arguing that you can't apply ES to a model that has not suffered a wound please explain why you are applying one rule and not the rest then. If both abilities require an unsaved wound how are you applying the effects of one and not the other.

Secondly if you think that changing the wound from unsaved to saved stops the resolution of an already triggered SR post a rule that states that you cannot apply it. As has been posted already we have multiple abilities triggered you need to show a rule that actually stops their resolution after they have been triggered. It is like the stacking of psychic powers, the trigger has been met I now have permission to resolve the effect.

There is a very good example question from 6th. If a model with force a weapon hit a model with FNP, attempts to activate the weapon but suffers a perils and dies, does that model come back and regain it's warp charge if the other model makes his FNP roll? Those are the kinds of things we are arguing against, history revision in which you may cause other problems such as model placement or changes in wound allocation.

I did ... see the post above yours where the rules say avoid? I even underlined it. If you AVOID being wounded how are you applying the effects of ES to something that has been avoided?

That answers absolutely none of my questions. If people are not going to back up their statements and explain their stance they are breaking tenet 1 of YMDC. As such i have flagged your response as breaking tenet 1.

Gravmyr wrote:
That answers absolutely none of my questions. If people are not going to back up their statements and explain their stance they are breaking tenet 1 of YMDC. As such i have flagged your response as breaking tenet 1.

In a discussion such as this one there is no quoting rules as everyone would just quote FNP and ES.

If you prefer, everyone could quote both of these rules before they post? Would that please you?

OIIIIIIO quoted rules and is breaking tenet 1 less then you are at the moment:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
'Treat it as having BEEN saved."

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
'... it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to AVOID being wounded ...'

YOUR past 5 posts, at least, do not contain rule quotes

 Happyjew wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Do you treat it as saved from the time you succeed in FNP or in the past?

Since the rules for FNP says to treat the Wound "as having been saved" it is going back in time and changing the Wound from Unsaved to Saved.

Yes, this creates a paradox with FNP. It has done so for a few editions now.

Happy I would agree but treat ad having moved and such things are also in the rules, which is again referring to something in the past - since we don't 're write the game for those it is simply playing inconsistently to do so with FNP.

Treat As having done something has come up twice recently. Once in embarking/falling back thread and again within dark Eldar webway thread. Both concluded the 'having done' is only in effect from the time imposed onwards, and does not interfere with the past. If anyone who agreed with the concept there, but not here can come up with a rule based notable reason why FNP is different to the rest of treat as havings, then I would revisit the debate. But at this time, no reasons forward, it is just playing inconsistently.

I have already posted the relent rules. Multiple times. When you are just joining in the conversation and your only response is to agree with another poster but not add anything then respond that part of a rule answers three questions.....

I made three statements, of which two had questions. Answering "I did ... see the post above yours where the rules say avoid? I even underlined it. If you AVOID being wounded how are you applying the effects of ES to something that has been avoided?" Which does this answer?

Using the logic that FNP has removed the unsaved wound and you cannot apply the effects of an SR that requires an unsaved wound how are you rolling for FNP? Whatever reason you can come up with reinforces that you can apply SR's that require an unsaved wound even after the initial trigger is removed.

I also asked about a scenario from 6th that was not answered and gives a good idea behind your logical process. The question about halting an already activated SR is valid and there is no rule in the book that stops it from happening. It is exactly like activating a power, once activated how do you stop the resolution?