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:
Then please answer how you can activate FNP without an unsaved wound.

It works because FNP wouldn't work otherwise

To quote FNP "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound..."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do I need to go back and bring in your own arguments about suffer DR?

Yes. It paradoxically negates itself . But since FNP is a written rule we have to assume it still works because it would be redundant to write a rule that does not function at all. So the only safe assumption is that FNP would still work in this situation.

Yet you have no issue saying that it would break a rule to apply es to a model without an unsaved wound so it can't apply and simply allow the model to not lower it's wounds by one? The definition of discount, to lower the cost, would fit this interpretation perfectly.

Edit: Fixed a mis-speak

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
If you have not suffered the wound then FNP cannot activate.

You actually suffer a wound when you reduce the models wounds by 1. This does not happen with FNP.

When you suffer is at the exact same point in time as the wound itself. Whereas all the other rules (and grounded) are after you know if you have an unsaved wound or not (after you roll your armor save+FNP)

While I understand what you are saying from the HYWPI Side, From a RAW prospective both FNP and Other USR's that trigger at the same time are resolved in the case of a conflict by the Controlling turns player.

While FNP treats an unsaved Wound as saved, it still requires an unsaved wound to trigger. And there is no other trigger given that will allow a FNP roll other than suffering an unsaved wound in the first place.

This is the identical argument to Force Vs FNP back in 6th. Where the Pro FNP side kept stating that you had to resolve FNP First to see if Force could even be activated, despite the wording of Force stating if happened immediately.

While I do not have an issue with FNP stopping the loss of the Wound, I cannot see how a model that has suffered an unsaved wound (Which is the trigger for FNP) does not also lose its armour save, or be reduced to I-1 due to the same said Unsaved Wound (Which is the trigger for the other Effects)

Gravmyr wrote:
Yet you have no issue saying that it would paradoxical to apply es to a model without an unsaved wound so it can't apply and simply allow the model to not lower it's wounds by one? The definition of discount, to lower the cost, would fit this interpretation perfectly.

Entropic Strike and the like don't have a effect paradoxically negating themselves.

FNP does.

Except you treat the wound as saved if you pass FnP.

Its not unsaved.

@BarBoBot If you go back in time then there wasn't a wound to activate it.

Gravmyr wrote:
@BarBoBot If you go back in time then there wasn't a wound to activate it.

FNP's existence would be redundant so we know it still works despite this being the case.

 BLADERIKER wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
If you have not suffered the wound then FNP cannot activate.

You actually suffer a wound when you reduce the models wounds by 1. This does not happen with FNP.

When you suffer is at the exact same point in time as the wound itself. Whereas all the other rules (and grounded) are after you know if you have an unsaved wound or not (after you roll your armor save+FNP)

While I understand what you are saying from the HYWPI Side, From a RAW prospective both FNP and Other USR's that trigger at the same time are resolved in the case of a conflict by the Controlling turns player.

While FNP treats an unsaved Wound as saved, it still requires an unsaved wound to trigger. And there is no other trigger given that will allow a FNP roll other than suffering an unsaved wound in the first place.

This is the identical argument to Force Vs FNP back in 6th. Where the Pro FNP side kept stating that you had to resolve FNP First to see if Force could even be activated, despite the wording of Force stating if happened immediately.

While I do not have an issue with FNP stopping the loss of the Wound, I cannot see how a model that has suffered an unsaved wound (Which is the trigger for FNP) does not also lose its armour save, or be reduced to I-1 due to the same said Unsaved Wound (Which is the trigger for the other Effects)

There are a number of things that apply when a model suffers a Wound. FNP, ES, Concussive, reduce the model's Wounds by 1, etc.

If ES, Concussive, etc. can happen first due to timing, then during my turn, I can decide to have the "reduce the model's Wounds by 1." go first. This means that FNP does absolutely nothing except on the owning player's turn.

You want an actual working thought out breaking no rules or logic use this. The act of reducing the models wounds by 1 is the model suffering the wound. At the moment of reducing the wounds by 1 is "when a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound......" Roll for FNP and treat it as having been saved from that moment forward. Therefor the wound is not suffered.... Now no paradox and it actually spells out where FNP would go and that the rest of the rules go. Or you can continue to say that it goes back in time and negates itself.... which by default breaks a rule.

 BLADERIKER wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
If you have not suffered the wound then FNP cannot activate.

You actually suffer a wound when you reduce the models wounds by 1. This does not happen with FNP.

When you suffer is at the exact same point in time as the wound itself. Whereas all the other rules (and grounded) are after you know if you have an unsaved wound or not (after you roll your armor save+FNP)

While I understand what you are saying from the HYWPI Side, From a RAW prospective both FNP and Other USR's that trigger at the same time are resolved in the case of a conflict by the Controlling turns player.

While FNP treats an unsaved Wound as saved, it still requires an unsaved wound to trigger. And there is no other trigger given that will allow a FNP roll other than suffering an unsaved wound in the first place.

This is the identical argument to Force Vs FNP back in 6th. Where the Pro FNP side kept stating that you had to resolve FNP First to see if Force could even be activated, despite the wording of Force stating if happened immediately.

While I do not have an issue with FNP stopping the loss of the Wound, I cannot see how a model that has suffered an unsaved wound (Which is the trigger for FNP) does not also lose its armour save, or be reduced to I-1 due to the same said Unsaved Wound (Which is the trigger for the other Effects)

Actually I have not posted one "HYWPI Side" argument, it is all RAW.

When you suffer an unsaved wound is at the exact same point in time as the failed save. Whereas all the other rules (and grounded) are after you know if you have an unsaved wound or not (after you roll your armor save+FNP)

@crownaxe Your missing the point of time traveling at that point when you would need FNP to activate there wouldn't be an unsaved wound to do so therefor nothing would go back to change it to saved..... There is no point where there would be a redundancy.

It.doesn't matter if passing fnp negates the need to roll fnp because.if.the.wound is saved then the wound is saved and no effect can be applied as the required an unsaved wound which never happened, and the fact that the wound was saved is fine with fnp as it now just means you didn't need to roll fnp.as the wound was saved.

Except then you would get to the point where we went back in time and the wound would become unsaved as nothing went back to change it.

Gravmyr wrote:
@crownaxe Your missing the point of time traveling at that point when you would need FNP to activate there wouldn't be an unsaved wound to do so therefor nothing would go back to change it to saved..... There is no point where there would be a redundancy.

It's like you didn't even read my post. I proved that when time traveling to make the wound saved FNP still works

No you make a HIWPI comment not prove raw it works. Claiming that it has to do something and can't stop itself is not an argument nor is claiming a rule has to do something. If that's the case when can the skimmer rule about moving off models after being forced to stop ever kick in?

Did you look at my post where I actually gave you a working non-paradoxical argument?

Gravmyr wrote:
No you make a HIWPI comment not prove raw it works. Claiming that it has to do something and can't stop itself is not an argument nor is claiming a rule has to do something. If that's the case when can the skimmer rule about moving off models after being forced to stop ever kick in?

Did you look at my post where I actually gave you a working non-paradoxical argument?

How is anything I said a HIWPI argument. You think I would jump through such hoops just to rationalize something that doesn't need any rules basis what so ever.

And you didn't give me a proper argument. You tried to claim that Entropic Strike is a paradox too which is completely wrong.

Fixed that.

You've already said it's paradoxical. In order to end the cycle that it creates you have to do one of two things roll until you fail or stop at a rule being applied to wound when the model has not suffered an unsaved wound. Since you put forth stopping at the second it is exactly like applying ES to a model that has not suffered and unsaved wound at that point, now isn't it?

Gravmyr wrote:
Fixed that.

You've already said it's paradoxical. In order to end the cycle that it creates you have to do one of two things roll until you fail or stop at a rule being applied to wound when the model has not suffered an unsaved wound. Since you put forth stopping at the second it is exactly like applying ES to a model that has not suffered and unsaved wound at that point, now isn't it?

No. ES doesn't force you to ignore a wound. If you require FNP to roll over and over the rule literally does nothing.

Keep tilting though.

The game is linear. There is even a rule for when multiple rules are activated at the same time. My turn I chose when they occur. It is not our fault that GW can't write consistent/logical rules. I am sure that it is intended to prevent wounds, I am also sure that in my turn when I chose to roll ES first, and you later pass FnP you still lose the armor, but in your turn you can take FnP first and then prevent ES from activating, and I am sure it is meant to go before wound removal, and Grounding tests as those do not happen until the end of the phase, so would be negated by the timing.

It appears to me that the Pro FnP always first is placing an end effect before the trigger. In a linear game it is performed in an order, and the trigger happens regardless of the end effect of the special rule:

Hit
Rules activation order determined by active player
Wound
Rules activation order determined by active player
Fail Save
Rules activation order determined by active player
Remove wounds
Rules activation order determined by active player(grounding test is here)

It is linear until you see that FNP breaks the linear aspect of it by changing the unsaved to saved wound.

we Treat the wound as having been saved, which means that there was not an unsaved wound to begin with.

Treat as having been saved is not a go to the past statement. It is a statement akin to a "from now on" statement.

It's like you go to school with your homework unfinished. You teacher then takes your recess away, makes you do your homework, and then says we'll treat it as if it were done. You don't take an incomplete on the homework, but you still had a side effect of losing your recess.

'... to avoid being wounded ... blah blah blah' clearly dictates that the wound will not count at all. This is part of the FNP rule. If you are avoiding being wounded, then how are you apllying ES to a model at all? It requires a wound, FNP allows you to 'AVOID' the wound. This is very clear on pg. 164.

Come on guys

FNP saved wounds are TREATED AS BEING SAVED. That does in fact mean that effects that activate on successful wounds have no influence if negated by FNP.

I'm not seeing the paradox thing maybe someone can explane it to me in a different way or as a whole?

FNP sees an unsaved wound.
FNP is rolled and is made.
The wound is treated as having been saved.
if we "go to the past" the model saved a wound.
FNP twiddles its thumbs because the model saved the wound.


I'm not seeing the paradox here. Just marty Mcfly.

I don't see how a FNP is a paradox.

1) You get a wound
2) You fail your save
3) You take your Feel No Pain
4) This goes back to the area between #1 and #2 and changes #2 into "You passed your save", creating a new time-line: One with a saved wound.

No one said it should be the same time-line afterwards. Either way, I fail to see how it being a paradox or not has effect on ES.

The point I am trying to make is if you already have a rule that says there has to be an unsaved wound and you've used it claiming that you can't apply another rule with the same logic should be acceptable.

It does not say you go back and pass your save you treat the wound as saved that is the only thing that is changing.

I posted earlier what I think is a good breakdown of how it works. I even posted I agreed with DR's reading of the rules and FNP happens at the moment of suffering and goes first. Why are people claiming it has to go first and that it has to go back in time? If it stops the wound from the moment of the roll then the wound is not suffered and it does not negate itself. I am arguing that we should come up with a line of thought that does not cause inconsistencies or paradox.

Gravmyr wrote:
The point I am trying to make is if you already have a rule that says there has to be an unsaved wound and you've used it claiming that you can't apply another rule with the same logic should be acceptable.

You're claiming if FNP applies then ES has to, and FNP doesn't go back in time, yes?
That's incorrect - to say that is to say FNP does literally nothing.

I posted earlier what I think is a good breakdown of how it works. I even posted I agreed with DR's reading of the rules and FNP happens at the moment of suffering and goes first. Why are people claiming it has to go first and that it has to go back in time? If it stops the wound from the moment of the roll then the wound is not suffered and it does not negate itself. I am arguing that we should come up with a line of thought that does not cause inconsistencies or paradox.

You act like a paradox is a bad thing.
And I made that exact argument earlier, only to be told I was wrong or ignored.