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.

There's essentially two interpretations...

1. FNP is made at the same time the wound is suffered and save is failed. (before ES triggers)

2. FNP and ES trigger at the same time.

If 1 then all is well.

If 2 then pro-FNP side says that upon a successful FNP save we go back in time and treat the wound as saved, thus ES (and FNP, yay no infinite loops) doesn't happen. pro-ES side says active player chooses which happens first and when FNP succeeds it treats the wound as saved from that point onward (no time traveling).

Path of least resistance and fewer rules mangling is 1... I'm going with 1.

Zimko, there is another issue with number 2, Pro-ES side.

They conveniently ignore that reducing the Wounds characteristic by 1 also happens at that time. That means that the only time FNP can do anything is during the owning player's turn.

1 is simply wrong since both trigger events are the same, the occurrance of an unsaved wound.

2 there is no paradox as was proven in the previous FAQ about force. So this whole line of thinking is dead wrong.

You end up with 2 SRs that trigger the same time and 1 happens immediately while the other doesn't. So you must resolve the immediate one first which is ES.

@happyjew SRs are advanced rules that have permission to override basic rules. So while normally after an unsaved wound you reduce the wounds of the model, these rules have permission to override that process. I told you this a few pages ago...

Saying they happen at the same time and require the active player to choose which to use first is one thing... but to say that the word 'immediate' makes it somehow faster is completely wrong and has no basis in the rules.

copper.talos wrote:
1 is simply wrong since both trigger events are the same, the occurrance of an unsaved wound.

2 there is no paradox as was proven in the previous FAQ about force. So this whole line of thinking is dead wrong.

You end up with 2 SRs that trigger the same time and 1 happens immediately while the other doesn't. So you must resolve the immediate one first which is ES.

@happyjew SRs are advanced rules that have permission to override basic rules. So while normally after an unsaved wound you reduce the wounds of the model, these rules have permission to override that process. I told you this a few pages ago...

And the previous ruling for Force weapons could just as easily be used to support the other interpretation. Maybe force was ruled to happen first, because it succeeding negated the potential for FNP to work... therefor since it's result had an effect on other triggers, FNP should come first now since it's success or failure would similarly influence ES or Concussive attacks.

You still don't get it. Force was ruled to resolve before FNP, which means all these theories about time paradox creating FNP are invalid.

Back to reasonable linear time then, where ES is triggered at the same time with FNP but resolves first. FNP doesn't negate any triggers since the model has already lost its armour save.

@zimko immediately is a crucial part of ES' wording to indicate its timing. You can't choose to just ignore it, especially in a rules argument dedicated to the timing of two rules.

The wording for FNP changed since last edition to include the part about treating the wound as saved and now there isn't an FAQ about Force triggering before FNP. The theories about FNP reversing the unsaved wound to being a saved wound is valid because the rule says...

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

This wording was not in 6th edition.

I don't agree with this theory. If they trigger at the same time then I believe the active player chooses which occurs first. But I also don't believe they trigger at the same time.

FNP occurs while resolving whether or not a wound occurs. When a 'to wound' roll succeeds you must then determine if the wound becomes saved. The wording for FNP tells us that it must be resolved to finish the process of determining if the wound is saved or unsaved. Only then can abilities like ES resolve.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
In the end, all the above interpretations are valid. None are absolutely wrong but neither are they explicitly stated by the rules of being correct. An FAQ (once again) is needed. Play it how you wish.

I agree with zimko.

from the wording at start of FnP it happens as part of the wound resolution.

The model hasn't suffered the unsaved wound until after the FnP fails which is at the time of when/if a model suffers an unsvaved wound do x,y,z to it.

Essentially its a reroll on a stat that doesn't exist to not be wounded before you suffer the wound but after you failed everything else that would make the wound unsaved.

This generates no rules weirdness.

having it resolve at the time after a unsaved wound has been suffered means you get situations where you have to include it in assault results, during certain turns people could opt that you remove models because a model that suffers a wound is reduced to 0 wounds and can be removed from play. It could be argued that if you get to pick the order of things then you could pick remove from play comes before FnP rolls after a model suffers an unsaved wound. Which is legal RAW. obviously this does not make sense, especially if FnP passes and there was never an unsaved wound.

Zimko wrote:
The wording for FNP changed since last edition to include the part about treating the wound as saved and now there isn't an FAQ about Force triggering before FNP. The theories about FNP reversing the unsaved wound to being a saved wound is valid because the rule says...

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

This wording was not in 6th edition.

Actually, it was. Page 35.

rigeld2 wrote:

Actually, it was. Page 35.

Touche. Still, old edition is old edition.

rigelds2 wrote: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.

My big problem is with the way you present your logic. You don't take more than a sentence or two to make a statement. That's not enough to communicate the basis for your logic. You are making conclusions without backing them up till later in another post. That's the basis for Tenet 1 and what makes a debate possible.

Edit: I had to remove two

Edit2: Bah... Now I've lost it but I see rigeld2 saw it which is good enough.

Gravmyr, let me ask you this.

Does a model lose a Wound before or after it loses its Armour from ES?

Gravmyr wrote:
That's not what I said.

Are you sure?

Let me rephrase, you cannot both claim that ES cannot apply to a model that has not suffered a wound when FNP requires the model to suffer a wound to activate.

Well... you can. Because that's how it works.

I simply stated that is the act of suffering a wound is required for both then it doesn't make logical sense that you can apply one but not the other using the statement that it needs the unsaved wound to activate.

Yes it does.
We agree that FNP should do something - that's the point of the discussion, right?
With that understanding, your argument (that something that triggers one must trigger all) means that FNP does nothing - because there's a little thing called "Remove Casualties" that requires - wait for it - a wound to be removed and the model to be removed if that wound number is 0.
So FNP triggering off of the unsaved wound and then making that wound saved so nothing else can resolve makes perfect sense. Because we agreed that FNP should do something, and if all triggers must process at the same rate (and FNP can't invalidate them) FNP does nothing. You limited your argument to ES. That's a poor discussion tactic - you have to think about what else your argument means. Again, I pointed this out before.

I have an issue with stating that if a model looses it's save from ES but remains alive via FNP then FNP did nothing.

That's not what I've said. I've clarified it in other posts.

My big problem is with the way you present your logic. You don't take more than a sentence or two to make a statement. That's not enough to communicate the basis for your logic. You are making conclusions without backing them up till later in another post. That's the basis for Tenet 1 and what makes a debate possible.

The way my brain works is A+B=C, so I don't always explain B if it seems obvious. If you have an issue with the way I communicate, feel free to click the yellow triangle of friendship. I haven't voilated any tenets.

As you can see I started to reword it but I lost it when I misclicked.

gravmyr wrote: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.

gravmyr wrote:@DR: See that is what I have been asking for, a rule based reason not an interpretation or RAI. I can and do get behind this reasoning, I hadn't looked at each individually and apparently neither had DR. Good catch.

I'd like to see how they word ES when it comes out... Knowing them they'll come up with a more vague way of putting it just to make life interesting.

Above is how I think it works.

I'm guilty of making claims myself but I also ask questions. A single line response that does not actually explain your line of thinking doesn't help anyone. If we all could slow down and post intelligent fleshed out responses I think we would see far less of 8 page debates. Can we agree on those parts, let's ask more questions to clarify while fleshing out our statements as we make them to help each other? We can all attempt to communicate or we can just sit around and grunt and point. I find the communication a better more fulfilling route, as well as helpful in understanding a cloudy ruleset.

Gravmyr wrote:
let's ask more questions to clarify while fleshing out our statements as we make them to help each other?

Fair enough.

I'll ask again.

Does ES, Concussive, etc. happen before or after a model loses a Wound (by which I mean their Wounds characteristic is reduced by 1)?

Guess i should have made my concession more clear. FNP happens and removes the trigger before the rest can activate.

There is no such thing as unsaved wounds in the casualty removal section. So no special rules will work....Ever. The rules say to allocate wounds, make saves, and if it fails reduce it's wounds by 1, if it reaches zero it is removed as a casualty. There is no possible way to use FnP, or any other rule for that matter, because it is never an unsaved wound. It is always a wound.

Megatrons2nd,
That is a issue with the lack of a Dedicated Glossary, we have to use Logic to work some of these things out: Given there is a Save process, we can determine if a Wound is in a Saved or Unsaved state via that process.
Prior to that it is just an Allocated Wound, which also is a state that can trigger other Rules.

JinxDragon wrote:
Megatrons2nd,
That is a issue with the lack of a Dedicated Glossary, we have to use Logic to work some of these things out:
Given there is a Save process, we can determine if a Wound is in a Saved or Unsaved state via that process.

The contention is that FnP goes back and undoes the process, or does absolutely nothing.

The process is interrupted by the special rules, that happens to be activated by an unsaved wound. It stops the wound from happening, and interrupts the process of removing the model. It does mot interrupt the process and stop every other special rule in the game. Using the process leaves the active player to choose which order the rules are applied, including FnP, ES, etc.....All special rules that activate on the unsaved wound activate the moment the save is failed. Then the wound is removed if not stopped by a rule.

As written no special rule works, as there is no such thing as "unsaved wound" in the game, it is only wounds. Doing it otherwise is a house rule. Just like making FnP go back in time and remove a trigger.

The game is linear. The game has a process. There is no time travel, especially since that breaks the process.

I am using logic, and applying the rules linearly the way the game is written, and using the rule that lets the active player choose the order in which special rules are applied, and stacking the effects of multiple special rules.

Except if FNP is passed it tells us to "Treat the wound as having been saved" this means we go back to the armor/cover/invuln step and pretend the save was passed and not failed.

The reason people who have the opinion that ES applies don't care what the FNP rule says is because they trigger at the same time. For me the timeline would be:
1. Model take a wound
2. Model fails save
3. BOTH FNP and ES trigger
Rules say the player whose turn it is decides order of rules applying at the same time.
4. Player decides to apply ES first
5. FNP still happen, can save the wound of a model that now no longer have an AS.

Some of you say you can apply the same method to remove the wound and model first, but even in this case you would still apply FNP after and FNP specifically states it avoids the wound, so it doesn't matter.

However, there is no rule that says FNP goes first and no rule that says FNP negates everything that already triggered at the same time, however it does say it negates the wound.

ickz wrote:
The reason people who have the opinion that ES applies don't care what the FNP rule says is because they trigger at the same time. For me the timeline would be:
1. Model take a wound
2. Model fails save
3. BOTH FNP and ES trigger
Rules say the player whose turn it is decides order of rules applying at the same time.
4. Player decides to apply ES first
5. FNP still happen, can save the wound of a model that now no longer have an AS.

Some of you say you can apply the same method to remove the wound and model first, but even in this case you would still apply FNP after and FNP specifically states it avoids the wound, so it doesn't matter.

However, there is no rule that says FNP goes first and no rule that says FNP negates everything that already triggered at the same time, however it does say it negates the wound.

Here is the problem.

As you said, Wound reducing happens at the same time and as such is nominated to go first. This means that on a 1 (remaining) Wound model, it is removed as a casualty and as such cannot use FNP.

Also please answer the question I posted to Gravmyr, before he conceded. When does the effect of ES happen, before or after reducing the model's Wound characteristic by 1?

ickz wrote:

4. Player decides to apply ES first
5. FNP still happen, can save the wound of a model that now no longer have an AS.

Some of you say you can apply the same method to remove the wound and model first, but even in this case you would still apply FNP after and FNP specifically states it avoids the wound, so it doesn't matter.

So why is the wound not applied (consequence of an unsaved wound) but ES (consequence of an unsaved wound) is?
Your argument is inconsistently applied.

That the wound reducing is nominated to go first is not a problem as my opinion is that it still happens at the same trigger/time as FNP.
for this case:
1. model fails save
2. FNP and wound reducing triggers
3. wound reducing goes first, model gets removed
4. FNP was still already triggered and have to be resolved and saves that wound (because FNP is specific about avoiding the wound)
5. model comes back.

To clarify, my opinion is that even though the rules that are triggered at the same time has to be resolved in a specific order, they all still have to be resolved as they have already been triggered.

As such the last question you had for me doesn't matter, whatever goes first, both parts have to be resolved in the end.

ickz wrote:
As such the last question you had for me doesn't matter, whatever goes first, both parts have to be resolved in the end.

This is the inconsistency here. You're requiring ES to stick around after the wound is saved, but you're adamant that the removed wound doesn't stick around after the wound is saved.
Both are triggered by the same thing. You've even agreed that both can resolve before FNP can resolve.
But you allow one to be rewound and not the other. The definition of inconsistent. As such, your argument cannot be correct.

rigeld2 wrote:

ickz wrote:

4. Player decides to apply ES first
5. FNP still happen, can save the wound of a model that now no longer have an AS.

Some of you say you can apply the same method to remove the wound and model first, but even in this case you would still apply FNP after and FNP specifically states it avoids the wound, so it doesn't matter.

So why is the wound not applied (consequence of an unsaved wound) but ES (consequence of an unsaved wound) is?
Your argument is inconsistently applied.

hmm, i can agree that i am being inconsistent, I change my opinion slightly based on what you are saying, so we now have these scenarios:

1. wound > ES > FNP = wound is taken, no model to apply ES to, FNP saves wound of model (see last previous reply for reasoning) (I now changed my opinion for this case).
2. wound > FNP > ES = wound saved by FNP, model no longer have an unsaved wound for ES.
3. FNP > wound > ES = wound is no longer unsaved after FNP has been resolved.
4. FNP > ES > wound = wound is no longer unsaved after FNP has been resolved.
5. ES > wound > FNP = ES is applied, wound is dealt, FNP saves the wound of the model without AS
6. ES > FNP > wound = ES is applied, FNP counts the wound as saved from now, therefore no wound is dealt

as a small disclaimer I will say that I am not sure that I am right, as this clearly needs an FAQ, and even though I would play it like you guys say to not be TFG, I would still like to post my view for the sake of the discussion (as it is a possible outcome).

But you allow one to be rewound and not the other. The definition of inconsistent. As such, your argument cannot be correct.

I allow one to be rewound (the wound) because FNP is VERY specific about stating that it rewinds exactly that; the wound.

Wound reducing is part of the basic rules. There is permission for advanced rules such as ES and FNP to override them. This is the reason why FNP applies before tne model dies and not some time paradox hocus pocus that is inconsistent with the only FAQ ever on the subject. So the idea that ES applying before FNP would mean that wound reducing should apply too, is against one of the most fundamental rules: advanced > basic

If FNP triggers after the basic rule for removing a model triggers then advanced > basic doesn't apply... unless of course you want to treat the wound as having been saved and turn back time.

copper.talos wrote:
Wound reducing is part of the basic rules. There is permission for advanced rules such as ES and FNP to override them. This is the reason why FNP applies before tne model dies and not some time paradox hocus pocus that is inconsistent with the only FAQ ever on the subject. So the idea that ES applying before FNP would mean that wound reducing should apply too, is against one of the most fundamental rules: advanced > basic

copper.talos, nobody onthe Pro-ES side wants to answer my question. I wonder why?

Does ES happen before or after reducing a models Wounds characteristic by 1?

a rule being advanced versus basic has only to do with overriding basic rules, it has nothing to do with order they go in.

There is no logical reason why removal of a model for suffering an unsaved wound that has 1 wound would be "overriden" for a special rule that went at the same time. They are exclusive things that do not affect each others outcomes directly bot resolve at the same time in this hypothetical situation some people are putting forth.