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.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your "How I think it works- ES first" breaks rules.

Nope I explain how it doesn't please supply rules to disprove based on the whole of my text.

Treated as having been saved means that we have to treat the wound as if the armor/cover/invuln was never failed.

You're saying it's okay to apply ES to a model that has never suffered an unsaved wound, the rules explicitly contradict that.

Except it doesn't say "treated as being saved".

It Says"Treat it as having been saved" which "treat it as having" is a present tense wordage. It is changing the status "now" not "then".

"treat it as having been saved." The it refers to the unsaved wound, we have to treat the unsaved wound as if we had made the armor/cover/invuln save in the first place, which produces a saved wound not an unsaved wound. The Unsaved wound does not exist. it is discounted, why are you trying to count it for ES etc...?

ES activating off of a saved wound is breaking rules.

copper.talos wrote:
I don't think you know what parallel means. Certainly it cannot be used for events that are interdependent. You need a successful hit to roll to wound. You need an unsaved wound to roll for FNP.

And the game isn't real life. Only the rules dictate what to do so your "pepper spray" example is worthless. A nice example would have been:
Rule A. When you get pepper sprayed cover your eyes
Rule B. When you get pepper sprayed immediately turn away from the attacker.

So when you get pepper sprayed you should turn away from the attacker and then cover your eyes.

Your pepper spray example is wrong.

Rule A: When you get pepper sprayed cover your eyes.
Rule B: If you get pepper sprayed, immediately turn away from the attacker.

Using similar terminology to the rules in question (minus the treat as not having been sprayed), you would first cover your eyes, and then turn away.

I disagree, the moment you get pepper sprayed the if clause of rule b has been fulfilled and you must immediately turn away. Then you can cover your eyes.

copper.talos wrote:
I disagree, the moment you get pepper sprayed the if clause of rule b has been fulfilled and you must immediately turn away. Then you can cover your eyes.

Except it says "When you get pepper sprayed cover your eyes." so you do that at the same time as you get pepper sprayed, not after any other actions.

I disagree. This is a binary condition. You can either have been pepper sprayed or not. So the immediate rule will take priority.

copper.talos wrote:
I disagree. This is a binary condition. You can either have been pepper sprayed or not. So the immediate rule will take priority.

You can disagree all you want, but that does not mean your argument is correct. In this case your argument is not correct.

copper.talos wrote:
I disagree. This is a binary condition. You can either have been pepper sprayed or not. So the immediate rule will take priority.

The intermediate rule occurs after being wounded, whereas the other happens when you are being wounded. As you must be wounded for the immediate action to occur, the other must have already occurred.

A binary event means its either 0 or 1. It is true or false. It happened or it didn't happen. There is no delay between the two conditions. So the immediate rule takes priority.

copper.talos wrote:
A binary event means its either 0 or 1. It is true or false. It happened or it didn't happen. There is no delay between the two conditions. So the immediate rule takes priority.

If it is a binary event, I'm sure you have a rule to back up your assertion.

copper.talos wrote:
A binary event means its either 0 or 1. It is true or false. It happened or it didn't happen. There is no delay between the two conditions. So the immediate rule takes priority.

Im not denying that ES will, in fact, trigger. I am simply saying FNP is resolved first, and from then on the result is applied. From there on, if the wound is saved than ES will disperse, as there is no longer an unsaved wound. If it is failed ES will apply as normal.

OK that's easy. A wound after saves can either be saved or unsaved. There is no middleground in the rules.

@Thatguyhsagun Both FNP and ES trigger. This is undeniable. In order to resolve them there are two things to keep in mind.

Special rules are cumulative. Making FNP cancel ES breaks this rule. ES going first doesn't cancel FNP.
One rule must apply immediately, which means any non immediate rules must happen afterwards. So ES first and FNP second.

ES never triggers if FnP is passed.

ES requires you to have suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds.

If you pass FnP how many unsaved wounds did you suffer? none.

if for some reason ES and FnP did go at the same time, you could not determine if a model had suffered a wound until after you had rolled FnP, so you could not determine if the model had suffered one or more unsaved wounds as successfully passing FnP means there was never have been an unsaved wound, it was avoided/ treated the wound as having been saved. ES requires the model to suffer 1 or more unsaved wounds, and regardless of order that determination can not be met until FnP is rolled.

Special rules are cumulative means that special rules which modify the same stat can add up as per the rules for multiple modifiers, it doesn't mean things get to go when you want them to go and has nothing to do with timing. And in this case special rules being cumulative has nothing to do with anything anyone has brought up in this entire thread as none of the rules being discussed are things that are cumulative.

ES going first and FnP passing breaks the rule for ES.

ES applies immediately if the model suffers 1 or more unsaved wounds. a 1 wound model that is wounded, fails its armor save, and at anytime passes FnP was never wounded, and never goes to 0 wounds. If you are at 1 wound, and never reach 0 wounds you suffered 0 unsaved wounds. We know this because if the model was reduced to 0 wounds for any reason it would be removed from play as per the rules for having a 0 characteristic, therefore there cannot be a point in the wound resolution that stops with a model having an unsaved wound, goes from 1 wound to 0 wounds, and remains in play on the table.

blaktoof wrote:
ES never triggers if FnP is passed.

ES requires you to have suffered 1 or more unsaved wounds.

If you pass FnP how many unsaved wounds did you suffer? none.

if for some reason ES and FnP did go at the same time, you could not determine if a model had suffered a wound until after you had rolled FnP, so you could not determine if the model had suffered more or 1 unsaved wounds as successfully passing FnP means there was never an unsaved wound, it was avoided/ treated the wound as having been saved. Es requires the model to suffer 1 or more unsaved wounds, and regardless of order that determination can not be met until FnP is rolled.

Special rules are cumulative means that special rules which modify the same stat can add up as per the rules for multiple modifiers, it doesn't mean things get to go when you want them to go and has nothing to do with timing. And in this case special rules being cumulative has nothing to do with anything anyone has brought up in this entire thread as none of the rules being discussed are things that are cumulative.

ES going first and FnP passing breaks the rule for ES.

ES applies immediately if the model suffers 1 or more unsaved wounds. a 1 wound model that is wounded, fails its armor save, and at anytime passes FnP was never wounded, and never goes to 0 wounds. If you are at 1 wound, and never reach 0 wounds you suffered 0 unsaved wounds. We know this because if the model was reduced to 0 wounds for any reason it would be removed from play as per the rules for having a 0 characteristic, therefore there cannot be a point in the wound resolution that stops with a model having an unsaved wound.

If your argument was in any way true, Then why doesn't it negate unsaved wounds with the instant death rule. If you make your FNP roll, than you never suffered any unsaved wounds with the instant death rule. You said yourself, you've suffered 0 unsaved wounds right? and if you didn't suffer any unsaved wounds, then how could they have the instant death rule?

sirlynchmob wrote:
Then why doesn't it negate unsaved wounds with the instant death rule.

Because FNP specifies it can't be used in that situation.
Rules are cool.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Then why doesn't it negate unsaved wounds with the instant death rule.

Because FNP specifies it can't be used in that situation.
Rules are cool.

yes, but I lost count of how many times it was claimed "how do you know if you have a unsaved wound unless you've made your FNP roll?"

Obviously you can have unsaved wounds with other effects that FNP can not negate.

Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule.

because feel no pain specifically says it may not be taken against instant death.

If a model suffers an unsaved Wound from an attack with this special rule, it is reduced to 0 Wounds and is removed as a casualty.

The model doesn't lose wounds from ID until after it has suffered the unsaved wound.

"Feel no pain saves may not be taken against destroyer attacks or against unsaved wounds that have the instant death special rule"

Obviously the unsaved wound isn't suffered until after FnP is resolved as per mine and many other posters statements.

Copying this here because the other thread is the same discussion as this thread.

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 (this is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state that 'no saves of any kind are allowed', for example those inflicted by Perils of the Warp).

Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks (pg 163) or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule.

Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered.... On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved.

pg 36 Types of Saving Throws: ... If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound.

pg 35 Take Saves & Remove Casualties: The model get to make a saving throw, if it has one. If it fails, reduce that model's Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.

FNP specifically says it is not a saving throw but then it refers to it as a save in the following paragraph. (see underlined). Bad rules are bad but we'll try to interpret this anyway. Letsl treat it as not a save.

The last rule I quoted, about removing casualties, is the important one. That is the basic rule that FNP must interrupt to function. Things like ES only work if the model is still alive AFTER this... "If it fails, reduce that model's Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty." The rulebook never describes or defines 'unsaved wound'. We must assume that it is after the above general rule resolves because when else would it be? FNP interrupts this, otherwise it wouldn't function.

Now the question is... do things like ES also interrupt this? Do you, RAW, need to roll for ES before removing casualties or do you do it after removing casualties?
Is the wound 'unsaved' when the casualty is removed or somewhere between reducing the wound by 1 and removing the casualty? RAW isn't clear.

HIWPI: If a model's wounds are reduced by 1, then it has suffered an unsaved wound. At that moment, if it has 0 wounds, it is removed as a casualty before anything else triggers. Therefore FNP must be rolled before you can determine if an unsaved wound is suffered because if it is suffered before FNP is rolled then FNP does nothing. RAW, it's possible to say that FNP does in fact do nothing because of their poor wording. I choose to believe that FNP is rolled before the wound is actually suffered, therefore things like ES do not trigger until FNP is rolled, no matter how badly worded FNP is. This effectively makes FNP a save that does not count as a save for rules that say 'ignore saves'... which is kind of what they're trying to tell us in the rule. It's a save but not a save.

Interestingly there are lots of special rules which trigger on unsaved wounds, not just ES - some of which are not resolved until a later time so never interfere with FNP or timing.

Zimko for rules which are 'when you inflict a unsaved wound' / 'when a model with this weapon inflicts a unsaved wound' / 'when you inflict one or more unsaved wounds'

Do you think those are different then?



And the rules we know we have a unsaved wound, just FNP is rolled before it is wounded. If we don't know there is a unsaved wound you can't roll 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

Is the wound 'unsaved' when the casualty is removed or somewhere between reducing the wound by 1 and removing the casualty? RAW isn't clear.

Wounds are unsaved after you fail your save, on fast dice, you roll all your saves then allocate the unsaved wounds rather than wounds -before saves-






Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule.

because feel no pain specifically says it may not be taken against instant death.

If a model suffers an unsaved Wound from an attack with this special rule, it is reduced to 0 Wounds and is removed as a casualty.

The model doesn't lose wounds from ID until after it has suffered the unsaved wound.

"Feel no pain saves may not be taken against destroyer attacks or against unsaved wounds that have the instant death special rule"

Obviously the unsaved wound isn't suffered until after FnP is resolved as per mine and many other posters statements.

Except the rules disagree. FNP - When you suffer a unsaved wound. You have suffered a unsaved wound, no if's, butt's or how. The only problems caused by FNP and the rules, is warping around people trying to resolve FNP before anything, this is causing then to 'oh so it must be like this to work'.

Yes, if you warp rules you have to warp more rules to make it fit your interpretation.

If it's a question of intent I don't know, my group have always read as and played such abilities are resolved as per the owning player rule, and FNP does not interfere with resolved rules, I've always read it as such. Could they have intended that? or just written badly? Sure, but all we can do is debate what we know, and wait for a FAQ to guide us.

What I do know is yes, ID is clear. But FNP and ES? neither contain clauses that they can not be used against the other. FNP doesn't state it is rolled before other effects from unsaved wounds- Of which there are many so FNP would be the place to put that sort of clarification.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your "How I think it works- ES first" breaks rules.

Nope I explain how it doesn't please supply rules to disprove based on the whole of my text.

Treated as having been saved means that we have to treat the wound as if the armor/cover/invuln was never failed.

You're saying it's okay to apply ES to a model that has never suffered an unsaved wound, the rules explicitly contradict that.

Except it doesn't say "treated as being saved".

It Says"Treat it as having been saved" which "treat it as having" is a present tense wordage. It is changing the status "now" not "then".

"treat it as having been saved." The it refers to the unsaved wound, we have to treat the unsaved wound as if we had made the armor/cover/invuln save in the first place, which produces a saved wound not an unsaved wound. The Unsaved wound does not exist. it is discounted, why are you trying to count it for ES etc...?

ES activating off of a saved wound is breaking rules.

FNP activating off a saved wound is breaking the rules.

But it's ok, FNP isn't just a special rule, it's super special rule - wish they would write some rules to say so though. Of course, we could acknowledge the rules don't break over stuff that has already happened, and that the exist like this > Rule -Resolve > Rule- Resolve > Rule Resolve. Which causes no issues at all, there is no 'check things that happened in the past to see if they are now illegal' state, just a forward movement.

blaktoof wrote:

Obviously the unsaved wound isn't suffered until after FnP is resolved as per mine and many other posters statements.

FNP:"Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered..."

Denial is one thing, actual rules is another.

 Nem wrote:
Interestingly there are lots of special rules which trigger on unsaved wounds, not just ES - some of which are not resolved until a later time so never interfere with FNP or timing.

Zimko for rules which are 'when you inflict a unsaved wound' / 'when a model with this weapon inflicts a unsaved wound' / 'when you inflict one or more unsaved wounds'

Do you think those are different then?

I think all those are the same trigger. The rule for failing a save tells us to remove casualties as part of failing that save and reducing the number of wounds on a model. Therefore, all those triggers occur once that is done.

So RAW, FNP does nothing because their wording is bad.

HIWPI: FNP interrupts the 'unsaved wounds process' and is rolled before determining if the wound is unsaved, thus before reducing the wounds on a model and removing them as casualties.

Special rules have general permission to break or bend the main game rules. It doesn't matter if removing casualties is part of failing a save. FNP has permission to bend that rule to make itself useful. It applies at the precise moment FNP describes in its wording: Between an unsaved wound and the model getting wounded. Not before and not after.

copper.talos wrote:
Special rules have general permission to break or bend the main game rules. It doesn't matter if removing casualties is part of failing a save. FNP has permission to bend that rule to make itself useful. It applies at the precise moment FNP describes in its wording: Between an unsaved wound and the model getting wounded. Not before and not after.

So suffering an unsaved wound and the model getting wounded are not the same thing?

The rulebook doesn't define an unsaved wound so we don't know if you can have an unsaved wound without removing the wound. The rule on page 35 says that when failing a save, your remove a wound from the model, it says nothing about what an unsaved wound is. So RAW is what in regards to an unsaved wound?

It seems to me that FNP is the only special rule that has permission to interrupt the general rule of removing wounds from models after failing a save. All other rules that occur when an unsaved wound is suffered do not interrupt this process and thus are done after wound is removed. That's my interpretation... I don't know if it is RAW but it makes sense.

The fast dice section says unsaved wounds happen after a failed save. All special rules that need an unsaved wound to trigger do so at that point. FNP isn't any more special than other specials rules you know...

copper.talos wrote:
No when special rules are applied.

Right so special rules that prevent wounds... like FNP... interrupt that general rule of failing saves. While special wounds that don't prevent wounds occur after the wound is lost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ES says it happens when a model suffers an unsaved wound... meaning after it loses a wound. FNP says that it happens at the same time but it prevents that wound. Therefore FNP interrupts the wounding process and must be applied before the model actually suffers the wound. Otherwise FNP doesn't function. It's a poorly written rule but if we want to play the game with FNP then we should use it in a way that it functions.

I edited my post to update it to your edit. Any way the reply still stands. And don't forget

FNP:"Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered..."

The model has suffered an unsaved wound to trigger FNP. That same wound will trigger ES also...

Yep, the wound was suffered, the model is dead. RAW is FNP sucks.

Zimko wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
No when special rules are applied.

Right so special rules that prevent wounds... like FNP... interrupt that general rule of failing saves. While special wounds that don't prevent wounds occur after the wound is lost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ES says it happens when a model suffers an unsaved wound... meaning after it loses a wound. FNP says that it happens at the same time but it prevents that wound. Therefore FNP interrupts the wounding process and must be applied before the model actually suffers the wound. Otherwise FNP doesn't function. It's a poorly written rule but if we want to play the game with FNP then we should use it in a way that it functions.

Now what about Special Rules, what happens when two special rules activate at the same time from the same trigger? Which is resolved first and why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Based on the above arguments it seems that some of you wish to say that FNP must be rolled before determining the application of Effects caused by or triggered by an unsaved wound.

There are some rules Such as (Ground test: BRB, Pg 69) Which require that a FMC that suffers an unsaved wound during a phase must at the end of said phase take a test or be grounded. (However if said FMC passes all of its FNP's then there is no Grounding test, this is because the unsaved wound is counted as having been saved long before the grounding test ever happens) Yes the grounding test did trigger off the unsaved wounds when they happened but it also checks to see at the end of the phase if there are any unsaved wounds not the instant the unsaved wound happens.

Now (Feel no Pain: BRB pg 164.) "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw...) On a 5+ The unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved".

Then there are...

(Entropic Strike: Necron Codex, pg 29) "Any model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon of Model with this Special rule immediately loses its armour save for the remainder of the battle".

(Concussive: BrB pg 62) " A model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon with this special rule is reduced to Initiative 1 until the end of the following Assault phase."

(Soul Blaze: BrB pg 172) " If a unit suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from an attack with this special rule, it is set ablaze and continues to burn".

(Strikedown: BrB pg172) "Any non-vehicle model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds or passes one or more saving throws against an attack with the Strikedown special rule moves as if it is in difficult terrain until the end of its next turn."

There are more rules that trigger off an unsaved Wound from Codex's I do not own.

At this point in this argument when the effects of ES are applied should be a moot point as the word Immediately is part of the ES SR. Meaning that as soon as the model (fails its save/suffers an unsaved Wound) it loses its armour save for the rest of the battle.

Strikedown's effects work off both saved Wounds and unsaved Wounds so again moot point.

Soul Blaze and Concussive both trigger off of unsaved Wounds at the exact same time that FNP does. Note: No where in the FNP SR does it state that FNP must be, should be, or is rolled immediately before other SR to determine if the effects of those other SR may take effect.

Thus leading me to cite these gems.

(Pg 156 BRB: A Compendium of Special Rules) "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once, However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."

(Sequencing: BrB pg 17) "you'll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time... When this happens, and the wording if not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order."

So RAW FNP is not given explicit permission to resolve before any other USR/SR. ES is given Explicit permission to resolve before FNP due to happening Immediately after an unsaved Wound is suffered, the same unsaved Wound that is triggering FNP. Soul Blaze and Concussive are not given explicit permission to resolve before any other USR/SR thus the player whose turn it is can decide the order, and Strikdown does not care one way or the other.

These are the Rules as Written, why is this still going on?

Both sides of the argument make sense. I suspect that the "active player chooses the order" may have better rules support but then we are again left with the wording of FNP to mix things up.

We are not told when to apply the effects, just "immediately after (unsaved wound)" or "when suffers (unsaved wound)".

MtG was for whatever reason brought up again, can we agree that is a reason in itself to kill any thread?

FnP and ES do not activate at the same time.

If you suffer an unsaved wound your wounds go from 1-0 and you are removed from play. FnP does not give permission for a model to regain wounds, or ignore suffering 1 or more unsaved wounds. It gives permission to make a special feel no pain roll to avoid being wounded, this roll is not a saving throw, but is a save.

Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered. On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5 +, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved.

There is no wound taken unless you fail the save, ie you have to fail the save to actually suffer the 1 or more wounds required by ES/Concussive/whatever otherwise you had an unsaved wound but suffered 0 unsaved wounds, because the wound was avoided/saved/discounted.


FnP either doesn't work, because it happens after the model suffers an unsaved wound.

or it works during the time the model is determined to have an unsaved wound but before it suffers it.


ES is givern permission to resolve if a model suffers 1 or more unsaved wounds immediately.

if a model has gone from 1-0 wounds is when it has suffered 1 or more wounds.

if a model had 1 wound, had an unsaved wound but never went to 0 wounds(such as by passing FnP [no wound is taken unless you fail FnP], it suffer 0 unsaved wounds. ES requires that you suffer 1 or more unsaved wounds.

ES and FnP cannot resolve at the same time, because FnP specifically states it allows you to avoid being wounded, which means the wound has not been applied yet. so although both use the word unsaved wound you cannot resolve if the wound is unsaved until the FnP roll has been made to save/avoid/discount the roll as the model has suffered 0 unsaved wounds until then. Otherwise the model would be removed from play and you would be breaking the RAW of FnP that lets the wound be ignored/discounted/avoided and that the wound is not taken until the model fails its FnP roll as per the rulebook quote on failing FnP above.

A lot of this argument seems to have a lot of clashing wording, and clashing activation time. Concussive actually came up in a game just the other day, though we didn't even debate on how it was resolved, we all had the same interpretation in mind. Orks vs Blood Angels. He was using Thunder Hammers against a mob of my Boyz. Whenever the Hammer wielding models inflicted a wound (normally didn't matter since that model often died), we wouldn't resolve the Concussive effect unless my FNP rolls failed from the Painboy.

The argument of 'activation times' seems ambiguous, that I'll grant. But I still lean on the side of FNP must try to save the wound before other effects happen on unsaved wounds. People argue that these extra effects cannot be ignored because the wound was saved by FNP, but I use Magic as an example on my reasoning. In Magic, if an effect is activated, but if another effect happens at the same time that would prevent the previous effect from happening, the effect CAN and WILL fail to resolve. This is also due to Magic having 'the stack' to help resolve effects in proper order. If the active player can dictate when the order of effects resolve, then this shouldn't be hard to resolve.

But with the rules as they are currently written: These effects need unsaved wounds to trigger properly. FNP comes immediately after Armor/Invul saves, and despite not being a technical save, will treat the wounds taken as saved. If the FNP passes, Concussive/ES will fail to trigger. If FNP fails, these effects will then trigger and resolve.

Even if these abilities did trigger before FNP, they wouldn't resolve until after FNP did. And if all those wounds become saved via FNP, then the requirements for the abilities is no longer fulfilled, and they would fizzle.