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.

rigeld2 wrote:
You don't know if the wound is unsaved until after FNP/RP. So rolling Helfrost before determining that is breaking a rule.

It's my interpretation that because the wording of FNP/RP says "the unsaved wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved" instead of simply stating that the unsaved wound is saved means that even if you pass FNP/RP it has still technically suffered an unsaved wound that was discounted (not saved) and would have to roll for helfrost.

Robots suffer from hypothermia?

My own caveat is we do know it suffered and unsaved wound if you rolled FNP/RP.

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

Of course, sometimes they change the rules, sometimes they don't change the rules, sometimes they add rules, sometimes they take away rules. They are though, the best insight outside the words in the BRB to what a rule is attempting to do. Through 6th and 7th, there are 2 FAQs against the theory of 'not knowing if there is a unsaved wound till after FNP'. If one came out tomorrow with 'FNP always comes before *a particular rule*' I would say they changed the rules (well, actually I'd just be like OK lets play this consistently across the board, but that's just me), that is though a matter of perspective here.


Anyway, I know what you think about it, you know what I think about it for anyone who is new here some older threads for you FNP VS...

7th - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/608094.page
6th - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/564787.page#6290782
6th - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/499195.page#5155405

You can now read over 30 pages of the same arguments.

Mordaem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You don't know if the wound is unsaved until after FNP/RP. So rolling Helfrost before determining that is breaking a rule.

It's my interpretation that because the wording of FNP/RP says "the unsaved wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved" instead of simply stating that the unsaved wound is saved means that even if you pass FNP/RP it has still technically suffered an unsaved wound that was discounted (not saved) and would have to roll for helfrost.

"treat as" must mean the same as "is" as far as 40k goes, or all kinds of things break down.

So the wound, for all intents and purposes, is saved.

Further support that FnP is a modification of the save process before actually removing the wound for a model to go from1-0 where they actually suffer an unsaved wound.

from the assault section in the BRB:

To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved Wounds inflicted by each side onto their opponents.

Determining assault results is based on unsaved wounds.

Wounds that have been negated by saving throws or special rules do not count towards determining who won the combat. Neither do Wounds in excess of a model’s Wounds characteristic; only the Wounds actually suffered by enemy models count

FnP is a special rule that negates a wound, so the models do not actually suffer an unsaved wound towards combat resolution.

The wording of FnP is, poor. It is listed as not a save, but then states it is a save.

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

Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or...

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.

Either this is crazy rules where it is both not a save and a save at the same time.

Or it further supports the timing that it happens during the save step, but before the model actually suffers a wound and goes from 1-0 wounds. As we are told that it is not a save, so okay its not a save. The model makes a save(if allowed) if it fails that before it actually suffers an unsaved wound which would go from 1-0 wounds, it gets a FnP roll at the save step, as we are told it is treated as being saved. This has to be a modification of the save roll, despite not being a save, otherwise it would have to say something to the effect of 'before reducing the models wounds by 1 roll a d6.." which it does not.

Also regarding the dark eldar shadowfield, given the other things brought up in the new faqs It is not okay to say that because of that ruling for that one item then all things that are 'unsaved wounds' work this way.

The reasoning given:

the rules for walkers are basic rules, they are in the vehicle section. The rule that the walker turns to face attacks is a basic rule specific to walkers.

The rule for HoW stated that it hit the facing the unit charged, HoW is a specific advanced rule.

If advanded trumps basic, then there would be no reason for the change in the new far/errata that Walkers turn to face HoW.

GW made this specific rules interaction for this specific advanced rule and specific type of vehicle that goes against the rules of Basic Vs. Advanced.

So either the shadowfield FnP rule is a one off rule regarding FnP, or its all encompassing.

But if faq/errata rules are all encompasing now there is an argument that advanced rules do not trump basic rules based on the walker ruling that has happened. Which is silly.

 Nem wrote:

 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.

I understand what you are saying, but i would still split the "unsaved Wound is suffered" into 3 parts:

1) Suffer an unsaved Wound: - You have been allocated a Wound, and you have failed your save.
2) Take the wound: - Your "Wounds Characteristic" goes down by 1.
3) Remove the model: - If your W Characteristic is now 0, you must remove the model. Or you are left at 5 Wounds if you had 6.

Somehow, all of the above actually happen when a model "suffers an unsaved Wound".

Now i can try to place most of the Special rules listed within the sequence above. Even if the above sequence does not necessarily exist by RaW (it is a single phrase, so not really a "sequence")

1) Suffer an unsaved Wound
FNP happens here.
2) Take the wound ID happens here. EW happens here. Swarms happens here.
Helfrost happens here. ID happens here.
3) Remove the model

Force was modified to be Instant Death.
Shadow field, by it's wording, is very strange. It happens after 3) technically, so everything else must have already happenend (including FNP discarding the Wound "ages ago").
But i can easily see how simply reaching step 1) would (by the fluff and possibly RaW - definitely RaI) be enough to activate the rule.
But then you could say that the shadowfield is meant to be nullified when the save is failed, so technically even before 1).

You will notice ID is up there twice: The wording is unclear as to whether the reduction of Wounds is instead of the 1 (Like D-Weapons), above shown next to step 2.
Or if it is an additional effect:
The model reduces its Wounds by 1, followed by a removal of the rest (and therefore apply after 2) . )

I would go for the first option, as ID is referenced by EW...

Blacktoof's post has also made me realised that you are incorrect when you say:

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.

Helfrost clearly (IMHO) happens after the Wound has been removed: "it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"

 BlackTalos wrote:

Helfrost clearly (IMHO) happens after the Wound has been removed: "it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"

But the rules don't say that FNP happens before a wound is suffered and Helfrost happens after.

The rules actually say:

Helfrost:
“When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from this weapon..."

FNP:
“When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..."

Reanimation Protocols:
"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..."

To claim that one happens first is not a RAW statement. RAW they happen "when a model suffers an unsaved wound". In other words "simultaneously". Which is why we would have to use the sequencing rule to determine which happens first.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Robots suffer from hypothermia?

think T-1000 plus liquid nitrogen.

 NightHowler wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Helfrost clearly (IMHO) happens after the Wound has been removed: "it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"

But the rules don't say that FNP happens before a wound is suffered and Helfrost happens after.

The rules actually say:

Helfrost:
“When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from this weapon..."

FNP:
“When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..."

Reanimation Protocols:
"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..."

To claim that one happens first is not a RAW statement. RAW they happen "when a model suffers an unsaved wound". In other words "simultaneously". Which is why we would have to use the sequencing rule to determine which happens first.

As i said if you managed to read my entire post:

i would still split the "unsaved Wound is suffered" into 3 parts:

1) Suffer an unsaved Wound: - You have been allocated a Wound, and you have failed your save.
2) Take the wound: - Your "Wounds Characteristic" goes down by 1.
3) Remove the model: - If your W Characteristic is now 0, you must remove the model. Or you are left at 5 Wounds if you had 6.

Somehow, all of the above actually happen when a model "suffers an unsaved Wound".

FNP happens before 2) but Helfrost happens after.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Helfrost clearly (IMHO) happens after the Wound has been removed: "it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"

But the rules don't say that FNP happens before a wound is suffered and Helfrost happens after.

The rules actually say:

Helfrost:
“When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from this weapon..."

FNP:
“When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..."

Reanimation Protocols:
"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound..."

To claim that one happens first is not a RAW statement. RAW they happen "when a model suffers an unsaved wound". In other words "simultaneously". Which is why we would have to use the sequencing rule to determine which happens first.

As i said if you managed to read my entire post:

i would still split the "unsaved Wound is suffered" into 3 parts:

1) Suffer an unsaved Wound: - You have been allocated a Wound, and you have failed your save.
2) Take the wound: - Your "Wounds Characteristic" goes down by 1.
3) Remove the model: - If your W Characteristic is now 0, you must remove the model. Or you are left at 5 Wounds if you had 6.

Somehow, all of the above actually happen when a model "suffers an unsaved Wound".

FNP happens before 2) but Helfrost happens after.

I did read your entire post. My question is where do you find the rule to support your conclusion?

I'm not trying to be snarky. For me, it seems that when the trigger for all 3 is "suffers an unsaved wound" it's difficult to defend the position that one happens before another.

The only existing RaW (but as i said, i logically conclude from RaW, it is not Explicit) is this:

 BlackTalos wrote:
"If it fails (Save), reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty."

 BlackTalos wrote:
The only existing RaW (but as i said, i logically conclude from RaW, it is not Explicit) is this:

 BlackTalos wrote:
"If it fails (Save), reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty."

but that happens after the rule comes into play.

the trigger for all 3 rules is the same.

for example, helfrost skips the part about reduce the model's wounds by 1 and therefore also skips the part about remove it as a casualty. With helfrost, if it fails a save, it makes a S test and if it fails that test it is removed from play. With FNP, if it fails a save, it makes a FNP test and if it passes that it acts as if it had saved. BOTH helfrost and FNP are triggered by exactly the same thing - an unsaved wound.

If it fails (Save), reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.

The above is the "3 Steps" i am pretty much "concluding" from RaW.
If you do not see it from the above and my explanation:

I completely understand and agree with your position on this. I just think there is more there in the internal logical function, for which you would have to look past: "“When a model (...) suffers an unsaved Wound"

 BlackTalos wrote:
If it fails (Save), reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.

The above is the "3 Steps" i am pretty much "concluding" from RaW.
If you do not see it from the above and my explanation:

I completely understand and agree with your position on this. I just think there is more there in the internal logical function, for which you would have to look past: "“When a model (...) suffers an unsaved Wound"

Please see the edit to my post directly above.

I'm just going to say I don't agree, you can split it down into 3 parts, but each happens on point 1. Suffering a unsaved wound.

None of them activate on step take wound, or step remove the model from play. All of them are activated on step 1. If the distinction needed, or was intended to be made, its quite easy for it to be written so. Even without breaking it down into steps FNP could be written 'When a model with this special rule is about to suffer a unsaved wound' or 'before a model with this special rule suffers a unsaved wound'. Which would conveniently also fall into 'explicit which would go first'. Now, I know GW are not famed for writing but since this rule been questionable for a few editions now...


Even the part you said I'm not correct on, its because your ignoring part of the sentence....

"it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"
VS
"it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"
...Which would be when it suffered the unsaved wound. Suffer a unsaved wound? STR test. Suffer a unsaved wound? STR test. Its only saying the same as FNP's clarification you can take it on every wound you suffer.




And your placing rules based on where you want them to be in the sequence. There's really no reason why the others would be placed after suffering a unsaved wound. 3 steps may be RAW, but still all of them happen RAW at step 1.

EDIT: Either way ID has to happen at the same step. Or Force does, we know force has Priority over FNP, and perhaps everything else worded 'immediately'. Which they could have also put in FNP since the terminology already exists

 NightHowler wrote:
for example, helfrost skips the part about reduce the model's wounds by 1 and therefore also skips the part about remove it as a casualty. With helfrost, if it fails a save, it makes a S test and if it fails that test it is removed from play. With FNP, if it fails a save, it makes a FNP test and if it passes that it acts as if it had saved. BOTH helfrost and FNP are triggered by exactly the same thing - an unsaved wound.

I do, however, disagree with this. Helfrost:
“When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from this weapon, it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered or be removed from play.”

The underlined above means that you do not skip the part about reducing by 1. Each Wound needs to be suffered: The model must have been reduced by -1W before he makes the Strength test.
The word "separate" also clearly cuts the line between having to take the Wound first, and then "separately" making a strength test.
But all of this happens "When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds", yes. Which is "at the same time" as FNP.

The trigger is the same, but my point was that "an unsaved wound" has 3 different time-steps itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:
Even the part you said I'm not correct on, its because your ignoring part of the sentence....

"it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"
VS
"it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"
...Which would be when it suffered the unsaved wound. Suffer a unsaved wound? STR test. Suffer a unsaved wound? STR test. Its only saying the same as FNP's clarification you can take it on every wound you suffer.

I'd point out the first part does agree with you: "When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds"
However: "for each Wound suffered" does not contain the word "unsaved" which is where i draw my conclusions from that it is "after step 2)"

 Nem wrote:
And your placing rules based on where you want them to be in the sequence. There's really no reason why the others would be placed after suffering a unsaved wound. 3 steps may be RAW, but still all of them happen RAW at step 1.

I think the best way to describe this specific point of view is this:

They all trigger before step 1), as soon as the model fails a Save roll.
However.
All of these rules (ID less accurate) contain wording which implies that the effect of the rules is separate.

IE: You fail an armour save.
You trigger:
Helfrost
Feel No Pain
Instant Death
Eternal Warrior
Reanimation protocol

Conflicts?
EW specifically modifies the ID rules (only loose 1, not all)
RP and FNP conflict, you must choose (IIRC)

Result:
. . . . . . . . . /--> Roll RP -->\
Fail Save --> Roll FNP --> reduce Wound by 1 (because ID said more, but EW modified) --> Roll Strength test --> Remove model.

 Nem wrote:
EDIT: Either way ID has to happen at the same step. Or Force does, we know force has Priority over FNP, and perhaps everything else worded 'immediately'. Which they could have also put in FNP since the terminology already exists

Instant Death is a quality of the wound, and Force gives a weapon ID in the Psychic Phase so, so ID wounds are determined long before any of this.
Force doesn't have "priority" over FNP - it happens at a completely different time.

I agree with blacktalos, and rigeld2 + others.

The actual rules trigger for Helfrost is not 'suffers an unsaved wound' because that is not the point you are told to take the S test.

The trigger is for each wound suffered. If a model actually suffers a wound, it is because its wound characteristic has been reduced by 1. This is past the point you check for saves/special rules that modify saves.

So there may be a point they all trigger when there is an unsaved wound, but many of these things have rules that do not actually involve rolling for the effect until wounds are lost.

FnP by its mechanics happens before the loss of the wound as it states you roll a d6 if you roll a 4 or less you take the wound as normal, if you roll a 5+ the wound is treated as saved.

If FnP happened 'after each wound suffered' the models would already be reduced in wounds, and it would have no affect on models that have only 1 wound and would only benefit models with 2+ wounds.

Fnp happens at the time the wound is suffered from failing, before the actual removal of the wound from 1-0 which is the wound actually being suffered. If the wound is not reduced from 1-0 yet no wounds have been suffered to trigger a S test from helfrost/etc.

Which is a RAI/logical discussion not RAW.

Gravmyr wrote:
Which is a RAI/logical discussion not RAW.

Except it is. The actual rules have been presented.

rigeld2 wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Which is a RAI/logical discussion not RAW.

Except it is. The actual rules have been presented.

For my argument, i'd put it as "Conclusion from RaW". As far as "clear RaW" goes, we just know that they all activate when:

“When a model (...) suffers an unsaved Wound"

Resolving the conflict can only be interpretation.....

Yes you have presented the rules that have the same trigger for all 3 without something in the rule saying this happens first you are using logic to determine it not a Rule.

This whole debate basically comes down to whether FNP "saves" the wound. It does not. As stated the wound is "discounted" not saved. A discounted wound is "treated as saved" but it is not saved, it is discounted.

So both FNP/RP and helfrost would trigger at the same time. When the model suffer an unsaved wound. Since FNP/RP does not "save" the unsaved wound but rather discounts it. The model would still have to take the S test for helfrost for each unsaved wound regardless of whether it was discounted with FNP/RP because they are discounted not saved.

Mordaem wrote:
This whole debate basically comes down to whether FNP "saves" the wound. It does not. As stated the wound is "discounted" not saved. A discounted wound is "treated as saved" but it is not saved, it is discounted.

If the wound is unsaved, you still subtract a wound from the profile. Because you do that for unsaved wounds.

edit: It's a good thing then that the actual rules for FNP say to treat the wound as saved. So the wound is, in fact, using rules, saved.

Except you don't subtract it because the wound is discounted, not saved. If it was saved the rule would simply state the unsaved wound is saved, but it doesnt.

Saying the wound is discounted and to treat it as saved is redundant unless the unsaved wound is still unsaved but simply ignored as thought it was. Nowhere in the rules for FNP do the words "The wound is saved" appear because it does not save the wound.

All throughout the BRB it says to form a dialog so I'm going to do just that to I'll my point.

If I shoot you and your armor doesnt stop my bullet then I put a hole in you. If your strong enough or on drugs you may be able to.fight through the pain of being shot. This does not mean I didn't shoot you.

This is how FNP works. Just because the model was able to continue fighting as though it wasn't wounded because you "treat the wound as saved" doesn't mean it was not wounded.

Mordaem wrote:
Nowhere in the rules for FNP do the words "The wound is saved" appear because it does not save the wound.

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

"treat as if" must mean the same as "is" for 40k to work, so yes - the rule does say that the wound is saved.

All throughout the BRB it says to form a dialog so I'm going to do just that to I'll my point.

If I shoot you and your armor doesnt stop my bullet then I put a hole in you. If your strong enough or on drugs you may be able to.fight through the pain of being shot. This does not mean I didn't shoot you.

This is how FNP works. Just because the model was able to continue fighting as though it wasn't wounded because you "treat the wound as saved" doesn't mean it was not wounded.

That's a cute fluff explanation. Too bad it has literally no bearing on the actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

That's a cute fluff explanation. Too bad it has literally no bearing on the actual rules.

Right. But we're not actually arguing rules anymore are we. Since the rules say that all 3 special rules occur if a model has an unsaved wound but we've decided for non-rules reasons to ignore the rules on sequencing.

rigeld2 wrote:

"treat as if" must mean the same as "is" for 40k to work, so yes - the rule does say that the wound is saved.

Please state where it says "treat as if" must mean the same as "is" for 40k to work.

Mordaem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

"treat as if" must mean the same as "is" for 40k to work, so yes - the rule does say that the wound is saved.

Please state where it says "treat as if" must mean the same as "is" for 40k to work.

That is a basic of these rules. If you dont treat it as something, the game breaks in many ways.