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.

copper.talos:

If you have a model with 1 Wound and FNP, and I shoot it with a weapon that does not cause ID, can I decide that you subtract 1 Wound from the profile (meaning the model is removed as a casualty), before rolling FNP, since they happen at the same time?

copper.talos wrote:
I am 100% correct. Force back then was a special rule that triggered from an unsaved wound and applied immediately. FNP was ruled to apply after it.

No you are not 100% correct. Force caused ID, so that is why FNP could not be taken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I'm glad you agree, roll til you fail.

Not at all, once you pass FNP we treat the wound as if the armor/cover/invuln was passed, no more rolls needed.

Bottom line: To apply the ES effect to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound is breaking a rule.

rigeld2 wrote:
Because otherwise FNP is nonfunctional. As I've pointed out. Perhaps you missed my post?

So it doesn't keep the model alive? Interesting.....it's not our stance that they die.

rigeld2 wrote:No, false, proven incorrect, not sure how else to say this.
I'm not saying that the resolution of ES is stopped. I'm saying that to apply the ES effect to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound is breaking a rule.

Still have not been able to make a valid argument as to why you choose to apply one and not the other. Until you can present that there is no reason to read anything else posted.

rigeld2 wrote:In 6th it was FAQed and this argument can no longer apply, so you're bringing up irrelevant issues. Perhaps you could use relevant arguments when you post? That'd be great.

Does that mean your logic is irrelevant as well? It is a good basis as the rules concerning this have not changed.

Happyjew wrote:Yes the FAQ ruled that Force happens before FNP.

However, they did not say that Force happens first because it is resolved immediately.

If you really want to know why in that situation Force had to go first, let me know, I'll gladly explain it.

We have to use what the rules say unless you have a GW official release that specifically tells us the full reasoning. The only difference in the wording of the two is the use of immediately.

@happyjew You subtract the wound after all the abilities that trigger from an unsaved wound are resolved in the correct order.

 DeathReaper wrote:

No you are not 100% correct. Force caused ID, so that is why FNP could not be taken.

So since Force caused ID after it was applied, you agree that special rules that trigger from unsaved and apply immediately, they do so before FNP. So ES resolves first leaving the model with armour save. Then FNP applies to a model with no armour save and if successful the wound is discounted, which results in leaving a model with no armour save and full wounds.

copper.talos wrote:
@happyjew You subtract the wound after all the abilities that trigger from an unsaved wound are resolved in the correct order..

Why can I not decide to have the Wound subtraction take place at the first? They happen at the same time right? And since it is my turn I get to choose the order of operations, right?

So you still make FMC's take a grounding test at the end of the phase even if the unsaved wound is being treated as saved through FNP?

@happyjew I suggest you read about basic vs advanced rules.

@DeathReaper Grounded tests do not happen immediately after an unsaved wound.,ES does. That is the basis of my argument that makes ES apply before FNP so it cannot be used for grounded tests.

Gravmyr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because otherwise FNP is nonfunctional. As I've pointed out. Perhaps you missed my post?

So it doesn't keep the model alive? Interesting.....it's not our stance that they die.

But it is if you are attempting to appear consistent. As I've explained. Do I need to repeat myself?

rigeld2 wrote:No, false, proven incorrect, not sure how else to say this.
I'm not saying that the resolution of ES is stopped. I'm saying that to apply the ES effect to a model that has not suffered an unsaved wound is breaking a rule.

Still have not been able to make a valid argument as to why you choose to apply one and not the other. Until you can present that there is no reason to read anything else posted.

Because, and I apparently have to repeat myself, FNP literally does nothing if it can't cancel out "triggers".

rigeld2 wrote:In 6th it was FAQed and this argument can no longer apply, so you're bringing up irrelevant issues. Perhaps you could use relevant arguments when you post? That'd be great.

Does that mean your logic is irrelevant as well? It is a good basis as the rules concerning this have not changed.

No. I'm using arguments from this edition, not last edition.

We have to use what the rules say unless you have a GW official release that specifically tells us the full reasoning. The only difference in the wording of the two is the use of immediately.

Please tell me where, in the rules, Force is tested for on an Unsaved Wound. As far as I can tell, that was last edition. So please - do use what the current rules say.

copper.talos wrote:
@DeathReaper Grounded tests do not happen immediately after an unsaved wound.,ES does. That is the basis of my argument that makes ES apply before FNP so it cannot be used for grounded tests.

What is the difference?

If you allow ES/Concussive to trigger would you deny the grounding test?

That is not consistent, because you are saying that the model suffered an unsaved wound for ES/Concussive, but not for grounding tests...

rigeld2 wrote:

Because, and I apparently have to repeat myself, FNP literally does nothing if it can't cancel out "triggers".

No, it allows a model to not lose a wound. A rule that literally does nothing is the skimmer that is forced to end it's move over an enemy model being offset so it is not on said model. Since the only way to end a move on an enemy model is deep striking. As Tank shock/ramming moves the enemy models out from under the tank.

So yes not taking a wound is an effect, and is not literally doing nothing.

I don't see how you are calling it an unsaved wound when you still have a roll to save it.

rigeld2 wrote:But it is if you are attempting to appear consistent. As I've explained. Do I need to repeat myself?

Casualty removal is not an SR nor a psychic power. If you want to try to straw man me and choose to say it is on my turns you will be forced to remove the model before you can roll for FNP.

rigeld2 wrote:Because, and I apparently have to repeat myself, FNP literally does nothing if it can't cancel out "triggers".

Good to know you have to live in a world of absolutes..... this is not a game for that there is an exception to nearly every rule.

rigeld2 wrote:No. I'm using arguments from this edition, not last edition.

Doesn't mean the logic behind them is any different then last edition or marks any better sense.

DeathReaper wrote:What is the difference?

If you allow ES/Concussive to trigger would you deny the grounding test?

That is not consistent, because you are saying that the model suffered an unsaved wound for ES/Concussive, but not for grounding tests...

Those tests are also not SR's.

For a full breakdown just so you don't have to go back to the other thread and this one from earlier and collect my views.
1: Active player chooses which order they are resolved in.
2: If there is a wording to indicate haste those are done first, ie Entropic Strike.

After looking at this I have to side with ES/Concussive, applying to a model that failed its Save but passed its FNP.

1: Different USR are cumulative.

2: Player who's turn it is decides sequence.

3: FNP requires an unsaved wound to trigger.

4: A model can avoid wound lose (Via FNP) and still be concussed or lose it armour save etc...

@DeathReaper

as Gravmyr pointed out Grounded test is not a SR. Furthermore the wordings are very different between ES and Grounded test. Immediately isn't the same as the end of the phase, is it? And lastly the FAQ was about a SR that triggers on an unsaved wound and happens immediately. So it covers ES but not grounded tests.

Gravmyr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:But it is if you are attempting to appear consistent. As I've explained. Do I need to repeat myself?

Casualty removal is not an SR nor a psychic power. If you want to try to straw man me and choose to say it is on my turns you will be forced to remove the model before you can roll for FNP.

rigeld2 wrote:Because, and I apparently have to repeat myself, FNP literally does nothing if it can't cancel out "triggers".

Good to know you have to live in a world of absolutes..... this is not a game for that there is an exception to nearly every rule.

These two answers together are amusing to me. So you agree that your interpretation leads to FNP being useless, and you call it a Strawman at the same time. Cool story bro?

rigeld2 wrote:No. I'm using arguments from this edition, not last edition.

Doesn't mean the logic behind them is any different then last edition or marks any better sense.

When your bring up rules as support and those rules (Force) have drastically changed, the logic must be different. You brought up Force, not me. You need to defend the choice to bring it up because it's totally irrelevant.

For a full breakdown just so you don't have to go back to the other thread and this one from earlier and collect my views.
1: Active player chooses which order they are resolved in.
2: If there is a wording to indicate haste those are done first, ie Entropic Strike.

When you are hit, sit down and act like you weren't hit.
Immediately after you are hit, jump up and down 3 times.

Go ahead - keep pretending that "immediately" happens sooner than "when". And that suffering something that requires an unsaved wound is totally with the rules when a model hasn't suffered one. Because that argument means FNP does nothing.

FNP: When you suffer an unsaved wound.
ES: Immediately AFTER suffering an unsaved wound.

With this wording, FNP happens first because it happens while the wound is being suffered while ES happens after it is suffered. If FNP is successful then the wound is treated as being saved and is not suffered.

No paradox... no time loop... just simple rules.

edit: adding rules quotes cause stuff

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... "

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

rigeld2 wrote:

When you are hit, sit down and act like you weren't hit.
Immediately after you are hit, jump up and down 3 times.

The above example is biased and incorrect. The correct form would be like this:

When you are hit, sit down and act like you weren't hit.
When you are hit, immediately jump up and down 3 times.

So the immediate action would happen before the other one.

Edit: The correct wording for ES: "Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds..." so there is no difference between FNP and ES. Both trigger at the same event.

for all the people who think FnP triggers at the same time as things that count unsaved wounds.

If you have a unit of 1 wound models in assault that is wounded 9 times, has a 3+ armor save, and fails 3 saves. Suffering 6 wounds.

They have a 5+ FnP roll, and make 2 out of the 6 FnP rolls, leaving 4 unsaved wounds.

the unit removes 4 models.

Does it count unsaved wounds for combat resolution as 6 or 4?

ASSAULT RESULT Unsaved Wounds caused in a challenge count towards the assault result, alongside any unsaved Wounds caused by the rest of the characters’ units.

if there was an unsaved wound it would count as a unsaved wound per the assault results.

if FnP passes means there was never an unsaved wound, it would not.

If you for some reason think that the unit suffers 6 unsaved wounds for the assault results, please explain why this isn't mentioned under FnP, as models with FnP being in assault isn't really something unlikely to happen.

The check of how many unsaved wounds were caused first of all is not a SR and secondly it happens after FNP fully resolves. ES is a SR that is triggered at the same time as FNP and applies immediately therefore before FNP.

That's not the point.

If there was never an unsaved wound, it would not count towards combat results.

if there was never an unsaved wound that means that FnP if rolled successfully means there was never an unsaved wound.

If FnP treats the wound as saved (which it does RAW) and there was never an unsaved wound, then you cannot trigger anything SR or otherwise off of the never unsaved wound.

which is what people have been saying since the first part of this thread.

IE regardless of order of operation even if FnP and ES happened at the same time. If you do apply ES to a model that passed FnP you have broken the rules for ES as there was never an unsaved wound.

copper.talos wrote:
The check of how many unsaved wounds were caused first of all is not a SR and secondly it happens after FNP fully resolves. ES is a SR that is triggered at the same time as FNP and applies immediately therefore before FNP.

how is 'immediately after' before 'when it happens'?

Why is it being a "special rule" even relevant? It's been brought up dozens of time but no one has said why it's relevant.

I am guessing some people are imagining it is, then claiming both ES and FnP happen at the same time so they can pick which goes first, despite the fact one obviously means the other could never happen regardless of the order if it succeeds as it means the event never happened.

rigeld2 wrote:
Why is it being a "special rule" even relevant? It's been brought up dozens of time but no one has said why it's relevant.

There is a section in the basic rule book (page 17 as noted earlier) that says that special rules can cause some timing issues and then lists how to resolve these timing issues. It explicitly calls out special rules only. Things that are not special rules are not covered by this.

Feel No Pain and Entropic Strike does NOT happen at the same time. The rules for timing of special rules states that you must perform one first, then the other. It also states that the active player is free to choose which one goes first.

The problem seems to be that the Feel No Pain rules are somewhat vague and with certain interpretations it implies that you should go back in time and reverse effects that happened earlier in the game. To solve this, some people suggest ignoring the rules for special rule timing. This is not acceptable to all people in this thread.

WGMelchior wrote:
Feel No Pain and Entropic Strike does NOT happen at the same time. The rules for timing of special rules states that you must perform one first, then the other. It also states that the active player is free to choose which one goes first.

If they don't happen at the same time, page 17 doesn't apply. So them being special rules is - like I said - irrelevant.

rigeld2 wrote:

WGMelchior wrote:
Feel No Pain and Entropic Strike does NOT happen at the same time. The rules for timing of special rules states that you must perform one first, then the other. It also states that the active player is free to choose which one goes first.

If they don't happen at the same time, page 17 doesn't apply. So them being special rules is - like I said - irrelevant.

The activation conditions for both are filled at the same time. But the effects are not resolved at the same time. You perform the effects of one completely, then you perform the effects of the other. I apologize for being unclear.

I guess it's important for this to only apply to special rules, otherwise the active player would probably try to sneak in the "If W=0, you die" rule first and completely bypass Feel No Pain on single wound models.

WGMelchior wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

WGMelchior wrote:
Feel No Pain and Entropic Strike does NOT happen at the same time. The rules for timing of special rules states that you must perform one first, then the other. It also states that the active player is free to choose which one goes first.

If they don't happen at the same time, page 17 doesn't apply. So them being special rules is - like I said - irrelevant.

The activation conditions for both are filled at the same time. But the effects are not resolved at the same time. You perform the effects of one completely, then you perform the effects of the other. I apologize for being unclear.

I guess it's important for this to only apply to special rules, otherwise the active player would probably try to sneak in the "If W=0, you die" rule first and completely bypass Feel No Pain on single wound models.

First of all, you misquoted the rule. It is not limited to special rules.

While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order.

Emphasis mine, note that it doesn't say "special". This is from the digital copy, so if it's not what you're referring to please quote it.
So again, being special is irrelevant.
Note also that the rule says "resolved" not "triggered". And also if the wording isn't clear as to which is to be resolved first.
FNP must be resolved first in all cases because you don't know if you have an unsaved wound or not until after it resolves. Clear by reading the rules, no timing issues, no going back in time. Claiming otherwise means you have a special rule (FNP) that literally does nothing.

Zimko wrote:
FNP: When you suffer an unsaved wound.
ES: Immediately AFTER suffering an unsaved wound.

With this wording, FNP happens first because it happens while the wound is being suffered while ES happens after it is suffered. If FNP is successful then the wound is treated as being saved and is not suffered.

No paradox... no time loop... just simple rules.

edit: adding rules quotes cause stuff

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... "

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

This settles it for me. The wound was avoided, there is no wound.

Naw wrote:

Zimko wrote:
FNP: When you suffer an unsaved wound.
ES: Immediately AFTER suffering an unsaved wound.

With this wording, FNP happens first because it happens while the wound is being suffered while ES happens after it is suffered. If FNP is successful then the wound is treated as being saved and is not suffered.

No paradox... no time loop... just simple rules.

edit: adding rules quotes cause stuff

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... "

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

This settles it for me. The wound was avoided, there is no wound.

Agreed... FNP is during the act of taking the wound, ES is after that act has been resolved. Thus they are not at the same time, and ES never is triggered because the unsaved wound is stopped before the trigger happens.

rigeld2 wrote:
FNP must be resolved first in all cases because you don't know if you have an unsaved wound or not until after it resolves. Clear by reading the rules, no timing issues, no going back in time. Claiming otherwise means you have a special rule (FNP) that literally does nothing.

That is indeed how we played it in my town but we always considered it a house rule to make Feel No Pain part of the actual saving process. I personally think Feel No Pain should be clarified because it is not explicit, only very implicit, in the wording on timing.