Helfrost, Feel No Pain, and Reanimation Protocols

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.

**easysauce**

its in the FAQ now... RE things like entropic strike where FNP may undo the wound that was caused, but it wont undo the special rules that were imparted.

you get your FNP and RP rolls, you still roll the hellfrost as well if they succeed.

**NightHowler**

casvalremdeikun wrote:
RP very clearly do not negate Helfrost. The statement that removed from play doesn't allow them to work covers that. And since the attacker determines what order things happen, Helfrost would always be first, thus not allowing RP. Models that are removed from play are just that, removed from play. You don't get to trigger any of their abilities since, for all intents and purposes, ceased to be.

Keep in mind that if RP triggers first, there is no failed save to trigger the Helfrost, so if a group of necron warriors charged a space wolves unit with a helfrost weapon and the helfrost weapon were fired in overwatch, the necron warriors would be able to use sequencing to trigger RP first. Since there is no longer a failed save for the models that pass their RP roll, Helfrost would not trigger in that situation.

**casvalremdeikun**

easysauce wrote:
its in the FAQ now... RE things like entropic strike where FNP may undo the wound that was caused, but it wont undo the special rules that were imparted.

you get your FNP and RP rolls, you still roll the hellfrost as well if they succeed.

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to roll helfrost first and only if you succeed on the Str test do you get to roll FNP or RP?

**NightHowler**

Dozer Blades wrote:
NightHowler wrote:
Dozer Blades wrote:
Hellfrost always has precedence since it occurs in the SW shooting phase.

Not always. You can also shoot overwatch in your opponent's assault phase.

There is a relic bolter, right ?

Right. There's also a relic sword that could trigger helfrost in the opponent's assault phase.

**WrentheFaceless**

easysauce wrote:
its in the FAQ now... RE things like entropic strike where FNP may undo the wound that was caused, but it wont undo the special rules that were imparted.

you get your FNP and RP rolls, you still roll the hellfrost as well if they succeed.

Which faq is this?

**casvalremdeikun**

NightHowler wrote:
casvalremdeikun wrote:
RP very clearly do not negate Helfrost. The statement that removed from play doesn't allow them to work covers that. And since the attacker determines what order things happen, Helfrost would always be first, thus not allowing RP. Models that are removed from play are just that, removed from play. You don't get to trigger any of their abilities since, for all intents and purposes, ceased to be.

Keep in mind that if RP triggers first, there is no failed save to trigger the Helfrost, so if a group of necron warriors charged a space wolves unit with a helfrost weapon and the helfrost weapon were fired in overwatch, the necron warriors would be able to use sequencing to trigger RP first. Since there is no longer a failed save for the models that pass their RP roll, Helfrost would not trigger in that situation.

Still wouldn't work. With the new FAQ setting the precedent, FNP and RP only negate the wound itself, not the special rules triggered by the wounding attack.

**easysauce**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
easysauce wrote:
its in the FAQ now... RE things like entropic strike where FNP may undo the wound that was caused, but it wont undo the special rules that were imparted.

you get your FNP and RP rolls, you still roll the hellfrost as well if they succeed.

Which faq is this?

Dark eldar FAQ is what im looking at,

it has a FAQ where the wound is FNP'd away, but the special rules stay

FNP only lets you ignore wounds, nothing else,

entropic strike, the DE sheilds rules, ect ect are all rules outside of the wound.

FNP lets you ignore the wound, but not special rules outside of wounds.

**casvalremdeikun**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
easysauce wrote:
its in the FAQ now... RE things like entropic strike where FNP may undo the wound that was caused, but it wont undo the special rules that were imparted.

you get your FNP and RP rolls, you still roll the hellfrost as well if they succeed.

Which faq is this?

The new Dark Eldar one that states that even if a model succeeds on FNP, they would still lose their shadow field. IE, FNP and RP would ONLY negate the wound.

**NightHowler**

casvalremdeikun wrote:
Still wouldn't work. With the new FAQ setting the precedent, FNP and RP only negate the wound itself, not the special rules triggered by the wounding attack.

You can not apply an FAQ for one codex's piece of wargear across the entire game.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:
its in the FAQ now... RE things like entropic strike where FNP may undo the wound that was caused, but it wont undo the special rules that were imparted.

you get your FNP and RP rolls, you still roll the hellfrost as well if they succeed.

I don't see how it changes anything. You still have to choose a sequence with which these are resolved.

If helfrost is resolved first, you'll never get to use RP or FNP since the model will be removed from play.

If either RP or FNP is resolved first, you'll not be allowed to use Helfrost since there would no longer be an unsaved wound.

**easysauce**

telling us how something works in one FAQ is enough...

they do not literally need to make errata for every single special rule ..

if FNP doesnt remove special rules from one type of wound, there is no reason to believe it does from others.

Its far more precedent and evidence then you can bring up for FNP ignoring both special rules and wounds for everything and claim that the DE faq is the exception, not the rule.

**NightHowler**

easysauce wrote:
telling us how something works in one FAQ is enough...

they do not literally need to make errata for every single special rule ..

if FNP doesnt remove special rules from one type of wound, there is no reason to believe it does from others.

Its far more precedent and evidence then you can bring up for FNP ignoring both special rules and wounds for everything and claim that the DE faq is the exception, not the rule.

Not sure if serious, or trolling...

The dark eldar FAQ literally says that Shadowfield is lost even if the model makes it's feel no pain roll. It makes no mention of feel no pain changing in any way. It is referencing one single item of dark eldar wargear, and you're going to extrapolate from that one FAQ about one single piece of wargear that now everything else in the game affects a model even after it makes it's feel no pain roll.

Once you start applying errata and FAQ for one codex's wargear to every other unit in the game, you start a very serious problem of trying to interpret every other rules interaction through the lens of one item of wargear from one faction.

And even if you are correct about FNP, are we supposed to assume that it applies to RP. What about holofields? How far do these sweeping changes hidden in the DE faq go?

**megatrons2nd**

The Dark Eldar FAQ does prove that FnP doesn't go back in time as some have been known to claim.

**easysauce**

megatrons2nd wrote:
The Dark Eldar FAQ does prove that FnP doesn't go back in time as some have been known to claim.

right... this is all we need to know...

if this is how we treat FNP with regards to one wound/special rule combo, then there is no reason to expect it to work differently with other combos.

yes, the FAQ is specific to one wound/rule combo... that doesn't mean it doesn't set precedent.

The faq has one explicit wound/rule combo and has told us explicitly that FNP does undo the wound, but not the rule.

If you could find a single FAQ that said the opposite, then sure, you might have an argument that its not applied the same in every rule/wound combo.

but you dont have that.

so we have one position, with some pretty good precedent being set in a faq,

and one position with no precedent, no faq, no nothing.

ergo, you go with the position with the most proof, and if the position with zero proof criticizes the position with at least some proof, thats not really a sound position to take.

**Dozer Blades**

Sorry but you can't in general take from one codex and apply it to all others.

**Gravmyr**

Many on these boards advocated just that when the FAQs for other Chariots removed IC but necrons did not get theirs removed.

**blaktoof**

NightHowler wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

I'm not sure how something that conflicts means that it doesn't happen simultaneously.
The wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first - it's implied, and BvA is pretty explicit, but not applying the Sequencing rules seems out of place in your argument.

Because advanced rules don't happen simultaneously with basic rules. You simply do what the advanced rule says to do instead of doing anything else.

In the case of Helfrost, RP, and FNP however, they are all advanced rules and they are all triggered by failing an armor save. Because they are all 3 advanced rules and are all triggered at the same time, sequencing directs you to let the player who's turn it is decide the order.

The problem is you are now claiming that FnP does something other than what it does.

It changes if a model suffers a wound or not, not what happens if the model did suffer a wound.

Helfrost and casualty removal when wounds are reduced from 1-0 are results of a wound actually being suffered.

FnP is not the result of a wound actually being suffered, because the model is not reduced from 1-0 wounds and then you roll FnP which is the model actually suffering the wound.

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.

FnP has to occur at some time before the models wounds are actually reduced, because the wound is not reduced from 1-0 until you roll FnP and fail the FnP role. Until that time there is no actual wound suffered. In fact given sequencing FnP most likely occurs during the save step as it states "treat is as having been saved" which is what its states RAW in the quote above from the BRB. As per step 6 of the shooting sequence.

If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.

You do not reduced a models wounds from 1-0 until it suffers an unsaved wound, so it is not removed as a casualty (a result of suffers an unsaved wound) until that happens. FnP has to occur before that part of the step as it calls out "treat it as having been saved" so it comes in after the save fail but before the model actually suffers an unsaved wound.

the model does not actually go from 1-0 wounds, which is the process of actually suffering an unsaved wound.

if helfrost was meant to deny FnP, it would have just said so in its rules.

not sure if it bears any merit in the discussion, but the OP quote uses 'suffers' for fnp, when the ebook uses 'suffered' Not sure if OP is quoting from a mini book, or normal BRB, or mistyped.

**Dozer Blades**

I have to say I agree with what you're saying blacktoof - that's how I see it too.

**easysauce**

Dozer Blades wrote:
Sorry but you can't in general take from one codex and apply it to all others.

GW has said FNP interacts with one rule/wound combo in a particular manner.

There is no reason to believe FNP interacts differently when other wound/rule combos come up.

There are many many wound/rule combos out there, GW has clarified one for sure, who knows if/when they will get around to the others.

The lack of specific FAQ's for every single one does nothing for your case, or mine.

That there is at least one FAQ showing GW's official intent for FNP in at least one wound/rule combo situation, is just that...

one example of them telling us how to deal with FNP and wound/rule combos.

would it be ideal to have an example for every single combo? yes... will it happen? no... but having one example of FNP working this way is still *infinitely* more examples of how it works then people who say it doesn't work this way have.

You cannot claim that one sides lack of proof means anything, when its more proof then you have yourself.

the force weapon vs ID vs FNP is/was also only in the GK codex FAQ, yet it applies across the board.

One specific faction FAQ, that deals with a generic USR like FNP can and does very much set precedent for similar rules interactions in other books.

**Dozer Blades**

The 7th edition brb clearly states you can't use FNP versus a wound thst inflicts Insta death which includes any activated force weapon.

**Gravmyr**

Now it works that way but before you needed an unsaved wound before the Force SR could be activated. That is the FAQ he is speaking about.

**Happyjew**

rigeld, since nobody bothered to answer your question about removing the model as a casualty and FNP.

Let me ask you this. When does a model suffer an unsaved wound? Is it before or after reducing the models Wounds by 1?

**Gravmyr**

I don't think suffering an unsaved wound triggers the remove casualty rule. I think that it triggers the reduce the models wounds by one. It that reduces the model's wounds to 0 then the remove as casualty rule is activated. Basically I see suffering an unsaved Wound as gaining a -1 Wound counter on the model which sets off the list of unsaved wound triggered effects.

**tag8833**

Dozer Blades wrote:
Sorry but you can't in general take from one codex and apply it to all others.

Of course you can. If GW explains how they want you to interpret certain wording "Suffers an unsaved wound", it it perfectly reasonable to extrapolate that any rule that uses the language "Suffers an unsaved wound" should be interpreted in the same fashion.

To put it another way, we now have a definitive RAW argument for FNP not negating effects that are triggered by "suffering an unsaved wound:. We have lost the RAW argument that FNP negates effects that are triggered by "suffering an unsaved wound". The only way that the "Its a codex specific thing" would apply is if the rule in the codex used wording different from the rules in other codexes, or the BRB. It doesn't. "Suffers an unsaved Wound" is the wording used for all of these effects, and we now know how FNP should interact with it. If you really wanted to argue you could maintain that Resurrection Protocols function differently in regards to "Suffering an unsaved wound" from FNP, but I doubt many people would embrace such a distinction.

**BLADERIKER**

tag8833 wrote:
Dozer Blades wrote:
Sorry but you can't in general take from one codex and apply it to all others.
Of course you can. If GW explains how they want you to interpret certain wording "Suffers an unsaved wound", it it perfectly reasonable to extrapolate that any rule that uses the language "Suffers an unsaved wound" should be interpreted in the same fashion.

To put it another way, we now have a definitive RAW argument for FNP not negating effects that are triggered by "suffering an unsaved wound:. We have lost the RAW argument that FNP negates effects that are triggered by "suffering an unsaved wound". The only way that the "Its a codex specific thing" would apply is if the rule in the codex used wording different from the rules in other codexes, or the BRB. It doesn't. "Suffers an unsaved Wound" is the wording used for all of these effects, and we now know how FNP should interact with it. If you really wanted to argue you could maintain that Resurrection Protocols function differently in regards to "Suffering an unsaved wound" from FNP, but I doubt many people would embrace such a distinction.

And again RP is not FNP.

**Nem**

BLADERIKER wrote:
tag8833 wrote:
Dozer Blades wrote:
Sorry but you can't in general take from one codex and apply it to all others.
Of course you can. If GW explains how they want you to interpret certain wording "Suffers an unsaved wound", it it perfectly reasonable to extrapolate that any rule that uses the language "Suffers an unsaved wound" should be interpreted in the same fashion.

To put it another way, we now have a definitive RAW argument for FNP not negating effects that are triggered by "suffering an unsaved wound:. We have lost the RAW argument that FNP negates effects that are triggered by "suffering an unsaved wound". The only way that the "Its a codex specific thing" would apply is if the rule in the codex used wording different from the rules in other codexes, or the BRB. It doesn't. "Suffers an unsaved Wound" is the wording used for all of these effects, and we now know how FNP should interact with it. If you really wanted to argue you could maintain that Resurrection Protocols function differently in regards to "Suffering an unsaved wound" from FNP, but I doubt many people would embrace such a distinction.

And again RP is not FNP.

No but the wording means they are functionally the same. They function in the same way, the fact they are different rules are no kind of debate, you would have to show where and why in the wording of the rules make them function different in this situation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:
its in the FAQ now... RE things like entropic strike where FNP may undo the wound that was caused, but it wont undo the special rules that were imparted.

you get your FNP and RP rolls, you still roll the hellfrost as well if they succeed.

I did not expect the continuation of that - Someone mentioned on Pg1 about FMC's grounding tests which are taken at the end of the phase - I guess it has large implications for that also (Well, for people who didn't take GT's, as evidently some already were).

**BlackTalos**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Basic rules are, upon failing a save, the unsaved wound removes an appropriate amount of wounds from the models wound characteristic, until it reaches 0 and removed from play.

That is the basic flow of events from the rule book, not verbatim because I dont have it in front of me.

FNP triggers upon an unsaved wound. It is an Advanced Rule. The rulebook tells us that Advanced rules trump basic rules such as the normal order of resolving unsaved wounds.

Therefore its clear per RAW on how to resolve the situation you're arguing rigeld. The Sequencing rule doesnt take affect because there is no dispute, the rules explicitly tell us how to solve "X unit has FNP, is wounded by bolters and is unsaved". You don't get to pick they suffer wounds because FNP tells you that they have that rule.

Hellfrost/FNP/RP all trigger on 'when a unit takes unsaved wounds", therefore they all trigger 'at the same time' and neither has priority over the other. The rule book also states that in a situation like this the posted Sequencing quote on page 1. The player who's turn it it is decides the order.

And if Helfrost is failed the model is removed from play, there is no model left for RP to apply to, which is RAW

Unless you can provide rules which states they happen 'simultaneously' and dont apply to the "Sequencing" rules.

TLDR: Bolter wound on model with FNP doesn't apply sequencing, Basic Vs Advance explains sequence

Hellfrost/RP/FNP, Sequencing applies, because neither rule's wording implies it takes precedence over the other, they all happen 'at the same time' so player who's turn it is decides. None of them 'imply' they go before the others

Feel free to post rules that contradict this, per RAW.

This is the best explanation i would agree to for the Sequencing V Basic & Advanced part of this thread.

Sequencing does not mention BvA but they will still both apply...

When it comes down to the Hellfrost V FNP/RP, I can see and agree to both sides of the argument, but blacktoof's explanation has got me leaning towards FNP/RP happening first:

blaktoof wrote:
Helfrost and casualty removal when wounds are reduced from 1-0 are results of a wound actually being suffered.

FnP has to occur at some time before the models wounds are actually reduced, because the wound is not reduced from 1-0 until you roll FnP and fail the FnP role. Until that time there is no actual wound suffered. In fact given sequencing FnP most likely occurs during the save step as it states "treat is as having been saved"

if helfrost was meant to deny FnP, it would have just said so in its rules.

Which I would TL : DR as:

Hellfrost requires a Wound to have been suffered (you have reduced the model by 1 wound).
FNP/RP is almost a second save: The model is just about to suffer a Wound (if the test is failed, THEN you have reduced the model by 1 wound)

**Nem**

But sequencing isn't based on what the outcome of a SR might be, sequencing is based on trigger events in 40k.
The argument blaktoof puts forward is a good reason to also never roll FNP at all. You can only roll FNP if you have a unsaved wound. To be able to invoke it, roll it at all you need a unsaved wound.

The only outcomes of that are:

1. We know we have a unsaved wound, and we roll for SR's which trigger on a unsaved wound.
2. Or we don't know if we have a unsaved wound. Which means we can not roll FNP.

Since we roll for FNP at all, we all agree there is a unsaved wound, FNP itself knows there is a unsaved wound, and tell us there is so. So technically we take a wound off the model, then put it back on before removing it as a casualty.

The problem with this list in how they are dealt - if you fail a save then you remove a wound and remove the model if it reaches 0. There is no space in between for anything other than saves normally, but they chose to have this after saves because it's the only logical placement for it, when you have suffered a unsaved wound. I think we can all agree though FNP is not intended to have the model removed if it reaches 0 'before' its FNP roll.

That doesn't mean then the logical jump is you havn't suffered a unsaved wound when FNP clearly states you have, its a problem with the short space of events in that process.

**BlackTalos**

The thing is, i agree with the method of resolution he puts forward:

"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."

The above states that, once you fail FNP, you must take the Wound, but the Wound is not taken until after the roll is made. So for a short example of how i see things work, from his interpretation:

A) Suffer an unsaved Wound > FNP > take the Wound (from 1 to 0, or 6 to 5) > remove the model.
B) Suffer an unsaved Wound > take the Wound (from 1 to 0, or 6 to 5) > Hellfrost > remove the model.

Sure, suffering a Wound and taking the wound is "the same", but what if you look at the shooting rules:
"If it fails (Save), reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty."

There is no space there for the whole FNP method, but it must insert itself somewhere between "If it fails" and "reduce that model’s Wounds by 1."

Hellfrost, however seems like it will comes after "reduce that model’s Wounds by 1.".

"an unsaved Wound is suffered" might be the same timing wording, but upon clearer inspection of both rules, they are on either side, and separated by the timing of "reduce that model’s Wounds by 1."
This is not an existing RaW timing and only a logical conclusion...

**Nem**

BlackTalos wrote:
The thing is, i agree with the method of resolution he puts forward:

"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."

The above states that, once you fail FNP, you must take the Wound, but the Wound is not taken until after the roll is made. So for a short example of how i see things work, from his interpretation:

A) Suffer an unsaved Wound > FNP > take the Wound (from 1 to 0, or 6 to 5) > remove the model.
B) Suffer an unsaved Wound > take the Wound (from 1 to 0, or 6 to 5) > Hellfrost > remove the model.

Sure, suffering a Wound and taking the wound is "the same", but what if you look at the shooting rules:
"If it fails (Save), reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty."

There is no space there for the whole FNP method, but it must insert itself somewhere between "If it fails" and "reduce that model’s Wounds by 1."

Hellfrost, however seems like it will comes after "reduce that model’s Wounds by 1.".

"an unsaved Wound is suffered" might be the same timing wording, but upon clearer inspection of both rules, they are on either side, and separated by the timing of "reduce that model’s Wounds by 1."
This is not an existing RaW timing and only a logical conclusion...

The fact remains that FNP, and these other items are triggered at the same time on the same conditions, so if FNP is triggered sometime before you remove the wound, then functionally so do the others- just it doesn't normally make sense to try and apply them to a model which you know is going to be removed.This would also cover Eternal Warrior, which upon suffering a unsaved wound stops the ID effect of it (before you remove a wound). Or the Swarms rule which changes the wound value when it suffers a unsaved wound, all in all I would say GW at least believe suffering a unsaved wound is some 'limbo' mode we have going on before you actually remove the wound from the line, despite their description of the sequence in the shooting phase.

The problem is there has now been 2 FAQ's that disprove the theory, at least based on intent (note that FNP has not changed)
In 6th there was the FAQ for force weapons being able to activate before FNP - while force weapons would have caused ID if successful, and had the clause 'immediately on suffering a unsaved wound' and could be used as a reason to why they rules via FAQ force weapons come before FNP, though in this particular argument they shouldn't have. We now have another FAQ suggesting FNP doesn't happen before any other effects with 'suffering a unsaved wound', and while I understand the basis (I spent a lot of time looking at wounds and Wounds and all sorts) it's becoming difficult to argue that's either the intent, or that 'suffers a unsaved wound' and 'suffers a unsaved wound' are not at the same time.

**rigeld2**

BlackTalos wrote:
Hellfrost requires a Wound to have been suffered (you have reduced the model by 1 wound).
FNP/RP is almost a second save: The model is just about to suffer a Wound (if the test is failed, THEN you have reduced the model by 1 wound)

This is what I've been trying to say.

You don't know if the wound is unsaved until after FNP/RP. So rolling Helfrost before determining that is breaking a rule.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nem wrote:
The problem is there has now been 2 FAQ's that disprove the theory, at least based on intent (note that FNP has not changed)
In 6th there was the FAQ for force weapons being able to activate before FNP - while force weapons would have caused ID if successful, and had the clause 'immediately on suffering a unsaved wound' and could be used as a reason to why they rules via FAQ force weapons come before FNP, though in this particular argument they shouldn't have. We now have another FAQ suggesting FNP doesn't happen before any other effects with 'suffering a unsaved wound', and while I understand the basis (I spent a lot of time looking at wounds and Wounds and all sorts) it's becoming difficult to argue that's either the intent, or that 'suffers a unsaved wound' and 'suffers a unsaved wound' are not at the same time.

GW has been known to change rules using FAQs for a long time. Claiming a single instance proves everything is simply ludicrous.