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.

The trigger event is the occurance of an unsaved wound. Following basic rules you proceed to reduce the wounds of the model by 1. Advanced rules such as FNP and ES have permission to interrupt that process.

Advanced rules have permission to modify basic rules that are happening/in effect/being rolled for at the same time, the do not have permission to resolve first when they go off at the same time.

For example. ES/Concussive go off when a model suffers an unsaved wound. A model is required to be removed from play if it suffers an unsaved wound that would reduce it to 0 wounds.

These events happen at the same time but none of the advanced rules listed modify the basic rule or each other at that time. In effect it doesn't matter in this case as if you opt to apply ES to the model first on your turn, it then gets reduced to 0 wounds and is removed from play [unless of course its a necron or has some way to come back lol- which you could opt they lose their armor save and if they RP or EL come back with no armor..]

FnP either modifies the event of the unsaved wound making it a saved wound, meaning it goes off at the same time the wound is being determined as unsaved, or the wound is unsaved and the model suffers the effect of the unsaved wound and then triggers affects that go off when an unsaved wounds is suffered.

Considering FnPs wording and that its a advanced rule that modifies a basic rule, it has to be modifying the unsaved wound before the model suffers it.

Considering Es/Concussion/Hexrifle are things that are advanced rules that have special effects, but they do not modify the determination of whether a wound is saved or unsaved they have to go off after FnP.

I am sorry but you have it all wrong. Advanced rules have permission to interrupt basic rule process. Some advanced rules wouldn't be able to work otherwise. FNP is such a rule since it doesn't modify anything, it ADDS another effect between the occurance of an unsaved wound and reducing the wounds of a model. Same with ES.

ES does not add an effect or occurance between the occurance of determing if a wound is unsaved and suffering an unsaved wound.


also can you cite any page number to support that advance rules have permission to interrupt basic rules that go at the same time and go first?

copper.talos wrote:
I am sorry but you have it all wrong. Advanced rules have permission to interrupt basic rule process. Some advanced rules wouldn't be able to work otherwise. FNP is such a rule since it doesn't modify anything, it ADDS another effect between the occurance of an unsaved wound and reducing the wounds of a model. Same with ES.

There is no interrupt, however. There are simply two rules that occur at the same time. One being basic and one being advanced is irrelevant, as they do not conflict .

@blaktoof it adds a new roll between the occurance of an unsaved and reducing a model's wounds. That is self evident.

Cool, you have a rule for that?

Special rules interrupt the order. Pretty sure that is a rule somewhere actually. Defiantly was there in 6th. [Edit] does not seem to be there in 7th.

If they don't interrupt add extra steps then FNP does nothing. Because the Model already took the wound. If you already put it on, and the model reached 0 wounds it is removed as a casualty - Does FNP allow you to bring models back to life? Or avoid wounds on models that are dead?

Can you invoke special rules for models that have been removed as casualties?(Other than obviously ones that say you can) FNP only works if you do not apply the wound to the model before rolling FNP. (At least on one wound models).

You can make a special roll to avoid being wounded. Avoid it happening not putting it on the taking it off. Right there in the FNP rules - FNP happens before the model is wounded.
Looks a lot like..

A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has
one) to avoid being wounded.

Now unless if anyone wants to point out where they can ignore this, or where FNP contains the rules which allows you to return to play:

If at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.

I'll take that as agreement we don't actually think the wound is applied before FNP.

Even if it was like that ES is not in effect 'while there is a unsaved wound' for rules which require the existence of one we have in 40k the language to say as such, ES only ever checks once. Doesn't need it to still be there later alike to FNP which also doesn't still need the unsaved wound to still be there after resolution. There is no time travel, there is no paradox created, just the normal linear workings of 40k.

Treating the wound as having been saved and ES remaining creates no conflict. FNP does not specifically effect any special rules which may have triggered from it, or allow you to retain your armor save, and ES is not only in effect while there is a unsaved wound. You would need actual specific conflict, which there is none, no conflict, no rule breaking, nudda. FNP does conflict with reducing the wounds on the model, which is then what wound happen after FNP, Ergo, The model does not reduce it's wounds characteristic, and loses it's armor save.

 Nem wrote:
Special rules interrupt the order. Pretty sure that is a rule somewhere actually. Defiantly was there in 6th. [Edit] does not seem to be there in 7th.

Definitely was not there in 6th.

If they don't interrupt add extra steps then FNP does nothing. Because the Model already took the wound. If you already put it on, and the model reached 0 wounds it is removed as a casualty - Does FNP allow you to bring models back to life? Or avoid wounds on models that are dead?

You have to resolve the ability. The ability caused the wound to be saved, meaning it's wounds are not 0

Even if it was like that ES is not in effect 'while there is a unsaved wound' for rules which require the existence of one we have in 40k the language to say as such, ES only ever checks once. Doesn't need it to still be there later alike to FNP which also doesn't still need the unsaved wound to still be there after resolution. There is no time travel, there is no paradox created, just the normal linear workings of 40k.

So you're saying it's okay to apply ES to a model that has never suffered an unsaved wound? The ES rules explicitly contradict that...

Nem, you described perfectly why FNP must be resolved before all other 'unsaved wound' triggers take effect. Because if it isn't, then the model would be dead if it only had 1 wound to begin with.

That clearly means that FNP resolves before ES resolves. If the FNP roll is successful ES fails to resolve because there is no longer an unsaved wound.

So the final conclusion is:


The wound is considered saved, but for the microsecond that it wasnt (because it had to at one point not been saved for FNP to trigger), ES goes off.

Eihnlazer wrote:
So the final conclusion is:

The wound is considered saved, but for the microsecond that it wasnt (because it had to at one point not been saved for FNP to trigger), ES goes off.

No. Untrue. No basis in actual rules. This line of thinking is literally the same as

The wound is considered saved, but for the microsecond that it wasnt (because it had to at one point not been saved for FNP to trigger), a wound is removed.

To apply one you have to apply that logic to everything that triggers off of an unsaved wound. Not just ES.

acctually rig, if you applied the wound you would be directly breaking the FNP special rule.

If you apply ES at the same time you apply FNP you are not breaking either rule even though you seem to think you are.

Incorrect. The wound was treated as saved, but a casualty was also removed. It doesn't break the rule, but negates it from having use on an opponents turn

Eihnlazer wrote:
acctually rig, if you applied the wound you would be directly breaking the FNP special rule.

If you apply ES at the same time you apply FNP you are not breaking either rule even though you seem to think you are.

So ES doesn't require an unsaved wound?

And how would applying the wound break a rule any more than applying ES does?

Great, Please start posting rules quotes or precedence found within existing rules that support your theory of why FNP works like that.

- The rules base or precedent for 'Treat as having' changing the game from before the point of implementation. - I have noted the precedent for 'Treat as having' to only apply from that point onwards and to not effect the 'past', also evidenced in Falling back into transports and Conjured units and Webway portal threads.

- The rules base or precedent for an two rules which happen at the same time, one must be taken before the other as one negates the other.
(As there is a existing rule to support why the owner chooses, we all know this.)
(FAQ on Force can be mentioned, but as its one of several possibilities 'why' it was FAQ'd then it's doesn't hold a great deal of water... expecially as they would both cancel each other out so none is greater than the other....)


Keep getting reply's saying no it works like this, with no rules quote, some of which against existing rules and no precedents which is what 'how it work's' has to come down to if there is no written order -If you think it works like that, fine, but countering my debate with theories which are not backed up I am going to struggle to reply to.

 Nem wrote:
Great, Please start posting rules quotes or precedence found within existing rules that support your theory of why FNP works like that.

I have. More than once. Do keep up.

- The rules base or precedent for 'Treat as having' changing the game from before the point of implementation. - I have noted the precedent for 'Treat as having' to only apply from that point onwards and to not effect the 'past'.

Where? Certainly not in your last post, as the only thing you attempted to address was "avoid being wounded". And you left an important word off the phrase, by the way. You really shouldn't misquote to attempt to prove a point.

- The rules base or precedent for an two rules which happen at the same time, one must be taken before the other as one negates the other.

If FNP hasn't resolved yet, do you have an unsaved wound?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Great, Please start posting rules quotes or precedence found within existing rules that support your theory of why FNP works like that.

I have. More than once. Do keep up.

I have seriously not seen any rules quotes to support then, specifically in the two questioned I asked as they are the heart which I believe not to be true.

- The rules base or precedent for 'Treat as having' changing the game from before the point of implementation. - I have noted the precedent for 'Treat as having' to only apply from that point onwards and to not effect the 'past'.

Where? Certainly not in your last post, as the only thing you attempted to address was "avoid being wounded". And you left an important word off the phrase, by the way. You really shouldn't misquote to attempt to prove a point.

Earlier in the thread I linked those 2 threads and what pages were important.
And yes 'treat as having ... 'been saved' 'Moved' ' is always past tense, many of the same example of wording //having been 'something in the past' // in the book; to paraphrase the other threads, of course it's past tense because it's something you would have done in the past if it had been so, but only applies from then on.

- The rules base or precedent for an two rules which happen at the same time, one must be taken before the other as one negates the other.

If FNP hasn't resolved yet, do you have an unsaved wound?

Yeah. Or FNP would never trigger. The existence of the unsaved wound is irrefutable, If you can not determine if you have a unsaved wound, you can never determine if you can roll FNP. Consistency, either you have one or you don't. The rules are:

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.

My bold.

I believe this rule is in effect, and the player decides the order.

Now, list a rule in FNP that says EXPLICITLY (and you know what that means) It must go before other special rules at the same time, or that we can decide the order of resolution based on the potential results of the special rules. 'Do we know if we have a unsaved wound?' Is not explicitlyin that FNP must go first. FNP knows you have a unsaved wound, FNP never suggests you do not know if you have a unsaved wound or not in its rules. FNP does not say it goes before other rules.

 Nem wrote:

If FNP hasn't resolved yet, do you have an unsaved wound?

Yeah. Or FNP would never trigger. The existence of the unsaved wound is irrefutable, If you can not determine if you have a unsaved wound, you can never determine if you can roll FNP. Consistency, either you have one or you don't.

You fail your save. You think you have an unsaved wound. Is there anything that could make this wound saved? Oh - there's this cool rule called "Feel No Pain" that helps determine if it's actually unsaved or not. Nifty keen!

I believe this rule is in effect, and the player decides the order.

Your belief doesn't matter - that rule isn't in effect. The rules cannot be resolved at the same time as one negates the other.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

If FNP hasn't resolved yet, do you have an unsaved wound?

Yeah. Or FNP would never trigger. The existence of the unsaved wound is irrefutable, If you can not determine if you have a unsaved wound, you can never determine if you can roll FNP. Consistency, either you have one or you don't.

You fail your save. You think you have an unsaved wound. Is there anything that could make this wound saved? Oh - there's this cool rule called "Feel No Pain" that helps determine if it's actually unsaved or not. Nifty keen!

I believe this rule is in effect, and the player decides the order.

Your belief doesn't matter - that rule isn't in effect. The rules cannot be resolved at the same time as one negates the other.

Well if your going to ignore half my post....

Again your stating things without rules backing. Doesn't matter what you believe - rules don't say that. Please point to actual rules or any precedent set by similar rules for;

'' The rules cannot be resolved at the same time as one negates the other. ''

I feel like I am being really patient here. I said I believe rules are in effect, you say I'm wrong because you believe something that has no basis in the rules? This isn't a rules debate. Your stating you are right regardless of rules, I assume this is because you can't find any that back up 'that' point. Negating each other is also under debate, I don't think ES negates FNP, or FNP negates ES. In any case - other than force, what other FAQ's deal with special rules conflicts that can not both be resolved? Where does the idea come from we one has more priority over the other? And in this case it's defiantly FNP?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The idea a special rule is prioritized in order based on possibilities of the resolution, rather than the rules about owning player decides is unwritten and as far as I know unprecedented. Your saying because FNP resolution might 'save' your unsaved wound it should go first.

Other than possibly that's what they meant with the Force FAQ, but before that people argued FNP took priority over force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The mechanics for making sure a rule is resolved before others exists in the game, it is if the rule is explicit in which goes first.

 Nem wrote:
Well if your going to ignore half my post....

Your post was repetitious - I cut out the parts where you essentially repeated yourself, and then stated your conclusions. Apologies if you feel I cut something relevant, please clarify what it was.

'' The rules cannot be resolved at the same time as one negates the other. ''

I feel like I am being really patient here. I said I believe rules are in effect, you say I'm wrong because you believe something that has no basis in the rules? This isn't a rules debate. Your stating you are right regardless of rules, I assume this is because you can't find any that back up 'that' point. Negating each other is also under debate, I don't think ES negates FNP, or FNP negates ES. In any case - other than force, what other FAQ's deal with special rules conflicts that can not both be resolved? Where does the idea come from we one has more priority over the other? And in this case it's defiantly FNP?

It's pretty trivial actually - ES requires an unsaved wound to work. Correct?
Before resolving FNP do you know that you have an unsaved wound?

Your saying because FNP resolution might 'save' your unsaved wound it should go first.

You don't have to put scare quotes around save - you must (are required to, by the rules) treat the wound as saved. Your interpretation requires you to apply ES to a model that has never suffered an unsaved wound. I am sure you can see how this is against the rules, or have a rule to address why you think it's not.

Other than possibly that's what they meant with the Force FAQ, but before that people argued FNP took priority over force.

The mechanics for making sure a rule is resolved before others exists in the game, it is if the rule is explicit in which goes first.

Only if they are required to be resolved at the same time. You have no evidence that's the case here, and I've presented evidence that's not the case. Meaning that rule doesn't apply.

The evidence about them resolving at the same time is the fact that you are required to have an unsaved wound to even roll FnP. If you can roll FnP then you can roll any other rule that is activated upon the unsaved wound.

Yes, I know that there is an unsaved wound before FnP is resolved. Because if there is not an unsaved wound then FnP couldn't resolve.

Treat the wound as having been saved is a present tense sentence. It is essentially saying from now on the wound is saved. Compounded with the linear way the game is written, and the rules for the active player choosing the order rules are applied, then it obviously does not mean it was saved in the past, and causes a time loop.

FnP text specifically calls out that it happens when an unsaved wound is happening, and the roll avoids the unsaved wound.

FnP happens before the end of resolving if a wound is saved/unsaved.

essentially this happens
roll to hit
roll to wound
roll for armor save
roll fnp
if all of that fails you now have an unsaved wound.

if fnp happened after you determined you have an unsaved wound:

roll to hit
roll to wound
roll for armor save
if you failed your armor save you now have an unsaved wound
roll FnP

then-
1- You didnt roll to avoid the unsaved wound, you had an unsaved wound.
2- on a players turn they could decide if "roll for fnp" step or the "remove models that are at 0 wounds step" occurs first. which makes no sense but would be RAW legal. As there are no rules for returning models removed from play as casualties even if you make your FnP rolls, which you might be allowed to do-who knows- you have no rules to allow you to return the models to play as they have already been deployed and are not in ongoing reserves.

here's a quote for people who need quotes

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

I don't want to get into a discussion on suffers versus suffered, or when, or after, as its obvious when this occurs. It has to occur before things that trigger after suffering an unsaved wound, having suffered an unsaved wound, otherwise it triggers as the same time as wounds being reduced (which is the actual effect of having suffered an unsaved wound). As it avoids being wounded [and not discounts an unsaved wound that did happen] it cannot trigger after having suffered an unsaved wound, but happens during the resolution of whether or not a wound is saved/unsaved.

rigeld2 wrote:

It's pretty trivial actually - ES requires an unsaved wound to work. Correct?
Before resolving FNP do you know that you have an unsaved wound?

Yes
Yes

If you don't have an unsaved wound how can you roll for FNP? That is a huge lapse in your logic, and you made FNP literally worthless.

We have a rule to tell us what happens when two rules apply at the same time and how to figure out which one goes first.

Hint, it's the one you do immediately.

sirlynchmob,

I've asked twice now and received no answer.

Which occurs first, reducing the models Wounds characteristic by 1, or the effects of ES?

 Happyjew wrote:
sirlynchmob,

I've asked twice now and received no answer.

Which occurs first, reducing the models Wounds characteristic by 1, or the effects of ES?

the effects of ES, first you apply all the rules that trigger off from an unsaved wound, then you reduce the wound by 1. Because all those rules triggering off from unsaved wounds could affect how many wounds get removed from the model.

Its like the Stack from magic the gathering.

both FNP and ES are interrupts that wedge themselves in before the wound actually subtracts from the model.

that's fascinating.

is there any rule outside of a MTG rulebook to support that?

and/or

that say ES/FnP both occur at the same time but at a different time than other events that require an unsaved wound?

Special rules have permission to break or bend the main game rules. So ES/FNP/Concussive etc will apply before any events that are part of the basic rules.

copper.talos wrote:
Special rules have permission to break or bend the main game rules. So ES/FNP/Concussive etc will apply before any events that are part of the basic rules.

...whenever they say they do. Do you have a rule stating that they interrupt? Page and para.

Or, you could concede. As twice now you have asserted a rule that doesn't actually exist, to avoid having to agree that happy is correct